These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aeonidis
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#821 - 2014-04-16 12:04:58 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
Aeonidis wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
Aeonidis wrote:
I still see an easy button. The T2 BPO holder always gets a copy with little overhead in producing that copy

Well that clearly isn't true. At least think about what you post.


so little is relative to the reader? they drop in an R.dB and some data sheets for modules? to the inventor thats little when you consider the previous changes that were made to research agents and FW making datacores essentially a buy only product now. which of course can be lost in the invention process unlike the R.dB or other consumables for T2BPO copying.

What about the truely massive opportunity cost of having a T2 BPO rather than it's value in isk?



your grasping at straws now, anyone who owns a T2BPO has multiplied their "opportunity cost" many times over since the lottery or hasn't played Eve in over half a decade.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#822 - 2014-04-16 12:05:55 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Querns wrote:
I thought of a potential gotcha: Will POS assembly modules also have their slots removed? Will you be able to, e.g., run an infinite number of ammo jobs from a single ammo assembly array?


Yes, slots are being removed on everything, however, cost scaling will still be applicable to Starbases as well. Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details.


so my question - will different types of jobs installed at POS (say, 1x supercap, 1x capital, 3 subcaps, and a shedload of ammo) affect each other's cost scaling? should this be waiting for the appropriate blog too?

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.

GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
#823 - 2014-04-16 12:06:01 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Running an empty POS in highsec is extremely low risk. Focusing on minutia is what creates the garbage in these threads. You ask for elaboration, then pick on one unimportant detail. You should be thanking him for answering your question, instead.


Or you could actually take the time to figure out the context of my statement and realize that we are talking about a POS which is full of blueprints being researched.
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#824 - 2014-04-16 12:06:31 UTC
Aeonidis wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
Aeonidis wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
Aeonidis wrote:
I still see an easy button. The T2 BPO holder always gets a copy with little overhead in producing that copy

Well that clearly isn't true. At least think about what you post.


so little is relative to the reader? they drop in an R.dB and some data sheets for modules? to the inventor thats little when you consider the previous changes that were made to research agents and FW making datacores essentially a buy only product now. which of course can be lost in the invention process unlike the R.dB or other consumables for T2BPO copying.

What about the truely massive opportunity cost of having a T2 BPO rather than it's value in isk?

your grasping at straws now, anyone who owns a T2BPO has multiplied their "opportunity cost" many times over since the lottery or hasn't played Eve in over half a decade.

You really are just being silly now.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#825 - 2014-04-16 12:07:50 UTC
Aeonidis wrote:
your grasping at straws now, anyone who owns a T2BPO has multiplied their "opportunity cost" many times over since the lottery or hasn't played Eve in over half a decade.

Eh, no. The opportunity cost doesn't go away — they still have the opportunity to just turn that BPO into liquid cash. Moreover, many current BPO holders were not around for (or did not win) the lottery and had to buy them later.
ST Mahan
Doomheim
#826 - 2014-04-16 12:09:32 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Querns wrote:
I thought of a potential gotcha: Will POS assembly modules also have their slots removed? Will you be able to, e.g., run an infinite number of ammo jobs from a single ammo assembly array?


Yes, slots are being removed on everything, however, cost scaling will still be applicable to Starbases as well. Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details.


so my question - will different types of jobs installed at POS (say, 1x supercap, 1x capital, 3 subcaps, and a shedload of ammo) affect each other's cost scaling? should this be waiting for the appropriate blog too?



Who gets the ISK for the job installation; the corp or is it a sink? Sounds like it is an ISK sink, which doesn't make sense for a player owned structure.


Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#827 - 2014-04-16 12:11:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
ST Mahan wrote:
Who gets the ISK for the job installation; the corp or is it a sink? Sounds like it is an ISK sink, which doesn't make sense for a player owned structure.
If you mean the congestion charge, it gets sunk. Think of it as a tax on being able to infinitely expand your POS capability. Any other fees set by the corp go to the corp.

e: here.
Abyss Azizora
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#828 - 2014-04-16 12:14:54 UTC
1. Are you aware that by removing standing's requirements for POS's you are basically removing 80% of the purpose of having standings from the game? (Only reason to still have it will be jumpclones.)

2. You are killing standings boosting services/professions like mine. Hence and entire income source I spent over two years building with 9 characters.

3. QUOTE: "Allow Starbases to be anchored "anywhere" in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course)."

Does that means moons are no longer required? Hence these can be placed in infinite ammounts anywhere in highsec systems?
Aeonidis
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#829 - 2014-04-16 12:14:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Aeonidis wrote:
your grasping at straws now, anyone who owns a T2BPO has multiplied their "opportunity cost" many times over since the lottery or hasn't played Eve in over half a decade.

Eh, no. The opportunity cost doesn't go away — they still have the opportunity to just turn that BPO into liquid cash. Moreover, many current BPO holders were not around for (or did not win) the lottery and had to buy them later.



seriously if that were the case there would be dozens up on the market for every module and ship in the game at any given time. but there aren't, why? because its more profitable to copy and manufacture from them instead. None of this doesn't change the fact that T2Bpo's are an outdated and broken mechanic that pulls a vast sum of ISK into the hands of a very few players at the expense of the entire marketplace.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#830 - 2014-04-16 12:15:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
think the additional costs in POS for multiple runs as overtime for the station crew
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#831 - 2014-04-16 12:15:09 UTC
ISK sink = you're paying the workers in your facility. and for repairs, and for retooling the lines as needed. Or something.

I'd expect/hope that POS costs are lower as a baseline, as you're paying for fuel as well. But it can work out. (paying for the faster production time)

Need more blogs. Any real discussion on this isn't possible until we have the whole picture.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#832 - 2014-04-16 12:16:14 UTC
Abyss Azizora wrote:


Does that means moons are no longer required? Hence these can be placed in infinite ammounts anywhere in highsec systems?


Devs responded in an earlier post that moons will still be required for anchoring
Dast Aldurald
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#833 - 2014-04-16 12:17:41 UTC
ok, all this is interesting but: 1) no standing needed for pos? really? ah i see, this is due to another part of update, miners will need poses to refine their ore(btw ofwar with miner corp is so sweet for high sec gankers) 2) better copy time for every bpo? t2bpo's owners will like it though it would be quite hard for those who invents to compete with older players in t2 production. 3) to build smth i need to take its bpo to a pos: great time for all large highsec\low sec corporations they just need to declare offwar come and take my money(just don't tell me stories about mighty, nearly invincible high-sec pos, cause it's not a killing machine even with a gunner online)

so what do we have? you'll need to take a bpo to the pos every time you want to manufacture\copy\invent\me\pe it(great job!Ugh), its always in danger while you producing smth; you cant lock it down so you're alone or you can trust smb and see what happens, and yes for all this you pay just 400kk per month, so isnt this awsome?P

though now i believe i can see future, cause i started to learn skills for a carrier this autumn and almost ready for nullsec journeyBig smile

thank you again for the patch and let the era of highsec pos'o'war beginBig smile
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#834 - 2014-04-16 12:17:54 UTC
I've looked through every dev post and still not seen this answered yet.

Are the extra materials going to be considered the base materials now with wastage added on? I'm not quite sure how this is going to work with invented T2 BPCs, as some T2 ship BPCs for example will end up requiring multiple T1 ships to construct. Is this working as intended?

If so then T2 items will be requiring more materials, unless you are lucky enough to own a fully researched T2 BPO. So again, another buff for T2 BPO holders.
Hexatron Ormand
Aperture Space
WYNX
#835 - 2014-04-16 12:28:02 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Querns wrote:
I thought of a potential gotcha: Will POS assembly modules also have their slots removed? Will you be able to, e.g., run an infinite number of ammo jobs from a single ammo assembly array?


Yes, slots are being removed on everything, however, cost scaling will still be applicable to Starbases as well. Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details.


On top of the fuel costs? POS users have to pay twice otherwise... once to keep the tower running, and a second time to pay those additional scaling costs? Will this be compensated by lowering the initial fuel costs the POS eats up? Or by giving them extremely great scaling conditions? Otherwise POS users may not be able to compete with prices of station users.





On another topic:

Being unable to anchor BPOs at a POS also gives a low punch to all corporations having their BPOs anchored in stations without
any production or research/copy slots.



I do hope POS will see big upgrades in the future making anchoring BPOs possible, making them compete price wise and so on, otherwise those who go through putting up a POS, putting assets at risk, will always be worse off, than those just sticking to stations.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#836 - 2014-04-16 12:28:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aeonidis wrote:
seriously if that were the case there would be dozens up on the market for every module and ship in the game at any given time. but there aren't, why?
In many cases, because people are bad at maths and don't understand opportunity costs. You don't have to look around much to find BPOs for sale, nor do you have to do much maths to notice that it'll take you half a decade or more to earn them back… and yet people buy them.

Quote:
None of this doesn't change the fact that T2Bpo's are an outdated and broken mechanic that pulls a vast sum of ISK into the hands of a very few players at the expense of the entire marketplace.

It's not really a fact, though, nor is it any different from how any other manufacturing works.

Hexatron Ormand wrote:
On top of the fuel costs? POS users have to pay twice otherwise... once to keep the tower running, and a second time to pay those additional scaling costs?
Well, you could always try not to overload the industry arrays and anchor more of them instead to keep the cost down. Or at least that seems like the most logical way it'll work right now, but we'll know better in devblog 5.
Miktek
Tannhauser C-Beam
#837 - 2014-04-16 12:28:52 UTC
Andre Vauban wrote:
Makoto Priano wrote:
Actually, QUESTION!

So. If you're removing the standing requirement for anchoring POSes because it doesn't add gameplay value, will you also be removing the standing requirement for installing jumpclones?

That said, if you're removing standings requirements and standings now only really matter for taxes/agent access, will you be adding new standing-gated rewards to LP stores or something like that? Pretty please?


They should probably just remove standings all together. There really is no value for having high standings anymore except for access to high level missions.


perhaps they should remove that limitation as well and just have "missions", no level 1 to 5 anymore :P
Eurynome Mangeiri
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#838 - 2014-04-16 12:30:16 UTC
ST Mahan wrote:
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Querns wrote:
I thought of a potential gotcha: Will POS assembly modules also have their slots removed? Will you be able to, e.g., run an infinite number of ammo jobs from a single ammo assembly array?


Yes, slots are being removed on everything, however, cost scaling will still be applicable to Starbases as well. Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details.


so my question - will different types of jobs installed at POS (say, 1x supercap, 1x capital, 3 subcaps, and a shedload of ammo) affect each other's cost scaling? should this be waiting for the appropriate blog too?



Who gets the ISK for the job installation; the corp or is it a sink? Sounds like it is an ISK sink, which doesn't make sense for a player owned structure.



i think in station it is a sink, in a pos it goes to corp (or maybe 50/50 corp / sink for POS)
Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
#839 - 2014-04-16 12:31:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Add a new account with 3 manufacturers... There: production capacity increased by 33 slots.
…which won't be able to produce any faster than the BPO already could.

That Invuln II blueprint will go from taking 213 hours to produce a batch of 100 and, what, 500 hours(?) to make a 100-run copy to taking 213 hours to produce a batch of 100 and taking 200 hours to make a 100-run copy — not enough to dominate any markets, but enough to make it worth-while to use the copies in a production POS.

Sure, you could make 10 10-run copies instead and run those 10 copies in parallel. It'll still take 200 hours to do so and while the end product comes out quicker during the production step, you are then idling while the next batch of copies is being researched. The number of runs you can squeeze out of the BPO per time period won't really change.

Quote:
Currently, the cap is set hard to the amount of T2 BPOs that you own... well, with these changes
…the cap will be pretty much exactly the same.

You really don't see how printing blueprints faster than you can use them is an opportunity for expanding you capacity to manufacture if you employ more slots/alts?

And no, you will not have any idle time.

Let's take an example where copying is 10% faster than manufacturing - 9 hours to make a 10 run BPC and 10 hours to produce 10 items from said BPC. Here's a quick time flow: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1404/runs.jpg

You have 10 blueprint copiers? A new manufacturing alt can be spawned at the end of pictured cycle.

That's an example of just 10% difference. With, for example, 20% it's even faster to employ new alts.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#840 - 2014-04-16 12:31:15 UTC
Eurynome Mangeiri wrote:
i think in station it is a sink, in a pos it goes to corp (or maybe 50/50 corp / sink for POS)

The congestion charge is a sink everywhere, per a previous dev response.