Refineries, simulations and reffining

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
,
1

I want to address a few things here:

  1. the simulations of refineries show the values as if installed in null space and it’s not logical. I’m going to take my experience to illustrate my point:
    We looked for witch raffinerie to buy for our small HS corp so we used the simulations. We thought that the bonus displayed were the “x1” because, it’s the BASE bonus, and so we thought that the system BONUS was “added” when in reality, not “included” as if everyone was deploying in null sec. Especially when it’s never mentioned…

  2. I would like to point out that an athanor with a T2 rig (so a 6B investment) is more efficient than a tatara with a T1 rig ( 17-18B) so I would like to say: what’s the point? there is actually no point to risk money on an tatara rather than an athanor.
    that’s a little sad, given that it does not push to take risks

EDIT:

To be clear, there is my propositions :

  1. display the base value, without bonuses, OR display a warning that the system is supposed “null sec”
  2. make the base yield of an athanor with a T2 rig the same one as a tatara with a T1 rig, the change is minor, you keep the essential of the mechanics because of the price but is a nice challenge to HS corps, and therefore a nice target for war, for players it’s also more engaging as it is a symbol.
2

The first point, agree. It may be a bug or something they didnt take in to account.

About the second point, is maybe not worthy for HS but it is for NS. The Athanor will need two rigs for the job that a Tatara does with 1, have better stats and is capable to dock Capitals.

3

for the first point: following a ticket I posted, no it is “normal”

for the second, I’m not even sure for the NS since with 18B you can deploy 1 athanor with 3 rig T2 and you still have saved 2B…

4

Umm, didn’t know you already open a ticket. Nice move. They may need to take a look at it.

Also, I miss the usage of the Refinery. If is exclusively for refining, yes. But it is going to be a Moon Holder or multipurpose, is better to expend a little more to have more utility.

5

I agree with you if it’s for “only” reffining, then yes, otherwise, I have no change to propose

Once again I’m gonna use my experience of yesterday: we are a small corp living in HS and as their leader, I searched for a challenge that would consolidate our game together.

So i did a little simulations and found that the tatara with a rig T1 would be a better choice than the actual athanor we use (not ours).

I proposed the idea and everyone agreeed that even if it WAS a big challenge (getting 18B quickly), it would be very nice and, hell yea, it would be a tatara ^^

we worked for a certain time, and we FINALLY got it.
we deployed it.
set everything right
and discovered we were 2% less than the athanor we just wanted to beat…

so we spent 18B…
for basically, nothing…

(therefore my precense here and the 2 points :stuck_out_tongue: )

1 Like
6

I suggest you one thing, just for the future. Use SISI to test before expending all that money =)

And yes, the Simulator may need an option for the Structures to be tested in different Security zones so is properly simulated.

7

yea, I agree new, but for me it’s not a “logical” step for a new player to take.

the test server is, on my point of view, to try the new stuff, not for having a “real” simulation since there could be some differences. (for example, HS moons on sisi are seeded when on tranq, it’s not.)

8

i imagine its going to be a while before you can switch sec-status in a simulated fitting.

SiSi or the old pen and paper.

9

and for the balancing idea? no opinions on the matter?

10

This one? You’re saying that buying a big station gets better yield than a small station that buys an expensive rig. But then you say there’s no point in getting a big station…

Even if you’re muddled up on yield, you’re forgetting all the defensive properties of a bigger station, what a bigger station can do with a t2 rig, and that a bigger station can dock a rorqual.

So yes, there’s a role for both stations.

11

damn >< no it’s “more” i edited it ^^"

12

So you spent 18bil for a much tougher station that can dock a rorqual and one day get a t2 rig for even better yield.

13

in HS there is no use of the rorqual and the t2 rig cost 70b, a little expensive ^^"

14

Now imagine that not everyone who has a tatara is in hi-sec, some people want better defence and that for many players the 70bil is worth it.

Just because it’s the wrong tool for you, doesn’t mean the tool is bad.

15

I didn’t said that the tool is bad, only that it’s not very challenging, and by changing by 1% the effect, it could become much more interesting on my opinion. at this point, I never saw a tatara in HS, probably because of this. I find it a bit sad.

16

You are implying the tool is bad by suggesting it needs changing/fixing.

But it’s too early to tell. For all we know many corps may still be in the process of acquiring a tatara. Or they may exist where you are not a frequent guest.

No doubt ccp will be watching closely and should it tranpsire that hardly anyone uses tataras in hisec, ccp may do something IF they want people in hi-sec to use tataras more. But a straight up yield buff will probably not happen. The market and the game are very sensitive to things like that. What you may get instead is a buff to the yield of refineries but a nerf to the rig modifiers. That would help make the tatara better without increasing actual yield. The problem with that however is you’ve just nerfed everyone who DID do their homework and bought a smaller refinery with a t2 rig.

17

exept that by augmenting the tatara+ rig T1, the market would not be very much impacted since it’s still cheaper to by an athanor and install a T2 rig on it

18

How do you figure the mineral market was trashed by rorquals so bad they nerfed them…twice?

Becuase of people in null. Check the monthly economic report.

Look, this isn’t going to happen. At least not right now. And i didn’t want to go down the rabbit hole of explaining to you why so i didn’t reply to that part of your post. You screwed up, but thats why the test server is so handy.

Honestly, if you had done your homework and got a small structure with a t2 rig i seriously doubt you’d have made this post. You’re just upset you lost your money.

Am out.

19

well, partly yes, also I have not lived in NS long enough maybe to see all the implications but I’m not sure why doing an equivalence in tatara + rig T1 = athanor +rig T2 would drasticly change the number of tatara in NS ^^"

And we DID our homework, that’s actually the main point in my post, the simulations are counter-intuitives…

I may not have put the second point, but the first one, definitely

PS: the test server is made to test new functionalities, not as a simulations, since, you know, they ARE in the main server.

20

The test server is for what ever you want, not just testing new functionality, before a new patch.
You wanna try a 4 billion t3c in pvp, before taking it to nullsec? Test server. You wanna test the structures and fitting before spending isk? Test server. Are you confused about some mechanic in the game? Test server.
Its basically a persistent server for anything eve related, be it testing new fleet doctrines, new fits, stuctures or what ever, as you can “teleport around” and get all your ships imported from Tranquility, with simple commands.
Next time, go on the test server and anchor one of theese structures, like most other people do to test it, before handing out the isk on the real server.

I will agree, that the simulation should show you the right multiplier, did you report this “bug” to ccp, by any chance? It sounds like a bug or an oversight tbh.