Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Crius] Starbase feedback

First post First post
Author
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#241 - 2014-07-09 15:39:32 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I know that the POS code is supposedly a mess, but please stop using that as an excuse to avoid fixing it. Everyone knows they're broken and simply reminding us of how broken they are instead of doing the work to fix them is highly unprofessional in my book. There's a lot of good gameplay to be had there if you just fixed them.


Fixing POS code is next on our list after industry, as per the EVE Keynote at Fanfest this year.


Would that be released on the cycle after Crius?
C C P Alliance
#242 - 2014-07-09 15:43:09 UTC
Ammzi wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I know that the POS code is supposedly a mess, but please stop using that as an excuse to avoid fixing it. Everyone knows they're broken and simply reminding us of how broken they are instead of doing the work to fix them is highly unprofessional in my book. There's a lot of good gameplay to be had there if you just fixed them.


Fixing POS code is next on our list after industry, as per the EVE Keynote at Fanfest this year.


Would that be released on the cycle after Crius?


CCP Seagull covered the new release model here, which is relevant to your question:

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/from-2-expansions-to-10-releases-eve-onlines-new-release-model-explained/

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

Goonswarm Federation
#243 - 2014-07-09 15:43:30 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

What about the glut of large and especially medium towers that you have just massively reduced the demand for?

Reasonable question, we will look into this also. Towers have the relative advantage though that there are other things you can use them for, whereas a lab is just a lab.


You are going to need to do more than 50% on the fuel use bump to correct for this change most likely.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Brothers of Tangra
#244 - 2014-07-09 15:53:45 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Ammzi wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I know that the POS code is supposedly a mess, but please stop using that as an excuse to avoid fixing it. Everyone knows they're broken and simply reminding us of how broken they are instead of doing the work to fix them is highly unprofessional in my book. There's a lot of good gameplay to be had there if you just fixed them.


Fixing POS code is next on our list after industry, as per the EVE Keynote at Fanfest this year.


Would that be released on the cycle after Crius?


CCP Seagull covered the new release model here, which is relevant to your question:

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/from-2-expansions-to-10-releases-eve-onlines-new-release-model-explained/


Welcome back to the days following Incarna folks, CCP does not have a clue what they are doing. Random changes in expected expansions are changed with the "legacy code is hard" excuse.
Cannon.Fodder
#245 - 2014-07-09 16:03:53 UTC
Tam Althor wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Ammzi wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I know that the POS code is supposedly a mess, but please stop using that as an excuse to avoid fixing it. Everyone knows they're broken and simply reminding us of how broken they are instead of doing the work to fix them is highly unprofessional in my book. There's a lot of good gameplay to be had there if you just fixed them.


Fixing POS code is next on our list after industry, as per the EVE Keynote at Fanfest this year.


Would that be released on the cycle after Crius?


CCP Seagull covered the new release model here, which is relevant to your question:

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/from-2-expansions-to-10-releases-eve-onlines-new-release-model-explained/


Welcome back to the days following Incarna folks, CCP does not have a clue what they are doing. Random changes in expected expansions are changed with the "legacy code is hard" excuse.



Why do you say that?

The point of the new release model is so a dev team can work on a feature for as long as needed to get it done. They don't have arbitrary time lines of 'feature x must be done in 6 months... of it will take 7? then scrap it." T he new model allows them to go 'pos' will take 8 months to finish, get on it' and if its done in 6 they plug it into the next release, if its done in 9, it goes in the next release.

And legacy code fixing IS hard, esp if the code had other systems built on top of it, that if you removed it would break a lot of other systems. This is why you have seen other systems fixed first, because they have to remove the main parts of the code they wish to fix from the other systems. I have waited 9 years for them to fix the pos code, as it sucked from day one. A ton of things introduced have made my life easier, hell the fact that I don't have to wait 3 hours to refine one ore type has me thrilled for Crius. I'm fine waiting a few more months or a year for the pos code to get a full over haul.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.

#246 - 2014-07-09 16:07:32 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I know that the POS code is supposedly a mess, but please stop using that as an excuse to avoid fixing it. Everyone knows they're broken and simply reminding us of how broken they are instead of doing the work to fix them is highly unprofessional in my book. There's a lot of good gameplay to be had there if you just fixed them.


Fixing POS code is next on our list after industry, as per the EVE Keynote at Fanfest this year.


Might I suggest in the future that fixing Item A, which is necessary for properly implementing Item B, occur before implementing Item B instead of after it?

Just a thought....

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

C C P Alliance
#247 - 2014-07-09 16:12:52 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I know that the POS code is supposedly a mess, but please stop using that as an excuse to avoid fixing it. Everyone knows they're broken and simply reminding us of how broken they are instead of doing the work to fix them is highly unprofessional in my book. There's a lot of good gameplay to be had there if you just fixed them.


Fixing POS code is next on our list after industry, as per the EVE Keynote at Fanfest this year.


Might I suggest in the future that fixing Item A, which is necessary for properly implementing Item B, occur before implementing Item B instead of after it?

Just a thought....


Nah doing POSes before Industry would have been madness. Cart before the horse.

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

DARKNESS.
#248 - 2014-07-09 16:13:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

Update on multiple-structure bonuses for starbases.

We've just had another discussion about this system as-implemented, and based on your feedback, the technical challenges involved in implementing it in a fully user-friendly way, and the somewhat limited upsides of the feature, we've decided to cut it from Crius.

Having multiple starbase structures of the same type at a starbase will no longer grant you any bonus above those inherent in the structure itself

The only substantial downside to this is that it makes it much easier to weaponize an industry tower, so we are considering upping lab/array fitting costs substantially in a later release. We likely will not do this in Crius itself as people will need time to reconfigure their setups.

We are looking into what we can do to mitigate the expected glut of labs resulting from this change; more info as we work through this process :)

Thanks for all your feedback,
-Greyscale


With this impending stats increase we will be not allowed to have a small tower with 2 labs anymore? You know, for small-time industrialists?

CCP Nullarbor wrote:

Nah doing POSes before Industry would have been madness. Cart before the horse.


You are deliberately throwing people into a broken system, only to change it radically shortly afterward. You are throwing people into a system that is too old to be called ancient and that seems to be supposed to be the base of all the other aspects of this part of the game. I think your analogy about cart and horse is a bit wrong. In fact, the horse is all the activities, while the cart is the players involved. Both of them, however, ride on a ground (POS and Corps), which is so inadequate and outdated, calling it a ground to work on is an insult to all the soil on earth.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#249 - 2014-07-09 16:16:18 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Ammzi wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I know that the POS code is supposedly a mess, but please stop using that as an excuse to avoid fixing it. Everyone knows they're broken and simply reminding us of how broken they are instead of doing the work to fix them is highly unprofessional in my book. There's a lot of good gameplay to be had there if you just fixed them.


Fixing POS code is next on our list after industry, as per the EVE Keynote at Fanfest this year.


Would that be released on the cycle after Crius?


CCP Seagull covered the new release model here, which is relevant to your question:

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/from-2-expansions-to-10-releases-eve-onlines-new-release-model-explained/


Yeh, I saw the stream live. I am just inquiring about the expected release point of POS revamp/code cleaning.
As in if you guys had made any estimation to how long it would take.

Thx for quick replies.
Cannon.Fodder
#250 - 2014-07-09 16:21:58 UTC
Ammzi wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Ammzi wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I know that the POS code is supposedly a mess, but please stop using that as an excuse to avoid fixing it. Everyone knows they're broken and simply reminding us of how broken they are instead of doing the work to fix them is highly unprofessional in my book. There's a lot of good gameplay to be had there if you just fixed them.


Fixing POS code is next on our list after industry, as per the EVE Keynote at Fanfest this year.


Would that be released on the cycle after Crius?


CCP Seagull covered the new release model here, which is relevant to your question:

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/from-2-expansions-to-10-releases-eve-onlines-new-release-model-explained/


Yeh, I saw the stream live. I am just inquiring about the expected release point of POS revamp/code cleaning.
As in if you guys had made any estimation to how long it would take.

Thx for quick replies.



I'm not CCP and I can answer that "Soon" and "It's done when it's done"

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.

Brothers of Tangra
#251 - 2014-07-09 16:24:45 UTC
DaReaper wrote:



I'm not CCP and I can answer that "Soon" and "It's done when it's done"


You forgot 18 months
#252 - 2014-07-09 16:39:33 UTC
good news... ccp found back the code of POS

POS revamp process > STEP 1 : done!?

keep hoping guyz?

there's so many thing to fix in eve.... and they fix forum ! GJ! but ok i like it !

CCP Fozzie : AFK cloaking, however, is an entirely social form of power

Caldari State
#253 - 2014-07-09 16:41:51 UTC
CCP devs, don't forget those of us who are extremely excited for the upcoming changes, everything looks great. Cart before the horse is totally logical, and we really appreciate the effort and vision.

We are just too busy, ya know, enjoying eve to hurl an equivalent level of praise as the apocalyptic naysayers.

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

Amarr Empire
#254 - 2014-07-09 16:48:01 UTC
Sentient Blade wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
The reason we're considering revising industry structure fittings is to have more interesting choices, not fewer - do you put your labs and your build arrays on the same tower, or split them up so each can be better defended?


I'm afraid that "Interesting choices" is something I'm always extremely wary of when coming from CCP.

It usually comes along with artificially forcing debilitating penalties... like freighter hull upgrades, which nerf the very thing a freighter is designed for, but are necessary just to get you back to something reasonable.

A POS tower should be defended, and heavily, the notion that you can just take your things out is absolute nonsense. BPOs sure, but what about anything which is already building? There is no way to evacuate that short of pressing the cancel button and losing everything you put into it, and I'd hardly call that an evacuation.

A high value POS tower is not like a high-value ship, like a supercarrier, even though they may quite easily be comparable in value. A tower is constantly exposed, night and day, any timezone. Your suggestion is to force more value into them, and then make it even harder to fit defenses on? ... and don't even get me started on the mess of things like lock-downs and corporate roles.

Come the indy changes, every POS tower should be armed to the teeth, and rightly so. Hitting a major industrial complex should be a massive undertaking, with significant risk associated with it. The owner of the POS is already taking a huge risk using it; the destruction of a POS can potentially lose billions or even tens of billions when existing jobs are aborted.

"I'm going to base my factory in Baghdad, but once I've finished buying the machinery, I'll just have to go without hiring any guards because ~arbitrary limit~" -- Said nobody ever.

You know what this forum needs? the ability to like a post more than once.

CCP, its is trivially easy to siege and destroy ANY POS. no matter the size. All POS' should be able to fit substantial defenses. This will make owning a POS anywhere outside of deep blue super-coalition nullsec an attempt in futility.

You can say "well, just put part of it in a second tower", but then you run into the realization, that with extra cosst on an approach like that, you may as well just keep the Lab-POS, and do your manufacturing in a station.

What POS' need is a balancing pass on ALL their defenses modules. A BUFF, not a "well, well increase the bonus from this, but nerf the original so you need more of it to get back to where you were". It didnt work on freighters, the approach wont work on POS (and yes it doesnt work on freighters, fitting anything BUT 3 armor tank mods is suicide of the highest degree).
#255 - 2014-07-09 17:09:12 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I know that the POS code is supposedly a mess, but please stop using that as an excuse to avoid fixing it. Everyone knows they're broken and simply reminding us of how broken they are instead of doing the work to fix them is highly unprofessional in my book. There's a lot of good gameplay to be had there if you just fixed them.


Fixing POS code is next on our list after industry, as per the EVE Keynote at Fanfest this year.


Might I suggest in the future that fixing Item A, which is necessary for properly implementing Item B, occur before implementing Item B instead of after it?

Just a thought....


Nah doing POSes before Industry would have been madness. Cart before the horse.



Go back though yours 'iteration' of industry and see how many changes you made cos of 'POS madness" and then revisit this sentence you just wrote.

Just kill POSes and end with this, because finding artificial use for something which has legitimate use is sign of trouble.
DARKNESS.
#256 - 2014-07-09 17:16:40 UTC
Seith Kali wrote:
CCP devs, don't forget those of us who are extremely excited for the upcoming changes, everything looks great. Cart before the horse is totally logical, and we really appreciate the effort and vision.

We are just too busy, ya know, enjoying eve to hurl an equivalent level of praise as the apocalyptic naysayers.


I am truly apologetic that I need a wee bit more information and a wee bit more convincing for my higher levels and different standards of fun. The next time I differ from the masses, I try to be more considerate about the great unwashed.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

#257 - 2014-07-09 17:24:30 UTC
A little confused here.

This means that I'll now be paying an addition 500m+ a month for the pos on top of the taxes I would pay in station but receive no additional benefit for the additional isk I pay out?
C C P Alliance
#258 - 2014-07-09 17:38:45 UTC
Genoir wrote:
A little confused here.

This means that I'll now be paying an addition 500m+ a month for the pos on top of the taxes I would pay in station but receive no additional benefit for the additional isk I pay out?


So starbase changes as a whole are specified in this blog here: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/starbase-changes-for-crius/

As per my earlier post, the section entitled "Structure cost scaling" has been cut, but everything else stands.

Most notable benefits that you still have for using a starbase in hisec:
- No NPC tax on the job cost (10% in NPC stations)
- Time multipliers between 0.7x and 0.5x for various research job types
- 0.75x time multiplier and 0.98x material multiplier for build jobs in most structures

The messaging on this has not been sufficiently clear because we (I) have been viewing the multiple-structure bonus as an additional little extra rather than a core balance driver, and weren't expecting people to view it as a make-or-break bonus in comparison to the above list. Sorry for not being clearer about this sooner :)
#259 - 2014-07-09 17:54:14 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I know that the POS code is supposedly a mess, but please stop using that as an excuse to avoid fixing it. Everyone knows they're broken and simply reminding us of how broken they are instead of doing the work to fix them is highly unprofessional in my book. There's a lot of good gameplay to be had there if you just fixed them.


Fixing POS code is next on our list after industry, as per the EVE Keynote at Fanfest this year.


Might I suggest in the future that fixing Item A, which is necessary for properly implementing Item B, occur before implementing Item B instead of after it?

Just a thought....


Nah doing POSes before Industry would have been madness. Cart before the horse.

There is nothing wrong with putting the cart before the horse:
http://www.mountlowe.org/mount-lowe-history/the-one-man-and-a-mule-railway/
It works just fine.

Please stop basing your priorities on cute little sayings.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Goonswarm Federation
#260 - 2014-07-09 17:57:57 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Please stop basing your priorities on cute little sayings.

I don't think you get euphemisms.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Forum Jump