EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Building better Worlds

First post First post First post
Author
C C P Alliance
#921 - 2014-04-16 14:36:35 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
can we turn off the new interface and use the old one that we all know and love/hate?


No,*Snip* Removed off topic part of the post. ISD Ezwal.

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

Gallente Federation
#922 - 2014-04-16 14:38:17 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here
We have insufficient details on the actual changes for any reasonable discussion.

So an unreasonable discussion broke out instead.


This, If they would of just given us numbers we would of been able to not just talk speculation
#923 - 2014-04-16 14:38:37 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here

these changes are entirely irrelevant unless the copy time for a t2 bpo is significantly lower than the current build time; even if it is slightly faster unless there's queueing coming in another devblog the slightly increased potential supply will be counteracted by the increased need to install new jobs, leaving the thing idle



Because they are redoing the entirety of industry and how it works and removing old legacy code etc and they STILL aren't getting rid/fixing the t2 BPO issue. That's why.
Twisted Tubes
#924 - 2014-04-16 14:39:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Weaselior wrote:
why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here

these changes are entirely irrelevant unless the copy time for a t2 bpo is significantly lower than the current build time; even if it is slightly faster unless there's queueing coming in another devblog the slightly increased potential supply will be counteracted by the increased need to install new jobs, leaving the thing idle

Exactly for that - a feedback to CCP to not significantly lower the copy time below the current build time Smile

Halia Thorak wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here
We have insufficient details on the actual changes for any reasonable discussion.

So an unreasonable discussion broke out instead.


This, If they would of just given us numbers we would of been able to not just talk speculation

Exactly why they didn't give the numbers first - speculations in a feedback thread can reveal potential downsides and provide pretty good feedback.
Vae. Victis.
#925 - 2014-04-16 14:54:21 UTC
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here

these changes are entirely irrelevant unless the copy time for a t2 bpo is significantly lower than the current build time; even if it is slightly faster unless there's queueing coming in another devblog the slightly increased potential supply will be counteracted by the increased need to install new jobs, leaving the thing idle

Exactly for that - a feedback to CCP to not significantly lower the copy time below the current build time Smile

Halia Thorak wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
why is this stupid t2 bpo discussion here
We have insufficient details on the actual changes for any reasonable discussion.

So an unreasonable discussion broke out instead.


This, If they would of just given us numbers we would of been able to not just talk speculation

Exactly why they didn't give the numbers first - speculations in a feedback thread can reveal potential downsides and provide pretty good feedback.

Because the 1st blog was already a small novel. I don't blame them at all for wanting to do it in smaller, more detailed sections.

Hysterical over reactions in this case is not CCP's fault. They've been crystal clear about what each of the upcoming blogs will cover.

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

In Tea We Trust
#926 - 2014-04-16 15:03:35 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Hysterical over reactions in this case is not CCP's fault.

Nonsense, it's a CCP DEV GOON PL CIA HYRDA RELOADED COMMUNIST consipiracy and we should all run for the hills with utmost urgency.
Vae. Victis.
#927 - 2014-04-16 15:08:36 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Hysterical over reactions in this case is not CCP's fault.

Nonsense, it's a CCP DEV GOON PL CIA HYRDA RELOADED COMMUNIST consipiracy and we should all run for the hills with utmost urgency.

Heh, undoubtedly.

No, I see the point that constructive speculation can be a good thing... but it oh so easily gets swept off into the realm of "worst case what if" scenario's that make little if any sense. Those discussions are counter productive, especially when they stem from a misunderstanding of how things currently work in game, providing false assumptions as to how potential changes will affect those behaviors/mechanics.

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

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#928 - 2014-04-16 15:09:20 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Hysterical over reactions in this case is not CCP's fault.

Nonsense, it's a CCP DEV GOON PL CIA HYRDA RELOADED COMMUNIST consipiracy and we should all run for the hills with utmost urgency.



Actually, I set it up, so there's more clamouring for a CSM member who does industy Smile (with my magical time travelling CSM 9 powers)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

#929 - 2014-04-16 15:09:50 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
[quote=Xe'Cara'eos]can we turn off the new interface and use the old one that we all know and love/hate?


No, *Snip* Removed off topic part of the post. ISD Ezwal.

Hello,

have you read my suggestion post?

I think it's a good idea and I am starting to get likes about it P
Gallente Federation
#930 - 2014-04-16 15:09:51 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Because the 1st blog was already a small novel. I don't blame them at all for wanting to do it in smaller, more detailed sections.

Hysterical over reactions in this case is not CCP's fault. They've been crystal clear about what each of the upcoming blogs will cover.


For likely 90% of the people who produce the goods that everyone buys this first devblog contains a lot of changes to how we go about our production. And without any numbers attached to words like " less and more " we're left to guess if we are all going to be eating a giant sunk cost after this expansion hits. CCP knows better then to use "less and more" without inciting fear and panic, and their recent track record with "balance changes" is very hit and miss. Though the UI looks like it might reduce the click fest hopefully

That being said i do love the new faction battle ship changes, that team clearly has a vision in mind and has though everything out completely.
C C P Alliance
#931 - 2014-04-16 15:10:22 UTC
sci0gon wrote:
ccp confirmation required.

when this change goes live will the bpos that were in the middle of production at the time be relocated to any pos mods that the production was started in or will it continue to export back to its locked down status in the station?

also is there the possibility that you guys may complete all build jobs on the server to free up the bpos so that the players can have peace of mind during the update that they are safely in the station and will have to decide after that whether or not they wish to continue to build in a pos or stick to station building?

also will there be any other purpose to high standings than what is in the game currently?


The issue regarding how to migrate blueprints using starbase when the expansion hits has been noted. We'll update this thread when we have more information about this.
Brute Force Solutions
#932 - 2014-04-16 15:20:09 UTC
Currently a corporation in an alliance can anchor a POS and allow alliance members to do ME and PE. The alliance member only needs to rent an office and do the research from that office.

So with this new change you will either have to do research at a station for whatever the NPC price is or move your blueprints to a POS and research/copy there.

Current POS mechanics restricts the other corporations of the alliance with the ability to put items into a corporate hangar array/ labs of the POS, but they cannot take anything out.

So will this change effectively kill the ability of an alliance to setup a POS specifically for allowing its members to do research or will POS game mechanics be changed to allow the owning corp to setup some type of check in check out system for blueprints for corporations in the alliance?
BadWrongFun
#933 - 2014-04-16 15:22:15 UTC
I am almost giggling to see 6 dev blogs concerning industry. Thank you! It is almost enough to make me forget that I will have to throw out a lot of work and start over.

I am sorry you could not fit invention into the schedule. The invention interface has been steadily nibbling away at my sanity.
Caldari State
#934 - 2014-04-16 15:28:23 UTC
sci0gon wrote:

also is there the possibility that you guys may complete all build jobs on the server to free up the bpos so that the players can have peace of mind during the update that they are safely in the station and will have to decide after that whether or not they wish to continue to build in a pos or stick to station building?


Lol are you kidding? Let me start as many Titan builds as I can first, thanks.
The Bastard Cartel
#935 - 2014-04-16 15:30:45 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Because they are redoing the entirety of industry and how it works and removing old legacy code etc and they STILL aren't getting rid/fixing the t2 BPO issue. That's why.


How long ago did the t2 BPO lottery end?
At LEAST 5+ years ago (Source), although I've heard estimates of 7-8 years ago (source).

You might have had a case for obliterating T2 BPOs many, many years ago, where people originally obtained t2 BPO's using a fair amount of effort with a dosing of luck. However, at this point, most people that have them worked for them (by thieving, killing, or buying them). Removing them now is just wrong on many levels, primarily because you're destroying years of efforts of many players that use them as investment items, which acquired them by fair and balanced means.

Now, no one can dispute that T2 BPO's allow players to produce a t2 items more profitably compared to invention (that is, when you ignore the cost of acquiring the T2 BPO and look at a manufacturing cost on a per item basis). But most items in game are profitably produced by invention, and attacking the T2 BPO holders really won't result in you making more isk (instead, those T2 QQ'ers that "can't compete" will just realize more quickly that they are just bad at T2 Production, probably because they aren't informed).

So, before you respond, you need to go look at the facts:

In March 2012, the percentage of modules produce from invention:

93.95% of T2 Gyrostabilizers,
89.77% of 1400mm II,
87.34% of 425mm Rail II,
82.00% of Tachyon II,
74.23% of Torpedo Launcher II.

In March 2012, the percentage of ships produce from invention:

90.23% of Hulks,
67.85% of Sabres
65.01% of Wolves
22.16% of Pilgrims
6.00% of Eagles

Data Source
Additional Data Source
Direct Source <-- Have to search to find the relevant tweets.

Here's the point: Modules and Ammo are primarily produced through invention, so removal of those BPO's wont do anything but HURT the BPO holder. These producers wont see more profit, and the consumers wont get any items cheaper. Considering the work most BPO holders put in to acquire their BPO, this is just cruel and wrong to do!!!! Now, some specific T2 ship production is often dominated by t2 BPO holders, however these items move slowly and are typically priced BELOW the invention production cost. As such, removing these BPO's would result in HIGHER PRICES for people that want to buy these ships! How is that good???? Sure, it means people that want to produce Eagles via invention could then make a profit, but who wants to reward the idiotic fool that is trying to produce slow moving T2 Ships for profit by paying more for those ships????

I have few more points:
1.) Supply and Demand Market forcing very much sets the price point in this game.
♦ For any item with a high rate of movement, T2 BPO's produce very little of the market volume. What this means to inventors is that they are primarily competing against other inventors. T2 BPO producers enjoy healthy profit margins without messing up your profits.
♦ For any item with a very low rate of movement, T2 BPO's produce the majority of the market volume. What this means to inventors is that they have a very hard time competing in the market. So what! When competition is present, it is very hard to make a profit in these highly competitive markets, even if T2 BPO holders didn't exist. The competent inventor either knows the risks going in and uses other market tools to earn their profit (convenience, etc).

2.) T2 BPO's bring value to the game. They insure low-volume goods may be produced at a reasonable price. They are rare collectibles who's value varies significantly while retaining a level of utility. They are coveted, creating a source of conflict.

3.) Many serious producers secure moongoo and minerals at below market value. If you are competing against them, you're just going to lose, as they're material costs are far lower than yours. Should this be fixed too? I think not, I like getting cheaper items.

4.) This is the duplicate of an old post I made. Many things have changed in the last two years (new decrytpors, ship balance changes have altered supply/demand curves, the moongoo bottleneck has changed), but the message is the same. You can make plenty of isk via invention, and you can compete in most MFG markets. If you are having trouble making ends meet, it is because of your incompetence, not because of some mythical T2 BPO holder! There is no reason to remove T2 BPO's from the game at this stage, as they don't offer you any advantages you can't utilize yourself (because you too can buy a T2 BPO).
Amarr Empire
#936 - 2014-04-16 15:35:33 UTC
I am getting mixed messages here: will POS slots be affected by "congestion" pricing? It would be totally ridiculous to do so, considering the already high cost of operating a POS (which is likely to go up once people can drop a POS anywhere with no standings required)
The Bastard Cartel
#937 - 2014-04-16 15:37:11 UTC

CCP:

One thing you didn't address in the changes to R.A.M. is what you will do with existing R.A.M. modules in the game. I assume you will simply multiply all the current R.A.M. mods in game by 100 to keep the balance, but would like confirmation.

I bring this up, because I have 1000's of R.A.M. items that I use for production, which represents 100m isk worth of materials. If you are NOT going to alter the number of R.A.M. I have to be equivalent to the new R.A.M. consumption/production rates, then I can simply plan to use up all the R.A.M. I have no problems. I simply would like clarification so I can plan appropriately.
Eve Engineering
#938 - 2014-04-16 15:38:35 UTC
This may have been covered but would still be good to know...

So how is this new slot-less build system going to effect Starbases does this mean we will need less labs and factories set up on them OR does the current slot system still apply?

Also would this be a good time to streamline the types of build and lab structures on Starbases (keep the capital ones I have no issues with keeping those separate)?

Is it possible to give those of us who grinded standings for our corps to get some sort of bonus to running Starbases now that they will be able to be deployed anywhere?

Otherwise I really like the way this is going.
In Tea We Trust
#939 - 2014-04-16 15:38:40 UTC
Master Flakattack wrote:
I am getting mixed messages here: will POS slots be affected by "congestion" pricing? It would be totally ridiculous to do so, considering the already high cost of operating a POS (which is likely to go up once people can drop a POS anywhere with no standings required)

YES. POS slots will be affected by congestion pricing.

We do not know how much it will be and we do not know if there will be other changes that also relate to the economies of running a POS, so there is no need for panic at this time.
The Bastard Cartel
#940 - 2014-04-16 15:38:58 UTC
Master Flakattack wrote:
I am getting mixed messages here: will POS slots be affected by "congestion" pricing? It would be totally ridiculous to do so, considering the already high cost of operating a POS (which is likely to go up once people can drop a POS anywhere with no standings required)


Yes, POS's will be affected by congestion pricing.

There will no longer be "lines" at the Assembly Arrays, and "congestion" pricing is the mechanism CCP is using to limit your production. How this will help/hurt you has yet to be released, and we need to wait a week or three for the relevant dev blog.

Forum Jump