These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 tweaks: an update

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#161 - 2011-11-25 04:14:51 UTC
Dario Kaelenter wrote:

And WHY would Thukker bother making fuel blocks for other races ... ok maybe they would still help Gallente but surely they would delay and avoid making similar product for Enemy races just to get their people a technological advantage Twisted


It does make one wonder - a suggestion might be (for the sellers of the fuel block BPOs):

Amarr Fuel Block BPO - HZO Refinery and Joint Harvesting
Caldari Fuel Block BPO - Poksu Mineral Group and Ishukone Corporation
Gallente Fuel Block BPO - Astral Mining and Material Acquisition
Minmatar Fuel Block BPO - Thukker Mix and Minmatar Mining Corporation

(Based on corps that have L4 mining agents.)
Sassums
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#162 - 2011-11-25 05:31:05 UTC
Sassums wrote:
While for face value this update to POS's looks great, but when you dig down a bit, I do hope you aren't pulling what the NGE did to SWG. Please don't dumb to game down to drawn more players. Companies have tried that, and failed miserably.


Generally speaking, we want to keep the deep complexity in core systems that make the game mechanically interesting, but we also want people to spend as much time as possible interacting with other people (because they're the most interesting "content" we have avaliable). We'd generally like to find ways to spend less time on mechanical tasks - through streamlining or, where acceptable, simplification - so they can spend more time dealing with people.[/quote]

Thanks! I appreciate the response and totally understand. Just don't want into another game and then have an NGE.

What is the reasoning behind not allowing the tower to online/offline more than one thing at a time? With this new expansion it'll be significantly quicker but I still assume I am not able to online/offline more than 1 item at a time.
ZaBob
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#163 - 2011-11-25 07:42:11 UTC
Salpun wrote:
Wiki page is up with new changes and a list of prices and where to get them.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/CustomsOffice


Did you mean to post this in the Player-owned Customs Office thread, or did you mean to post a different link?

I'm guessing you meant to post in the other thread; the only Fuel Pellet page is just the CSM item with no real content.

Thanks, though, either way.
Icarus Helia
State War Academy
Caldari State
#164 - 2011-11-25 07:52:32 UTC
Dario Kaelenter wrote:
L0v3r b0y wrote:
Dario Kaelenter wrote:


When the additional POS upgrades come along I hope they are spectacular so we finally get more for our isk than a big piñata in space to attract Capital/BS & Logi blobs Roll
Agree with this point completely!

As far as the rest of it goes, I Like! these changes. It does make it easier for my hauling monkeys to just "stuff as many gallente blocks into a Gallente/Serpentis tower as possible."

As far as the whining about hauling ice, why are you hauling ice? I haul compressed! ice! That is, if i don't mine it in system or next door. There's this wonderful new ship called the "Rorqual", might want to check it out...


Yeah for mining the ice in Lo sec or Null sec (not WH) then Rorqual is great (we can make em so more business for us!!) and that would likely be feeding POSs in Lo and Null sec.

Doesn't work so well in a WH and in Empire! Many R&D corps would mine or buy close by and haul once to POS.

In General I like the block idea IF there is a benefit to offset the extra work in :

    *Less Hauling

    *Lower or no change in cost


This "upgrade" provides generally an increase in cost and more hauling!

Many ppl here are engaging mouths b4 brains and saying "Oh the fuels blocks are less hauling" tho they don't come out of thin air and if they THINK about the production cycle and costs involved they may realise it's gonna cost them more in isk and hauling somewhere in that process. They either get to haul less and pay more or pay less and haul more.

The HW/LO portion should have been set at a lower amount than the maximum possible to be consumed at present as I'm sure that a very large number of POSs don't have CPU and PG running 24/7 maxed out. For many this will represent a haul more and pay more scenario. CCP should be able to run the numbers or maybe they have and just decided inflation is good.
Maybe they should be politicians!!

I think the portion should have been more like 100/100 to make it more balanced and easier to calculate (4 Empire ice blocks for the LO and 2 for the HW). That way there would still be an increase in Ice Product business and also less of a cost increase for POS owners.

Especially as this is closely following the PI changes with increases in costs ... double tax in Hi sec and more than tripple in lo sec on the Interbus PCOC's (17% rate on SISI currently)


PS - Tip for posters ... COPY ya post b4 ya PREVIEW lol


you obviously did not read my post

Icarus Helia wrote:


For all panicing high-sec bear-POS owners

Please quit panicking...please. your costs are going to go DOWN. here is a breakdown currently on standard minmatar towers (most relevant to me - racial iso has no bearing in this argument)

BTW - this assumes 100% CPU and 10% PG usage (for all of you "efficient" POS owners)

Large Tower - Current Cost/30 days = 347mil ISK. New Cost = 363m ISK (equal at 50%PG usage)
Medium Tower - current = 202mil ISK. New = 182mil ISK
Small Tower - current = 129mil ISK. New = 91mil ISK

PS - if you aren't using all the PG and CPU you possibly can, then you aren't being efficient. the cost of all the other materials dwarfs the cost of LO/HW on all tower sizes and you should be ashamed that you weren't putting those other mats to good use by employing the maximum possible heavy water and liquid ozone usage. Also - small and medium towers are getting a cost reduction even at 0% usage of PG AND CPU

PPS - for the m3 people calling for reduced size to represent roughly 80% PG and CPU usage - they already did that.

228.5m3/hr at 100%
204.5m3/hr at 80%


Your costs will go down if you own anything other than a large tower using less than 50% of its power grid.
HW/LO usage volume compensated for by reducing fuel requirement M3 hour to reflect 80%/80% usage, or 100%/60% usage. If that bar is set too high then your POS probably deserves to fail. haul compressed ice to your central production facility if you have more than one tower - low hauling requirements, and Ice refines at 100% at pos refinery arrays which now have short online/offline times.

Also - if your margins are so low that your "efficient" large tower can't absorb about a 20m ISK per month increase by simply charging a little more for the product, or writing the ISK off - you need to rethink your production/research strategy - because you are doing something gravely wrong, and it is a miracle that you can afford to even fuel the pos to begin with.

Why you no care?
ZaBob
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#165 - 2011-11-25 08:00:42 UTC
L0v3r b0y wrote:
Sassums wrote:
While for face value this update to POS's looks great, but when you dig down a bit, I do hope you aren't pulling what the NGE did to SWG. Please don't dumb to game down to drawn more players. Companies have tried that, and failed miserably.

It seems CCP takes the easy way out of some issues, such as the ECM Exploit you had with Magnatar systems in WH space. When will this issue be resolved. Instead of fixing the issue, you simply removed the advantage to the system altogether.

What about faction towers? You had said their drop rate was far too frequent, rather than fixing that up front, you simply remove them from dropping at all. When will they be reintroduced into the game?

When will you give CEO's and POS managers better control over who can access what? If I give someone access to High Slot 1, they can access High Slot 1 on every CHA within the pos. The only way to change this, is to require Config Starbase equipment or fuel manager. But even then, you can only divide up the access so far.

When will we have the ability to divide up the SMA like we do the CHA, to prevent theft among the corp members.

When will we have better logs on who is doing what within the POS, to allow us to catch thieves in the act?


Whoa. What an excellent idea. An audit trail of who has removed what, and from what CHA's. Assinging a CHA to one member, or a particilaur group of members, so that not everyone who has access to ANY CHA can steal my shinies from it. Further, wouldn't it be nice to do the same thing with SMA's so that only 1-2 (or more, on your tastes) can steal the corp freighter, instead of anyone? And not just at POS's. The audit trail for Corp Hangars in stations would be nice too.


I worry that this will get forgotten, in a thread on fuel pellets. But anyway...

It's not just a matter of theft. I'm often left wondering -- "Is that MY shiny?" Or "I put a stack of shinies in there, but the stack is larger now." or "Which stack of shinies is mine?" I've abandoned stuff, just to avoid the risk of accidentally stealing a corpmate's stuff.

Many things could help this. An audit trail would at least let the question be answered by someone with sufficient access to read the audit log. Making CHAs and SHA's individually partitionable, and assign role-based access (not pre-defined roles, but roles that include individuals or any group of individuals you choose to define) would make it quite flexible.

Or you could have an access setting, where people can see just what they put in, and not anybody else's stuff.

I wonder if there might not be a significant performance advantage to any of these. Currently, it takes a painful length of time to open up our SHA or CHA, or our GSC of bookmarks. If SHAs and CHAs were partitioned so pilots saw just what they should have access to, the database queries would return fewer results, which might reduce database load, and whatever process sends that off to the client, and network bandwidth as well. Probably only the first is significant.
ZaBob
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2011-11-25 08:31:46 UTC  |  Edited by: ZaBob
Icarus Helia wrote:

PPS - for the m3 people calling for reduced size to represent roughly 80% PG and CPU usage - they already did that.

228.5m3/hr at 100%
204.5m3/hr at 80%


At first, I thought you meant they'd made a further adjustment, and I went back and reread all of CCP Greyscale's posts, didn't find it, and finally figured out what you meant.

You're referring to the fact that the fuel pellets are more compact than the sum of all the fuels, right? And that level is consonant with a 80% PG/CPU level.

Agreed. But that also assumes hauling all fuels, which is an unrealistic assumption for many of us.

I may be one of the m3 people, but I'm not calling for 80%.

At around 150 m3/hr, it starts to save me time to haul fuel pellets. At 100 m3/hr, it becomes significant.

If I were hauling the entire fuel load from Jita, I'd be happy enough with this change. That seems to be the group this change was designed to please.
Eperor
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#167 - 2011-11-25 08:49:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Eperor
Size of blocks are to big still, and iots no change to houling amaount wath wie ned to to do, total size need to be for large tower so that its posible bring it with one houler not 10 haulers total m3 need to be 25k m3 per 30 days. curently it is like more than 100k m3 for 30 days calculate your self.

40 per hour 5m3 per block, hour usage is 200m3
per day that is 200 x 24 = 4800 per day
per week 4800x7= 33600
per month 33600x4=134400m3

i wuld lowe that that decreased 10 times one block need to be 0,5 m3 not 5m3 that wil inpact our POS fueler live not make it misireble how it is now.

and decrerase a fuel bay size to on this mader thati ts posible to trow in it 14000 for large tower.

Ader ways that make no change atall ok lees brain ting but the same houling amount.
Neo Agricola
Gallente Federation
#168 - 2011-11-25 09:31:49 UTC
Eperor wrote:
Size of blocks are to big still, and iots no change to houling amaount wath wie ned to to do, total size need to be for large tower so that its posible bring it with one houler not 10 haulers total m3 need to be 25k m3 per 30 days. curently it is like more than 100k m3 for 30 days calculate your self.

40 per hour 5m3 per block, hour usage is 200m3
per day that is 200 x 24 = 4800 per day
per week 4800x7= 33600
per month 33600x4=134400m3

i wuld lowe that that decreased 10 times one block need to be 0,5 m3 not 5m3 that wil inpact our POS fueler live not make it misireble how it is now.

and decrerase a fuel bay size to on this mader thati ts posible to trow in it 14000 for large tower.

Ader ways that make no change atall ok lees brain ting but the same houling amount.

QFT

DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710
Celgar Thurn
Department 10
#169 - 2011-11-25 10:33:43 UTC
Several posts continue to mention doing ME research on the Fuel Block BPO. ME research does NOT reduce the amounts needed of planetary interaction derived materials on any BPOs. I presume it will reduce the amount of ice products required though.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#170 - 2011-11-25 10:49:49 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Fuel block BPOs still not seeded on Singularity. Definitely not showing up at Thukker Mix factories (not even the Minmatar Fuel Block BPO).

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/npc/Thukker_Mix/stations

(Research time for ME/PE research is 3h 20m as a base, which looks correct. Same ME time as the various Ammo BPOs such as EMP L. Base waste factor on the fuel block BPOs is 5% with a 300 max runs per BPC.)


Confirming this, but it's just because the seeding hasn't been done yet. Shouldn't be anything to worry about.




To address most of the rest of the discussion, we're not reducing the volume on fuel blocks at this time. Sorry.

- This change is not intended to address volume issues in logistics, it's intended to address specific inventory management/manipulation headaches in the current system.

- I appreciate that this changes the status quo for wormhole towers, but running long-term towers in wormholes has never been a "supported feature", in the sense that we haven't explicitly designed for it in either positive or negative ways. The existence of long-term occupation of WH systems by players is an emergent behavior of the system, that we very much applaud, but don't have an explicit design policy for. Until we sit down and decide how to properly "balance" this aspect of gameplay, we're generally tending towards not explicitly designing with wormhole towers in mind, and assuming that the player ingenuity that got these towers up and running in the first place will deal with any minor curveballs we throw at it. Insofaras we have even a proto-policy about settled wormholes, I'd say "it's not supposed to be easy" is near the top of the non-list Smile
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#171 - 2011-11-25 10:52:18 UTC
Celgar Thurn wrote:
Several posts continue to mention doing ME research on the Fuel Block BPO. ME research does NOT reduce the amounts needed of planetary interaction derived materials on any BPOs. I presume it will reduce the amount of ice products required though.

You are wrong, there is waste on PI materials in these BPOs as currently on Sisi. The waste is 5% so the only affected material is Oxygen, but it's there. The waste in a ME0 BPO is:


  • 1 Oxygen.
  • 8 Liquid Ozone.
  • 8 Heavy Water.
  • 20 Isotopes.

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
Neo Agricola
Gallente Federation
#172 - 2011-11-25 10:57:02 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
..

To address most of the rest of the discussion, we're not reducing the volume on fuel blocks at this time. Sorry.


Thx for your reply.

i like the bold part...

DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#173 - 2011-11-25 11:13:42 UTC
Neo Agricola wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
..

To address most of the rest of the discussion, we're not reducing the volume on fuel blocks at this time. Sorry.


Thx for your reply.

i like the bold part...


If I could accurately predict the future, I'd have already retired to a private island in the Caribbean Smile
nardaq
Orion Expeditions
#174 - 2011-11-25 11:41:50 UTC  |  Edited by: nardaq
Your able to get info on all online towers and get the average LO and HW consumption on it? I'm curious on the difference
compared to the 150/150 it will be @ the fuel block
Dario Kaelenter
ACME HARDWARE
Exxitium
#175 - 2011-11-25 12:29:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Dario Kaelenter
Icarus Helia wrote:


you obviously did not read my post



You obviously didn't read mine !

And yeah I am talking Large R&D POS
And I also have had experience with Mediums and Lo sec Large and WH Large (why even risk putting up anything other here !?)

Hi sec we only really use HW for Labs so LO use is pretty minimal 50 to 60 p hr
Others vary depending on the climate and objective of the week pretty much.

And this is kinda like deciding to tax everyone at the highest rate cause we feel like a change ... it that happened then you bet ppl would protest and it would get nasty !

Sure it's not real $$ tho as per my calcs we have faced 3 fold increases already in fuel costs with CCP's cool new Features™ it's more time and effort that needs to be put into chores that would rather go on fun stuff that they to encourage us into.
And I'm sure it won't just be us passing on the increased costs so I'm just thinking along the chain to the PVPers who already moan about how much boring stuff they have to do to afford the cool ships that are just going up and up in price.
Eperor
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#176 - 2011-11-25 13:01:36 UTC
Dario Kaelenter wrote:
Icarus Helia wrote:


you obviously did not read my post



You obviously didn't read mine !

And yeah I am talking Large R&D POS
And I also have had experience with Mediums and Lo sec Large and WH Large (why even risk putting up anything other here !?)

Hi sec we only really use HW for Labs so LO use is pretty minimal 50 to 60 p hr
Others vary depending on the climate and objective of the week pretty much.

And this is kinda like deciding to tax everyone at the highest rate cause we feel like a change ... it that happened then you bet ppl would protest and it would get nasty !

Sure it's not real $$ tho as per my calcs we have faced 3 fold increases already in fuel costs with CCP's cool new Features™ it's more time and effort that needs to be put into chores that would rather go on fun stuff that they to encourage us into.
And I'm sure it won't just be us passing on the increased costs so I'm just thinking along the chain to the PVPers who already moan about how much boring stuff they have to do to afford the cool ships that are just going up and up in price.


heere you right ships wil go up defently allready going slowly but going.
Romandra
These are not the droids you're looking for
#177 - 2011-11-25 13:14:30 UTC
Largo Coronet wrote:
Am I blind, or has there been no CCP response in this thread to the loss of sovereignty bonuses? And if there hasn't been, could we please get one?


You are blind. CCP stated in this thread that the sov fuel bonus will remain.
Aluminy
Stargazer Exploration Company
#178 - 2011-11-25 13:50:46 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

To address most of the rest of the discussion, we're not reducing the volume on fuel blocks at this time. Sorry.

- This change is not intended to address volume issues in logistics, it's intended to address specific inventory management/manipulation headaches in the current system.

- I appreciate that this changes the status quo for wormhole towers, but running long-term towers in wormholes has never been a "supported feature", in the sense that we haven't explicitly designed for it in either positive or negative ways. The existence of long-term occupation of WH systems by players is an emergent behavior of the system, that we very much applaud, but don't have an explicit design policy for. Until we sit down and decide how to properly "balance" this aspect of gameplay, we're generally tending towards not explicitly designing with wormhole towers in mind, and assuming that the player ingenuity that got these towers up and running in the first place will deal with any minor curveballs we throw at it. Insofaras we have even a proto-policy about settled wormholes, I'd say "it's not supposed to be easy" is near the top of the non-list Smile


while i agree 100% with the bold part...

i do have friends and corp mates in a wh and hate to see WH players getting screwed~ while 110% of the people i personally know in a wh are lookin forward to this change it just goes to show you how WH'ers get zero love! its next to impossible to get a voice for them into the csm cause everyone cries bout nullsec (being a nullsec dweller myself)...

but meh... wh dwellers are made of more resilient stuff i guess
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#179 - 2011-11-25 15:01:23 UTC
I really don't care for this new feature. The blocks add complexity to a routine chore in game. Complexity is fine and good, just not to routine CHORES.

But I will say, players having to be ready for this change without some automated seemless switchover from CCP is pretty cool. Means people need to be on top of the game, paying attention. For those that don't it's certain disaster. There's going to be an awful lot of towers in w-space that are going to go offline. I'm looking forward to scooping up lots of goodies. Hangars and SMA's are going to become veritable pinata's in space.

Thanks CCP!

Don't ban me, bro!
Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
#180 - 2011-11-25 15:30:04 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Insofaras we have even a proto-policy about settled wormholes, I'd say "it's not supposed to be easy" is near the top of the non-list Smile
Good to hear. It's indeed not easy having a permanent presence in a wormhole, but that's the challenge. Please let it stay that way.

Aluminy wrote:
but meh... wh dwellers are made of more resilient stuff i guess
Yes, yes we are......Blink

As for the rest:
-Alt in Thukker Mix station: check
-Component assembly array anchored at POS: check
-A month worth of extra fuel (on top of the regular buffer) to start immediate production: check
-Reserved research slots in Lab for ME and PE research on second and third BPO: check
-Alt in Jita with blockade runner for emergency fuel runs as backup: check

I think we got it covered.

Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format. Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......