EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Researching, the Future

First post First post First post
Author
#961 - 2014-05-14 22:45:30 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

This is a good post, thank you.

Part of the aim with ammo in particular is to create some industrial content that a fresh player can dive into without a lot of time invested. My understanding of the low-end T1 market is that it's sufficiently cut-throat that those few percentage points between say 8 and 10 might well be the entirety of the available profit margin, and 11 days is a long time for someone whose skills are still training in less than four hours.

For these reasons we will probably keep T1 ammo where it is. In light of your post, though, I'm considering kicking at least some T1 modules up to higher ranks to create a broader spread there; potentially f.ex scaling rank by module size, and pinning most of the unsized module around cruiser sized modules. Seem reasonable?



New players always lose ISK on T1 ammo. The margin is so small that their low trade skills and low standings eat all of it. New players should look for longer build time, low material cost items that attract less competition because they are bad when considered on a profit per production line hour metric (but are good on a profit per unit of capital invested metric). In practice this means I always advise budding producers to get their feet wet with tech 2 ammo using purchased BPCs and have sold several newbies Void S BPCs for 1.5m.

My opinion is that you should keep modules intended solely for frigates to be fast to research. Modules for cruisers and universal modules (like Drone Damage Amps) could be longer, and battleship modules longer still.

I would have no objection to 100mm Reinforced Steel Armor Plate I taking 5 days to research to ME 10, 400mm taking 20 days and 1600mm taking 80 days.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".

#962 - 2014-05-14 22:49:49 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Part of the aim with ammo in particular is to create some industrial content that a fresh player can dive into without a lot of time invested. My understanding of the low-end T1 market is that it's sufficiently cut-throat that those few percentage points between say 8 and 10 might well be the entirety of the available profit margin, and 11 days is a long time for someone whose skills are still training in less than four hours.

For these reasons we will probably keep T1 ammo where it is. In light of your post, though, I'm considering kicking at least some T1 modules up to higher ranks to create a broader spread there; potentially f.ex scaling rank by module size, and pinning most of the unsized module around cruiser sized modules. Seem reasonable?


Well, today the profit margins on T1 items would be eaten up by the difference between ME8 and ME10. However, that does not take in to account the other changes to industry happening at the same time. The difference between ME8 and ME10 is less than 2%. Facility fees and taxes are going to be in the "low single digit percents, on average." Work teams can also save the equivalent of a several ME levels, and go past the current "perfect".

So the newbie industrialist after Crius is going to make his profit by searching around, "Aha! That system over there has a cruise missile team and low facility fees." Put minerals and blueprints into a hauler and go there. Then, the smarter newbie industrialist will also say, "Hmm, there are no hybrid ammo teams in the area right now. I'll put my Antimatter M BPO into research for a couple days to make it perfect."

Maybe 5 was too high. How about 3? 0 to perfect would be 6 days, 16 hours. Of that, 3 days 20 hours was the last bump from 9% to 10%. For the newbie who only has metallurgy 2 instead of 5, that becomes 8 days from 0 to perfect. 4 days, 15 hours of that was the last 1%.

I believe there will still be room for profit for people with non-perfect blueprints, as long as non-perfect blueprints exist. When you go from 0/0 to perfect/perfect in less than a week, then it is not a decision anymore, but just a time sink. It is a tough balance. If research times are too long, people say, "That's stupid. Nobody will ever do that." If research times are too short, it becomes an uninteresting time sink you must do before you can start producing from your blueprint.
Intrepid Crossing
#963 - 2014-05-15 01:10:41 UTC
Please consider that new players probably won't be guaranteed access to a POS and so it's probably a bad idea to calculate all the numbers with that in mind.

I would imagine you would want to take into consideration the time of the trial into account. Research that requires time beyond the trial for the beginner stuff is going to prevent them from fully testing out industry beforehand.
RvB - BLUE Republic
#964 - 2014-05-15 01:14:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Charlie Nonoke
Am I right in assuming, right now, any BPO researched past ME 10 and PE 10 will effectively be treated as a "perfect" BPO post patch? They would instantly become perfect Stage10, 10% ME and 20% TE reduction BPOs?

Does it mean right now, If i want to buy a BPO I should look for ME/PE 10 ones so they instantly become perfect BPOs post patch?

So my ME:100 and PE:75 Stabber BPO essentially becomes ME/TE 10?
#965 - 2014-05-15 02:53:50 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Shoogie wrote:
So much has changed in the last couple pages.

stuff & stuff




This is a good post, thank you.

stuff & stuff



Read on if you dare:

Did you just really single out one post as a "good post" and then respond?

There are sooo many reasons why this is just horrible form. Let me point out a few:

1. No one has ever proclaimed the criteria a post requires to get a response, yet this "good post" rises to the top and is responded to fortwith. I would love to see an enumerated guide on how to get a response from the devs.

2. Why have so many other posts which bring up even more important circumstance gone ignored?

3. Is it required that one post in a way that rubs a dev the right way to be considered a 'good post'? If so, how do you like to be rubbed?



Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown

Zulu People
#966 - 2014-05-15 03:03:20 UTC
Patri Andari wrote:


Read on if you dare:

Did you just really single out one post as a "good post" and then respond?

There are sooo many reasons why this is just horrible form. Let me point out a few:

1. No one has ever proclaimed the criteria a post requires to get a response, yet this "good post" rises to the top and is responded to fortwith. I would love to see an enumerated guide on how to get a response from the devs.

2. Why have so many other posts which bring up even more important circumstance gone ignored?

3. Is it required that one post in a way that rubs a dev the right way to be considered a 'good post'? If so, how do you like to be rubbed?





Yeah I felt the same way... like everything in-between that post and his previous post (including my own posts) were crappy wastes of time and didn't deserve a response.

HAVE FUN - MAKE ISK - NO DRAMA No Api's   -   No Wars   -   No Awoxing   -   No Kidding! Hogs is OPEN for recruiting!  Join our in-game channel "Airhogs"

C C P Alliance
#967 - 2014-05-15 10:55:08 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Patri Andari wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Shoogie wrote:
So much has changed in the last couple pages.

stuff & stuff




This is a good post, thank you.

stuff & stuff



Read on if you dare:

Did you just really single out one post as a "good post" and then respond?

There are sooo many reasons why this is just horrible form. Let me point out a few:

1. No one has ever proclaimed the criteria a post requires to get a response, yet this "good post" rises to the top and is responded to fortwith. I would love to see an enumerated guide on how to get a response from the devs.

2. Why have so many other posts which bring up even more important circumstance gone ignored?

3. Is it required that one post in a way that rubs a dev the right way to be considered a 'good post'? If so, how do you like to be rubbed?



Yeah ok, this is a reasonable question.

Preface: I am British (as evinced by the fact that I spell my name the way the Queen intended when she invented the English language), so all my expressions of emotion are compressed around the midpoint. To translate into eg American, exchange "good" for "excellent".

1. Here's the general guide, in approximate order of importance from my personal perspective
- Be calm and reasonable. Angry posts are harder to process, both because the actually worthwhile bits tend to be broken up by the angry bits, and just because it takes additional effort to filter out the negative vibes while you're trying to extract the useful information.
- "Show your working". The single most useful thing you can do in a post is to explain, in as much detail as possible, why. Simply stating things you believe to be true is somewhat unhelpful, as it's incumbent upon us as developers to be able to explain why we are making changes, and also to filter out things that players are saying because they are true from things that players are saying that they mistakenly believe to be true from things that players are saying that they know are false but hope will sway development decisions anyway. For both of these reasons, an explanation of why you are saying what you are saying is the biggest thing you can do (in combination with the previous point) to get a developer to make changes based on what you're saying. A lot of people seem to be under the misapprehension that simply stating their opinion should be enough for developers to change their mind; this isn't viable for a number of reasons, but the most obvious one is that any given thread will generally have multiple players stating mutually contradictory opinions. We have to be able to pick between them somehow, right?
- Be specific. I love players who actually present numbers rather than just saying "that is too big", because it makes it very clear what they're actually hoping to see, and gives context for what they find reasonable.
- Consider the whole picture. It's very easy to express an opinion about things that affect you directly. It's much rarer for people to consider how the changes they're suggesting affect other players, particularly those of different playstyles or levels of experience. As developers, we have to consider everyone, and that often involves tradeoffs. Your common-or-garden post says "this is what *I* want", and we have to then synthesize all those different points and figure out how to balance competing interests. Showing at least an awareness of this, and better still actually accounting for it in your working, is a good way to make a post more useful to a developer.
- Have a good, short opening paragraph. If your post starts off badly, I will jump through it quickly looking for anything that sticks out, because I have lots of posts to read and other work to do. If you catch my attention with your opening, I will read it carefully. Note here that I'm not saying it has to make an effort to be catching or provocative, just that a clear, well-written paragraph which meets all the other points in this list suggests that it's a post that's probably worth reading slowly.
- Be novel. Posts bringing up things that haven't previously been mentioned in the thread are generally more useful than posts repeating the same thing that's been mentioned twenty times. I want to properly clarify this: I'm *not* saying not to repeat points, or even that doing so isn't useful. Seeing the same thing brought up multiple times is a good indicator that there is a broad concern about a particular thing. It's not as powerful as a single post laying out succinctly and convincingly why a particular thing is problematic, but it's still useful information!
- Be nice to read. If you can be gently witty, or format and punctuate your post so it's easy to read, that will always score bonus points.

2. Nothing in this thread has been outright ignored. With fifty pages I'm happy to hold up my hand and say that some posts I skim-read because, as above, I have other work to do too, but I have read every post for some definition of "read". I have not replied to every post raising an important point, for a variety of reasons:
- In many cases a reply doesn't really add anything to the discussion
- In some cases that you are considering important posts, I probably simply didn't find the points they were making particularly compelling. YMMV, obviously :)
- I can't reply to everything, both because it would take forever and because it would destroy the rhythm of the thread.
- What a developer does and doesn't reply to tends to, over time, influence the character of the forum. I am less likely to respond to a post which makes good points in a bad way, because while good points are good, bad presentation is bad. Conversely, people making really good posts I will go out of my way to reply to, because I would like to see more posts like that.

3. This is kind of repeating the first question, at least in the case where I take it seriously rather than snarkily. I'm going to use this opportunity then to say why I replied to Shoogie's post:
- He starts off by giving a suggested rank for Titans. I am immediately reading this post carefully. There have been a lot of posts saying "caps take too long to research". Here is somebody actually proposing a solution. Excellent. (Yes, I note that he said the same thing earlier, I guess I didn't catch it the first time round? Sloppy reading on my part, sorry.)
- Good paragraph length, well written, clear, not angry. Good.
- Shows his working for what factors he's taking into account, and covers some edge cases (Hyasyoda lab). Lovely.
- Considers that his suggested number might be too low. I love posts which consider the possibility that they might be wrong, it shows great awareness of how balance actually works and suggests that the author is carefully considering their suggestion.
- Frames things in terms of typical player reactions, this is both a sign that the author is thinking about things from a good perspective, and also allows us to figure out where they're coming from and what other assumptions are being made.
- Thinks about new players in a way that's not transparently just about advancing their own interests. Rare as hens' teeth.
- Writes out a goddamn table, I love this, saves me doing math :)
- Thinking about interesting decisions, which suggests a decent understanding of game design principles.
- Considers the impact of other changes happening at the same time, which has been surprisingly uncommon in in the discussion of industry changes as a whole. (Also doubles down on this in the post about job costs a few posts further down.)
- Wraps up with some other suggestions for changes, and also mentions things he thinks seem reasonable as-is.

You'll note in my response that I don't agree with everything suggested, specifically with regard to T1 ammo. But the post as a whole is an excellent post that hits a whole lot of "good post" checkboxes at once, and as a result is really damn useful to me as a developer. In the absence of anyone else's input, and given that such things are within certain bounds largely arbitrary anyway (ie, there's no obvious compelling reason to home in on any specific number from a balance perspective), I may just end up kicking Titan rank to 600 simply because Shoogie suggested it and his reasoning looks sane.



Hopefully that answers your questions? Is there anything else you want to know about this stuff? I'm always happy to put in the effort to explain things if I think it'll result in better posting in future :)
Caldari State
#968 - 2014-05-15 11:20:19 UTC
Great response Greyscale. On account of your quality posting we would be delighted to offer you a position within the CFC, welcome aboard.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 

Caldari State
#969 - 2014-05-15 11:54:25 UTC
Charlie Nonoke wrote:
Am I right in assuming, right now, any BPO researched past ME 10 and PE 10 will effectively be treated as a "perfect" BPO post patch? They would instantly become perfect Stage10, 10% ME and 20% TE reduction BPOs?

Does it mean right now, If i want to buy a BPO I should look for ME/PE 10 ones so they instantly become perfect BPOs post patch?

So my ME:100 and PE:75 Stabber BPO essentially becomes ME/TE 10?


More or less. ME100 and PE 75 is a crazy amount of research, but 10 makes a good middle ground. It is slightly under optimal for ships and way, way over optimal for a wide number of long-researching modules - cynos capital modules etc.

As a little tl;dr of the thread for people concerned by this;

Realistically speaking, the number of BPO's that can enter the game at ME/TE10 before patch day is limited by the number of slots / the number of research capable characters, so people trying to 'get in early' it isn't a massive problem even in the medium term.

10 has the advantage of being low enough for most people not to feel like they *have* to do anything to their BPO collections to not lose out, as they will be mostly perfect already.

The majority (read: entirety) of the tears in this thread come from people who have spent a ludicrous amount of time researching blueprints past optimal and feel entitled to some form of remuneration - despite the fact that in real terms they got nothing for all this research already aside from the satisfaction of levelling up their 'Pokémon cards'.

There is an argument for increasing the cut-off beyond current level 10's but each additional level increases the number of blueprints that would need to be researched beyond current optimal levels to be rounded to future perfect, creating more 'losers' and less 'winners'. 10 is as good a number as any to choose - personally I see no advantage in changing the scale for the rounding. It really doesn't matter beyond the first couple of months, get over it.

All this is basically short-sighted whining about what is basically a small detail of the broader changes. The future system avoids tricking people into thinking these research levels will be worth it. Combined with Teams and Slot cost scaling 10% ME reduction will only be even necessary in the busiest systems, smaller guys will be just fine with less ME in smaller systems with less cost scaling. Big guys are going to want 10/10 to shift the volumes they are working with in the busiest Hubs, little guys may be fine with 5-9% ME working in smaller hubs.

All in all, personally, I think it is brilliant.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 

Goonswarm Federation
#970 - 2014-05-15 12:15:42 UTC
Seith Kali wrote:
Great response Greyscale. On account of your quality posting we would be delighted to offer you a position within the CFC, welcome aboard.

this is a different CFC than the one goonswarm is in right, because quality posting sure isn't a requirement for ours
#971 - 2014-05-15 13:01:44 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Patri Andari wrote:


3. Is it required that one post in a way that rubs a dev the right way to be considered a 'good post'? If so, how do you like to be rubbed?



Yeah ok, this is a reasonable question.

Preface: I am British (as evinced by the fact that I spell my name the way the Queen intended when she invented the English language), so all my expressions of emotion are compressed around the midpoint. To translate into eg American, exchange "good" for "excellent".

1. Here's the general guide, in approximate order of importance from my personal perspective

[...]

Hopefully that answers your questions? Is there anything else you want to know about this stuff? I'm always happy to put in the effort to explain things if I think it'll result in better posting in future :)


TL;DR: THIS is a good post.
Bit lengthy though. The forum always truncates my text when I try to quote it in full length. But may maybe it is better that way for readability.
#972 - 2014-05-15 13:51:17 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
This is a good post, thank you.

Part of the aim with ammo in particular is to create some industrial content that a fresh player can dive into without a lot of time invested. My understanding of the low-end T1 market is that it's sufficiently cut-throat that those few percentage points between say 8 and 10 might well be the entirety of the available profit margin, and 11 days is a long time for someone whose skills are still training in less than four hours.

For these reasons we will probably keep T1 ammo where it is. In light of your post, though, I'm considering kicking at least some T1 modules up to higher ranks to create a broader spread there; potentially f.ex scaling rank by module size, and pinning most of the unsized module around cruiser sized modules. Seem reasonable?


Eh... I would tread lightly as any modifications of this sort would greatly affect inventors because of copy times. Right?

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!

#973 - 2014-05-15 14:04:02 UTC
Seith Kali wrote:

The majority (read: entirety) of the tears in this thread come from people who have spent a ludicrous amount of time researching blueprints past optimal and feel entitled to some form of remuneration - despite the fact that in real terms they got nothing for all this research already aside from the satisfaction of levelling up their 'Pokémon cards'.


There's currently 2 very strong arguments against the flat transition Me10+->Me10 regardless of research time:

1) For a lot of important BPOs, notably battleships, the difference between ME10 and ME50 is non-neglectable, so the flat transition would reward 2 kinds of people there that are generally deemed undeserving: impatient/lazy people and those incapable of simple math.

2) AFTER the patch for a lot of BPOs researching to ME10 will take a lot longer than it does currently. That is especially unfair towards new players, but essentially again it rewards people that would normally be considered undeserving: established players that META-game the system by researching BPOs to ME10 pre-patch.


IMO it seems understandable that people affected by (1) feel betrayed by a flat change, and most of the affected people seemed to argue quite reasonably about that instead of creating a flood of tears. Also IMO ANYTHING that puts new players at a further disadvantage to the established players should be avoided at any reasonable cost. Especially if it can be abused pre-patch.


I'd still maintain, that the fairest and most transparent system would be one, where BPOs gain experience from research, which directly translates into a general BPO (ME=TE) level, 0-10. That would allow:

- stopping BPO research at any time, partially researched levels would simply be ignored
- full market integration of all BPO levels, partial research would simply be rounded down to the last full level when the sale is completed
- better transition of BPOs, since research time pre-patch could convert directly (there would still have be a cutoff at some point, but that could be a lot closer to reasonable research levels)
- for a change no advantage of established compared to new players

#974 - 2014-05-15 14:07:55 UTC  |  Edited by: PDP11
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hopefully that answers your questions? Is there anything else you want to know about this stuff? I'm always happy to put in the effort to explain things if I think it'll result in better posting in future :)

Any chance there could be a status flag on all Forum posts that is set/cleared after a Dev has read a post. It should not be taken as the post is accepted but just that it has been read for some value of 'read'. At least people would know their posts have gone into the mix and not left wondering if their precious words of wisdom have ever been scanned by a Dev.

Various Goons are eloquently putting their case over highly researched BPOs but their position is not universally accepted. The issue is how to treat the people disadvantaged by these changes. For heavily researched BPOs players have invested time/ISK and that translates into Plex and real money. When moving from the old to the new system there are different ways to handle the transition.

The fairest is to calculate the research time for a player's current BPOs, calculate the research time for the translated BPOs under the new system then credit the player with research time if they have lost during the conversion process. Probably ignore queue times and only count research time based on current character skills.

To include queue times is possibly going too far although you may be able to use the location of the BPC to determine a likely allowance for a queue times. E.g. one month per BPO in HiSec, 20 days per BPO in LowSec, Null or Wormhole space. Queue times for Null and Wormhole space is open to debate as is the HiSec and LoSec allowances.

People with BPOs with less than 'optimal' research will gain from the step up in the current CCP proposal. There may have to be a cap on the research time credits for people trying to gain an advantage by stacking low skilled characters with highly researched BPOs.

The credited research time would be allocated like the current credit system for skill points and used to apply time to BPO research. The credit is not to be transferable on Plex sale of a character or transferred by contract.

A different subject is T2 BPOs. These should all be translated into long run BPCs so they effectively have a sunset clause. I don't care what the run limit number is possibly as low as ~1.000 to about ~64,000. Previously I had suggested a higher number of runs and that didn't elicit any outraged protest so I must have been too generous.

Last point and just for Dev Greyscale. With all the different languages supported by Eve why don't we have an English language version to provide the correct spelling for words like Armour, colour, etc.?
C C P Alliance
#975 - 2014-05-15 14:08:01 UTC
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
This is a good post, thank you.

Part of the aim with ammo in particular is to create some industrial content that a fresh player can dive into without a lot of time invested. My understanding of the low-end T1 market is that it's sufficiently cut-throat that those few percentage points between say 8 and 10 might well be the entirety of the available profit margin, and 11 days is a long time for someone whose skills are still training in less than four hours.

For these reasons we will probably keep T1 ammo where it is. In light of your post, though, I'm considering kicking at least some T1 modules up to higher ranks to create a broader spread there; potentially f.ex scaling rank by module size, and pinning most of the unsized module around cruiser sized modules. Seem reasonable?


Eh... I would tread lightly as any modifications of this sort would greatly affect inventors because of copy times. Right?


Copy times won't be affected by rank, that's only for ME/PE research.
#976 - 2014-05-15 14:43:53 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
This is a good post, thank you.

Part of the aim with ammo in particular is to create some industrial content that a fresh player can dive into without a lot of time invested. My understanding of the low-end T1 market is that it's sufficiently cut-throat that those few percentage points between say 8 and 10 might well be the entirety of the available profit margin, and 11 days is a long time for someone whose skills are still training in less than four hours.

For these reasons we will probably keep T1 ammo where it is. In light of your post, though, I'm considering kicking at least some T1 modules up to higher ranks to create a broader spread there; potentially f.ex scaling rank by module size, and pinning most of the unsized module around cruiser sized modules. Seem reasonable?


Eh... I would tread lightly as any modifications of this sort would greatly affect inventors because of copy times. Right?


Copy times won't be affected by rank, that's only for ME/PE research.


In that case it makes perfect sense. Bigger modules require more materials and generally have longer build times so ME/PE should scale well.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!

Minmatar Republic
#977 - 2014-05-15 14:57:46 UTC
Quintessen wrote:
Please consider that new players probably won't be guaranteed access to a POS and so it's probably a bad idea to calculate all the numbers with that in mind.

I would imagine you would want to take into consideration the time of the trial into account. Research that requires time beyond the trial for the beginner stuff is going to prevent them from fully testing out industry beforehand.


The new industrialist is going to find that his production price is above market sell price. He'll go read blogs to learn that if you aren't building with the best teams, then there is no point to building at all. He'll then discover that all the best teams are in null, or in solar systems without station services where all the moons have a small POS of a mega alliance.

He'll then have the option of paying dues to belong to one of the mega alliances that have cornered the market on best teams, or just mining and selling minerals to members of the mega alliances.

Minmatar Republic
#978 - 2014-05-15 15:07:21 UTC
How to make a good post.

1) Make constructive criticism that helps the devs race toward the cliff faster, not posts that advise altering course away from the cliff or pointing out how we ended up heading toward this cliff in the first place.




ummmm... yeah. That's about it.


#979 - 2014-05-15 15:07:55 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Quintessen wrote:
Please consider that new players probably won't be guaranteed access to a POS and so it's probably a bad idea to calculate all the numbers with that in mind.

I would imagine you would want to take into consideration the time of the trial into account. Research that requires time beyond the trial for the beginner stuff is going to prevent them from fully testing out industry beforehand.


The new industrialist is going to find that his production price is above market sell price. He'll go read blogs to learn that if you aren't building with the best teams, then there is no point to building at all. He'll then discover that all the best teams are in null, or in solar systems without station services where all the moons have a small POS of a mega alliance.

He'll then have the option of paying dues to belong to one of the mega alliances that have cornered the market on best teams, or just mining and selling minerals to members of the mega alliances.





Assuming this is feasible (its not), why is this a bad thing?
Goonswarm Federation
#980 - 2014-05-15 15:45:39 UTC
Loraine Gess wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Quintessen wrote:
Please consider that new players probably won't be guaranteed access to a POS and so it's probably a bad idea to calculate all the numbers with that in mind.

I would imagine you would want to take into consideration the time of the trial into account. Research that requires time beyond the trial for the beginner stuff is going to prevent them from fully testing out industry beforehand.


The new industrialist is going to find that his production price is above market sell price. He'll go read blogs to learn that if you aren't building with the best teams, then there is no point to building at all. He'll then discover that all the best teams are in null, or in solar systems without station services where all the moons have a small POS of a mega alliance.

He'll then have the option of paying dues to belong to one of the mega alliances that have cornered the market on best teams, or just mining and selling minerals to members of the mega alliances.





Assuming this is feasible (its not), why is this a bad thing?


Because it rattles his world

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them

Forum Jump