These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

EVE Information Portal

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

New dev blog: Starbase happy fun time

First post First post
Silk Vixen
Caldari State
#281 - 2011-11-07 18:09:15 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Currently thinking about:

  • Fuel divisibility situation (ie, faction/sov fuel bonuses)
  • Block build times

Keep on posting, we are paying attention :)

You could add a bonus to faction towers where labs/assembly arrays get a 20% reduction or so in the time it takes to manufacture/research/copyinvent etc
Bullet Maggotson
Goonswarm Federation
#282 - 2011-11-07 18:09:59 UTC
Ariane VoxDei wrote:
Neither does cycle changing, if it is just a database entry listing a timer. We dont know. Lazy grey does. Really, if he couldnt come up with that changeover on his own (and lacked the sense to ask forum), then punching himself in the face over it (as per blog) is getting off very easily.

Yes it does. Changing cycle times is inherently more complex because moon miner and reaction cycle times are tied to fuel cycle times.
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#283 - 2011-11-07 18:10:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Halvus
Some ideas:

1) Faction Fuel Saving:
In order to retain the faction pos fuel saving, would it be possible to create separate faction fuel block BPOs? These would have their own (reduced) material requirements. Of course these BPOs would be harder to come by, being sold only in the appropriate faction stations.

2) Changeover:
The changeover could catch a lot of people out. i.e. those that don't read dev-blogs, news etc. Would it be possible to convert any existing fuel into blocks during the downtime when this change is implemented? You could calculate the number of hours the current fuel would last, remove that amount of materials and replace it with the appropriate number of fuel blocks. Any excess materials could be left in the fuel bay.

I understand that these ideas would require extra development effort, but I think they would satisfy almost everyone who is complaining on this thread.

Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#284 - 2011-11-07 18:10:19 UTC
I'd like to thank the people who skimmed the blog and didn't actually read it for giving me such a good laugh on an otherwise depressing day.
Callic Veratar
#285 - 2011-11-07 18:13:34 UTC
I have most of a TL;DR of the thread going here.
Pandemic Legion
#286 - 2011-11-07 18:14:36 UTC
Well, while I think its a good idea, I dont like that when comparing the current fuel usage to what the new blocks will take , I am now gonna be spending more for tower fuel ....but , i guess atleast they are trying
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
Goonswarm Federation
#287 - 2011-11-07 18:16:00 UTC
Fuujin wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
after reading the 'starbase happy fun time' i thought you were actually doing something to help pos runners.

now we have more build jobs to run and a higher fuel cost in most cases.

you do not play this game do you?

Yeah, that 5 second anchor time is going to turn it into a real grind.

The only inconvenience this is going to cause is the transition period.

the setting up of a pos yeh its faster. wow

the cost looking at the ones im running is about 30% more, the fact i have to now build something else just to put in them ******* anoying.

OMG when can i get a pic here

Di Mulle
#288 - 2011-11-07 18:16:28 UTC
Just another voice about faction towers. Reduced fuel consumption is their biggest bonus and nothing else can sufficiently replace it. Losing that bonus under proposed system is a big hit.

More than that, where the sov bonus will go ? I am afraid, that you are in such rush now, that are unable to think about bigger picture. Seriously, someone at CCP should think about game as a whole and not depend only on some coder, who was given 1 hour to think about an issue and suffered with tunnel vision at the same time, thus forgetting about solution as simple as 2+2. Yea, I mean x100 approach, already given by players on a moments notice.

Losing/ getting some bonuses because of :insert gameplay reason here: is one thing and should always be open to discussion, losing them because of a shortsighted dev - big no no.

But I would like to talk about faction towers from just another point of view. Them losing bonus is a shame, them stopping to drop long ago - even bigger shame, because it was never explained why by CCP. But under current proposal their comeback would have no sense anyway. What is a big pitty, they long ago been a savior for otherwise dull and unprofitable mag sites.

There already is not so much "big hits" in possible drops. Every NPC activity in EVE is becoming more and more monotonous, be it mining, ratting or even exploring and sleeper stuff. You feel like sitting at a conveyor belt or an office 8 h per day. There is less and less place for an "adventurer" style, when you miserably spend half off the life wandering around, but hoping to find a rough diamond one day. Granted, there still are officers, still are rare drops from plexes, but other mini professions have lost that "woohoo" flavor. There is not so much stuff in EVE to make that flavor, and you are just trying to finally kill one of them.
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#289 - 2011-11-07 18:16:58 UTC
MiliasColds wrote:
i'm not a POS guy, but i see the questions people had regarding faction towers/ and the bonuses they get/what they mean to the players.

is it technically feasible to just change the cycle time for fuel use on faction towers, from 60 min to 75 min to 90 min, that gets less fuel same online time, and lower costs for that time. or same fuel same costs longer online time. just my two cents

No, it's not actually. Consider things like gas processing arrays and all don't start processing until the pos cycle hits. What this does is give an accurate amount of fuel required for the next cycle, which is hourly. Now... considering that this won't be a factor after this it's likely that when/if they rework pos' in the future they will be able to build that flexibility, however it's likely so ingrained in the current code that ripping the hourly cycle out has far greater potential to really break things than it's worth.

The multiply produced/consumed amount by ten, divide the size of the pellet/block/chunk by 10 (or 20 for hauling purposes...) makes a lot of sense however. You could easily then apply for example a 10% fuel efficiency bonus to a faction pos for example. Instead of 40/hr for a large pos, 36/hr. Instead of 10/hr for a small, 9/hr. I don't recall the actual percent saved with faction towers, but the math should work ok.

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

Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#290 - 2011-11-07 18:17:59 UTC
Chiming in to indicate that I'm favorable towards the "granularize the fuel" camp. Have the recipe make 400 cubelets of 0.5 m³ instead of 4 cubes each of 50 m³ each (these are still gigantic compared to say trit). This would allow you the granularity to have the faction/sov reductions have a graduated impact.

Seriously - we're more worried about how much place it takes and how many trips do I need to do than about x number of cubes.

or heck make the BPO/C make 200 cubes of 1m³ which gives you a 2% granularity with the simplification for "space" calculations.
South Park Development
#291 - 2011-11-07 18:19:09 UTC
I purchased my Faction Tower only for its lower fuel usage, not for the increased storage bay size.

I suggest more BPOs.. there must be 4 BPOs in this iteration.

"400x relevant racial Isotope"

If this is so then just produce "Faction fuel BPOs" that use less fuel to build the fuel blocks, but cost the same and seeded the same as all the others. These Faction fuel blocks would not be useable on normal towers.
Caldari State
#292 - 2011-11-07 18:19:21 UTC
Instead of the half and half fuel thing, have you considered just converting or replacing fuel in towers at downtime? This seems better than having to ensure each of our 100 pos has a 50/50 fuel mix in two weeks. Then having to haul back the old fuel type afterwards.

I would much prefer every tower just getting 2 weeks of fuel pellets.
Callic Veratar
#293 - 2011-11-07 18:19:33 UTC
Could the Rorqual's compression system be allowed to manufacture fuel cubes?
Tokino Kaalakiota
Kaalakiota Logistical Serivces
#294 - 2011-11-07 18:21:19 UTC

Easily best change of the upcoming patch (assuming it comes out in the upcoming patch) \o/

As an owner of a stupidly expensive, partially vulnerable ship, having to fuel a ridiculous amount of towers for staging/safekeeping just got OMFG so much easier.

Now if only you had put out these changes BEFORE I anchored/onlined >9000 guns/jammers/etc etc..... Roll

Ur deffo on the right if only you could get more...competent.... personnel to work on forum bans/temp bans......(GM Panic I'm looking at already cost CCP a couple subscriptions)

Callic Veratar
#295 - 2011-11-07 18:22:45 UTC
Iniquita wrote:
Instead of the half and half fuel thing, have you considered just converting or replacing fuel in towers at downtime? This seems better than having to ensure each of our 100 pos has a 50/50 fuel mix in two weeks. Then having to haul back the old fuel type afterwards.

I would much prefer every tower just getting 2 weeks of fuel pellets.

I'm in favour of delegation of responsibility on this one, really. It's a bit more of a pain, but the sheer number of things that could go wrong if something doesn't convert right could make this a major pain to do. By saying it's the player's responsibility to make sure their POS are ready to cut over, means CCP doesn't have to worry about every single starbase converting right.
Kristen Andelare
Abacus Industries Group
Aerodyne Collective
#296 - 2011-11-07 18:23:09 UTC
I did some analysis using these numbers, compared to what I am using for fuel now and got these results:

Currently I run a Medium Faction (Tier 2) tower. I bought it because it was CHEAPER to RUN!!! This tower is in highsec and has been run near-continuously for over two years now (in various locations).

I have a system, where I dump fuel into the fuel bay in 500-hour bunches (usually straight from the anchored corp hanger next to it). Since I keep certain things offline, to save fuel, I am at less than maximum needs for Heavy Water and Liquid Ozone.

I dump:

500x Charters
500x Robotics
1000x Uranium
1500x Mechanical Parts
2000x Coolant
3500x Oxygen
7500x Liquid Ozone
17000x Heavy Water
84500x Racial Isotopes

To make the fuel blocks to give me the same duration, I will need:
500x Charters
250x Robtics (half current)
1000x Uranium (same as current)
1000x Mech Parts (2/3 of current)
2000x Coolant (same as current)
5000x Oxygen (more than current)
37500x Liquid Ozone (FIVE times current)
37500x Heavy Water (over double current)
100,000x Helium Isotopes (more than current)

So I see a net gain in the Robotics production, the hardest PI product for me to manufacture, and a smaller gain in Mechanical parts, a somewhat difficult product to manufacture (due to planetary limits of noble metals on Barren planets)

But I'm totally screwed on Ice Products consumption here.

The fact that I have a faction tower no longer matters to me (the extra fuel bay size is worthless!). and the fact that I keep the lights turned off to save energy is also, no longer of any value. Way to go there!

I have been running this operation alone for over two years. I mine my own ice, make my own PI since it became possible, and earn my own charters.

I will make the following suggestions:

increase the blocks needed by a factor of ten, as other posters have suggested, and give the faction towers BACK their advantages in fuel consumption. Just make 40 blocks per run, using the same materials input, and then make the normal towers need 10,20,40 blocks per hour.

While you're at it, ALIGN the amount of Heavy Water and Liquid Ozone each mined block of Ice produces. The disparity between the two has ALWAYS been an issue with planning POS fueling. And there is also more need for Liquid Ozone anyway, as it's the fuel of jump bridges, etc. Make them both 50 for normal ice. You math scheme here just further insures the ridiculous shortage of O3 on the markets, and abuses solo miners/industrialists/POS operators like me. If you did that, I wouldn't worry too much about losing the fuel savings from having POS modules offline.

Other than what I've stated above, I like the change overall, it will be helpful, and it will make people's POS fueling a simpler process.

thanks CCP for thinking about POS operations. Keep iterating.

Nairb Ecrep
Gallente Federation
#297 - 2011-11-07 18:23:57 UTC
Just to throw in my opinion, I strongly support the idea of increasing the number of blocks to facilitate the faction bonus, as well as the Sov bonus. In the end all that really matters is m3 we have to move, not number of blocks, so this would allow current bonuses to work and still make it awesome to streamline fueling poses.
Largo Coronet
Caldari State
#298 - 2011-11-07 18:25:02 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
IT IS CALLED FUEL PELLETS (as per initial idea and previous discussions).

{I know, you're being silly.}

Imagine the size of rabbit you'd have to have to make a pellet that big. Shocked

This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.

Someday, this signature may save my life.

Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
#299 - 2011-11-07 18:25:35 UTC
Why not just convert the fuel that is currently in the fuel bay into fuel pellets?
Alice Katsuko
Caldari State
#300 - 2011-11-07 18:26:18 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Alice Katsuko wrote:
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.

Purely on aggro settings, yes. If the tower won't shoot you, you can use the bridge. The CSM was very clear that JB passwords are all public knowledge already so it's a pretty meaningless security check in practice.

Thanks for the clarification. It's a very welcome change. But when you overhaul the POS system, please consider adding more granularity to JB and POS access controls.