These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
100 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
 

Dev blog: Building better Worlds

First post First post First post
Author
#21 - 2014-04-15 14:55:06 UTC
I am not seeing the market group icon screen shot and instead am only seeing a duplicate of the removal of Extra Materials screen shot?

Only me or issue?
#22 - 2014-04-15 14:55:24 UTC
Will you still require a wardec to attack a POS?
C C P Alliance
#23 - 2014-04-15 14:55:36 UTC
This stuff is awesome, and I don't even industry! Great job folks!

CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0

@CCP_Lebowski

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#24 - 2014-04-15 14:56:55 UTC
Interesting.

I'll put in more comments later, when I'm not at work, though I'll really need to see the other devblogs, before my comments can be particularly coherent.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

#25 - 2014-04-15 14:57:06 UTC
Very, very, very interesting.

Things I wonder:

  1. That "Teams" tab on the screenshot is intriguing.
  2. The material changes are welcome. It'll cut down on a lot of confusion and hassle.
  3. Will the new scale for line changes make POS manufacturing competitive? I've always found it odd that high-sec POSes weren't better at manufacturing from a cost standpoint.

Certified purveyor of the High Life.

C C P Alliance
#26 - 2014-04-15 14:58:09 UTC
Garth of Izar wrote:
how does this effect locked down BPOs? Can't lock down at a POS AFAIK


Yes, we had a look at that as well. Allowing people to lock blueprints down in Starbases with current vote / lock mechanics would not be a good idea, so it won't be possible for now.
CCP Engineering Alliance
#27 - 2014-04-15 14:58:40 UTC
Aerieth wrote:
I am not seeing the market group icon screen shot and instead am only seeing a duplicate of the removal of Extra Materials screen shot?

Only me or issue?


Not just you, we are looking into this.

Feel free to poke me on: Twitter

Coalition of the Unfortunate
#28 - 2014-04-15 14:58:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentient Blade
So "lockdown blueprints" now becomes almost entirely useless? We will also have to move those blueprints between multiple hangers when we're using the assembly items, and goodbye to things such as remote filtering and such?

*Scratches head* ... was this designed by someone in photoshop and outlook by any chance? Thus ignoring such trivial things as... ease of use.

I have no earthly idea why a BPO needs to be moved to a starbase in order to use it, when all of us indy types have deliberately trained skills to avoid having to do that, to manage them all centrally (like anyone in real life would do).

Fix things like batch creation.
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2014-04-15 14:59:11 UTC
Will there be unavoidable manufacturing / research fees in 0.0 stations? Or are they going to get that for free like they get free repairs?
Cynosural Field Theory.
#30 - 2014-04-15 15:01:14 UTC
I feel like there will now be even more High Sec POSes due to the removal of the standings requirement. This will inevitably lead to more people setting up and abandoning towers. Will there be any consideration for how to remove these large high sec towers that have been abandoned? It can be pretty disheartening to go set up a new tower only to find out that most moons are occupied by abandoned towers that would take a massive BS fleet hours to take out.

Messiene
#31 - 2014-04-15 15:02:20 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Garth of Izar wrote:
how does this effect locked down BPOs? Can't lock down at a POS AFAIK


Yes, we had a look at that as well. Allowing people to lock blueprints down in Starbases with current vote / lock mechanics would not be a good idea, so it won't be possible for now.


This sounds almost as well thought through as ...

...World of Darkness.
Brothers of Tangra
#32 - 2014-04-15 15:02:34 UTC
So capital and super bpo's give us some idea around how they will work?
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2014-04-15 15:02:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Grarr Dexx
Canine Fiend wrote:
I feel like there will now be even more High Sec POSes due to the removal of the standings requirement. This will inevitably lead to more people setting up and abandoning towers. Will there be any consideration for how to remove these large high sec towers that have been abandoned? It can be pretty disheartening to go set up a new tower only to find out that most moons are occupied by abandoned towers that would take a massive BS fleet hours to take out.



Not just in high-sec, anywhere else as well. It takes far too much effort to take down a large caldari tower compared to the minimal expenditure in putting it up. Why does an offline tower still have 100% shields? It makes no sense.
Caldari State
#34 - 2014-04-15 15:03:19 UTC
Quote:
Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original.

Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention.
#35 - 2014-04-15 15:03:36 UTC
"Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements "
Not to be rude but i think removing the standing requirement is stupid. You're basically telling those that actually grinded for the standings "Thanks but it was a waste of your time!" I hope there is some form of a return or something for this because you're about to put the last nail in the coffin for missions/epic arcs and so forth.
C C P Alliance
#36 - 2014-04-15 15:04:35 UTC
Aerieth wrote:
I am not seeing the market group icon screen shot and instead am only seeing a duplicate of the removal of Extra Materials screen shot?

Only me or issue?

Thank you for the notification, this (and a typo) has been fixed now.

CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer

Goonswarm Federation
#37 - 2014-04-15 15:04:54 UTC
Sarin Gaston wrote:
"Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements "
Not to be rude but i think removing the standing requirement is stupid. You're basically telling those that actually grinded for the standings "Thanks but it was a waste of your time!" I hope there is some form of a return or something for this because you're about to put the last nail in the coffin for missions/epic arcs and so forth.

it was a waste of your time

the correct solution is an apology and axing that atrocious mechanic forever not "well sarin gaston had to do it once so we must have everyone suffer equally"

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#38 - 2014-04-15 15:07:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
Aelisha wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Aelisha wrote:
How will this affect Outposts in null-sec? Will they retain slot cap or gain some other feature?


We've plans for this, and this will be mentioned in the job cost scaling blog.


Your rapid feedback is appreciated and I look forwards to it. As a small corporation/alliance working towards null-industry we are eager to be a part of this renovation of a long-ailing system.

Keep up the good work.


Not empty quoting.

Also, industrial expansion is a go!

Removal of standings and sec status limit for anchoring POSes in hisec is a great idea. I whole-heartedly support it. Removal of slots and replacing with a scaling cost sounds like a great market-based mechanic, rather than arbitrary slot limits. I am eagerly awaiting the next blog on costs, and how the station upgrades (more slots / offices) will work. Are those upgrades going to be worth anything anymore? Will station owners be able to set the base cost, scale, flat cost, or other parameters?

I like it here. It's exciting!

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Goonswarm Federation
#39 - 2014-04-15 15:08:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Mashie Saldana
This seems nice.

So we can fnally do batch installation of blueprints????
#40 - 2014-04-15 15:08:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Xaniff
1. Please say those new images in the blueprint Get Info aren't here to stay. I rather like the text-driven tabs.

2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).

3. If there's no lockdown available for blueprints, that's going to seriously up the risk of hauling out stuff like capital component BPOs to the station that are pretty much required non-stop in ship production.

4. While you're redoing the arrays and research facilities, could you add in folders or some sort of container so we can better sort through whose stuff is whose instead of having to rely on a complicated shell game of corporate divisions? Edit: Though judging by that screenshot, it looks like that might have already been considered.
100 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
Forum Jump