These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1601 - 2014-04-23 15:56:51 UTC  |  Edited by: LHA Tarawa
Urziel99 wrote:
[
Very true, but I can't see anyone wanting to build meta 1-3 items. the ability to build meta 4's would be interesting, but would confirm that looting rats (with the exception of faction, officer, and overseer wrecks) is even more a waste of time.


My full vision for S&I.

Remove M1-M4 drop as has already been done with M0. Replace with salvage (some you just fly up and loot, some you need salvager to get).

Modify invention to allow invention of M1-M5 BPOs from purchased M0.

Allow manufacture of all M0-M5. M0 requires minerals, as now. M1-M4 require item of lower level + salvage. M5 requires M4 + moon + PI.


So, I buy a set of 6 M0 BPOs for the same item. Let's say small cap battery as an example.

I spend 5 million ISk inventing 5 of them to M1 BPOs (5 x 1 million)
I spend 20 million ISK inventing 4 of them to M2 BPOs (4 x 5 million)
I spend 75 million ISK inventing 3 to M3 BPOs. (3 x 25 million)
I spend 250 million ISK inventing 2 to M4 BPOs. (2 x 125 million)
I spend 625 million ISK inventing 1 to M5 BPO. (maybe require other items that makes this even more expensive)
(This is for small. Multiply exponentially for medium, large, etc)


Now I have a ful set of M0-M5.
I use minerals to build M0.
I use M0 + salvage to build M1.
I use M1+ more salvage to build M2.
I use M2 + more, more salvage to build M3.
I use M3 + more, more, more salvage to build M4.
I use M4 + moon goo + PI materials to build M5 (T2).


Modify the UI to allow automated flow of output from one step to be used as input to the next, similar to PI.

What do we gain:
S&I is the way all items enter the game.
No more profits being crushed by rat drops.
Smoother progression in prices, making M0-M3 more attractive alternatives to M4/M5.
Opportunity to rebalance salvage as it will be needed for more than just rigs.
Fixed invention.
Better ISK drain from manufacturing and invention.
Lvzbel Ixtab
Spitfire Syndicate
#1602 - 2014-04-23 15:58:45 UTC
The Alienator wrote:
I'm going to preface this by getting a few points out there about my own experience in the game, in hopes of avoiding the "nullsec is awesome and elite and everyone else are scaredy-noobs" trolls.

I've been playing the game since late 2008. I have five active subscriptions which I actually PAY for.

I have lived and pewed in nullsec, lowsec & w-space for extended periods (about a year each). I've done FW. I've built & researched almost everything. I've done trade, industry, mining, exploration, etc.. I was a ninja-salvager with Suddenly Ninjas for years. Until recently I was part of Marmite (largely highsec PvP). I've ganked and been ganked. I've infiltrated corps and had corps infiltrated. I've even taken "a break" and once left the game completely for half a year. I have done it all, enjoyed most of it, made good friends and given CCP a LOT of money in exchange for that.

Change happens. I've seen it countless times. Sometimes I benefited from the changes, sometimes I lost huge amounts of ISK. I've lucked into situations where changes saved me months of skill training, and have trained alts for specific purposes only to have a change render months of training useless for my purpose. Sometimes change is great. Sometimes it sucks. Get over it. :)

These industry changes, though, are a symptom of a larger issue that has been making Eve much less fun for me over the last few years.

Mabrick captures it well: Building Better Worlds for Whom? Though I completely disagree with his idea that we should stop ganking in highsec, his other points are IMHO bang-on.

Ultimately it comes down the the fact that CCP has been gradually and relentlessly trying to FORCE me to play in nullsec, partially through efforts to make highsec safer & more new-player-friendly (let's nerf ninja salvaging and add safeties to our ships). These industry changes, however, won't help drive new subs and will probably have the opposite impact by making production in highsec very low-profit (if profitable at all). CCP has been clear that they want to promote "risk vs reward" which really means "let's force experienced players to nullsec". What CCP is doing is making it impossible for me to choose to play this "sandbox" game in a way that I enjoy. They are (and have been, slowly over time) eliminating my options and effectively forcing me to play the way THEY want me to, or quit. That sucks. Look at Skyrim's success. Look at Civilization. Look at Eve's early success... Now look at *insert game with strict linear story-line here*. Remember it? No? Because they fail! People like choice and hate being forced into things. We get enough of that in RL.

I've done nullsec & IMHO it sucks. If I wanted to be part of some mega-organization with a management structure driven by 20-somethings with power/self-esteem issues, I'd quit the game and spend my free time at work instead. I didn't join Eve to have that experience. I didn't join Eve to pay "rent" to a mega-corp for the privilege of getting access to a third-rate system with an empty local or to spend 12 hours in a TiDi slow-mo battle. I joined Eve to be my own person - I joined to explore a sandbox, make my own decisions, build relationships, make stuff, buy stuff, sell stuff, profit and to destroy other peoples stuff. I've been to nullsec. I've got the t-shirt. It's not fun for me.

And that's ok. There are lots of people out there that have a different opinion of nullsec. It's their choice to live and play in nullsec. It's my choice to live in highsec and make forays into low, null and w-space when I want to. That's the key word here, CHOICE. Changes like this and CCP's 'risk vs reward' piling-on of benefits for nullsec play, have gotten ridiculous. I thought it was bad when they led all those lambs to slaughter during that live-event a few months ago, but it just doesn't stop. And nullsec is not nearly as "risky" as some like to claim. Nullsec can be very very dull and in some instances safer than highsec (depending on how/where you play).

If it would drive new subs I could buy into changes like this (or at least chalk it up to 's*** happens, get over it'), but these changes aren't about that. They're aimed squarely at FORCING experienced players into null.

Three of my accounts are focused on the highsec industry value-chain I've built and love managing. I can pick it up when I have a few spare minutes (unlike PvP, which I only do when I have time to do it properly). I have 100+ billion invested in BPO's, towers, mining ships, stock & transport ships but even without the details I can see that the only way to maintain these activities profitably is to move to null. Not by choice, but as a direct result of the changes CCP is proposing. Since I don't enjoy doing industry in nullsec my choices come down to maintaining an unprofitable/borderline business in highsec or leaving the business and focusing on other stuff.

I'm resigned to leaving the business - my free time is too valuable (cost & risk vs reward).

When the game time runs out on those three industry-focused accounts they won't be renewed. I've stopped training my industry and transport toons and am breeding toons on those accounts for sale. The stations are on the market. The BPO's will be researched until after the summer changes, then sold.

I'm not rage-quitting - I'm keeping 2 accounts for PvP - but Eve no longer gets my (frequent) casual game time. In the last week alone I've bought The Stick of Truth, Total War and other games. They give me CHOICES and are a really fun way to spend 30-60 minutes a day.

Stop eliminating player choice, Mmmkay? It's bad.


Listen to him I'll be unsubbing my 3 Indy accounts too!
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1603 - 2014-04-23 16:03:36 UTC
Irregessa wrote:
So, when do T2 BPOs get removed from the game, so that Invention will finally be the only way to make any T2 ship or module?


I think removal of T2 BPO is the exact opposite of what should be done.

I think invention should be changed to allow the invention of T2 BPOs (with a lot of cost and effort). Problems solved.


And yes, there are problems with T2 BPOs, despite the claims of the current T2 BPO holders. The frustration and hate they create amongst newer players, who will never have an opportunity to enter the lottery, is a VERY real problem, as much as the bitter vets try to dismiss it.

Lvzbel Ixtab
Spitfire Syndicate
#1604 - 2014-04-23 16:21:38 UTC
Also whoever says that after summer HS industrialist just need to take the hit of producing in HS doesn't understand how low profit margins already are for T1 production, for T2 ships almost none existent.

So this doesn't give me the option to produce in HS unless I'm willing to lose isk, we are just being force to move to 0.0 and I love WH space and pvp with a side of HS indy to pay for my pvp, I don't want to be part of a 0.0 Blob.

Also alot of 0.0 is actually safer than HS
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
#1605 - 2014-04-23 16:28:28 UTC
Some proposed changes make sense, but some are not really thought out.
The removal of standings for POSes is a bad idea both because it wil promote POS spamming and because it's unfair to the people who endured those long standing grinds CCP forced beforehand.
The need to phisically move BPs is also going to be a terrible change, wasting players' time and adding danger with no tangible reward. it would make sense if a phisically moved BP would provide an advantage of some kind (shorter times, for example) versus the comfort of remote action, but as it's been noted already, it's again unfair against people who trained specific skills, but even more it's farcical to introduce in New Eden, Anno Domini 23341, an activity which is outdated on old XXI century Earth.

I also agree with those noting how hisec will become a terrible place for industry, and I don't think "forcing" people to move to nullsec or Wh space is a good thing per se although I'm all in favour of more activity in Wh space because I live there. I don't have any industrial activity myself because i find it already too boring and low-profit for the kind of commitment I could put into it, but people need to be free to choose their playstyle regarding their prefrences, not depending on the idea that older players MUST go to more risky space.
If a player likes to play just for some relax, and can't commit to hardcore mode, let him be free to do it, doing something useful to the whole economy and EVE landscape while earning enough to have still some fun. If you take the ISk entirely out of highsec, people living there won't be able to allow some shiny loss and end up having no fun with the game overall.
Regarding this, I wonder why it's still so easy to earn tons of money running hisec incursions while you plan to make highsec industry such a low-margin, time intensive chore...
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
#1606 - 2014-04-23 16:33:25 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Irregessa wrote:
So, when do T2 BPOs get removed from the game, so that Invention will finally be the only way to make any T2 ship or module?


Why do they need to be removed? Before you answer that, read the pages and pages and pages (x10^eleventy-one) of stuff Akita T has posted over the years explaining why they don't need to be.



Okay, read some of his posts regarding T2 BPOs, and I see it as two sides of the same coin, though he doesn't present it quite as such. His argument seems to be more along the lines that Invention needs to be buffed so that you don't always have some negative value to ME/PE, as compared to T2 BPOs that have at least 0/0. That seems to me to be the same as saying that T2 BPOs (for items that have them) will always be better than anything invented. His solution is to improve the Invention process. I understand that people put a lot of time and isk into researching T2 BPOs so that they have nice double digit positive ME and PEs. However, that doesn't negate the fact that those who have T2 BPOs will always have a competitive advantage over anyone who wasn't playing the game at the time of the lotteries. I cannot ever invent a Scimitar BPC and manufacture the ship for as little as someone who holds even a base 0/0 Scimitar BPO can.

If CCP revamps Invention such that I can compete with the existing T2 BPOs, then that would solve that issue, to a large extent. But the present situation has existed for, what, 5+ years? Something should have been done a long time ago but, well, :CCP:, and it appears that nothing will be done until at least Fall/Winter.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1607 - 2014-04-23 16:47:10 UTC
Lvzbel Ixtab wrote:
Listen to him I'll be unsubbing my 3 Indy accounts too!


Risk v. Reward is an EXCELLENT concept.

But, Risk vs. Reward is a 2-edged sword. It means that CCP recognizes there is a significant portion of the potential player base that is risk averse. For them, the profits should be less than those willing to take risk.

CCP's first attempts to implement risk v. reward focused on increasing rewards for those willing to take risks.

Pretty much across the board miserable failures, ALL of them.

Attempts to increase profitability of null ratting resulted in massive inflow of ISK to teh game, and had to be nerfed.

Removal of null mineral bottlenecks on availability crushed profits as mining in null is no more risky than high sec.

Things like profits from FW PvP were exploited and had to be plugged.

It has shown to be virtually impossible to increase profitability in null, without creating more problems, because players are able to make null pretty darn safe... or able to exploit loopholes in other attempts to reward risk.

So, now the risk averse players are rightly concerned that CCP will turn its attention away from looking for ways to make null more profitable, and look to crush porfits for the risk averse in high sec.


It is a legitimate concern.

I get wanting to implement risk v. reward. The problem is finding a way to do it that 1) can't be exploited 2) doesn't create more problems 3) doesn't drive away the risk aerse, which make up a huge portion of the player base.


Good luck with that CCP!
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1608 - 2014-04-23 17:00:32 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Urziel99 wrote:
I'm curious to hear what bonuses could possibly justify me putting a 1.1 billion isk battleship BPO at risk, in a tower that's worth less than that by itself?

CCP has been going on a tear of late, devaluing things earned by veteran players. First it was refining SP (Which I want back, now that It'll only be half as effective as the skills I injected.), now NPC standings and remote jobs. I've never suspected CCP had it out for industrialists and miners, then we lost grav sites and it's been downhill ever since.


Devaluing skills? Are you kidding me? You had to train jack-all to get perfect refine in hisec, compared to my nulsec refining alt that had to train all but the specialty skills to 5, the specialty skills to 4, plug in a 1% refining implant, and refine at an improved refinery, because only certain Conquerable Outposts have 50% refineries. You deserve no reimbursement. Train the skills like everybody else.

Why would you put your BPO in a POS? Do the same darn thing you're already doing. The only thing you can do now that you won't be able to do this summer is remote ME/PE research. So put your BPO in a corp hanger at a research station and do that there. While you're at it, do your copying there, too. Take BPCs, move to production site. 2ez.

NPC standings requirements are only being removed for POS anchoring. Everything else still applies.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.


Er, excuse me, but isn't Low and nul sec SUPOSED to be harder/tougher in every sense, isn't that part of the "challenge" for those of us who whish to take it. How odd to come across a complaint about that.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1609 - 2014-04-23 17:36:57 UTC
Here is a helpful posting hint for this and future threads: using your subscription as a threat to attempt to coerce change in the game is a very poor tactic. No one likes to be threatened; such an unwise gambit runs the very high risk of the party being coerced simply writing off your threat as an eventuality and soldiering on without actually considering any meat that your argument may contain.

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

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1610 - 2014-04-23 17:39:47 UTC
Lvzbel Ixtab wrote:
Also whoever says that after summer HS industrialist just need to take the hit of producing in HS doesn't understand how low profit margins already are for T1 production, for T2 ships almost none existent.

So this doesn't give me the option to produce in HS unless I'm willing to lose isk, we are just being force to move to 0.0 and I love WH space and pvp with a side of HS indy to pay for my pvp, I don't want to be part of a 0.0 Blob.

Also alot of 0.0 is actually safer than HS


Clearly, prices will adjust to higher input costs, to maintain the same slim profit margins. That is the beauty of supply and demand. If it is unprofitable, you won't supply, prices adjust, then it becomes profitable, you start supplying again.

People are not going to start manufacturing jump freighter loads of M0 in null, just to avoid station slot fees, then pay the fuel to jump the freighter in. AND, if it is profitable enough to do so, then high sec manufacturing will stop, slot prices will fall, until it reaches equilibrium with the cost of jump fuel to bring in all that null manufactured goods, and then manufacturing can resume in high sec, on the items that are too bulky to be profitable for jump freighter transport..

As for 0.0 being safer than high, true... which is why the null minerals sell for the same profit/hour of high sec ores + jump freighter costs.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1611 - 2014-04-23 17:42:09 UTC
D'Kelle wrote:
Er, excuse me, but isn't Low and nul sec SUPOSED to be harder/tougher in every sense, isn't that part of the "challenge" for those of us who whish to take it. How odd to come across a complaint about that.
No, that's not what it's about per my understanding. It's about greater player initiated dangers, but not space ghettos. There is no reason low/null should have to work under mechanical disadvantages on top of that.
Kaius Fero
#1612 - 2014-04-23 18:28:16 UTC
Querns wrote:
Here is a helpful posting hint for this and future threads: using your subscription as a threat to attempt to coerce change in the game is a very poor tactic. No one likes to be threatened; such an unwise gambit runs the very high risk of the party being coerced simply writing off your threat as an eventuality and soldiering on without actually considering any meat that your argument may contain.

You're just a slave, your not supposed to think about stuff... is why the term player/customer feedback is unknown tou you. Chill.

Anselmo & The Illegals

Lvzbel Ixtab
Spitfire Syndicate
#1613 - 2014-04-23 18:37:00 UTC
Querns wrote:
Here is a helpful posting hint for this and future threads: using your subscription as a threat to attempt to coerce change in the game is a very poor tactic. No one likes to be threatened; such an unwise gambit runs the very high risk of the party being coerced simply writing off your threat as an eventuality and soldiering on without actually considering any meat that your argument may contain.



Is not a thread is reality, with all this changes I have to use for my HS accounts, and I'm a WH person and not planing to be a null bear, for that reason I have no reason to keep those accounts active
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1614 - 2014-04-23 18:55:02 UTC
Kaius Fero wrote:
Querns wrote:
Here is a helpful posting hint for this and future threads: using your subscription as a threat to attempt to coerce change in the game is a very poor tactic. No one likes to be threatened; such an unwise gambit runs the very high risk of the party being coerced simply writing off your threat as an eventuality and soldiering on without actually considering any meat that your argument may contain.

You're just a slave, your not supposed to think about stuff... is why the term player/customer feedback is unknown tou you. Chill.

"I am mad, therefore I am canceling my subscription" is not feedback, it's a threat.

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

Kun'ii Zenya
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#1615 - 2014-04-23 18:59:46 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
CCP has steadily been removing ISK sinks by making more items player built like POS structures and fuel.

Looking at the blog's entirety, it feels to me like CCP is looking to bring back ISK sinks with these changes. Cost scaling for S&I slots is almost surely going to increase costs, draining ISK.

BPOs in POSes is almost surely going to cause some loss, meaning BPO re-purchase, which is another major ISK sink.


I too like to speculate. Roll

Do you know how many high sec stations there are?

Domain has 304
Sing Laison 204
The Citadel 371
Everyshore 122
Verge Vendor 99
Derelik 49
Genesis 96

That partial list show 1,245 stations. Do all of them have slots? No, but the point is there are ALOT of stations in HS and so the price increase due to slot usage can be mitigated by simply finding a less popular system.

Plus this removes a potential barrier...a barrier that people used to overcome via setting up POS which are not costless.

So the impact of this kind of change is not so clear cut, IMO.


Ummm...do all of them have slots....no.....bit of an understatement.
How about you do an analysis of how many high sec systems have manufacturing, or even more importantly, copy, ME, PE, and invention slots.

When all the dev blogs are released, and when the massive, massive advantage to null sec refining is factored in, high sec manufacturing will be dead. One of the chief architects of these changes openly stated that "some" high sec manufacturing will be completely unprofitable after these changes, and that subs will drop.

And oh, this is BEFORE T2 invention in high sec gets killed in the fall.


Yeah because access to slots will be handed out to anyone who asks in null. Roll
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
#1616 - 2014-04-23 19:06:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Irregessa
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:

Yeah because access to slots will be handed out to anyone who asks in null. Roll


Just looking at NPC Delve, there are three stations with research slots and nine with factory slots. No ring kissing required.

Yes, I realize that these stations won't have the same benefits as player-built ones in nullsec, but I bet they won't be as heavily utilized as the high sec ones, and they are right at the source for the best minerals. Risk vs. reward and all that.
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Vega Farscape
#1617 - 2014-04-23 19:10:09 UTC
Lvzbel Ixtab wrote:
The Alienator wrote:
I'm

I've been playing the game since late 2008. I have five active subscriptions which I actually PAY for.

I have lived and pewed in nullsec, lowsec & w-space for extended periods (about a year each). I've done FW. I've built & researched almost everything. I've done trade, industry, mining, exploration, etc.. I was a ninja-salvager with Suddenly Ninjas for years. Until recently I was part of Marmite (largely highsec PvP). I've ganked and been ganked. I've infiltrated corps and had corps infiltrated. I've even taken "a break" and once left the game completely for half a year. I have done it all, enjoyed most of it, made good friends and given CCP a LOT of money in exchange for that.

Change happens. I've seen it countless times. Sometimes I benefited from the changes, sometimes I lost huge amounts of ISK. I've lucked into situations where changes saved me months of skill training, and have trained alts for specific purposes only to have a change render months of training useless for my purpose. Sometimes change is great. Sometimes it sucks. Get over it. :)

These industry changes, though, are a symptom of a larger issue that has been making Eve much less fun for me over the last few years.

Mabrick captures it well: Building Better Worlds for Whom? Though I completely disagree with his idea that we should stop ganking in highsec, his other points are IMHO bang-on.

Ultimately it comes down the the fact that CCP has been gradually and relentlessly trying to FORCE me to play in nullsec, partially through efforts to make highsec safer & more new-player-friendly (let's nerf ninja salvaging and add safeties to our ships). These industry changes, however, won't help drive new subs and will probably have the opposite impact by making production in highsec very low-profit (if profitable at all). CCP has been clear that they want to promote "risk vs reward" which really means "let's force experienced players to nullsec". What CCP is doing is making it impossible for me to choose to play this "sandbox" game in a way that I enjoy. They are (and have been, slowly over time) eliminating my options and effectively forcing me to play the way THEY want me to, or quit. That sucks. Look at Skyrim's success. Look at Civilization. Look at Eve's early success... Now look at *insert game with strict linear story-line here*. Remember it? No? Because they fail! People like choice and hate being forced into things. We get enough of that in RL.

I've done nullsec & IMHO it sucks. If I wanted to be part of some mega-organization with a management structure driven by 20-somethings with power/self-esteem issues, I'd quit the game and spend my free time at work instead. I didn't join Eve to have that experience. I didn't join Eve to pay "rent" to a mega-corp for the privilege of getting access to a third-rate system with an empty local or to spend 12 hours in a TiDi slow-mo battle. I joined Eve to be my own person - I joined to explore a sandbox, make my own decisions, build relationships, make stuff, buy stuff, sell stuff, profit and to destroy other peoples stuff. I've been to nullsec. I've got the t-shirt. It's not fun for me.

And that's ok. There are lots of people out there that have a different opinion of nullsec. It's their choice to live and play in nullsec. It's my choice to live in highsec and make forays into low, null and w-space when I want to. That's the key word here, CHOICE. Changes like this and CCP's 'risk vs reward' piling-on of benefits for nullsec play, have gotten ridiculous. I thought it was bad when they led all those lambs to slaughter during that live-event a few months ago, but it just doesn't stop. And nullsec is not nearly as "risky" as some like to claim. Nullsec can be very very dull and in some instances safer than highsec (depending on how/where you play).

If it would drive new subs I could buy into changes like this (or at least chalk it up to 's*** happens, get over it'), but these changes aren't about that. They're aimed squarely at FORCING experienced players into null.

Three of my accounts are focused on the highsec industry value-chain I've built and love managing. I can pick it up when I have a few spare minutes (unlike PvP, which I only do when I have time to do it properly). I have 100+ billion invested in BPO's, towers, mining ships, stock & transport ships but even without the details I can see that the only way to maintain these activities profitably is to move to null. Not by choice, but as a direct result of the changes CCP is proposing. Since I don't enjoy doing industry in nullsec my choices come down to maintaining an unprofitable/borderline business in highsec or leaving the business and focusing on other stuff.

I'm resigned to leaving the business - my free time is too valuable (cost & risk vs reward).

When the game time runs out on those three industry-focused accounts they won't be renewed. I've stopped training my industry and transport toons and am breeding toons on those accounts for sale. The stations are on the market. The BPO's will be researched until after the summer changes, then sold.

I'm not rage-quitting - I'm keeping 2 accounts for PvP - but Eve no longer gets my (frequent) casual game time. In the last week alone I've bought The Stick of Truth, Total War and other games. They give me CHOICES and are a really fun way to spend 30-60 minutes a day.

Stop eliminating player choice, Mmmkay? It's bad.


Listen to him I'll be unsubbing my 3 Indy accounts too!

2 gone. to more to unsub.no life for large scale industry in hi sec anymore.
Aeonidis
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1618 - 2014-04-23 20:18:57 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Since we're focusing on risk vs reward I'm assuming wormhole industry is going to be absolutely fantastic.

Looking forward to the figures dev blog.


As you mention it... since CONCORD is not able to provide direct chat access in W-space, how is the SCC or any other NPC corp (assuming that the fees for jobs are paid to these NPC entities) supposed to collect the fees from W-space POS? Of course, it's just a game and logic only goes so far; but how could the SCC reach W-space to collect fees when it's mighty mother company CONCORD cannot access W-space?




The ISK to be collected from all the POS's in the new POS tax collection regime is stored in a nano-electric processor and beamed out over the distances of space using a few electronic parts and a hyper-synaptic fiber and focused with a laser focusing crystal and radio frequency crystal. In order to not burn out the Hyper-synaptic fiber(due to the great distances the beam must fire) the beam can only transmitted once every 24 hours. Naturally all these parts will now need to be added to all new POS structure builds. Or should we leave the lore well enough alone and say that towers have enough steps already to make the final product ?
Anders Madeveda
Usque Ad Mortem
#1619 - 2014-04-23 20:21:48 UTC
Irregessa wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Irregessa wrote:
So, when do T2 BPOs get removed from the game, so that Invention will finally be the only way to make any T2 ship or module?


Why do they need to be removed? Before you answer that, read the pages and pages and pages (x10^eleventy-one) of stuff Akita T has posted over the years explaining why they don't need to be.



Okay, read some of his posts regarding T2 BPOs, and I see it as two sides of the same coin, though he doesn't present it quite as such. His argument seems to be more along the lines that Invention needs to be buffed so that you don't always have some negative value to ME/PE, as compared to T2 BPOs that have at least 0/0. That seems to me to be the same as saying that T2 BPOs (for items that have them) will always be better than anything invented. His solution is to improve the Invention process. I understand that people put a lot of time and isk into researching T2 BPOs so that they have nice double digit positive ME and PEs. However, that doesn't negate the fact that those who have T2 BPOs will always have a competitive advantage over anyone who wasn't playing the game at the time of the lotteries. I cannot ever invent a Scimitar BPC and manufacture the ship for as little as someone who holds even a base 0/0 Scimitar BPO can.

If CCP revamps Invention such that I can compete with the existing T2 BPOs, then that would solve that issue, to a large extent. But the present situation has existed for, what, 5+ years? Something should have been done a long time ago but, well, :CCP:, and it appears that nothing will be done until at least Fall/Winter.


I have yet to make any T2 item and net less than 22-25%, it doesn't bother me if someone else can earn 35-45% on the same item. True there are a few items that the low volume traded gives T2 BPO holders a competitive advantage, these are the exception not the rule. For every one of these items there are 50 items whose daily trade volume makes it impossible for T2 BPO holders to produce enough goods to meet the demand, and these items make invention more profitable long term. The only advantage T2 BPO's have without a doubt is the reduced effort to produce said item as there is no invention step involved.

I owned a T2 Quake L BPO for about 4 months and honestly I make more isk running invention on Titanium L BPC's in 1 month than the entirety of my ownership of the BPO. They are a very expensive novelty with build in manufacturing and copy limitations that make them irrelevant to dedicated industrialists.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1620 - 2014-04-23 20:26:45 UTC
What we really, really, really need is the other dev blogs in the series, ESPECIALLY the one on how the cost scaling is going to work.

Until then, all this talk of killing high sec industry is pure speculation.