These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Silver Shields
Flying Dangerous
#681 - 2011-11-08 06:14:26 UTC
Momoro wrote:
sukee tsayah wrote:


We're just going to agree to disagree. Our point of disagreement seems to be how often new players do PI in lowsec and nullsec. You say it's rare, and it very well may be in your experience.

On the other hand, in my experience 90% of the people I train on a daily basis have played the game for less than 3 months and ALL of them get their income from doing PI in lowsec/nullsec. The very few new players that I interact with who do not get their isk through PI do not engage in it because they don't like the logistical aspect of it. But that's the vast minority.

I'd like folks to keep in mind that one person's corp experience isn't like the next person's corp experience. Our alliance focuses on training new pilots to PVP. That means when they come online, we take them PvPing. They have zero interest in running missions in high sec to make isk and they have zero interest in other aspects of the game. The only thing that keeps them playing is PvP. When CCP takes their only isk making ability away, they will be left with no choice but to go to high sec or quit the game.

I understand that all this talk will amount to nothing. I have no delusions. But I also want CCP to realize that when they mess with the market's supply and demand, the people who are hurt the most are the new players whose profit margin is the lowest. Not the fat cat CEO whose POS is now going to cost .05% less to fuel per month.


Rather than throwing the idea out with all its virtues and flaws, I'm trying to see what I can suggest to fix the flaws. I've advocated two possible solutions that I think would address your issue:

1. Have a manufacturing slot / pos fuel refinery built into the control tower for turning old pos fuel into the new fuel pellets.
2. Have the new system be opt in via a script that can be installed into the tower.

Do either of these suggestions work for you? Do you have any constructive suggestion that would solve your problem?


Yeah I definitely have a constructive suggestion that would solve this problem and not ruin all the "good" changes that this update brings. Actually the solution is very simple.

1) go ahead with the fuel blocks
2) do not reduce the amount of POS fuel needed to run a small/medium POS
3) get rid of the silly idea of COs that have to be anchored and can be destroyed. that idea was just so awful that it's hard to put into words just how bad that idea is
Momoro
#682 - 2011-11-08 06:17:21 UTC
ReK42 wrote:
I haven't read through this whole thread, so this may have already been suggested but here goes:

Greyscale, you seem to be overly tied to the idea of using a single fuel block per hour (for smalls). Your problems with changing how faction towers and sov ownership affect fuel consumption would be solved fairly easily by making that a larger number. For the player fueling the math is still a lot simpler than it is currently and it doesn't strip us of those bonuses.

My suggestion:

  • Multiply the amount of fuel blocks produced by the BP by 50 (ie, it produces 200 blocks) but keep the material requirements and production time the same
  • Divide the volume of fuel blocks by 50 (ie, each block is now 1 m^3)
  • Multiply the consumption of towers by 50 (ie, small/medium/large towers now consume 50/100/200 blocks per hour)


Now you have exactly the same values as far as fuel products (PI and ice) going into the blocks and tower uptime produced by them. The difference is, while you can't use 80% of a block in one hour you most definitely can use 40 blocks per hour instead of 50.


Several numbers have been floated around. For a large tower, I have seen 4 (original), 100, 120, and now 200.

  • With 4 we get down to 1 for a small tower
  • With 100 we get easy math and greater granularity
  • With 120 we get a number that factorizes nicely (divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 30, 40, 60, 120)
  • So why 200?


Math with 200 blocks is still pretty easy but we have twice the granularity. Is there something else I am missing?

My vote is still with 100 blocks for a large tower and 25 for a small tower (scale by 25).
Orny
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#683 - 2011-11-08 06:23:51 UTC
Hmm...
About consumption bonus of faction towers: Why it is imposible to use faction blueprints to makes faction fuel blocks???
Farrisen
MoaR ChickeN
#684 - 2011-11-08 06:26:03 UTC
All in all good, but the part were my fuel-efficient faction tower becomes usless, kinda makes me a sad-panda Shocked

http://i.imgur.com/DWBuV.png

Originally by: CCP Spitfire: It's because of falcon.
G'Shad
Weatherlight Fleetworks
#685 - 2011-11-08 06:30:58 UTC
Being the owner of multiple True Sansha large towers (purchased primarily for the fuel savings over time) and having just read the dev blog on these new fuel blocks, I am a bit concerned.

The reason I went about the increased expense of buying the better towers was not because I could ignore them for a longer period of time, but because of the reduced cost of running them. Increasing the fuel bay is not 1.6bil worth of diference over the standard towers.

Chatting right now (as I type this) with a Sov holding buddy of mine, he is also concerned with what that dev blog contained. Considering it made it clear they were not providing discount on fuel usage, what happens to the Sov POS fuel reduction?

One very simple idea came to use, rather than messing with consuming partial blocks per hour, increase the time the block lasts for. Rather than 60 minutes, change it to 70 mintues or such. It is an easy to apply modifier that will leave the existing effectiveness of the faction POSes and Sov bonuses intact without really needing to change this creative idea of fuel blocks.
Ciryath Al'Darion
FinFleet
Northern Coalition.
#686 - 2011-11-08 06:42:54 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
Marcel Devereux wrote:
Why not just convert the fuel that is currently in the fuel bay into fuel pellets?


Convert a gas engine car to a diesel engine car as it's travelling down the highway.


CCP is converting our gasoline run cars to diesel cars while we are running on a highway. So to be ready for this change,you need to fuel your car with gasoline and diesel so that you are ready for the change.

Everyone knows that its very easy to change the engine while driving on a road but it's impossible to do change fuel.



To CCP: Just sit down and use one day more to prepare for this change and write the code that you'll run at the downtime when the fuel type is changed. Determine how many cubes its possible to make from each tower fuelbay, convert those to cubes, leave the extra fuel as is into the fuel bay.

That is if your intention is to HELP people and not cause disasters to pos managers. Changing the fuel type inside towers would also help on the initial massive demand for the cubes, the transition period would be much less of a pain.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#687 - 2011-11-08 07:04:33 UTC
Why not give the faction towers a buff by letting them use 1/2 the fuel of normal towers? For example, normal small towers would consume 2 fuel blocks per hour, while faction small towers would consume only one. Pretty simple change, I would think.

Is this fair? Given the rather steep price difference between a faction tower and a normal tower, yes, I think so. Besides, the buff would likely push the faction tower prices even higher.

And, no, I do not own a faction tower - I own a normal tower, and yet I would not complain if CCP gave this buff to faction towers.

Apologies, if this has already been suggested and bashed - I was too lazy to read through all of the previous posts.... :)
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#688 - 2011-11-08 07:07:07 UTC
blog wrote:
We stuck with small numbers of blocks and no fuel use bonus on faction towers because dealing with small numbers of blocks makes starbases in general easier to use

Why not just have it so that every 4th "tick" (counted from onlining) the faction towers DO NOT consume fuel at all ?
It effectively grants you back the -25% fuel use bonus, and in 99.99% of cases there is no practical difference.

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
Momoro
#689 - 2011-11-08 07:07:49 UTC
Raid'En wrote:
Momoro wrote:

2. Do not include liquid ozone / heavy water in the blocks. Keep that separate for now due to economic issues)

i'm extremaly against this idea.
if you don't include everything, the block idea lose most if it's sense. the goal is to make things easier. if part of it is inside and part is not, it would be a hassle, maybe even more than before...

as i said before, i'm mostly for adding these at less than 100% value, and at a volume way smaller.


My main concern in my original post was the economic impact of the change, and my initial solution was to keep things nearly identical to the old system. Unfortunately, that would mean that liquid ozone and and heavy water would not be able to be included.

For a while now, heavy water has been very inexpensive. I'm not certain if this is due to less demand or higher supply. If it is a demand issue, then this change would increase the price considerably. While heavy water could be reduced in the fuel blocks, how much would you reduce it by to introduce as little economic perturbation as possible?
Liu Ellens
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#690 - 2011-11-08 07:16:52 UTC
I haven't had a hand on assembly arrays yet, so help me with this one please:

For me a typical fuel run for a tower is done once a week and may even be done every two or three weeks - and be done with it.
Assuming I'd like to produce these blocks with an assembly array - how often do I have to feed this Tamagotchi then - i.e., what's their cargo bay size?

Well, they oughta know what to do with them hogs out there for shure.
Cur
Back Door Burglars
#691 - 2011-11-08 07:18:24 UTC
wouldent creating a script that actively seeks out current ONLINE pos's with fuel and converts as much fuel as it can into the new type - counting that you have enough fuel in the bay to make at least 1 block - be more efficient?

Yes - it will probably take a few hours.

Yes - i will probably stop alot of people whom ignore the forum's from a big slap in the face surprise

Yes, it will even ruin my evil plans , but hey... you can do it, dont be lazy now!
Dracus Algor
Deliberate Means
By Deliberate Means
#692 - 2011-11-08 07:19:30 UTC
Many pos owners know me from the POS FunTime channel. I've been helping people get started and figure out their pos problems for over 3 years now.

This is going to backfire. as many have stated ... it adds a step, complicating things. manufacturing means training and research, pushing it further from new players.... new players also wont be able to afford the start-up or maintenance costs.


all that aside ... the real problem isn't the number of fuels .... it's the math and the lack of monitoring....

A) THE MATH ISSUE - each tower has a high school algebra test with 10 to 15 equations. (the main problem)

B) THE API ISSUE - the API does not provide the hourly requirements (only the levels) .... so simple scripts or api enabled spreadsheets are out of the question.... they have to be complicated database driven apps ... that need to have a complete list of towers / arrays to compensate. (very few that actually work are available)

C) THE LACK OF MONITORING - without an API enabled app of some kind ... there is no way to check on your towers without visiting them. There needs to be a tab in the science panel that doesn't just show the fuel needed .... BUT ACTUALLY HAS A FUEL CALCULATOR BASED ON HAULER SIZE!!!!! ...... [[[ALL PROBLEMS SOLVED]]]



I get the approach ... it's an attempt to make fueling idiot proof .... and there are plenty of other pos complications that will make their lives miserable if they can't handle fueling.

the POS system needs a nice remote monitor built into the science panel.... with a calculator ... and all the issues can be addressed...


however if you do go this route CCP ..... (the pos system will still need a remote monitor btw) .... why not do this


1 batch = 8 cubes (based on the fuel requirement of a small tower)

Hourly Rates

small = 8 cubes
small faction sov = 5 cubes ( tier1 = -1 / tier2 = -2 / sov = -1)

medium = 16 cubes
med faction sov = 12 cubes (tier1 = -1 / tier2 = -2 / sov = -2)

large = 32 cubes
lrg faction sov = 24 cubes (tier1 = -2 / tier2 = -4 / sov = -4)


this model also has the added benefit of increasing demand for robotics.



THE POS SYSTEM STILL NEEDS A REMOTE MONITOR
and of course warp-cloaky transports need more cargo space and the cubes need to be CONSIDERABLY SMALLER than the fuel
mkint
#693 - 2011-11-08 07:26:19 UTC  |  Edited by: mkint
Momoro wrote:
Raid'En wrote:
Momoro wrote:

2. Do not include liquid ozone / heavy water in the blocks. Keep that separate for now due to economic issues)

i'm extremaly against this idea.
if you don't include everything, the block idea lose most if it's sense. the goal is to make things easier. if part of it is inside and part is not, it would be a hassle, maybe even more than before...

as i said before, i'm mostly for adding these at less than 100% value, and at a volume way smaller.


My main concern in my original post was the economic impact of the change, and my initial solution was to keep things nearly identical to the old system. Unfortunately, that would mean that liquid ozone and and heavy water would not be able to be included.

For a while now, heavy water has been very inexpensive. I'm not certain if this is due to less demand or higher supply. If it is a demand issue, then this change would increase the price considerably. While heavy water could be reduced in the fuel blocks, how much would you reduce it by to introduce as little economic perturbation as possible?

No matter what, including HW/LO in the blocks will create bottlenecks in the market. Bottlenecks skyrocket the price of one material while destroying the prices of everything else, and is completely unacceptable. It's an absolute failure of T3 production, moon mining, and probably others I haven't weeded out and they want to introduce it to yet more of the game. IRL there would be scientific innovation to remove such bottlenecks, and they do not last long. To introduce new arbitrary bottlenecks into an established system is ludicrous. Makes me wonder if CCP fired their PHD economist, or if he's mostly just a bookkeeper in the accounting department.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Kim Lesley Hartman
Hartman Ornamental Confectionery and Pies
#694 - 2011-11-08 07:30:53 UTC
Quote:
Every other structure not already mentioned in this list now takes 5 seconds to anchor/unanchor and 3 seconds to online/offline


Can somebody tell me if that includes the actual towers?

(may have been answered already but can't read to 35 pages atm)
Dracus Algor
Deliberate Means
By Deliberate Means
#695 - 2011-11-08 07:34:05 UTC
Did I mention that it screws people who know what they are doing an unknowable number of ways .....


I think I mentioned that ..... I think some others may have as well.....


I'd lol if I could
Trouble Tomahawk
The Hidden Stars
#696 - 2011-11-08 07:34:38 UTC
CCP it seems that the demand for POS fuel is going down hill with these new changes so... Please refund my PI SP. Dunno why i need to invest so much SP on PI if its going to be this useless. No more PI for me then.

And btw please refund my faction pos too. This way everybody wins.
Preston Vane
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#697 - 2011-11-08 07:35:35 UTC
In case no one came up with this yet:

As a solution for the lower fuel cost on faction towers, or within sov, it'd be possible to simply prolong the period of time one batch of blocks can fuel the POS, e.g. if a standard tower consumes 4 blocks for an hour let it's faction version consume 4 blocks every 1:15h. That'd solve both the problem of lower intended fuel consumption and longer overall fueled time without increasing the fuelbay of faction POS.
Dracus Algor
Deliberate Means
By Deliberate Means
#698 - 2011-11-08 07:40:46 UTC
Preston Vane wrote:
In case no one came up with this yet:

As a solution for the lower fuel cost on faction towers, or within sov, it'd be possible to simply prolong the period of time one batch of blocks can fuel the POS, e.g. if a standard tower consumes 4 blocks for an hour let it's faction version consume 4 blocks every 1:15h. That'd solve both the problem of lower intended fuel consumption and longer overall fueled time without increasing the fuelbay of faction POS.




Every few pages someone suggests that .... towers are tied into hourly cycles and would require massive overhaul to do that.... the only viable solution along those lines is to skip a tick every 4th cycle .... and that doesnt work out well
Wadaya
Trailerpark Industries
#699 - 2011-11-08 07:46:04 UTC
Akita T wrote:
blog wrote:
We stuck with small numbers of blocks and no fuel use bonus on faction towers because dealing with small numbers of blocks makes starbases in general easier to use

Why not just have it so that every 4th "tick" (counted from onlining) the faction towers DO NOT consume fuel at all ?
It effectively grants you back the -25% fuel use bonus, and in 99.99% of cases there is no practical difference.



The easiest implementation I see could use already existing framework with another item type, those being the RAM and R.db tools used in T2 construction.

This way, you can keep the new format of 1, 2, 4 pellets with 100% "damage per run", and give the faction/sovreignty bonuses with 70 or 80% "damage per run" or whatever percentage seems appropriate, and everyone is happy.
Bilaz
Duck and Finch
#700 - 2011-11-08 07:46:36 UTC
This is nice and all, but if we are talking about pos structures - second thing that comes in mind after stupidly long timers - need to manually load guns with ammo. Not like its soo hard to make lifelong ammo deposit while building stuff or someway transport ammo from tower - because even med death star have to have 20+ guns (and another 20+ guns after pos have been reinforced) - and thats a LOT of flying and micro management.

and on another note i'm more concerned about little guy - who owns 1 or 2 pos and struggling to keep them online. this fuel changes say "**** you" to him - because now he cannot save money by having less stuff and/on pos or by buing faction tower. And those folks who run millions of pos - **** them twice for all i care - effort to keep much poses up and running is what keeps huge alliances from taking even more space and consume even more moonstuff.