These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Starbase happy fun time

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dalton Vanadis
Imperium Technologies
Sigma Grindset
#21 - 2011-11-07 15:30:48 UTC
This dev blog has made me as giddy as a 15 year old girl. Big smileBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smile

I can't wait for these changes to get to TQ and I most especially can't wait for a full rewrite of the starbase system.

But seriously, thanks for listening to the players! And this is looking to be an epic expansion.
Dalton Vanadis
Imperium Technologies
Sigma Grindset
#22 - 2011-11-07 15:32:15 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Ciar Meara wrote:
Most important sentence:

"While we're waiting to do a proper rewrite of the starbase system"

Give us a modular POS, like the great flogger of the dead horse in the sky saw in his dreams!


Agree, let's do exactly this.


Soundwave, you teaser. Please make it so!
Raziphan Rebular
Path of Dooppa
#23 - 2011-11-07 15:34:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Raziphan Rebular
Jack Dant wrote:
On a first calculation, I think the build times for fuel blocks are a bit too high. At 10 minutes/run, thats over a day for each week of fuel for a large tower. I guess you are counting on a mini-industry to arise for this.


If you build it they will come, or something like that. But ya I don't see any issue with another industry item. Some POS owners simply won't want to deal with building their own fuel blocks.


I am slightly worried about the removal of the fuel consumption benefit of the faction towers. There has to be plenty of people out there who bit the bullet and bought a faction tower with the idea that over time the increased initial cost would pay for itself in lower fuel usage.
Mar Drakar
LDK
#24 - 2011-11-07 15:34:37 UTC
Multiply fuel block numbers (same material input), decrease size, receive bacon for retaining faction/sov advantages.
darius mclever
#25 - 2011-11-07 15:36:35 UTC
Entity wrote:
Quote:
The one downside of this big-blocks approach is that it's impossible to give faction towers a fuel consumption bonus any more (you can't consume 2/3 of a block). We talked to some large-scale starbase operators about this, and they told us that the main bonus of faction towers for them is actually that they last longer between fuel cycles. To try and compensate for the increased running costs, we've taken the above bay size increases and added +25% bay size on top of that for the "tier 1" faction towers, and +50% bay size for the "tier 2" ones. We're hoping people will find that a satisfactory tradeoff, but we're listening for further feedback on this change.


NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

The benefit of faction towers is two-fold:
- Longer run time before refuel
- Lower cost per period

You're basically removing the cost benefit.


Better solution:
Instead of producing 4 fuel blocks per batch, produce like 100 or some other larger quantity per batch (and obviously make the volume per block lower and the blocks consumed/cycle higher). then you can apply fuel reduction bonuses as per usual and everyone will be happy.

Again, a lot of people, including me, bought a faction tower to save fuel cost, which is not insignificant. Removing that makes the investment pointless if all it does is give more time between refuels, which with this change would be of questionable value since it will be much easier.


seconded.
Woo Glin
State War Academy
Caldari State
#26 - 2011-11-07 15:36:56 UTC
never stop buffing hisec industry
Morn Hyland
Amnion Partners
#27 - 2011-11-07 15:38:02 UTC
Could you extend the time between fuel cell usage to give bonuses for faction towers and sovereignty i.e. normal tower usage every 60 minutes - faction tower 75 minutes or whatever factor currently separates the fuel usage.
xp3ll3d
The Southern Legion
#28 - 2011-11-07 15:38:27 UTC
They're dropping the isotope requirements?
A direct effect of the goonswarm war against Ice miners?
darius mclever
#29 - 2011-11-07 15:39:29 UTC
Morn Hyland wrote:
Could you extend the time between fuel cell usage to give bonuses for faction towers and sovereignty i.e. normal tower usage every 60 minutes - faction tower 75 minutes or whatever factor currently separates the fuel usage.


that sounds like a nice solution to the problem. then you could even drop the fuel bay size bonus.
darius mclever
#30 - 2011-11-07 15:40:04 UTC
xp3ll3d wrote:
They're dropping the isotope requirements?
A direct effect of the goonswarm war against Ice miners?


no they are not. read it again. you will have one fuel cube per isotopes type.
Chesticular Homicide
Boundless Invention
#31 - 2011-11-07 15:40:48 UTC
Entity wrote:
Again, a lot of people, including me, bought a faction tower to save fuel cost, which is not insignificant. Removing that makes the investment pointless if all it does is give more time between refuels, which with this change would be of questionable value since it will be much easier.


This is the only reason I bought a faction tower is the reduced fuel costs. Nerfing the fuel bonus makes it pointless to even run a faction tower.

Considering their cost (over 2b for a DG large now), the value of a faction tower in hisec is now pointless.

This is a huge nerf for faction towers.
Pavee Lackeen
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2011-11-07 15:41:11 UTC
So basically you are just adding another step in the fueling process while removing some bonuses?

Doesn't seem like anything was gaining and the drudgery increases.
Raziphan Rebular
Path of Dooppa
#33 - 2011-11-07 15:41:24 UTC
xp3ll3d wrote:
They're dropping the isotope requirements?
A direct effect of the goonswarm war against Ice miners?



Isotope requirement is still there for each block. 400x of racial isotope per block.
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force
#34 - 2011-11-07 15:41:35 UTC
You're really determined to make a lot of people happy in this patch aren't you? Big smile

13 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2011-11-07 15:42:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Zarak1 Kenpach1
i hate your homogenous forceful solution to this stuff.

you could of made fuel blocks do everything the PI mats do and left the ice parts just the way they are and some folks would of still benefited from the way the consumption formula's worked on HW and LO. but, now everyone has to use the same amount of ice no matter. what

its breakfast time and i am very hungry. may i have some of your paint chips?
Dartonias Sirion
Perkone
Caldari State
#36 - 2011-11-07 15:43:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Dartonias Sirion
Jack Dant wrote:
A few questions:

1) What happens to the sov bonus to fuel use?

This is a crucial point -- and is currently a huge factor that lets null-sec be profitable vs. their low sec POS operations counterpart.

Entity wrote:
The benefit of faction towers is two-fold:
- Longer run time before refuel
- Lower cost per period

You're basically removing the cost benefit.

Better solution:
Instead of producing 4 fuel blocks per batch, produce like 100 or some other larger quantity per batch (and obviously make the volume per block lower and the blocks consumed/cycle higher). then you can apply fuel reduction bonuses as per usual and everyone will be happy.

Again, a lot of people, including me, bought a faction tower to save fuel cost, which is not insignificant. Removing that makes the investment pointless if all it does is give more time between refuels, which with this change would be of questionable value since it will be much easier.

I agree this would be a much better solution that allows the change to faction towers / sov fuel bonus to be properly propagated through.
Alice Katsuko
Perkone
Caldari State
#37 - 2011-11-07 15:43:32 UTC
Very nice changes. Might be a stupid question, but how exactly will jump bridge access be controlled now? Will it be purely through standings? And will we be able to set the level of standings at which jump bridge access is granted?

Basing it purely on control tower aggression settings may not be the best idea, because it may not allow for sufficient level of control. For example, an alliance will probably have its POS network configured to not shoot dark and light blues, but may not want light blues to use its bridge network.
Entity
X-Factor Industries
Synthetic Existence
#38 - 2011-11-07 15:43:53 UTC
Morn Hyland wrote:
Could you extend the time between fuel cell usage to give bonuses for faction towers and sovereignty i.e. normal tower usage every 60 minutes - faction tower 75 minutes or whatever factor currently separates the fuel usage.


Nice suggestion, but they can't easily do that. The POS system is pretty much locked to 1-hour cycles. Reworking it for arbitrary cycle length would not be trivial.

╦......║...╔╗.║.║.╔╗.╦║.╔╗╔╦╗╔╗

║.╔╗╔╗╔╣.╔╗╠..╠ ╠╗╠╝.║╠ ╠╝║║║╚╗

╩═╚╝║.╚╝.╚╝║..╚╝║║╚╝.╩╚╝╚╝║.║╚╝

Got Item?
Callic Veratar
#39 - 2011-11-07 15:44:16 UTC
Would it be possible for each class of faction starbase to have it's own faction fuel block? It could have a reduced cost and (potentially) a benefit for running the tower on that class of fuel.

With this change, you don't need to worry about having thousands of fuel blocks in a starbase to allow for partial consumption, but the faction towers don't lose their consumption bonuses.

The easiest bonus would be for the same ingredients, the faction block print produces 5 blocks.
Friedward Schnorch
EDGE Holding
EDGE Alliance
#40 - 2011-11-07 15:44:22 UTC
2 questions.

"We reduced effective robotics consumption on medium and small towers because it was judged to be better than increasing the consumption on large towers"

You actually doubled the consumption for medium and quadrupled it for large towers. Currently all towers just use 1 robotics, no matter which size.

And will faction towers be available again? I might be wrong, but AFAIK they were removed them from loot tables about 2-3 years ago.