These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Allison A'vani
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#321 - 2014-04-15 18:06:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Allison A'vani
Ydnari wrote:
Removal of all Extra materials: Doesn't this mean that Tech 2 ships at ME -6, -5, -4 (Augmentation, Attainment and no decryptor) will use 2 T1 hulls, since it being an Extra material was what kept it at 1?

So a Sin would use 2 Dominix hulls with those three invention choices.

At ME -3 and above it rounds back down to 1 T1 hull.


No, because ME is based on a %. You can not reduce the ME enough to run into this problem. Besides the fact that any decrypter that reduces ME is literally useless on any ship invention as it completely removes any profit all together.
Nyjil Lizaru
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#322 - 2014-04-15 18:07:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyjil Lizaru
This quote:

Callic Veratar wrote:
Allison A'vani wrote:
NO ONE is EVER going to copy at a POS ever again.


YOU won't. Others will. They will lose high ME/PE BPOs.


And this one:

Callic Veratar wrote:


So pull down your POS and substitute the fuel cost for the station fees. This isn't as hard as you're trying to make it.


Put them together and they make me wonder if we won't see fewer POSes (at least in high- and low-sec) as people just do all their work in stations (and yes, I know there will be people who have to move to a new system as well since not every system has the proper type of slot). But doesn't infinite slots in each station means less need for POSes? We'll all consolidate to those systems that have the slots we need, each of us setting up shop at a distance from a trade hub that allows for a ratio of fee-vs-shipping-time that we are comfortable with.

(Again, these thoughts are based on a high-and low-sec bias, I have no idea how this might change things in 0.0)

Edit: oh btw, I think I like these changes a lot - but then again, I'm just a dabbler in the T2 production and I think this change was targeted at small-fry like me. So thanks.

Nyjil's corollary to Malcanis' Law:   "Any attempt by CCP to smooth the learning curve of EVE Online will be carried out via the addition of extra factors and 'features' such that there is a net increase in complexity."

Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
#323 - 2014-04-15 18:08:04 UTC
Tippia wrote:


This will change to:
1. We want research done
2. We don't want to pay the exorbitant fee or hunt around for cheap systems.
3. We will pay you for this research at a less exorbitant fee.

Oh, and ye olde business of just selling researched blueprints — especially given all the complaints you're seeing that people don't want to risk moving their BPOs around.


You've not seen me complain about the risk because I'm right there with CCP on risk = reward. I have no issue with it.

But I very very strongly doubt that anyone will want to pay anyone else when they can remotely see that a station 10j away is offering research dirt cheap. Unless they make highsec station ME/PE slots so expensive that 100m/month is worthwhile for 12 ME slots (1 DG small tower, 3x Labs) they will simply have killed it. It was all about rarity of slots. The hassle of finding a service provider, paying them, trusting them with your BPO's, relying on their good practice/timely delivery is nothing compared to shuttle to nearest cheap station > install > forget about them.
Tra'con Han
The reality disfunction
#324 - 2014-04-15 18:08:18 UTC
Sorry, but I think the removal of the standings to anchor a pos is an absolute disgrace.

Lets put Eve on easy because people are too lazy to commit to a project!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#325 - 2014-04-15 18:08:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Ydnari wrote:
Removal of all Extra materials: Doesn't this mean that Tech 2 ships at ME -6, -5, -4 (Augmentation, Attainment and no decryptor) will use 2 T1 hulls, since it being an Extra material was what kept it at 1?

So a Sin would use 2 Dominix hulls with those three invention choices.

At ME -3 and above it rounds back down to 1 T1 hull.

I have a sneaking suspicion that what they mean is that there will no longer be “extra materials” for materials that are already part of the base process. In other words, you won't have BPs that require X tritanium as materials, and an additional Y tritanium as extra materials. The mechanic of having some stuff absolutely and unquestionably lost, but also regulated at immovable levels, is too handy to lose completely.

Imiarr Timshae wrote:
You've not seen me complain about the risk because I'm right there with CCP on risk = reward. I have no issue with it.
Sure, but others are. My point is that R&D:ers now have the opportunity to make bank from that risk perception.

Adellle Nadair wrote:
Luckily owning moons in highsec will be completely worthless now...

Not really, no. The ability to maintain a static base of operations, the ability to adjust your own fees and surcharges, the ability to reprocess for free (and with higher efficiency). There's plenty of value in owning one.
Etara Silverblade
Morex Group Inc.
Haven.
#326 - 2014-04-15 18:08:57 UTC
POSes in high-sec without standing requirements means those of up who have standings loose out. You are compensating every other piece that is being nerfed but not this. What good are my Gallente standings now that anyone can put up a tower in any system?

You are going to force some of us to find new jobs in eve as raising standings for corps will no longer be of any use.
Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES
#327 - 2014-04-15 18:12:06 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Aliventi wrote:
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.


That's the current plan, yes.


So you are telling that you won't touch Invention with this expansion but greatly increasing the output of high quality T2 BPCs?

Am I the only inventor here that doesn't like that change much? Yes a new guy wouldn't need that much to get into T2 Production, but
a) the very limited group of producers for this high quality BPCs and
b) the lack of competitors through invention
will yield in high prices and again a lot of profit to people who already had years of time to pull out the profit from there investment.

I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#328 - 2014-04-15 18:12:22 UTC
Entity wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Entity wrote:
So you're saying 8 years of operating a hisec POS with 2.5 trillion ISK worth (that's 2500 billion) of BPOs, you're suddenly expecting me to put said 2.5 trillion ISK into a paper space container and not locked down in my hangar?

I like the changes but that part is just flabbergastingly stupid

the real issue here is your apparent belief you should be entitled to get the most advantages possible from your 2.5 trillion in bpos absolutely risk free and how long that was tolerated

eight years was 7.9 too long


Risk free? What? Is your brain turned off or something?

- The pos alone is worth 8 billion+ (all faction stuff)
- I stand to lose a month worth of product to the tune of 20 billion if someone decides to blow it up.

I'm fine with -that- risk, but having to literally put ALL my eggs in that one easy to pop basket is completely unacceptable.


Let's see who CCP listens to:

1. One of the most famous, long term players in the game, who knows a thing or 2, or a million, about Eve industry.
2. A member of a group dedicated to ruining gameplay for as many as possible, and who is openly gloating over the changes.
Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#329 - 2014-04-15 18:12:41 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Kadl wrote:

I can propose a simple alternative fix. Make it so that anyone who places a POCO or POS in a location vacated by a waring party would immediately become subject to the war. You cannot sneak a "neutral" third party in to reclaim a location since the war could be directed at control of that space location. Note now we are using war decs to control space in high sec.

that is not simple whatsoever and would certainly require massively reworking a lot of code

it is a more elegant fix yes but it is much less likely to be implemented


It might require a bit more work on the code, but where is your evidence that it would be a massive rework?

What would they need to touch?
1) Each POS/POCO location would need an added bit of hidden data noting which corporation last used it last and the date.
2) When placing a POS/POCO a check is needed on the corporation which last used the location. War Dec history would then need to be cross referenced to identify any wars the new POS/POCO owner might be stepping into. Any wars would require a warning popup asking if the new owner wishes to accept the risk of war. If they accept the risk then the wars are added to the new corporation in the exact same state.

Any messy War Dec code can be avoided. It is now a normal war.

Hopefully a quick check can be added to the initial POS/POCO deployment code. It should return a simple yes/no to deploying, and avoid any other interactions. This could have problems, but seems possible unless you have more detailed knowledge of the code.
Myxx
The Scope
#330 - 2014-04-15 18:13:37 UTC
A lot of people in this thread either don't care, or are deliberately ignorant or even perhaps hostile to the industry side of EVE.

Sad.

Ohwell. As far as I'm concerned, there are three plans in place. Depending on how the scaling cost turns out, they'll be used to make the entire system CCP is setting up pointless. It has been boiled down to potentially a series of small annoyances.

Thanks for stabbing industiry in the back, though.
Imiarr Timshae
Funny Men In Funny Hats
#331 - 2014-04-15 18:13:55 UTC
Tra'con Han wrote:
Sorry, but I think the removal of the standings to anchor a pos is an absolute disgrace.

Lets put Eve on easy because people are too lazy to commit to a project!


And this, to a degree, is also true.

The barrier to entry removal of say, scanning, was great. Scanning was confusing and difficult. My finds dropped in value because more people were finding them, I didn't mind. The content was engaging and fun and should have been simple since it's in the tutorial anyway.

There is something satisfying about getting an empire to like you enough that you can get a piece of their real estate. It made sense, canonically. It acted as a barrier to entry so you had to either work hard to get the required standing or you had to pay someone. That's pretty much how the free market works.

Without the barrier to entry it'll just be a blobfest just like customs offices, plus it makes no sense. Someone who is literally kill on sight by Gallente can anchor a control tower in gallente prime if they are spry enough to avoid the police. That'll be interesting for faction warfare.
Kithran
#332 - 2014-04-15 18:16:13 UTC
Allison A'vani wrote:
Ydnari wrote:
Removal of all Extra materials: Doesn't this mean that Tech 2 ships at ME -6, -5, -4 (Augmentation, Attainment and no decryptor) will use 2 T1 hulls, since it being an Extra material was what kept it at 1?

So a Sin would use 2 Dominix hulls with those three invention choices.

At ME -3 and above it rounds back down to 1 T1 hull.


No, because ME is based on a %. You can not reduce the ME enough to run into this problem. Besides the fact that any decrypter that reduces ME is literally useless on any ship invention as it completely removes any profit all together.


ME 0 = 10% waste
ME 1 = 5% waste
ME 2 = 2.5% waste etc

ME -1 = 20% waste
ME -2 = 30% waste
ME -3 = 40% waste
ME -4 = 50% waste
ME -5 = 60% waste
ME -6 = 70% waste

If at 0 waste you would use 1 of something at ME -4 you will in theory be using 1.5 rounding to 2
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#333 - 2014-04-15 18:16:42 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

Let's see who CCP listens to:

1. One of the most famous, long term players in the game, who knows a thing or 2, or a million, about Eve industry.
2. A member of a group dedicated to ruining gameplay for as many as possible, and who is openly gloating over the changes.

that dude, whoever he is, lost a lot of credibility when he admitted he can only turn over 20b a month on 2.5t

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

Kadar Yassavi
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#334 - 2014-04-15 18:16:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Kadar Yassavi

  1. Holy ****!

  2. HOLY ****!!!

  3. I'm very concerned about the POS changes. Will it still be benificial to have a nice highsec POS over just traveling 2 or 3 more jumps to a station where the installation costs are reasonable enough? On the other hand, will it be so extremely benificial that the chances of me as a solo player getting my nice highsec POS blown up after the expansion are above 99%? I understand that this is an MMO and obviously there should be a certain drive to team up with others (to defend a nice highsec POS for example), but I know there are a lot of solo industrialists out there just like me.

  4. You are killing the side profession of offering corporation standings boost/creation, maybe others as well, don't know atm. Will there be new incentives/rewards to grind faction standings to high numbers?

  5. Wow, that UI and the things it suggests for the future dev blogs.

  6. Please release the other dev blogs asap (like tomorrow).
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#335 - 2014-04-15 18:17:03 UTC
Etara Silverblade wrote:
POSes in high-sec without standing requirements means those of up who have standings loose out. You are compensating every other piece that is being nerfed but not this. What good are my Gallente standings now that anyone can put up a tower in any system?

You are going to force some of us to find new jobs in eve as raising standings for corps will no longer be of any use.


Didn't you know?
Your game play is not sanctioned in this "wide-open sandbox".

The best part:

Griefer roups can now fire up as many small POS's as they like, not fuel them, effectively deadzoning as many moons or entire systems they like, because standings are done. Then, the only way to get a POS up will be to wardec them, which is what they wanted all along.

New method of griefing.
Myxx
The Scope
#336 - 2014-04-15 18:17:09 UTC
Chanina wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Aliventi wrote:
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.


That's the current plan, yes.


So you are telling that you won't touch Invention with this expansion but greatly increasing the output of high quality T2 BPCs?

Am I the only inventor here that doesn't like that change much? Yes a new guy wouldn't need that much to get into T2 Production, but
a) the very limited group of producers for this high quality BPCs and
b) the lack of competitors through invention
will yield in high prices and again a lot of profit to people who already had years of time to pull out the profit from there investment.

I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality.


I think you misunderstand what we'll probably end up doing with T2 BPOs some of us have. Selling copies will be for the slightly cheaper stuff (ie, guns and ammo) but I don't anticipate that ship BPOs will have many copies sold. Some might, maybe, but there are other better uses that preserve the status quo as it is. That status quo is quite profitable atm.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#337 - 2014-04-15 18:17:11 UTC
Chanina wrote:
I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality.

Meh. They get slightly higher output on items where the market is already fully controlled by invention, and it lasts maybe one expansion cycle. I don't see inventors being particularly hurt by that one.

Etara Silverblade wrote:
POSes in high-sec without standing requirements means those of up who have standings loose out. You are compensating every other piece that is being nerfed but not this. What good are my Gallente standings now that anyone can put up a tower in any system?
Come to think of it, what happens if a -10 Gallente standings corp puts up a tower in Gallente space? P

Myxx wrote:
Thanks for stabbing industiry in the back, though.
If this counts as stabbing someone in the back, I'm going to send CCP a weekly subscription of back-stabbing daggers, because I want more.
Myxx
The Scope
#338 - 2014-04-15 18:20:10 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Chanina wrote:
I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality.

Meh. They get slightly higher output on items where the market is already fully controlled by invention, and it lasts maybe one expansion cycle. I don't see inventors being particularly hurt by that one.

Etara Silverblade wrote:
POSes in high-sec without standing requirements means those of up who have standings loose out. You are compensating every other piece that is being nerfed but not this. What good are my Gallente standings now that anyone can put up a tower in any system?
Come to think of it, what happens if a -10 Gallente standings corp puts up a tower in Gallente space? P

Myxx wrote:
Thanks for stabbing industiry in the back, though.
If this counts as stabbing someone in the back, I'm going to send CCP a weekly subscription of back-stabbing daggers, because I want more.



I don't think you're looking at the larger picture, but okay...
samualvimes
Brothers At Arms
#339 - 2014-04-15 18:20:57 UTC
These look like the beginning of something great! Good job CCP


Thank God Dinsdale turned up. I was beginning to think he was ill!

If you've never tried PvP in EvE it's quite possible you've missed out on one of the greatest rushes available in modern gaming.

Cassandra Kazan
Padded Helmets
#340 - 2014-04-15 18:21:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Cassandra Kazan
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


Let's see who CCP listens to:

1. One of the most famous, long term players in the game, who knows a thing or 2, or a million, about Eve industry.
2. A member of a group dedicated to ruining gameplay for as many as possible, and who is openly gloating over the changes.


Perhaps they could consider evaluating the arguments of both people on the merits. Or would that be too much to ask?