| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
66
   |
Posted - 2016.10.10 23:54:18 -
[1] - Quote
In hisec, you can set up a large POS somewhere the manufacturing index isn't too high and you can build whatever's profitable.
In a M/L engineering complex, you can only fit 3 rigs, which means you can only build 3 item categories competitively.
So you either stop building such a variety of things, or you build multiple engineering complexes and spend your life moving materials and components around between the complexes.
Or you can use public complexes which will have awful manufacturing indexes and stop you being competitive.
All in all, I'm not convinced that these engineering complexes are an improvement for many hisec manufacturers. (Clearly they provide interesting improvements in null, low and WH space though).
Trade Hub Price Checker: stop.hammerti.me.uk/pricecheck
Visit "Haulers Channel" in game for all matters courier-related.
Citadel name/system API: stop.hammerti.me.uk/api
|
Cable Nathan Summers
The Samsara Collective
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 01:00:40 -
[2] - Quote
Imagine a universe with only these and no more NPC stations. Entire regions will burn. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
6451
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 01:17:07 -
[3] - Quote
Unless I'm misunderstanding, there is no combination of rigs that is superior to a hisec research starbase at a competitive cost.
For manufacturing, specialization does offer some improvement. |
Mephiztopheleze
Laphroaig Inc.
992
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 01:48:34 -
[4] - Quote
Messenger Of Truth wrote:All in all, I'm not convinced that these engineering complexes are an improvement for many hisec manufacturers. (Clearly they provide interesting improvements in null, low and WH space though).
If you want the safety of HiSec manufacturing, you have to accept some kind of trade-off in return for hanging onto CONCORD's apron strings.
If you want all the you beaut bonuses and goodies that come with holding Sov, go out and claim yourself some Sov. Protip: the ONLY actual real benefits of holding Sov are 1: Ability to anchor an SCSAA, 2: Certain iHub upgrades that give rather major benefits to hard-core mining corporations and 3: Sov POS Fuel Bonuses. That's pretty much it at the moment. In return for these somewhat meager rewards, you have a mountain of hassle and annoyances. Not least of which is playing Sov Lazor Shenanigans.
Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze
This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2422
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 02:34:55 -
[5] - Quote
Mephiztopheleze wrote:Messenger Of Truth wrote:All in all, I'm not convinced that these engineering complexes are an improvement for many hisec manufacturers. (Clearly they provide interesting improvements in null, low and WH space though). If you want the safety of HiSec manufacturing, you have to accept some kind of trade-off in return for hanging onto CONCORD's apron strings. If you want all the you beaut bonuses and goodies that come with holding Sov, go out and claim yourself some Sov. Protip: the ONLY actual real benefits of holding Sov are 1: Ability to anchor an SCSAA, 2: Certain iHub upgrades that give rather major benefits to hard-core mining corporations and 3: Sov POS Fuel Bonuses. That's pretty much it at the moment. In return for these somewhat meager rewards, you have a mountain of hassle and annoyances. Not least of which is playing Sov Lazor Shenanigans.
TBH, given the fuel costs, I have my doubts about the economics even outside of high sec right now. At least for manufacturing, the volume of industry required to offset the fuel costs (relative to POS) may end up erasing the benefit through the system index. I haven't done any math to verify this yet, but it is something I want to look into.
In the long run, the removal of POS would eventually rectify that problem, but in the short-mid term, I have my doubts.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
Black Marker
570
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 07:33:58 -
[6] - Quote
Cable Nathan Summers wrote:Imagine a universe with only these and no more NPC stations. Entire regions will burn.
NPC stations used to be destructible, you know..
I don't think CCP is ever going down that path again.
When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
|
Do Little
Virgin Plc
Evictus.
430
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 08:35:56 -
[7] - Quote
They split the functionality of the design lab so you need 2 service modules to copy and invent. Plus the medium uses more fuel than a large POS. I'll be keeping my small POS until they forcibly remove it from the game! |
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
2984
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 10:26:00 -
[8] - Quote
Unfortunately as expected. The new structures are inferior to existing solutions, not so much because of invulnerability but because raising the bar for setup and operation to be only profitable if resources are shared ... which will "nicely" be compensated by the system index. 
... but maybe I should be happy, since NPC station building becomes more competitive with this ... until they nerf it to the ground if the new structures get ignored.
As was with broker fee, raising the entrance barrier and operational effort for an activity while maintaining benefits of anti-social behavior (e.g. index) in game, is unlikely helping player happiness and retention. This just splits the player base further in rich no-lifers / power blocs and poor casuals / small groups ... but maybe this is the plan, to milk more RL money from those casuals.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
67
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 11:08:13 -
[9] - Quote
Or they might be trying to push people out of hisec.
Using these instead of a POS to build in will be a worse experience as you will have to spread your stuff around across multiple structures. Even if you're building in an XL you will not be doing science in the same facility.
Trade Hub Price Checker: stop.hammerti.me.uk/pricecheck
Visit "Haulers Channel" in game for all matters courier-related.
Citadel name/system API: stop.hammerti.me.uk/api
|
Samsara Toldya
Academy of Contradictory Behaviour
834
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 08:29:00 -
[10] - Quote
As for system cost index:
Quote:Before we move forward, we have one quick PSA about new structures and System Cost Index multipliers. In the long-term we hope to add a sovereignty upgrade that reduces the industry system cost index, to replace the bonus that currently exists on outposts. However, for the medium-term outposts will be keeping their existing bonuses to system cost index multipliers. This means that there will be some benefits from placing Engineering Complexes in the same solar system as an outpost (especially an Amarr outpost), as well as placing them into highsec systems with large numbers of NPC stations. Engineering Complexes themselves will have no impact on the system cost index multiplier (just like starbases).
If you manage to get local producers into the Engineering Complex system cost index could be lowered.
But I'm not sure if that is "producing at a Complex won't raise cost index" or "they won't give boni to cost index"... hoping for the first one.
Unfortunately as a smallballer producer I have to adjust my production lines every now and then to adjust to market oversupply, changes in the game meta, shortage on manufacturing material and so on... to have at least ME bonus for ammunition, drones, t2 components, small ships, advanced small ships, medium ships, advanced medium ships, deployables, structures, reprocessing(!) and invention (those are arrays I use and on/offline them at demand at a medium POS) I would need to set up 5 M Complexes or 3 L Complexes or 2 XL Complexes or destroy and change rigs every month.
Guess it will be POS until they are removed and after that back to station.
Using public Complexes will be a pain in the slot 11 as I'm pretty sure CCP is not going to add something to the beta-map or industry UI to let us search for nearby public Complexes with the best rigs for what we want to produce. |
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
68
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 09:24:16 -
[11] - Quote
Samsara Toldya wrote:As for system cost index: Quote:This means that there will be some benefits from placing Engineering Complexes in the same solar system as an outpost (especially an Amarr outpost), as well as placing them into highsec systems with large numbers of NPC stations. Engineering Complexes themselves will have no impact on the system cost index multiplier (just like starbases). If you manage to get local producers into the Engineering Complex system cost index could be lowered. But I'm not sure if that is "producing at a Complex won't raise cost index" or "they won't give boni to cost index"... hoping for the first one.
Its almost certainly the second one - index multiplier rather than index.
Trade Hub Price Checker: stop.hammerti.me.uk/pricecheck
Visit "Haulers Channel" in game for all matters courier-related.
Citadel name/system API: stop.hammerti.me.uk/api
|
Samsara Toldya
Academy of Contradictory Behaviour
834
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 09:55:40 -
[12] - Quote
Messenger Of Truth wrote:Its almost certainly the second one - index multiplier rather than index.
This means that there will be some benefits from placing Engineering Complexes ... into highsec systems with large numbers of NPC stations.
is what confuses me the most.
Today industry focused corporations punish themself for doing production/invention within one solar system as they make it more expensive by rising system cost index. The more active members these corporations have the worse it gets.
Maybe that's why I'm hoping for the first...
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
2990
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 10:15:39 -
[13] - Quote
There is the index most people know about, which determines cost of jobs, based on the number and value of jobs in system. And there is the fixed index multiplier (e.g. 0.95) which will be applied to the index for each station (not POS, not EC) with the respective facility in system.
Hence, systems with a large number of NPC stations with facilities get a bonus to the index. But the index value itself scales with the number of chars actually doing stuff in system. There was no change in mechanics in this regard, ECs will just behave the same way as starbases do today.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Badfellas Inc.
1527
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 19:47:38 -
[14] - Quote
Most people I see complaining about the changes seem to be missing one important detail:
CCP made no promise that the new solution would maintain every single benefit of the current pos system. Sure, the new structures don't allow you to do everything, but that in itself is also a boon. By no longer allowing players to produce EVERYTHING at optimum efficiency from one location with relatively low risk, they are now making it so that, large industrial groups that have an interest in defending their operations maintain a similar ease of access to high efficiency production, and that those working on a smaller, more discreet scale still have the ability to fully specialize for select tasks without spending a fortune, but in the end, because fewer small enterprizes will be able to produce quite the breadth they produced before, there will be more opportunities for more players to enter niches in the market, and make meaningful gains. Sure, this might make the life of a select few dozen to couple hundred industrialists more of a headache, but it will also serve to introduce a risk/reward metric that largely does not currently exist, in highsec manufacturing anyway, but also in lolsec and null, as well as opening up the market to smaller players who want to get into it.
Aside from the fact that the medium engineering complex has no defenses worth mentioning whatsoever, but is completely vulnerable to wardecs at least once a week, making it a VERY desirable easy kill, especially with the prospect of the loot dropping, and that CCP somehow thought that having supercap builds show an animation on the XL was a good idea, I'm overall very happy with the eng array changes, and I say that as an industrialist. |
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
3008
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 12:44:57 -
[15] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:
as well as opening up the market to smaller players who want to get into it.
Unless CCP forces us all to use the new structures, like they did with traders, by making NPC station production generally unprofitable ... otherwise I will be happy continuing using those with less competition, as I don't care much about a couple of percentage ME gain, and the TE is irrelevant for my playstyle.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
68
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 13:02:28 -
[16] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:Arronicus wrote:
as well as opening up the market to smaller players who want to get into it.
Unless CCP forces us all to use the new structures, like they did with traders, by making NPC station production generally unprofitable ... otherwise I will be happy continuing using those with less competition, as I don't care much about a couple of percentage ME gain, and the TE is irrelevant for my playstyle.
The introduction of these engineering complexes *is* effectively a nerf across the board to POS and NPC stations as the market will adjust to the prices people can build at. Looking at ME, POS and NPC stations are now 1.6% and 3.6% less competitive than the hisec optimal (in contrast to 0% and 2% less competitive right now).
Trade Hub Price Checker: stop.hammerti.me.uk/pricecheck
Visit "Haulers Channel" in game for all matters courier-related.
Citadel name/system API: stop.hammerti.me.uk/api
|
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
485
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 15:00:17 -
[17] - Quote
Messenger Of Truth wrote:In hisec, you can set up a large POS somewhere the manufacturing index isn't too high and you can build whatever's profitable.
In a M/L engineering complex, you can only fit 3 rigs, which means you can only build 3 item categories competitively.
So you either stop building such a variety of things, or you build multiple engineering complexes and spend your life moving materials and components around between the complexes.
Or you can use public complexes which will have awful manufacturing indexes and stop you being competitive.
The only structure that matches the functionality of a large POS is an XL engineering complex, but their kill-mails are too juicy for all but certain well connected groups to seriously consider using.
All in all, I'm not convinced that these engineering complexes are an improvement for many hisec manufacturers. (Clearly they provide interesting improvements in null, low and WH space though).
Not only in HighSec, I just came from the W-Space subforum and someone there did the math and found out a large POS is still cheaper on fuel if you want to do industry in W-Space.
In effect, either CCP lowers the fuel costs drastically, or many people will just ignore them until POS are removed and they're forced to use them. |
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
3008
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 15:45:19 -
[18] - Quote
Messenger Of Truth wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:Arronicus wrote:
as well as opening up the market to smaller players who want to get into it.
Unless CCP forces us all to use the new structures, like they did with traders, by making NPC station production generally unprofitable ... otherwise I will be happy continuing using those with less competition, as I don't care much about a couple of percentage ME gain, and the TE is irrelevant for my playstyle. The introduction of these engineering complexes *is* effectively a nerf across the board to POS and NPC stations as the market will adjust to the prices people can build at. Looking at ME, POS and NPC stations are now 1.6% and 3.6% less competitive than the hisec optimal (in contrast to 0% and 2% less competitive right now).
Not sure how you come to that conclusion ... the consensus is that ECs will make production more costly compared to POS and Outpost, so prices shall rise ... making NPC station production relatively more profitable if not changed. Right?
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2457
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 22:14:23 -
[19] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:
Not sure how you come to that conclusion ... the consensus is that ECs will make production more costly compared to POS and Outpost, so prices shall rise ... making NPC station production relatively more profitable if not changed. Right?
Well, no, not really right.
For a given location, they're only more costly compared to POS below a certain input threshold, after which the superior ME compensates for the relative fuel increase.
That "consensus" is mostly knee-jerky and completely ignores the ability to use other-people's-structures. A lot of people have been treating fairly manageable problems as if they're insurmountable dealbreakers. It's ridiculous.
In the short term, the ability to Dial-a-'Dex with a POS still gives them a clear advantage. This could be a deterrent to early adoption of ECs, but in the long run is irrelevant, as it will go away.
There are things I could stand to see changed or improved with the current plan. Some thoughts, none of which I think are absolutely mandatory, but all of which would make ECs more attractive to me:
-I think a base fuel cost of 16 for basic manu and lab services would be fine. This would mean 36/hr for a basic manu/research EC, instead of 45.
-I think ME and Time rigs could be consolidated at the medium level for manufacturing. That's still a HUGE number of rigs. Needing to blow 2 rig slots for an optimal T2 component factory, for instance, just seems like too much.
-I think the structure browser is going to need to be a lot more robust to adequately allow people to find an ideal public structure with their desired bonuses. Actually, I'll flat out say that I don't think this one is optional. The existing browser is completely insufficient given the current granularity of EC bonus design.
-I think the delineation between existing research and design labs should be preserved. That is, ME/TE in one research service, copying/invention in the other.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
3011
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 07:53:11 -
[20] - Quote
Well, you say everything is fine and scales, because you can use other people's facilities to compensate for the higher fuel and installation costs ... but why would somebody sane invite competitors who wreck the costs in that system?
There is a fundamental difference in how Citadels react to scale compared to EC. More people using citadel services -> better for everybody. More people using EC -> worse for everybody.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
1536
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 11:10:35 -
[21] - Quote
It's unfortunate, but the plan is to replace POSes with the new structures. Therefore there is no need, balance-wise, for the new structures to be competitive with POSes in the long term. They only have to be competitive with NPC stations, which may also receive further neutering in order to achieve the desired balance. So really, their bonuses and functional design can be terrible and they'll still end up being the best option once everything else has been nerfed into the ground or removed entirely.
My main concerns about the EC's are:
They are too expensive to fuel
Their vulnerability windows are too big
There are too many rigs
I think this makes them highly unattractive to smaller industrialists. Those players will be required to use either POS, NPC stations or a public EC/Citadel with the desired combination of services and rigs. Sadly, two of these options are "legacy" features and the remainder is renting from a landlord rather than striking out on your own. For some of the more independently minded industrialists this may be a bit stifling.
I'd either rectify those three issues, by reducing fuel consumption, reducing vulnerability windows and halving the number of rigs, or make a range of S-size personal use industrial structures that allow the small industrialist some small factories and labs of their own. I fully support the idea that the EC and the Citadel should be co-operative structures, but I also believe there should be more structures for the individual industrialist (who can still co-operate with others while using his own facility). An S-size facility could be torn down and moved easily if you relocate or wish to avoid exposure to a war dec, can have simple defence/destruction mechanics like the existing S-size structures, can have zero fuel requirements and a modest initial cost to reflect that only a maximum of 11 jobs could ever be installed in one (because that's the maximum any character can have). They would be everything an EC isn't and thus allow the EC to be what it is without excluding people from their desired industrial gameplay. |
Namdor
The Exchange Collective
73
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 15:31:19 -
[22] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:Well, you say everything is fine and scales, because you can use other people's facilities to compensate for the higher fuel and installation costs ... but why would somebody sane invite competitors who wreck the costs in that system?
There is a fundamental difference in how Citadels react to scale compared to EC. More people using citadel services -> better for everybody. More people using EC -> worse for everybody.
Sorry, but this particular objection doesn't really make sense. You're treating the cost index as if it's the sole variable of any importance.
They would want to do it if the taxes they can collect will exceed the delta in their own personal index cost. It's not a very tricky question. Index costs don't increase linearly - a relatively small increase in the index value requires a relatively large increase in job-hours (about 75% more job hours to go from 3% to 4%, say),
People already do large volumes of industry in relatively high index systems - this is demonstrably true, given the fact that high-index systems exist at all. Why would those people NOT prefer to do the manufacturing they're already doing in, say, Bahromab (~3.9% index) in an EC with an ME bonus that effectively offsets that index value, instead of doing it in an NPC station and just eating the cost? |
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
3014
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 17:53:16 -
[23] - Quote
Assuming there are a lot of public ECs anchored ... otherwise a few worth considering will attract more people than from just one system, so better keep it closed circle ...
... and you say already 75% increase in jobs will push the index by 1% point ... this the difference between one and two chars doing production ...
Well, let's see what happens, new profits will be there as always if the environment is complex ... and hope it's not too tedious and kills the fun playing.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2461
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 18:21:56 -
[24] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:
... and you say already 75% increase in jobs will push the index by 1% point ... this the difference between one and two chars doing production ...
No, that's the difference between 3% and 4%, not the amount to bump it by 1% at any value, so that would only be true if one character were sufficient to hit 3% to begin with, which it generally isn't, afaict. It would be easier to calculate the thresholds with an approximate value for the total number of job-hours installed in the universe, but I don't know of anywhere that's available.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
3018
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 20:22:29 -
[25] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:
... and you say already 75% increase in jobs will push the index by 1% point ... this the difference between one and two chars doing production ...
No, that's the difference between 3% and 4%, not the amount to bump it by 1% at any value, so that would only be true if one character were sufficient to hit 3% to begin with, which it generally isn't, afaict. It would be easier to calculate the thresholds with an approximate value for the total number of job-hours installed in the universe, but I don't know of anywhere that's available.
Ok, right. I'm not so familiar with the exact formula, but I see that my industry activity regularly bumps the index in my system by 0.5-1% point starting from a similar baseline. This correlates just too well with my pauses and vacations, to be pure coincidence.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2461
|
Posted - 2016.10.14 20:34:19 -
[26] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:
... and you say already 75% increase in jobs will push the index by 1% point ... this the difference between one and two chars doing production ...
No, that's the difference between 3% and 4%, not the amount to bump it by 1% at any value, so that would only be true if one character were sufficient to hit 3% to begin with, which it generally isn't, afaict. It would be easier to calculate the thresholds with an approximate value for the total number of job-hours installed in the universe, but I don't know of anywhere that's available. Ok, right. I'm not so familiar with the exact formula, but I see that my industry activity regularly bumps the index in my system by 0.5-1% point starting from a similar baseline. This correlates just too well with my pauses and vacations, to be pure coincidence.
It's Sqrt(SystemJobHoursInstalled/UniverseJobHoursInstalled) pretty much. So, index^2 is the rough percentage of job hours for the system. IIRC it's done as a running average over a week or so. The TL;DR is that an increasing index means an increasing number of job hours in the system to further raise the index.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Francis Podkill
Podkill Consolidated
1
|
Posted - 2016.10.15 05:35:09 -
[27] - Quote
Main issue with these are the ridiculous price tag compared to a POS.
I can do invention/research and production in one single medium POS with nice bonusses (hyasyoda, thukker component, etc) and offline/online whatever I feel like.
a 5B complex is unable to match the functionality of a 300m tower.
When replacing something you should at leas aim to have the same feature set as what you're removing, then improving from there. What's happening now is when you compare Complex with POS:
- Features / bonusses removed
- Price tag increased 7-30x
- Fuel cost increased
- Flexibility GREATLY reduced (pos deploys in an hour or so, ability to toggle modules removed)
Basicly CCP is proposing dropping pos without giving back a functioning alternative for small-med sized corps. |
Alicia Dnari
Dnari Mining and Manufacturing
7
|
Posted - 2016.10.15 16:25:06 -
[28] - Quote
As one of the "smaller industrialists" I have to say that I could maybe put up a useful POS in high-sec. Maybe. If nobody blew it up. If I didn't try to keep it running all the time. If if ifGǪ
These other structures? No chance. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
6464
|
Posted - 2016.10.16 09:09:19 -
[29] - Quote
Alicia Dnari wrote:As one of the "smaller industrialists" I have to say that I could maybe put up a useful POS in high-sec. Maybe. If nobody blew it up. If I didn't try to keep it running all the time. If if ifGǪ
These other structures? No chance.
I've got a pretty old large POS, at 5.75 years old, and I've no real idea what I'm going to do.
I might try an Astrahus with a research lab, or just stick to NPC stations. I don't see a future for me in an EC.
Re: EC asset safety, keep in mind that it isn't free, its 15%. |
Do Little
Virgin Plc
Evictus.
447
|
Posted - 2016.10.16 10:27:22 -
[30] - Quote
I have a small POS in highsec. The design lab justifies the cost in time savings for invention/copy jobs. I also have a couple of assembly arrays - ME bonus probably pays the fuel bill, I haven't crunched the numbers. Engineering Complexes in their current form have no place in the future of my highsec business - I'll use the POS until CCP removes it from the game and then work from an NPC station. For my nullsec alliance, on the other hand, EC's make perfect sense.
I don't see a lot of small industrialists moving to EC's owned by others unless CCP adds enforceable lease agreements to the game and I expect a lot of frustration if CCP tries to force us down that road. I don't see any need for a "small" Citadel but a small EC in the same price/functionality range as a small POS is something they should seriously consider - there are a lot of small industrial players in this game! |
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
3023
|
Posted - 2016.10.16 11:14:36 -
[31] - Quote
Nothing new, it's the same pattern we see since Citadel, play big or get out, or suck up to some landlord. The game becomes more and more polarized.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
KenFlorian
Jednota Inc
39
|
Posted - 2016.10.16 13:46:03 -
[32] - Quote
My plan is to stay in my large POS until it blows up again or is removed from the game OR I can assemble a small group of formerly independent hgh-sec industrialists into a co-op. With neither in-game name cachet nor a clear idea of what this would mean in practice, it's probably not gonna happen
Now that 12 of the 13 solo high sec industrialists have weighed in on this thread and the 13th, NevilleSmit, said similar things on his blog, we can return to our former solitary lives. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
18155
|
Posted - 2016.10.18 18:53:04 -
[33] - Quote
Mephiztopheleze wrote:Messenger Of Truth wrote:All in all, I'm not convinced that these engineering complexes are an improvement for many hisec manufacturers. (Clearly they provide interesting improvements in null, low and WH space though). If you want the safety of HiSec manufacturing, you have to accept some kind of trade-off in return for hanging onto CONCORD's apron strings. If you want all the you beaut bonuses and goodies that come with holding Sov, go out and claim yourself some Sov. Protip: the ONLY actual real benefits of holding Sov are 1: Ability to anchor an SCSAA, 2: Certain iHub upgrades that give rather major benefits to hard-core mining corporations and 3: Sov POS Fuel Bonuses. That's pretty much it at the moment. In return for these somewhat meager rewards, you have a mountain of hassle and annoyances. Not least of which is playing Sov Lazor Shenanigans.
Also cyno jammers and jump bridges. Also system upgrades, which are kind of a big deal.
"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."
Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
|
Zappity
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
3039
|
Posted - 2016.10.18 23:44:13 -
[34] - Quote
Crius utterly failed to turn industry into a group endeavour, despite this clearly being one of the design goals. The new structures provide much better permissions and access control. It looks like CCP has decided this is the time to make another push away from solo industry and towards corp structures. I think this is a positive change on the whole. But it will certainly impact solo indy.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2473
|
Posted - 2016.10.19 20:18:39 -
[35] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Alicia Dnari wrote:As one of the "smaller industrialists" I have to say that I could maybe put up a useful POS in high-sec. Maybe. If nobody blew it up. If I didn't try to keep it running all the time. If if ifGǪ
These other structures? No chance. I've got a pretty old large POS, at 5.75 years old, and I've no real idea what I'm going to do. I might try an Astrahus with a research lab, or just stick to NPC stations. I don't see a future for me in an EC. Re: EC asset safety, keep in mind that it isn't free, its 15%.
It's free if there's an NPC station in system.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
3033
|
Posted - 2016.10.19 22:39:57 -
[36] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Crius utterly failed to turn industry into a group endeavour, despite this clearly being one of the design goals. The new structures provide much better permissions and access control. It looks like CCP has decided this is the time to make another push away from solo industry and towards corp structures. I think this is a positive change on the whole. But it will certainly impact solo indy.
The problem IMO is, that production, like trading and most of PvE is better done solo ... simply because the payout does not scale with the number of people involved. Exceptions are Incursions (by design) and mining to some extent (fleet boosts, protection, hauler ...).
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Zappity
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
3040
|
Posted - 2016.10.20 15:39:40 -
[37] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:The problem IMO is, that production, like trading and most of PvE is better done solo ... simply because the payout does not scale with the number of people involved. Exceptions are Incursions (by design) and mining to some extent (fleet boosts, protection, hauler ...).
But isn't that about to change for production? The fact that a single structure will no longer be the optimal solution means that, for most people, an efficient operation will demand involvement with other people. This might be in the form of accessing publicly available facilities which specialise in production of [item category] or it may be a corp.
Efficient solo operations will demand multiple structures (or a single large one) owned by a single person. I think they will be less common going forward.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Badfellas Inc.
1535
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 06:21:35 -
[38] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:The problem IMO is, that production, like trading and most of PvE is better done solo ... simply because the payout does not scale with the number of people involved. Exceptions are Incursions (by design) and mining to some extent (fleet boosts, protection, hauler ...). But isn't that about to change for production? The fact that a single structure will no longer be the optimal solution means that, for most people, an efficient operation will demand involvement with other people. This might be in the form of accessing publicly available facilities which specialise in production of [item category] or it may be a corp. Efficient solo operations will demand multiple structures (or a single large one) owned by a single person. I think they will be less common going forward.
This mirrors my thoughts on the matter, and honestly, I think it's a good thing. Considering there's no longer serious issues of assett security (risk of theft from thieves in hangars with varying access headaches), I think people will be a LOT more likely to band together to share these sorts of structures. Interestingly, via standings, you could also create a production alliance of small corps not vulnerable to one single wardec, by having them not in the same alliance together, but each simply granting each other docking access to their engineering complexes.
Even though I am a multiboxer, and do all the jobs for my own production, what really keeps me in eve, and MANY other players, is the social interaction, which is something you simply dont get in solo corps. I definitely think this style of creating a middle mode, a blend between outpost and post (albeit with non-existant defences) is a very nice compromise, even if the fuel cost seems kinda harsh. Though I did hear rumors about the fuel consumption getting slashed on production services?
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2512
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 15:30:13 -
[39] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:The problem IMO is, that production, like trading and most of PvE is better done solo ... simply because the payout does not scale with the number of people involved. Exceptions are Incursions (by design) and mining to some extent (fleet boosts, protection, hauler ...). But isn't that about to change for production? The fact that a single structure will no longer be the optimal solution means that, for most people, an efficient operation will demand involvement with other people. This might be in the form of accessing publicly available facilities which specialise in production of [item category] or it may be a corp. Efficient solo operations will demand multiple structures (or a single large one) owned by a single person. I think they will be less common going forward.
Well, sort of. I think it's more accurate to say that owning the infrastructure supporting production is about to become more of a team support.
The actual operational aspects of the production process, specifically, will still be a solo thing, imo.
This is a lot like some PvE, as well - most people run anomalies solo, but the infrastructure to support that (holding sov, entrapment arrays, whatever) is a group thing.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
3043
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 16:38:16 -
[40] - Quote
The point I want to make is, that the payout = profit of production is not scaling with more people involved. Say you produce one Sleipnir, then you can split the work between different people, doing invention, T1 and T2 production each in their specialist EC ... but finally you sell only one Sleipnir, and the market can absorb only a limited amount of Sleipnirs per time. So the profit from this one Sleipnir goes to 3 people now, but you can't just produce 3x the numbers to compensate ...
Hence the most efficient way will still be the solo industrialist with an army of alts.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2512
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 16:49:45 -
[41] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:The point I want to make is, that the payout = profit of production is not scaling with more people involved. Say you produce one Sleipnir, then you can split the work between different people, doing invention, T1 and T2 production each in their specialist EC ... but finally you sell only one Sleipnir, and the market can absorb only a limited amount of Sleipnirs per time. So the profit from this one Sleipnir goes to 3 people now, but you can't just produce 3x the numbers to compensate ...
Hence the most efficient way will still be the solo industrialist with an army of alts.
You're conflating the production process and infrastructure ownership, and they are simply not the same thing.
You can have your independent production process with shared infrastructure, just like you have independent ratting with shared infrastructure.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
3043
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 16:53:55 -
[42] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:The point I want to make is, that the payout = profit of production is not scaling with more people involved. Say you produce one Sleipnir, then you can split the work between different people, doing invention, T1 and T2 production each in their specialist EC ... but finally you sell only one Sleipnir, and the market can absorb only a limited amount of Sleipnirs per time. So the profit from this one Sleipnir goes to 3 people now, but you can't just produce 3x the numbers to compensate ...
Hence the most efficient way will still be the solo industrialist with an army of alts. You're conflating the production process and infrastructure ownership, and they are simply not the same thing. You can have your independent production process with shared infrastructure, just like you have independent ratting with shared infrastructure.
But that's not "playing together", that's just a passive renter relationship like we have for offshoring citadels to save costs.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2512
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 17:20:30 -
[43] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:
But that's not "playing together", that's just a passive renter relationship like we have for offshoring citadels to save costs.
Sure it is, particularly if with respect to mutual defense of shared structures, etc. Infrastructure ownership is inherently a team sport.
Quote:EDIT: I thought CCP wants to reduce passive incomes for big groups/players? They just introduce one new source after the other by funneling former NPC fees into player pocket.
I can't help but feel like you're being deliberately obtuse if you're equating, "I stuck a tower on the moon and now the game generates value out of thin air for me every hour on the hour," with usage fees that require getting other players to actually, you know... use.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
3043
|
Posted - 2016.10.22 18:51:29 -
[44] - Quote
I'm pessimistic, there will never be enough trust to build and mutually defend shared structures between otherwise independent entities. It will be either you have a big alliance / corp as backup or enough ISK to buy all the defense you need.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Shayla Etherodyne
Delta Laroth Industries
Voxis Accord
96
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 21:04:31 -
[45] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:
But that's not "playing together", that's just a passive renter relationship like we have for offshoring citadels to save costs.
Sure it is, particularly if with respect to mutual defense of shared structures, etc. Infrastructure ownership is inherently a team sport.
As we are speaking of renting space in citadels high sec owned by other entities, I have a few questions for you:
- Why I should defend the structure if I am not part of the owner group? You think that I would lose my ships for some other player out of the goodness of my heart? Unless the value of the jobs that I am running is higher than the probable loss of ships I have no reason to throw good money after bad trying to defend something owned by a group to which I don't belong.
- And how I will defend it if I am not part of the owner group and so I am not on their teamspeak, forums and other shared sources of information? You think that impromptu defensive fleet of random guys will be viable? With haphazard use of support ships and no comms?
- How I will manage CONCORD? They will defend the citadel attackers if they have a war dec against the citadel owner and destroy my ship.
So the options are passive renter that will have almost no relationship with the citadel owner beside giving him a few isk or fully participation in the owner corp/alliance. And that mean we are centralizing even more power in the hand of a few entities while making small corps even less viable.
|
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
524
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 21:16:57 -
[46] - Quote
I really wish there was a definitive answer on if POS's are going to be taken out/when, I was ready to do the POS thing but held back on setting one up, guess on the + side maybe I will be able to get those skills related to them moved. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2523
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 14:54:20 -
[47] - Quote
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:
But that's not "playing together", that's just a passive renter relationship like we have for offshoring citadels to save costs.
Sure it is, particularly if with respect to mutual defense of shared structures, etc. Infrastructure ownership is inherently a team sport. As we are speaking of renting space in citadels high sec owned by other entities, I have a few questions for you:
More like a co-op, really. It's not like the concept of a coalition is all that foreign in Eve.
I'm sure renters will be a thing, but nobody really expects anything from the guys that are THAT little.
All that aside, are you unaware that you can join someone else's war as a defender?
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron
The-Culture
1934
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 15:38:40 -
[48] - Quote
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:
As we are speaking of renting space in citadels high sec owned by other entities, I have a few questions for you:
I'm not the target for these questions but i can give some answers:
=====
- Why I should defend the structure if I am not part of the owner group? You think that I would lose my ships for some other player out of the goodness of my heart? Unless the value of the jobs that I am running is higher than the probable loss of ships I have no reason to throw good money after bad trying to defend something owned by a group to which I don't belong.
Let's say you are renter. You use this citadel for something. Having stuff in it: materials. BPCs, etc. Having jobs.
If the citadel gets killed your stuff gets delayed and you might need to pay some tax to get it back.
And/or you lose time you spent on your non-completed jobs.
Is it enough to care about defending the citadel? I guess it is only you can say.
=====
- And how I will defend it if I am not part of the owner group and so I am not on their teamspeak, forums and other shared sources of information? You think that impromptu defensive fleet of random guys will be viable? With haphazard use of support ships and no comms?
Ever heard about Bombers Bar or Spectre Fleet? They somehow deal with strangers and do kill nice stuff.
You offer your assistance and owners of citadel can use it or they cannot but then they will be replaced by others. That's evolution.
=====
- How I will manage CONCORD? They will defend the citadel attackers if they have a war dec against the citadel owner and destroy my ship.
Join war as ally of defender and you are ok.
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:
So the options are passive renter that will have almost no relationship with the citadel owner beside giving him a few isk or fully participation in the owner corp/alliance. And that mean we are centralizing even more power in the hand of a few entities while making small corps even less viable.
That's the way of civilization. Bigger groups always have upper hand. And smaller ones thrive in small areas which are not interesting for bigger ones.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
6475
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 17:47:50 -
[49] - Quote
The system index promotes decentralized industry, which is in direct opposition to setting-up industry hubs.
It really needs to be removed, or a better alternative found. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2533
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 17:20:03 -
[50] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:The system index promotes decentralized industry, which is in direct opposition to setting-up industry hubs.
It really needs to be removed, or a better alternative found.
This isn't really complete.
The system index was never intended to promote completely scattered production - it was intended to deter everyone-builds-within-one-jump-of-a-trade-hub hyper-centralization.
Combined with teams, it was supposed to promote clustering. Teams didn't work out, and, combined with the high mobility of a POS, we're left with this really silly situation where "nomadic factories" are a thing. There's a good chance ECs could fill the role teams were supposed to, albeit through a slightly different mechanism.
The most fundamentally broken thing about index costs right now is the ease with which they're almost completely avoided. That cost is SUPPOSED to be paid, and it seems likely that, with ECs, the amount paid to index costs will generally be higher than it is today.
There is nothing inherently broken about that, on a systemic level, though it is certainly a deterrent to early adoption while POS continue to function as they do. Once fully transitioned, everyone will have the exact same problem of balancing index and fuel costs Vs. material savings benefits, which will eventually be reflected in pricing, and the only real difference will be that production sinks more ISK out of the economy.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Zappity
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
3042
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 17:34:48 -
[51] - Quote
If you removed system index costs then you would get a thousand ECs in Perimeter. I don't like the index system either but that scenario wouldn't be great.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
0 000trader
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 11:23:30 -
[52] - Quote
I think CCP are dropping a ball here, and are hacking folk off in the process.
Eliminating small solo industrialists from their production and forcing them to play with others is a bad thing to force onto people. I use an Alt wholly for producing BPC's and run a small POS. (On my own - I love it - and its a big part of the game for me)
I don't want to play with others on that account, i don't want to share POS's or complexes or structures with others. I have a main that does all that already in null...
Sometimes folk just want to chill and do things on their own away from the mad crowds of being in a larger corp/alliance.
The thing i use to like about Eve was it gave you the choice to play individually or as a group as and when you wanted - It seems that with every new patch they are trying to take this choice away from people and force them into having to play completely in a group scenario.
I get that group play is a massive part of the game and enjoy that aspect also, but come on CCP - Try to cater for everyone's play style, most of us do have alts paying you two or more sub's to play more than 1 playstyle - You must know that...
I have done various testing on test server and for my scenario (copying BPO's) a medium complex is out the question (its far too slow per copy) compared to my current POS and design lab in HS. If i move up to the large which matches (actually is sightly faster) my current small POS setup the price and risk of loosing the complex compared to a small POS is just mental...
That leaves me with no other option than to hold onto my current POS for as long as possible - Until you force me into removing it. Then i will have to go and either:
A) find someone elses public structure to use....
B) run copies in a NPC station
C) Run a large complex at massive overheads (to match my current output)
D) Take a hit on all my reserch jobs
Big thumbs down there.... A patch like this should be fun and exciting with folk clawing at the bit to get hold of one of these new structures - Instead nobody (on a Solo level anyway) wants to use them... lol
Deffo no sand to move in the big box for the solo indy guy once you remove our POS's - As you can tell from most peoples posts in this thread mega disappointing.
o/ |
Gisele Serebriakova
Norman's Meat Market
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 17:45:37 -
[53] - Quote
I do not understand. Medium EC's where competitive with large POS's before
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6688508#post6688508
now they appear to be just flat out better. You can get 2-3 of them up and fitted/rigged for the cost of 1 large faction POS, 2 of them cost less in fuel per hour, and come with asset safety. Sure there isn't enough incentive to move out of a large POS if you wasted the two hours of your life required to deploy and anchor 120 ECM/Small AC batteries already, but TBH that's no reason for this hyperventilating and intransigence.
So what if the thing gets blown up. You make the hull/fittings/rigs up in the first month of production anything after that is just more gravy.
The only unknowns I have now are minor. Will the asset safety tax be on base cost rather then market value, about how long it should take for the market to get saturated with "fully" researched BPO's, and when polymer/drug production will come (presumably that will involve an array in a subsequent patch?) |
0 000trader
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.06 18:31:53 -
[54] - Quote
Gisele Serebriakova wrote:
now they appear to be just flat out better.
Please enlighten us as to where you are getting your figures from? Believe me i would absolutely love to be wrong and 100% hope i am, however
As i said before i have done testing in person on Sisi, in the same HS system using a small POS with design lab vs a Medium engineering complex with both T2 speed and T2 cost rigs for BPO copying.
The time it takes to complete the copies is way worse in the complex than the POS and design lab. I then anchored a large complex and as per my earlier post that is when it matches albeit a slight improvement copy time over pos with lab. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
6490
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 07:09:40 -
[55] - Quote
Gisele Serebriakova wrote:
... if you are not in hisec. |
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
69
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 16:00:06 -
[56] - Quote
Gisele Serebriakova wrote:I do not understand. Medium EC's where competitive with large POS's before https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6688508#post6688508
now they appear to be just flat out better. You can get 2-3 of them up and fitted/rigged for the cost of 1 large faction POS, 2 of them cost less in fuel per hour, and come with asset safety. Sure there isn't enough incentive to move out of a large POS if you wasted the two hours of your life required to deploy and anchor 120 ECM/Small AC batteries already, but TBH that's no reason for this hyperventilating and intransigence. So what if the thing gets blown up. You make the hull/fittings/rigs up in the first month of production anything after that is just more gravy. The only unknowns I have now are minor. Will the asset safety tax be on base cost rather then market value, about how long it should take for the market to get saturated with "fully" researched BPO's, and when polymer/drug production will come (presumably that will involve an array in a subsequent patch?)
Most POS aren't faction though, so you're comparing the MECs to the gold-plated POS.
Regardless of MEC/POS cost, you're now having to **** about shuffling materials between different MECs - even in a POS moving materials between arrays was horrible so having to warp instead of click is going to be even worse. Oops you left stuff in the wrong MEC? 1 minute warp until you can carry on setting off your build jobs. Not fun.
The interesting thing about manufacturing is working out what's best to build given the current and (predicted) future market conditions. What's not particularly fun is interacting with the laggy manufacturing window to set off jobs, and moving materials between different POS arrays. Those who build in outposts or stations don't have to deal with this at the moment, but the forced over-specialisation (even the slightly less strict version in Fozzie's latest post) means that anybody building more than a few items will find themselves engaged in the tedious business of shifting materials between ECs.
The new vision of POS manufacture involves more time spent on the boring stuff, warping components and materials around between ECs, so its likely to be a good deal less fun for many.
That said, Lowsec in particular sees a clear improvement from these changes - it might be worth building more than just capitals there for a lot of people now, but its not really clear that multiple ECs is going to be more enjoyable to build in than either outposts or POS.
Trade Hub Price Checker: stop.hammerti.me.uk/pricecheck
Visit "Haulers Channel" in game for all matters courier-related.
Citadel name/system API: stop.hammerti.me.uk/api
|
Gisele Serebriakova
Norman's Meat Market
1
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 19:51:20 -
[57] - Quote
I am still more confused.
A single t1 rig for ME and TE equal (roughly) or exceed a POS manufacturing bonus (2.4%ME/24%TE ver 2%ME/25%TE). Add in the base hull bonus (1%ME/15%TE), in the appropriate fashion ofc, and the fuel reduction (15/blocks an hour) and you end up with a bigger number.
This is exclusive of the 3% job cost reduction. This is assuming a faction POS: if you're rolling a standard you're even farther behind. Hence the number, which represents improvement over baseline current, is even bigger then estimated.
A number bigger then another number was made even bigger: hence the last number is still more bigger then the first number.
Even after you double the capital cost for a copy/invent array you end up ahead. Larger more diverse operations should, I'd guess, upgrade to a Large, and I've no desire to calc the relative breakeven points there.
Using hammers to dig a hole out back makes for a terribly hard job all of which is all hardly the fault of the hammer.
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
6493
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 06:42:57 -
[58] - Quote
T2 Rigs are not practical, given their cost.
Some people also seem to be missing the fact that unlike a POS, the rig bonuses are for specific items and processes only. You can no longer adapt to market demand fluctuations.
Example: T2 manufacturing
* Copy time + cost
* Invention time + cost
* T2 component manufacturing material + time + cost
* T1 item manufacturing material + time + cost
* T2 item manufacturing material + time + cost
That's 13 specializations to cover, which will require multiple EC.
Raitaru
ME: 1%
ME + T1 rig: 3.02%
ME + T2 rig: 3.424%
Time: 15%
Time + T1 rig: 32%
Time + T2 rig: 35.4%
Cost: 3%
Cost + T1 rig: 12.7%
Cost + T2 rig: 14.64%
Azbel
ME: 1%
ME + T1 rig: 3.02%
ME + T2 rig: 3.424%
Time: 20%
Time + T1 rig: 36%
Time + T2 rig: 39.2%
Cost: 4%
Cost + T1 rig: 13.6%
Cost + T2 rig: 15.52%
Sotiyo
ME: 1%
ME + T1 rig: 3.02%
ME + T2 rig: 3.424%
Time: 30%
Time + T1 rig: 44%
Time + T2 rig: 46.8%
Cost: 5%
Cost + T1 rig: 14.5%
Cost + T2 rig: 6.4%
POS: applies to all items
* 2% ME
* 10% cost reduction
* 25% manufacturing time reduction
* 35% ME time reduction
* 35% TE time reduction
* 40% copy time reduction
* 50% invention time reduction
* 52% Reprocessing reduction |
Zappity
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
3049
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 07:15:55 -
[59] - Quote
Yeah, payback time on T2 rigs is utterly ridiculous.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
Gisele Serebriakova
Norman's Meat Market
1
|
Posted - 2016.11.08 20:21:06 -
[60] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:T2 Rigs are not practical, given their cost.
Some people also seem to be missing the fact that unlike a POS, the rig bonuses are for specific items
No this was not assumed merely not worth stating. All of the profit and volume around jita are in t1/t2 rigs + BC and cruiser hulls, each set of which is easily covered by two mediums, or a large and a medium fit and rigged properly, for similar cost and productivity as a large POS. Inducing more specialization (or to force small groups to glom) in the production sphere doesn't a priori result in reduced profit per unit effort so the change is irreverent. Different is not worse, merely different. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
6495
|
Posted - 2016.11.09 06:48:54 -
[61] - Quote
It looks like EC rigs are on SiSi now.
Not crazy about the UI, as it doesn't show total bonuses but rather all individual bonuses. |
Now Life
The Scope
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.11.09 07:59:35 -
[62] - Quote
one of the biggest problems is the rigs .
Why use rigs to give bonus on the service modules
Rigs are slots to give extra bonus to armor/shield /dps/power/cpu/.....
give the EC and citadels servise modules where you can insert scripts to give bonus to the things you need.
or a slot like the T3 ships have. (Sub System) |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |