These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#881 - 2014-04-16 13:41:15 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:

We really need the rest of that information, as half of the people in this thread are pulling their hair out at the prospect of things that will probably never happen.


You have just described 80% of the humanity approach to any matter!! Lol
Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
#882 - 2014-04-16 13:45:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Tippia wrote:
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
The mechanics is not there... the items that were produced by the mechanics that is not there any more are still there. So, yes... they are supporting a byproduct from a discontinued game mechanics.

…and they items work the same as any other blueprint, so there is nothing outdated that is given special support at the cost of something else.


Do they use same ME levels as default invention - no.
Do you have a chance based mechanic to get the copy - no.
Can you obtain them through gameplay - no.
If you can not obtain them through gameplay, are they seeded by NPCs on the market - no.

That does not look the same to me.

Quote:
I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways here: either they mechanics are supported and still around, or discontinued and thereby no longer supported. There is no middle ground; there is no mix; there is only one or the other.


Exactly what I'm saying. We are in the limbo of the middle ground right now.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#883 - 2014-04-16 13:48:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Do they use same ME levels as default invention other BPOs - yes.
Do you have a chance based mechanic to get the copy - no, same as other BPOs.
Can you obtain them through gameplay - no, same as other BPOs.
If you can not obtain them through gameplay, are they seeded by NPCs on the market - no, but they are still available on the market if you want to buy one.
Looks very similar to me.

The biggest difference is that they're a horrible investment, unlike most other BPOs.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#884 - 2014-04-16 13:48:36 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
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.


The addition of wardec-able additional targets over time is to bring in some life to the zombie-land called hi-sec. It will probably fail because the mindset of the affected players is to play victim not to adapt & overcome. But at least CCP can say they have tried.

The addition of ISK sinks is also extremely positive. On one side it's born to combat the current rampant ISK over-production and on the other side it's the ONLY way CCP can avoid negative repercussions on PLEXes sales. In fact the PLEX rise is not neutral to CCP, they need to fit PLEX prices within a "comfort zone" where they are seen as good ISK value but not an impossible objective to reach for those who want to buy them to extend their playtime.
Kaius Fero
#885 - 2014-04-16 13:49:34 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:

CCP has repeatedly tried, and failed, to entice high-sec players to take more risks and engage in PVP. But, the highest priority of high-sec players has always been "safety" - this is why they stay in high-sec. No reason to expect this player behavior to change.

I've been watching a similar safety-vs-efficiency trade-off with high-sec mining. Retrievers/Mackinaws and Covetors/Hulks are still the most commonly used mining ships, but Procurer/Skiff usage has definitely been on a steady rise, as ganking continues to spread.


Sadly you are quite right and these players will be the first to flock over SC once it's out.

Also is the main reason why we keep throwing money at SC at an insane rate, the beauty of industry and science in EVE is already vanished.. EVE now is more about being the biggest badass and villan including the excesive ussage of mayo. Not to mention the fact that for being competitive you have to take EVE as a secondary job, not a game.

Anselmo & The Illegals

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#886 - 2014-04-16 13:53:13 UTC
Kaius Fero wrote:
Also is the main reason why we keep throwing money at SC at an insane rate, the beauty of industry and science in EVE is already vanished.. EVE now is more about being the biggest badass and villan including the excesive ussage of mayo. Not to mention the fact that for being competitive you have to take EVE as a secondary job, not a game.

Huh. Funny that… and here I was being competitive in the T2 ship manufacturing market and hadn't touched the S&I interface in nearly a week. I must be doing something wrong since it doesn't seem to qualify as a second job…
Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
#887 - 2014-04-16 13:53:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Tippia wrote:
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Do they use same ME levels as default invention other BPOs - yes.
Do you have a chance based mechanic to get the copy - no, same as other BPOs.
Can you obtain them through gameplay - no, same as other BPOs.
If you can not obtain them through gameplay, are they seeded by NPCs on the market - no, but they are still available on the market if you want to buy one.
Looks very similar to me.


T2 BPOs do not have the -4/-4 level of T2 BPCs and you know that I was referring to it.
T2 BPOs are copied with 100% success rate, unlike inventing a T2 BPC to get a T2 copy.
T2 BPOs are not available on the NPC market, with a fixed price that serves as a ISK sink, available in unlimited quantities and at all times like T1 BPOs are.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#888 - 2014-04-16 13:53:48 UTC
Dast Aldurald wrote:
ok, all this is interesting but: 1) no standing needed for pos? really


I have a suggestion that would let CCP reward those who (like me too) grinded standings or have standings-raise professions and so on:

Idea Have the new POS slots fees depend (in a minor way) also from standings. Idea

So, everyone can put up a POS but those with standings get a discount.


Voilà, two birds with one stone! P
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#889 - 2014-04-16 13:56:56 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:

CCP has repeatedly tried, and failed, to entice high-sec players to take more risks and engage in PVP. But, the highest priority of high-sec players has always been "safety" - this is why they stay in high-sec. No reason to expect this player behavior to change.

I've been watching a similar safety-vs-efficiency trade-off with high-sec mining. Retrievers/Mackinaws and Covetors/Hulks are still the most commonly used mining ships, but Procurer/Skiff usage has definitely been on a steady rise, as ganking continues to spread.


Sadly you are quite right and these players will be the first to flock over SC once it's out.

boy ccp better get its act together in the next decade

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

Otin Bison
Bison Industrial Inc
#890 - 2014-04-16 13:58:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Otin Bison
removed ... I need to wait for the next few blogs
Perkin Warbeck
Strix Ridens
#891 - 2014-04-16 13:58:42 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
I will be emailing him today strongly suggesting that his group should stay as far from a POS as they can, because most of the benefits have been wiped out, such as a controllable cost of simply fuel costs on a POS. There is now some idiotic variable cost for using your own mfg slots.
…which can be controlled, so that along with all the other benefits remain. Hell, it even looks like they're gaining some new ones with these changes. So I can only surmise that you're making that suggestion to cut out the competition.


I will wait for further blogs but I'm actually with DInsdale on this one [quietly stabs himself in eye].

Unless you have some serious firepower then queuing up a job that lasts more than 24 hours (the time it takes a war dec to come into effect) presents a bit of a risk in low sec. Even if you get the notification of the war dec in time to take your POS down you will have to abandon the job to get your BPO out with a consequential loss of minerals as a result.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#892 - 2014-04-16 13:59:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
T2 BPOs do not have the -4/-4 level of T2 BPCs and you know that I was referring to it.
Yes, you were referring to something unrelated. They are like any other BPO — you know those things that also don't have -4/-4?

Quote:
T2 BPOs are copied with 100% success rate
…just like any other BPO.

Quote:
T2 BPOs are not available on the NPC market
…but are still available on the same market as the other BPOs if you want to buy one (but why you'd want to considering the poor returns is anyone's guess).

They are like any other blueprint so there is nothing outdated that is given special support at the cost of something else. You can do apples-to-oranges comparisons all day, but that doesn't change what BPOs are: BPOs. You might as well say that T2 BPCs are outdated because they are nothing like moon goo.
Maru Sha
The Department of Justice
#893 - 2014-04-16 14:00:03 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

After summer, R.A.M. and R.db will instead behave like any other material in the game. However, to keep loss ratios similar we will:

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.



It was already mentioned that R.A.M. (and R.db) needs a volume reduction to compensate for the higher amount needed for the same item.
In that context I would like to point out that some production arrays for POS (if not all) need capacity increase since you are not able to install long running jobs because not all the products will fit in the array (in addition to the fact that part of the capacity can be claimed by items in other sections of the hangar on has no access to and the total available capacity is reduced). The increase of capacity could be modular and depend on player choice (or a skill thingy), not necessarily a "hard" change in the database of EVE software.


CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Stopping the damage
...


Could you also have a look at the "waste" factor of t2 blueprints. It doesn't make sense to me and seems totally random.


CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Alright, here it is; for summer we are removing all industry slots. We can hear you from here: “Wait wait, you silly Frenchman, what do you mean removing all industry slots?”


I can understand your intention behind removing industry slots, though I would like to point out from from a point of realism it makes perfect sense to have a fixed and limited number of factory slots in a station like it make perfect sense to have a limited number of offices available. I hoped there would be a different solution to the "select a slot for your industry job"-problem.


CCP Ytterbium wrote:

(A) 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.
(B) Improve Mobile Laboratories and Assembly Arrays to compensate for such risk – we’ll give you final numbers as soon as we have them.
(C) 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.


I expect that a considerable amount of production lines will be relocated to stations because of (A) and the risk involved losing all in a moment of absence. So you introduce the means of reward for the increased risk (B). Furthermore you introduce the option to increase output by using copies (C). To me it sounds like it will be mandatory (for certain industries) to produce from copies instead of originals because it will reduce cost and increase output. Is that what you really want? With regards to blueprint copies I would suggest you adjust the production time from copies and make it equal (nut not faster) in comparison to originals.
Furthermore, from a realism point of view it doesn't make sense that producing copies of blueprints take more than 1(?) minute. I would overhaul the whole concept of blueprint copies but I admit that is only loosely related to the current dev blog.


CCP Ytterbium wrote:

So player corporations will now have the choice between the safety of NPC stations or the efficiency of Starbases to operate. The core goal is to motivate player entities to actually defend their Starbases if attacked or be reactive enough to take the blueprints out before they go into reinforced mode.


I think every player is motivated to defend the own POS (or outpost) since it is closest what you can call your home and I doubt any further incentive is needed. But you have to be aware that such fights are rarely fair fights. If a medium sized corporation suspect assets and blueprints in a POS worth more than 1 billion (?) isk or know about it from spying, they could just declare war on the usually small sized corporation. After a 24h war declaration delay they will put the POS into reinforced mode and then destroy it. A casual player logging in after a few days or a small corp going on holiday will return to game and find nothing. To me it does not sound like value added to the game.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#894 - 2014-04-16 14:00:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
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? 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.


Do you understand you are talking about a commodity (ices but also other fuels components) that has ZERO intrinsic ISK value and whose price is exclusively - and rightly - decided by the markets?

The markets will judge the best price, no you, not me nor CCP.

That's what sets EvE apart. The markets.
Kaius Fero
#895 - 2014-04-16 14:00:50 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Kaius Fero wrote:
Also is the main reason why we keep throwing money at SC at an insane rate, the beauty of industry and science in EVE is already vanished.. EVE now is more about being the biggest badass and villan including the excesive ussage of mayo. Not to mention the fact that for being competitive you have to take EVE as a secondary job, not a game.

Huh. Funny that… and here I was being competitive in the T2 ship manufacturing market and hadn't touched the S&I interface in nearly a week. I must be doing something wrong since it doesn't seem to qualify as a second job…

Yet.. you still have time to post on forums all day long. Roll

Anselmo & The Illegals

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#896 - 2014-04-16 14:01:00 UTC
Hint: Star Citizen is a scam. They are walking away with your money.

This T2 BPO talk is all nonsense. They need to be removed, period. Sure, a few people will quit over it. They will not be missed.

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

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#897 - 2014-04-16 14:02:16 UTC
you're all idiots if you think that the pos congestion fees are going to be anything but zero until you do something like try to stuff an alliance's worth of battleship production into a small pos with a single assembly array

wait to start wigging the **** out until you see the cost devblog

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

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#898 - 2014-04-16 14:04:18 UTC
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:

Basically, you are damaging the currently active game mechanic in order to support a legacy one that does not exist any more.


It exists, some markets are dominated at 80% by it!

In this case you have two choices:

- adapt, overcome and put it into your advantage. Many ways to do that including the *gasp* prospect of buying a T2 BPO yourself like thousands have done before you (Notice: I have no T2 BPO).

- play victim or let yourself be smashed by the winds of change.


Your turn to decide, now.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#899 - 2014-04-16 14:04:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Perkin Warbeck wrote:
I will wait for further blogs but I'm actually with DInsdale on this one [quietly stabs himself in eye].

Unless you have some serious firepower then queuing up a job that lasts more than 24 hours (the time it takes a war dec to come into effect) presents a bit of a risk in low sec. Even if you get the notification of the war dec in time to take your POS down you will have to abandon the job to get your BPO out with a consequential loss of minerals as a result.

Then keep using station services.

Right now, POS-based manufacturing is all kinds of stupid unless the POS (or, more accurately, some special assembly array) is required in the process; after the patch, it actually has a purpose (and some of the stupidity might even be removed depending on how some of the future devblogs turn out). So that is no reason to suddenly abandon everything POS related that you planned on doing before the changes were announced. If you thought it worth-while doing before, it'll be worth-while doing afterwards as well.

Kaius Fero wrote:
Yet.. you still have time to post on forums all day long.
Just further proof that staying competitive is not a second job.
Valterra Craven
#900 - 2014-04-16 14:07:12 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Except that is fail maths. Because it's not the most efficient method post patch. Even if we take your 'almost identical time'.
What actually happens is you run one line on the copies, then a second line gets run every time that 8 minute saving loops into 2 hours. Making for.... Hey, wouldn't you know it. 2 Hours/Unit. Hey presto. Higher market share.
Sure. I'm talking about a single run, mainly to illustrate the point, and you're showing what happens if you keep running on repeat — the previous run's copies are absorbed into the time the second run is being copied.

The point is still the same: the goal is not to increase production output — it's to counter delays in the copy+produce cycle. That difference is so small as to make pretty much no difference in the overall supply for these high-volume items, and it will still be the inventors that control the market. The BPO holders still can't compete on volume because their volumes will be pretty much the same (not to mention that inventors benefit from the copying speed increase as well and can adjust to the market trends faster than ever before).


Oh, and with the current material reqs, that BPO holder also have to eat an additional 144k ISK cost on each run. Poor thing. P


Tippa the issue was never about market share, the volume of the market doesn't matter to a single seller. What matters to the single seller is MARGIN. T2 BPO have margin advantages that no one else has in game. IF seller A can produce item 1 for 250k and seller B can produce 1 item for 150k he can sell out of his entire stock below the production cost of Seller A and STILL be profitable. That's the problem here.