These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New Dev Blog: Player-owned Customs Office

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
bilingi
Grandeur Illusions
#1461 - 2011-10-25 22:40:27 UTC  |  Edited by: bilingi
Well according to you and your whiney carebare remark only PvPers play or should so thanks for proving me right.

As for a profit. Profit from what? So you want it allaince only to support the RMT allainces we already have?... That explains why you like the IDea you get your isk the easy way.

ANd name me one allaince thats going to encourage nuetrals t use thier station,,, You cant with out lieing. The only thing they approve is thier rat bots.
Meldan Anstian
The Night Crew
#1462 - 2011-10-25 22:55:30 UTC
rootimus maximus wrote:


Why is there so much emphasis from many people in this thread on the speed of payback? I recently trained all the skills for a cap ship to IV. If I go back and train them all from IV to V I'm looking at nearly a year, which is fine because this isn't modern warfail 3 with instant gratification included as a feature. Sure, the office may get taken out, but unless some very bored muppets drop a bunch of caps on it, corps should be able to defend their property.

Production being driven to highsec isn't an issue either. There's always someone to fill any gap in demand and reap any increased profits.


It goes back to the incentive to put up a PCO at all vs investing the ISK in some other way. I certainly don't want instant gratification with a PCO either.

With so much emphasis on ISK per hour and return on investment over everything in Eve, it is certainly a concern when contemplating a change or addition of a ISK making method.

If the average PCO needs 3 months to get paid back, but the average PCO lasts 1 month before getting blown up, how long before PCO's stop getting put up?

Remember, the price of PI products, is totally irrelevant to the income of the PCO. It's all based on the tariff, which is a constant, and is independent of the price of PI materials. So if robotics trade at 10k isk or at 1 mil ISK, it doesnt matter to the PCO owner, his income is the same.

The idea simply relates to making ISK from PCO's and fighting over them. It really isn't aimed at changing the balance of supply and demand.

I think Scrapyard Bob and I have come up with something that might just be a basis for for PCO's to work without screwing everything else up. Lots of details needs to be worked out yet, like PCO shield bubbles and guns, fuel, how and if things are handled differently in low, null and WH space, what happens to existing CO's when this goes live, etc. I think we need to tweak the numbers a bit, but I'm thinking this could work.

I do want to hear what the dev's are thinking and get some feedback from them. Seems like we are doing much of their work for them. They might be on a entirely different line of thinking.
Meldan Anstian
The Night Crew
#1463 - 2011-10-25 23:06:26 UTC
bilingi wrote:
Well according to you and your whiney carebare remark only PvPers play or should so thanks for proving me right.

As for a profit. Profit from what? So you want it allaince only to support the RMT allainces we already have?... That explains why you like the IDea you get your isk the easy way.

ANd name me one allaince thats going to encourage nuetrals t use thier station,,, You cant with out lieing. The only thing they approve is thier rat bots.


That's not at all what Rootimus said. Perhaps you should read it again. Sound out the big words you don't know, it might help.

Your concerns were addressed about 40 pages ago.
bilingi
Grandeur Illusions
#1464 - 2011-10-25 23:12:18 UTC
NO it was not addresses... People claim this wont happen,,,,, It wil .. Just look at how jumpbridges titans supercaps and al that worked out eh? Not what was originally intended..

But since you claim to have a better education i will bow down before your awesome ISK makeing potential... PS you do have a point with all that moon goo and rat botting income a POCO is dirt cheap snd easy to replace.


OOOPS i left out cry some more? Lol
Silva Krell
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1465 - 2011-10-26 00:09:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Silva Krell
So can these structures be unanchored? Any news on this yet?

CVA might let neuts use our planets. That is for my leadership to decide, but I am sure it will be considered seriously if it is an option.
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1466 - 2011-10-26 00:38:31 UTC
Silva Krell wrote:
So can these structures be unanchored? Any news on this yet?

CVA might let neuts use our planets. That is for my leadership to decide, but I am sure it will be considered seriously if it is an option.


It's reasonable to presume that like POS's they could be unanchored atm.

However, what we don't have any idea about is once the gantry is upgraded, whether or not it can be unanchored after it has been upgraded?

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
rootimus maximus
Perkone
Caldari State
#1467 - 2011-10-26 02:06:16 UTC
bilingi wrote:
Well according to you and your whiney carebare remark only PvPers play or should so thanks for proving me right.


Actually, my objections are to individuals being able to acheive the same success as groups who work together, and to people being able to sit in the relative safety of highsec and be able to compete on anywhere near an equal footing. Highsec should be a way for people to dangle their feet in the water and get a taste for all aspects of the game. If they want to live there so be it, but if they want the good stuff they should be signposted to lowsec, nullsec and wormhole space.

bilingi wrote:
As for a profit. Profit from what? So you want it allaince only to support the RMT allainces we already have?... That explains why you like the IDea you get your isk the easy way.


If people follow through on stomping their feet all the way back to highsec and if the drop in manufacturing isn't picked up somehow then supply goes down while demand likely remains the same. That means profits go up. RMT has nothing to do with it. As for easy, I'll grant you that it's relatively easier to do stuff if, like me, you have a corp and alliance full of great people who work together.

bilingi wrote:
ANd name me one allaince thats going to encourage nuetrals t use thier station,,, You cant with out lieing. The only thing they approve is thier rat bots.


I could name my own alliance (we're even going to let reds use our offices), but that would defeat the point of a posting alt. I know of at least one alliance looking to allow neutrals to use theirs.
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1468 - 2011-10-26 02:49:33 UTC
rootimus maximus wrote:


I could name my own alliance (we're even going to let reds use our offices), but that would defeat the point of a posting alt. I know of at least one alliance looking to allow neutrals to use theirs.



- 1

For posting alts...


Posting alts: For those times you want to flame and troll, and don't want to start a war in the process

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
rootimus maximus
Perkone
Caldari State
#1469 - 2011-10-26 03:21:39 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Posting alts: For those times you want to flame and troll, and don't want to start a war in the process


Meh. I don't troll and I'm sorry if one of my posts came across that way.
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1470 - 2011-10-26 04:10:55 UTC
rootimus maximus wrote:
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Posting alts: For those times you want to flame and troll, and don't want to start a war in the process


Meh. I don't troll and I'm sorry if one of my posts came across that way.



Nah ur good - just sayin'

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
Marsan
#1471 - 2011-10-26 05:46:31 UTC
El 1974 wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Which means, basically, that these POCOs are a complete waste of isk for wormhole dwellers. We'll effectively get no benefits aside from being able to set the taxes to zero, and that won't be enough to recoup the cost of these things for months or longer. Hell, we'll need ten of these damned things in our hole.

What a load of crap the current concept is...

Just put up the COs, invite some highsec industrials to do all the PI stuff for you, sit back and receive a piece of the action, while doing nothing. Stop whining.



Yea that will work until people start posing as indy corp to lead a fleet to siege our POSes. ...

Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community.
El 1974
Green Visstick High
#1472 - 2011-10-26 08:53:04 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Silva Krell wrote:
So can these structures be unanchored? Any news on this yet?

CVA might let neuts use our planets. That is for my leadership to decide, but I am sure it will be considered seriously if it is an option.


It's reasonable to presume that like POS's they could be unanchored atm.

However, what we don't have any idea about is once the gantry is upgraded, whether or not it can be unanchored after it has been upgraded?

I've been thinking about this. Anchorable items like POSes and secure containers can be unanchored. Upgradeable structures cannot. I asume this is precisely why CCP made the CO a structure that needs to be upgraded. CCP prioritizes provoking combat over PI.
Nyla Skin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1473 - 2011-10-26 09:28:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyla Skin
Issler Dainze wrote:
Lolmer wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:


No drop, the items are just destroyed.


What kind of ******** idea is that? Why won't items drop after we destroy the "container"? That's not how EvE works! Even PLEX drops, and items in POS' drop, why would items in the POCO not drop?



Yet another example of how poorly thought out this idea is. Do the folks on the team working on the new CO even play Eve?

Issler


It makes perfect sense. Its meant to discourage people destroying the COs for fun and profit. I approve of it.

CCP wants the COs to stick around and be a 'political tool'.

In after the lock :P   - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#1474 - 2011-10-26 09:37:56 UTC
Meldan Anstian wrote:
You mention later in your response, income is about 5 mil a week and it would take 4 months to recover investment from a 80m PCO. No one would risk even a T1 BC to keep the PCO operational. Having 1 destroyed would extend payback another 2 months (depending on the BC and fit of course).

It does needs more income, but you'll never make a single PCO pay for its defense fleet losses. Even with a bunch of them it will be hard. But that's not much of a problem, people risk more than that every day just to get into fights. I've seen multiple caps dropped and lost in lowsec over medium towers at gas moons.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#1475 - 2011-10-26 09:57:20 UTC
Nyla Skin wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
Lolmer wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:


No drop, the items are just destroyed.


What kind of ******** idea is that? Why won't items drop after we destroy the "container"? That's not how EvE works! Even PLEX drops, and items in POS' drop, why would items in the POCO not drop?



Yet another example of how poorly thought out this idea is. Do the folks on the team working on the new CO even play Eve?

Issler


It makes perfect sense. Its meant to discourage people destroying the COs for fun and profit. I approve of it.

CCP wants the COs to stick around and be a 'political tool'.


I'd wager the majority of folks 'splode stuff just for the fun of it. Making stuff drop in null sec makes these something interesting for system holders to want to defend. In low sec it would be a bonus but these things will be a low sec gankers new spare time hobby.

Issler
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#1476 - 2011-10-26 10:19:01 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Meldan Anstian wrote:
Creat Posudol wrote:

You misunderstood me completely there. I was saying that if the ATTACKERS (!!!) split up to attack multiple POCOs, putting one attacker at each non-primary target just for the mail(s) to cover the primary attack (as you suggested), then those lone attackers could be easily picked off one by one if the defenders do manage to get even a small defense fleet together. Nobody is gonna defend anything unless it is upon reinforcement exit, there are no defenders in your case!

Also throughout your replies you constantly seem to think that the increased interaction is supposed to occur at this point in the first place. It isn't - as I've already stated as well. That is what reinforcement is for, to have a time and a place to meet and have "interaction" Lol

If someone decides to shoot some POCOs just to generate some mails, let him. Who cares? Unless the POCO is reinforced nobody is gonna move. You can try to drop by if you happen to be in the vicinity, but just wait for him to reinforce it, and either fight him upon reinforcement exit, or rep up the shields enough so that reinforcement resets. Who cares about a couple of (or couple of dozen) mails?


Ahh, I understand better now. There is no reason for a lone player to attack a PCO and stick around awaiting a response from defenders. The purpose of him was to create confusion and generate uncertainty.


We put in a change today so that mails wont be generated unless you do at least some significant amount of damage. A lone rifter doing a drive by won't trigger it, because that would be annoying.

When can that be applied to POS/SBU and probably station/ihub mechanics? :D
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1477 - 2011-10-26 10:28:48 UTC
steave435 wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Meldan Anstian wrote:
Creat Posudol wrote:

You misunderstood me completely there. I was saying that if the ATTACKERS (!!!) split up to attack multiple POCOs, putting one attacker at each non-primary target just for the mail(s) to cover the primary attack (as you suggested), then those lone attackers could be easily picked off one by one if the defenders do manage to get even a small defense fleet together. Nobody is gonna defend anything unless it is upon reinforcement exit, there are no defenders in your case!

Also throughout your replies you constantly seem to think that the increased interaction is supposed to occur at this point in the first place. It isn't - as I've already stated as well. That is what reinforcement is for, to have a time and a place to meet and have "interaction" Lol

If someone decides to shoot some POCOs just to generate some mails, let him. Who cares? Unless the POCO is reinforced nobody is gonna move. You can try to drop by if you happen to be in the vicinity, but just wait for him to reinforce it, and either fight him upon reinforcement exit, or rep up the shields enough so that reinforcement resets. Who cares about a couple of (or couple of dozen) mails?


Ahh, I understand better now. There is no reason for a lone player to attack a PCO and stick around awaiting a response from defenders. The purpose of him was to create confusion and generate uncertainty.


We put in a change today so that mails wont be generated unless you do at least some significant amount of damage. A lone rifter doing a drive by won't trigger it, because that would be annoying.

When can that be applied to POS/SBU and probably station/ihub mechanics? :D


Yeah potentially, might see how it plays out with COs first.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#1478 - 2011-10-26 12:02:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Dant
Issler Dainze wrote:
I'd wager the majority of folks 'splode stuff just for the fun of it. Making stuff drop in null sec makes these something interesting for system holders to want to defend. In low sec it would be a bonus but these things will be a low sec gankers new spare time hobby.

Shooting structures for fun? I know of several lowsec towers, at least one of them small, that have been offline for months and nobody has shot yet. And they don't even go into reinforced when offline. Oh, It happens, people will eventually be bored enough to try, but it'll take a while.

The hangars/labs/silos in offline towers, tho, those die really fast. But that's because they have little HP and actually drop stuff.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644
alphaspecies
#1479 - 2011-10-26 13:14:55 UTC
i've got a few questions...

1: will we be reimbursed for our current launch pads?

2: launch pad = 5km3 storage, command center = 500m3 storage... you gonna give us back the other 4.5km3?

3: exactly why do you feel the need to double hi-sec taxes?

4: and as far as all the taxes from PI, sales, skill books, NPC corp taxes... just where does all this isk go?
i know its not just jet-canned into space... can i see an audit of ccp journals?

5: since we organized our planets to dump into a launch pad, we will now probably have to reconfigure our entire
network to work with only a command center... you gonna reimburse us for all the mods we will have to decommission
and re-establish?

6: exactly why do you feel the need to double hi-sec taxes again?

7: you gonna get rid of the cooldown on expedited transfers?

you're whine has been heard... please smile for the target pai...er...camera ... thank you.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#1480 - 2011-10-26 13:24:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Ingvar Angst
CCP Nullabor, any thoughts at to this approach?

Ingvar Angst wrote:

Any changes as far as the initial supply? Simply removing the customs offices and waiting for the market to catch up in order to do effective PI again is crippling to say the least.

I like the idea of leaving the customs offices in place and having these supercede them if someone plants one, and the customs office coming back online if one's destroyed. It adds the flavor of people deciding to remove the ones that a hostile corp put up, even if they can't manage to put one up themselves. This at least allows some safeguards, some means for people to be able to fight for the right to do their own PI without corporate interference.


Leaving the customs offices in place as default in the absense of a POCO would really ease a lot of worries... let them be optional. Hell, double taxes on ALL the pocos if you want. At least PI won't get borked in one fell swoop for however many months it takes for the customs offices to be replaced. Allow a gradual shift that the economy can absorb instead of one massive crushing blow without any regards for the economy, pos fuels or existing PI set ups.

This alone would be enough to get rid of any and all concerns I have about POCOs completely. I wish it would at least be considered.

Edit: This also can help preserve the high sec PI industrialists access to low sec PI. Think about it - if someone goes and establishes a POCO on a low sec planet that is being used by high sec folks, they'd best set it up at a fair rate, otherwise it's now worthwhile for the high sec people to head into low and blow the POCO to hell, thus regaining access to their PI through the default customs office. We've seen the complaints that POCOs are going to kill low sec PI, this would keep it alive.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.