Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 21 post(s) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
6478
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 15:55:25 -
[1] - Quote
With the EVE: Citadel expansion we will see - as the name already says - the arrival of Citadels in EVE Online.
As we are getting closer to the release date, we now can explain how to fit a Citadel, which modules and rigs you can expect to be available, and how you can fuel the Citadels.
Read all about this in CCP Ytterbium's latest dev blog Structure fitting in the EVE: Citadel Expansion.
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer - Volunteer Manager
|
|
MuraSaki Siki
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
65
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:04:17 -
[2] - Quote
although there is stated is devblog about the 'infinite storage', does it also mean no docking capacity limit? such as can we dock as many supercapacitals as within only one keepstar? |
Berluth Luthian
Kill'em all. Let Bob sort'em out.
210
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:06:01 -
[3] - Quote
No special love for FW space then? |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1895
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:06:30 -
[4] - Quote
The 3 hour window on medium and the 6 hour on larges seems awfully low. These are going to be practically unkillable if buried in really off hours. There is little reason to have to do 3 awful hour timers for something that costs 600m-1B fitted.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2347
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:09:49 -
[5] - Quote
Glad to see more details! Thanks for the info.
The reprocessing rigs have me a little worried. Right now, the maximum base reprocessing rate available in highsec is 52%, but with drilling platforms, you can get 59%, and nullsec gets its 60%. I feel like this is a pretty drastic increase in highsec reprocessing efficiency; is there a reason why it's such a large increase?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force IT'S ONLY PIXELS
227
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:10:36 -
[6] - Quote
Fuelling stations now, great. The game is getting farther and farther away from the things that make it fun and clogging you down with more and more micromanagement. You should be freeing up our time to focus on the fun things in Eve, not tying us down further with logistics.
12 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1870
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:13:35 -
[7] - Quote
More
PS. RIP Starbase Charters
Akrasjel Lanate
Founder and CEO of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Hendrink Collie
Blood Oath Foundation Adaptation.
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:17:13 -
[8] - Quote
Aryth wrote:The 3 hour window on medium and the 6 hour on larges seems awfully low. These are going to be practically unkillable if buried in really off hours. There is little reason to have to do 3 awful hour timers for something that costs 600m-1B fitted.
Agreed. I know what I would do if I only had to worry about 3 hours. Stacked em on 1 hour blocks around downtime. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1896
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:17:23 -
[9] - Quote
Querns wrote:Glad to see more details! Thanks for the info.
The reprocessing rigs have me a little worried. Right now, the maximum base reprocessing rate available in highsec is 52%, but with drilling platforms, you can get 59%, and nullsec gets its 60%. I feel like this is a pretty drastic increase in highsec reprocessing efficiency; is there a reason why it's such a large increase?
Ideally, you want this to be about a 3% spread between highsec and othersec. That way it somewhat offsets the shipping/risk.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Northern Army
435
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:18:27 -
[10] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:Fuelling stations now, great. The game is getting further and further away from the things that make it fun and clogging you down with more and more micromanagement. You should be freeing up our time to focus on the fun things in Eve, not tying us down further with logistics. Be careful what you wish for, lest CCP introduces "AUR for instafuel" |
|
Hendrink Collie
Blood Oath Foundation Adaptation.
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:19:22 -
[11] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:John McCreedy wrote:Fuelling stations now, great. The game is getting further and further away from the things that make it fun and clogging you down with more and more micromanagement. You should be freeing up our time to focus on the fun things in Eve, not tying us down further with logistics. Be careful what you wish for, lest CCP introduces "AUR for instafuel"
Stop it! |
Captain Campion
Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:19:38 -
[12] - Quote
For some reason I expected it to launch fighters to defend itself. |
Hendrink Collie
Blood Oath Foundation Adaptation.
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:20:41 -
[13] - Quote
So for a quick clarification, the drilling specialization is for drilling platforms right? If so, does that mean we will be getting those for the citadel expansion? I hope so. :) |
Current Habit
Rusty Pricks
67
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:28:04 -
[14] - Quote
What's the deal with the huge alpha numbers for Anti-BS/Anti-frig guided bomb?
With 150k damage for the battleship-bomb most t1 BS would die to one bomb, same goes for the anti-frig bomb with 30k damage or how do those things work? Is it split between all targets hit ? |
Captain Campion
Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:28:48 -
[15] - Quote
Can we put a bounty on a Citadel, or any structure for that matter? |
Hendrink Collie
Blood Oath Foundation Adaptation.
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:31:03 -
[16] - Quote
Current Habit wrote:What's the deal with the huge alpha numbers for Anti-BS/Anti-frig guided bomb?
With 150k damage for the battleship-bomb most t1 BS would die to one bomb, same goes for the anti-frig bomb with 30k damage or how do those things work? Is it split between all targets hit ?
I would assume it would work like a traditional bomb. Though this whole issue is solved by not staying clumped together. Sure, you will still lose a few nerds, but it's better than losing the whole fleet. |
The Primary Target
Expecto Patronshots
16
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:32:05 -
[17] - Quote
No doomsday module in lowsec seems a bit wrong to me, titans can doomsday in lowsec and capitals attacking the citadel are just as much a danger in lowsec as nullsec so not being able to fit a doomsday for low doesn't seem like a good design decision in my opinion. I would find a reduction in target bounces for the arcing doomsday acceptable for a lowsec XL Citadel. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
784
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:39:37 -
[18] - Quote
I don't really get how the massive differences in risk between highsec/nullsec are compensated for by a 1% reprocessing efficiency bonus. I especially don't get how lowsec is considered the same as nullsec for this. |
Raphendyr Nardieu
Unpublished Chapter Suddenly Content
65
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:45:57 -
[19] - Quote
Btw. "Large X-Large Energy Neutralizer" and "Small Medium Energy Neutralizers" are probably missing "and"?
Quote:* A recurring cost, charged at the beginning of each new hour, not 60 minutes after the module was activated. This is made to simplify fuel calculation costs for the user when faced with multiple modules.
How does this simplify? Anycase one calculates it based on hours in a day etc. So in my mind this seems to make it harder to calculate how the initial cost goes? Or am I missing something here. |
Current Habit
Rusty Pricks
67
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:50:09 -
[20] - Quote
Hendrink Collie wrote:Current Habit wrote:What's the deal with the huge alpha numbers for Anti-BS/Anti-frig guided bomb?
With 150k damage for the battleship-bomb most t1 BS would die to one bomb, same goes for the anti-frig bomb with 30k damage or how do those things work? Is it split between all targets hit ? I would assume it would work like a traditional bomb. Though this whole issue is solved by not staying clumped together. Sure, you will still lose a few nerds, but it's better than losing the whole fleet.
That's what I thought too but again the damage numbers from this sheet in the dev blog are quite high, it's way more than a regular bomb wave and it has "..the tracking nature of missiles" (so presumably less player skill needed). |
|
Raphendyr Nardieu
Unpublished Chapter Suddenly Content
65
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:50:26 -
[21] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:Fuelling stations now, great. The game is getting further and further away from the things that make it fun and clogging you down with more and more micromanagement. You should be freeing up our time to focus on the fun things in Eve, not tying us down further with logistics.
Well. I see your point, but I presume you are meaning that you need to start fueling stuctures that replace outposts as nothing is chanhed for the stations.
Also, in the other hand. There will be lot of people with e.g. medium Citadels who don't need to fuel them at all! So it's so much easier for them compared to current POSes.
Also, if you want easy XL citadel to replace your outpost, don't add any services to it. Whow. no fuel costs...
Note also that getting and transporting fuel t your citadel can be content to others. |
Mynxee
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
253
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:52:45 -
[22] - Quote
It is fun to watch this feature developing...going to be a great and fun change in New Eden when they roll out.
Tiny whine: If only the Astrahus could fit a "country store" version of the Market module, maybe something that imposed a very tight constraint on categories and number of different items that could be listed for sale.
Quote:Citadels focus on defense, logistics, and office capabilities, which make them naturally good as staging points. Other structures we will introduce with time will tackle other fields like industry, resource harvesting, propaganda, intelligence or even long distance movement.
That's very intriguing for the future!
Lost in space, looking for sigs...
Blog: Cloaky Wanderer
|
Cristl
326
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:54:24 -
[23] - Quote
Lowsec citadels won't be able to cast chain lightning? |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
784
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:54:45 -
[24] - Quote
For reprocessing rigs, do those percentages mean:
1) Only drilling rigs can fit those rigs? 2) Citadels can fit those rigs but only drilling rigs will get the percentages listed once you include their bonus? 3) Citadels can fit those rigs and get that bonus, but drilling rigs will get a better bonus? |
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
224
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:56:27 -
[25] - Quote
Looking at the bonuses I'm wondering - Why would anyone ever deploy these in null sec or even low sec?
I thought the bonuses were there to help lure players to null or low sec - Yet according to this there is barely any difference. Also, seriously, who is going to field 150 man battleship fleet to kill an XL Citadel in high sec for the 2-3 hours a day during downtime.
( Source: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/citadels-sieges-and-you-v2/ )
Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!
|
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
29
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:56:47 -
[26] - Quote
Will we be able to set citadels as destinations for courier contracts? And will we be able to set autopilots to citadels? These features seem somewhat important for citadels with the market hub service installed. |
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1368
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:03:28 -
[27] - Quote
My fuelblocks are ready!
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2347
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:04:26 -
[28] - Quote
Actually, thinking on it -- why can citadels have a reprocessing service module at all? It isn't needed in the interim of citadels release to outpost removal, because, presumably, drilling platforms will be available.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
784
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:05:07 -
[29] - Quote
To elaborate on the issue, currently nullsec gets up to 60% refines while highsec gets up to 54%. This was a critical change in revitalizing industry in nullsec. It was also absolutely critical to allow nullsec to actually use the ability to collect a refine tax: by setting the refine tax so that it's less than the nullsec bonus, there's no incentive to dodge taxes by compressing and exporting to empire like there used to be. Until this change refine taxes were basically broken, and will go right back to being broken - which is a problem as this is one of the "bottom-up" income streams that CCP has been trying to move alliances to instead of point sources like moons.
It both seriously hurts nullsec industry (and, the ship traffic involved in nullsec industry that builds content for people attacking nullsec), and seriously hurts the ability of alliances to recoup their citidel/drilling rig investments thorough taxes.
Seperately, allowing lowsec to get 60% refines, while Thukker Assembly Arrays (which were put into the game to compensate lowsec for not getting 60% refines for capbuilding) still exist is insanely unbalanced. Those would need to get removed or we're back to where it only makes sense to build capitals in lowsec. |
Adarnof
Claws of the Demon Skeleton Crew.
108
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:08:31 -
[30] - Quote
Adding an additional 1200m3 of strontium (or even just 300m3 of compressed krystallos) per fuel block batch is a bit excessive.
No point in continuing to make fuel in my wormhole. |
|
Raphendyr Nardieu
Unpublished Chapter Suddenly Content
65
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:08:34 -
[31] - Quote
Messenger Of Truth wrote:Will we be able to set citadels as destinations for courier contracts?
As talked in slack, courier contracts are not going to work on release. There was a bit interation on ideas how they could be implemented. (e.g. thing what happens if citadel explodes while courier contract is on route), To me it seems that CCP want's to get these working at some point of time. |
Raphendyr Nardieu
Unpublished Chapter Suddenly Content
65
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:13:05 -
[32] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:To elaborate on the issue, currently nullsec gets up to 60% refines while highsec gets up to 52%. This was a critical change in revitalizing industry in nullsec. It was also absolutely critical to allow nullsec to actually use the ability to collect a refine tax: by setting the refine tax so that it's less than the nullsec bonus, there's no incentive to dodge taxes by compressing and exporting to empire like there used to be. Until this change refine taxes were basically broken, and will go right back to being broken - which is a problem as this is one of the "bottom-up" income streams that CCP has been trying to move alliances to instead of point sources like moons.
It both seriously hurts nullsec industry (and, the ship traffic involved in nullsec industry that builds content for people attacking nullsec), and seriously hurts the ability of alliances to recoup their citidel/drilling rig investments thorough taxes.
Seperately, allowing lowsec to get 60% refines, while Thukker Assembly Arrays (which were put into the game to compensate lowsec for not getting 60% refines for capbuilding) still exist is insanely unbalanced. Those would need to get removed or we're back to where it only makes sense to build capitals in lowsec.
I presume you know there will be structures designed more to refining and compressing tasks? I presume that these serrivces are released on citadel expansion as they are really simple to implement. As you notice, there is only 4 services on start and 2 of them are relatively simple compared to other 2. And as there will not be the structure for reprocessing, existing modules should not be going away before that. So what we have now, should be there until we actually have replacement. |
Sir SmashAlot
The League of Extraordinary Opportunists Intergalactic Conservation Movement
193
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:17:45 -
[33] - Quote
Do the Citadel EWar modules work on a single target or group of targets? For high sec it would be a simple as bring 6 to 10 logi and both ewar and DPS will be negated. Maybe that is intentional.
Currently a large POS can have significant ewar potential to counter a large logistics wing for very little cost in DPS. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4464
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:25:20 -
[34] - Quote
To answer a few points listed so far:
- Docking capacity is infinity yes. So you can dock as many capitals or supercapitals as you like. - MuraSaki Siki
- No special bonuses for FW space as for now, something we are considering for long term however. - Berluth Luthian
- The 3 / 6 hours timers were made to cater to more casual corporation than large and organized alliances. We want small corporation in high-sec to be able to deploy one of those and not fitted drained for having to guard them too long every week. - Aryth
- We will iterate on reprocessing capabilities to give a higher impact between high and null-sec yes, 1% isn't enough of a difference. - Querns
- Keep in mind those structures replace both Starbases and Outposts. As such, the fueling system is an improvement over existing Starbases since you only need to fuel the service modules. Sorry but we are not going to give such advanced service facilities for free. - John McCreedy
- Oops, forgot to mention the Citadels will be able to use the same fighter mechanics than revamped Capitals, good point. - Captain Campion
- Reprocessing rigs are part of the drilling specialization yes, but we wanted to give them to you right now as they provide significant value. Ideally you wouldn't get such high rates on a Citadel, but we'll leave these numbers until we introduce the Drilling Platform, then reduce them and potentially offer a rig removal. - Hendrink Collie
- Structure Guided Bombs are still heavily WIP. Playtests showed us they are quite OP at the moment. - Current Habit
- No bounties on Citadels. - Captain Campion
- Structure zapping doomsday in low-sec, being investigated. - The Primary Target
- Citadels won't come with contracts to begin with unfortunately. We plan to fix that in the future though, as it limits trading. - Messenger Of Truth
- Structure service modules aren't exclusive to the various structure classes. You can fit manufacturing or reprocessing into a Citadel, they just won't be as efficient than on their specialized structure hulls. We added reprocessing because it's a nice plus as a first package. - Querns
- EW modules are single target for now, except for the Repulsor Field aka bumping module. - Sir SmashAlot
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2348
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:29:20 -
[35] - Quote
Thanks for the reply.
Another question: adding 400 stront to the build reqs of fuel blocks increases the m^3 required to build fuel blocks considerably. Is this intended? I'd argue to lower the m^3 of stront, but that has knock-on effects with regards to siege, triage, and titans. Are there any metrics on how much stront gets used in a given time period due to POS reinforcement, across all of Eve?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1896
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:31:40 -
[36] - Quote
When you iterate on the refine. Keep in mind the current bonus's are much larger in null and even that isn't enough to see much refining.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
784
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:33:24 -
[37] - Quote
What does the PI and Customs Office part of an XL office/market rig do? |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
4892
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:36:33 -
[38] - Quote
Calibration seems a bit useless right now. It is not currently possible to ever have calibration issues when fitting a Medium or Large Citadel.
CSM 7 Secretary
CSM 6 Alternate Delegate
@two_step_eve on Twitter
My Blog
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4467
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:37:22 -
[39] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:What does the PI and Customs Office part of an XL office/market rig do?
Crap, forgot to remove that from the rig name from my evil master plan excel sheet .
Nothing for now, but we have future plans.
pets cat and slowly turns away in his comfy Bond villain chair |
|
Taosst
X-PERTS Static Collapse
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:38:17 -
[40] - Quote
I see rigs to increase the Office number, but no mention of a base number to start. Do the Citadels only house the corp that deployed it unless additional rigs are used ?
|
|
Gevlin
Fink Operations The Volition Cult
270
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:41:30 -
[41] - Quote
With the concept of Citadels being so close to ships. it might be interesting see if the actual use of clone vat bays being used on TItans and Rorquals being able to actually launch ships from within themselves from players who have cloned themselves to such ships. Also have this concept of Vat Bays expand to other ships.
It would be so awesome to have newbs characters have a clone in the capital/super capital, and then spew forth out of these ships. That would so change the the feel of Eve Space ship combat - Kill The capital before it can launch its ships!
Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships
|
Gevlin
Fink Operations The Volition Cult
270
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:48:23 -
[42] - Quote
BEING FUNNY I am going to assume that a Citadel will be able to fit its self, otherwise it would be funny to see the Citadel have to deploy a mobile depo next to it to change its modules.
Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships
|
Raamah
Eschelon Directive
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:50:01 -
[43] - Quote
Does the "re processing" capability include wh gas polymers? |
Hendrink Collie
Blood Oath Foundation Adaptation.
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 17:55:32 -
[44] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:To answer a few points listed so far:
The 3 / 6 hours timers were made to cater to more casual corporation than large and organized alliances. We want small corporation in high-sec to be able to deploy one of those and not fitted drained for having to guard them too long every week. - Aryth
Fair enough, just remember that catering to smaller groups may have unintended and possibly negative side effects to bloc style war-fare. (And that's coming from someone that is in a smaller group)
Currently we have POSes that are exposed to reinforcement 23.5 hours a day... I'm not sure why the sudden super limited windows. |
Arec Bardwin
1915
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:01:03 -
[45] - Quote
How does the vulnerability window work? |
Raphendyr Nardieu
Unpublished Chapter Suddenly Content
66
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:03:26 -
[46] - Quote
Hendrink Collie wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:To answer a few points listed so far:
The 3 / 6 hours timers were made to cater to more casual corporation than large and organized alliances. We want small corporation in high-sec to be able to deploy one of those and not fitted drained for having to guard them too long every week. - Aryth Fair enough, just remember that catering to smaller groups may have unintended and possibly negative side effects to bloc style war-fare. (And that's coming from someone that is in a smaller group) Currently we have POSes that are exposed to reinforcement 23.5 hours a day... I'm not sure why the sudden super limited windows.
I have done too many POS bashes and they are utterly boring. The owner is never there to defend it! (Probably because we have more or less selected the attack time so)... So yes. I really look frward to bash some citadels, where I know the defender is acutally present! |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
328
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:04:39 -
[47] - Quote
Taosst wrote:I see rigs to increase the Office number, but no mention of a base number to start. Do the Citadels only house the corp that deployed it unless additional rigs are used ?
Yes, owning corp gets one office, the rest come from rig upgrades |
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:07:14 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:To answer a few points listed so far:
- Reprocessing rigs are part of the drilling specialization yes, but we wanted to give them to you right now as they provide significant value. Ideally you wouldn't get such high rates on a Citadel, but we'll leave these numbers until we introduce the Drilling Platform, then reduce them and potentially offer a rig removal. - Hendrink Collie
Based on the reprocessing %s listed here, I'm definitely going to want to get my hands on a Citadel for reprocessing until the actual Drilling Platforms come out, but when that happens I'm honestly not going to have all that much use for a Citadel, even with different rigs, and I'm sure I'm far from the only miner in that situation. An option to convert our Citadel into a Drilling Platform - perhaps at a cost, but one significantly lower than just building a whole new Drilling Platform - would be a lot more use to us than just re-rigging the Citadels, IMO.
Also, 400 units of Strontium Clathrates for a batch of 40 fuel blocks sounds a bit high - that's nearly as much Stront-per-block as racial isotopes. Are you sure that New Eden can actually keep up with that kind of demand? |
H3llHound
Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team
55
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:23:20 -
[49] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium: would you consider looking at the refine values of krystallos? maybe loose some LO and increase the stront in it.
right now we have Dark Glitter for LO, Glare Crust for HW but nothing that is specialised for stront. and hauling raw stront is a PITA. I would also swap the refine values for LO and HW on krystallos. this leaves 2 stront heavy ice but one has more HW and the other more LO |
Maetel Lithium
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:34:09 -
[50] - Quote
This dev blog indicates that figters will be deployed from citadels. That is exciting news. I wonder how far fighters can be sent afield under the new fighter mechanics? I read it, and suddenly had the image of a citadel deployed near a gate and then having the gate bubbled. The citadel sending fighters to hangout on gate and whelp things getting caught in the bubbles.
No talk about rangr extension for citadels so under the current system, they would be limited to the pilots natural control range. Citadels not being alowed to mount sub-cap modules, so no drone link augmenters.
No market hubs on medium structures will be interesting. Will it be possible to deploy a large citadel in WH without needing a freighter? I mean, it would be interesting to have a market in a normal WH, even if it's just for the alliance.
Clone vats not allowing you to jump IN to a WH is a slight disappointment. Was hoping to make it easier for players not dedicated to live in the WH to come and go. Looks like you could jump clone OUT of the jole, but you could already do that via the Pod Express.
Citadels have alot of potential to shift how one projects power in a given system, but I'm trying to find new emergent game play opportunities. |
|
Mr Grape Drink
Sugar - Water - Purple Who.
83
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:34:42 -
[51] - Quote
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:To answer a few points listed so far:
- Reprocessing rigs are part of the drilling specialization yes, but we wanted to give them to you right now as they provide significant value. Ideally you wouldn't get such high rates on a Citadel, but we'll leave these numbers until we introduce the Drilling Platform, then reduce them and potentially offer a rig removal. - Hendrink Collie
Based on the reprocessing %s listed here, I'm definitely going to want to get my hands on a Citadel for reprocessing until the actual Drilling Platforms come out, but when that happens I'm honestly not going to have all that much use for a Citadel, even with different rigs, and I'm sure I'm far from the only miner in that situation. An option to convert our Citadel into a Drilling Platform - perhaps at a cost, but one significantly lower than just building a whole new Drilling Platform - would be a lot more use to us than just re-rigging the Citadels, IMO. Also, 400 units of Strontium Clathrates for a batch of 40 fuel blocks sounds a bit high - that's nearly as much Stront-per-block as racial isotopes. Are you sure that New Eden can actually keep up with that kind of demand?
Or, you know, just don't rig it, and sell it once the drilling platform comes out.. Lot less complex eh? |
Mr Grape Drink
Sugar - Water - Purple Who.
83
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:37:35 -
[52] - Quote
Arec Bardwin wrote:How does the vulnerability window work?
Set the hours you want it vulnerable over the course of a week. Done |
Lelira Cirim
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
271
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:37:43 -
[53] - Quote
Still holding out hope for a Citadel blog to be titled: "We built this Citadel on rocks and rigs".
Say you don't go to Jita, or recognize my sov space Say you don't care who goes to that kind of base Knee deep in the taxes, dunkin in your gudfight Too many carebears eating up the night
Mittani plays the livestream, listen to EVE radio, don't you remember We built this citadel, we built this citadel on rocks an rigs
Do not actively tank my patience.
|
Mr Grape Drink
Sugar - Water - Purple Who.
83
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:39:23 -
[54] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:What does the PI and Customs Office part of an XL office/market rig do? Crap, forgot to remove that from the rig name from my evil master plan excel sheet . Nothing for now, but we have future plans. pets cat and slowly turns away in his comfy Bond villain chair
Good luck petting that cat, I bet its pretty angry after just being let out of a bag ;D |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3757
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:41:26 -
[55] - Quote
Questions I have asked many times, and never seen answers from CCP:
If the medium citadel is intended to replace a POS, does it share one attribute with a POS: The ability to unanchor, repackage, and remove it from space in just a few hours?
How long does it take to scoop a citadel? Is it different for different sizes?
What happens to the rigs?
What happens to the stored stuff?
I'm thinking about a mobile market that follows incursions around, among other things.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
351
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:42:36 -
[56] - Quote
i totally am against the fueling of these things. it seems way over micromanaged and seems like its going to instantly become a pain to maintain all the time. how come you guys haven't came up with the idea of a concentrated fuel block that provides more power for these stations. or will those be sold on the NES store for Aurum?
|
Lelira Cirim
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
271
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:45:33 -
[57] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote: If the medium citadel is intended to replace a POS, does it share one attribute with a POS:
Everything I have ever read about this topic gives me the impression this is a misconception.
"Small" structures are what POSes currently are in the design docs. They will be replaced with new "small" structures for rapid deployment for common POS purposes.
Happy to admit that I'm also mistaken, if only to reinforce that there is a lot of rumors still flitting about.
Do not actively tank my patience.
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
351
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:46:56 -
[58] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Questions I have asked many times, and never seen answers from CCP:
If the medium citadel is intended to replace a POS, does it share one attribute with a POS: The ability to unanchor, repackage, and remove it from space in just a few hours?
How long does it take to scoop a citadel? Is it different for different sizes?
What happens to the rigs? rigs go poof! is best assumption.. enjoy yourself making another billion isk rig.. its fun!
What happens to the stored stuff? asset management... wait for the next blog.. and pay attention to fan fest.. THIS ONE right here will determine many players decisions to remain in the entire game.. no kidding..ccp gamble my stuff.. i move to another game and pay them money instead of ccp.. just the way it goes.
I'm thinking about a mobile market that follows incursions around, among other things.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3757
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:52:48 -
[59] - Quote
CCP: To help with all the concerns about fuel, I recommend you take advantage of something that you already built into citadels: Infinite storage.
Store the fuel in a hangar, one big stack that can handle months of use, so I do not have to deal with it very often.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
351
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:58:54 -
[60] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP: To help with all the concerns about fuel, I recommend you take advantage of something that you already built into citadels: Infinite storage.
Store the fuel in a hangar, one big stack that can handle months of use, so I do not have to deal with it very often.
CCP needs to come out on how they plan to have citadels charge these fuel blocks for industry.. i mean how many blocks would it take to cook up ships/mods
do they think 1 person would be the only one making things in a citadel?? what about the fuel cost of 100 builders running jobs at various times throughout the day?
the numbers are way off.. and detached from reality. |
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3757
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 19:05:19 -
[61] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:CCP: To help with all the concerns about fuel, I recommend you take advantage of something that you already built into citadels: Infinite storage.
Store the fuel in a hangar, one big stack that can handle months of use, so I do not have to deal with it very often. CCP needs to come out on how they plan to have citadels charge these fuel blocks for industry.. i mean how many blocks would it take to cook up ships/mods do they think 1 person would be the only one making things in a citadel?? what about the fuel cost of 100 builders running jobs at various times throughout the day? the numbers are way off.. and detached from reality. My guess: A industry service module uses xx blocks per hour, irrelevant of use level. Why do I think that? The reprocessing plant is 5 blocks an hour, and there seems to be no limit on how much it can reprocess in that hour, or how many people can use it at once. In addition, CCP got rid of "manufacturing slots". I doubt they will bring them back in citadels.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2304
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 19:07:30 -
[62] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:CCP: To help with all the concerns about fuel, I recommend you take advantage of something that you already built into citadels: Infinite storage.
Store the fuel in a hangar, one big stack that can handle months of use, so I do not have to deal with it very often. CCP needs to come out on how they plan to have citadels charge these fuel blocks for industry.. i mean how many blocks would it take to cook up ships/mods do they think 1 person would be the only one making things in a citadel?? what about the fuel cost of 100 builders running jobs at various times throughout the day? the numbers are way off.. and detached from reality. By the looks, you cannot produce in Citadels in the first place. You can only reprocess and compress. There will be specific production plant structures at a later stage. And judging by the dev blog, there is no per job cost for things like production but a module cost to run that module and with that module you can run as many jobs as you want.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Iski Zuki DaSen
Icarus Academy
11
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 19:09:39 -
[63] - Quote
what is the base offices a large citadel will get and what is for XL ? what is the 8/40/WIP/WIP for t1 rig and 16/40/WIP/WIP for the t2? can you specify those plz?
(i gues WIP stands for Work In progress?) |
Richard Bong
Hole Violence Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 19:22:37 -
[64] - Quote
Querns wrote:Thanks for the reply.
Another question: adding 400 stront to the build reqs of fuel blocks increases the m^3 required to build fuel blocks considerably. Is this intended? I'd argue to lower the m^3 of stront, but that has knock-on effects with regards to siege, triage, and titans. Are there any metrics on how much stront gets used in a given time period due to POS reinforcement, across all of Eve?
Considerably is kind of an understatement. "stront is 3m3 per unit. so, if you're doing 20k runs(not at all unreasonable), that's 24 million m3 in cargo just for the stront" that is 24 fully expanded freighters. Even cutting that number in half is way too much, cutting it down to just 40 is still 2.4 million m3.
This isn't including the cost for 20k runs with 400 stront which is now an extra 6.4b isk at current prices.
I really hope you take a look at the stront requirements again.
[ASK] Me about drive by thread shitting!
|
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
31
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 19:26:00 -
[65] - Quote
Richard Bong wrote:Querns wrote:Thanks for the reply.
Another question: adding 400 stront to the build reqs of fuel blocks increases the m^3 required to build fuel blocks considerably. Is this intended? I'd argue to lower the m^3 of stront, but that has knock-on effects with regards to siege, triage, and titans. Are there any metrics on how much stront gets used in a given time period due to POS reinforcement, across all of Eve? Considerably is kind of an understatement. "stront is 3m3 per unit. so, if you're doing 20k runs(not at all unreasonable), that's 24 million m3 in cargo just for the stront" that is 24 fully expanded freighters. Even cutting that number in half is way too much, cutting it down to just 40 is still 2.4 million m3. This isn't including the cost for 20k runs with 400 stront which is now an extra 6.4b isk at current prices. I really hope you take a look at the stront requirements again.
Looking at 50 freighter trips for my weekly fuel needs for just the stront. gosh how excited I am about that |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate Together We Solo
286
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 19:34:46 -
[66] - Quote
Lelira Cirim wrote:Vincent Athena wrote: If the medium citadel is intended to replace a POS, does it share one attribute with a POS:
Everything I have ever read about this topic gives me the impression this is a misconception. The POS is not ready to be replaced yet. "Small" structures are what POSes currently are in the design docs. They will be replaced with new "small" structures for rapid deployment for common POS purposes. Happy to admit that I'm also mistaken, if only to reinforce that there is a lot of bad intel still flitting about.
Yea, I'm getting a bit confused by the messaging from CCP on this too. It does look like the new citadel really doesn't 'replace' the small and medium POS's. I can see how the medium citadel is a replacement for a large POS (in functionality and price), but there seems to be a hole in the lineup that small and medium POS's fill now. |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2304
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 19:35:28 -
[67] - Quote
Firvain wrote:Richard Bong wrote:Querns wrote:Thanks for the reply.
Another question: adding 400 stront to the build reqs of fuel blocks increases the m^3 required to build fuel blocks considerably. Is this intended? I'd argue to lower the m^3 of stront, but that has knock-on effects with regards to siege, triage, and titans. Are there any metrics on how much stront gets used in a given time period due to POS reinforcement, across all of Eve? Considerably is kind of an understatement. "stront is 3m3 per unit. so, if you're doing 20k runs(not at all unreasonable), that's 24 million m3 in cargo just for the stront" that is 24 fully expanded freighters. Even cutting that number in half is way too much, cutting it down to just 40 is still 2.4 million m3. This isn't including the cost for 20k runs with 400 stront which is now an extra 6.4b isk at current prices. I really hope you take a look at the stront requirements again. Looking at 50 freighter trips for my weekly fuel needs for just the stront. gosh how excited I am about that Resurrection of the convoys. You should rejoice.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Alain Colcer
Agiolet Security and Logistics
145
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 19:39:14 -
[68] - Quote
Would it be possible to understand what yield % in reprocessing the astrahaus medium sized citadel will get when stationed in high-sec and using the specialization module "reprocessing plant" plus the rig "medium reprocessing effiency II"
not sure if the plant facility gives any basic % yield in reprocessing, or the max amount of reprocessing value with the rig will be 54%.
If its the latter, it is a tad low, given that the citadel is vulnerable to war-decs, and not better than a NPC station.
On the other hand the XL-citadel named Keepstar, how does it compare to a fully upgraded Minmatar outpost dedicated to reprocessing ores?
|
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 19:56:37 -
[69] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Firvain wrote:Richard Bong wrote:Querns wrote:Thanks for the reply.
Another question: adding 400 stront to the build reqs of fuel blocks increases the m^3 required to build fuel blocks considerably. Is this intended? I'd argue to lower the m^3 of stront, but that has knock-on effects with regards to siege, triage, and titans. Are there any metrics on how much stront gets used in a given time period due to POS reinforcement, across all of Eve? Considerably is kind of an understatement. "stront is 3m3 per unit. so, if you're doing 20k runs(not at all unreasonable), that's 24 million m3 in cargo just for the stront" that is 24 fully expanded freighters. Even cutting that number in half is way too much, cutting it down to just 40 is still 2.4 million m3. This isn't including the cost for 20k runs with 400 stront which is now an extra 6.4b isk at current prices. I really hope you take a look at the stront requirements again. Looking at 50 freighter trips for my weekly fuel needs for just the stront. gosh how excited I am about that Resurrection of the convoys. You should rejoice.
I already have 10 freighters, that is quite enough tbh. Got other more important **** to move lol |
Mr Grape Drink
Sugar - Water - Purple Who.
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 20:00:06 -
[70] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:CCP: To help with all the concerns about fuel, I recommend you take advantage of something that you already built into citadels: Infinite storage.
Store the fuel in a hangar, one big stack that can handle months of use, so I do not have to deal with it very often. CCP needs to come out on how they plan to have citadels charge these fuel blocks for industry.. i mean how many blocks would it take to cook up ships/mods do they think 1 person would be the only one making things in a citadel?? what about the fuel cost of 100 builders running jobs at various times throughout the day? the numbers are way off.. and detached from reality.
Huh?
Its going to take a set amount per hour per array. Whether 0 or 100 people use said array its going to take that set amount of blocks per hour to keep it running. Pretty simple math. And the numbers they have so far of 10-40 blocks per hour...not what I would call off or detached from any reality.
And I'm guessing they'll have a Fuel Bay that everything runs from. Probably why they have everything take fuel at the top of the hour no matter what, that way you know when all your ***** gonna go offline! |
|
Lineothel
Matari Construction Corp
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 20:09:14 -
[71] - Quote
Quick question on the possibility of using the Citadel as a revenue producing mechanic.
If I fit the market, clone and office modules to my Citadel, I understand that there will be NPC taxes involved in their operation according to the Dev Blog. My question is will the corp that launches the Citadel be able to reap some of the tax money, office fees, brokers fees etc of the different types of transactions that occur at its Citadel?
Thanks! Lineothel |
Mr Grape Drink
Sugar - Water - Purple Who.
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 20:12:20 -
[72] - Quote
Firvain wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Firvain wrote:Richard Bong wrote:Querns wrote:Thanks for the reply.
Another question: adding 400 stront to the build reqs of fuel blocks increases the m^3 required to build fuel blocks considerably. Is this intended? I'd argue to lower the m^3 of stront, but that has knock-on effects with regards to siege, triage, and titans. Are there any metrics on how much stront gets used in a given time period due to POS reinforcement, across all of Eve? Considerably is kind of an understatement. "stront is 3m3 per unit. so, if you're doing 20k runs(not at all unreasonable), that's 24 million m3 in cargo just for the stront" that is 24 fully expanded freighters. Even cutting that number in half is way too much, cutting it down to just 40 is still 2.4 million m3. This isn't including the cost for 20k runs with 400 stront which is now an extra 6.4b isk at current prices. I really hope you take a look at the stront requirements again. Looking at 50 freighter trips for my weekly fuel needs for just the stront. gosh how excited I am about that Resurrection of the convoys. You should rejoice. I already have 10 freighters, that is quite enough tbh. Got other more important **** to move lol
Not only will it be a pain in the ass for production, but if this change rolls out while POS are still the only way to moon mine, its gonna raise some mineral/T2 prices. Currently just adding that stront will raise the cost of a small tower by 50mil a month. Thats not including the probable massive spike in stront value as supply is going to be so much higher and supply the same. |
A Research Alt
Perkone Caldari State
152
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 20:21:50 -
[73] - Quote
strontium use in fuel blocks is ill-conceived and should not be implemented |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
351
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 20:27:22 -
[74] - Quote
it looks like ccp has some idea that folks should pvp in it judging by the fitting window.
wow this is what you're doing to your player housing in this game. sorry not impressed at all. its a tedious isk sink that is nothing but a loot pi+¦ata waiting for goons or PL or the like to just come on in and drop supers, etc on.. just to have its residents go batshit crazy over losing their house.
yet you pretend you think about the casual/little guy...
ccp you're full of it.. this is not going to work.
hey can i roam in the citadel since it fits like as hip now?
how does warp scams on a citadel act??/
you mean to tell me an XL citadel can only lock onto 8 targets not 800 since that's whats going to be thrown at her?
|
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
25
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 20:29:46 -
[75] - Quote
I have one question here! I know that citadels have their asset safety mechanic that protects inventories and such upon being destroyed. So keeping expensive things like bpos and such in there is no problem cause you wont completely lose those if the citadel gets blasted. However! Is manufacturing/research stations gonna have that same kind of asset safety? If not then people are really gonna risk it if they put their blueprints in one of those, personaly i would not use those then and just use my citadel for all my research/manufacturing, no matter how inefficient it is. |
Andraea Sarstae
Circle of Steel Inc. Care Factor
23
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 20:41:31 -
[76] - Quote
"Unlimted Personal and Corporation Hangars provide residence for even the largest of Alliances."
This is currently listed here: http://updates.eveonline.com/coming/spring/
Yet, you have rigs that increase the number of offices in a citadel.
Does that line from the webpage actually mean "unlimited storage space"? |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
546
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 20:55:39 -
[77] - Quote
I am all for a change in stront consumption; however, this change to fuel blocks shoild be introduced only once existing POS starbases are removed.
Stront consumption is not changing much simply by releasing citadels. In fact, we will probably see more siege cycles. Stront usage will fall only when POS are removed from the game, at which time it would make sense to make the stront change in fuel.
Adding a stront requirement to fuel with the release of the first citadels would be catastrophic to the tech 2 market as fuel cost would skyrocket and drive up the cost of all t2 items. Not to mention, you'd have to immediately change the size of stront or the raw requirements or the supply of stront to keep up with the immediate demand of thousands of towers across eve, each requiring 9 stront per block. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
352
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 21:15:28 -
[78] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:I am all for a change in stront consumption; however, this change to fuel blocks shoild be introduced only once existing POS starbases are removed.
Stront consumption is not changing much simply by releasing citadels. In fact, we will probably see more siege cycles. Stront usage will fall only when POS are removed from the game, at which time it would make sense to make the stront change in fuel.
Adding a stront requirement to fuel with the release of the first citadels would be catastrophic to the tech 2 market as fuel cost would skyrocket and drive up the cost of all t2 items. Not to mention, you'd have to immediately change the size of stront or the raw requirements or the supply of stront to keep up with the immediate demand of thousands of towers across eve, each requiring 9 stront per block.
THIS! |
David Zeta
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 21:19:58 -
[79] - Quote
Unless they make fuel blocks about 7 times as massive, which I don't think can be considered feasible, you're also going to have a way to move enormous amounts of Stront at a low m^3 via reprocessing.
If you do make fuel blocks that much larger, I shudder to think of the logistics involved with WH supply.
Looooooks like someone didn't think about volume and it's tag-on effects before adding Stront to the fuel block mix. |
Tara Anju
Tempus Manus
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 21:46:24 -
[80] - Quote
I have a question I have been wondering about for quite some time even before the new structures where even announced: what are market services in stations or in future market hub service modules good for ?
Since I can access the market through the main EVE menu at any time and anywhere - even in space - and can buy or sell items on any station even if it does not have a market service ... why on earth should I waste a service slot on fitting a market hub module ? |
|
Catalina Franklin
Blind Assault Silent Infinity
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 22:13:15 -
[81] - Quote
Yeah so Im going to add my voice into the fray and state that the 400 stront per 40 fuel blocks is ridiculous and not thought through. I feel many people have accurately made the point of the amount of m^3 needed for a 20000 block run would be crazy plus you just don't get enough through mining at the moment to enable that change. And then there is the impact on manufacturing itself due to the actual cost of the block (if bought, due to the pain to mine in the amounts suggested). You all really need to take a step back and rethink your current position on fuel blocks. |
Circumstantial Evidence
255
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 22:27:55 -
[82] - Quote
Stont added to fuel blocks: agree with Mr Omniblivion: Until POS are removed, POS owners would be paying twice for stront: once for their stront bay (which are NOT always completely filled up, for reinforcement timing reasons) and again for what gets added to fuel blocks.
Skills for Citadels: While an improvement over the hard barrier of Starbase Defense Management, adding skills giving any bonuses for structure control, even with a low cost and low multiplier seems to contradict the intent that all players should feel welcome to assume control. These platforms are already very powerful; if the new skills are intentionally mild bonuses... why have them? |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2966
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 22:39:39 -
[83] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We will iterate on reprocessing capabilities to give a higher impact between high and null-sec yes, 1% isn't enough of a difference. - Querns Reprocessing rigs are part of the drilling specialization yes, but we wanted to give them to you right now as they provide significant value. Ideally you wouldn't get such high rates on a Citadel, but we'll leave these numbers until we introduce the Drilling Platform, then reduce them and potentially offer a rig removal. - Hendrink Collie [/list] This is very disappointing. The whole argument was that Null sec had to invest more into their outposts so should get more in return. Now you are asking Higsec to invest just as much, yet get less. In addition the reprocessing difference actually does not promote local industry, but an import industry, since it means Null can afford to pay more for the same piece of ore than someone in highsec can, meaning they don't bother to mine locally. Given the investment in all areas of space is now the same, and yes highsec people don't have to defend against caps but they also don't have caps to defend their structures either so that element balances out, the reprocessing in a Citadel should also be made equal. If Null needs something it should be an advantage in raw material production, not a magic advantage that makes the same piece of ore worth more minerals in different areas of space.
The fuel block use is also disappointing since we were told it was going to be when the services were actually used, which would therefore have made it easy to assign a tax to individual jobs, since you could tax them based on how many fuel blocks their particular job used, rather than a constant trickle of fuel blocks that you then have to work out how to account for dead time between uses as well.
Finally, what are the details on Fighters, What is the bandwidth, how many squadrons under the new system, what sort of DPS can we expect to get from said fighters, how many spares can be kept. Currently the launcher DPS seems..... weak, and will be trivially easy to ignore for any reasonable attackers, therefore the Citadels won't contribute much to the overall firepower on the field, which seems very contrary to their design goals. So unless the Fighters are actually a huge majority of their DPS, Citadels are going to be outright walk overs. |
Kuetlzelcoatl
28
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 22:49:56 -
[84] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:.... if the new skills are intentionally mild bonuses... why have them?
isk sink?
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2349
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 22:52:56 -
[85] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: This is very disappointing. The whole argument was that Null sec had to invest more into their outposts so should get more in return. Now you are asking Higsec to invest just as much, yet get less. In addition the reprocessing difference actually does not promote local industry, but an import industry, since it means Null can afford to pay more for the same piece of ore than someone in highsec can, meaning they don't bother to mine locally.
This is incorrect -- there is a significant amount of mining going on in nullsec, and it's advantageous to mine in nullsec still -- shipping costs money, and locally-sourced goods are cheaper than imports. Plus, you can't get ABCs in highsec without paying a premium for it being shipped OUT of nullsec.
Need proof? I can provide it.
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Deklein#adm http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Pure_Blind#adm
Any system with an ADM over 4.5, by necessity, has had people mining in it recently. (Sov index of 5 and military index of 5 = 4.5 ADM.) As of this post, 17 systems in Deklein and 11 systems in Pure Blind have at least some active miners. This does not include systems that could potentially have mining occurring instead of ratting.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Soldarius
O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore
1459
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 23:01:23 -
[86] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:I am all for a change in stront consumption; however, this change to fuel blocks shoild be introduced only once existing POS starbases are removed.
Stront consumption is not changing much simply by releasing citadels. In fact, we will probably see more siege cycles. Stront usage will fall only when POS are removed from the game, at which time it would make sense to make the stront change in fuel.
Adding a stront requirement to fuel with the release of the first citadels would be catastrophic to the tech 2 market as fuel cost would skyrocket and drive up the cost of all t2 items. Not to mention, you'd have to immediately change the size of stront or the raw requirements or the supply of stront to keep up with the immediate demand of thousands of towers across eve, each requiring 9 stront per block.
100% agreement. The current plan will result in a 40% increase in POS fuel costs for Gallente POSes alone. Prepare yourself for 350M isk T2 cruisers. And there is also the volume of stront required issue.
Next: "We are also going to increase all capital ship signature radius to at least 10km to account for the structure missiles listed above."
Torpedo Phoenix has a 110k damage volley. Are you sure you want it to have 100% application to every capital ship in the game? I'm pretty sure I remember someone that works for CCP saying that that would be really broken. I might actually finally train JDC5 if this change goes through.
Finally, have you reconsidered the material requirements for T2 XL rigs? I seem to recall that a couple of them require the entire universal supply of certain kinds of T2 salvage per unit. The requirements were completely unfeasible.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
187
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 23:38:33 -
[87] - Quote
Will you be able to tell what's fitted in the Citadel just by looking at it?
I am not only thinking in weapons (which you can do today with ships, so I assume this is a given), but also with ECM/Scrams/Disruptors/Hardeners which you can definitely do today by looking at the POS modules deployed and online around each POS. |
Rabbit P
Nuwa Foundation
55
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 23:58:40 -
[88] - Quote
can CCP state clear that "no shattered wormhole Citadel"?
it only stated in CSM Citadel FAQ , and now said again " All area of space " without mentioning a word of "shattered wormhole"
just a clarification is needed. |
Alain Colcer
Agiolet Security and Logistics
146
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 00:56:35 -
[89] - Quote
CCP, one Last question
If the citadel concept is succesful and players adopt them quickly enough, would you consider creating a small sized citadel?. |
Dirk D'Aguilar
Kraken Exploration and Janitorial Services The Bastion
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 01:20:48 -
[90] - Quote
Alain Colcer wrote:CCP, one Last question
If the citadel concept is succesful and players adopt them quickly enough, would you consider creating a small sized citadel?.
The medium is cheap enough to be easily in reach of most individual players, so I'm not really seeing a need for a small. Depending on the desired functionality of a medium citadel/mining platform/research lab/etc, your fuel costs can be very low - as low as no fuel required at all. There should be no problem with running costs if you only want a limited -functionality structure, which could have been the other reason you would want a small structure.
The small deployables in the current plan are structures like mobile depots and the like. |
|
Hal Morsh
Hmmzor. Muffins of Mayhem
501
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 03:33:17 -
[91] - Quote
Captain Campion wrote:Can we put a bounty on a Citadel, or any structure for that matter?
As far as I know, alliance or corporation bounties are also tied to asset destruction. Ya know, Pos's.
Dun'Gal > Hal is simply an imperfect ai, though if drunkeness ever gets programmed into ai's I foresee both a hilarious and tragic end to humanity.
|
Turrann Dallocort
The Pink and Purple House of Dallocort Nihilists Social Club
44
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 04:23:31 -
[92] - Quote
So, again, more updates on how the Citadel is going to be used / operated / fit / fueled in space ... The Citadels that are being put in to replace POS's ... And still no answer to the questions about Citadels and Rorquals! Are you going to make the rorq less squishy so it can be legitimately be used IN the belt, while fully boosting? Are you going to make it where the rorq can teather to the Citadel and use mining boost? Are you hoping that rorqual users would have died from oxygen deprivation by now from holding our breath waiting for some rorqual love to happen?
Heck, going to do away with the rorq all the way and make it a mod to fit in your Citadel? |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1858
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 04:25:02 -
[93] - Quote
Yeah, this Strontium business is definitely ill considered.
Current m3 required to build 1 day's worth of fuel for a large non-pirate tower from a perfect print in an NPC station: 4725
With 400 stront per run: 33,525 m3
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Kaivar Lancer
Placid Peace Corps
718
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 06:31:41 -
[94] - Quote
good news for ice miner! |
bp920091
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
98
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 07:53:16 -
[95] - Quote
Ran the numbers with a current loadout of stront and fuel blocks (given the 8.8-9 stront/block number you'd get from a 400/run use).
Currently, to build 175k blocks, i'll use roughly 350 Compressed Dark Glitter and 350 Compressed Glare Crust (plus, you know, Isotopes and PI stuff). To generate the stront needed for the same number of fuel blocks, i'll need 12,500 units of Krystallos (the most stront rich ice in eve). To put that in perspective, that's 15.6 TIMES the combined Dark Glitter and Glare Crust requirements, and i'm still missing heavy water.
Adding stront to a block is the worst idea, but the numbers are so far from being OK logistically, that it's ridiculous. How about 0.25 Stront a block. This will require 10 stront a load, and, while still require an adjustment in the ice purchased, brings the total logistical level from "Completely Unreasonable" to "Actually Practical" |
BambarbiyaKirgudu
Real Pilots Group
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 09:08:49 -
[96] - Quote
I agree with you! And again, they wrote already that the price of a small POS and the price is small the citadel is not comparable and that POS has a field and that we are players asking them not to remove from the game - and what we write, don't write - they don't care about the opinion of the miners, production workers and so on! Now these poor injectors which will cause a large imbalance in the game, any noob can now farm and ride on the capital, soon all will go to the capital and make anomaly on cars, frigate soon we will not see! The next step of the developers - kill of capitals and as a consequence, the old players out of games, the fall online, that's when they'll grab your "smart" head, but it's too late, patience "old" gamers to the limit! PS there is one famous tank game, it is called WOT , I in it almost since its birth, so - so successful it became, because did the developers along with the players and listening to each their opinion, but in eve it's the opposite! (fking google translate make translate) |
Red Deck
The Tebo Corp
80
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 09:19:53 -
[97] - Quote
I'd say that adding stront to the fuel blocks is making things unnecessary complex.
How about we keep stront separate and citadels (or their modules) simply consume some every hour, just like with fuel blocks?
That should allow for much better fine-tuning during the whole transition from POSes to the new generation of structures.
This would, of course, not fix the problems related to the extra volume others have pointed out, but would allow for much easier stront consumption adjustments (while keeping the whole fuel block part of the equation untouched). |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4477
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 10:54:46 -
[98] - Quote
Taosst wrote:I see rigs to increase the Office number, but no mention of a base number to start. Do the Citadels only house the corp that deployed it unless additional rigs are used ?
That will depend on the Citadel size. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4477
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 11:01:13 -
[99] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:CCP: To help with all the concerns about fuel, I recommend you take advantage of something that you already built into citadels: Infinite storage.
Store the fuel in a hangar, one big stack that can handle months of use, so I do not have to deal with it very often. CCP needs to come out on how they plan to have citadels charge these fuel blocks for industry.. i mean how many blocks would it take to cook up ships/mods do they think 1 person would be the only one making things in a citadel?? what about the fuel cost of 100 builders running jobs at various times throughout the day? the numbers are way off.. and detached from reality. My guess: A industry service module uses xx blocks per hour, irrelevant of use level. Why do I think that? The reprocessing plant is 5 blocks an hour, and there seems to be no limit on how much it can reprocess in that hour, or how many people can use it at once. In addition, CCP got rid of "manufacturing slots". I doubt they will bring them back in citadels. Edit: Maybe the fuel cost will vary with role. A standard medium industry plant will use one fuel amount, but will only be able to make T1 stuff up to battleship size. An advanced plant will use more fuel per hour, but make both T1 and T2. A large plant will use still more fuel, require a large citadel, and can male up to capital ships. Then the extra large.... well, you get the idea.
Fuel consumption is not going to vary. The numbers you get are what the structure owner will pay to online the service module, then keep it running per hour. Customers or users will not be charged that amount.
Example:
You are the owner of a Keepstar. You install a Reprocessing Plant. It will cost you 360 fuel blocks to online, then 5 blocks per hour to maintain online. Any other player using that reprocessing service will not pay fuel blocks. What you will most likely do as an owner however is to set taxes to the customers to offset the fuel block cost and make a profit. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4477
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 11:02:27 -
[100] - Quote
Richard Bong wrote:Querns wrote:Thanks for the reply.
Another question: adding 400 stront to the build reqs of fuel blocks increases the m^3 required to build fuel blocks considerably. Is this intended? I'd argue to lower the m^3 of stront, but that has knock-on effects with regards to siege, triage, and titans. Are there any metrics on how much stront gets used in a given time period due to POS reinforcement, across all of Eve? Considerably is kind of an understatement. "stront is 3m3 per unit. so, if you're doing 20k runs(not at all unreasonable), that's 24 million m3 in cargo just for the stront" that is 24 fully expanded freighters. Even cutting that number in half is way too much, cutting it down to just 40 is still 2.4 million m3. This isn't including the cost for 20k runs with 400 stront which is now an extra 6.4b isk at current prices. I really hope you take a look at the stront requirements again.
We'll have a look into Stront volume to address that issue. |
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4479
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 11:04:29 -
[101] - Quote
Mr Grape Drink wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:CCP: To help with all the concerns about fuel, I recommend you take advantage of something that you already built into citadels: Infinite storage.
Store the fuel in a hangar, one big stack that can handle months of use, so I do not have to deal with it very often. CCP needs to come out on how they plan to have citadels charge these fuel blocks for industry.. i mean how many blocks would it take to cook up ships/mods do they think 1 person would be the only one making things in a citadel?? what about the fuel cost of 100 builders running jobs at various times throughout the day? the numbers are way off.. and detached from reality. Huh? Its going to take a set amount per hour per array. Whether 0 or 100 people use said array its going to take that set amount of blocks per hour to keep it running. Pretty simple math. And the numbers they have so far of 10-40 blocks per hour...not what I would call off or detached from any reality. And I'm guessing they'll have a Fuel Bay that everything runs from. Probably why they have everything take fuel at the top of the hour no matter what, that way you know when all your ***** gonna go offline!
This man. He gets is. It is also likely the Fuel Bay will have infinite capacity as well. May not want to draw fuel directly from corp hangars to avoid confusion with divisions. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4479
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 11:06:11 -
[102] - Quote
Lineothel wrote:Quick question on the possibility of using the Citadel as a revenue producing mechanic.
If I fit the market, clone and office modules to my Citadel, I understand that there will be NPC taxes involved in their operation according to the Dev Blog. My question is will the corp that launches the Citadel be able to reap some of the tax money, office fees, brokers fees etc of the different types of transactions that occur at its Citadel?
Thanks! Lineothel
We're planning on replacing some of the NPC taxes with player taxes when they're from Citadel services. For example, the Market NPC broker fees would be replaced by player broker fees that would be paid to the structure owner. That also means we're probably going to increase market NPC taxes to make Citadel more attractive at some point. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4479
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 11:11:19 -
[103] - Quote
RainReaper wrote:I have one question here! I know that citadels have their asset safety mechanic that protects inventories and such upon being destroyed. So keeping expensive things like bpos and such in there is no problem cause you wont completely lose those if the citadel gets blasted. However! Is manufacturing/research stations gonna have that same kind of asset safety? If not then people are really gonna risk it if they put their blueprints in one of those, personaly i would not use those then and just use my citadel for all my research/manufacturing, no matter how inefficient it is.
Remember the manufacturing and research capabilities will come from service modules. The new assembly and research structures don't need to be here for these capabilities to be added. So you could have manufacturing and research at a Citadel. But yes, in all cases what's planned is that if you have a job running, you lose the materials used in the job, but not the blueprint. And yes, we also want for the new assembly and research structures to have asset safety for the reasons you listed.
Ex:
- In a Citadel, Assembly Array or Research Laboratory you will have asset safety
- If you're running a Megathron manufacturing job in one of those and the structure gets destroyed, you will get the Megathron BPO back, but you will lose the minerals used in the manufacturing job.
|
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
2066
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 11:13:05 -
[104] - Quote
Querns wrote:Actually, thinking on it -- why can citadels have a reprocessing service module at all? It isn't needed in the interim of citadels release to outpost removal, because, presumably, drilling platforms will be available.
This makes sense, citadels would be better for a research service or similar since they focus on security. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4480
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 11:15:49 -
[105] - Quote
Tara Anju wrote:I have a question I have been wondering about for quite some time even before the new structures where even announced: what are market services in stations or in future market hub service modules good for ?
Since I can access the market through the main EVE menu at any time and anywhere - even in space - and can buy or sell items on any station even if it does not have a market service ... why on earth should I waste a service slot on fitting a market hub module ?
We want player owned Markets to have less taxes than NPC ones. The difference will be used by the Citadel owner to set his own taxes and make a profit. Of course it may not prevent players to set their own taxes to be higher than NPC markets, but they won't attract many people if they do that. The principle is the same than player owned customs offices. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4480
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 11:18:15 -
[106] - Quote
bp920091 wrote:Ran the numbers with a current loadout of stront and fuel blocks (given the 8.8-9 stront/block number you'd get from a 400/run use).
Currently, to build 175k blocks, i'll use roughly 350 Compressed Dark Glitter and 350 Compressed Glare Crust (plus, you know, Isotopes and PI stuff). To generate the stront needed for the same number of fuel blocks, i'll need 12,500 units of Krystallos (the most stront rich ice in eve). To put that in perspective, that's 15.6 TIMES the combined Dark Glitter and Glare Crust requirements, and i'm still missing heavy water.
Adding stront to a block is the worst idea, but the numbers are so far from being OK logistically, that it's ridiculous. How about 0.25 Stront a block. This will require 10 stront a load, and, while still require an adjustment in the ice purchased, brings the total logistical level from "Completely Unreasonable" to "Actually Practical"
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. |
|
Andromeda Duodi
Operation Fishbowl Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 11:21:48 -
[107] - Quote
I haven't seen the idea of capital ships being moored on the outside of the citadel been mentioned in a while, has this idea been ditched entirely? |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 11:24:14 -
[108] - Quote
Andromeda Duodi wrote:I haven't seen the idea of capital ships being moored on the outside of the citadel been mentioned in a while, has this idea been ditched entirely?
'Tethered' and no... |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
2066
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 11:29:56 -
[109] - Quote
A suggestion on the stront issue: Make strontium clathrates refine into strontium isotopes with a much lower volume for use in fuel. No issues rebalancing anything else that uses existing stront then. |
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
370
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 11:36:31 -
[110] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:RainReaper wrote:I have one question here! I know that citadels have their asset safety mechanic that protects inventories and such upon being destroyed. So keeping expensive things like bpos and such in there is no problem cause you wont completely lose those if the citadel gets blasted. However! Is manufacturing/research stations gonna have that same kind of asset safety? If not then people are really gonna risk it if they put their blueprints in one of those, personaly i would not use those then and just use my citadel for all my research/manufacturing, no matter how inefficient it is. Remember the manufacturing and research capabilities will come from service modules. The new assembly and research structures don't need to be here for these capabilities to be added. So you could have manufacturing and research at a Citadel. But yes, in all cases what's planned is that if you have a job running, you lose the materials used in the job, but not the blueprint. And yes, we also want for the new assembly and research structures to have asset safety for the reasons you listed. Ex:
- In a Citadel, Assembly Array or Research Laboratory you will have asset safety
- If you're running a Megathron manufacturing job in one of those and the structure gets destroyed, you will get the Megathron BPO back, but you will lose the minerals used in the manufacturing job.
Since you pay a release payment for asset release, how are tech II bpo's rated in ISK?
"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X
"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron
-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
|
|
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
370
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 11:38:24 -
[111] - Quote
And a question that I asked before, will Crest have market endpoints for Citadels and are they public?
And can you make a market in a citadel access to only bleus?
"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X
"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron
-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
|
Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 11:49:51 -
[112] - Quote
Sorry, may be I'm not right, but cost and % for refine rigs seems for me ridiculous
From Dev blog - Building your Citadel, one block at a time
X-large Reprocessing Efficiency I - roughly costs 2,268 bil - 59% refine
X-large Reprocessing Efficiency II - roughly costs 22,989 bil - 60% refine
Are you insane guys????
Who the hell in his mind will pay for t2 rig at such price if it gives just 1% more than t1???
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1489
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 11:55:56 -
[113] - Quote
TheSmokingHertog wrote:And a question that I asked before, will Crest have market endpoints for Citadels and are they public?
And can you make a market in a citadel access to only bleus?
Market orders won't appear in CREST because the visibility of orders depends on which character is looking (access groups make this complicated).
We *might* add public player markets to the public crest data, that's a big might though since we have a lot of other stuff to do at the moment.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1489
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 11:57:41 -
[114] - Quote
Rabbit P wrote:can CCP state clear that "no shattered wormhole Citadel"?
it only stated in CSM Citadel FAQ , and now said again " All area of space " without mentioning a word of "shattered wormhole"
just a clarification is needed.
No citadels in shattered wormholes, that includes Thera.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 12:40:26 -
[115] - Quote
Sisi Collins wrote:Sorry, may be I'm not right, but cost and % for refine rigs seems for me ridiculous
From Dev blog - Building your Citadel, one block at a time
X-large Reprocessing Efficiency I - roughly costs 2,268 bil - 59% refine
X-large Reprocessing Efficiency II - roughly costs 22,989 bil - 60% refine
Are you insane guys????
Who the hell in his mind will pay for t2 rig at such price if it gives just 1% more than t1???
If you refined 1 trillion isk in a montly basis that 1% adds up pretty darn fast |
Croc Evil
Croc's Family Business Schizophrenic Macro Hive
4
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 12:46:03 -
[116] - Quote
400 Strontium per one batch (40 fuel). That is a huge amount. Even 40 would be a lot from perspective of high and low sec ice mining (where 1 ice block = 1 Strontium). Can you devs please clarify why such large amount is proposed? |
Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 12:57:34 -
[117] - Quote
Structure Defensive Systems: reduces capacitor need of all structure defensive modules by 2% per level (not listing specific modules here since most of them wonGÇÖt make it in the first Citadel release)
So you're introducing Citadels and ability to destroy them in the first Citadel release, but not introducing most of modules for defence citadels?
So attackers will have advantage at first Citadel release over defenders or this mean just in future it will become much harder to destroy Citadel??? |
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
2149
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 12:57:55 -
[118] - Quote
In combat, will we be able to target different parts of the citadel? e.g. the weapons and e-war sections
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
25
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 13:01:01 -
[119] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:RainReaper wrote:I have one question here! I know that citadels have their asset safety mechanic that protects inventories and such upon being destroyed. So keeping expensive things like bpos and such in there is no problem cause you wont completely lose those if the citadel gets blasted. However! Is manufacturing/research stations gonna have that same kind of asset safety? If not then people are really gonna risk it if they put their blueprints in one of those, personaly i would not use those then and just use my citadel for all my research/manufacturing, no matter how inefficient it is. Remember the manufacturing and research capabilities will come from service modules. The new assembly and research structures don't need to be here for these capabilities to be added. So you could have manufacturing and research at a Citadel. But yes, in all cases what's planned is that if you have a job running, you lose the materials used in the job, but not the blueprint. And yes, we also want for the new assembly and research structures to have asset safety for the reasons you listed. Ex:
- In a Citadel, Assembly Array or Research Laboratory you will have asset safety
- If you're running a Megathron manufacturing job in one of those and the structure gets destroyed, you will get the Megathron BPO back, but you will lose the minerals used in the manufacturing job.
great! thanks for leting me know! |
Michal Jita
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 13:02:20 -
[120] - Quote
Can't find this spelt out in black and white anywhere, so would appreciate a clarification:
Does Sov affect fuel cost for citadel and other new structures?
Thanks |
|
Hexatron Ormand
Aperture Deep Space Worlds United Fedo Force
90
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 13:04:42 -
[121] - Quote
Uh 400 strontium clathrates for 1 build cycle that gives 40 blocks? So far this was only used for reinforcements.. so you filled the starbase up once and haven't needed it for a long time. The ice barely gives any strontium.. so 400 per batch is way too high imho. Just thinking about how my ice product storage looks right at this moment.. i have tons of isotopes.. i have tons of heavy water and liquid ozone.. but i barely have any strontium.
Stornium is only a minor component in most ice types, often giving you 1 single strontium if you refine a block of ice. In my opinion, needing 400 of them per 1 batch, giving you 40 blocks is a bit over the top. |
Gaius Clabbacus
Sister Beneficia's Home of Harmless Miners
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 13:11:36 -
[122] - Quote
IIRC it has already been stated that all citadels defenses must be manned (unlike current POS defenses). Assuming that manning citadel weapons is restricted to corp members, this is a solid change in favor of local ownership of assets (instead of far-away holding corps or rental masters).
Hope CCP sticks to their guns on this one (pun intended). |
Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 13:19:22 -
[123] - Quote
Gaius Clabbacus wrote:IIRC it has already been stated that all citadels defenses must be manned (unlike current POS defenses). Assuming that manning citadel weapons is restricted to corp members, this is a solid change in favor of local ownership of assets (instead of far-away holding corps or rental masters).
Hope CCP sticks to their guns on this one (pun intended).
As far as I know it's already explained in EVE vegas that there will be different groups within citadel management hierarchy. So owner can make group of defenders - and they can be anyone |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1872
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 13:33:37 -
[124] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Lineothel wrote:Quick question on the possibility of using the Citadel as a revenue producing mechanic.
If I fit the market, clone and office modules to my Citadel, I understand that there will be NPC taxes involved in their operation according to the Dev Blog. My question is will the corp that launches the Citadel be able to reap some of the tax money, office fees, brokers fees etc of the different types of transactions that occur at its Citadel?
Thanks! Lineothel We're planning on replacing some of the NPC taxes with player taxes when they're from Citadel services. For example, the Market NPC broker fees would be replaced by player broker fees that would be paid to the structure owner. That also means we're probably going to increase market NPC taxes to make Citadel more attractive at some point.
By how much ?
Akrasjel Lanate
Founder and CEO of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3761
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 13:55:20 -
[125] - Quote
Thanks for the answers, CCP. Do you have any for my questions?
If the medium citadel is intended to replace a POS, does it share one attribute with a POS: The ability to unanchor, repackage, and remove it from space in just a few hours?
How long does it take to scoop a citadel? Is it different for different sizes?
What happens to the rigs?
What happens to the stored stuff?
I'm thinking about a mobile market that follows incursions around, among other things.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Jean-Luc
EVIL ONES Circle-Of-Two
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 14:20:51 -
[126] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Thanks for the answers, CCP. Do you have any for my questions?
If the medium citadel is intended to replace a POS, does it share one attribute with a POS: The ability to unanchor, repackage, and remove it from space in just a few hours?
How long does it take to scoop a citadel? Is it different for different sizes?
What happens to the rigs?
What happens to the stored stuff?
I'm thinking about a mobile market that follows incursions around, among other things.
All your question have been answered in previous devblogs
Have a good read. |
Scotsman Howard
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 14:23:05 -
[127] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:TheSmokingHertog wrote:And a question that I asked before, will Crest have market endpoints for Citadels and are they public?
And can you make a market in a citadel access to only bleus? Market orders won't appear in CREST because the visibility of orders depends on which character is looking (access groups make this complicated). We *might* add public player markets to the public crest data, that's a big might though since we have a lot of other stuff to do at the moment.
I understand you that this may not appear right away, but Crest integration will become 100% required.
If you want player citadels to take over NPC stations, you need to make sure CREST integrates in some way. Blues should be able to pull data from the Citadels they can see, but most importantly, if someone sets up a public trade post CREST integration is almost a necessity.
People who NEED this in order to make you grand plan of player owned Citadel Markets a reality:
- Sellers - How many large scale traders use some sort of tool that relies on prices and market order API info to keep track of hundreds to thousands of orders? I would guess all of them. Even random players in null will use Eve-Central to quickly price check items in high sec, etc. If you move the market from an NPC station to a Citadel and that sort of information is not available, sellers will not be happy.
- Asset safety - Sellers will not want to put their stuff in a citadel that can get blown up. Why? Because they will not want to pay to have it safely returned. It would be worth the loss of a few percentage points of profit to sell in an NPC station that can never be removed.
- Buyers - How many people use eve-central or eve-praisal to see how much their stuff is worth? I would guess more than 75% of the player base. Same issue as above, if the information is not available your plan will not work.
- Industrialist - They need the API information on markets to judge what they are making. Repeat reasons from above.
What will happen if CREST integration is not available:
Sellers will not move from the NPC stations because they do not want to manually manage their orders. Even if you raise the taxes at the NPC stations, most large scale traders will not move. It would not be worth the extra work required for a few extra %.
Buyers will not move because the sellers do not move. If I look up a price in eve central, I am not going to check the market every jump/region to find a lower price in a citadel that I cannot see on the web.
Central market Hub Theory (Jita) - This will not break Jita, Amarr, etc. as the central places to do business. There is a reason that the last time you guys tried to break up the central hub by changing some of the stargates, it moved to Jita. There MUST be a central market or group of hubs that acts like it.
Prices will rise by whatever percentage you increase the NPC taxes. This is because the main hubs will still be in NPC stations and people who do sell in Citadels will still sell at those prices because every price in Eve is somehow connected to "Jita" price. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
789
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 14:25:51 -
[128] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Thanks for the answers, CCP. Do you have any for my questions?
If the medium citadel is intended to replace a POS, does it share one attribute with a POS: The ability to unanchor, repackage, and remove it from space in just a few hours?
How long does it take to scoop a citadel? Is it different for different sizes?
What happens to the rigs?
What happens to the stored stuff?
I'm thinking about a mobile market that follows incursions around, among other things. you, uh, know that is out the window because a medium can't fit a market right |
Yasuo Aldent
Hammer of Hephaestus Reign of Olympus
7
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 14:50:56 -
[129] - Quote
So, I noticed that the service modules are the item that now incurs the fuel block usage, and also whether it's active or not, it still incurs this usage. So.. When the later structures release such as drilling platform, ship assembly platform, etc, what's stopping me from sticking up any size I want in HS, using an NPC station for cloning, and sticking up these other structures to do my jobs, causing the citadel to not cost me beans in fuel once it's up? This sounds a bit broken to me. I think to get better usage out of the service modules, they should incur the cost of fuel when they are in use. So, a certain fuel startup cost (i.e. like 100 blocks or something) and then use the 5 or 10 per hour afterwards.
Also, if a service module runs out of fuel and there was enough fuel to power the other modules, what happens to that service? or to the citadel for that matter? What goes offline?
Additionally, I'm not sure if anyone else is worried, but allowing the keepstar in HS is just about stupid. NO ONE will ever take these things down unless they are offline in space. Because I'm assuming you need a wardec, and there's not that many HS corps out there that can supply 75 1000dps ships to cap out the dps max to reinforce that sucker. Or if it's offline, it'll take over an hour to pop it. AND from the previous devblogs, all you get is a km! The drop can only be picked up by the owners. That seems like a large risk in resources for practically NO gain.
I figure that most HS corps would be able to bring about 15-30 ships that may or may not have 1000dps. Which means, it's going to take them at least a hour to reinforce or 3 hours to destroy if offline. Keepstars will become like large towers in HS: the moon's useless, it's going to take 5 hours+ to take it down, we're going to have to wardec a corp... why bother? |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 15:08:43 -
[130] - Quote
Yasuo Aldent wrote:So, I noticed that the service modules.....................
Additionally, I'm not sure if anyone else is worried, but allowing the keepstar in HS is just about stupid......................
I think your first point is a little confused - but essentially correct. Provided you don't use any fuel-using service modules in your citadel (you just live in it) - then it will cost no fuel.
However, whilst I disagree, if the XL Citadels do become considered 'invulnerable' because no one will bother to take them down - this will actually result in a proliferation of them in HS!
I actually think that the first few will indeed get destroyed............................
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
375
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 15:36:53 -
[131] - Quote
Yasuo Aldent wrote: I figure that most HS corps would be able to bring about 15-30 ships that may or may not have 1000dps. Which means, it's going to take them at least a hour to reinforce or 3 hours to destroy if offline. Keepstars will become like large towers in HS: the moon's useless, it's going to take 5 hours+ to take it down, we're going to have to wardec a corp... why bother?
All citadels drop a % of their build materials as loot.
Whatever % that is, a % of 70-100B is definitely worth the time to wardec and take it down. I imagine there are corps like Marmites, CODE, etc. that are doing the calculations to figure out how fast an XL can kill a suicide destroyer vs. how many you would lose vs. the time to blow it up. If that ISK loss is less than the % of the 70-100B, they will do it just for the grins and profit. |
JetStream Drenard
Black Fox Marauders
81
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 15:44:08 -
[132] - Quote
What about moving these things:
There are several instances in the game where POS's need to be moved a lot, and with the incredible expense of the more secure citadels, this seems like a very important consideration.
Will they need to be repackaged? will modules need to be removed and replaced. Will the Rigs be destroyed? Will any assets inside move with it and be available after the move is complete? |
Axena Vulvar
Warp to 100
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 15:44:10 -
[133] - Quote
What are the plans about fast ship switching at a citadel?
Situation now on a Ship Maintenace Array: Warp to the SMA (location) > board new ship (previous one gets stored automatically > warp back into fight
Station: Warp to the station > dock up > switch ship > undock > warp back into fight (takes much longer as you mostly need to stop and realign before)
You understand the big advantage of SMAs over stations for inhabitants of the solar system?
How will it be on Citadels? |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 15:50:55 -
[134] - Quote
Yasuo Aldent wrote: all you get is a km!
you mean a 150+ bill killmail. yeah thast not worth anything right right.. thats why all them people hunt those supercapitals for hours just for a killmail |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1862
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 15:59:33 -
[135] - Quote
Yasuo Aldent wrote:So, a certain fuel startup cost (i.e. like 100 blocks or something) and then use the 5 or 10 per hour afterwards.
So you think it should work exactly the way it was described to work in the devblog which is the subject of the thread on which you are commenting?
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Mr Grape Drink
Sugar - Water - Purple Who.
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 17:59:20 -
[136] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Thanks for the answers, CCP. Do you have any for my questions?
If the medium citadel is intended to replace a POS, does it share one attribute with a POS: The ability to unanchor, repackage, and remove it from space in just a few hours?
How long does it take to scoop a citadel? Is it different for different sizes?
What happens to the rigs?
What happens to the stored stuff?
I'm thinking about a mobile market that follows incursions around, among other things.
All those answers and more are given in the other dev blogs that are linked at the start of this dev blog. Give em a read |
Mr Grape Drink
Sugar - Water - Purple Who.
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 18:02:49 -
[137] - Quote
Michal Jita wrote:Can't find this spelt out in black and white anywhere, so would appreciate a clarification:
Does Sov affect fuel cost for citadel and other new structures?
Thanks
Sov only affects the repair timer as stated in this blog http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/citadels-sieges-and-you-v2/
Nothing about sov fuel cost stated yet |
Mr Grape Drink
Sugar - Water - Purple Who.
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 18:05:45 -
[138] - Quote
If you have questions its best to read all the previous dev blogs, so many questions about things that have already been answered! |
Barrett Fruitcake
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 18:06:35 -
[139] - Quote
Hexatron Ormand wrote:
Stornium is only a minor component in most ice types, often giving you 1 single strontium if you refine a block of ice. In my opinion, needing 400 of them per 1 batch, giving you 40 blocks is a bit over the top.
Maybe they are thinking of removing Siege Cycles from Dreads.
|
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force IT'S ONLY PIXELS
229
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 18:11:53 -
[140] - Quote
Raphendyr Nardieu wrote:John McCreedy wrote:Fuelling stations now, great. The game is getting further and further away from the things that make it fun and clogging you down with more and more micromanagement. You should be freeing up our time to focus on the fun things in Eve, not tying us down further with logistics. Well. I see your point, but I presume you are meaning that you need to start fueling stuctures that replace outposts as nothing is chanhed for the stations. Also, in the other hand. There will be lot of people with e.g. medium Citadels who don't need to fuel them at all! So it's so much easier for them compared to current POSes. Also, if you want easy XL citadel to replace your outpost, don't add any services to it. Whow. no fuel costs... Note also that getting and transporting fuel t your citadel can be content to others.
I've re-read that part of the blog and it makes no distinction between Citadel sizes and therefore implies that fuel is required for the running of them all. We have existed for almost thirteen years without stations requiring fuel and all of a sudden, some bright spark at CCP thinks this is a good idea. It's not. It's not because it makes the game less accessible to those with less time on their hands.
As for not adding services, what would be the point in all that outlay just to have a place to log off? Use a safe spot and safe log. Use a Cap ship for refitting/re-shipping for far less time, money and ongoing effort. Not adding services defeats the entire object of building a Citadel in the first place. Better to add fuel requirements to those structures that will eventually replace what most people use a POS for: Moon miners and reactors and star gates.
To CCP I say this: Look at your competition in the MMO market. Where an equivalent applies to Citadels, for example Guild Halls in GW2, Stations in STO or Ships and apartments in SWTOR, none require their players to fuel the bloody things. They allow for players to jump straight in to the aspect of the game they find most fun, be it PvP or PvE or just exploration. Why should Eve make it harder for players to enjoy the same experience?
12 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
|
|
Mr Grape Drink
Sugar - Water - Purple Who.
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 18:20:20 -
[141] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:bp920091 wrote:Ran the numbers with a current loadout of stront and fuel blocks (given the 8.8-9 stront/block number you'd get from a 400/run use).
Currently, to build 175k blocks, i'll use roughly 350 Compressed Dark Glitter and 350 Compressed Glare Crust (plus, you know, Isotopes and PI stuff). To generate the stront needed for the same number of fuel blocks, i'll need 12,500 units of Krystallos (the most stront rich ice in eve). To put that in perspective, that's 15.6 TIMES the combined Dark Glitter and Glare Crust requirements, and i'm still missing heavy water.
Adding stront to a block is the worst idea, but the numbers are so far from being OK logistically, that it's ridiculous. How about 0.25 Stront a block. This will require 10 stront a load, and, while still require an adjustment in the ice purchased, brings the total logistical level from "Completely Unreasonable" to "Actually Practical" Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again.
I assume the logs show everything. Maybe just look at how much stront gets eaten up by towers a month vs how much fuel blocks get eaten up and find a nice even stront/block number to keep the demand relatively the same!
Obviously it wouldnt be perfect because who the hell knows what the difference in fuel blocks consuption will be post citadel, but its a start :P |
Barrett Fruitcake
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 18:29:22 -
[142] - Quote
IIRC fuel requirement only starts once you add specific mods to the structure. Don't want a fuel cost, don't add those specific ones.
That is, IIRC. |
Mr Grape Drink
Sugar - Water - Purple Who.
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 18:37:53 -
[143] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:Raphendyr Nardieu wrote:John McCreedy wrote:Fuelling stations now, great. The game is getting further and further away from the things that make it fun and clogging you down with more and more micromanagement. You should be freeing up our time to focus on the fun things in Eve, not tying us down further with logistics. Well. I see your point, but I presume you are meaning that you need to start fueling stuctures that replace outposts as nothing is chanhed for the stations. Also, in the other hand. There will be lot of people with e.g. medium Citadels who don't need to fuel them at all! So it's so much easier for them compared to current POSes. Also, if you want easy XL citadel to replace your outpost, don't add any services to it. Whow. no fuel costs... Note also that getting and transporting fuel t your citadel can be content to others. I've re-read that part of the blog and it makes no distinction between Citadel sizes and therefore implies that fuel is required for the running of them all. We have existed for almost thirteen years without stations requiring fuel and all of a sudden, some bright spark at CCP thinks this is a good idea. It's not. It's not because it makes the game less accessible to those with less time on their hands. As for not adding services, what would be the point in all that outlay just to have a place to log off? Use a safe spot and safe log. Use a Cap ship for refitting/re-shipping for far less time, money and ongoing effort. Not adding services defeats the entire object of building a Citadel in the first place. Better to add fuel requirements to those structures that will eventually replace what most people use a POS for: Moon miners and reactors and jump bridges. To CCP I say this: Look at your competition in the MMO market. Where an equivalent applies to Citadels, for example Guild Halls in GW2, Stations in STO or Ships and apartments in SWTOR, none require their players to fuel the bloody things. They allow for players to jump straight in to the aspect of the game they find most fun, be it PvP or PvE or just exploration. Why should Eve make it harder for players to enjoy the same experience?
Always gotta be one shitter
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
152
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 18:48:27 -
[144] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:Raphendyr Nardieu wrote:John McCreedy wrote:Fuelling stations now, great. The game is getting further and further away from the things that make it fun and clogging you down with more and more micromanagement. You should be freeing up our time to focus on the fun things in Eve, not tying us down further with logistics. Well. I see your point, but I presume you are meaning that you need to start fueling stuctures that replace outposts as nothing is chanhed for the stations. Also, in the other hand. There will be lot of people with e.g. medium Citadels who don't need to fuel them at all! So it's so much easier for them compared to current POSes. Also, if you want easy XL citadel to replace your outpost, don't add any services to it. Whow. no fuel costs... Note also that getting and transporting fuel t your citadel can be content to others. I've re-read that part of the blog and it makes no distinction between Citadel sizes and therefore implies that fuel is required for the running of them all. We have existed for almost thirteen years without stations requiring fuel and all of a sudden, some bright spark at CCP thinks this is a good idea. It's not. It's not because it makes the game less accessible to those with less time on their hands. As for not adding services, what would be the point in all that outlay just to have a place to log off? Use a safe spot and safe log. Use a Cap ship for refitting/re-shipping for far less time, money and ongoing effort. Not adding services defeats the entire object of building a Citadel in the first place. Better to add fuel requirements to those structures that will eventually replace what most people use a POS for: Moon miners and reactors and jump bridges. To CCP I say this: Look at your competition in the MMO market. Where an equivalent applies to Citadels, for example Guild Halls in GW2, Stations in STO or Ships and apartments in SWTOR, none require their players to fuel the bloody things. They allow for players to jump straight in to the aspect of the game they find most fun, be it PvP or PvE or just exploration. Why should Eve make it harder for players to enjoy the same experience?
You seem pretty upset about the fuel thing, but you know the amazing thing about "stations", they have hangars where you can store things and hopefully in the future we will have Courier Contracts for a citadel. So instead of the POS dynamic where we need to schlup blocks out to a tower every 38 days in a fancy ship like a JF or Rorqual, you could do all that hauling at once for many months, then later on dock up in a interceptor and move blocks from column A to B. Use a corp hangar, let your friends do it.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1866
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:26:46 -
[145] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:
To CCP I say this: Look at your competition in the MMO market. Where an equivalent applies to Citadels, for example Guild Halls in GW2, Stations in STO or Ships and apartments in SWTOR, none require their players to fuel the bloody things. They allow for players to jump straight in to the aspect of the game they find most fun, be it PvP or PvE or just exploration. Why should Eve make it harder for players to enjoy the same experience?
Crazy, isn't it? It's almost as if, unlike every other MMO out there, Eve actually has a player run economy that relies on continual consumption of goods to drive demand.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Kazaheid Zaknafein
Legio IX Ferox
31
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:07:25 -
[146] - Quote
The problem with using stront isn't so much the amount, its the availability and transportability of it. At 3m^3 per stront a single run of fuel would 1200m^3; and thats just the stront, and doesnt take into acount the other matterials. Then the fact that stront is only found in ice, and of the ice only nullsec ice has more than 1 per block.
Its like mining for noxcium and only having access to pyroxeres in 90% of space.
The maximum mining speed of ice is ~3/min per hulk with maxed orca; assuming that you are not gonna force all the miners in eve into nullsec. this is the cap of highsec mining. At 3 stront per hulk, per min. it would take a single miner two hours to mine the stront needed to make a single run of 40 blocks.
No one complains about the super high numbers of minerals it takes to make captials because trit is everywhere, you can find it in literally any system with a belt. Ice is more restrictive in its access, and krystalos is even more difficult to have in large ammounts.
My suggestion would be to increase the stront content of all ice by at least 50, and reduce the stront size down to 1m^3 per unit, allowing its transportation at the volumes needed to make it worth while to try and export. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2969
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:07:50 -
[147] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:
I've re-read that part of the blog and it makes no distinction between Citadel sizes and therefore implies that fuel is required for the running of them all. We have existed for almost thirteen years without stations requiring fuel and all of a sudden, some bright spark at CCP thinks this is a good idea. It's not. It's not because it makes the game less accessible to those with less time on their hands.
You do know that you will be able to get rid of 80% of those POS currently in existence right? Because any POS holding a moon simply to deny it to any invaders for their own POS will now be useless. You will now only have to fuel POS that are performing actual roles such as moon mining, (and that is assuming CCP don't do the smart thing and make moon mining an active player task) So a few replacement Citadels for Outposts which have infinite fuel bays so you can just top them up whenever convenient rather than having to have a strict schedule are not going to be an issue. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
552
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:13:56 -
[148] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again.
When you are looking at the numbers, consider this:
If you adjust stront prior to POS being removed from the game, then you're creating additional supply for the huge demand that would be consumed by POS. When citadels are released, you'll have a double dipping of fuel block consumption in both POS and Citadels. When POS are eventually removed from the game, you'll see the demand of fuel blocks plummet unless you implement a scaling fuel consumption based on how many reactions goes on within a citadel. If a scaling fuel consumption is not utilized for reactions, then you'll run into a gigantic surplus of stront (much like there is today).
There are several ways to handle this:
- Leave stront as-is, perhaps only reducing the m3 to make it less of a pain to move, and not alter the supply. Add stront to the fuel block recipe once POS are removed from the game.
- Reduce the m3 of stront a considerable amount and increase the supply from existing ice. Perhaps the volume (m3) of stront refined from ice would remain the same, but more units would be derived from that volume. Immediately change the fuel block recipe to include stront.
- Do not alter stront at all, perhaps not even adjusting the m3, and make it a supplementary requirement for certain citadel functions.
Even if you do simply reduce the amount of stront per block run, you'll still run into a major change in consumption once POS are removed. That is, unless you do indeed implement a scaling consumption for reactions post POS.
In all of these situations, highsec will be completely reliant on null ice unless additional changes are made to highsec belt comps. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4483
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 14:00:41 -
[149] - Quote
Alright, update regarding the stront numbers:
- We're going to decrease required stront numbers from 400 to 200 for a batch of 40 fuel blocks.
- Stront volume is being decreased from 3 to 2m3.
- Stront consumption of triage and siege modules will increase by 50% to compensate. This puts consumption at 375m3 for Siege Modules and 375 / 300 for Triage I / II
- Entosis Links are not affected.
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2356
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 14:44:05 -
[150] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Alright, update regarding the stront numbers:
- We're going to decrease required stront numbers from 400 to 200 for a batch of 40 fuel blocks.
- Stront volume is being decreased from 3 to 2m3.
- Stront consumption of triage and siege modules will increase by 50% to compensate. This puts consumption at 375m3 for Siege Modules and 375 / 300 for Triage I / II
- Entosis Links are not affected.
Edit: also renaming fuel blocks from racial fuel block to isotope fuel block, should reduce confusion since the new structures don't have different racial themes.
- Helium Fuel Block, Nitrogen Fuel Block, Oxygen Fuel Block, Hydrogen Fuel Block
This should help allay my previous concerns quite a bit. Thanks!
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
1993
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 14:55:32 -
[151] - Quote
Good move.
Will a 50% reduction from 400 to 200 units per block be enough though?
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Retired Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - Ex-BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
|
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
25
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 15:47:57 -
[152] - Quote
I do have to say that being self sustaining in fuel in highsec is gonna be HARD when you need so much stront and get so little. Having to mine more than 200 blocks of ice for a single run of fuel blocks wont be fun att all. Maybe you can add in a tiny amount of glare crust roids into the highsec ice anomalies? Or make a new type of ice with a bit less strontium and half the heavy water and liquid ozone of that of glare crust? Cause lets face it its gonna be hell to get that much strontium in the highsec ice anomalies. |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
114
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:19:30 -
[153] - Quote
RainReaper wrote:I do have to say that being self sustaining in fuel in highsec is gonna be HARD when you need so much stront and get so little. Having to mine more than 200 blocks of ice for a single run of fuel blocks wont be fun att all. Maybe you can add in a tiny amount of glare crust roids into the highsec ice anomalies? Or make a new type of ice with a bit less strontium and half the heavy water and liquid ozone of that of glare crust? Cause lets face it its gonna be hell to get that much strontium in the highsec ice anomalies.
If you can do neither of those then you NEED to increase the amount of strontium you get from the racial ice. Cause i refuse to sit and mine for... 3.5 hours to get a SINGLE hour worth of fuel in a citadel. And i have been looking forward to the structures for so long. please dont take this away from me guys Q~Q
You could buy the stront off the market also as it would be a boost to null sec to have an advantage over high. |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:23:14 -
[154] - Quote
50% reduction in stront is a good start, but that still leaves a massive deficit of strontium. I hav ebeen buying ICE locally and from jita for 2 months to supply me with all the required LO/HW and isotopes(well mostly, still need to import some raw every now and then) but with all the stront acquired I still only have enough for 1 week worth of construction. But I still have enough LO/HW to last me a month. So something is wrong here.
And praying that the old ice miners from yeh will drop their existant strontium supply on market seems to be a bit odd |
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
25
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:27:38 -
[155] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:RainReaper wrote:I do have to say that being self sustaining in fuel in highsec is gonna be HARD when you need so much stront and get so little. Having to mine more than 200 blocks of ice for a single run of fuel blocks wont be fun att all. Maybe you can add in a tiny amount of glare crust roids into the highsec ice anomalies? Or make a new type of ice with a bit less strontium and half the heavy water and liquid ozone of that of glare crust? Cause lets face it its gonna be hell to get that much strontium in the highsec ice anomalies.
If you can do neither of those then you NEED to increase the amount of strontium you get from the racial ice. Cause i refuse to sit and mine for... 3.5 hours to get a SINGLE hour worth of fuel in a citadel. And i have been looking forward to the structures for so long. please dont take this away from me guys Q~Q You could buy the stront off the market also as it would be a boost to null sec to have an advantage over high.
Highsec wont be self sustainable att all anymore. Im not asking for Gelidus or Krystallos, wich is null sec ice and contains the most strontium, im asking for a small amount of glare crust in the highsec ice anomalies. Wich is 0.4 ice curently |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
114
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:31:06 -
[156] - Quote
Firvain wrote:50% reduction in stront is a good start, but that still leaves a massive deficit of strontium. I hav ebeen buying ICE locally and from jita for 2 months to supply me with all the required LO/HW and isotopes(well mostly, still need to import some raw every now and then) but with all the stront acquired I still only have enough for 1 week worth of construction. But I still have enough LO/HW to last me a month. So something is wrong here.
And praying that the old ice miners from yeh will drop their existant strontium supply on market seems to be a bit odd
Do you think this is more a supply demand issue as up until now mining for stront was not all that profitable up until now? |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
114
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:33:12 -
[157] - Quote
RainReaper wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:RainReaper wrote:I do have to say that being self sustaining in fuel in highsec is gonna be HARD when you need so much stront and get so little. Having to mine more than 200 blocks of ice for a single run of fuel blocks wont be fun att all. Maybe you can add in a tiny amount of glare crust roids into the highsec ice anomalies? Or make a new type of ice with a bit less strontium and half the heavy water and liquid ozone of that of glare crust? Cause lets face it its gonna be hell to get that much strontium in the highsec ice anomalies.
If you can do neither of those then you NEED to increase the amount of strontium you get from the racial ice. Cause i refuse to sit and mine for... 3.5 hours to get a SINGLE hour worth of fuel in a citadel. And i have been looking forward to the structures for so long. please dont take this away from me guys Q~Q You could buy the stront off the market also as it would be a boost to null sec to have an advantage over high. Highsec wont be self sustainable att all anymore. Im not asking for Gelidus or Krystallos, wich is null sec ice and contains the most strontium, im asking for a small amount of glare crust in the highsec ice anomalies. Wich is 0.4 ice curently
Why do you feel that Hi-Sec should be self sustainable? |
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
25
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:40:49 -
[158] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:RainReaper wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:RainReaper wrote:I do have to say that being self sustaining in fuel in highsec is gonna be HARD when you need so much stront and get so little. Having to mine more than 200 blocks of ice for a single run of fuel blocks wont be fun att all. Maybe you can add in a tiny amount of glare crust roids into the highsec ice anomalies? Or make a new type of ice with a bit less strontium and half the heavy water and liquid ozone of that of glare crust? Cause lets face it its gonna be hell to get that much strontium in the highsec ice anomalies.
If you can do neither of those then you NEED to increase the amount of strontium you get from the racial ice. Cause i refuse to sit and mine for... 3.5 hours to get a SINGLE hour worth of fuel in a citadel. And i have been looking forward to the structures for so long. please dont take this away from me guys Q~Q You could buy the stront off the market also as it would be a boost to null sec to have an advantage over high. Highsec wont be self sustainable att all anymore. Im not asking for Gelidus or Krystallos, wich is null sec ice and contains the most strontium, im asking for a small amount of glare crust in the highsec ice anomalies. Wich is 0.4 ice curently Why do you feel that Hi-Sec should be self sustainable?
because its always been a bit self sustainable. when ccp changed the static ice belts into ice anomalies they said that fuel sustainability in highsec would be around 4/5 out of that wich was needed. After these changes its not gonna be even 1/5 cause you get so damn little strontium in highsec. look im not trying to say we should be 100% self sustainable. But if we cant mine any decent amount of fuel here att all then highsec cant be home to all the structures that are gonna come. listen im not trying to **** you off here. im just saying that we need to be able to providefor ourselves a little. what if all the strontium in highsec gets brought up? if it runs out and null sec dosent sell any to high anymore? we will be in trouble then! |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1884
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:43:02 -
[159] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Good move.
Will a 50% reduction from 400 to 200 units per block be enough though?
That still triples the m3 required for fuel construction, which seems excessive. Napkin math, just based on the amount of fuel blocks and strontium sold in the Domain market, it looks like it could easily be a 5-10x increase in the general rate of stront consumption, as opposed to the stated intent of replacing the amount consumed by reinforcement.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
114
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:51:37 -
[160] - Quote
RainReaper wrote: Why do you feel that Hi-Sec should be self sustainable?
because its always been a bit self sustainable. when ccp changed the static ice belts into ice anomalies they said that fuel sustainability in highsec would be around 4/5 out of that wich was needed. After these changes its not gonna be even 1/5 cause you get so damn little strontium in highsec. look im not trying to say we should be 100% self sustainable. But if we cant mine any decent amount of fuel here att all then highsec cant be home to all the structures that are gonna come. listen im not trying to **** you off here. im just saying that we need to be able to providefor ourselves a little. what if all the strontium in highsec gets brought up? if it runs out and null sec dosent sell any to high anymore? we will be in trouble then![/quote]
I am not getting upset. I was just interested in your opinion on the matter. Do I think Hi-Sec should be 100% self sustaining. I do not. With what you have put though, is a very valid concern with good numbers to back it up. I think a better solution would be to increase the amount of stront in both standard and improved ore by 3 for base and 5 for improved. It will allow miners in empire to be some what self sufficient but also not change the standard of null only ice asteroids. |
|
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:54:14 -
[161] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:RainReaper wrote: Why do you feel that Hi-Sec should be self sustainable?
because its always been a bit self sustainable. when ccp changed the static ice belts into ice anomalies they said that fuel sustainability in highsec would be around 4/5 out of that wich was needed. After these changes its not gonna be even 1/5 cause you get so damn little strontium in highsec. look im not trying to say we should be 100% self sustainable. But if we cant mine any decent amount of fuel here att all then highsec cant be home to all the structures that are gonna come. listen im not trying to **** you off here. im just saying that we need to be able to providefor ourselves a little. what if all the strontium in highsec gets brought up? if it runs out and null sec dosent sell any to high anymore? we will be in trouble then!
I am not getting upset. I was just interested in your opinion on the matter. Do I think Hi-Sec should be 100% self sustaining. I do not. With what you have put though, is a very valid concern with good numbers to back it up. I think a better solution would be to increase the amount of stront in both standard and improved ore by 3 for base and 5 for improved. It will allow miners in empire to be some what self sufficient but also not change the standard of null only ice asteroids.[/quote] hm...3 clatrates per ice is still really low...(sigh) well well see waht ccp themselves ahve to say on this matter. its up to them to decide in the end anyways. I need to lie down now anyways. my autistic brain cant handle worrying like this. |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
281
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 17:44:56 -
[162] - Quote
RainReaper wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:RainReaper wrote: Why do you feel that Hi-Sec should be self sustainable?
because its always been a bit self sustainable. when ccp changed the static ice belts into ice anomalies they said that fuel sustainability in highsec would be around 4/5 out of that wich was needed. After these changes its not gonna be even 1/5 cause you get so damn little strontium in highsec. look im not trying to say we should be 100% self sustainable. But if we cant mine any decent amount of fuel here att all then highsec cant be home to all the structures that are gonna come. listen im not trying to **** you off here. im just saying that we need to be able to providefor ourselves a little. what if all the strontium in highsec gets brought up? if it runs out and null sec dosent sell any to high anymore? we will be in trouble then! I am not getting upset. I was just interested in your opinion on the matter. Do I think Hi-Sec should be 100% self sustaining. I do not. With what you have put though, is a very valid concern with good numbers to back it up. I think a better solution would be to increase the amount of stront in both standard and improved ore by 3 for base and 5 for improved. It will allow miners in empire to be some what self sufficient but also not change the standard of null only ice asteroids. hm...3 clatrates per ice is still really low...(sigh) well well see waht ccp themselves ahve to say on this matter. its up to them to decide in the end anyways. I need to lie down now anyways. my autistic brain cant handle worrying like this.[/quote]
Tech 2 materials are not harvested in hi-sec, yet builders still build Tech 2 in hi-sec. Tech 3 materials are not harvest in Hi-Sec, yet builds still build Tech 3 in Hi-Sec.
Many products that are required for use in production chains except basic ore are not harvested in Hi-sec. Yet many players Survive without ever touching Low or Null. Just remember starbases were never designed to be dropped everywhere easily like they became. In the past it was a corp goal of a group to drop a POS, now any lone pilot who makes a 1 day old corp can. I am not saying this is an issue or to get in a debate about that. But citadels are not supposed to be dropped by every person around. That is why they are high cost and offer more benefits than a starbase. Im not sure about you, but when I lived in hi-sec for several years, Stront rarely moved, was worth nothing because everyone had piles of it, it was to large to move in the quantities you needed to empty the hangar and get it out of your sight. If you are an ice miner you should have hangars full of this stuff unless you were just pitching it at whatever it would to clean the hangars out. Hop in a barge and go ice mine, You will have two things that you can't offload quick enough, Ozone and Stront. Heavy water and racial variant have always been the blocks on fuel production. |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 17:59:49 -
[163] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:Firvain wrote:50% reduction in stront is a good start, but that still leaves a massive deficit of strontium. I hav ebeen buying ICE locally and from jita for 2 months to supply me with all the required LO/HW and isotopes(well mostly, still need to import some raw every now and then) but with all the stront acquired I still only have enough for 1 week worth of construction. But I still have enough LO/HW to last me a month. So something is wrong here.
And praying that the old ice miners from yeh will drop their existant strontium supply on market seems to be a bit odd Do you think this is more a supply demand issue as up until now mining for stront was not all that profitable up until now?
you cant mine for just stront, you always get the other stuff too. So with just pure mining you always either have never enough stront or you are drowning in LO and HW.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
2068
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 18:48:32 -
[164] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:RainReaper wrote:I do have to say that being self sustaining in fuel in highsec is gonna be HARD when you need so much stront and get so little. Having to mine more than 200 blocks of ice for a single run of fuel blocks wont be fun att all. Maybe you can add in a tiny amount of glare crust roids into the highsec ice anomalies? Or make a new type of ice with a bit less strontium and half the heavy water and liquid ozone of that of glare crust? Cause lets face it its gonna be hell to get that much strontium in the highsec ice anomalies.
If you can do neither of those then you NEED to increase the amount of strontium you get from the racial ice. Cause i refuse to sit and mine for... 3.5 hours to get a SINGLE hour worth of fuel in a citadel. And i have been looking forward to the structures for so long. please dont take this away from me guys Q~Q You could buy the stront off the market also as it would be a boost to null sec to have an advantage over high.
another boost to nullsec? wow they really must dislike hisec then. So now the hisec manufacturers who are already reliant on goods from other areas to produce at lower yields will need to have citadels, defend them fully in wars, and pay yet more into nullsec alliances to be productive.
Hisec manufacturing will slowly die if we keep going down this root. Small scale hisec manufacturers simply won't be able to use even a medium citadel depending on the cost of fuel and defence against wars. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
375
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 19:00:57 -
[165] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:RainReaper wrote:I do have to say that being self sustaining in fuel in highsec is gonna be HARD when you need so much stront and get so little. Having to mine more than 200 blocks of ice for a single run of fuel blocks wont be fun att all. Maybe you can add in a tiny amount of glare crust roids into the highsec ice anomalies? Or make a new type of ice with a bit less strontium and half the heavy water and liquid ozone of that of glare crust? Cause lets face it its gonna be hell to get that much strontium in the highsec ice anomalies.
If you can do neither of those then you NEED to increase the amount of strontium you get from the racial ice. Cause i refuse to sit and mine for... 3.5 hours to get a SINGLE hour worth of fuel in a citadel. And i have been looking forward to the structures for so long. please dont take this away from me guys Q~Q You could buy the stront off the market also as it would be a boost to null sec to have an advantage over high. another boost to nullsec? wow they really must dislike hisec then. So now the hisec manufacturers who are already reliant on goods from other areas to produce at lower yields will need to have citadels, defend them fully in wars, and pay yet more into nullsec alliances to be productive. Hisec manufacturing will slowly die if we keep going down this root. Small scale hisec manufacturers simply won't be able to use even a medium citadel depending on the cost of fuel and defence against wars.
Yeah, because HS today is just bereft of POSes burning fuel 24x7 |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1892
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 19:25:13 -
[166] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
another boost to nullsec? wow they really must dislike hisec then.
On the other hand, it looks like they also nerfed the **** out of the relative difference between null and high refining bonuses to the point that null only has a token advantage.
I'm assuming this is what's driving the current drop in mineral prices. Hello, mineral price dip.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
2068
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 19:36:05 -
[167] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:RainReaper wrote:I do have to say that being self sustaining in fuel in highsec is gonna be HARD when you need so much stront and get so little. Having to mine more than 200 blocks of ice for a single run of fuel blocks wont be fun att all. Maybe you can add in a tiny amount of glare crust roids into the highsec ice anomalies? Or make a new type of ice with a bit less strontium and half the heavy water and liquid ozone of that of glare crust? Cause lets face it its gonna be hell to get that much strontium in the highsec ice anomalies.
If you can do neither of those then you NEED to increase the amount of strontium you get from the racial ice. Cause i refuse to sit and mine for... 3.5 hours to get a SINGLE hour worth of fuel in a citadel. And i have been looking forward to the structures for so long. please dont take this away from me guys Q~Q You could buy the stront off the market also as it would be a boost to null sec to have an advantage over high. another boost to nullsec? wow they really must dislike hisec then. So now the hisec manufacturers who are already reliant on goods from other areas to produce at lower yields will need to have citadels, defend them fully in wars, and pay yet more into nullsec alliances to be productive. Hisec manufacturing will slowly die if we keep going down this root. Small scale hisec manufacturers simply won't be able to use even a medium citadel depending on the cost of fuel and defence against wars. Yeah, because HS today is just bereft of POSes burning fuel 24x7
POS fuel can be built entirely from goods found in hisec in reasonable amounts. The inclusion of stront into the fuel blocks at the values discussed will mean stront now has to be imported from null. Another transfer of money from hisec players to nullsec alliances. Whilst I'm not a hisec player as such now I can see how this will negatively impact those who are that are manufacturers. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
2068
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 19:36:55 -
[168] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
another boost to nullsec? wow they really must dislike hisec then.
On the other hand, it looks like they also nerfed the **** out of the relative difference between null and high refining bonuses to the point that null only has a token advantage. I'm assuming this is what's driving the current drop in mineral prices. Hello, mineral price dip.
I think CCP Someone said they were looking to address this at some point
|
Alexis Nightwish
413
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 20:27:11 -
[169] - Quote
Dev Blog wrote:
- Prevent some poor soul from having to stay forever locked inside a Citadel to provide skill-level related bonuses
(then literally in the next paragraph) We are still going to require a few skills to operate the structures and give few bonuses...
- Structure Missile Systems: increases damage by 2% of all Structure Missile Launchers per level
- Structure Defensive Systems: reduces capacitor need of all structure defensive modules by 2% per level (not listing specific modules here since most of them wonGÇÖt make it in the first Citadel release)
- Structure Electronic Systems: reduces capacitor need of Electronic Warfare, ship tractor beam, and bumping modules by 2% per level
- Structure Engineering Systems: reduces capacitor need of the Doomsday Device and Capacitor Warfare modules by 2% per level
I feel like a white girl. I literally can't even.
Just axe the whole concept of skills for Citadels, and make their functionality 100% based on the modules and rigs installed.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2365
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 20:45:17 -
[170] - Quote
RainReaper wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote: Why do you feel that Hi-Sec should be self sustainable?
because its always been a bit self sustainable. when ccp changed the static ice belts into ice anomalies they said that fuel sustainability in highsec would be around 4/5 out of that wich was needed. After these changes its not gonna be even 1/5 cause you get so damn little strontium in highsec. look im not trying to say we should be 100% self sustainable. But if we cant mine any decent amount of fuel here att all then highsec cant be home to all the structures that are gonna come. listen im not trying to **** you off here. im just saying that we need to be able to providefor ourselves a little. what if all the strontium in highsec gets brought up? if it runs out and null sec dosent sell any to high anymore? we will be in trouble then! Highsec has never been self-sustainable. You can't get zydrine or megacyte from highsec at all -- it has to come from without. Same for moongoo.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 21:02:03 -
[171] - Quote
Querns wrote:RainReaper wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote: Why do you feel that Hi-Sec should be self sustainable?
because its always been a bit self sustainable. when ccp changed the static ice belts into ice anomalies they said that fuel sustainability in highsec would be around 4/5 out of that wich was needed. After these changes its not gonna be even 1/5 cause you get so damn little strontium in highsec. look im not trying to say we should be 100% self sustainable. But if we cant mine any decent amount of fuel here att all then highsec cant be home to all the structures that are gonna come. listen im not trying to **** you off here. im just saying that we need to be able to providefor ourselves a little. what if all the strontium in highsec gets brought up? if it runs out and null sec dosent sell any to high anymore? we will be in trouble then! Highsec has never been self-sustainable. You can't get zydrine or megacyte from highsec at all -- it has to come from without. Same for moongoo.
you can get zydrine from highsec mining anomalies. and megacyte from mission running. again not enough for 100% self sustaining. but i said i dont want highsec to be 100% self sustainable. but dont lie and say you cant get any att all. cause thats not true. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1896
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 22:07:43 -
[172] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Dev Blog wrote:
- Prevent some poor soul from having to stay forever locked inside a Citadel to provide skill-level related bonuses
(then literally in the next paragraph) We are still going to require a few skills to operate the structures and give few bonuses...
- Structure Missile Systems: increases damage by 2% of all Structure Missile Launchers per level
- Structure Defensive Systems: reduces capacitor need of all structure defensive modules by 2% per level (not listing specific modules here since most of them wonGÇÖt make it in the first Citadel release)
- Structure Electronic Systems: reduces capacitor need of Electronic Warfare, ship tractor beam, and bumping modules by 2% per level
- Structure Engineering Systems: reduces capacitor need of the Doomsday Device and Capacitor Warfare modules by 2% per level
I feel like a white girl. I literally can't even. Just axe the whole concept of skills for Citadels, and make their functionality 100% based on the modules and rigs installed.
Maybe I'm misremembering but I thought they said at some point that citadels won't auto-defend - someone will have to actually "pilot" them for combat purposes. So, there's really nothing wrong with this, if that's the case, and the two statements are certainly not inconsistent.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1556
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 22:17:33 -
[173] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:Fuelling stations now, great. The game is getting further and further away from the things that make it fun and clogging you down with more and more micromanagement. You should be freeing up our time to focus on the fun things in Eve, not tying us down further with logistics.
but some people find the logistical aspects fun this game isn't just about you
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Alexis Nightwish
413
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 22:21:20 -
[174] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Alright, update regarding the stront numbers:
- We're going to decrease required stront numbers from 400 to 200 for a batch of 40 fuel blocks.
- Stront volume is being decreased from 3 to 2m3.
- Stront consumption of triage and siege modules will increase by 50% to compensate. This puts consumption at 375m3 for Siege Modules and 375 / 300 for Triage I / II
- Entosis Links are not affected.
Edit: also renaming fuel blocks from racial fuel block to isotope fuel block, should reduce confusion since the new structures don't have different racial themes.
- Helium Fuel Block, Nitrogen Fuel Block, Oxygen Fuel Block, Hydrogen Fuel Block
Stealth buff to POS reinforcement times, or is this change only being implemented when POSs are finally phased out of EVE?
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Alexis Nightwish
413
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 22:35:01 -
[175] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Dev Blog wrote:
- Prevent some poor soul from having to stay forever locked inside a Citadel to provide skill-level related bonuses
(then literally in the next paragraph) We are still going to require a few skills to operate the structures and give few bonuses...
- Structure Missile Systems: increases damage by 2% of all Structure Missile Launchers per level
- Structure Defensive Systems: reduces capacitor need of all structure defensive modules by 2% per level (not listing specific modules here since most of them wonGÇÖt make it in the first Citadel release)
- Structure Electronic Systems: reduces capacitor need of Electronic Warfare, ship tractor beam, and bumping modules by 2% per level
- Structure Engineering Systems: reduces capacitor need of the Doomsday Device and Capacitor Warfare modules by 2% per level
I feel like a white girl. I literally can't even. Just axe the whole concept of skills for Citadels, and make their functionality 100% based on the modules and rigs installed. Maybe I'm misremembering but I thought they said at some point that citadels won't auto-defend - someone will have to actually "pilot" them for combat purposes. So, there's really nothing wrong with this, if that's the case, and the two statements are certainly not inconsistent. You're correct that Citadels won't auto-defend. However my point still stands that Citadels will be the new space coffins, and that the idea of skills affecting Citadels is a terrible one.
Our Citadel in XY-123 is under attack? *checks spreadsheet for XY's Citadel gunner* *logs into the appropriate alt with V in all Citadel skills*
Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for Citadels needing someone there to "pilot" them. However, having character skills affect the performance of the Citadel will only hurt small groups, as large ones will have no trouble providing alts for the role.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
553
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 22:53:16 -
[176] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Alright, update regarding the stront numbers:
- We're going to decrease required stront numbers from 400 to 200 for a batch of 40 fuel blocks.
- Stront volume is being decreased from 3 to 2m3.
- Stront consumption of triage and siege modules will increase by 50% to compensate. This puts consumption at 375m3 for Siege Modules and 375 / 300 for Triage I / II
- Entosis Links are not affected.
Edit: also renaming fuel blocks from racial fuel block to isotope fuel block, should reduce confusion since the new structures don't have different racial themes.
- Helium Fuel Block, Nitrogen Fuel Block, Oxygen Fuel Block, Hydrogen Fuel Block
Can you clarify if this change is coming at release of the first citadels, or once POS are removed?
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2971
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 23:49:37 -
[177] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote: Maybe I'm misremembering but I thought they said at some point that citadels won't auto-defend - someone will have to actually "pilot" them for combat purposes. So, there's really nothing wrong with this, if that's the case, and the two statements are certainly not inconsistent. Our Citadel in XY-123 is under attack? *checks spreadsheet for XY's Citadel gunner* *logs into the appropriate alt with V in all Citadel skills*
Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for Citadels needing someone there to "pilot" them. However, having character skills affect the performance of the Citadel will only hurt small groups, as large ones will have no trouble providing alts for the role.
They are proposing 4 2* skills for Citadels. If your pilots refuse to train them to IV, then your problem is in your alliance. It's not like they are demanding 6 months of training just for Citadels. (Quote got messed up, I apologise if it's misquoting) |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1898
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 00:37:50 -
[178] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote: Maybe I'm misremembering but I thought they said at some point that citadels won't auto-defend - someone will have to actually "pilot" them for combat purposes. So, there's really nothing wrong with this, if that's the case, and the two statements are certainly not inconsistent. Our Citadel in XY-123 is under attack? *checks spreadsheet for XY's Citadel gunner* *logs into the appropriate alt with V in all Citadel skills*
Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for Citadels needing someone there to "pilot" them. However, having character skills affect the performance of the Citadel will only hurt small groups, as large ones will have no trouble providing alts for the role.
They are proposing 4 2* skills for Citadels. If your pilots refuse to train them to IV, then your problem is in your alliance. It's not like they are demanding 6 months of training just for Citadels. (Quote got messed up, I apologise if it's misquoting)
Pretty much this.
They're rank 2s with a 2%/lvl effect. If you feel it's required to ensconce a character there for all time, it's a function of neurosis, not a gameplay necessity.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Gyges Skyeye
Delusions of Adequacy Get Off My Lawn
36
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 09:21:25 -
[179] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:A suggestion on the stront issue: Make strontium clathrates refine into strontium isotopes with a much lower volume for use in fuel. No issues rebalancing anything else that uses existing stront then.
I nominate this guy for best solution to the stront issue. I will expand on this by suggesting that stront be held out of the fuel block recipe and be consumed directly from the structure fuel bay. This way you don't have to touch POS chains at all until you axe them entirely.
Stretch goal; Give each structure module a preferred fuel block. Consume additional strontium isotopes above base cost if preferred fuel block is not available.
Querns wrote:Glad to see more details! Thanks for the info.
The reprocessing rigs have me a little worried. Right now, the maximum base reprocessing rate available in highsec is 52%, but with drilling platforms, you can get 59%, and nullsec gets its 60%. I feel like this is a pretty drastic increase in highsec reprocessing efficiency; is there a reason why it's such a large increase?
I identify with this.
I know that it has been mentioned that these values will be adjusted. I'm going to lay out another reason to nerf bat the highsec rates.
Right now in industry there is a division of labor amongst structures. The structure where you get your best refine is not where the greatest bonuses to creating and marketing finished goods is. You are incentivized to refine in a minmatar station then haul it to an amarr station to build a product then haul it to a market hub for sale. This creates a gradient where people can choose the convenience of doing the entire process in one location or opt to derive savings from adding in extra steps.
The proposed system seems to suggest that the new citadels are going to be the Mary Sue of structures. They will do it all, and they will do it perfectly. I know you are offering the refining rigs before the drilling structures come out thinking it will be nice... but that rush to onboard people into the new system is going to squash a lot of economic niches in the process.
Following on this, the convenience that you are proposing of refine+build+market with no hauling, in the safety of high sec is not being accounted for in the described rates. One can validly make the argument that high sec refine rates of citadels should be lower than a POS in highsec today because you can sell the finished product directly from the citadel but can not do so from the POS. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4491
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 12:54:22 -
[180] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Alright, update regarding the stront numbers:
- We're going to decrease required stront numbers from 400 to 200 for a batch of 40 fuel blocks.
- Stront volume is being decreased from 3 to 2m3.
- Stront consumption of triage and siege modules will increase by 50% to compensate. This puts consumption at 375m3 for Siege Modules and 375 / 300 for Triage I / II
- Entosis Links are not affected.
Edit: also renaming fuel blocks from racial fuel block to isotope fuel block, should reduce confusion since the new structures don't have different racial themes.
- Helium Fuel Block, Nitrogen Fuel Block, Oxygen Fuel Block, Hydrogen Fuel Block
Can you clarify if this change is coming at release of the first citadels, or once POS are removed?
First release. |
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2372
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 13:23:45 -
[181] - Quote
RainReaper wrote:Querns wrote:RainReaper wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote: Why do you feel that Hi-Sec should be self sustainable?
because its always been a bit self sustainable. when ccp changed the static ice belts into ice anomalies they said that fuel sustainability in highsec would be around 4/5 out of that wich was needed. After these changes its not gonna be even 1/5 cause you get so damn little strontium in highsec. look im not trying to say we should be 100% self sustainable. But if we cant mine any decent amount of fuel here att all then highsec cant be home to all the structures that are gonna come. listen im not trying to **** you off here. im just saying that we need to be able to providefor ourselves a little. what if all the strontium in highsec gets brought up? if it runs out and null sec dosent sell any to high anymore? we will be in trouble then! Highsec has never been self-sustainable. You can't get zydrine or megacyte from highsec at all -- it has to come from without. Same for moongoo. you can get zydrine from highsec mining anomalies. and megacyte from mission running. again not enough for 100% self sustaining. but i said i dont want highsec to be 100% self sustainable. but dont lie and say you cant get any att all. cause thats not true. They removed megacyte from missions, if I remember correctly.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 14:07:41 -
[182] - Quote
So how is one susposed to aquire enough strontium to make blocks.
krystallos gives the most stront at 145 after refine. Okay nice but it also gives 580 LO. While i Only need 160 LO vs 200 stront.
So to import enough strontium I will have to overbuy LO by 4 times I need. And then we didnt even started getting Heavy Water or the Isotopes which will also come with their own supply of LO. So its more like you will end up with like 6 to 8 times teh amount of LO required.
And importing raw strontium from jita isnt really feasable either, because A there isnt alot in there, and B its still big as **** |
Basjee
Dirt Farmers Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 14:25:42 -
[183] - Quote
So now the game includes two new features - any sufficiently moneyed noob can skill to the same level as a two year old toon in days, and to level the playing field between noobs and veteran players anyone can sport fancy new space stations anywhere in hisec. I'm not completely sure it's worth even trying to skill anything anymore - just wait a couple of years and start a new account - as time in game is now meaningless. |
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
1465
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 15:27:15 -
[184] - Quote
So it sounds like fuel block costs will be going up with the stront addition, so the current poses will become more expensive to operate. Will the fuel consumption on those be reduced to compensate?
Also, will it be possible for a weapon operator in a citadel to get the citadel Concorded? What kind of safety feature or target limiting will apply to that?
Do not run. We are your friends.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2372
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 15:42:57 -
[185] - Quote
Basjee wrote:So now the game includes two new features - any sufficiently moneyed noob can skill to the same level as a two year old toon in days, and to level the playing field between noobs and veteran players anyone can sport fancy new space stations anywhere in hisec. I'm not completely sure it's worth even trying to skill anything anymore - just wait a couple of years and start a new account - as time in game is now meaningless. The character bazaar has made Eve this way for years. Nothing has changed.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 16:05:07 -
[186] - Quote
Tyranis Marcus wrote:So it sounds like fuel block costs will be going up with the stront addition, so the current poses will become more expensive to operate. Will the fuel consumption on those be reduced to compensate?.................
It would be kind of silly if they did - given the realistic desire to wish to encourage people to remove POSes in favour of Citadels.
Which is why, perhaps, that the 'Assembly Arrays' and 'Drilling Rigs' may need to come sooner rather than later...
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 16:10:21 -
[187] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Alright, update regarding the stront numbers:
- We're going to decrease required stront numbers from 400 to 200 for a batch of 40 fuel blocks.
- Stront volume is being decreased from 3 to 2m3.
- Stront consumption of triage and siege modules will increase by 50% to compensate. This puts consumption at 375m3 for Siege Modules and 375 / 300 for Triage I / II
- Entosis Links are not affected.
Edit: also renaming fuel blocks from racial fuel block to isotope fuel block, should reduce confusion since the new structures don't have different racial themes.
- Helium Fuel Block, Nitrogen Fuel Block, Oxygen Fuel Block, Hydrogen Fuel Block
I spent a big chunk of last night looking at the numbers for strontium in the various ice anomalies across New Eden and working out how the inclusion of Strontium in fuel blocks would affect fuel production, and the very TL;DR is that 200 Stront/40 blocks isn't sustainable with current ice makeup.
Here is the Google Spreadsheet I made to keep track of the various numbers as I went through each stage from ice to fuel blocks and how much each anomaly can support, plus what it over-produces. Since I'm not sure how much sense it's going to make to other people, I'll explain it here:
Currently (IE without strontium in fuel blocks) hisec and lowsec ice anomalies are capped in how many fuel blocks they can produce by the amount of Liquid Ozone in their ice. That means that they over-produce heavy water and racial isotopes, some of which gets used for jump drives or Industrial Cores, some of which gets exported to null. Nullsec ice anomalies are the opposite, their fuel block production is capped by the availability of racial isotopes, meaning they over-produce liquid ozone and heavy water, some of which gets used in cynos and jump bridges, some of which gets exported to hisec (or combined with racial isotopes imported from hisec). Thus null and high exchange resources the other lacks and the invisible hand of economics keeps everyone busy doing their thing.
With the addition of Strontium to fuel blocks, that all flies out the window - at 200 stront per 40 blocks, Stront becomes the single limiter for how many blocks can be produced per anomaly in all classes of space. Every other ice product is over-production - to a ridiculous extent in the case of hisec anomalies (enough racial isotopes for 77.8k blocks, not enough stront for 400) but also to a significant extent in both varieties of nullsec anomaly as well. This is compounded by the fact that there's no effective way to cherry-pick the "good" ice in nullsec - the only way to respawn an anomaly is to completely clear it of all ice and then wait 4 hours, so overproduction of non-stront ice products is an unavoidable by-product of maximising stront production.
More important than how much this will mess up the economy for ice products (massive spike in Stront prices, sharp drop in value for every other ice product), the numbers for how many fuel blocks New Eden as a whole can produce are going to fall way, way down. Looking only at local production (IE ignoring the fact that hisec and nullsec can currently trade their overproduction with one another to make even more fuel, which won't be the case with a stront bottleneck), hisec, lowsec and nullsec anomalies in 0.0 to -0.5 truesec systems will all be down to producing less than 10% of the fuel blocks they're currently able to produce, while even the -0.5 and lower truesec null anomalies will be down to 20% of their present day limit. I'm sure that nullsec ice is under-utilized compared to hisec, but even if that changed to the extent that every anomaly was cleared 5 times per day (more-or-less peak production given the 4 hour respawn time for each anomaly) there's no way it could make up for that 80-90% drop off in potential production. |
Circumstantial Evidence
257
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 16:29:13 -
[188] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Alright, update regarding the stront numbers:
- We're going to decrease required stront numbers from 400 to 200 for a batch of 40 fuel blocks.
- Stront volume is being decreased from 3 to 2m3.
- Stront consumption of triage and siege modules will increase by 50% to compensate. This puts consumption at 375m3 for Siege Modules and 375 / 300 for Triage I / II
- Entosis Links are not affected.
Still seems to ask POS operators to pay more for fuel in order to support removal of stront reinforcement by Citadels, before all POS are removed. These systems will operate in parallel for a long time. Increases POS reinforcement time window. Perhaps POS operators could think of extended RF timing as a benefit, for their increased expenses?
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1904
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 17:23:01 -
[189] - Quote
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Alright, update regarding the stront numbers:
- We're going to decrease required stront numbers from 400 to 200 for a batch of 40 fuel blocks.
- Stront volume is being decreased from 3 to 2m3.
- Stront consumption of triage and siege modules will increase by 50% to compensate. This puts consumption at 375m3 for Siege Modules and 375 / 300 for Triage I / II
- Entosis Links are not affected.
Edit: also renaming fuel blocks from racial fuel block to isotope fuel block, should reduce confusion since the new structures don't have different racial themes.
- Helium Fuel Block, Nitrogen Fuel Block, Oxygen Fuel Block, Hydrogen Fuel Block
I spent a big chunk of last night looking at the numbers for strontium in the various ice anomalies across New Eden and working out how the inclusion of Strontium in fuel blocks would affect fuel production, and the very TL;DR is that 200 Stront/40 blocks isn't sustainable with current ice makeup. Here is the Google Spreadsheet I made to keep track of the various numbers as I went through each stage from ice to fuel blocks and how much each anomaly can support, plus what it over-produces. Since I'm not sure how much sense it's going to make to other people, I'll explain it here: Currently (IE without strontium in fuel blocks) hisec and lowsec ice anomalies are capped in how many fuel blocks they can produce by the amount of Liquid Ozone in their ice. That means that they over-produce heavy water and racial isotopes, some of which gets used for jump drives or Industrial Cores, some of which gets exported to null. Nullsec ice anomalies are the opposite, their fuel block production is capped by the availability of racial isotopes, meaning they over-produce liquid ozone and heavy water, some of which gets used in cynos and jump bridges, some of which gets exported to hisec (or combined with racial isotopes imported from hisec). Thus null and high exchange resources the other lacks and the invisible hand of economics keeps everyone busy doing their thing. With the addition of Strontium to fuel blocks, that all flies out the window - at 200 stront per 40 blocks, Stront becomes the single limiter for how many blocks can be produced per anomaly in all classes of space. Every other ice product is over-production - to a ridiculous extent in the case of hisec anomalies (enough racial isotopes for 77.8k blocks, not enough stront for 400) but also to a significant extent in both varieties of nullsec anomaly as well. This is compounded by the fact that there's no effective way to cherry-pick the "good" ice in nullsec - the only way to respawn an anomaly is to completely clear it of all ice and then wait 4 hours, so overproduction of non-stront ice products is an unavoidable by-product of maximising stront production. More important than how much this will mess up the economy for ice products (massive spike in Stront prices, sharp drop in value for every other ice product), the numbers for how many fuel blocks New Eden as a whole can produce are going to fall way, way down. Looking only at local production (IE ignoring the fact that hisec and nullsec can currently trade their overproduction with one another to make even more fuel, which won't be the case with a stront bottleneck), hisec, lowsec and nullsec anomalies in 0.0 to -0.5 truesec systems will all be down to producing less than 10% of the fuel blocks they're currently able to produce, while even the -0.5 and lower truesec null anomalies will be down to 20% of their present day limit. I'm sure that nullsec ice is under-utilized compared to hisec, but even if that changed to the extent that every anomaly was cleared 5 times per day (more-or-less peak production given the 4 hour respawn time for each anomaly) there's no way it could make up for that 80-90% drop off in potential production.
Good stuff. I had been comparing market volume of fuel blocks Vs. strontium and, even if you assume only half of the fuel moved on the market is actually consumed, the numbers looked absurd.
The stated intent was:
Quote:Since Citadels donGÇÖt use Strontium Clathrates for their reinforcement mode, we will add this particular material into the composition of the four existing fuel blocks to maintain its demand.
But from what I can tell, total stront consumption (not just what is consumed by reinforcement, but all of it), at present, doesn't even BEGIN to approach a ratio of 5:1 with fuel block consumption. This does not seem to "maintain demand" so much as "create a brand new, very tight demand bottleneck".
It would be nice to know the true universal consumption rate of fuel blocks and stront. I would ASSUME they had at least looked at those values before coming up with this, but from what I can tell they just pulled a number out of a hat and said, "EH, 400 should do it. No? you guys don't like that? So... 200?"
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
802
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 18:07:29 -
[190] - Quote
Stront use in citidels has to be higher than current use because currently it is a garbage byproduct ice, rather than the King Of Ices like it was supposed to be. |
|
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 18:14:01 -
[191] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Stront use in citidels has to be higher than current use because currently it is a garbage byproduct ice, rather than the King Of Ices like it was supposed to be.
I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed the slightly important point that the proposed stront use vastly out-strips stront production across all of New Eden. |
Kazaheid Zaknafein
Legio IX Ferox
31
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 18:18:24 -
[192] - Quote
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Stront use in citidels has to be higher than current use because currently it is a garbage byproduct ice, rather than the King Of Ices like it was supposed to be. I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed the slightly important point that the proposed stront use vastly out-strips stront production across all of New Eden.
This is why they need to find a happy balance between absurdity and uselessness. They need to find an ammount that uses less stront than can actually be produced. With the current numbers and ratios offered, we will literally burn out all the ice in game and not have enough fuel to actually run anything.
But on a side note, how many citadels will actually be burning fuel, without having any services onlined you can have your battle station in space with its mooring system and all; and consume absolutely 0 fuel. |
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 18:22:21 -
[193] - Quote
Querns wrote:RainReaper wrote:Querns wrote:RainReaper wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote: Why do you feel that Hi-Sec should be self sustainable?
because its always been a bit self sustainable. when ccp changed the static ice belts into ice anomalies they said that fuel sustainability in highsec would be around 4/5 out of that wich was needed. After these changes its not gonna be even 1/5 cause you get so damn little strontium in highsec. look im not trying to say we should be 100% self sustainable. But if we cant mine any decent amount of fuel here att all then highsec cant be home to all the structures that are gonna come. listen im not trying to **** you off here. im just saying that we need to be able to providefor ourselves a little. what if all the strontium in highsec gets brought up? if it runs out and null sec dosent sell any to high anymore? we will be in trouble then! Highsec has never been self-sustainable. You can't get zydrine or megacyte from highsec at all -- it has to come from without. Same for moongoo. you can get zydrine from highsec mining anomalies. and megacyte from mission running. again not enough for 100% self sustaining. but i said i dont want highsec to be 100% self sustainable. but dont lie and say you cant get any att all. cause thats not true. They removed megacyte from missions, if I remember correctly.
you can get the megacyte from the loot by reprocessing the stuff. again not 100% enough. but its possible to get a bit |
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 18:28:01 -
[194] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Jinrai Tremaine wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Alright, update regarding the stront numbers:
- We're going to decrease required stront numbers from 400 to 200 for a batch of 40 fuel blocks.
- Stront volume is being decreased from 3 to 2m3.
- Stront consumption of triage and siege modules will increase by 50% to compensate. This puts consumption at 375m3 for Siege Modules and 375 / 300 for Triage I / II
- Entosis Links are not affected.
Edit: also renaming fuel blocks from racial fuel block to isotope fuel block, should reduce confusion since the new structures don't have different racial themes.
- Helium Fuel Block, Nitrogen Fuel Block, Oxygen Fuel Block, Hydrogen Fuel Block
I spent a big chunk of last night looking at the numbers for strontium in the various ice anomalies across New Eden and working out how the inclusion of Strontium in fuel blocks would affect fuel production, and the very TL;DR is that 200 Stront/40 blocks isn't sustainable with current ice makeup. Here is the Google Spreadsheet I made to keep track of the various numbers as I went through each stage from ice to fuel blocks and how much each anomaly can support, plus what it over-produces. Since I'm not sure how much sense it's going to make to other people, I'll explain it here: Currently (IE without strontium in fuel blocks) hisec and lowsec ice anomalies are capped in how many fuel blocks they can produce by the amount of Liquid Ozone in their ice. That means that they over-produce heavy water and racial isotopes, some of which gets used for jump drives or Industrial Cores, some of which gets exported to null. Nullsec ice anomalies are the opposite, their fuel block production is capped by the availability of racial isotopes, meaning they over-produce liquid ozone and heavy water, some of which gets used in cynos and jump bridges, some of which gets exported to hisec (or combined with racial isotopes imported from hisec). Thus null and high exchange resources the other lacks and the invisible hand of economics keeps everyone busy doing their thing. With the addition of Strontium to fuel blocks, that all flies out the window - at 200 stront per 40 blocks, Stront becomes the single limiter for how many blocks can be produced per anomaly in all classes of space. Every other ice product is over-production - to a ridiculous extent in the case of hisec anomalies (enough racial isotopes for 77.8k blocks, not enough stront for 400) but also to a significant extent in both varieties of nullsec anomaly as well. This is compounded by the fact that there's no effective way to cherry-pick the "good" ice in nullsec - the only way to respawn an anomaly is to completely clear it of all ice and then wait 4 hours, so overproduction of non-stront ice products is an unavoidable by-product of maximising stront production. More important than how much this will mess up the economy for ice products (massive spike in Stront prices, sharp drop in value for every other ice product), the numbers for how many fuel blocks New Eden as a whole can produce are going to fall way, way down. Looking only at local production (IE ignoring the fact that hisec and nullsec can currently trade their overproduction with one another to make even more fuel, which won't be the case with a stront bottleneck), hisec, lowsec and nullsec anomalies in 0.0 to -0.5 truesec systems will all be down to producing less than 10% of the fuel blocks they're currently able to produce, while even the -0.5 and lower truesec null anomalies will be down to 20% of their present day limit. I'm sure that nullsec ice is under-utilized compared to hisec, but even if that changed to the extent that every anomaly was cleared 5 times per day (more-or-less peak production given the 4 hour respawn time for each anomaly) there's no way it could make up for that 80-90% drop off in potential production. Good stuff. I had been comparing market volume of fuel blocks Vs. strontium and, even if you assume only half of the fuel moved on the market is actually consumed, the numbers looked absurd. The stated intent was: Quote:Since Citadels donGÇÖt use Strontium Clathrates for their reinforcement mode, we will add this particular material into the composition of the four existing fuel blocks to maintain its demand. But from what I can tell, total stront consumption (not just what is consumed by reinforcement, but all of it), at present, doesn't even BEGIN to approach a ratio of 5:1 with fuel block consumption. This does not seem to "maintain demand" so much as "create a brand new, very tight supply bottleneck". It would be nice to know the true universal consumption rate of fuel blocks and stront. I would ASSUME they had at least looked at those values before coming up with this, but from what I can tell they just pulled a number out of a hat and said, "EH, 400 should do it. No? you guys don't like that? So... 200?"
lets not forget the fact that "starbases" wont be limited anymore to the amount of moons in a system... we could get maybe twice the amount of structures we curently got... everywhere.. im having nightmares right now about all the fights ower strontium cause there wont be close to enough stront ANYWHERE! not even in NULL! |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2372
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 18:34:10 -
[195] - Quote
RainReaper wrote: you can get the megacyte from the loot by reprocessing the stuff. again not 100% enough. but its possible to get a bit
And you can get strontium clathrates from reprocessing racial ice, so by your logic, nothing needs to change! I'm glad we agree.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2372
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 18:36:40 -
[196] - Quote
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Stront use in citidels has to be higher than current use because currently it is a garbage byproduct ice, rather than the King Of Ices like it was supposed to be. I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed the slightly important point that the proposed stront use vastly out-strips stront production across all of New Eden. It's pretty pointless to compare current stront production to post-citadel stront production. Right now, strontium is a waste product that has almost no use and is too large to be profitable to move to market. Correspondingly, it is a low-value target for ice miners. After the change, production will increase, not only as existing ice miners increasingly target Krystallos (and dump their stores of strontium,) but by the attraction of new ice miners to a supply that is only partially exploited now.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 18:39:14 -
[197] - Quote
Querns wrote:RainReaper wrote: you can get the megacyte from the loot by reprocessing the stuff. again not 100% enough. but its possible to get a bit
And you can get strontium clathrates from reprocessing racial ice, so by your logic, nothing needs to change! I'm glad we agree. ... listen buddy not even NULL SEC is gonna be able to mine enough stront to sustain itself. megacyte and zyrdine consumtion dosent change. but we got a 10% stront bottleneck like Jinrai Tremaine said in a fev posts back. null got a 20% stront bottle neck. fuel production goes to **** with this EVERYWHERE. but sure well see what happens. just dont go and complain that you guys cant maintain your structures services cause you cant make enough fuel there in goonspace. this affect us ALL |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2372
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 18:45:02 -
[198] - Quote
RainReaper wrote:Querns wrote:RainReaper wrote: you can get the megacyte from the loot by reprocessing the stuff. again not 100% enough. but its possible to get a bit
And you can get strontium clathrates from reprocessing racial ice, so by your logic, nothing needs to change! I'm glad we agree. ... listen buddy not even NULL SEC is gonna be able to mine enough stront to sustain itself. megacyte and zyrdine consumtion dosent change. but we got a 10% stront bottleneck like Jinrai Tremaine said in a fev posts back. null got a 20% stront bottle neck. fuel production goes to **** with this EVERYWHERE. but sure well see what happens. just dont go and complain that you guys cant maintain your structures services cause you cant make enough fuel there in goonspace. this affect us ALL There's always a bottleneck to production. These bottlenecks change occasionally. Adapt.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 18:47:36 -
[199] - Quote
Querns wrote:RainReaper wrote:Querns wrote:RainReaper wrote: you can get the megacyte from the loot by reprocessing the stuff. again not 100% enough. but its possible to get a bit
And you can get strontium clathrates from reprocessing racial ice, so by your logic, nothing needs to change! I'm glad we agree. ... listen buddy not even NULL SEC is gonna be able to mine enough stront to sustain itself. megacyte and zyrdine consumtion dosent change. but we got a 10% stront bottleneck like Jinrai Tremaine said in a fev posts back. null got a 20% stront bottle neck. fuel production goes to **** with this EVERYWHERE. but sure well see what happens. just dont go and complain that you guys cant maintain your structures services cause you cant make enough fuel there in goonspace. this affect us ALL There's always a bottleneck to production. These bottlenecks change occasionally. Adapt.
bottlenecks can indeed change. however bottlenecks dosent tend to go from decent and sustainable to DEATHCHOKE in an instant |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1908
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 18:53:50 -
[200] - Quote
Querns wrote:Jinrai Tremaine wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Stront use in citidels has to be higher than current use because currently it is a garbage byproduct ice, rather than the King Of Ices like it was supposed to be. I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed the slightly important point that the proposed stront use vastly out-strips stront production across all of New Eden. It's pretty pointless to compare current stront production to post-citadel stront production. Right now, strontium is a waste product that has almost no use and is too large to be profitable to move to market. Correspondingly, it is a low-value target for ice miners. After the change, production will increase, not only as existing ice miners increasingly target Krystallos (and dump their stores of strontium,) but by the attraction of new ice miners to a supply that is only partially exploited now.
The production value is what is produced in the belts, not what is actually harvested, so this is a non-point.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2372
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 18:53:53 -
[201] - Quote
RainReaper wrote:Querns wrote:RainReaper wrote:Querns wrote:RainReaper wrote: you can get the megacyte from the loot by reprocessing the stuff. again not 100% enough. but its possible to get a bit
And you can get strontium clathrates from reprocessing racial ice, so by your logic, nothing needs to change! I'm glad we agree. ... listen buddy not even NULL SEC is gonna be able to mine enough stront to sustain itself. megacyte and zyrdine consumtion dosent change. but we got a 10% stront bottleneck like Jinrai Tremaine said in a fev posts back. null got a 20% stront bottle neck. fuel production goes to **** with this EVERYWHERE. but sure well see what happens. just dont go and complain that you guys cant maintain your structures services cause you cant make enough fuel there in goonspace. this affect us ALL There's always a bottleneck to production. These bottlenecks change occasionally. Adapt. bottlenecks can indeed change. however bottlenecks dosent tend to go from decent and sustainable to DEATHCHOKE in an instant People were saying the same thing about Liquid Ozone last time, too. Yet, here we are, with LO3 barely affected.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 19:02:02 -
[202] - Quote
People were saying the same thing about Liquid Ozone last time, too. Yet, here we are, with LO3 barely affected.[/quote]
I havent heard of this. and its not something that even can be compared in the same way. The amount of LO3 we have gained from ice have been the same as far as i know ever since it was added to the game. Hell its INCREASED with the refining changed back in the crius update. This however is more than a bottle neck cause strontium have always been kind of a waste product cause you get so little. And when SUDDENLY we need 200 for each and every manufacturing of 40 blocks things get insane! Sure there is A LOT of stront curently. But after a while all that saved up stront is gonna disapear into the fuel blocks. and then when there is none left fuel production will halt as well. Then we are F**KED as industry goes to hell! |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1908
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 19:31:02 -
[203] - Quote
Querns wrote: People were saying the same thing about Liquid Ozone last time, too. Yet, here we are, with LO3 barely affected.
Before: Fully mining out a high sec belt provides fuel for a single large tower for 436 hours. After: Fully mining out a high sec belt would provide enough stront to fuel a single large tower for <10 hours.
Before: Fully mining out a deep null belt provides enough fuel to run a single large tower for 3670 hours. After: Fully mining out a deep null sec belt would provide enough stront to fuel a single large tower for 699 hours.
Not exactly the same thing as liquid O, which is basically the bottleneck that gives the "before" values.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 19:33:15 -
[204] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Querns wrote: People were saying the same thing about Liquid Ozone last time, too. Yet, here we are, with LO3 barely affected.
Before: Fully mining out a high sec belt provides fuel for a single large tower for 436 hours. After: Fully mining out a high sec belt would provide enough stront to fuel a single large tower for <10 hours. Before: Fully mining out a deep null belt provides enough fuel to run a single large tower for 3670 hours. After: Fully mining out a deep null sec belt would provide enough stront to fuel a single large tower for 699 hours. Not exactly the same thing as liquid O, which is basically the bottleneck that gives the "before" values.
at least some people here gets it! |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
802
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 19:37:52 -
[205] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Querns wrote: People were saying the same thing about Liquid Ozone last time, too. Yet, here we are, with LO3 barely affected.
Before: Fully mining out a high sec belt provides fuel for a single large tower for 436 hours. After: Fully mining out a high sec belt would provide enough stront to fuel a single large tower for <10 hours. Before: Fully mining out a deep null belt provides enough fuel to run a single large tower for 3670 hours. After: Fully mining out a deep null sec belt would provide enough stront to fuel a single large tower for 699 hours. Not exactly the same thing as liquid O, which is basically the bottleneck that gives the "before" values. The overwhelming majority of deep null belts are not cycled. There is plenty of room here. |
A'Tolkar
Carlson's Raiders
37
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 19:45:00 -
[206] - Quote
CCP: If you are going to seed Light Fighters and Support Fighters skill books in the February release in preparation for the Citadels spring expansion, would it also not make sense to have also seeded the BPOs for the following:
- Structure Advertisement Nexus
- Structure Telescope Lens
- Structure Acceleration Coils
Honestly I think this has slipped through the cracks, because in the DevBlog (Building your Citadel....) a December release was pondered as being considered. Now we're in February. |
unidenify
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
177
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 20:07:23 -
[207] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Querns wrote: People were saying the same thing about Liquid Ozone last time, too. Yet, here we are, with LO3 barely affected.
Before: Fully mining out a high sec belt provides fuel for a single large tower for 436 hours. After: Fully mining out a high sec belt would provide enough stront to fuel a single large tower for <10 hours. Before: Fully mining out a deep null belt provides enough fuel to run a single large tower for 3670 hours. After: Fully mining out a deep null sec belt would provide enough stront to fuel a single large tower for 699 hours. Not exactly the same thing as liquid O, which is basically the bottleneck that gives the "before" values.
so, demand will increase while supply stay mean that more isk for Null alliance to spent on
won't be surprised to see a lot of organized ice mining fleet if stront price smash through roof |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
553
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 00:18:22 -
[208] - Quote
Well at this rate stront is the oil that ice should have been years ago. Ready for the hilarity to ensue. |
Decarthado Aurgnet
Imperial Combat Engineers Empire of Arcadia
41
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 00:24:32 -
[209] - Quote
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:the very TL;DR is that 200 Stront/40 blocks isn't sustainable with current ice makeup.
Somebody give this pilot a medal for saying what all of us (except CCP) was thinking.
The point of ice belts, in their current iteration, was to limit the amount of POS fuel which could be produced in high security space. If you, CCP, want to further curb how much fuel we can make, then this will certainly do the job with flair. In a world where you want strontium to not be worthless but to also not have it destroy the fuel market, you should strongly consider absolutely no more than 2 or 3 strontium per batch of fuel blocks unless you greatly increase how much strontium is in all forms of ice across the board.
Remove T2 BPO's or make them inventable at extreme cost.
|
Sohala Thiesant
Imperial Combat Engineers Empire of Arcadia
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 01:36:15 -
[210] - Quote
When I first saw the number 400 (for strontium ) in the post I took it for a typo, I ran some rough math on it quickly, deciding again it had to be a typo, but then I realized it was the actual proposed numbers.
After looking over Jinrai Tremaine's spreadsheet, I am just floored that such a number made it through.
I propose instead, an addition of 5 strontium per crafting of 40 fuel. Even with perfect nullsec refining, all faction ice that is being refined for fuel will be short strontium compared to the current ozone bottleneck, this should result in a demand for strontium in highsec and nullsec while also allowing those that wish to remain self-sufficient on faction ice to do so.
|
|
Alexis Nightwish
419
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 02:13:10 -
[211] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote: Maybe I'm misremembering but I thought they said at some point that citadels won't auto-defend - someone will have to actually "pilot" them for combat purposes. So, there's really nothing wrong with this, if that's the case, and the two statements are certainly not inconsistent. Our Citadel in XY-123 is under attack? *checks spreadsheet for XY's Citadel gunner* *logs into the appropriate alt with V in all Citadel skills*
Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for Citadels needing someone there to "pilot" them. However, having character skills affect the performance of the Citadel will only hurt small groups, as large ones will have no trouble providing alts for the role.
They are proposing 4 2* skills for Citadels. If your pilots refuse to train them to IV, then your problem is in your alliance. It's not like they are demanding 6 months of training just for Citadels. (Quote got messed up, I apologise if it's misquoting) Pretty much this. The need for an alt (which is questionable to begin with, given the weekly vulnerability windows) is not impacted in this scenario - only the skills on the alt. The skills are only rank 2s with a 2%/lvl effect. If you feel it's required to ensconce a maxed-out character there for all time, it's a function of neurosis, not a gameplay necessity. It's, what, a day and a half to get each skill to 4? Yes they're proposing four skills for now, but Citadels are going to be around forever. There's no way those four will be it, so this will happen again and again with the backlog of crap "mandatory" skills that new players would have to train will grow. And four 2x skills is the same as one 8x skill. And they could give 1/2% bonus per level. This is EVE. We go for every advantage we can get because our enemies do the same.
Also I do not like the idea of telling my corp "Hey, these stupid skills that you don't want to train are now mandatory. Have them trained to IV by next week. Oh and the fact that your mapping isn't optimal, too bad. Shoulda remapped to Charisma and Willpower, obviously." That's not a fun gameplay mechanic, and isn't good for the game.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2374
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 03:10:16 -
[212] - Quote
Decarthado Aurgnet wrote: The point of ice belts, in their current iteration, was to limit the amount of POS fuel which could be produced in high security space. If you, CCP, want to further curb how much fuel we can make, then this will certainly do the job with flair. In a world where you want strontium to not be worthless but to also not have it destroy the fuel market, you should strongly consider absolutely no more than 2 or 3 strontium per batch of fuel blocks unless you greatly increase how much strontium is in all forms of ice across the board.
This is false; ice has more uses than just fuel blocks. The point of contemporary ice belts was to make it actually worthwhile to mine ice outside of highsec.
The strontium change shuffles the bottleneck around a bit. True, at current production levels, there will likely be moderate difficulty sourcing strontium, but right now no one is targeting strontium for gathering due to its ornery volume and lack of use. After these changes take effect, it will be far more lucrative to mine (as the markets react, of course,) and easier to move as well.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Lquid Drisseg
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 08:12:35 -
[213] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Alright, update regarding the stront numbers:
- We're going to decrease required stront numbers from 400 to 200 for a batch of 40 fuel blocks.
- Stront volume is being decreased from 3 to 2m3.
- Stront consumption of triage and siege modules will increase by 50% to compensate. This puts consumption at 375m3 for Siege Modules and 375 / 300 for Triage I / II
- Entosis Links are not affected.
:words:
So your saying I need to get a hold of 140000 Stront to build enough blocks to fuel a Large POS for 30 days and I still need to, you know, actually fill the Stront bay of the tower because Stront in fuel blocks does nothing to a POS?
Lets do some quick math here: lets say there are 12k Large Towers worth of Fuel Blocks used a month in the entire game(which I think is low, but lets go with it). If you add stront at the quoted amounts to those fuel blocks, you are dumping an extra 3,360,000,000m3 (per mid) worth of logistics load on the game, per month, coming from nullsec to highsec. That's just under 9000 extra (per mid) trips in caldari jump freighters per month to keep things working as they currently are.
Do you really expect the dwindling eve nullsec player base to mine up +1,680,000,000 units of stront per month with no other changes to the stront make-up in ice?
If you guys plan on putting stront in fuel blocks you need to really sit down and run the numbers on this. I don't think you are taking this very seriously. This is potentially a game breaking change, and if implemented as is will have wild and unpredictable effects on reactions and **** blocks, and as a consequence the T2 markets. More changes and thought is needed. We have lots of time to think about and discuss the need for a reinforcement fuel for citadels. Lets not break the backbone of the T2 economy while doing it please.
My panties might be soiled but at least I don't wear them on my head. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1877
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 09:16:55 -
[214] - Quote
A'Tolkar wrote:CCP: If you are going to seed Light Fighters and Support Fighters skill books in the February release in preparation for the Citadels spring expansion, would it also not make sense to have also seeded the BPOs for the following:
- Structure Advertisement Nexus
- Structure Telescope Lens
- Structure Acceleration Coils
Honestly I think this has slipped through the cracks, because in the DevBlog (Building your Citadel....) a December release was being considered for the BPOs. Now we're in February.
Quote:We are planning to release the new structure skills and change the existing structure components as mentioned in the last Blog in March to give you guys some time to adjust before we release Citadels.
Akrasjel Lanate
Founder and CEO of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
4723
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 11:26:00 -
[215] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Querns wrote: People were saying the same thing about Liquid Ozone last time, too. Yet, here we are, with LO3 barely affected.
Before: Fully mining out a high sec belt provides fuel for a single large tower for 436 hours. After: Fully mining out a high sec belt would provide enough stront to fuel a single large tower for <10 hours. Before: Fully mining out a deep null belt provides enough fuel to run a single large tower for 3670 hours. After: Fully mining out a deep null sec belt would provide enough stront to fuel a single large tower for 699 hours. Not exactly the same thing as liquid O, which is basically the bottleneck that gives the "before" values.
That's beyond silly, it's downright insane. Has CCP even run the numbers? (hint: saying "400, uh ho no, now it's 200" doesn't seems like they even thought about where would come from all that strontium).
See, I am a ice miner. If one component in ice becomes extremely scarce and valuable, that will benefit me in the short term, until the game economy literally runs out of fuel.
CCP should make a drastic change to either the requirements or the supply, or both, so there is no strontium bottleneck or it is largely the same size as the current bottleneck.
CCP Seagull: "EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now".
62% of players: "We're not interested. May we have Plan B, please?"
CCP Seagull: "What Plan B?"
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2375
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 13:14:47 -
[216] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: See, I am a ice miner. If one component in ice becomes extremely scarce and valuable, that will benefit me in the short term, until the game economy literally runs out of fuel.
This is not how it works. As fuel prices increase, the cost of operation for towers for things like reactions, moon mining, and production will also rise, causing many of these ventures to become unprofitable. These towers get scuttled, and the total demand for fuel goes down. Eventually, everything equalizes.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Marcus Longfellow
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters Ocularis Inferno
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 15:21:01 -
[217] - Quote
Are there any more details or planned blog release soon about how the management is going to work in Citadel? There talk about the new system but I haven't seen any details. |
Alexander121 Schipor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 18:04:10 -
[218] - Quote
Hey all
Few questions:
1. What will happen with existing BPOs for Control Towers or POS Modules. Will they be changed citadel BPOs and modules, respectively? Or will be reimbursed and taken out of the game? Or will remain in everybody's hangars as historical collectibles?
2. Will that be faction citadels? What will happen with existing faction towers BPCs still in game? Previous questions apply.
3. Will that be faction citadel modules? Will the existing faction POS modules BPC taken out of the game or will be changed to new corresponding modules. Previous questions apply.
4. What will happen with inactive towers (some with lots of modules) spread all over the empire? Will be taken out from space and moved in their respective owners hangars and reimbursed? If not, will cease to exist after intermediary period ends? Will be transformed in citadels on their existing locations?
Fly safe
Alex. |
Albert Spear
Non scholae sed vitae
67
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 18:09:54 -
[219] - Quote
Dear Mr CCP Ytterbium -
I ice mine roughly 50% of my playing time to keep a POS running. I have not sold Stront nor do I use Stront for anything I do. I have been ice mining in High Sec for more than 2 years.
I have roughly 20,000 units of Stront on hand. Based on your current post. I can build 100 batches of Citadel fuel and then if I ice mine for another year I can make 50 more.
I guess I will not be in the market for a Medium Citadel for the next or say....20 years, and then I will have to sell it within a year.
Sorry 200 Stront per 40 blocks of fuel, when it takes roughly 220 units of ice or about 3 hours of boost ice mining to make a single batch of fuel is {sorry about what is to come} NUTS!
Sure Citadels can be used in all types of space, but only the Null Sec folks are going to be able to sustain them.
Please reconsider this requirement. Leave the fuel blocks alone and find something else to do with Stront if you must. Making fuel is already a time consuming chore - please don't make it worse! |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2375
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 18:41:47 -
[220] - Quote
Albert Spear wrote:Dear Mr CCP Ytterbium -
I ice mine roughly 50% of my playing time to keep a POS running. I have not sold Stront nor do I use Stront for anything I do. I have been ice mining in High Sec for more than 2 years.
I have roughly 20,000 units of Stront on hand. Based on your current post. I can build 100 batches of Citadel fuel and then if I ice mine for another year I can make 50 more.
I guess I will not be in the market for a Medium Citadel for the next or say....20 years, and then I will have to sell it within a year.
Sorry 200 Stront per 40 blocks of fuel, when it takes roughly 220 units of ice or about 3 hours of boost ice mining to make a single batch of fuel is {sorry about what is to come} NUTS!
Sure Citadels can be used in all types of space, but only the Null Sec folks are going to be able to sustain them.
Please reconsider this requirement. Leave the fuel blocks alone and find something else to do with Stront if you must. Making fuel is already a time consuming chore - please don't make it worse! Your problem is you're trying to mine for a specific building purpose.
Don't do that.
Mine the most profitable thing, sell it, and buy fuel blocks.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
2069
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 19:18:13 -
[221] - Quote
Querns wrote:Albert Spear wrote:Dear Mr CCP Ytterbium -
I ice mine roughly 50% of my playing time to keep a POS running. I have not sold Stront nor do I use Stront for anything I do. I have been ice mining in High Sec for more than 2 years.
I have roughly 20,000 units of Stront on hand. Based on your current post. I can build 100 batches of Citadel fuel and then if I ice mine for another year I can make 50 more.
I guess I will not be in the market for a Medium Citadel for the next or say....20 years, and then I will have to sell it within a year.
Sorry 200 Stront per 40 blocks of fuel, when it takes roughly 220 units of ice or about 3 hours of boost ice mining to make a single batch of fuel is {sorry about what is to come} NUTS!
Sure Citadels can be used in all types of space, but only the Null Sec folks are going to be able to sustain them.
Please reconsider this requirement. Leave the fuel blocks alone and find something else to do with Stront if you must. Making fuel is already a time consuming chore - please don't make it worse! Your problem is you're trying to mine for a specific building purpose. Don't do that. Mine the most profitable thing, sell it, and buy fuel blocks.
And feed yet more profit into null where you didn't have to before...
If this is some attempt to make null sec more attractive to hisec players it won't work. This will also have a higher impact on WH players as fuel for running modules will become prohibitive. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2375
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 20:12:52 -
[222] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: And feed yet more profit into null where you didn't have to before...
If this is some attempt to make null sec more attractive to hisec players it won't work. This will also have a higher impact on WH players as fuel for running modules will become prohibitive.
Principles are often times pretty expensive.
Also, it's not like the barrier to entry to nullsec is very high. You can, for example, join Goonswarm Federation's Section 8 program, either via corporation or individually, and gain access to Pure Blind ice. We don't tax mining at all.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 20:25:02 -
[223] - Quote
Querns wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: And feed yet more profit into null where you didn't have to before...
If this is some attempt to make null sec more attractive to hisec players it won't work. This will also have a higher impact on WH players as fuel for running modules will become prohibitive.
Principles are often times pretty expensive. Also, it's not like the barrier to entry to nullsec is very high. You can, for example, join Goonswarm Federation's Section 8 program, either via corporation or individually, and gain access to Pure Blind ice. We don't tax mining at all.
and become a slave to the goons? id rather quit eve than be FORCED to join anything i dont feel like joining myself |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
4742
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:35:43 -
[224] - Quote
Querns wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: And feed yet more profit into null where you didn't have to before...
If this is some attempt to make null sec more attractive to hisec players it won't work. This will also have a higher impact on WH players as fuel for running modules will become prohibitive.
Principles are often times pretty expensive. Also, it's not like the barrier to entry to nullsec is very high. You can, for example, join Goonswarm Federation's Section 8 program, either via corporation or individually, and gain access to Pure Blind ice. We don't tax mining at all.
Why should anyone give a single cent to CCP to be forced to play in a certain way just because CCP messed up some numbers?
CCP Seagull: "EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now".
62% of players: "We're not interested. May we have Plan B, please?"
CCP Seagull: "What Plan B?"
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
2069
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:51:25 -
[225] - Quote
Querns wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: And feed yet more profit into null where you didn't have to before...
If this is some attempt to make null sec more attractive to hisec players it won't work. This will also have a higher impact on WH players as fuel for running modules will become prohibitive.
Principles are often times pretty expensive. Also, it's not like the barrier to entry to nullsec is very high. You can, for example, join Goonswarm Federation's Section 8 program, either via corporation or individually, and gain access to Pure Blind ice. We don't tax mining at all.
There needs to be balance across all areas. Why as a WH player would I have any interest in joining any nullsec alliance? I'm not interested in that gameplay, but this change will damage my gameplay by feeding yours. That is a stupid idea, pushinv people towards only having one viable area to play.
Hisec players will not move to null, WH players have no interest either. All areas and playstyles need to be viably served by the game for it to remain healthy. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2375
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 01:03:18 -
[226] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Querns wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: And feed yet more profit into null where you didn't have to before...
If this is some attempt to make null sec more attractive to hisec players it won't work. This will also have a higher impact on WH players as fuel for running modules will become prohibitive.
Principles are often times pretty expensive. Also, it's not like the barrier to entry to nullsec is very high. You can, for example, join Goonswarm Federation's Section 8 program, either via corporation or individually, and gain access to Pure Blind ice. We don't tax mining at all. There needs to be balance across all areas. Why as a WH player would I have any interest in joining any nullsec alliance? I'm not interested in that gameplay, but this change will damage my gameplay by feeding yours. That is a stupid idea, pushinv people towards only having one viable area to play. Hisec players will not move to null, WH players have no interest either. All areas and playstyles need to be viably served by the game for it to remain healthy. If you're a wormholer, you have access to ice via shattered wormholes. No nullsec necessary; just pop on in and grub up some Krystallos.
Also, strontium clathrates being more widely accessible in nullsec doesn't "push people towards nullsec." It just means that the best place to get them is nullsec. If you (and by this I mean the plural "you," the people who are reading my post) are mining stuff specifically because you need it to build fuel blocks, just stop. Mine or produce the most profitable thing instead, then sell it and purchase fuel blocks.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2375
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 01:04:13 -
[227] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Querns wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: And feed yet more profit into null where you didn't have to before...
If this is some attempt to make null sec more attractive to hisec players it won't work. This will also have a higher impact on WH players as fuel for running modules will become prohibitive.
Principles are often times pretty expensive. Also, it's not like the barrier to entry to nullsec is very high. You can, for example, join Goonswarm Federation's Section 8 program, either via corporation or individually, and gain access to Pure Blind ice. We don't tax mining at all. Why should anyone give a single cent to CCP to be forced to play in a certain way just because CCP messed up some numbers? Adding strontium clathrate requirements to fuel blocks doens't force anyone to play a certain way. The only reason you feel that way is because you think that you need to produce fuel blocks from 100% self-sourced materials. This is an idiotic sentiment.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2375
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 01:07:19 -
[228] - Quote
RainReaper wrote:Querns wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: And feed yet more profit into null where you didn't have to before...
If this is some attempt to make null sec more attractive to hisec players it won't work. This will also have a higher impact on WH players as fuel for running modules will become prohibitive.
Principles are often times pretty expensive. Also, it's not like the barrier to entry to nullsec is very high. You can, for example, join Goonswarm Federation's Section 8 program, either via corporation or individually, and gain access to Pure Blind ice. We don't tax mining at all. and become a slave to the goons? id rather quit eve than be FORCED to join anything i dont feel like joining myself The Section 8 rental program (and, hell, being in Goonswarm Federation in general) is not a slave relationship. You're free to leave any time, and the only thing we ask is you don't shoot blues, don't sell supercapital ships to anyone outside the coalition, and obey the ratting/mining/exploration rights that apply to you. Section 8 renters even have access to our comms (both jabber and mumble) and are free to, but absolutely not required to, join our fleets.
If the idea of wearing the Goonswarm Federation ticker is still appalling to you, fine -- there are other rental programs out there. Additionally, shattered wormholes contain nullsec-grade ice. A third option is to claim some of your own sov; there's quite a bit of it laying fallow.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6942
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 03:36:12 -
[229] - Quote
Querns wrote:Adding strontium clathrate requirements to fuel blocks doens't force anyone to play a certain way. The only reason you feel that way is because you think that you need to produce fuel blocks from 100% self-sourced materials. This is an idiotic sentiment. It's probably "cheaper" if they mined it themselves, but apparently not so since they feel annoyed about it
it quickly became clear that many of you were able to see the potential benefits and that youGÇÖre also ready for some big changes in EVE, especially when they might help bring in newer players
http://eveboard.com/ranks
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1878
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 08:21:29 -
[230] - Quote
Alexander121 Schipor wrote:Hey all
Few questions:
1. What will happen with existing BPOs for Control Towers or POS Modules. Will they be changed citadel BPOs and modules, respectively? Or will be reimbursed and taken out of the game? Or will remain in everybody's hangars as historical collectibles?
2. Will that be faction citadels? What will happen with existing faction towers BPCs still in game? Previous questions apply.
3. Will that be faction citadel modules? Will the existing faction POS modules BPC taken out of the game or will be changed to new corresponding modules. Previous questions apply.
4. What will happen with inactive towers (some with lots of modules) spread all over the empire? Will be taken out from space and moved in their respective owners hangars and reimbursed? If not, will cease to exist after intermediary period ends? Will be transformed in citadels on their existing locations?
Fly safe
Alex. Nothing for now it's to early... ask it maby after a year again. They will be slowly phased out At certain point thay will first remove all BPOs and possibility of production all stuff for old POSes Active players will probably start taking down there old towers to a point when only the inactive remain. And so on... but thats how i see it
Akrasjel Lanate
Founder and CEO of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4492
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 09:58:53 -
[231] - Quote
A'Tolkar wrote:CCP: If you are going to seed Light Fighters and Support Fighters skill books in the February release in preparation for the Citadels spring expansion, would it also not make sense to have also seeded the BPOs for the following:
- Structure Advertisement Nexus
- Structure Telescope Lens
- Structure Acceleration Coils
Honestly I think this has slipped through the cracks, because in the DevBlog (Building your Citadel....) a December release was being considered for the BPOs. Now we're in February.
Structure skills and the component changes are listed to be introduced for March. Disregard our previous reply, we will also have the fuel block changes in March to see how consumption evolves before Citadel release so we can quickly iterate on it should we need to. |
|
Oxide Ammar
231
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 10:02:38 -
[232] - Quote
Can someone explain to me why Citadels became one pack to go structure for marketing, researching and advertisement and may be drilling platform (?) while the original idea was to have every one of these in separate structure. Did I miss something ?
Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
|
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 10:14:49 -
[233] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Can someone explain to me why Citadels became one pack to go structure for marketing, researching and advertisement and may be drilling platform (?) while the original idea was to have every one of these in separate structure. Did I miss something ?
Not as far as I know...
The Citadel is supposed to be the 'Base' - hence having the majoring on defence - but therefore also Market, Clones, etc. However, it will also be able to fit some of the other modules that are, otherwise, intended mainly for other, later, structures.
If you have only a single structure in a system it will most likely be a Citadel. Therefore it is only reasonable that you can compress at it, for example; but also refine (but not as well as in a Drilling Platform, perhaps, just like a Minmatar Outpost would be better than the others for this); and, ditto, for even manufacture (Assembly Arrays n+¬e Amarr Outposts); and then Research/Labs, etc
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
2069
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 10:39:56 -
[234] - Quote
Querns wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Querns wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: And feed yet more profit into null where you didn't have to before...
If this is some attempt to make null sec more attractive to hisec players it won't work. This will also have a higher impact on WH players as fuel for running modules will become prohibitive.
Principles are often times pretty expensive. Also, it's not like the barrier to entry to nullsec is very high. You can, for example, join Goonswarm Federation's Section 8 program, either via corporation or individually, and gain access to Pure Blind ice. We don't tax mining at all. There needs to be balance across all areas. Why as a WH player would I have any interest in joining any nullsec alliance? I'm not interested in that gameplay, but this change will damage my gameplay by feeding yours. That is a stupid idea, pushinv people towards only having one viable area to play. Hisec players will not move to null, WH players have no interest either. All areas and playstyles need to be viably served by the game for it to remain healthy. If you're a wormholer, you have access to ice via shattered wormholes. No nullsec necessary; just pop on in and grub up some Krystallos. Also, strontium clathrates being more widely accessible in nullsec doesn't "push people towards nullsec." It just means that the best place to get them is nullsec. If you (and by this I mean the plural "you," the people who are reading my post) are mining stuff specifically because you need it to build fuel blocks, just stop. Mine or produce the most profitable thing instead, then sell it and purchase fuel blocks.
My point still stands that this will push more isk into nullsec from all other areas of space. Nullsec will be the only area of space where it will be possible to be self sufficient for fuel too. Both of these things will serve to push players towards nullsec with its politics etc rather than the decreasingly profitable areas of space. This is a bad idea in my mind as I believe there needs to be a reasonable balance between all areas of space and this will skew things further in nullsec's favour.
Nice subtle recruitment advert in that post a few back by the way :D |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2377
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 11:41:31 -
[235] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:My point still stands that this will push more isk into nullsec from all other areas of space. Nullsec will be the only area of space where it will be possible to be self sufficient for fuel too. Both of these things will serve to push players towards nullsec with its politics etc rather than the decreasingly profitable areas of space. This is a bad idea in my mind as I believe there needs to be a reasonable balance between all areas of space and this will skew things further in nullsec's favour.
Nice subtle recruitment advert in that post a few back by the way :D Frankly, this is not a bad thing. These "decreasingly profitable areas of space" you mention are home to things like capital escalations, L5 missions, burner blitzing, highsec incursions, and FW, all of which are ludicrously more profitable than nullsec. (Okay, you can technically blitz burners in nullsec too, but not the kind of nullsec that you have to own to exploit properly.) Nullsec needs a shot in the arm, especially with the death of the basal line activity of carrier ratting on the horizon.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Scotsman Howard
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
17
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 13:56:03 -
[236] - Quote
Querns wrote: Frankly, this is not a bad thing. These "decreasingly profitable areas of space" you mention are home to things like capital escalations, L5 missions, burner blitzing, highsec incursions, and FW, all of which are ludicrously more profitable than nullsec. (Okay, you can technically blitz burners in nullsec too, but not the kind of nullsec that you have to own to exploit properly.) Nullsec needs a shot in the arm, especially with the death of the basal line activity of carrier ratting on the horizon.
Just food for thought here, but:
- Capital Escalations may be severaly hit depending on how the dread gun changes affect the ability to run sleeper sites. If the low angle guns do not do enough DPS, the capital sized guns do not sound like they will be able to hit anything smaller than a cap.
Carrier Ratting (and L5 missions to a small extent) - We do not know how this will really affect ratting. It could be the new squadrons are better at taking down rats than now. While the changes will eliminate sentry drone ratting for carriers, it is quiet possible carrier ratting becomes safe since it appears squadrons can go anywhere on grid. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2377
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 14:10:41 -
[237] - Quote
Scotsman Howard wrote: Carrier Ratting (and L5 missions to a small extent) - We do not know how this will really affect ratting. It could be the new squadrons are better at taking down rats than now. While the changes will eliminate sentry drone ratting for carriers, it is quiet possible carrier ratting becomes safe since it appears squadrons can go anywhere on grid.
This is not at all how carrier ratting works. With no heavy drones, there is no carrier ratting. FAX will be able to field them (to the best of our knowledge) but with five max drones and no drone damage bonus, you'd be daft to do so.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Edward Olmops
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
319
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 15:50:32 -
[238] - Quote
I have another question about Citadels:
In a previous blog "Building your citadel..." there were some tables regarding the material composition of the new Citadels. I am stuck there.
"Structure hull composition (by raw materials)" That one does not fit with the component bill of materials.
Example: the chart says "a Large citadel hull will contain a total of 452 Broadcast Nodes". But the bill of materials for the hull lists 40 Station Market Networks which - according to the first table - need 15 Broadcas Nodes each! That's 40*15=600 Broadcast Nodes from the market networks alone. Definitely more than 452.
I checked a few more and got totally different numbers (~3700 vs ~4900 P4 things total for a large hull, that's a significant difference).
Am I missing something? Someone please clarify. |
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
89
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 16:09:56 -
[239] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Structure skills and the component changes are listed to be introduced for March. Disregard our previous reply, we will also have the fuel block changes in March to see how consumption evolves before Citadel release so we can quickly iterate on it should we need to.
Hi CCP Ytterbium, I'm hoping you'll be willing to go into a bit more detail on the fuel block changes. I've already posted a google sheet with my own analysis (which I'll repost: here) but the highlights are these:
First off, this is going to completely gut the ability for hisec to produce fuelblocks - with perfect skills/implant and a POS array, each hisec anomaly only produces about 1,900 Stront. Even with a maxed out Keepstar citadel, that only goes up to 2,170. That's enough for a grand total of nearly 11 runs of fuel blocks, per anomaly. Present day production caps at 436 runs per anomaly, so that's a drop of over 97% production.
Second, it doesn't exactly do good things to nullsec production either - the maximum fuel block runs per anomaly will drop from over 3000 to under 350 for truesec above -0.5 or under 800 for truesec below -0.5. That's a reduction of more than 88% for 0.0 to -0.5 or more than 78% for -0.5 and lower.
Third, it's going to gut the value of most types of ice, especially the only varieties available in hisec. The only way to increase ice production is to completely mine out anomalies, causing them to respawn after 4 hours. That means that all the production for isotopes, heavy water and liquid ozone is going to continue as it was before this change, just that 90% of it will be useless because there won't be enough Stront to turn it into fuel. Over-production will flood the market making prices for everything except Stront and Fuel Blocks themselves plummet. Hisec ice mining will drop from a max of 30-40 mil ISK/hr to maybe 3-4mil, and that's assuming that fuel blocks quadruple in value. I don't know what nullsec will cap out at, but they already find it hard to effectively utilize their ice because it pays less than alternatives like ore mining or ratting.
Fourth, the price of fuel blocks is going to rise dramatically - most fuel ingredients were produced in hisec, which will no longer be possible, and most of Null isn't interested in large-scale ice mining unless the price rises above ore mining or ratting. That will only happen if the value of ice products rises, which only happens if the price of fuel blocks rises. Which it will do, because until nullsec does go all-in on ice mining there's going to be a distinct lack of supply for fuel blocks. I'm honestly not even sure if 100% utilization of null ice would allow it to produce enough fuel to meet present day demand for moon mining/reaction/manufacturing POSes, let alone increased demand from Citadel construction/operation.
All of which brings me to this: The stated reasoning for this change is simply to preserve existing demand for Strontium in an era where it's no longer being consumed by reinforced POSes, not to turn it into Technetium 2.0 or completely re-shuffle the economics of ice production. Given that, are all of these follow-on effects of specifically going for 200 Stront/40 Fuel Blocks intended consequences? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2377
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 16:18:25 -
[240] - Quote
Jinrai Tremaine wrote: I'm honestly not even sure if 100% utilization of null ice would allow it to produce enough fuel to meet present day demand
Here's the main point where this line of reasoning breaks down. You're assuming that present-day demand will be maintained. An increase in the build requirements and cost of fuel blocks will cause demand to go down. Folks won't soldier on with their current POS inventory when prices go up; they'll scuttle POS instead.
There's no extinction-level scenario here.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
90
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 17:15:34 -
[241] - Quote
Querns wrote:Jinrai Tremaine wrote: I'm honestly not even sure if 100% utilization of null ice would allow it to produce enough fuel to meet present day demand
Here's the main point where this line of reasoning breaks down. You're assuming that present-day demand will be maintained. An increase in the build requirements and cost of fuel blocks will cause demand to go down. Folks won't soldier on with their current POS inventory when prices go up; they'll scuttle POS instead. There's no extinction-level scenario here.
I've never said there was an extinction-level scenario, except possibly for hisec-based ice miners (and if you think that I'm wrong on that then please show me some numbers that support your case).
On the other hand, don't pretend that there won't be effects from people scuttling their POSes felt throughout the rest of the economy. Here's a brief list, just off the top of my head, of things POSes do that affect the wider economy:
- Mining Moongoo
- Reacting Moongoo for Tech 2 production
- Moongoo alchemy for Tech 2 production
- Composite reactions for Tech 3 production
- Gas reactions for Booster production
- Research/Invention/Copy jobs in Empire space without NPC taxes/in low cost multiplier systems
- Manufacturing jobs in Empire space without NPC taxes/in low multiplier systems
- Compressing ore for transport
- Reprocessing ore in Empire space without NPC taxes/with higher yield than NPC stations
In all of those cases, the POS operators are running them for financial gain and will stop using them if they're no longer cost effective, meaning that supply drops for whatever they were providing and thus prices increase, or they'll keep running them and pass on their increased costs to their customers and thus prices increase. Here's what that will mean, again in list form:
- Reduced supply/higher production price for all Tech 2 ingredients - Tech 2 gets more expensive
- Reduced supply/higher production price for all Tech 3 ingredients - Tech 3 gets more expensive
- Reduced supply/higher production price for all Boosters - Boosters get more expensive
- All blueprint-related jobs in Empire get more expensive - everything involving blueprint research (including invention jobs for T2 BPCs and Reverse Engineering for T3 BPCs) gets more expensive, thus the items they build will get more expensive.
- Manufacturing in Empire space gets more expensive - everything that isn't already manufactured in NPC stations will get more expensive
- There'll be a lot less compressed ore produced in hisec for export to nullsec
- Refining in Empire space will yield less minerals - things made mostly from minerals (IE tech 1 ships/modules) will get more expensive
I'm not claiming that any of that is "extinction-level". These are all costs that New Eden as a whole can weather, some capsuleers better than others. But I'd like to refer you back to the end of my previous post; all of these consequences are going to follow on from a change whose purpose is meant to simply be "preserving demand for Strontium in the absence of RF'd POS consumption". I would like to know whether or not these Cluster-wide effects are actually intended consequences of that change or not. |
Albert Spear
Non scholae sed vitae
67
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 17:37:04 -
[242] - Quote
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:[quote=Querns][quote=Jinrai Tremaine]
I've never said there was an extinction-level scenario, except possibly for hisec-based ice miners (and if you think that I'm wrong on that then please show me some numbers that support your case).
On the other hand, don't pretend that there won't be effects from people scuttling their POSes felt throughout the rest of the economy.
Yes our small high sec mining corp maintains 1 large POS and 1 small POS in High Sec.
Last night we discussed taking the large POS down because of the changes in fuel blocks. I think we will. Most of the other small corporations we trade with are also thinking about taking down their POSes.
A quick run on cost of fuel vs. the value of using the POS to refine, construct, etc. shows that for our level of activity, the answer will go from slightly positive to highly negative. Hence the numbers say the POSes come down.
If there is not a change to the proposed fuel block composition, I suspect we will stop ice mining in high sec and also probably reduce our mining and construction activities. We will mine raw ore and move it to a hub to sell, and otherwise run missions and do some ratting. We as a corp are probably going to get out of the manufacturing game completely with this change. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2377
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 17:53:23 -
[243] - Quote
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:Querns wrote:Jinrai Tremaine wrote: I'm honestly not even sure if 100% utilization of null ice would allow it to produce enough fuel to meet present day demand
Here's the main point where this line of reasoning breaks down. You're assuming that present-day demand will be maintained. An increase in the build requirements and cost of fuel blocks will cause demand to go down. Folks won't soldier on with their current POS inventory when prices go up; they'll scuttle POS instead. There's no extinction-level scenario here. I've never said there was an extinction-level scenario, except possibly for hisec-based ice miners (and if you think that I'm wrong on that then please show me some numbers that support your case). On the other hand, don't pretend that there won't be effects from people scuttling their POSes felt throughout the rest of the economy. Here's a brief list, just off the top of my head, of things POSes do that affect the wider economy:
- Mining Moongoo
- Reacting Moongoo for Tech 2 production
- Moongoo alchemy for Tech 2 production
- Composite reactions for Tech 3 production
- Gas reactions for Booster production
- Research/Invention/Copy jobs in Empire space without NPC taxes/in low cost multiplier systems
- Manufacturing jobs in Empire space without NPC taxes/in low multiplier systems
- Compressing ore for transport
- Reprocessing ore in Empire space without NPC taxes/with higher yield than NPC stations
In all of those cases, the POS operators are running them for financial gain and will stop using them if they're no longer cost effective, meaning that supply drops for whatever they were providing and thus prices increase, or they'll keep running them and pass on their increased costs to their customers and thus prices increase. Here's what that will mean, again in list form:
- Reduced supply/higher production price for all Tech 2 ingredients - Tech 2 gets more expensive
- Reduced supply/higher production price for all Tech 3 ingredients - Tech 3 gets more expensive
- Reduced supply/higher production price for all Boosters - Boosters get more expensive
- All blueprint-related jobs in Empire get more expensive - everything involving blueprint research (including invention jobs for T2 BPCs and Reverse Engineering for T3 BPCs) gets more expensive, thus the items they build will get more expensive.
- Manufacturing in Empire space gets more expensive - everything that isn't already manufactured in NPC stations will get more expensive
- There'll be a lot less compressed ore produced in hisec for export to nullsec
- Refining in Empire space will yield less minerals - things made mostly from minerals (IE tech 1 ships/modules) will get more expensive
I'm not claiming that any of that is "extinction-level". These are all costs that New Eden as a whole can weather, some capsuleers better than others. But I'd like to refer you back to the end of my previous post; all of these consequences are going to follow on from a change whose purpose is meant to simply be "preserving demand for Strontium in the absence of RF'd POS consumption". I would like to know whether or not these Cluster-wide effects are actually intended consequences of that change or not. I agree that the change will have far-reaching effects -- I just don't find them to be particularly severe in the current incarnation. By and large, the outrage is coming from those who believe they need to mine every last scrap of material for their POS fuel (with a small helping of those who feel they are committing a cardinal sin if they give money to The Wrong People.)
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
2069
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 19:33:35 -
[244] - Quote
Querns wrote:... I agree that the change will have far-reaching effects -- I just don't find them to be particularly severe in the current incarnation. By and large, the outrage is coming from those who believe they need to mine every last scrap of material for their POS fuel (with a small helping of those who feel they are committing a cardinal sin if they give money to The Wrong People.)
This is an arbitrary change that will effect everyone but nullsec players negatively, this seems to me to be somewhat unbalanced. I do not believe that I should mine everything I use ( I don't, I use buy orders), or that there's any such thing as The Wrong People. However if nullsec needs a shot in the arm why should it come at the expense of every other area, and if some players do see the gradual diversion of more and more ISK to nullsec as a problem why is this any less valid than your opinion on certain hisec activities being worth 'too much'?
All players pay the same sub to play the game, all players should have the same ability to earn isk in whichever area they choose whether it be from increased effort in less dangerous space or by increased risk (and less time) in lower sec space.
Applying the current suggestion for stront in ice is basically a tax on all areas of space other than null, and feeding the ISK from that tax into nullsec alliances where ice mining is relatively safe behind the blue border systems that provide practically perfect intel if used correctly.
If I remember correctly one of the stated goals with structures was that everyone who wanted one could use one. Sure that will be the case if you have a citadel running no services but what's the point in that compared to the current POS's where a dedicated and organized group in any space can fuel their shared large space asset through effort alone (mining ops and such). Now they will not be able to in hisec, and likely unable to in losec, and extremely unlikely to in WH's.
This will put hisec small groups, and probably even medium groups off having a structure and that is completely against the stated goal of making the structures accessible (for a viable use that is). |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2377
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 20:21:03 -
[245] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: This is an arbitrary change that will effect everyone but nullsec players negatively, this seems to me to be somewhat unbalanced. I do not believe that I should mine everything I use ( I don't, I use buy orders), or that there's any such thing as The Wrong People. However if nullsec needs a shot in the arm why should it come at the expense of every other area, and if some players do see the gradual diversion of more and more ISK to nullsec as a problem why is this any less valid than your opinion on certain hisec activities being worth 'too much'?
All players pay the same sub to play the game, all players should have the same ability to earn isk in whichever area they choose whether it be from increased effort in less dangerous space or by increased risk (and less time) in lower sec space.
Applying the current suggestion for stront in ice is basically a tax on all areas of space other than null, and feeding the ISK from that tax into nullsec alliances where ice mining is relatively safe behind the blue border systems that provide practically perfect intel if used correctly.
If I remember correctly one of the stated goals with structures was that everyone who wanted one could use one. Sure that will be the case if you have a citadel running no services but what's the point in that compared to the current POS's where a dedicated and organized group in any space can fuel their shared large space asset through effort alone (mining ops and such). Now they will not be able to in hisec, and likely unable to in losec, and extremely unlikely to in WH's.
This will put hisec small groups, and probably even medium groups off having a structure and that is completely against the stated goal of making the structures accessible (for a viable use that is).
If all areas of space had the same isk making potential, what would be the point of leaving highsec? The game should place greater rewards on those who choose to venture into riskier space, like nullsec. This sentiment is a thinly-veiled desire for highsec to be as good or better at making money than than other spaces.
If you feel that nullsec is too safe, you are free to go out there and make it less so by your actions.
Like I've stated earlier, WH dwellers now have shattered WH connections available through which to mine ice.
And, yes, I don't see the buttressing of nullsec's ability to make money to be a problem -- it's dead last in individual isk-making potential, and is getting nerfed in the capital rebalance significantly.
Also, way to misinterpret the meaning behind "everyone who wanted one could use one." That meant that you could deploy them in the individual scale, rather than needing corp roles. It didn't mean "users would be guaranteed the inviolate right to a perfect distribution of ice to mine in their home." Eve is a multiplayer game -- consider taking advantage of the multiplayer environment and participating in the market.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2983
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 20:30:51 -
[246] - Quote
Querns wrote: Adding strontium clathrate requirements to fuel blocks doens't force anyone to play a certain way. The only reason you feel that way is because you think that you need to produce fuel blocks from 100% self-sourced materials. This is an idiotic sentiment.
Obviously we can then remove everything but stront from Nullsec Ice then, since you shouldn't be able to 100% self source? And remove all low ends from Null as well so you have to import.... We all know how silly that is and how much rage would happen if CCP even suggested it, yet you seem to want to inflict it on everyone who doesn't live in Null.
Local availability of materials does not mean Null can't be the best isk earner, and it currently is the best earner other than maybe C6 WH's no matter how much you pretend otherwise. Highsec Ice could easily be set to yield half the material that null ice does, meaning half the income, yet still allow for local mining & production to be self sustaining. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
2069
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 20:57:11 -
[247] - Quote
Querns wrote: If all areas of space had the same isk making potential, what would be the point of leaving highsec? The game should place greater rewards on those who choose to venture into riskier space, like nullsec. This sentiment is a thinly-veiled desire for highsec to be as good or better at making money than than other spaces.
Completely wrong, I didn't say at any point that hisec should be able to make more ISK than other areas, I said that hisec players should be able to make decet ISK by putting in the effort (i.e. time). A player in lower sec space would be able to make tyhe same ISK with less effort/time due to the increased risk. A player putting in the same time in less secure space as a player making decent ISK in hisec should make correspondingly more ISK.
Querns wrote: If you feel that nullsec is too safe, you are free to go out there and make it less so by your actions.
Surely this applies to your argument about hisec being too safe in various activities? You don't like the money that incursion runners make? Don't ask CCP to berf them, form gank fleets and mess with them yourselves etc etc
Querns wrote: Like I've stated earlier, WH dwellers now have shattered WH connections available through which to mine ice.
Because WH players will be fine mining in frigates in space with no local and no means to readily defend the area without a relatively large fleet? As opposed to exhumers operating in relatively safe blue zones? Nope, this is a shift in income towards null disguised as a use for stront after POS changes (whether intentional or not).
Querns wrote: And, yes, I don't see the buttressing of nullsec's ability to make money to be a problem -- it's dead last in individual isk-making potential, and is getting nerfed in the capital rebalance significantly.
Because imbalance ships are being rebalanced is not a good reason to hit every other area of space with an increased cost for no reason. I also don't buy the individual ISK making potential point either. As you point out this is a multiplayer game and on a group basis nullsec clearly has an enormous ISK making potential (which other area of space could field such huge capital fleets in cost terms?)
Querns wrote: Also, way to misinterpret the meaning behind "everyone who wanted one could use one." That meant that you could deploy them in the individual scale, rather than needing corp roles. It didn't mean "users would be guaranteed the inviolate right to a perfect distribution of ice to mine in their home." Eve is a multiplayer game -- consider taking advantage of the multiplayer environment and participating in the market.
I already stated I use the market, and I never said that players should have a perfect distribution of ice mining. That isn't how it is now but with effort players can provide for themselves. This adds an additional cost and a new bottleneck controlled by one area of space. We all pay to play the same game yet advantages seem to be being moved to that same area of space for no good reason. A large proportion of players have no interest in that area and the continual degradation of hi, lo and WH space in favour of null will reduce their interest in the game. this can only be bad for all.
As stated I believe there needs to be a balance between all areas, this does not mean hey should be equal, but they must all be playable in an interesting manner ,but with different focus on activities in those areas. |
Andromeda Duodi
Operation Fishbowl Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 21:49:48 -
[248] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:Andromeda Duodi wrote:I haven't seen the idea of capital ships being moored on the outside of the citadel been mentioned in a while, has this idea been ditched entirely? 'Tethered' and no...
No, tethered is a different thing entirely. Moored is when a ship is "tied" down with the intention of keeping it still, tethered is just a line fastened between two things and in no way implies any form of stability.
I am aware that you are talking about the other feature, which they said was the mooring but renamed but it's really not. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
4750
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 22:07:31 -
[249] - Quote
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Structure skills and the component changes are listed to be introduced for March. Disregard our previous reply, we will also have the fuel block changes in March to see how consumption evolves before Citadel release so we can quickly iterate on it should we need to. Hi CCP Ytterbium, I'm hoping you'll be willing to go into a bit more detail on the fuel block changes. I've already posted a google sheet with my own analysis (which I'll repost: here) but the highlights are these: First off, this is going to completely gut the ability for hisec to produce fuelblocks - with perfect skills/implant and a POS array, each hisec anomaly only produces about 1,900 Stront. Even with a maxed out Keepstar citadel, that only goes up to 2,170. That's enough for a grand total of nearly 11 runs of fuel blocks, per anomaly. Present day production caps at 436 runs per anomaly, so that's a drop of over 97% production. Second, it doesn't exactly do good things to nullsec production either - the maximum fuel block runs per anomaly will drop from over 3000 to under 350 for truesec above -0.5 or under 800 for truesec below -0.5. That's a reduction of more than 88% for 0.0 to -0.5 or more than 78% for -0.5 and lower. Third, it's going to gut the value of most types of ice, especially the only varieties available in hisec. The only way to increase ice production is to completely mine out anomalies, causing them to respawn after 4 hours. That means that all the production for isotopes, heavy water and liquid ozone is going to continue as it was before this change, just that 90% of it will be useless because there won't be enough Stront to turn it into fuel. Over-production will flood the market making prices for everything except Stront and Fuel Blocks themselves plummet. Hisec ice mining will drop from a max of 30-40 mil ISK/hr to maybe 3-4mil, and that's assuming that fuel blocks quadruple in value. I don't know what nullsec will cap out at, but they already find it hard to effectively utilize their ice because it pays less than alternatives like ore mining or ratting. Fourth, the price of fuel blocks is going to rise dramatically - most fuel ingredients were produced in hisec, which will no longer be possible, and most of Null isn't interested in large-scale ice mining unless the price rises above ore mining or ratting. That will only happen if the value of ice products rises, which only happens if the price of fuel blocks rises. Which it will do, because until nullsec does go all-in on ice mining there's going to be a distinct lack of supply for fuel blocks. I'm honestly not even sure if 100% utilization of null ice would allow it to produce enough fuel to meet present day demand for moon mining/reaction/manufacturing POSes, let alone increased demand from Citadel construction/operation. All of which brings me to this: The stated reasoning for this change is simply to preserve existing demand for Strontium in an era where it's no longer being consumed by reinforced POSes, not to turn it into Technetium 2.0 or completely re-shuffle the economics of ice production. Given that, are all of these follow-on effects of specifically going for 200 Stront/40 Fuel Blocks intended consequences?
I hope you get some kind of answer, since CCP Ytterbium completely dismissed your previous post. As a highsec ice miner, this issue is pretty close to me. I am keeping 2 accounts subscribbed with money just for the ice mining.
CCP Seagull: "EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now".
62% of players: "We're not interested. May we have Plan B, please?"
CCP Seagull: "What Plan B?"
|
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 22:15:02 -
[250] - Quote
Andromeda Duodi wrote:Marcus Tedric wrote:Andromeda Duodi wrote:I haven't seen the idea of capital ships being moored on the outside of the citadel been mentioned in a while, has this idea been ditched entirely? 'Tethered' and no... No, tethered is a different thing entirely. Moored is when a ship is "tied" down with the intention of keeping it still, tethered is just a line fastened between two things and in no way implies any form of stability. I am aware that you are talking about the other feature, which they said was the mooring but renamed but it's really not.
Curiously, whilst I quite agree with your tautological interpretation - I also believe you are probably wrong...
There will be no 'mooring' - specifically, if you get out of your 'tethered' ship it will not disappear and will be vulnerable. If you wish to get out of your ship and leave it 'safe' then you have to dock it (just as now).
Thus 'tethering' as the Devs seem to now want to call it - it actually quite right. You are tethered to the structure and are invulnerable (the new equivalent of the POS shield).
So 'tethering' and 'docking' - no 'mooring'.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
|
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Phoenix Company Alliance
252
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 23:11:19 -
[251] - Quote
@querns
ratting carriers mostly use fighters... those using heavy drones are afk ratting / bots. the best isk per hour comes from fighters by a long distance.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
553
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 06:17:17 -
[252] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:@querns
ratting carriers mostly use fighters... those using heavy drones are afk ratting / bots. the best isk per hour comes from fighters by a long distance.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
328
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 11:52:47 -
[253] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:A'Tolkar wrote:CCP: If you are going to seed Light Fighters and Support Fighters skill books in the February release in preparation for the Citadels spring expansion, would it also not make sense to have also seeded the BPOs for the following:
- Structure Advertisement Nexus
- Structure Telescope Lens
- Structure Acceleration Coils
Honestly I think this has slipped through the cracks, because in the DevBlog (Building your Citadel....) a December release was being considered for the BPOs. Now we're in February. Structure skills and the component changes are listed to be introduced for March. Disregard our previous reply, we will also have the fuel block changes in March to see how consumption evolves before Citadel release so we can quickly iterate on it should we need to.
Will max BPC copy runs be addressed, along with the bpo ranks (consistent with cap components) 60 vice 200 Ability to build the components in a pos?? |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4493
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 12:02:18 -
[254] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:I have another question about Citadels:
In a previous blog "Building your citadel..." there were some tables regarding the material composition of the new Citadels. I am stuck there.
"Structure hull composition (by raw materials)" That one does not fit with the component bill of materials.
Example: the chart says "a Large citadel hull will contain a total of 452 Broadcast Nodes". But the bill of materials for the hull lists 40 Station Market Networks which - according to the first table - need 15 Broadcas Nodes each! That's 40*15=600 Broadcast Nodes from the market networks alone. Definitely more than 452.
I checked a few more and got totally different numbers (~3700 vs ~4900 P4 things total for a large hull, that's a significant difference).
Am I missing something? Someone please clarify.
You sir are right, I foolishly made a column mistake in my Excel sheet calculations regarding the raw PI and mineral composition. Geee. Thanks for pointing this out, I'll fix it. That shouldn't change the estimated price for the hulls since those use components, but it will still increase the raw PI and minerals. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4495
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 16:42:28 -
[255] - Quote
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:Stuff
I had a look at your excel sheet and arguments, then built my own to double-check everything. I also discussed your points with the team and various designers to get a fresh perspective.
We first envisioned this change to increase Strontium consumption on the 5th fuel block type we were going to introduce for Citadels, since they were not going to require Strontium separately during their reinforcement time. However, we now removed the 5th fuel block type, which creates a cost repercussion on operating Starbases. While our data shows stockpiled fuel blocks and Strontium will be high enough to meet the demand for quite a while, you have strong arguments.
My math concludes that before the change, one high-sec ice site could roughly supply 15k fuel blocks which is 375 hours for the most fuel intensive service module, the Market at 40 blocks per hour (which also is the fuel for a Large Control Tower). Adding 200 units of Strontium will decrease that to 362 fuel blocks approximately, or 9 hours of Market consumption.
We do not want high-sec to be totally autonomous in that particular regard, but numbers don't lie and that is far too much extreme here. We planned to add more Strontium from the sites to compensate for this change, but we will most likely not have time to do so for March.
As such, we will reduce the required Strontium to 20 to manufacturing a batch of 40 fuel blocks for now. That means 3620 fuel blocks created from one high-sec ice site, or 90 hours for the Market service module, which is a much more comfortable number and still is a 4x fuel block reduction from the old number.
Be aware however that we will progressively increase demand on Strontium Clathrates as time passes and Starbases become less and less used to maintain its role within the economy. However that should make the change much less frustrating in the short term and allow everyone to adapt more easily while we monitor the change.
Hope that helps! |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4495
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 16:46:36 -
[256] - Quote
[quote=Indahmawar FazmaraiStuff[/quote]
It's not because we're not replying to something that we dismiss it, no need for the drama . In that case I was busy with other stuff and investigating the whole thing. |
|
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 17:01:06 -
[257] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Jinrai Tremaine wrote:Stuff I had a look at your excel sheet and arguments, then built my own to double-check everything. I also discussed your points with the team and various designers to get a fresh perspective. We first envisioned this change to increase Strontium consumption on the 5th fuel block type we were going to introduce for Citadels, since they were not going to require Strontium separately during their reinforcement time. However, we now removed the 5th fuel block type, which creates a cost repercussion on operating Starbases. While our data shows stockpiled fuel blocks and Strontium will be high enough to meet the demand for quite a while, you have strong arguments. My math concludes that before the change, one high-sec ice site could roughly supply 15k fuel blocks which is 375 hours for the most fuel intensive service module, the Market at 40 blocks per hour (which also is the fuel for a Large Control Tower). Adding 200 units of Strontium will decrease that to 362 fuel blocks approximately, or 9 hours of Market consumption. We do not want high-sec to be totally autonomous in that particular regard, but numbers don't lie and that is far too much extreme here. We planned to add more Strontium from the sites to compensate for this change, but we will most likely not have time to do so for March. As such, we will reduce the required Strontium to 20 to manufacturing a batch of 40 fuel blocks for now. That means 3620 fuel blocks created from one high-sec ice site, or 90 hours for the Market service module, which is a much more comfortable number and still is a 4x fuel block reduction from the old number. Be aware however that we will progressively increase demand on Strontium Clathrates as time passes and Starbases become less and less used to maintain its role within the economy. However that should make the change much less frustrating in the short term and allow everyone to adapt more easily while we monitor the change. Hope that helps!
thank you for not abandoning us ccp! |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
2069
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 17:30:06 -
[258] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:...
...
Be aware however that we will progressively increase demand on Strontium Clathrates as time passes and Starbases become less and less used to maintain its role within the economy. However that should make the change much less frustrating in the short term and allow everyone to adapt more easily while we monitor the change.
Hope that helps!
Why not just make stront refinable into stront isotopes for fuel blacks at the appropriate rate (20 stront give enough isotopes)? Then you don't need to mess with stront size, capital use of it etc etc
ED: glad you listened to players concerns though :) |
Scotsman Howard
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
20
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 17:36:01 -
[259] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Jinrai Tremaine wrote:Stuff I had a look at your excel sheet and arguments, then built my own to double-check everything. I also discussed your points with the team and various designers to get a fresh perspective. We first envisioned this change to increase Strontium consumption on the 5th fuel block type we were going to introduce for Citadels, since they were not going to require Strontium separately during their reinforcement time. However, we now removed the 5th fuel block type, which creates a cost repercussion on operating Starbases. While our data shows stockpiled fuel blocks and Strontium will be high enough to meet the demand for quite a while, you have strong arguments. My math concludes that before the change, one high-sec ice site could roughly supply 15k fuel blocks which is 375 hours for the most fuel intensive service module, the Market at 40 blocks per hour (which also is the fuel for a Large Control Tower). Adding 200 units of Strontium will decrease that to 362 fuel blocks approximately, or 9 hours of Market consumption. We do not want high-sec to be totally autonomous in that particular regard, but numbers don't lie and that is far too much extreme here. We planned to add more Strontium from the sites to compensate for this change, but we will most likely not have time to do so for March. As such, we will reduce the required Strontium to 20 to manufacturing a batch of 40 fuel blocks for now. That means 3620 fuel blocks created from one high-sec ice site, or 90 hours for the Market service module, which is a much more comfortable number and still is a 4x fuel block reduction from the old number. Be aware however that we will progressively increase demand on Strontium Clathrates as time passes and Starbases become less and less used to maintain its role within the economy. However that should make the change much less frustrating in the short term and allow everyone to adapt more easily while we monitor the change. Hope that helps!
Great response, but a couple of follow ups: I appologise if these have been answer, but I have not seen a dev answer to any of them.
- Will there be a corresponding increase in fuel block volumes themselves? I hope not, but would need to adjust some tools and spreadsheets.
- Did you consider simply increasing the strot requirements for capitals to compensate instead of hitting the fuel blocks? It would be a change of simply changing bay sizes (which will probably happen in the capital rebalance). The actual change to the requirements could be changing the triage and seige skills bonus from 5% to 4% decrease in need per level.
I am asking in the sense that it is easier to do fuel block logistics for production without the added stront as it is just an additional thing to move. My thinking is that you are trying to maintain the demand for stront, so instead of causing an issue with blueprints and industry, hitting cap ships would have the same affect and not be as big of a logistical issue? This may have a side affect of making the stront mined in null be more important/valuable.
- Will a citadel be able to mix and match the 4 fuel blocks or will they all need to be the same type? |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 17:58:27 -
[260] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Hope that helps!
Yes yes this does help nicely. As for me who has to construct over 2 million fuel blocks a week this change will mean I can still keep doing this after the change |
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
553
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 22:16:36 -
[261] - Quote
Thank you for listening to the concerns here! |
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
91
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 23:44:42 -
[262] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Jinrai Tremaine wrote:Stuff I had a look at your excel sheet and arguments, then built my own to double-check everything. I also discussed your points with the team and various designers to get a fresh perspective. We first envisioned this change to increase Strontium consumption on the 5th fuel block type we were going to introduce for Citadels, since they were not going to require Strontium separately during their reinforcement time. However, we now removed the 5th fuel block type, which creates a cost repercussion on operating Starbases. While our data shows stockpiled fuel blocks and Strontium will be high enough to meet the demand for quite a while, you have strong arguments. My math concludes that before the change, one high-sec ice site could roughly supply 15k fuel blocks which is 375 hours for the most fuel intensive service module, the Market at 40 blocks per hour (which also is the fuel for a Large Control Tower). Adding 200 units of Strontium will decrease that to 362 fuel blocks approximately, or 9 hours of Market consumption. We do not want high-sec to be totally autonomous in that particular regard, but numbers don't lie and that is far too much extreme here. We planned to add more Strontium from the sites to compensate for this change, but we will most likely not have time to do so for March. As such, we will reduce the required Strontium to 20 to manufacturing a batch of 40 fuel blocks for now. That means 3620 fuel blocks created from one high-sec ice site, or 90 hours for the Market service module, which is a much more comfortable number and still is a 4x fuel block reduction from the old number. Be aware however that we will progressively increase demand on Strontium Clathrates as time passes and Starbases become less and less used to maintain its role within the economy. However that should make the change much less frustrating in the short term and allow everyone to adapt more easily while we monitor the change. Hope that helps!
First of all, thanks for taking the time to read my previous posts and look into them as you did.
Second, yes, this is a huge help. It's not just because it still leaves a decent amount of production available in hisec without importing stront from elsewhere, but also because it doesn't make strontium a bottleneck to production in all areas of space; nullsec production will still be limited by the amount of racial isotopes there, meaning that there'll either be surplus strontium exported to hisec or else surplus isotopes from hisec exported to nullsec to enable further production. Either way, the additional ice products that hisec produces but cannot turn into fuel due to lack of Strontium will still have demand on the market along with demand for strontium over-produced in nullsec. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2378
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 01:28:36 -
[263] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:As such, we will reduce the required Strontium to 20 to manufacturing a batch of 40 fuel blocks for now. That means 3620 fuel blocks created from one high-sec ice site, or 90 hours for the Market service module, which is a much more comfortable number and still is a 4x fuel block reduction from the old number.
That's too bad. I don't think this was necessary, but, hey, your call.
Any idea what you're going to creep the stront requirement up to over time?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Roddex
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 02:40:50 -
[264] - Quote
Will any changes be made to POS to account for the stront volume change? Without changes max reinforce duration increases by 50%.
Will fuel block size change? If yes, will any changes be made to POS to account for the change? |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1982
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 02:48:53 -
[265] - Quote
Roddex wrote:Will any changes be made to POS to account for the stront volume change? Without changes max reinforce duration increases by 50%.
Will fuel block size change? If yes, will any changes be made to POS to account for the change?
With a reduction to 20 stront/fuel batch, there's really no need to change the volume anymore.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
28
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 18:51:43 -
[266] - Quote
Hey CCP! Do you think it would be possible to send out notifications to docked guests in the new structures? Say if the corp who owns the citadel gets war decced they could send out a notification to all the guests docked that the structure could get blasted. To maybe give people a chance to undock their things before the citadel blows up? |
Soldarius
O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore
1472
|
Posted - 2016.02.19 15:09:30 -
[267] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Jinrai Tremaine wrote:Stuff I had a look at your excel sheet and arguments... Hope that helps!
Thank you for taking a second look at the numbers.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
132
|
Posted - 2016.02.19 17:08:51 -
[268] - Quote
Killmarks for citadels. Make it so. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
2073
|
Posted - 2016.02.19 17:21:06 -
[269] - Quote
Irregessa wrote:Killmarks for citadels. Make it so.
With a little guy in a spacesuit painting them on with a brush a la Red Dwarf... |
Pud Li
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 03:35:41 -
[270] - Quote
Based on citadel talk, it seems structures will take quite a bit of additional materials and cost to build most POS-like structures. Seems like we may see quite a drop in the number of structures deployed at least initially. Especially depending on whether CCP limits or provides additional means of recovering materials or costs from old structures.
So if I understand the current fuzzy transition concepts correctly, the transition from existing POS and structures starts with...
(1) for each category of new structure (e.g.citadels first) the existing structures being replaced will remain functional for a limited window if already deployed and online. Old deployments can be taken offline and repackaged. But no new deployments can be made.
(1a) Less clear - towers cannot be turned on once in the offline state??? Problem for POS with more storage than power etc.
(1b) At the end of the transition window (weeks or months) any structures left in deployed state are destroyed without compensation to owners?
(Be way more cool if this destruction occurred randomly as system-wide visible fireworks display over next 24 hours - I suspect lots of abandon small stations in hi sec)
I favor any structure contents distributed in blue jetcans. But for reasons of timezones, I again favor actual destruction be distributed over the day with all structures locked in offline invulnerable state until randomly exploded..
(2) automatic conversion of existing POS and structures into materials as soon as they are repackaged? so some of existing investment can be used to kick start building new cidatels etc.
Or is CCP just going to stick with 53% reprocessing as originally proposed? If recycling is the actual method...does that opportunity expire on the same day as deployed structures? I have heard CCP has occasionally done that in the past. then just destroyed old items not yet recycled at the end.
Eagerly awaiting clarification. |
|
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
1468
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 05:08:37 -
[271] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:Tyranis Marcus wrote:So it sounds like fuel block costs will be going up with the stront addition, so the current poses will become more expensive to operate. Will the fuel consumption on those be reduced to compensate?................. It would be kind of silly if they did - given the realistic desire to wish to encourage people to remove POSes in favour of Citadels. Which is why, perhaps, that the 'Assembly Arrays' and 'Drilling Rigs' may need to come sooner rather than later...
Not really. Nerfing old systems to promote new ones always causes trouble.
Do not run. We are your friends.
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1878
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 08:25:47 -
[272] - Quote
Tyranis Marcus wrote:Marcus Tedric wrote:Tyranis Marcus wrote:So it sounds like fuel block costs will be going up with the stront addition, so the current poses will become more expensive to operate. Will the fuel consumption on those be reduced to compensate?................. It would be kind of silly if they did - given the realistic desire to wish to encourage people to remove POSes in favour of Citadels. Which is why, perhaps, that the 'Assembly Arrays' and 'Drilling Rigs' may need to come sooner rather than later... Not really. Nerfing old systems to promote new ones always causes trouble. They dont need to nerf anything.
Akrasjel Lanate
Founder and CEO of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Abaddon Nergal
WiNGSPAN Academy for Enterprising Pilots The WINGSPAN Logo Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 14:36:51 -
[273] - Quote
CCP ytterbium
By request of CCP Nullarbor I would seek to draw your attention to the update on the Structure Components release on SISI, the volumes appear to remain unchanged from the previous values. Additionally it would appear that "fuel blocks" are not included in the BoM
I assume the latter is intentional, but hey, why not ask. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
331
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 14:48:11 -
[274] - Quote
While we are at it, I will post my entire BPO rant here as well
kennethfeld [8:19 AM] as far as copy number, 7 is meaningless per se. During Crius we complained about the number of runs of cap bpo to greyscale and he finally agreed 5 was horrid. WE mainly browbeat him for a QOL change
[8:20] he finally settled on 40 because that was roughly a week of build with no bonus
[8:20] IF and this ia a GIANT if we keep the structure BPO's at rank 200 - then 10 runs is 6D 19H
[8:21] I think they should be rank 60 with the rest of the capital comp BPO's and if they should be rank 60, then they should be 40 runs
[8:22] the outposts themselves are 600 - which is the same as titans
[8:23] the T1 upgrades are rank 200, tier 2 upgrades are rank 400 and T3 upgrades are rank 600
[8:23] this is in line with capitals (dreads and carriers) at rank 200 as well
[8:24] I still, for the life of me can't understand why the structure BPO's need to be rank 200 instead of 60
[8:24] changing it from rank 200 to 60 doesn't affect price or input (edited)
[8:25] it only affects research time, build time and copy time
[8:25] the BPO's are cheap as hell compared to capital comp BPO's 200 mil vs 3.4 bil for some of the cap comps
[8:26] but the research time is incredibly onerous and will reward those of us who have had them for a while and make the barrier for entry into building citadels extremely high
[8:27] hmm, on second though, wait 6 months until prices have stabilized and I have made a few trillion before you change the BPO ranks LOL :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
kennethfeld [8:38 AM] Also, if I am not mistaken, the upgrade BPO's never got put in the game......they are in the big dump, but not sure they are actually seeded on TQ despite begging Greyscale
Structure BPO's being rank 200 is incredibly onerous, and just no reason. If you feel they need to be 200 for some reason, I am fine with that, but that doesn't follow much convention. |
Kaivar Lancer
Federal Defense Union
719
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 17:17:36 -
[275] - Quote
Increasing stront requirements for fuel blocks is a step in the right direction. Anything to encourage miners to explore and leave high sec. |
Gunrunner1775
Interstellar Engineering and Electronics INC
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 12:07:56 -
[276] - Quote
Someone double check my math please:
Fuel Block (per run w/ 10% ME): Heavy water x 151 Liquid Ozone x 151 Isotopes x 400 Strontium x18
I processed 10 blocks of regular ice processed to determine my % processing yield (cause I wanted to see exact numbers, appears to be 75%) Heavy Water was 517 Liquid Ozone was 262 Isotopes was 3105 Strontium was 7
30 days x 24 hours = 720 hours x 20 blocks / hour = 14,400 blocks
1 Blueprint run = 40 blocks, 14,400 / 40 = 360 runs
Isotopes 400 per run * 360 runs = 144,000 isotopes needed, divided by 310.5 isotopes per block = 2066.92 blocks of ice I need to mine per month
Strontium 18 per run * 360 runs = 6480 stront needed, divided by 0.75 stront per block = 8640 blocks of ice I need to mine per month
So, I have went from needing 2067 blocks of ice per month to needing 8640 blocks of ice per month
My 2 skiffs + orca = 4 blocks per min. roughlyGǪ so, I just went from just over 8.5 hours of ice mining per month to having to mine 36 hours a month
|
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
93
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 13:36:39 -
[277] - Quote
Gunrunner1775 wrote:[Maths snipped]
by the changes in adding strontium (i understand the concept)... creates a completely different economic issue.... players makeing their own fuel, will have to mine 4 times as much, and process 4x as much... and the leftovers from the processing of the ice ... were is it going??? what will be added or changed in the game to create consumption of these items???
Kind of already covered the maths myself (google sheet with step-by-step maths link yet again: Here).
You're not wrong - the ability for hisec belts to produce fuel locally is getting cut to about 1/4 (hey, it was originally gonna be cut by over 97%, it could be worse). But if you compare hisec production to nullsec production, null is still going to over-produce strontium and under-produce isotopes, so there's plenty of room in the market for either you to sell isotopes to null importers who ship them out to make more fuel, or for you to buy stront from null exporters to supplement your local production of other ice products and make more fuel.
With that said (If CCP Ytterbium or any other devs are reading this) I've gotta admit I'd love it if you could, say, double the stront in hisec ices (which would cut local production to 50% of what it is at present, rather than one quarter). Or, alternately, both significantly buff nullsec strontium production AND make it a lot easier for them to export it in order to allow hisec residents to more easily get their hands on null's excess stront for their own use. I remember seeing a suggestion from someone else in this thread (I forget who, sorry) to allow Strontium Clathrates to be refined into Strontium Isotopes or something similar with much lower volume, so that you could still have triage/siege durations limited by current Stront volumes but also make it much easier to haul a version used solely for fuel production; that would be pretty much ideal, for example. |
Oracle of Machina
No Refunds. Get Off My Lawn
27
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 14:04:23 -
[278] - Quote
Gunrunner1775 wrote:Words
You realize that there's stront-heavy ice? I realize it's a null-only ice, but still.
While there's not a lot on market at the moment (because generally there's no reason to even mine it or ship it right now), that would change. Krystallos is able to do about 6-7 runs per block with new requirements, Gelidus is about 4. Aside from that, Strontium itself is very cheap.
Your 360 runs of stront would cost you about ~8.5m at current market values. In fact, the only issue I see is getting the materials around, as it takes up a rather large amount of space, and there's no specialized industrial for ice products. However, the Tayra and Iteron V can both hold up to about ~36k of cargo space fully expanded and trained, which is more than enough room for your single 'month', and almost (but not quite) enough to fit two 'months' worth of stront in their hold.
If you're feeling particularly lazy, you could fit a freighter with expanded holds (rounding it to a nice, even 1m m3, some freighters hold even more) with stront, which would be enough for ~51 'months' worth of runs at the proposed levels, and only cost about 430m at current prices. There are solutions here.
The biggest problem with stront at the moment is it's size. It can't be compressed, it can't be hauled easily, and it's not worth it to export from null, because generally the amount of stront that is transportable in a jump freighter usually isn't worth the fuel cost of jumping it out. If the null market is going to pick up the tab for exporting the stront out, some reduction is probably going to be required, or stront prices are going to have to raise significantly higher. If the second becomes true, we'll have some serious problems with sustainability as far as block production goes. |
Gunrunner1775
Interstellar Engineering and Electronics INC
53
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 14:07:14 -
[279] - Quote
My biggest problem
" My 2 skiffs + orca = 4 blocks per min. roughlyGǪ so, I just went from just over 8.5 hours of ice mining per month to having to mine 36 hours a month
"
Time invested is my main problem
going from 8.5 hours to 17 hours mineing per month i can possibly deal with (toss in some market tradeing to cut it down)
but going from 8.5 hours a month mineing to 36 hours a month???? even with market tradeing, thats too much for alot of folks,
8.5 hours mining was an acceptable sacrifice to be somewhat self sufficient and have time to do other things
now i am forced to depend on someone else, depend on what looks to be an extremly rocky market. This was one of the extremly few things that i enjoyed, that i could do on my own that did did not force me to depend on others. I may adapt, i may not, who knows, but not likeing this change at all |
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
93
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 14:15:37 -
[280] - Quote
Gunrunner1775 wrote:My biggest problem
" My 2 skiffs + orca = 4 blocks per min. roughlyGǪ so, I just went from just over 8.5 hours of ice mining per month to having to mine 36 hours a month
"
Time invested is my problem
going from 8.5 hours to 17 hours mineing per month i can possibly deal with (toss in some market tradeing to cut it down)
but going from 8.5 hours a month mineing to 36 hours a month???? even with market tradeing, thats too much for alot of folks,
8.5 hours mining was an acceptable sacrifice to be somewhat self sufficient and have time to do other things
You're working on the assumption that you've gotta mine everything yourself, which simply isn't the case. Ideally the market balances out with you mining in hisec over-producing isotopes and not getting enough stront, while somewhere in null there's a miner with the opposite problem - too much stront, not enough 'topes. And then along comes a trader who bridges the gap between you both and rewards your surplus isotope production with ISK which lets you buy the stront you can't mine locally.
I think that either null needs a stront production boost and a seperate change to make stront easier to export, or else hisec needs a stront boost to make it less dependant on those exports, but that doesn't change the general principle, just the specifics. |
|
Gunrunner1775
Interstellar Engineering and Electronics INC
54
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 02:08:26 -
[281] - Quote
let me try it a different way
i am now forced to double my TIME investment.... mine the 8.5 hours to get the first part of what i need..
then mine ANOTHER 8.5 hours or so to get the extra stuff to trade to get the rest of the stront that i need due to changes in fuel
no matter how you toss around market tradeing and high - low - null import export... it comes down to
TIME
at least for me it does, as i understand it, the medium citadels was supposed to be for the smaller groups or more casual groups what not.. were as the large and XL is for the much bigger much more active groups of players
now im forced to double the amount of TIME doing stuff for the medium citadel vs what i did for the medium POS
I do not have an issue with how you throw around the numbers and increase or decrease stuff.... i have a problem when TIME invested is increased for no noticeable return
IDEA.. make the citadel supper mega death ray dooms day weapon use Stront as a fuel??? |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 08:35:27 -
[282] - Quote
Gunrunner1775 wrote:let me try it a different way
.........................
now im forced to double the amount of TIME doing stuff for the medium citadel vs what i did for the medium POS
.........................
I understand the point you and others are making - and haven't (because I do not yet think we have enough information to do so properly), run all the numbers myself; however, are you (and others) sure?
Take this trite example....
If I am currently running a Small POS (as many do) in HS to do Ore Compression - and one day that POS will have to be taken down/disappear/traded in.
Small POS & Compression Array -> Medium Citadel + Rigs + Compression module = ~10x the cost
I online it and run it for 1-2 hrs per week - cost 10-20 fuelblocks (and1/2 charters).
In the future it will only be 5/10 fuelblocks........but there's a 360 fuelblock onlining charge - so that's not half, as it could appear, but 36x as much if I do that only once per week as now!
Then again - what you are doing in one POS could perhaps be done in a single structure now?
Or, you put up a structure and let others use it and offset the cost for everyone...
At present we just don't know and haven't explored all the options.
So - it could cost half what it is now under one set of assumptions - or it could cost 50x as much.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Oxide Ammar
231
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 08:59:08 -
[283] - Quote
I have question, Are there any plans to bring Capital ships into Hisec this year ? Since XL Citadels can be deployed in Hisec and I don't recall there will be any individuals/ fleet can take it down by its own with its massive HP and fire power except Capital ships who can do serious balance to that. If not, then deploying XL Citadels gives unfair advantage to mega corps or wealthy ones over smaller corps who wants to open local market and research labs for public.
XL Citadels will be like deploying monuments that can't be removed in near future from game.
Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
|
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 10:55:22 -
[284] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:I have question, Are there any plans to bring Capital ships into Hisec this year ? Since XL Citadels can be deployed in Hisec and I don't recall there will be any individuals/ fleet can take it down by its own with its massive HP and fire power except Capital ships who can do serious balance to that. If not, then deploying XL Citadels gives unfair advantage to mega corps or wealthy ones over smaller corps who wants to open local market and research labs for public.
XL Citadels will be like deploying monuments that can't be removed in near future from game.
No - afaik there are still no plans to bring Caps into HS in any near future.
Prediction: The first XL Citadels in HS will indeed be destroyed - by Battleships, quite happily.
If and when Caps can come into HS to counter what you, I believe wrongly, believe will happen - then it's precisely those 'mega/wealthy Corps' that will use them to crush any smaller competition.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Oxide Ammar
231
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 11:45:45 -
[285] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:I have question, Are there any plans to bring Capital ships into Hisec this year ? Since XL Citadels can be deployed in Hisec and I don't recall there will be any individuals/ fleet can take it down by its own with its massive HP and fire power except Capital ships who can do serious balance to that. If not, then deploying XL Citadels gives unfair advantage to mega corps or wealthy ones over smaller corps who wants to open local market and research labs for public.
XL Citadels will be like deploying monuments that can't be removed in near future from game. No - afaik there are still no plans to bring Caps into HS in any near future. Prediction: The first XL Citadels in HS will indeed be destroyed - by Battleships, quite happily. If and when Caps can come into HS to counter what you, I believe wrongly, believe will happen - then it's precisely those 'mega/wealthy Corps' that will use them to crush any smaller competition.
Actually they mentioned this matter last year in dev blog, so they might do this. I believe that ratio between dread to BS is 3:1 in terms of actual players on the field to take down XL Citadel. You don't need to organize an event to take one down.
Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2220
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 11:55:50 -
[286] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:I have question, Are there any plans to bring Capital ships into Hisec this year ? Since XL Citadels can be deployed in Hisec and I don't recall there will be any individuals/ fleet can take it down by its own with its massive HP and fire power except Capital ships who can do serious balance to that. If not, then deploying XL Citadels gives unfair advantage to mega corps or wealthy ones over smaller corps who wants to open local market and research labs for public.
XL Citadels will be like deploying monuments that can't be removed in near future from game. No - afaik there are still no plans to bring Caps into HS in any near future. Prediction: The first XL Citadels in HS will indeed be destroyed - by Battleships, quite happily. If and when Caps can come into HS to counter what you, I believe wrongly, believe will happen - then it's precisely those 'mega/wealthy Corps' that will use them to crush any smaller competition. Nah. There isn't a single highsec entity with anywhere near the numbers to field the 100-200 battleships needed to kill even an undefended XL citadel in a reasonable time (while there are plenty that could field a dozen dreads). If one is ever destroyed in highsec (which I seriously doubt unless one becomes a major market hub to justify hundreds of player hours of effort), it will be by one of the large null/lowsec entities.
|
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 12:13:52 -
[287] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Marcus Tedric wrote:................................
No - afaik there are still no plans to bring Caps into HS in any near future. ..................
Actually they mentioned this matter last year in dev blog, so they might do this. I believe that ratio between dread to BS is 3:1 in terms of actual players on the field to take down XL Citadel. You don't need to organize an event to take one down.
Agreed - but I said 'in any near future' - and I'm pretty sure that's still the case. Dreads in HS will be worse in this scenario.
But I will bet that the first XL(s) in HS will indeed be taken down - just for the KM.....
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
93
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 13:35:19 -
[288] - Quote
Gunrunner1775 wrote:let me try it a different way
i am now forced to double my TIME investment.... mine the 8.5 hours to get the first part of what i need..
then mine ANOTHER 8.5 hours or so to get the extra stuff to trade to get the rest of the stront that i need due to changes in fuel
no matter how you toss around market tradeing and high - low - null import export... it comes down to
TIME
at least for me it does, as i understand it, the medium citadels was supposed to be for the smaller groups or more casual groups what not.. were as the large and XL is for the much bigger much more active groups of players
now im forced to double the amount of TIME doing stuff for the medium citadel vs what i did for the medium POS
I do not have an issue with how you throw around the numbers and increase or decrease stuff.... i have a problem when TIME invested is increased for no noticeable return
IDEA.. make the citadel supper mega death ray dooms day weapon use Stront as a fuel???
OK, now I'm genuinely curious so I started to use MATHS to check if your numbers are accurate. Unfortunately, it turns out that your initial assumptions aren't entirely correct.
Back in your first post you said:
Gunrunner1775 wrote:Isotopes 400 per run * 360 runs = 144,000 isotopes needed, divided by 310.5 isotopes per block = 2066.92 blocks of ice I need to mine per month
Except that the second half of that is completely wrong. 144,000/311.5 (why 311.5? Because your refining rate isn't exactly 75%, it's 75.25232% - that extra 1/4 of a % matters) isn't 2067, it's 463.
However your actual figure of 2067 ice per month isn't wrong, because you don't just need isotopes, you also need 54,360 Heavy Water and Liquid Ozone. And as it turns out, you do need 2067 ice to produce that much Liquid Ozone (well, actually 2064 ice - there's that .25% difference again). But that changes things slightly, because the point is that while you're only just producing enough LO to make your fuel, you're producing more than 4x as many isotopes as you need, plus 2x as much heavy water. That's what we technically refer to as a "surplus", which you can trade to other players without requiring any extra mining time to create.
So, with that in mind, let's have a look at the actual numbers. Assuming you are in fact mining 2064 ice per month, that gives you: Racial Isotopes: 643,028 Heavy Water: 107,171 Liquid Ozone: 54,362 Strontium Clathrates: 1,553
So, let's remove the requirements for your fuel blocks from that, to just show the surplus: Racial Isotopes: 499,028 Heavy Water: 52,811 Liquid Ozone: 2 Strontium Clathrates: -4,927
So, what's all that worth? Well, the problem is this stront change is going to shake up ice product values - in point of fact it's doing so already, thanks to speculation on the change. So, I'm going to guess some values based on a very significant drop in value for non-stront ice products and a huge rise in stront price. In fact we're going to assume that you're getting 500 ISK/unit of isotopes, nothing for the water and ozone and Stront costs 5,000 ISK/unit. None of those seem likely to happen, but it's nice and dramatic to illustrate my point, also the maths is simpler:
Surplus Value= (499,028 * 500) + (-4927 * 5,000) = 249,514,000 - 24,635,000 = 224,879,000
So, the TL;DR is that your 8.5 hours of mining will still provide most of the ingredients for the fuel you need as well as a surplus of resources to sell that will easily cover the value of the extra strontium you now need to buy, plus extra ISK to boot. |
Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 14:02:20 -
[289] - Quote
Any preliminary date when can we get more information regarding group of structures called - Observations? Just very curious about these structures ... ))) |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4514
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 14:24:05 -
[290] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:I have another question about Citadels:
In a previous blog "Building your citadel..." there were some tables regarding the material composition of the new Citadels. I am stuck there.
"Structure hull composition (by raw materials)" That one does not fit with the component bill of materials.
Example: the chart says "a Large citadel hull will contain a total of 452 Broadcast Nodes". But the bill of materials for the hull lists 40 Station Market Networks which - according to the first table - need 15 Broadcas Nodes each! That's 40*15=600 Broadcast Nodes from the market networks alone. Definitely more than 452.
I checked a few more and got totally different numbers (~3700 vs ~4900 P4 things total for a large hull, that's a significant difference).
Am I missing something? Someone please clarify.
Fixed material sheet. Link here.
|
|
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
376
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 18:16:27 -
[291] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Marcus Tedric wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:I have question, Are there any plans to bring Capital ships into Hisec this year ? Since XL Citadels can be deployed in Hisec and I don't recall there will be any individuals/ fleet can take it down by its own with its massive HP and fire power except Capital ships who can do serious balance to that. If not, then deploying XL Citadels gives unfair advantage to mega corps or wealthy ones over smaller corps who wants to open local market and research labs for public.
XL Citadels will be like deploying monuments that can't be removed in near future from game. No - afaik there are still no plans to bring Caps into HS in any near future. Prediction: The first XL Citadels in HS will indeed be destroyed - by Battleships, quite happily. If and when Caps can come into HS to counter what you, I believe wrongly, believe will happen - then it's precisely those 'mega/wealthy Corps' that will use them to crush any smaller competition. Nah. There isn't a single highsec entity with anywhere near the numbers to field the 100-200 battleships needed to kill even an undefended XL citadel in a reasonable time (while there are plenty that could field a dozen dreads). If one is ever destroyed in highsec (which I seriously doubt unless one becomes a major market hub to justify hundreds of player hours of effort), it will be by one of the large null/lowsec entities.
I think you seriously underestimate the willingness of random people to band together to do something. Especially something as notable as destroying the first XL citadel in HS. And since any citadel drops a % of its build cost, any % of 70-100B will be well worth the time involved.
If you build it, they will come. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2220
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 19:10:55 -
[292] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:
I think you seriously underestimate the willingness of random people to band together to do something. Especially something as notable as destroying the first XL citadel in HS. And since any citadel drops a % of its build cost, any % of 70-100B will be well worth the time involved.
If you build it, they will come.
Not for this - the bar is just too high. No group who lives in highsec is anywhere close to the size necessary. Even if you manage to hire every single highsec mercenary group you still wouldn't have enough to attack a XL citadel and a defense fleet. Only the large nullsec coalitions have the numbers necessary.
If you do the math, even 30B ISK divided over a hundred players is less money than you could make blitzing L4 missions per hour and the missions don't require you to risk a pirate battleship to a battle station. And you will need much more than a hundred players if someone shows up to defend which they almost certainly will.
Thankfully, this is one debate we will eventually have an answer to. The killboards will show if and when a XL ever dies in highsec, and who the killers were. I hope CCP has a plan when a year or two from now not a single XL has been exploded in highsec by highsec residents. Or perhaps being vulnerable only to the large nullsec groups is the intention - it's hard to see how a minimum bar of a couple hundred players to even try to attack intends anything else. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
353
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 20:01:48 -
[293] - Quote
the more i think about what will happen when citadels begin deployment.. the more and more i think about the several large entities that has been in the early planning stages of blowing up any citadel they can get to.. just for the lolz.
thanks ccp for making them destructible.. im sure it will be even more fun to rebuild one from scratch since you are still headed into thinking stations should be made like frigates and are easily replaceable.. hey will insurance be attached to citadels since you're so head strong to make them act like ships??
enjoy the wrecking balls when they come and they are indeed coming..
|
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
93
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 20:08:45 -
[294] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Obil Que wrote:
I think you seriously underestimate the willingness of random people to band together to do something. Especially something as notable as destroying the first XL citadel in HS. And since any citadel drops a % of its build cost, any % of 70-100B will be well worth the time involved.
If you build it, they will come.
Not for this - the bar is just too high. No group who lives in highsec is anywhere close to the size necessary. Even if you manage to hire every single highsec mercenary group you still wouldn't have enough to attack a XL citadel and a defense fleet. Only the large nullsec coalitions have the numbers necessary. If you do the math, even 30B ISK divided over a hundred players is less money than you could make blitzing L4 missions per hour and the missions don't require you to risk a pirate battleship to a battle station. And you will need much more than a hundred players if someone shows up to defend which they almost certainly will. Thankfully, this is one debate we will eventually have an answer to. The killboards will show if and when a XL ever dies in highsec, and who the killers were. I hope CCP has a plan when a year or two from now not a single XL has been exploded in highsec by highsec residents. Or perhaps being vulnerable only to the large nullsec groups is the intention - it's hard to see how a minimum bar of a couple hundred players to even try to attack intends anything else.
I'm not sure I really follow this argument; I mean I get that XL Citadels will have 108 mil shield/armor/hull HP, plus 20% resists so 129 mil EHP in each category, and obviously that's a lot of HP. But on the other hand a Large POS tower has 58 mil EHP, and I can burn down one of those in about 2 hours with just 8 characters in tech 1 battleships.
Obviously there's going to be a big difference between shooting an offline POS tower that can't shoot back and a manned citadel with various defences, but I don't really see that upping the number to a 100+ minimum. 20, sure. Maybe 25, with a few in logistics ships and a fleet booster, though depending on Citadel setup multiple Marauders might be more effective. But 100 would be massive overkill. The fact it's got a DPS cap of 75k doesn't mean you actually need 75k DPS to kill it. If an actual defence fleet shows up, that's going to be different, but that's as it should be - if more players show to defend it will take more players to attack, or some other advantage like better coordination, logistics, higher SP etc.
Also bear in mind the way that the mechanics work - first of all, you don't have to plow through Shields AND Armor AND Hull all in 1 sitting - once you've burned through one layer of 129mil EHP, it'll go into reinforcement for however long, you go do whatever and a day or so later you come back for round 2. Second, if I understand the mechanics correctly, once you start attacking you have as long as you need to strip through that layer provided you keep applying damage at least once every 15 minutes. As soon as you first deal damage it goes into Repair mode, which keeps it vulnerable until the defense layer is completely removed or else it goes 15 minutes without taking damage. You only need to start your attack during the Citadel's vulnerability window, it doesn't need to be completed during that window.
Technically, if an XL citadel is completely undefended with no defense fleet and nobody on its weapons, 2 players in 1k DPS BSes could kill it on their own, at least as long as it was vulnerable shortly after downtime (129.6mil EHP / 2k DPS = 64.8k seconds = 18 hours per defense layer). If they did that for all 3 layers and got 35 bil in loot they'd end up with 324 mil ISK/hr each from the whole thing, which is actually pretty damn good, especially since one assumes they'd be AFK most of that time.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2220
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 21:09:31 -
[295] - Quote
Jinrai Tremaine wrote: I'm not sure I really follow this argument; I mean I get that XL Citadels will have 108 mil shield/armor/hull HP, plus 20% resists so 129 mil EHP in each category, and obviously that's a lot of HP. But on the other hand a Large POS tower has 58 mil EHP, and I can burn down one of those in about 2 hours with just 8 characters in tech 1 battleships.
Almost no one shoots a Large POS today, and these XL things are 5 times more grindy (remember there are three 108M HP reinforcements). A large POS takes about 20-30 player hours to kill now depending how fit, and these XLs will take 120-150 player hours. That means you need at least 50 player in expensive battleships to grind it down in a reasonable time (I think 2-3 hours of mind-numbing grinding to kill a station that drops almost nothing is already too much but lets go with that to limit group size). There are only a handful of highsec groups that can even field 50 battleships at one time. For example, if we look at the most prolific highsec aggressors in the last week PIRAT has 33 active players, Marmite 44, the Devils 15 and Break-a-Wish 7. And that is across all timezones. Even CODE. has less than a hundred (although most of them are -10 and can't structure bash). If you got all of them together, perhaps you can gather a 50-man gank-fit DPS fleet in a single time zone which would immediately have to flee from any opposition. A balanced fleet fitting some tank and with some support ships would double or more the requirement.
This will not happen. People do not like to structure grind and it appears CCP has been unable to solve this problem in highsec/low-class wormholes (although the design and player time required to attack is not bad everywhere else) despite that being one of their main goals of these structures (bullet point 4).
Any XL that dies in highsec will die at the hands of the Imperium or one of the other low/null entities that can field 100+ players at a time. And they will not waste 150 hours of their member's time for a few billion in mineral drops (except for perhaps the very first kill for which the killmail will be the main prize), so even that won't happen ever unless these market hubs prove very lucrative. And it would be great if some epic battle over a highsec market hub occurred one day involving hundreds of players from nullsec, but it doesn't change the fact that XL citadels are completely unassailable to 100% of the residents who live in highsec today who just do not have the numbers (or the access to capitals needed) to attack them but who will use these XL citadels to make themselves immune from their neighbours.
The only bright side is that the large price tag should keep their numbers down to a minimum, but given how well limiting Titan proliferation based on cost worked, I am not even sure of that. Looking at freighter kills shows that there is a lot of ISK moving around highsec each and every day.
As I said we will see. Let's all check back on the forums here in a year or so and we can analyze the killboards and decide if XL citadels have been a success at driving content in highsec.
I know where my money is. |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
59
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 22:02:36 -
[296] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:.... Almost no one shoots a Large POS today, ....................
This will not happen. .................
As I said we will see. Let's all check back on the forums here in a year or so and we can analyze the killboards and decide if XL citadels have been a success at driving content in highsec.
I know where my money is.
Yes, in some respects you're quite right. I've run, successfully, Large POS in HS and LS for many years in the past - and never were they successfully, if at all, attacked - mainly, I might presume, because it wasn't worth it - as you quite rightly point out.
However, I know where my money is at too.
Some, perhaps not all, and eventually things will settle...........of the first HS XLs will, absolutely and positively be blown up.
Just because they can.
I've never been PvP-mad - not my style (RL effect). But this WILL happen just for the Kill Mails - and no other reason at all.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Tivika
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
23
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 23:17:35 -
[297] - Quote
Can some one please explain to me why a Medium citadel which can only field 2x sub-capital missile launchers would be any threat to a battleship fleet with a total of 764 dps????
this is a joke right? |
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
93
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 02:25:43 -
[298] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:[Snip]
I know where my money is.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, because I still think that 50 players is overkill.
All told, including the 20% resists (though I guess not including the effects of any defenses that boost EHP), an XL Citadel has 388,800,000 EHP. Assuming an average of 1,000 DPS, which seems like a reasonable assumption for an organised bashing force (can be done with various tech 1 BSes if they focus on DPS, or Marauders/Pirate BSes with more flexibility), that's going to take 108 player-hours to kill. Obviously that's a lot of work and I'm not going to pretend otherwise, but it's also well-paying. Assuming a 35 billion ISK drop, which isn't counting potential extra loot from manufacturing jobs in progress or surviving fittings, killing an XL citadel pays 324 million ISK per hour.
The thing is, Hisec has never really seen anything like this before - "2 hour bash ops" are basically a new concept, but that's what you'd need to kill an XL citadel with about 20 players (specifically, 3 of those ops, one each for shield/armor hull). However for the prospect of 324 mil/hr (which would be a total of just under 2 bil for each of those 20 players, as an example. Or a PLEX and a Skill Injector) I think it's something we would see. Most of the groups you namedropped who don't have 50 active players do have 20+, not to mention out-of-corp characters like neutral logi who would be needed to assault an occcupied citadel.
So, the next question is, how hard would it be to kill an XL citadel which was actually fighting back? The answer is that it seems relatively easy - hisec citadels lose their most powerful weapons, the guided bombs and the arcing vorton projector. They're left with only the Anti-Subcap missiles for effective DPS, which even with a full set of 8 only totals about 3,200 DPS with about 48k alpha. Definitely tough, but survivable - logi cruisers get a significant signature-based damage reduction, and just 2-3 of them could keep up with that incoming DPS, while BSes should have no problem soaking it with logi reps, or alternately a Bastion-ed Marauder could tank it solo. Throw in energy neuts to interfere with bastions and logis and you cut back the DPS that needs to be tanked. In point of fact, it honestly looks like the best setup for any hisec citadels is actually as a support platform for a defending fleet, using bump/tractor modules to break up formations and neuts and ECM to disrupt individuals. But without that defending fleet, an XL Citadel doesn't have enough punch to counter an organised group.
At the most basic level, if we're talking about a significant ISK reward for dealing with high incoming volley damage, energy neuts and electronic warfare and needing a coordinated fleet with logi support, that honestly sounds more than a little reminiscent of Incursions. The fact that hisec players partake in them, organise, cooperate and risk very expensive ships but come out intact and wealthy should tell you that the same will likely happen here, even if it's a different group of players involved.
Obviously there is the question "What about the defending fleet?" which is relevant, but we're talking about groups whose bread and butter is running rings around hisec PvE players via better ships, fittings, tactics and coordination, which will stand them in equally good stead here. There's a big difference in combat effectiveness. between, say, RvB and a large hisec mining corp who can pool 70bn for the best refinery possible. Ultimately yes, a well-defended XL citadel will be nigh-impossible to destroy without the kind of numerical advantage null powers can bring to the table, but I don't think there's many hisec entities with the ability to defend an XL Citadel well enough vs the opposition they'd face from other hisec groups.
I know where my money is too, and it's definitely not getting invested in an XL Citadel any time soon. |
Oxide Ammar
231
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 07:00:11 -
[299] - Quote
You all talking about XL Citadels in Hisec like it is gonna be single incident, Overtime they will start to pile up in Hisec with no one ever able to take them down. In addition people tends to forget that these XL will be manned and shoot back so any fight happens on Grid of XL Citadel can be translated into BS fleet vs BS flee with Capital support (XL Citadel).
Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2220
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 07:28:25 -
[300] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:You all talking about XL Citadels in Hisec like it is gonna be single incident, Overtime they will start to pile up in Hisec with no one ever able to take them down. In addition people tends to forget that these XL will be manned and shoot back so any fight happens on Grid of XL Citadel can be translated into BS fleet vs BS flee with Capital support (XL Citadel). Yup. Unless they are used for ostentatious purposes (like a low-fee market hub in Perimeter) no low/null group will bother with a private XL citadel in some back-water highsec system. And given no local group is large enough to attempt to attack, they will just pile up over time, providing absolute safety for the occupants.
I'll wait until the final numbers are released before deciding how massive a fleet is needed to attack a defended XL, but I can already confidently say the base HP wall is already beyond almost all of the groups that currently live in highsec. We already have the example of the large POS which is essentially never attacked in highsec or low-class wormholes. I don't see why people think releasing a structure that takes 5-times the amount of effort to explode even undefended is suddenly going to usher highsec into a golden age of structure fights.
No highsec group is going to be able to attack these without help from the big null groups even if they, really, really, really want to. So they won't. |
|
Edward Olmops
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 10:33:01 -
[301] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Edward Olmops wrote:I have another question about Citadels:
In a previous blog "Building your citadel..." there were some tables regarding the material composition of the new Citadels. I am stuck there.
"Structure hull composition (by raw materials)" That one does not fit with the component bill of materials.
Example: the chart says "a Large citadel hull will contain a total of 452 Broadcast Nodes". But the bill of materials for the hull lists 40 Station Market Networks which - according to the first table - need 15 Broadcas Nodes each! That's 40*15=600 Broadcast Nodes from the market networks alone. Definitely more than 452.
I checked a few more and got totally different numbers (~3700 vs ~4900 P4 things total for a large hull, that's a significant difference).
Am I missing something? Someone please clarify. Fixed material sheet. Link here.
Thx. Looks like a Keepstar is going to get a bit more costly than initially projected... (~184bISK materials. But hey, what's a titan more or less? We are all spacerich! )
|
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
59
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 10:34:47 -
[302] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:You all talking about XL Citadels in Hisec like it is gonna be single incident, Overtime they will start to pile up in Hisec with no one ever able to take them down. In addition people tends to forget that these XL will be manned and shoot back so any fight happens on Grid of XL Citadel can be translated into BS fleet vs BS flee with Capital support (XL Citadel).
Not at all. Yes, whilst I am convinced that at least a few of them will simply be blown up early on; that's not the same as later on.
An XL, fully fitted, rigged and doing 'useful stuff' could easily run to getting on for 200b (and the rigs are non-refundable). Yes, there will be a few done simply because some are very 'space rich'; but many in HS are somewhat more 'sensible', let alone risk averse.
There will be an ongoing cost to running these that will be far from insignificant. The more there are, then that cost will not be re-couped so easily. That's one thing that will serve to limit them.
However, this is a game and there will, one day, be rather a lot of them around. At that point there will arise a group who can indeed raise the troops possible just to take them down - more prey, more predators - for there is isk to be made (let alone those KMs).
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
93
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 15:52:24 -
[303] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:And given no local group is large enough to attempt to attack, they will just pile up over time, providing absolute safety for the occupants. [...] I can already confidently say the base HP wall is already beyond almost all of the groups that currently live in highsec. [...] No highsec group is going to be able to attack these without help from the big null groups.
You keep saying this but could you please explain what your reasoning for it is?
As I've said before, the raw HP is going to be a grind to burn through, but we're talking about hisec; we are good at grinds. We grind missions, we grind mining, we grind incursions, we grind standings; you name it and if it can be ground in hisec at all then we grind it. Grinding structure HP isn't going to be an insurmountable barrier; it certainly wasn't when hisec NPC customs offices became destructible, for example.
You will be able to get together a group of 20-25 hisec players (or a few players with multiple alts each) who will be prepared to invest 6 hours over the course of 3 attacks to kill an XL citadel, which is all you'll need unless the defenders can organise an effective defence fleet to stop you. And the ability to organise an effective defence fleet in hisec is not a common one - if it were, Marmite and Archetype. and other such groups would be a lot less effective than they are. In particular, there's going to be a fairly large disconnect between "hisec groups who have the ISK to buy an XL Citadel" and "hisec groups with the PvP skill to effectively defend one".
Speaking personally, rather than hypothetically, with my 8 structure bashing characters I couldn't take on an actively defended XL Citadel by myself - even if there is no defence fleet, just manned defences would stop me. But if I saw one belonging to what appeared to be an inactive corp, I would absolutely go for it - I'd be looking at about 13.5 hours grinding, spread over 3 4.5 hour sessions, but between all 8 of those accounts I'd be making about 2.5bil/hour from the whole process; to me that's definitely worth doing, especially since grinding an inactive structure isn't exactly challenging - it's something to set up and keep an eye on in the background while watching TV.
That is why we're not going to see XL Citadels piling up in hisec; at the very least, once the corp goes inactive they're going to fall prey to "demolition teams" like my alts. Meanwhile more PvP oriented groups (rather than PvStructure) will be attacking them to bait fights from defenders and collect loot from killing the Citadel if they don't get those fights.
Black Pedro wrote:We already have the example of the large POS which is essentially never attacked in highsec or low-class wormholes.
I'm not sure that you appreciate the reason for this; it's not as simple as just being "because it has too many HP", it's because there's no reasonable expectation of a suitable reward for spending time grinding it.
If a POS is online then that implies that the corp running it is active, since they're keeping it fuelled (and presumably using it for whatever purpose) which means you have to assume that if you wardec them they'll notice, realise you're a threat to their POS and remove any valuable loot/modules before the war goes live, meaning you get very little payoff for the grind.
If a POS is offline then you don't need to kill the tower since you can just pop the much lower HP hangars/labs/ship arrays/assembly arrays and collect whatever they drop, rather than spending hours grinding the control tower itself.
Either way, there's usually no reward from actually shooting the tower, so it doesn't get shot. Even if you don't care about loot and just want to clear out a moon for your own use, you're going to pick a small or medium tower to take down because they'll grind faster than a large.
But none of that will apply to Citadels, since for a Citadel the structure itself is a guaranteed loot drop, and in fact a very lucrative one, which will directly incentivise players to attack the things and put up with the grind time. Comparing them to POSes based solely on the fact they both have high EHP is missing out on the most important distinction. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2220
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 17:17:07 -
[304] - Quote
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:You keep saying this but could you please explain what your reasoning for it is? I have multiple times. But again:
No one shoots large POSes now which at least offer a chance at a BPO or some loot drop. A few billion in minerals are not going to be a sufficient inducement to gather 50 people to shoot a structure. And the wall to shoot them is 5 times higher than the pain we have now.
There are no groups doing this now. Most mercenaries already will not usually take a contract to grind down a large POS without capitals. If you think some group is going to come out of nowhere to shoot XL structures for mineral drops, you are kidding yourself. I see no probability of such groups forming given the sheer amount of player hours, and the lack of fun required to do it
Everywhere else in space these citadels (all of them) will take 6-18 player hours to kill. That is perfectly reasonable amount of time to demand from a dozen or so players to force fights. No group is going to spend 150 hours of player time to kill something for the mineral drop, so unless there is something else on the table, it isn't going to happen. And more importantly, most highsec groups can't even gather 25 people for 6 hours for three days a week, let alone the 100+ to make it not a grind. And this is completely omitting the fact they will likely all be defended because of their cost.
The new Citadels were suppose to remove/reduce grinding: the original entosis plan has them only requiring 30-60 minutes for one person to attack which is a reasonable amount of time to allow a defender to respond. Grinding beyond that serves no in-game purpose other than to be used as a tool of weaponized boredom and prevent conflict from even starting.
CCP Ytterbium knows all this though and has acknowledged it in the past but for whatever reason, CCP has decide to go ahead with the XL in highsec plan anyways. I just hope that written on some whiteboard at the CCP offices is "ALLOW CAPITALS IN HIGHSEC - PLANNED FOR SPRING 2017" because I see no other way out of this clearly discrepant demand for player hours which will result in essentially zero XLs being destroyed in highsec, at least by highsec residents.
But neither of us can see the future. Maybe there are a mass of large corps that I have never heard of in highsec chomping at the bit to grind structures for mineral drops. But in any case we'll all know soon enough how many XLs are deployed by highsec corps, and how many are attacked and destroyed by highsec corps thanks to the killboards. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
376
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 18:39:23 -
[305] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Jinrai Tremaine wrote:You keep saying this but could you please explain what your reasoning for it is? I have multiple times. But again: No one shoots large POSes now which at least offer a chance at a BPO or some loot drop.
Far more likely that chance is zero as the defending corp takes down the tower before the wardec starts...That's why no one shoots them
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:The new Citadels were suppose to remove/reduce grinding: the original entosis plan has them only requiring 30-60 minutes for one person to attack which is a reasonable amount of time to allow a defender to respond. Grinding beyond that serves no in-game purpose other than to be used as a tool of weaponized boredom and prevent conflict from even starting.
And then the players spoke and wanted to shoot things so here we are...
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:But neither of us can see the future. Maybe there are a mass of large corps that I have never heard of in highsec chomping at the bit to grind structures for mineral drops. But in any case we'll all know soon enough how many XLs are deployed by highsec corps, and how many are attacked and destroyed by highsec corps thanks to the killboards.
The blob always wins. Getting together 75 randoms, NPSI, gankers, whatever to shoot something for 30 minutes, 3 times a week is not going to be a problem. The HS corp that puts up an XL fighting off a blob of that size...that's where I think the challenge is.
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1879
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 19:01:21 -
[306] - Quote
Is there a point in having XL in high sec anyway: - you wont dock supers in them in high - XL may have more "defense" but also a bigger window - you could have like 10(?) L for one XL and the potential generated income would be probably few times higher(depending if they would be in systems people would use... systems with no NPC stations or systems like Keberz for people instead of Agil)
Akrasjel Lanate
Founder and CEO of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2220
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 19:10:25 -
[307] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Is there a point in having XL in high sec anyway: - you wont dock supers in them in high - XL may have more "defense" but also a bigger window - you could have like 10(?) L for one XL and the potential generated income would be probably few times higher(depending if they would be in systems people would use... systems with no NPC stations or systems like Keberz for people instead of Agil) Yes, it makes you immune to every other group who lives in highsec.
That is pretty good value if you ask me. I wouldn't be the first, but once a couple have been killed and the novelty is gone, highsec XLs will the safest asset you can deploy in the game if you keep it private for your corp. |
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
94
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 23:25:30 -
[308] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:No one shoots large POSes now which at least offer a chance at a BPO or some loot drop. Because they don't! An online POS is going to have its valuable mods and their contents removed before any shots can be fired while an offline POS doesn't require the tower itself being killed to drop loot.
Black Pedro wrote:A few billion in minerals are not going to be a sufficient inducement to gather 50 people to shoot a structure. You don't need 50! I've said this repeatedly; If everyone brings 1k+ DPS to the party it's only 108 player-hours to kill an XL citadel. 20 people could do it in 5 hours. 320 mil ISK/hr is more than sufficient inducement to get that many people into an Incursion fleet; It'll make them shoot Citadels too.
Black Pedro wrote:I see no probability of such groups forming given the sheer amount of player hours, and the lack of fun required to do it You see, this is the argument that I really do not get. Players already form the kind of fleets we're talking about - remote rep and remote cap support, great tank and strong DPS - to participate in Incursions, which generally pay a lot less ISK/time than the 320 mil/hr that an XL Citadel kill will reward. I'm not suggesting that people will switch from Incursions to Citadels, of course - different groups of players enjoy different things, after all. But if you can form communities of players around incursions, with all the organisation and ISK required to do them effectively, I find it hard to believe you can't do the same for Citadel grinding if those will pay even better.
Black Pedro wrote:If you think some group is going to come out of nowhere to shoot XL structures for mineral drops, you are kidding yourself. If it's inactive I'll shoot it myself! If it's not inactive then groups like Marmite will attack them to bait fights, but If they don't get fights I bet they'll keep shooting because it's fantastic ISK/time if they get a kill.
Black Pedro wrote:No group is going to spend 150 hours of player time to kill something for the mineral drop, so unless there is something else on the table, it isn't going to happen. It's not 150 hours - it's only 108. Each of those player-hours pays out 320 million ISK. I honestly don't understand what else you feel needs to be "on the table" to motivate players to team up and kill these things. Seriously, if a group like Marmite says "Hey Jinrai, we heard you've got some alts who are great at killing inanimate objects, would you like to add in your DPS to speed up our grind while we provide coverage against PvP fleets, in exchange for a reasonable payment of ISK/time based on the loot value?" then (providedthere's a trustworthy 3rd party assuring those payments) I'd say "Hell yes!". I refuse to believe I'm the only player in hisec who would do the same.
I've actually ran out of quotes at this point, but I stand by the general points I've tried to make:
- Nobody shoots large towers because the pay is terrible, not because it's got too many EHP
- You don't need a fleet of hundreds of players - 20-25 could take on most manned citadels in hisec, inactives could be killed by 5-10 players
- An average of 1k DPS per player = over 320 mil ISK/hr pay out from killing the XL Citadel, however long that takes - that's the opposite of terrible pay
- Players already team up, organise and deploy coordinated, doctrine-fitted ships for less ISK than that running incursions
- If hisec XL Citadels do become at all common then players will form a community to kill them.
P.S. Obil Que - you seem to have miss-attributed a lot of things that Black Pedro said as being quotes from me; could you please edit that post? |
Oxide Ammar
232
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 05:31:21 -
[309] - Quote
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:Because they don't! An online POS is going to have its valuable mods and their contents removed before any shots can be fired while an offline POS doesn't require the tower itself being killed to drop loot.
Same can be said for XL Citadel, heck these Citadels even if they got neglected by its owners, all its items get moved to nearest station so this is another reason of why no one will trouble himself taking down XL Citadel. I don't know how did you miss that ?
Just for your record that fleet need to be formed needs to be from same wardec Corp. in order to take it that hisec Citadel down, knowing that anything valuable won't drop for them only glorious KM after 2-3 hours of structure shooting neglecting that this XL Citadel can get their asses handed to them if it started to shoot them. I don't expect XL manned guns will shoot wet noodles at enemy ships, I know the stats of Citadels guns still unknown but I'm definitely sure these guns will optimized to defend big portion of that XL Citadel because it will be balanced around facing dreads and titans in nullsec which what we don't have in hisec.
I'm simply not asking for denying XL Citadels from Hisec, not at all I welcome it with open arms and Kudos to any proper Corp who will be able to defend their XL Citadel there but all what I'm asking giving us the proper ships to take it down or every small-med size Corp will have their hopes crushed to open a small business in their region because they know no one able to take these XL Citadels monuments down.
Just think for second here, Do you think CCP their biggest ever improvement to that game....the long waited feature that everyone is waiting for ... the feature that will replace outposts and POS ingame... the feature that will worth 700B BPO to acquire first and truck load of minerals and materials to build.....That CCP will design it into 20 afk BS can take it down in 2 hrs ? really ? If they did that this is gonna be the biggest fail I have ever see coming.
Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
|
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
94
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 06:44:43 -
[310] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Same can be said for XL Citadel, heck these Citadels even if they got neglected by its owners, all its items get moved to nearest station so this is another reason of why no one will trouble himself taking down XL Citadel. I don't know how did you miss that ? I didn't miss that, but apparently you missed "The structure will turn into a wreck that will contain a certain percentage of the minerals and components that were needed to build its base hull". So, hey, guaranteed loot from killing the Citadel, not just a pretty killmail.
Oxide Ammar wrote:Just for your record that fleet need to be formed needs to be from same wardec Corp. No, it's just going to require that every ship in the fleet that's actively attacking the Citadel be in a corp with a wardec against the owners. They can be in multiple corporations as long as each of those corps is at war with the Citadel.
Fleet members not directly attacking the citadel (presumably) will not need to be at war with it - for example, a character providing fleet boosts could be in an NPC corporation and in fleet, boosting the people actually attacking it. Ships providing remote support - shield/armor/cap transfers, remote sensor boosters etc - will (still presumably) be suspect flagged if they're not in corp with the ships they're assisting, just as they are in regular wars between ships today, but provided their pilots accept that they can still assist without having a wardec.
Oxide Ammar wrote:I don't expect XL manned guns will shoot wet noodles at enemy ships, I know the stats of Citadels guns still unknown but I'm definitely sure these guns will optimized to defend big portion of that XL Citadel because it will be balanced around facing dreads and titans in nullsec which what we don't have in hisec. No, apparently you're just really bad at reading devblogs because the stats of Citadel guns (well, launchers) were published in the exact devblog this thread is discussing.
You can go and read the whole devblog or if you want the short version then this tells you how many slots each citadel has, this tells you what options are available for each slot, including which weapons can be fitted in hisec, and this tells you what each weapons system does.
If you want the really short version then hisec citadels aren't designed to defend against capitals and lose a lot of their anti-subcap firepower because they can't install AoE weapons. The firepower they do have can be tanked by bastion-mode Marauders or fleets with logistics ships.
Oxide Ammar wrote:Just think for second here, Do you think CCP their biggest ever improvement to that game....the long waited feature that everyone is waiting for ... the feature that will replace outposts and POS ingame... the feature that will worth 700B BPO to acquire first and truck load of minerals and materials to build.....That CCP will design it into 20 afk BS can take it down in 2 hrs ? really ? If they did that this is gonna be the biggest fail I have ever see coming. If nobody shows up to actually defend then yes, it will die to 20 AFK BSes. It'll take them a bit longer than 2 hours; roughly 5 hours, spread out over 3 separate attacks to ensure the defenders get a chance to respond, but if they choose not to then it will die.
Hell, if nobody defends it it'll die to 2 AFK BSes - the only reason it won't die to 1 is because 1 can't reinforce it before downtime, which will likely allow it to repair before the pilot can log back in.
If the only defence is one person manning guns then it's still going to die to 20 BSes, though they may not be able to go AFK while attacking; Citadels aren't intended to make a 20:1 fight winnable.
If the defence is 19 people in a fleet and 1 on guns vs 20 attackers then the Citadel and defenders will probably win, which is still fair because they've got a much bigger stake in the conflict.
I don't pretend to know how big an advantage a Citadel will offer, so I can't say "Oh, if the Defenders only have X while the Attackers have Y then the Attackers will win" but Citadel guns don't have the automatic firing that POS guns have - they will not shoot other players unless there's a human at the controls telling them to do so, so a Citadel with no active defenders is just a big fat sitting duck. |
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2220
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 07:29:03 -
[311] - Quote
First, CCP Ytterbium while going over the numbers, I noticed you bumped the DPS cap from 4000/12000/60000 to 5000/15000/75000 without seemingly changing the hit points. Does this mean you intended to raise the EHP of the citadels to match these higher caps to keep an attack at 30 minutes, or is your intention to make it now take 25 minutes to reinforce a citadel?
Jinrai Tremaine wrote: I've said this repeatedly; If everyone brings 1k+ DPS to the party it's only 108 player-hours to kill an XL citadel... You can play with the numbers all you want as there are a lot of variables that will determine how long it takes, but CCP themselves quoted between 75-225 battleships to reach the DPS cap which is accurate. 75 for a group highly skilled people field multi-billion ISK pirate battles capable of 1k+ DPS, and 200+ being closer to what a lower skilled, balanced fleet fitting some tank would require. So best case is 108 player-hours, more realistically it would be 120-150h and as much as 300 player-hours. In any case it will take at least 10-times more player hours to assault a XL citadel without caps than with dreads and if any opposition shows up, you lose. This is far too much for any current highsec group to do.
No one is going to invest that much in grinding a structure for just minerals. That group could just go grind 10 times as many XLs for the same amount of time somewhere whey they can use dreadnoughts, or 30-times as many Ls if they split that battleship fleet up and kept it in highsec.
Jinrai Tremaine wrote: If it's inactive I'll shoot it myself! If it's not inactive then groups like Marmite will attack them to bait fights, but If they don't get fights I bet they'll keep shooting because it's fantastic ISK/time if they get a kill. Your corp has 15 people in it. Of those 4 people have been active in PvP. Where are you going to get the 68 other max DPS battleship pilots? Or even 25 friends willing to devote 5 hours of their game time to watching an HP bar tick down?
Marmite has 43 active pilots in the last 7 days spread across all time zones. Almost certainly most of those cannot fly a max DPS pirate battleship. But if they can, you expect them to risk 50B ISK in expensive battleships to "bait" fights they would have to flee from? To get a fun fight they could take, they would need two or three times that number depending how tough these XLs end up being. They have nowhere near the numbers. Only the large low/null groups can consider attacking these things without capitals.
This isn't going to happen. They will be ignored by highsec aggressors just like large POSes are today as unfun, multi-hour grindfests.
I am not sure why you keep arguing. I understand your point of view and have stated why I think you are wrong. Your estimate of the number of highsec aggressors and their willingness to suffer through structure grinding for minerals does not match with reality. L and M citadels? Yes, they will be attacked. But XLs? There are no fleets run by highsec mercenaries or gankers even close to the 100+ you would need to get and take a proper fight using these things.
We will eventually have an answer. Let's agree to disagree and you can come back in a year and you can rub all the XL killmails by highsec groups in my face. In fact, I would be very happy to see them generate massive fights, or even an industry of highsec grinders cleaning up dead XLs, but the player numbers required are just far too high for that to realistically happen. |
Oxide Ammar
232
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 08:35:25 -
[312] - Quote
Quote:No, apparently you're just really bad at reading devblogs because the stats of Citadel guns (well, launchers) were published in the exact devblog this thread is discussing.
Nope I just didn't see any mention for Hybrid/Projectile/Energy guns so I thought they are still under development. There are no mention by CCP denying or confirming there will be different weapon types for Citadels.
Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
|
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
94
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 16:44:10 -
[313] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:I am not sure why you keep arguing. I understand your point of view and have stated why I think you are wrong. Your estimate of the number of highsec aggressors and their willingness to suffer through structure grinding for minerals does not match with reality. L and M citadels? Yes, they will be attacked. But XLs? There are no fleets run by highsec mercenaries or gankers even close to the 100+ you would need to get and take a proper fight using these things.
We will eventually have an answer. Let's agree to disagree and you can come back in a year and you can rub all the XL killmails by highsec groups in my face. In fact, I would be very happy to see them generate massive fights, or even an industry of highsec grinders cleaning up dead XLs, but the player numbers required are just far too high for that to realistically happen.
I keep arguing because you keep saying (paraphrased) "You're wrong, you will not get enough players together in hisec to hit the DPS cap". Which I think is the root of our disagreement; either you think you need to hit the DPS cap to kill a Citadel or you think I'm saying that hisec residents like Marmite (or even myself) are going to be capable of hitting it.
Neither is the case - you're absolutely right that hisec groups will not get together 100+ players and do 75k DPS to an XL citadel; not unless both sides of RvB decided to team up and attack one, at least. But we also don't need to do that to kill an XL Citadel, especially not one that is genuinely inactive/unmanned.
I really do think that 20-25 players grinding for 3 sets of 2 hours to burn through shield/armor/hull is a pretty reasonable expectation; as I've said, that'll pay about 320 mil ISK/hr for each pilot if the XL has a 70bn ISK pricetag and drops around half its components. Sure, that'll be in the form of minerals/structure components, but that won't really matter because it's all worth ISK and can be converted into that ISK by selling it in the nearest trade hub. It'll just require a bit of logistical work to get it looted and hauled.
Defence and defender-wise, obviously we won't really know anything for sure until these things are out in the wild. With that being said, looking at the proposed numbers, it seems like citadels in hisec will be much more effective force multipliers than they will forces themselves - they lose all the AoE weapons and the bouncing doomsday beam and are left with just anti-subcap launchers (well, also anti-cap ones, but those aren't going to be useful vs a BS fleet) and their alpha can be soaked by a reasonably tanked BS and their DPS can be repped by 2-3 Logistics cruisers. Providing ECM/damps, breaking up groups and energy neutralizing to supplement a defence fleet will be a lot more effective, but a force multiplier is only as good as the force it's multiplying.
As you've said yourself, most hisec groups cannot field 20 BSes - that will be a problem for those groups who want to field XL citadels when they need to defend them. Could 10 well-fit and flown PvP BSes plus a support citadel take out a 20-25 man attacking fleet? Probably yes, fairly easily. But could 4 or 5 BSes fitted and flown by players with little to no PvP experience and mostly PvE setups plus that Citadel do the same? I'm not so sure. That's the kind of calibre of defenders you're more likely to find in hisec, though, especially since corps looking to knock over an XL citadel (or attack one to bait fights) will do their homework to look for that sort of target.
Alternately you'll get people like me coming along looking specifically for XLs belonging to corps that have gone inactive so that I can mostly-AFK bash them over the course of about 5 hours per defence layer, in which case none of that stuff will matter since there'll be no defence fleet and nobody running whatever mods the Citadel has fitted.
Ultimately you're right - the only way we'll know for sure will be when they're released and we can see what actually happens. I just wanted to lay out what I think is going to happen and why. That and I find it interesting to theorycraft this kind of thing.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2220
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 20:06:04 -
[314] - Quote
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:I keep arguing because you keep saying (paraphrased) "You're wrong, you will not get enough players together in hisec to hit the DPS cap". Which I think is the root of our disagreement; either you think you need to hit the DPS cap to kill a Citadel or you think I'm saying that hisec residents like Marmite (or even myself) are going to be capable of hitting it. They are not. And even if theoretically they can grind their way through with a fraction of the number of pilots in the original devblog if there is no resistance, it is not going to happen. Structure grinding is not fun - large POSes prove that today. And the number of highsec aggressors who might even consider trying are a fraction of what is necessary to attack a defended XL citadel, so as a result no one is going to be able to, even if they really want to.
Honestly, I wish you were right. Heck, if you can get 50 people to form a group to pop abandoned XL citadels, sign me up (but I am pretty sure from my travels in the darker corners of New Eden you won't find 48 other battleship-piloting, structure-grinding masochists you can gather in one place at one time in all of highsec no matter how long you search). But there aren't going to be many, if any, abandoned XL citadels for a long while, and the defended ones are completely out of your league even with 50 pilots. You, or any other existing group in highsec will not be able to put together a balanced fleet of at least 100 pilots to attack these structures no matter how much you might want to or think you can theorycraft around this absurd EHP wall.
The proof will be in the pudding. In the coming months and years we will see exactly how many of these XL structures fall to highsec groups. |
Hein Virpion
Warp Vapor inspiration Margin of Silence
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 08:00:44 -
[315] - Quote
Hey CCP Ytterbium / [Team of Drones]
I was wondering if ALL citadels including the replacement of those silly POS towers are being replaced as well.
Asking for 'original' plan was more drawn out then your ending statement stated
Quote:in March to give you guys some time to adjust before we release Citadels. We are also planning external playtests on our test servers, so keep your eyes peeled for updates.
Thank you Team of Drones as a whole! Even if there are some bugs to work out we will not have to deal with Poses anymore! |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
59
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 08:44:51 -
[316] - Quote
Hein Virpion wrote:.....................
I was wondering if ALL citadels including the replacement of those silly POS towers are being replaced as well. ...............
They have said fairly clearly....
The 'Citadel Expansion' will introduce Citadels - the first of the new structures. The others will follow later(tm)
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Amarisen Gream
Divine Demise Apocalypse Now.
210
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 09:05:02 -
[317] - Quote
Question - are we getting a module that allows Citadels to interact with Custom Offices and PI?
"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger
All of his fury and rage.
He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels"
- The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1
DIDE- is open to new members
|
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
59
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 11:24:40 -
[318] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote:Question - are we getting a module that allows Citadels to interact with Custom Offices and PI?
I've certainly never seen such - and in fact I wouldn't expect such.
PI interaction would remain via Space Launches and POCOs (and you won't be able to deploy a Citadel within 600km of any other structure).
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
94
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 14:10:52 -
[319] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:Amarisen Gream wrote:Question - are we getting a module that allows Citadels to interact with Custom Offices and PI? I've certainly never seen such - and in fact I wouldn't expect such. PI interaction would remain via Space Launches and POCOs (and you won't be able to deploy a Citadel within 600km of any other structure).
I'm pretty sure it's intended to be added in in the future to allow Citadels to take over the role of POCOs. It was mentioned back in the original devblog first discussing the new Structures:
Quote:They will also take over the role of Customs Offices, if placed near planets. Presumably that would come with some significant limitations beyond simply needing to be near the planet - possibly they'd have to be on-grid with the warpin, for example, plus maybe they'd require the citadel to allow public access - I can't imagine it'd be CCP's intent to completely lock out anyone but the citadel owners from doing PI on a planet for hisec at the very least, hopefully not for the rest of EVE either.
Either way it's probably not going to happen in the initial Citadel release, just like their manufacturing and research service modules probably won't come in that first release. |
Amarisen Gream
Divine Demise Apocalypse Now.
211
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 14:22:18 -
[320] - Quote
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:Marcus Tedric wrote:Amarisen Gream wrote:Question - are we getting a module that allows Citadels to interact with Custom Offices and PI? I've certainly never seen such - and in fact I wouldn't expect such. PI interaction would remain via Space Launches and POCOs (and you won't be able to deploy a Citadel within 600km of any other structure). I'm pretty sure it's intended to be added in in the future to allow Citadels to take over the role of POCOs. It was mentioned back in the original devblog first discussing the new Structures: Quote:They will also take over the role of Customs Offices, if placed near planets. Presumably that would come with some significant limitations beyond simply needing to be near the planet - possibly they'd have to be on-grid with the warpin, for example, plus maybe they'd require the citadel to allow public access - I can't imagine it'd be CCP's intent to completely lock out anyone but the citadel owners from doing PI on a planet for hisec at the very least, hopefully not for the rest of EVE either. Either way it's probably not going to happen in the initial Citadel release, just like their manufacturing and research service modules probably won't come in that first release.
Thanks for share and refreshing my memory.
I was just thinking, we as much PI as these things are going to take, it would be nice to have some update to the system to make it not so mind numbing.
"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger
All of his fury and rage.
He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels"
- The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1
DIDE- is open to new members
|
|
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
59
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 15:58:43 -
[321] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote:Jinrai Tremaine wrote:.......................... I'm pretty sure it's intended to be added in in the future to allow Citadels to take over the role of POCOs. It was mentioned back in the original devblog first discussing the new Structures: Quote:They will also take over the role of Customs Offices, if placed near planets. .................. Thanks for share and refreshing my memory. I was just thinking, we as much PI as these things are going to take, it would be nice to have some update to the system to make it not so mind numbing.
And me too - happy to be wrong and, re-reading the quote I now do sort of remember that now...
However, I'm still rather surprised! For just the reasons you mention.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
94
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 23:20:11 -
[322] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Edward Olmops wrote:I have another question about Citadels:
In a previous blog "Building your citadel..." there were some tables regarding the material composition of the new Citadels. I am stuck there.
"Structure hull composition (by raw materials)" That one does not fit with the component bill of materials.
Example: the chart says "a Large citadel hull will contain a total of 452 Broadcast Nodes". But the bill of materials for the hull lists 40 Station Market Networks which - according to the first table - need 15 Broadcas Nodes each! That's 40*15=600 Broadcast Nodes from the market networks alone. Definitely more than 452.
I checked a few more and got totally different numbers (~3700 vs ~4900 P4 things total for a large hull, that's a significant difference).
Am I missing something? Someone please clarify. Fixed material sheet. Link here.
Hi CCP Ytterbium, I hope you're still looking at this thread. I was spreadsheeting out Citadel production requirements when I ran into a bit of a snag - you've said Link here has the correct raw materials required for each hull size, but I'm finding that those raw material numbers either don't match up with the requirements for each component listed here or with the required components for each hull size listed here.
The numbers actually match up fine for the Medium citadel, the Large is very slightly off, but the XL citadel raw materials seem to be nearly twice what the components should require. Can you clarify which sets of figures are correct, and if the raw materials have changed then what the new plans are for materials for components or components for hulls?
If it helps at all, here are the numbers I'm getting for each citadel based on the component requirements listed in the Building Your Citadel devblog: Citadel Materials. |
Destiny Dain2
Your Destiny Corporation
40
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 16:47:28 -
[323] - Quote
Saw some postings about XL Citadels in high sec.
Correct me if I am wrong, but did they not say a long time ago that XL Citadels were NOT going to be allowed in high sec. Did they say differently recently? |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1879
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 16:57:14 -
[324] - Quote
Destiny Dain2 wrote:Saw some postings about XL Citadels in high sec.
Correct me if I am wrong, but did they not say a long time ago that XL Citadels were NOT going to be allowed in high sec. Did they say differently recently? It's in the devblog.. all areas of space including high sec
Akrasjel Lanate
Founder and CEO of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Octavious0506
Pod Relocators
11
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 17:10:55 -
[325] - Quote
So I have not seen it anywhere, so what is going to happen to all those POSes in space when Citadel is released? |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
59
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 19:30:25 -
[326] - Quote
Octavious0506 wrote:So I have not seen it anywhere, so what is going to happen to all those POSes in space when Citadel is released?
Nothing.
Not for a while at least.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6950
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 06:04:38 -
[327] - Quote
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:Presumably that would come with some significant limitations beyond simply needing to be near the planet - possibly they'd have to be on-grid with the warpin, for example, plus maybe they'd require the citadel to allow public access - I can't imagine it'd be CCP's intent to completely lock out anyone but the citadel owners from doing PI on a planet for hisec at the very least, hopefully not for the rest of EVE either. Mmm, killing super citadels in highsec
CCP Grimmi: With all players on a single server and in direct competition with each other even your trade and industry activities are PvP.
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4526
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 15:20:28 -
[328] - Quote
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:Stuff
We are both correct. That's because we increased building requirement for the Keepstar (XL) by 2 since the first blog was listed. It now costs around 135b ISK to build. Blueprint cost will stay the same at pointed in the original blog though, around 700b ISK.
|
|
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
95
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 15:48:16 -
[329] - Quote
I thought that might be the case, especially since the numbers only disagreed for the XL rather than the other citadels
Any chance you can share what the new plan is for the actual station components needed to build the XL? The PI/mineral requirements aren't exactly double what they are based on the original blog, so I'm guessing the component requirements are a little different from 2x what they were.
Also, any updates on whether or not fuel blocks will still be required to build components, and if so how that will work with the 4 types of blocks? |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3017
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 04:13:26 -
[330] - Quote
Are the Citadels (& Other structures) also intended to be immune to Missile Disruption? |
|
Opner Dresden
Lugus Foundry The Explicit Alliance
37
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 03:14:16 -
[331] - Quote
What possible reason could you have for doing this? The things were already vastly overpriced to begin with.
Pricing at this level only promises to reserve these for the power blocs and RMT retards of eve. |
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
1480
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 16:15:27 -
[332] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Tyranis Marcus wrote:Marcus Tedric wrote:Tyranis Marcus wrote:So it sounds like fuel block costs will be going up with the stront addition, so the current poses will become more expensive to operate. Will the fuel consumption on those be reduced to compensate?................. It would be kind of silly if they did - given the realistic desire to wish to encourage people to remove POSes in favour of Citadels. Which is why, perhaps, that the 'Assembly Arrays' and 'Drilling Rigs' may need to come sooner rather than later... Not really. Nerfing old systems to promote new ones always causes trouble. They dont need to nerf anything.
They've already announced that they are.
Adding stront to fuel blocks nerfs the net income of every isk-making pos activity. Which pos activities aren't being moved to citadels with this release? Most of the isk making ones.
Do not run. We are your friends.
|
Soldarius
O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore
1481
|
Posted - 2016.03.07 14:36:05 -
[333] - Quote
Querns wrote:We don't tax mining at all.
You will be. You will be.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
bp920091
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
98
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 08:56:51 -
[334] - Quote
Any adjustment or further discussion of the inclusion of the amount of stront in fuel blocks, or the refine rates of stront in current ice, or the ice composition in ice belts at all?
Right now, if i import 100% krystallos, i'm still not getting enough heavy water, as the ONLY ice that is rich enough to provide the stront needed is woefully low in HW
Current Ice Refine Numbers:
Compressed Dark Glitter:
691 HW, 1381 LO, 69 Stront
Compressed Gelidus:
345 HW, 691 LO, 104 Stront
Compressed Glare Crust:
1381 HW, 691 LO, 35 Stront
Compressed Krystallos:
173 HW, 691 LO, 173 Stront.
Please keep in mind that to get to an ice that produces ANYTHING close to enough HW to use for an actual fuel block, you'll need to use a 6 Krystallos : 5 Dark Glitter Ratio, and you still have something like a 20% EXTRA LO that you'd have.
TLDR: CCP, until you change either the drop rates of Stront from ice, or decrease the Stront that goes into the blocks by another 50%, you are causing a massive problem with the supply of a COMMON item, needed for the stable prices for the entire T2 market. |
Circumstantial Evidence
264
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 17:48:25 -
[335] - Quote
The stront change, fairly mild atm, but with plans to increase requirements in fuel blocks at a later date, has led to a speculation frenzy on the market. Traders can't buy enough of the stuff and mark it up fast enough. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
304
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 20:55:01 -
[336] - Quote
Aryth wrote:When you iterate on the refine. Keep in mind the current bonus's are much larger in null and even that isn't enough to see much refining.
It seems to me that thats your alliance/corp/recruitment issue rather than a game mechanic issue. You got a massive boost to refining yields not so long ago, please stop whining for more and more all the time.
If you need more minerals come and put one in my system and i'll use it, it would have to be worthwhile though :)
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
367
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 19:00:00 -
[337] - Quote
Citadel Construction is not fun!
here's why
it takes several components already to build the hull.. components which should have some type of feature by default. instead you must make additional modules to have said feature. isn't this a problem?
so lets say a citadel requires :
station factory -- whats this for manufacturing?? yet we need to make a manufacturing module along with this...
station hangar array -- ccp didn't require us a citadel mod for this obvious one.
station laboratory --- research component?? yet we still must make research module just to research when we just made the lab? makes sense right??
station market network -- the large takes 40 units of this.....but still we must make additional market mod to have a market
station medical center ---- clone service component......yet we'll need a clone module to use it.
station office center ---- required to make for offices.... yet also needs another module to make to use it
station repair facility ----- repair service..... yet requires its own module???
station reprocessing plant --- another component...although you need a mod to use it.. i guess those components do something else right??? station storage bay ----- we're unlimited.... no mod needed..
structure advertisement nexus --- advertise what exactly? what is this component feature and it doesn't require a mod to use.
seems not exactly lined up to make sense but hey... its an isk sink and i wonder just how many few will be able to afford replacing them when they blow up.
ccp you're about to ruin this game and drive it straight into the ground. |
Circumstantial Evidence
265
|
Posted - 2016.03.17 18:33:21 -
[338] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Citadel Construction is not fun! here's why it takes several components already to build the hull.. components which should have some type of feature by default. instead you must make additional modules to have said feature. isn't this a problem? I think "not logical" is a better word for what you describe. I see the point, but don't fully agree. With some imagination, I can make the lore fit. An empty house includes various rooms dedicated for specific purposes, and subsystems, such as pipes or wiring - before modular appliances, fixtures, furniture designed for that room are installed.
For one example, I think of a "station medical center" building component as a prefab structural section containing wiring, plumbing, and supporting subsystems necessary for installation of a cloning bay.
I had a good laugh over this article with a similar twist, on Crossing Zebras. How many cows does it take to build a large citadel? lol. This "not-really-a-problem" question can be asked about every module and structure that uses PI materials.
|
Soldarius
O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore
1484
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 14:09:14 -
[339] - Quote
Reposted from TEST forums:
Soldarius wrote:Seems CCP still hasn't listened to us regarding the material requirements for the T2 XL citadel rigs. Some of these are never going to be built simply because the entire universal supply of T2 salvage is less than what is required to build just one of them. Not to mention the cost.
X-Large Doomsday Application, Projection, and Targeting II (Rig) requirements:
225000 Telemetry Processors. cost: 15,213,384,000. Universal Supply: 32k. 1200 Intact Shield Emitters. cost: 472,062,108 30000 Lorentz Fluid. cost: 3,082,214,400 30000 Power Conduits. cost: 6,025,942,800 1200 Single-crystal Superalloy I-beams. cost: 572,518,476 225000 Drone Transceivers. cost: 13,290,378,750. Universal Supply: 85k 225000 Artificial Neural Networks. cost: 2,069,064,000. Universal Supply: 372k 30000 Impetus Consoles. cost: 4,214,066,400 30000 Conductive Thermoplastic. cost: 4,744,433,700 1200 Enhanced Ward Consoles. cost: 4,959,152,748 1 R.A.M. - Weapon Tech. cost: negligable.
Total cost: 39,445,049,766. Roughly the same as a supercarrier.
Item values are volume weighted and then averaged using 5% sell and buy prices in The Forge. Supply numbers taken directly from www.eve-markets.net
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
64
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 14:53:48 -
[340] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Reposted from TEST forums: ................. Total cost: 39,445,049,766. Roughly the same as a supercarrier.
.............[/quote]
TBH that figure for an XL T2 rig is not entirely unexpected - we have had plenty of indication that the 'rigs would be the expensive and destructible' element in Citadels - particularly to discourage taking them down again too easily for little cost. As an XL Hull is 135b.....
For a hull, that's double a Super's price actually.
Overall I might suggest that half that amount would be reasonable - but it depends how much the disincentive to take Citadels back down should be.
Moreover - if that T2 rig will enable an XL to one-shot a Titan - perhaps entirely reasonable.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
|
Mikami Yua
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 15:22:16 -
[341] - Quote
Dear CCP Ytterbium,
I sincerely hope that this is a just mistake or some sort of awfully bad humour. Because I am not sure what world you live in, however, in the world I live in, the current market price to build a Keepstar XL Citadel is approximently 210b ISK. Mind you this is just for the hull itself. (With original bill of materials, it is approximently 105b ISK)
I understand that they are supposed to be expensive and they should be, to a point. Of course, they are bigger than current Outposts, super capitals can dock into them and they can shoot stuff. So with original figures, they are already multiple orders of magnitude more expensive then Outposts and rightfully so.
However, these citadels are destructibles. They blow up. You can lose them. So while being very expensive, they should also be (this might not be the right word) but affordable enough or accessible enough that they are reasonably replaceable. That losing one doesn't end the owning alliance.
Of course, they shouldn't be so cheap that anyone and their dog can build one.
At 105b ISK and still rising price of the original figures. I believe is a balanced price point, because at double the price, it will be out of reach for many entities which are not the mega blocs and will be put at a massive disadvantage like it is not already bad enough.
At your ridiculous price point, it will become exclusive to entities where ISK is no object and the game will be worst off since they will be the only ones able to dock their fleet of super capitals for resupply or repairs or logoff in relative safety. While other entities receive further increased difficulty.
I am not sure what others feel about this since there doesn't seem to be much talk about it, but personally myself and few others I know are horrified when we heard of this news.
The game is already in a very bad state, and I honestly believe Citadels will make or break this game. However, if the game continues to progress in this direction, I would probably never know, since me and many of my corp and alliance mates will very likely have quit the game.
I urge you to reconsider this change in price, the original figure is good.
I have played EVE for almost 10 years, with every updates in regards to sovereignty it kills my passion for EVE a little. This mega bloc favoring change with the citadels is probably the last nail in the coffin that will make me finally quit.
Best Regards, One of the few remaining EVE player. |
Gorgof Intake
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
67
|
Posted - 2016.03.19 05:47:59 -
[342] - Quote
Mikami Yua wrote:Dear CCP Ytterbium, I sincerely hope that this is a just mistake or some sort of awfully bad humour. Because I am not sure what world you live in, however, in the world I live in, the current market price to build a Keepstar XL Citadel is approximently 210b ISK. Mind you this is just for the hull itself. (With original bill of materials, it is approximently 105b ISK)I understand that they are supposed to be expensive and they should be, to a point. Of course, they are bigger than current Outposts, super capitals can dock into them and they can shoot stuff. So with original figures, they are already multiple orders of magnitude more expensive then Outposts and rightfully so. However, these citadels are destructibles. They blow up. You can lose them. So while being very expensive, they should also be (this might not be the right word) but affordable enough or accessible enough that they are reasonably replaceable. That losing one doesn't end the owning alliance. Of course, they shouldn't be so cheap that anyone and their dog can build one. At 105b ISK and still rising price of the original figures. I believe is a balanced price point, because at double the price, it will be out of reach for many entities which are not the mega blocs and will be put at a massive disadvantage like it is not already bad enough. At your ridiculous price point, it will become exclusive to entities where ISK is no object and the game will be worst off since they will be the only ones able to dock their fleet of super capitals for resupply or repairs or logoff in relative safety. While other entities receive further increased difficulty. I am not sure what others feel about this since there doesn't seem to be much talk about it, but personally myself and few others I know are horrified when we heard of this news. The game is already in a very bad state, and I honestly believe Citadels will make or break this game. However, if the game continues to progress in this direction, I would probably never know, since me and many of my corp and alliance mates will very likely have quit the game. I urge you to reconsider this change in price, the original figure is good. I have played EVE for almost 10 years, with every updates in regards to sovereignty it kills my passion for EVE a little. This mega bloc favoring change with the citadels is probably the last nail in the coffin that will make me finally quit. Best Regards, One of the few remaining EVE player.
Ha. This guy.
Your argument is completely contradictory. You agree they should be rare, or "they shouldnt be so cheap that everyone and their dog can build one", but on the other hand think that the current estimate of 210bil is so game breakingly bad that it will only be accessable to the 'elite'.
I dont know your personal circumstance but I do have a feel for the game and a feel for the average player, and alliance wealth. When titans were introduced the original thought would be that they were expensive enough that they would require mass group efforts, and that only a few would exist in the game at any one point. Have a look at titan production chains and proliferation now. As a 10yr plus player of the game Im sure you would be aware of this though right?
Now look at the price points for XL citadels. They are about x2 the price of a current titan build. Note too that these are alliance based structures. Most sizeable alliances will be able to afford to produce these- hell, even low sec and hi-sec entities will be able to afford these if players pooled resources. Yes, it would be quite a large loss to loose one (the equiv of loosing two titans) but it wouldnt be irreplaceable for large player groups, or rich ones to replace them.
Your fears are unfounded if the issue you take with the price point is that it is unattainable for moderately sized or rich player groups. If your fear is that the price point is now outside of your own personal wealth limit than too bad so sad.
|
Ben Berspanke
New Eden Deep Space Industries Warped Intentions
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.20 04:23:15 -
[343] - Quote
Gorgof Intake wrote:Mikami Yua wrote:Dear CCP Ytterbium, I sincerely hope that this is a just mistake or some sort of awfully bad humour. Because I am not sure what world you live in, however, in the world I live in, the current market price to build a Keepstar XL Citadel is approximently 210b ISK. Mind you this is just for the hull itself. (With original bill of materials, it is approximently 105b ISK)I understand that they are supposed to be expensive and they should be, to a point. Of course, they are bigger than current Outposts, super capitals can dock into them and they can shoot stuff. So with original figures, they are already multiple orders of magnitude more expensive then Outposts and rightfully so. However, these citadels are destructibles. They blow up. You can lose them. So while being very expensive, they should also be (this might not be the right word) but affordable enough or accessible enough that they are reasonably replaceable. That losing one doesn't end the owning alliance. Of course, they shouldn't be so cheap that anyone and their dog can build one. At 105b ISK and still rising price of the original figures. I believe is a balanced price point, because at double the price, it will be out of reach for many entities which are not the mega blocs and will be put at a massive disadvantage like it is not already bad enough. At your ridiculous price point, it will become exclusive to entities where ISK is no object and the game will be worst off since they will be the only ones able to dock their fleet of super capitals for resupply or repairs or logoff in relative safety. While other entities receive further increased difficulty. I am not sure what others feel about this since there doesn't seem to be much talk about it, but personally myself and few others I know are horrified when we heard of this news. The game is already in a very bad state, and I honestly believe Citadels will make or break this game. However, if the game continues to progress in this direction, I would probably never know, since me and many of my corp and alliance mates will very likely have quit the game. I urge you to reconsider this change in price, the original figure is good. I have played EVE for almost 10 years, with every updates in regards to sovereignty it kills my passion for EVE a little. This mega bloc favoring change with the citadels is probably the last nail in the coffin that will make me finally quit. Best Regards, One of the few remaining EVE player. Ha. This guy. Your argument is completely contradictory. You agree they should be rare, or "they shouldnt be so cheap that everyone and their dog can build one", but on the other hand think that the current estimate of 210bil is so game breakingly bad that it will only be accessable to the 'elite'. I dont know your personal circumstance but I do have a feel for the game and a feel for the average player, and alliance wealth. When titans were introduced the original thought would be that they were expensive enough that they would require mass group efforts, and that only a few would exist in the game at any one point. Have a look at titan production chains and proliferation now. As a 10yr plus player of the game Im sure you would be aware of this though right? Now look at the price points for XL citadels. They are about x2 the price of a current titan build. Note too that these are alliance based structures. Most sizeable alliances will be able to afford to produce these- hell, even low sec and hi-sec entities will be able to afford these if players pooled resources. Yes, it would be quite a large loss to loose one (the equiv of loosing two titans) but it wouldnt be irreplaceable for large player groups, or rich ones to replace them. Your fears are unfounded if the issue you take with the price point is that it is unattainable for moderately sized or rich player groups. If your fear is that the price point is now outside of your own personal wealth limit than too bad so sad.
Wouldn't you think the 700 Billion is price tag on the BPO would be the limiting factor, because if I spent 700B on a BPO Im not giving away copies so others can have awesome cities in the sky, buy your own blueprint.
Ben |
erg cz
Eleutherian Guard Villore Accords
416
|
Posted - 2016.03.21 14:16:12 -
[344] - Quote
Ben Berspanke wrote:because if I spent 700B on a BPO Im not giving away copies so others can have awesome cities in the sky, buy your own blueprint. ... or
... or wait till other guy will sell copies for 100 B; so after 7 copies sold his BPO will pay for itself. But not yours, of cause. You will bitter sit on your precious BPO and keep loosing ISK.
Absolutely free trial extension. Just click the link and get your extra week of Eve for free!
|
Mikami Yua
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 09:23:10 -
[345] - Quote
Gorgof Intake wrote:Your argument is completely contradictory. You agree they should be rare, or "they shouldnt be so cheap that everyone and their dog can build one", but on the other hand think that the current estimate of 210bil is so game breakingly bad that it will only be accessable to the 'elite'. I did not agree they should be "rare", I meant exactly what I said. Not everyone and their dog can build one, means they shouldn't be the one stop shop for all citadels that appears everywhere. But they should be relatively common enough in nullsec for the service of super-capitals. Because whether your entity has 300 Titans or 3 Titans, you should be allowed the same ease in resupply and refitting as well as the chance to dock for relative safe keeping.
If they are rare, then they would be accessible only to entities which ISK has no meaning. Therefore they are gaining an advantage over the great power they already have. Newer entities would therefore be not allowed to grow to competing levels as they would constantly be suppressed. The difference is already large and implementing something like this would only make the problem bigger.
Gorgof Intake wrote:I dont know your personal circumstance but I do have a feel for the game and a feel for the average player, and alliance wealth. When titans were introduced the original thought would be that they were expensive enough that they would require mass group efforts, and that only a few would exist in the game at any one point. Have a look at titan production chains and proliferation now. As a 10yr plus player of the game Im sure you would be aware of this though right?
Now look at the price points for XL citadels. They are about x2 the price of a current titan build. Note too that these are alliance based structures. Most sizeable alliances will be able to afford to produce these- hell, even low sec and hi-sec entities will be able to afford these if players pooled resources. Yes, it would be quite a large loss to loose one (the equiv of loosing two titans) but it wouldnt be irreplaceable for large player groups, or rich ones to replace them.
Your fears are unfounded if the issue you take with the price point is that it is unattainable for moderately sized or rich player groups. If your fear is that the price point is now outside of your own personal wealth limit than too bad so sad.
Obviously coming from an entity which you belong to, I have doubts to what you feel for the average player and alliance wealth.
Also, I do not believe it is fair to compare this to Titans or even Outposts of a different time. The economy is different and certainly time is different. The game has grown over the past many years and materials have accumulated. I am guessing this is the reason why Citadels are PI based rather than mineral based. Titans were difficult when first introduced because they were new and massive for the time, they are a new class of ships for a new purpose. Material stockpiles are not as they are today.
However, we come to today that these Citadels are supposed to replace Outposts and Towers, while they are new things but they really are old things reinvented. Given the rarity of PI materials on the current market, I am guessing this is why CCP decided to go with heavily PI based. The difficulty is not coughing up 200b or what not... the bigger issue is the hours required to produce 200b worth of PI materials. Have you tried going to Jita and try to buy all the required materials?
This is where it becomes different for large and rich alliances versus the average alliance, as large and rich alliances would buy PI from their members, as ISK is not an issue, sourcing them is. For the average alliance, both ISK and manpower suddenly becomes different when the cost is doubled. Fittings are still not yet considered.
However, to be honest, I am not interested in what you think. I am interested in what CCP think and the reasoning and justification behind doubling the cost. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
368
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 22:39:21 -
[346] - Quote
However, to be honest, I am not interested in what you think. I am interested in what CCP think and the reasoning and justification behind doubling the cost.[/quote]
CCP wants news and PR when someone losses it.. that's why plain and simple.. they created huge isk sinks to the point that we'll be right back here at the same spot one year from now discussing the same thing and issues.
building these citadels stink to high heaven.. i have absolutely no desire to build another after losing one.. so ccp deal with the truth that once these things begin blowing up folks are going to leave this game..
i don't care how much glamour you apply to this crap. no matter all the shiney you want to market out.. its a no-brainer here.. once this investment is blown up..then my investment into the game ends.
im sure im not going to be the other one.. so enjoy the destructive direction this company has moved towards and incredible tedious task of dealing with citadels..after all they just came up with something that competes with player housing in star citizen.. so blah.
|
Flatliner
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.08 20:36:15 -
[347] - Quote
Mikami Yua wrote:Dear CCP Ytterbium, I sincerely hope that this is a just mistake or some sort of awfully bad humour. Because I am not sure what world you live in, however, in the world I live in, the current market price to build a Keepstar XL Citadel is approximently 210b ISK. Mind you this is just for the hull itself. (With original bill of materials, it is approximently 105b ISK)I understand that they are supposed to be expensive and they should be, to a point. Of course, they are bigger than current Outposts, super capitals can dock into them and they can shoot stuff. So with original figures, they are already multiple orders of magnitude more expensive then Outposts and rightfully so. However, these citadels are destructibles. They blow up. You can lose them. So while being very expensive, they should also be (this might not be the right word) but affordable enough or accessible enough that they are reasonably replaceable. That losing one doesn't end the owning alliance. Of course, they shouldn't be so cheap that anyone and their dog can build one. At 105b ISK and still rising price of the original figures. I believe is a balanced price point, because at double the price, it will be out of reach for many entities which are not the mega blocs and will be put at a massive disadvantage like it is not already bad enough. At your ridiculous price point, it will become exclusive to entities where ISK is no object and the game will be worst off since they will be the only ones able to dock their fleet of super capitals for resupply or repairs or logoff in relative safety. While other entities receive further increased difficulty. I am not sure what others feel about this since there doesn't seem to be much talk about it, but personally myself and few others I know are horrified when we heard of this news. The game is already in a very bad state, and I honestly believe Citadels will make or break this game. However, if the game continues to progress in this direction, I would probably never know, since me and many of my corp and alliance mates will very likely have quit the game. I urge you to reconsider this change in price, the original figure is good. I have played EVE for almost 10 years, with every updates in regards to sovereignty it kills my passion for EVE a little. This mega bloc favoring change with the citadels is probably the last nail in the coffin that will make me finally quit. Best Regards, One of the few remaining EVE player.
Factions and empires will clearly shrink to only what they can afford and realistically defend in terms of citadels. It might not be apparent now, but when losses start to kick in alliances will feel that bite and slowly shrink. I forsee EvE having a lot more open space up for grabs to smaller organizations looking to expand. |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
910
|
Posted - 2016.04.20 00:49:54 -
[348] - Quote
Flatliner wrote:Mikami Yua wrote:Dear CCP Ytterbium, I sincerely hope that this is a just mistake or some sort of awfully bad humour. Because I am not sure what world you live in, however, in the world I live in, the current market price to build a Keepstar XL Citadel is approximently 210b ISK. Mind you this is just for the hull itself. (With original bill of materials, it is approximently 105b ISK)I understand that they are supposed to be expensive and they should be, to a point. Of course, they are bigger than current Outposts, super capitals can dock into them and they can shoot stuff. So with original figures, they are already multiple orders of magnitude more expensive then Outposts and rightfully so. However, these citadels are destructibles. They blow up. You can lose them. So while being very expensive, they should also be (this might not be the right word) but affordable enough or accessible enough that they are reasonably replaceable. That losing one doesn't end the owning alliance. Of course, they shouldn't be so cheap that anyone and their dog can build one. At 105b ISK and still rising price of the original figures. I believe is a balanced price point, because at double the price, it will be out of reach for many entities which are not the mega blocs and will be put at a massive disadvantage like it is not already bad enough. At your ridiculous price point, it will become exclusive to entities where ISK is no object and the game will be worst off since they will be the only ones able to dock their fleet of super capitals for resupply or repairs or logoff in relative safety. While other entities receive further increased difficulty. I am not sure what others feel about this since there doesn't seem to be much talk about it, but personally myself and few others I know are horrified when we heard of this news. The game is already in a very bad state, and I honestly believe Citadels will make or break this game. However, if the game continues to progress in this direction, I would probably never know, since me and many of my corp and alliance mates will very likely have quit the game. I urge you to reconsider this change in price, the original figure is good. I have played EVE for almost 10 years, with every updates in regards to sovereignty it kills my passion for EVE a little. This mega bloc favoring change with the citadels is probably the last nail in the coffin that will make me finally quit. Best Regards, One of the few remaining EVE player. Factions and empires will clearly shrink to only what they can afford and realistically defend in terms of citadels. It might not be apparent now, but when losses start to kick in alliances will feel that bite and slowly shrink. I forsee EvE having a lot more open space up for grabs to smaller organizations looking to expand. There is so much "open space" in nulsec now that no-one wants - What is it about overpriced loot pinata's that you think will change this?
Smaller organizations do exist in nulsec now (they won't be building Xlarge citadels though) - They are blue to all their neighbours for safety. Overpriced Citadels will only encourage smaller groups to find more allies, or just not build Citadels.
Coalitions still exist and always will as it is the only way a small group can hope to survive as sov holders. The best we can hope for is that we never see another CFC type coalition - They are just not in the best interests of anyone who plays eve, even their own member groups.
Devs are going out of their way to show how easily an Xlarge Citadel can be destroyed (recent mass tests) - Then expect players to invest in them. -- - -- - -- - --
This little snippet from Eve Updates seems a bit confusing;
Quote:Assault Duration - Structure assaults are expected to take around 30 minutes to complete, no matter where the structure is deployed. I'm curious to know why a Citadel that is vulnerable for 2 or 3 or more hours will only involve fights lasting 30 minutes. Is it not the case that if a Citadel is being attacked the vulnerability period is never ending until there is a clear victor of the timer? Meaning, defenders drive off any attacker or attackers succeed in reinforcing it. Sure a large enough force attacking could complete the reinforce in 30 minutes but at the same time, a half decent defense force could drag it out for hours. Or is the mechanic rigged so the largest force (defenders or attackers) wins in 30 minutes?
I would imagine, 30 minutes be the minimum time required to start a determined assault and for best results the attack would commence as close to the end of the vulnerability period as possible. With determination and numbers in fleet - One structure assault could technically go on for days.
I'm pretty sure the snippet I quoted was written by someone who has never played Eve. The biggest blob - defending or attacking will always win, regardless of damage mitigation - Bring more and win is how Citadels will be attacked and defended.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Esnaelc Sin'led
The Unchained Club No Handlebars.
84
|
Posted - 2016.04.23 14:12:35 -
[349] - Quote
Sorry if the question has been pointed out already.
But with this new Strcture ideas, i came along with a concern.
Nowadays, anyone, from the new-ish player to the experienced, wealthy old skilled player can, if he desires to, just buy a small POS @ like, 100/150 milion ISK, warp to a moon, and anchor it. He then decides for another amount of ISK wether this POS can be for reprocessing, reacting, producing, 'living' (wh), outpost, etc...
Now, with the new whole vision, sizes start @ medium for like, 700+ milion ISK ? No taking fitting in count ?
What about Small Citadel / Indu Arrays / Drilling Platforms and so on ? What about the player, that want to play on his own, and doing his thing ? It looks like he's been completly forgotten in the design process. Is that a purpose ? Is that something CCP wanted to do ? Or did you really forget about small sized structures ?
My personnal idea is that a T3 Cruiser-like for structure would've been much more interesting. But that's another issue.
I really wonder what CCP thinks about the small size Structures in general. Or did I miss informations given about that ? |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
924
|
Posted - 2016.04.24 00:38:40 -
[350] - Quote
erg cz wrote:Ben Berspanke wrote:because if I spent 700B on a BPO Im not giving away copies so others can have awesome cities in the sky, buy your own blueprint. ... or
... or wait till other guy will sell copies for 100 B; so after 7 copies sold his BPO will pay for itself. But not yours, of cause. You will bitter sit on your precious BPO and keep loosing ISK. 100 bil for a BPC - Sounds about right, so the fixed build cost of an Xlarge Citadel is now around 310 bil. They may come down a bit in a few years, only time will tell but at the same time material costs will go up so your looking at a fixed cost of around 300 bil just for an Xlarge Citadel hull.
I can see it now - Xlarge Citadels everywhere - - - - Or not.
One question (sorry if it has already been answered); When an Xlarge Citadel with supers and titans in it dies - Where will they be delivered to under the asset protection scheme? As they are unable to dock in an NPC station, it seems the ONLY way to retrieve them would be to build another Xlarge Citadel.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
|
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
49
|
Posted - 2016.06.08 14:12:11 -
[351] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:TheSmokingHertog wrote:And a question that I asked before, will Crest have market endpoints for Citadels and are they public?
Market orders won't appear in CREST because the visibility of orders depends on which character is looking (access groups make this complicated). We *might* add public player markets to the public crest data, that's a big might though since we have a lot of other stuff to do at the moment.
Yes please do this, don't leave citadel markets as a half-cooked feature! |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |