EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Building better Worlds

First post First post First post
Author
C C P Alliance
#501 - 2014-04-15 20:41:19 UTC
Halia Thorak wrote:
I have a couple of questions and comments about the changes, but over all the look really good.

Firstly how do you intend to address invention and the to make it less clunky without totally breaking it with these changes. In the current pos system if I can't run jobs remotely from a station I need to go to a POS to run the jobs which locks down a toon to the system as the cycle times are only 1.25 hours, do you intend to streamline this?

Secondly I think that a hard cap of 14% is faaaar to low, the fee's as they stand right now are a joke compared to the cost of fueling a pos per slot. The current prices even at 500% its almost equal the cost per hour to run a job in a reasonably fit pos.

Lastly while we're changing copying times I'd like to see T2 BPO copy times remain where they are, if they become more viable then invention you will likely see that system in its current state fizzle out really really quickly. People who got lucky in the T2 BPO lottery already have piles of money, there is absolutely no need to line their pockets even more (imo they should all be done away with to make it fair but oh the rivers that would be cried if you did that).


You will be able to install invention jobs remotely.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones

#502 - 2014-04-15 20:41:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Marsha Mallow
Does the removal of slots mean that labs are now worthless and you can just have one per POS? :P

If so, why shouldn't heavy industrialists reduce or even downsize the number of towers they have - provided the cost of installation balances out against the fuel for additional towers? The cost of a single small tower with one lab you can install unlimited jobs in has to outweigh 5 large deathstars with 12 labs on, or am I missing something?

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

Singularity Syndicate
#503 - 2014-04-15 20:42:48 UTC
Querns wrote:

If you had said, "at one time in my storied eve experience I had copied capital BPOs in lowsec," repeated for every single eve economic activity, especially the ones that are being changed at the time, I'd be more inclined to believe you, but expecting me to believe that you do every single one of these activities all at once stretches your credibility pretty far.


Actually it depends on the scale of activity too. I am just over 6 months since clonebirth and do manufacture, explot, invention, tech II production, mining and PI on a daily basis. Nothing full industrial scale as that would bore me personally but enough to give me variety. How much of each activity someone performs is simply a matter of how much time they have to invest in EvE.
Caldari State
#504 - 2014-04-15 20:43:13 UTC
Dorna Loone wrote:
With no, hard-to-grind, Corp standing requirement to obtain before setting up a Hi-Sec POS, I can see many of these absentee POS Owners getting a wardec soon after the patch hits to clear the space.

However, from what I've seen so far, there doesn't seem to be a lot of point in putting one up anyway post-patch as infinite slots for everything are available somewhere in stations and all you need to do is move (research particularly) to quieter / less used systems to keep the cost down.




Just like there is no place with open research slots now, there will not be a place with cheap slots post change.

Prices will riase until they reach teh level where it makes it cost effective to have an alt corp with a high sec POS.

Lots more hassle. Liittle extra risk. Little extra reward.

The change is NOT going to have the intended consequenc (BPOs getting destroyed/captured in POS bash). It will just be a major pain in the rear to supply the BPCs that will be used for the actual construction.

This is the Bad Complexity that the dev blog mentions they want to get rid of. Instead, they create a basket load of it..
#505 - 2014-04-15 20:44:16 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Does the removal of slots mean that labs are now worthless and you can just have one per POS? :P

If so, why shouldn't heavy industrialists reduce or even downsize the number of towers they have - provided the cost of manufacturing balances out against the fuel for additional towers? The cost of a single small tower with one lab you can install unlimited jobs in has to outweigh 5 large deathstars with 12 labs on, or am I missing something?

I expect that the more labs you have, the lower your congestion fees will be. If you try to stick 60 jobs into an array that was balanced around holding 6, the mechanics will do nasty things to your profitability. P
#506 - 2014-04-15 20:44:32 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
DoAsYouAreBid wrote:
Quote:
Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course).


Anywhere?

What does that mean? In a safe?

At the Sun?

1000km off a station?

I know it's a stupid question but that needs tidying up or clarifying.

D-Scan will become a useless worthless piece of cack if pos can be placed anywhere Lol


No, they still need to be anchored at moons.


Tyvm for answering so quickly.
#507 - 2014-04-15 20:46:32 UTC
Having just caught up I'd like to point out that the idea of congestion charges for my laboratories on my POS which I pay the fuel for is fuxking idiotic. Exactly to whom am I paying these fees - me? It's my POS.
Amarr Empire
#508 - 2014-04-15 20:47:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Kadl wrote:
It seems like you might be searching for the argument that the increase or decrease in production will not be measurable. Still you keep claiming that an increase in production from T2 BPO owners will not effect inventors with either volume or price.
No. I haven't claimed either of those. You're confusing production with demand, somehow.

If BPO holders produce more, this does not in any way affect how much inventors can produce. They simply can't. There is no connection or correlation between the two. Moreover, BPO holders produce so little that a marginal increase in their output from the BPOs is not going to affect the price in any significant way. You'd see the same variance from just a handful of inventors deciding to pick a different product this particular month.


Now it appears you are just being contrary. The issue is obviously not how much can be produced, but rather how much will be produced, and sold. How much the BPO holders produced effects how much inventors will produce because sane inventors will look to the market and decide what is worth their time to produce. As the two production streams are related via the market we are again in a situation of supply and demand. Changing your words from "can" to "will" allows us to get at the real situation.

It is entirely clear to me that your claims are just as my first sentence states. You believe that the changes will not be measurable. I have no issues with that claim since it does not violate supply and demand as you seem at times to be claiming.
#509 - 2014-04-15 20:48:33 UTC
Tippia wrote:
I expect that the more labs you have, the lower your congestion fees will be. If you try to stick 60 jobs into an array that was balanced around holding 6, the mechanics will do nasty things to your profitability. P

Ye, mebe. I can see paying more to maintain fewer towers being an incentive tho, even if it does eat into your margins. I hate these speculation wailnaughts, and I suspect the devs really enjoy watching us flail about screeching.

SHOW US THE NUMBERS!

STOP TEASING US!

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

#510 - 2014-04-15 20:49:15 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
No, they still need to be anchored at moons.

You should do away with all of this in one sweep.

Remove standings and insurance.

#511 - 2014-04-15 20:49:28 UTC
What about researching in wormhole space?
Snuffed Out
#512 - 2014-04-15 20:49:35 UTC
Imiarr Timshae wrote:
Having just caught up I'd like to point out that the idea of congestion charges for my laboratories on my POS which I pay the fuel for is fuxking idiotic. Exactly to whom am I paying these fees - me? It's my POS.

test subje "staff"
#513 - 2014-04-15 20:50:09 UTC
Imiarr Timshae wrote:
Having just caught up I'd like to point out that the idea of congestion charges for my laboratories on my POS which I pay the fuel for is fuxking idiotic. Exactly to whom am I paying these fees - me? It's my POS.

What benefits you more?

• Having, say, 30 slots per tower so you constantly have to keep 3 of them up just because there are occasional periods where you need 90 slots in total, or…
• Having, say 1 tower that you can keep running constantly, where there is no maximum number of slots and where you can squeeze in all 90 jobs at once when you need to for a slight fee, but where your regular 30 jobs won't really cost anything?
Caldari State
#514 - 2014-04-15 20:50:23 UTC
Inspiration wrote:

Think Long range sentry drones from 2 moderate groups of bonus-ed battleships. Large shield buffers and maybe a few logistics to top it off and go watch a movie. POS defenses will never on their own attack the drones, so it is just a matter of time before an attacker wins. Such a fleet would even be able to defend itself against a few active defenders quite well due to the range the groups can cover each other!


I may have to do the math again, but last time I read the numbers, it was somethign like 500 battleships doing max DPS for 10 hours to reinforce a heavily hardened large.

Of course, your "couple hours" may be correct as well, if you are showing up with thousands of battleships.



Anyone have numbers on EHP of a dkstar vs max DPS on BS?

You also seem to assume the alts would not have POS gunner skills. Sentries could get very expensive gettng poofed by POS guns.
#515 - 2014-04-15 20:51:46 UTC
So basically anyone with a handful of skill points can now set up a pos in HS. i can see one million of 1 member corps having poses soon.
Alt age !
Lelira Cirim
#516 - 2014-04-15 20:52:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Lelira Cirim
Magnus Cortex wrote:
Paul Otichoda wrote:
So those 6 months grinding standings for a high sec POS has been wasted?

Its not wasted, it let you have a highsec pos when they required standings...

Yup. Basically sunk costs.
The empire faction standings mechanics for player corps are terribad. This clears the way for new ideas to make those values meaningful again, if they even stay. Thanks to EACS even jump clone standings are kinda unnecessary, but that's also a player run service that is not always guaranteed to exist. Making better mechanics is the way to go forward.

Eleisa Joringer wrote:
So basically anyone with a handful of skill points can now set up a pos in HS. i can see one million of 1 member corps having poses soon.
Thanks to free/affordable boosting services, that's kindof been the case for a while already. I should know, my neutral holding CEOs are <1M SP. Cool Soon I won't have to micromanage how many downtimes my industrialist jumps between corps. Assuming he even needs POS access at all. I call that a win.

Will Dirconi wrote:
What about researching in wormhole space?
Hm? It's already as the blog describes, you need to put the BPO into the lab.

Do not actively tank my patience.

#517 - 2014-04-15 20:52:55 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Imiarr Timshae wrote:
Having just caught up I'd like to point out that the idea of congestion charges for my laboratories on my POS which I pay the fuel for is fuxking idiotic. Exactly to whom am I paying these fees - me? It's my POS.

What benefits you more?

• Having, say, 30 slots per tower so you constantly have to keep 3 of them up just because there are occasional periods where you need 90 slots in total, or…
• Having, say 1 tower that you can keep running constantly, where there is no maximum number of slots and where you can squeeze in all 90 jobs at once when you need to for a slight fee, but where your regular 30 jobs won't really cost anything?


The annoying part about posting with you is that in every other thread I read with you in I say "Tippia is so right."

I've literally been doing that for years.

Now I'm the one getting all butthurt I refuse to admit you're absolutely right and it conflicts with like three years of reading your posts and nodding and thinking "Damn right."Oops
Vae. Victis.
#518 - 2014-04-15 20:53:59 UTC
Imiarr Timshae wrote:
Having just caught up I'd like to point out that the idea of congestion charges for my laboratories on my POS which I pay the fuel for is fuxking idiotic. Exactly to whom am I paying these fees - me? It's my POS.

So you think you shouldn't have to pay someone for doing industry in orbit above someone else's planet... in someone else's space? Smile

If you're in Null you might have a point, however you are assuming those lab techs work for free, and don't charge extra for working overtime.

But actually, the real answer would be "game mechanic", it's as simple as that.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

#519 - 2014-04-15 20:54:05 UTC
Kadl wrote:
Now it appears you are just being contrary.
No, I'm just not accepting your notion that the production capability of BPO holders somehow affects the production capability of inventors, seeing as how they are not in any way related. I'm also not buying the notion that the inventors' prices will be affected in any major way since the production increase from the BPOs amounts to market noise compared to how much inventors produce.

Quote:
The issue is obviously not how much can be produced, but rather how much will be produced, and sold.
Maybe so, but that's not what you said. And again, BPOs aren't particularly significant to the supply of anything where invention is profitable. It'll be lost in the noise of inventors changing their item production from one cycle to the next.
#520 - 2014-04-15 20:54:45 UTC
gifter Penken wrote:
The change is NOT going to have the intended consequenc (BPOs getting destroyed/captured in POS bash). It will just be a major pain in the rear to supply the BPCs that will be used for the actual construction.

This is the Bad Complexity that the dev blog mentions they want to get rid of. Instead, they create a basket load of it..

Yeah. That's my feeling too. The just replace on silly thing by another.

But let's wait and see what the other dev blogs have to tell us.

Remove standings and insurance.

Forum Jump