These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#221 - 2014-04-15 17:14:21 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Calorn Marthor wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
About being able to anchor POSes anywhere in high sec: Does that mean the very high security systems will become available? For example, right now you cannot anchor a POS in a 1.0 system. Will that change?


Can someone answer this one please?
Will we be able to set up towers in 0.8+ sec?


You will be able to anchor towers in any system in hi sec, except systems that are restricted, like rookie systems and trade hubs like Jita. This is the same restricted list as the one that applies to POCOs for instance.

Land rush!

LAND RUSH!!!!

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Grendell
Technologies Unlimited
#222 - 2014-04-15 17:14:58 UTC
I really hope you address the blueprint voting/lockdown system before making the slot changes. Allow a sort of emergency quick vote or something when the starbase gets attacked or reinforced.

◄[♥]►3rd Party Service◄[♥]►

♥ Securing Peace of mind ♥

Canenald
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#223 - 2014-04-15 17:15:22 UTC
Sounds to me like manufacturing and research is about to be dumbed down.
Slappy Andven
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#224 - 2014-04-15 17:15:32 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Riela Tanal wrote:
You need take access in a corp array in order to build, if you have those roles you can simply steal the bpo. This can be solved by making copies but some bpo copes are still worth a lot of isk and can be still stolen.

what ones are worth more than like 20m isk besides supercaps


Researched to the level most of us have them at? A LOT of them. Normal cap parts, subcap ships, even some rigs. You are ignoring how long it takes to research these things.

-- 

Slappy Andven

CEO Natural Born Killas

Boltorano
Distinguished Gentleman's Boating Club
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#225 - 2014-04-15 17:16:02 UTC
JITAALT808 wrote:
I'm not happy that my faction standings that I worked so hard for are now useless. Did you guys give any thought to the effects on mission runners who were making a business out of POS standings? Or to mission runners in general? Basically, standings are worthless at this point. In effect, they are nothing more than a penalty on those with bad standings, as there is only one remaining benefit -- access to L4s for faction standings of 5+. All other standings above that number are quite literally useless save for the bonus bpc's (big whoop) and a reduction in taxes for trading (also big whoop for everyone but serious traders).


I appreciate that you've taken advantage of emergent gameplay and found yourself a niche way to make ISK. That said, sometimes changes should be made for the greater good of all.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#226 - 2014-04-15 17:16:10 UTC
Adellle Nadair wrote:
Sadly most manufacturing profit comes to an average of about 5% of the value of the item. This means that depending on the usage of the station, it is entirely possible for the profit to be completely lost. Can we please have a graph and numbers to show exactly how this scaling works? For those of us who actually do large amounts of manufacturing, being able to reasonably predict production cost is essential.

It'll be in blog #5, according to the “big plan” section.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#227 - 2014-04-15 17:16:22 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.


And can I get an answer in that regard to my question? How are we supposed to compare stations in regard to the different cost levels without ferrying the stuff around? Or have you also not thought this through? Roll

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.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#228 - 2014-04-15 17:17:52 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:

Rofl... when was the last time you had a look at full run BS and Cap BPC? And a lot of the T2 BPC for BLOPS/HAC/CS/JF (ofc) are worth more than 20M and if stored in numbers in a POS for production very well a juicy target in addition to the other billions in materials in the POS for the production and invention. Roll

bs bpcs have been under a million a run for like half a decade

when it comes to sticking ENOUGH 20m t2 bpcs in a pos to become a theft target: who cares, you're leaving more stuff in there that's a much better theft target like, say, the materials for those ships or the finished ships themselves

until then you keep them in an audit can or the like, it is incredibly trivial to secure your bpcs if you insist on having a theft-worthy amount and it is mind-boggling this simple problem it takes thirty seconds to reason out a solution to has people crying for a change

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

Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
#229 - 2014-04-15 17:18:43 UTC
It's interesting to see that CCP have decided to make the summer expansion not a patch expansion or a content expansion but are actively killing ingame professions.

30-40% reduction in loot reprocessing is very harmful to salvagers.
Limitless station research slots is fatal to highsec researchers who use POS.
No standings requirement to anchor POS is fatal to people who boost standings for POS deployment.

That's two professions dead and a third drastically nerfed right there.

I wonder what the logic is behind this.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#230 - 2014-04-15 17:19:08 UTC
Xaniff wrote:
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.

I don't think the lock down change is going to be much of an issue. If they are reducing copy time you will simply spit out BPC's to do your manufacturing from.

Now creating those BPC's might have some issues from that standpoint in research POS"s, unless you want to do all of your bpc creation strictly at NPC stations or Outposts.

I'm pretty sure the time consumed with the current voting process to lock/unlock BP's is the main factor they are worried about... because if your POS comes under attack you would not have enough time to go through this process to get your BP's out of harms way before the POS goes into reinforced.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#231 - 2014-04-15 17:19:11 UTC
Grendell wrote:
I really hope you address the blueprint voting/lockdown system before making the slot changes. Allow a sort of emergency quick vote or something when the starbase gets attacked or reinforced.

unneeded: you can't lock a bpo in a pos even with this

the only use would be to make it even easier to corp-hop to avoid wardecs by moving your station bpos which isn't something we should be encouraging i think

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

Enteron Anabente
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#232 - 2014-04-15 17:20:36 UTC
Enteron Anabente wrote:
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.


Can I at least get acknowledgement that a dev saw this, please?
Adellle Nadair
Nuclear Midnight
#233 - 2014-04-15 17:20:49 UTC
David Magnus wrote:
I sincerely hope that you have fully thought through the BPO changes.

Having to move BPOs around and not being able to leave them locked down, or lock them down in a POS is an open invitation to corp theft.

Removing the usefulness of this basic protection will only encourage people to make 1-man corps and discourage anyone from working together once they have any BPO of significant value. BPOs are one of the only assets that have lasting, significant, and appreciating value. You may think think that adjusting the risk/reward on these will spark more gameplay, but it will only encourage people to play solo.


Agreed.
gifter Penken
State War Academy
Caldari State
#234 - 2014-04-15 17:21:32 UTC
The issue with needing faction standing to place a high sec tower is that it is based on all members of the corp. It is very, very hard to get all members of a corp to all agree to grind up their stansdings. This means people have to leave corp for a couple days.

To me, the better fix, rather than removing the need for corp standing, would be to change it from "all members" to just the CEO. Or, perhaps a "top 20%" of corp members are counted toward corp standing.


As for it taking months, or even a month... I've been able to grind standing to 7.0-8.0 in a week. Tutorials like 6 times, SoE, tags, COSMOS missions. It is not that hard.

Grinding corp standings for perfect refine was much more difficult than faction standing.



Querns wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Riela Tanal wrote:
You need take access in a corp array in order to build, if you have those roles you can simply steal the bpo. This can be solved by making copies but some bpo copes are still worth a lot of isk and can be still stolen.

what ones are worth more than like 20m isk besides supercaps

T2 BPOs.

To that, I say just remove T2 BPOs.


Agreed!

Turn all the existing T2BPOs into BPCs with like 10 years worth of runs.

That would allow CCP to fix invention (that intentionally sucks just to maintain T2BPO value), and give new players to eventually, some decade, be able to compete on equal footing.

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#235 - 2014-04-15 17:22:29 UTC
Honestly, any situation in which the potential for theft increases is a good thing for eve. Trust being a weak link is one of the things that makes Eve great, and makes it actually stand out from other games in the same market.

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

Elena Thiesant
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#236 - 2014-04-15 17:23:10 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
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..


Remotely start jobs from BPs which are in containers?
Please say that wasn't a mis-type, That alone will make so much difference.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#237 - 2014-04-15 17:23:18 UTC
Imiarr Timshae wrote:
It's interesting to see that CCP have decided to make the summer expansion not a patch expansion or a content expansion but are actively killing ingame professions.

30-40% reduction in loot reprocessing is very harmful to salvagers.
Limitless station research slots is fatal to highsec researchers who use POS.
No standings requirement to anchor POS is fatal to people who boost standings for POS deployment.

That's two professions dead and a third drastically nerfed right there.

I wonder what the logic is behind this.

Well, for one, salvagers don't care about loot reprocessing — they care about salvage.
Highsec researchers can still use POSes, only now it'll be for cost reasons rather than availability reasons.
That leaves the third one, which was an idiotic mechanic to begin with, so if that profession dies a horrible death, it's a worth-while sacrifice for the greater good.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#238 - 2014-04-15 17:23:36 UTC
Canenald wrote:
Sounds to me like manufacturing and research is about to be dumbed down.

Yeah, just like the creation of a GUI dumbed down computer use. Roll

Hell, now EVERONE will be able to do it... sheesh.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands
#239 - 2014-04-15 17:23:41 UTC
You didn't explain how the price scaling will or will not be implemented for sovereignty nullsec. Does this mean that outposts will be forced into this pricing scheme? or will they remain a manually specified cost? or will we have the ability to choose between one or the other since, as it is nullsec, we own the outpost.
Myxx
Incredible.
#240 - 2014-04-15 17:23:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Myxx
Greyscale should never be allowed near EVE design, this has been commonly known for some time now. I am beginning to think very similarly of Yitterbum and friends. All in all, for me, all you're doing is adding a few more annoyances to what I already do.

This won't result in me risking many billions in blueprints in a starbase. If anything, I'm more likely to tolerate a few more jumps to an empty system to build stuff in safety.