EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Building better Worlds

First post First post First post
Author
The Bastard Cartel
#941 - 2014-04-16 15:42:43 UTC
Centurax wrote:
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?


We don't know... and we must wait for the relevant dev blog.

Centurax wrote:
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)?


Perhaps. I bet CCP has some of this in the pipes already.

Centurax wrote:
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?


I support giving standings more meaning. I'd suggest that Personal, Corp, and Alliance standings reduce costs of using Station services (like they do with broker fees), and perhaps benefits in other ways.
#942 - 2014-04-16 15:46:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Zifrian
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

It's here because CCP said they would look at reducing the copy times. Right now many industrialists don't have a problem with them because of the high copy time and production volume restrictions balance with invention. If you start changing that without a positive balancing change to invention, then it looks like you are favoring T2 BPO owners over invention. Then of course whenever something like this happens, the same t2 bpo comments over the last 7 years get pulled out and thrown back and forth.

Basically, by saying that they would make a change they stirred up the hornets nest and acknowledged they were open to making changes to T2 BPOs, something unthinkable for many of us. For something that's pissed off a number of people in the last 7 years, in a thread with a dev comment on it, why would you expect anything other than a heated debate about it regardless of numbers?

We all have our opinions of T2 BPOs and given the lack of focus on industry until now, this is probably the best and probably only time to get your opinion in front of someone that could do something about it. Might as well put in your two cents now.

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder

Twisted Tubes
#943 - 2014-04-16 15:48:47 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

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.

They will be multiplied everywhere: Hangars, cargoholds, market, contracts,...
The Bastard Cartel
#944 - 2014-04-16 15:52:48 UTC
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

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.

They will be multiplied everywhere: Hangars, cargoholds, market, contracts,...


While this makes sense, and I'd assume that would be CCP's plan, I did not see this explicitly stated. Did I miss a dev comment proclaiming this?
C C P Alliance
#945 - 2014-04-16 15:55:30 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:
I've looked through every dev post and still not seen this answered yet.

Are the extra materials going to be considered the base materials now with wastage added on? I'm not quite sure how this is going to work with invented T2 BPCs, as some T2 ship BPCs for example will end up requiring multiple T1 ships to construct. Is this working as intended?

If so then T2 items will be requiring more materials, unless you are lucky enough to own a fully researched T2 BPO. So again, another buff for T2 BPO holders.


All extra materials are turned into regular materials, that will indeed be now affected by skills and waste. Except for Tech I ships and items, as such:


  • You should never see a Paladin require 2 Apocalypses to build
  • You should never see a Large shield Extender II require 0.75 Large Shield Extender I to build
In Tea We Trust
#946 - 2014-04-16 15:55:41 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Squelch wrote:
H3llHound wrote:

One RAM now will become 100 RAM after the patch.


Where did you see this?
The only thing I see in the Devblog is:

Multiply number of R.AM. and R.Db. given for each run of their respective blueprint by 100.
Multiply all R.A.M. and R.Db. job requirements by 100, then further multiply that number by the old damage per run percentage.


That doesn't mention existing stocks.


Confirming this means existing stock including in market orders, contracts etc
C C P Alliance
#947 - 2014-04-16 15:56:34 UTC
Max Kolonko wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Querns wrote:
I thought of a potential gotcha: Will POS assembly modules also have their slots removed? Will you be able to, e.g., run an infinite number of ammo jobs from a single ammo assembly array?


Yes, slots are being removed on everything, however, cost scaling will still be applicable to Starbases as well. Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details.


Wait, what?!
So what is my incentive to pay 300 000 000 isk a month for fuel if i still have to pay for production slots????


Starbases will have reduced tax cost next to NPC station, and mobile labs / assembly array will have more efficient ME / PE lines.
Twisted Tubes
#948 - 2014-04-16 15:58:11 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

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.

They will be multiplied everywhere: Hangars, cargoholds, market, contracts,...


While this makes sense, and I'd assume that would be CCP's plan, I did not see this explicitly stated. Did I miss a dev comment proclaiming this?


Link: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4474706#post4474706
Vae. Victis.
#949 - 2014-04-16 16:01:18 UTC
Zifrian 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

It's here because CCP said they would look at reducing the copy times. Right now many industrialists don't have a problem with them because of the high copy time and production volume restrictions balance with invention. If you start changing that without a positive balancing change to invention, then it looks like you are favoring T2 BPO owners over invention. Then of course whenever something like this happens, the same t2 bpo comments over the last 7 years get pulled out and thrown back and forth.

Basically, by saying that they would make a change they stirred up the hornets nest and acknowledged they were open to making changes to T2 BPOs, something unthinkable for many of us. For something that's pissed off a number of people in the last 7 years, in a thread with a dev comment on it, why would you expect anything other than a heated debate about it regardless of numbers?

We all have our opinions of T2 BPOs and given the lack of focus on industry until now, this is probably the best and probably only time to get your opinion in front of someone that could do something about it. Might as well put in your two cents now.

However people should still keep in mind that any changes to copy times will benefit the inventor far, far more than the T2 BPO owner.
And all of these arguments have been discussed for years, and the hard evidence on the market shows they have zero substance... so lets not waste anymore time trying to prop up what amounts to using T2 BPO's as a scapegoat for poor invention skills/decisions.
These assumptions have been proven false time and again, and have little to no relevance to this discussion unless CCP went completely off the deep end and reduced copy times on T2 BPO's only by a HUGE percentage, which is extremely unlikely.

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

Medalyn Isis
#950 - 2014-04-16 16:03:24 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Medalyn Isis wrote:
I've looked through every dev post and still not seen this answered yet.

Are the extra materials going to be considered the base materials now with wastage added on? I'm not quite sure how this is going to work with invented T2 BPCs, as some T2 ship BPCs for example will end up requiring multiple T1 ships to construct. Is this working as intended?

If so then T2 items will be requiring more materials, unless you are lucky enough to own a fully researched T2 BPO. So again, another buff for T2 BPO holders.


All extra materials are turned into regular materials, that will indeed be now affected by skills and waste. Except for Tech I ships and items, as such:


  • You should never see a Paladin require 2 Apocalypses to build
  • You should never see a Large shield Extender II require 0.75 Large Shield Extender I to build

Great, thanks for clarifying this.
#951 - 2014-04-16 16:04:33 UTC
Neato.

I'm excited about the POS anchering change, 'though I do feel badly about all those folk that are SOL (corp anchering services).

The interface looks much better, and I'm excited to hear about the 'team' aspect of building and ship building. I'm not exactly sure how it works now, but is there any way to have corporate offices make blue prints available for corp use in an NPC station? It would facilitate teamwork.

Happy to have the extra materials removed.

This is a much needed change and I really want to see how the 'Teams' portion of this shapes up. I'd love to be able to pay players to assist in part of the job creation / mineral and parts contribution...

+1
Solyaris Chtonium
#952 - 2014-04-16 16:08:36 UTC
CCP giveth and CCP taketh away...

Taking away the useless and cumbersome "Extra Materials"...Good thing

Taking away the standings requirements for POS anchoring...I'm neutral and also curious about what standings will mean now short of being able to travel in Empire space unimpeded by their respective military's.

Taking away designated slots in stations when combined with the change to remote research of BPO's just means that slots normally used for production will be filled with BPO's in research and the barrier to entry for small manufacturers will go up significantly. This in turn will affect the price of Ammo, small mods etc as most larger manufacturers focus on Hulls and T2 items. This change will cause tears in the short term and I don't think CCP has thought out the chain of events that this will unleash.

Taking away the ability to remote research/manufacture BPO's is forcing everyone who makes manufacturing a career into a style of game play they do not want(at least on those respective alts). I think its very troubling that CCP believes the risked BPO's will probably be cruiser or below. Most manufacturers I know only build battlecruisers and above in POS's leaving the smaller items and hulls to entry level manufacturers in stations. The unknown in this is the revised BPO copy times, done correctly this issue becomes moot and the risk more manageable.

My take from all this is simply that CCP needs to release all the Dev Blogs more quickly so that training and tactics can be amended accordingly. Additionally CCP should have made this Dev blog the first in the series as it is a much larger strategic change than reprocessing ever was.
Goonswarm Federation
#953 - 2014-04-16 16:15:11 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Starbases will have reduced tax cost next to NPC station, and mobile labs / assembly array will have more efficient ME / PE lines.

What does that mean for assembly arrays: they are more efficient (i.e. less minerals) or just faster?

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Circle-Of-Two
#954 - 2014-04-16 16:18:53 UTC
So I already pay my 500mil or so a month for POS fuel, I did my missions (or in my case paid someone else to get me standings), and now I will be taxed to use the same POS on top of fuel, while I also need to put my BPO's in said POS to do what I do today...

Not liking some of this tbh. I can get over the changes for most part, but taxing the POS is strange to me, I alrady pay my tax via the fuel & charters.

This sounds more and more like nothing but a change to create a major isk sink.
The Bastard Cartel
#955 - 2014-04-16 16:19:28 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
Industry plays a central role in EVE Online and thus the developers have put their focus on improving the whole industry landscape in New Eden - the user interface, game mechanics, features, accessibility ... just everything gets examined, polished and reworked.

CCP Ytterbium comes with news of massive changes in EVE Online's Industry in Summer 2014 and beyond.

Read all about these suggestions and ideas in CCP Ytterbium's latest dev blog Building better Worlds.

Please all reply with your constructive feedback, thank you!



An overview of dev answers to common questions


Phantom, thank you for updating the first post like this. You are a God among Men!!!!
#956 - 2014-04-16 16:20:45 UTC
There's alot to be excited about here but I'm sorry, something more better be explained soon about the benefits of taking billions upon billions in ISK of capital prints to a POS. And it would seem that the lockdown mechanic (for better or worse) is dead. The POS research better yield not just a minor, but rather a substantial cost / value for blueprint production, and this also means that a corp and/or individuals now have to remain on 24 hour war Dec watch? People do have lives outside the game, if you didn't know. Do you think it would be possible to keep some kind of standings mechanic that would allow you to either use the NPC station for remote POS research or drop a new structure for BPOs to provide concord "protection"? Then you can still have an ISK sink, but something that falls in between the proposed station charge and the unprotected POS?

My overall concern is the babysitting aspect of this and I can only count on one hand folks I would ever trust to pick up my Capital library and move, emergency or not.
#957 - 2014-04-16 16:21:22 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Starbases will have reduced tax cost next to NPC station, and mobile labs / assembly array will have more efficient ME / PE lines.


We already pay a charge via a starbase charter which allows us to deploy a POS in NPC high sec space. Now all of a sudden, said NPC are wanting a tax payable in order for us to use our own POSs. WTF? This just seems so far fetched that its ridiculous.
Evictus.
#958 - 2014-04-16 16:22:07 UTC
Alliance POS Usage
Researching

Currently in EVE there is no way for another corp (whether in the same alliance or not) to open up a POS structure containing a corp hangar and see inside it, unless you are the owning POS corp. Another corp CAN put items into an array but they disappear into a black hole lost forever (or until a GM retrieves them).

That alone is the cause of why POS alliance and public research is broken.

Since you now know that you can assume correctly that an alliance corp (not the POS owning corp) cannot do ANY of the following things:

They cannot use ANY of the manufacturing arrays
They cannot do invention, BP copying or tech II BPO research at a POS Lab
They cannot use a corp hangar array
The reason they cannot do the above is simple, to build anything in a manufacturing array requires the materials to be in the manufacturing arrays corp hangar. Since only the owning POS corp can see in that hangar it's impossible for anyone else to do manufacturing at the array. If another corp does put items into the manufacturing array they disappear into a black hole.

They cannot do invention for the same reason, invention requires materials to be inside the POS Lab array, same applies to Tech II BPO researching, the job requires materials to do so you cannot do the job.

Blueprint copying produces a BPC inside the Lab array and since only the owning corp can access it the blueprint copy another corp produces would not be accessible. In fact I'm pretty sure due to changes in the recent patches that you cannot put a copying job on now anyway, for the reasons already stated above.

That means the BPO has to be put in a corp hangar (cannot be put on from a personal hangar) in a station or outpost in the same solarsystem as the POS, this means the corp must have an office in that station and be part of the same alliance.

The Scientific Networking skill does NOT change this requirement, the SN skill simply allows you to be remote to the BPO and POS Labs, it still requires the BPO to be in a corp hangar in a station or outpost in the same solarsystem as the POS Labs.

The only jobs that do not require materials or output anything is Tech I ME and PE research, so an alliance corp is limited to this.
#959 - 2014-04-16 16:23:39 UTC
Questions I have not seen a dev answer:

1. Will the 14% surcharge be calculated on the raw material cost of the products, or the estimated sell value? I assume that CCP will use the mechanism that calculates the value of an item in my hangar now.

2. Will someone be able to lock down BPO's at a POS, like they can at a station?
Circle-Of-Two
#960 - 2014-04-16 16:23:53 UTC
Steijn wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Starbases will have reduced tax cost next to NPC station, and mobile labs / assembly array will have more efficient ME / PE lines.


We already pay a charge via a starbase charter which allows us to deploy a POS in NPC high sec space. Now all of a sudden, said NPC are wanting a tax payable in order for us to use our own POSs. WTF? This just seems so far fetched that its ridiculous.


Lol read my post about 5 above yours, I said same thing.. We already pay taxes, fuel and risk. Now they want us to take more risk with BPO's, okay will work it out, but now they want me to pay tax to build in the POS just like the station as well.. Its nothing but an isk sink.
Forum Jump