These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev blog: Building better Worlds

First post First post First post
Author
Minmatar Republic
#81 - 2014-04-15 15:50:03 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
Squelch wrote:
Soz if this has already been mentioned, but where you mention the new R.A.M requirements (in your example, you'll need 60 R.A.M where you needed 1 before), that will effectivley de-value any current stocks of R.A.M by a huge amount (example, 60 times less valuable).

Will existing stocks be multiplied to compensate, or is this something that players with R.A.M stocks will just have to deal with?

Additionally, will existing sources of R.A.M items have their drop quantities increased?


but won't it make them more valuable by increasing demand ?

sorry if it's a basic question, but I don't really get involved in the industrial side of eve.
except as a consumer of end products.



Nope, Here is a simple example (not real numbers)

Currently to construct Frigate A, you need 1 unit of R.A.M as input material.
1 unit of R.A.M costs 600k
Frigate A sells on the market anything higher than 600k to make a profit.

After the change, you now need 60 units of R.A.M as input materials to build the same frigate A.
2 things can happen now.

1)
The Frigate sell price stays the same, which means the approxomate build price must be the same.
Your 60 R.A.M units are worth 600k, totalling 10k each.
The price of 1 R.A.M unit has dropped from 600k to 10k.

2)
The price of R.A.M stays the same, and the sell price of Frigate A shoots upwards.
Frigate A is built out of 60 R.A.M at 600k each, totalling 36million ISK.
Frigate A must now be sold for more that 36mil to be profitable. Before it was 600k


#82 - 2014-04-15 15:50:16 UTC  |  Edited by: David Magnus
Theng Hofses wrote:
These changes make sense when industry is done as a hobby. When industry is done on an industrial scale, the proposed changes become a nightmare.


Theng is totally right.
Having to constantly physically move thousands of blueprints around to your dozens of POSes will be a nightmare after this. And it's not even just moving an item from station to POS, but it's managing the items in all your individual POS arrays.

Not to mention the fact that you can't lockdown BPOs in POSes.

I'm not even a major industrialist and I have over a hundred BPOs and thousands of BPCs. This is adding so much additional and unnecessary work.

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/fight-us-maybe

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/winterupdate

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/supercaps

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/pandemiclegion

Amarr Empire
#83 - 2014-04-15 15:50:29 UTC
Will there be fees for building in 0.0 or can they just set them all to 0? Is there going to be any point to building anything outside of 0.0?
C C P Alliance
#84 - 2014-04-15 15:50:33 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Nullarbor
probag Bear wrote:
Quote:
Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials.


My chief complaint:

I have about 25,000 blueprints and blueprint copies and more than a half-dozen POSes. The only reason I can deal with such a quagmire is because of stations and containers.

Currently, in order to produce a specific item, all I have to do is go to a certain station, open a certain container, and move some of its contents to the station floor.

Under this new system, judging by the way you phrase it ("like other materials"), I would need to do one of two things:

1. Let all my blueprints pile up in various POS arrays, and thus have to scroll through at least hundreds of items every time I start a job.

2. Store all my blueprints in nice organized containers as I do now, and thus every time I start a job be forced to go to every one of my POSes, individually open every single POS array I'm using, scroll to the right container, and remove a simple handful of blueprints each time.

#2 would be a lot more clicks, a lot of downtime as I warp between POSes, and in general a lot of annoyance. Even if the S&I interface is revamped to where I don't need to click the exact same 8 spots on my screen 10 times for every character I own, the amount of time wasted by clunky game mechanics would still increase significantly.

Long story short, when you work on your filtering mechanisms, please keep in mind that many of us manage more than a single POS and definitely more than just a handful of arrays, cycle through several dozen blueprint types rather than only producing Megathrons, and in general go to extremes that you, Developers, may not expect.


You will be able to see all your blueprints in assembly arrays etc and remotely start jobs from containers, so that should cover your use case.

EDIT: There is also a nice search / filter interface, you will get some time on SiSi to give us feedback on how this works before we go live too.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones

Mercenary Coalition
#85 - 2014-04-15 15:52:24 UTC
Also, what about the Labs/Hangars/Arrays; can we get the possibility to get the stuff out of them when the tower is reinforced? I am aware of that you wrote in your novel that people should be active and get the stuff out of the modules during the RF process ... but some people are not online 24/7 or hang around their POS all the time, which puts those who do more than industry in EVE and those who don't put their sleep back into the retirement age at a massive disadvantage.

Do you expect that people take down POS when they go to bed or move to another region to do exploration or mission running?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

#86 - 2014-04-15 15:52:55 UTC
I'm slightly concerned about the removal of standings requirements for high-sec POSes. POS spam is bad, and should be something reserved for high-end industrial corps, not every 1-month old character with Anchoring III and a ton of ISK from selling a PLEX.

Maybe change how those standings requirements are used?

Something like instead of charters as fuel, you're required to pay the soverign empire a certain amount of ISK every month for anchoring rights, or else their navy shows up and blows your POS to hell? That way a corp with mixed members can just pay the fee (opening up high-sec POSes to larger corps that may have diverse members, but consequently, better tax income), while a small, focused corp can still get in the door.

Certified purveyor of the High Life.

C C P Alliance
#87 - 2014-04-15 15:53:33 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
This may be in the cost scaling blog, but will the 0-14% cost increase be reflected in the UI in some way, or will we have to learn this from our spreadsheets?


The new UI will show you the accurate price before you actually install the job.
Plucky Adventurers
#88 - 2014-04-15 15:53:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Two step
Given that you want people to move to POS industry, any chance you can just delete the 8 million different POS factory things and make a more sensible set of them? Give people efficient/fast and just a few sizes, but don't make us anchor 15 different stupid factories and move stuff between then?

Also, as was mentioned above, people *need* to be able to see into their POS inventories remotely, without having to use the API (especially because the assets API is, what, a 6 hour cache time?). The API also currently doesn't return ME/PE levels for BPOs/BPOs, so it isn't a real replacement anyway.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Minmatar Republic
#89 - 2014-04-15 15:54:22 UTC
H3llHound wrote:

One RAM now will become 100 RAM after the patch.


Where did you see this?
The only thing I see in the Devblog is:

Multiply number of R.AM. and R.Db. given for each run of their respective blueprint by 100.
Multiply all R.A.M. and R.Db. job requirements by 100, then further multiply that number by the old damage per run percentage.


That doesn't mention existing stocks.
Federation Uprising
#90 - 2014-04-15 15:55:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Andre Vauban
Overall, I like the changes except removing the faction standings requirement for anchoring POSes in highsec. I think the standing requirement should stay to cut down on the amount of POSes.

I do have a few questions:

-What will the impact be to systems with FW systems upgrade levels? There is now no point to some of the bonuses.

-Can you elaborate on the copy cost in NPC stations?

-Will GMs provide assistance unlocking BPOs? I currently have about 1000 BPOs locked down in a station with my POSes. That system won't be ideal for the new changes and I'm really dreading spending 20+ hours clicking to unlock those BPOs.

-Additionally, will there be changes to the BPO lock/unlock process? I foresee the need to copy a lot of BPOs going forward. This may require moving stations/systems if they become too crowded and the MASSIVE SOUL SUCKING CLICKFEST of locking/unlocking BPOs will prevent me from moving.

-Did you think about the impact to new industrialists? It will really no longer be viable to perform PE/ME research on expensive BPOs. It is too risky for newer players to place them into POSes and it will not be possible to research them in highsec due to high prices and/or long wait times.

.

C C P Alliance
#91 - 2014-04-15 15:55:37 UTC
Squelch wrote:
H3llHound wrote:

One RAM now will become 100 RAM after the patch.


Where did you see this?
The only thing I see in the Devblog is:

Multiply number of R.AM. and R.Db. given for each run of their respective blueprint by 100.
Multiply all R.A.M. and R.Db. job requirements by 100, then further multiply that number by the old damage per run percentage.


That doesn't mention existing stocks.


Confirming this means existing stock including in market orders, contracts etc

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones

C C P Alliance
#92 - 2014-04-15 15:55:48 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
penifSMASH wrote:
How will cost scaling affect industry in conquerable stations? Will there be unlimited manufacturing/research/etc slots like in npc stations? If so will the station owner still be able to set costs of running jobs

Grarr Dexx wrote:
Will there be fees for building in 0.0 or can they just set them all to 0? Is there going to be any point to building anything outside of 0.0?


The cost scaling will affect all build/research locations, including conquerable stations and outposts. All slot limitations are being removed everywhere in EVE, and locations that formerly had slot bonuses will receive other bonuses instead. More info on that will be in future blogs.

Station owners will be able to set part of the cost of running jobs (in the form of taxes), but other parts of the cost will be out of the owner's control. Costs will not ever be able to be set to zero. Again, more info on this will be available in the upcoming blogs.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Goonswarm Federation
#93 - 2014-04-15 15:56:08 UTC  |  Edited by: H3llHound
Squelch wrote:
H3llHound wrote:

One RAM now will become 100 RAM after the patch.


Where did you see this?
The only thing I see in the Devblog is:

Multiply number of R.AM. and R.Db. given for each run of their respective blueprint by 100.
Multiply all R.A.M. and R.Db. job requirements by 100, then further multiply that number by the old damage per run percentage.


That doesn't mention existing stocks.



CCP did the same when they changed the polymer stuff recently so I am only deducing from what they did do already to what they will do.
Caldari State
#94 - 2014-04-15 15:57:24 UTC
I would encourage you to reconsider the copy times change on T2 BPOs. Making copy times shorter than build times on those BPOs is de facto making them even better money printers than (some of them, at least) already are--if a T2 BPO owner used to be able to manufacture 10 items per day, now he will be able to manufacture 12 per day at essentially the same unit cost (yes, I just made those numbers up). This pushes small-scale T2 producers who rely on invention out of business, since the supply from the cheaper T2 BPOs will be increasing.

TL;DR: making copying times shorter than production times for T2 BPOs will concentrate more wealth in the hands of already-wealthy people and hurt small-scale industrialists. Please don't do it.
#95 - 2014-04-15 15:59:01 UTC
Please expose the [recent/latest] per-station job installation cost to external 3rd party tools, whether through CREST or some other way. Most industrialists use out-of-game tools to track manufacturing and profitability, and once the job cost becomes a significant component of production price, profitability calculations will be completely wrong without that datum.

#96 - 2014-04-15 15:59:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
I WANT TO MARRY YOU AND HAVE YOUR CHILDREN!
Yes, the operations will be painful but it will be worth it.


Aaaanyway.

A few immediate things to suggest that have be gnawing at me for years now: the new UI, could you please make it installation-centric rather than blueprint centric? I think this is by far the most annoying thing that creates repeat clicks in the current system, and by the look of your mockup, it'll actually still be there. It's nice that the image shows all the information in one go, but it doesn't look like it solves the actual workflow issue.

The problem is this: you want to manufacture 20 Eagles from 10 BPCs (because you're a bit daft), so you rclick the first BPC → manufacture → select location → accidentally double-click and get an error → accept the error → select a slot → select input/output (because the game doesn't always remember these) → accept → accept, rclick the second BPC → manufacture → select location → accidentally double-click and get an error → accept the error → select a slot → select input/output (because the game still doesn't always remember these) → accept → accept, rclick the third BPC → manufacture → select location → accidentally double-click and get an error → accept the error → select a slot → select input/output (aaargh) → accept → accept … etc. Sever more to go, RSI here we come.

Since everything remains the same for every step, the only thing you should ever have to do is pick a BPC and accept. This means you should be able to pick a location once; pick input and output once; and preferably only click accept once per BP. Also, since you're getting rid of slots, a lot of that selecting should be completely unnecessary now.

Instead, the workflow should be something along the lines of:
Select location → set input/output if you haven't already, and make the game remember this for the rest of its life so the next time, this step isn't even part of the process → get a list of applicable blueprints for this location → drag all 10 blueprints you want to work with onto the stack and see the material requirements count up as you add more → everything checks green? price acceptable? click accept.

By starting with the location instead of the blueprint, you'd get a far more logical and consistent set-up flow for multiple jobs and it would be far easier to collate the results and costs in one place.


A second thing I wonder about is how this will affect POSes? Yes, “we'll soon have the numbers” but I wonder about the cost part of the equation. Since slot count is infinite and replaced by increasing costs, what happens if there is no cost to begin with? Will POS owners now have to pay CONCORD tax to use their own assembly arrays? And with infinite production lines, do you have any plans on adjusting the cargo space so you can actually make use of that production capacity without constantly brushing up against space limitations?

Again, I understand that we'll get the numbers later — I'm just wondering if it is being adjusted. In the same vein, will you make assembly arrays more universal? One of the most annoying things right now is that, regardless of skills, you simply can't remote manufacture properly in a POS — you have to build some components in one place, some on another, and the final product in a third, and you have to be at the POS to move the bits around to the right spot. Again, I suspect that you don't want to dive into the POS code right now, but this more than anything is what keeps complex manufacturing out of POSes and what keeps stations and outposts as the only sane option, with their infinite shared space. If all arrays could at least make use of the same storage space (it doesn't even have to be infinite, just suitably large), be it a corp hangar or some new structure, and use that space as their shared input/output, it would become bearable again.


On the more critical side, I agree with some of the above posters that having to constantly move your blueprints around will be thoroughly annoying for large-scale producers — it's already annoying enough with just having to collect and use BPCs from all your copying labs. This ties into the issue of not being able to share I/O between arrays, so to mass-produce certain goods, you constantly have to flit about carrying the correct BP for the myriad of arrays you want to populate. You generally already have to set up a given POS for a specific task, but this just makes it a lot worse.

Also, as someone mentioned, will the removal of standings requirements (thank you!!!) open up more space in highsec, or is it still an implicit ”midsec” (<0.8) requirement to plunk down a POS?
Pandemic Legion
#97 - 2014-04-15 15:59:10 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
penifSMASH wrote:
How will cost scaling affect industry in conquerable stations? Will there be unlimited manufacturing/research/etc slots like in npc stations? If so will the station owner still be able to set costs of running jobs

Grarr Dexx wrote:
Will there be fees for building in 0.0 or can they just set them all to 0? Is there going to be any point to building anything outside of 0.0?


The cost scaling will affect all build/research locations, including conquerable stations and outposts. All slot limitations are being removed everywhere in EVE, and locations that formerly had slot bonuses will receive other bonuses instead. More info on that will be in future blogs.

Station owners will be able to set part of the cost of running jobs (in the form of taxes), but other parts of the cost will be out of the owner's control. Costs will not ever be able to be set to zero. Again, more info on this will be available in the upcoming blogs.


Where does this mysterious cost go to? Currently, market taxes, clone costs, industry costs and any fees that are station related go to the corp that owns the conquerable.
Goonswarm Federation
#98 - 2014-04-15 16:01:17 UTC
I would, instead, consider the removal of T2 BPOs.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Intrepid Crossing
#99 - 2014-04-15 16:01:51 UTC
I have a feeling that the answers to this might be a wait if that indication about the costs blog earlier is correct, but right now almost all outpost upgrade paths are related to increasing slots in the outpost. These changes look as though they are going to throw that out the window. Given the reprocessing changes as well and changes to station base refining, does that mean we will get an outpost blog at some point clarifying all the changes to upgrades and outpost changes?

Interhole Revenue Service
#100 - 2014-04-15 16:02:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Making your game work logically and less over complicated is good. Well done!

I can't wait for the invention/production blog because that hole mass production process is bs. Mass producing using single run copy is a pain as you can only set one job at a time. I hoping that someday soon i will finally be able to select all 10 bpc and run 10 invention/manufacturing jobs at once.
Forum Jump