EVE Information Portal

You make some good points, but the overall theme of my complain is still there. These are for the most part a net negative to me and from the perspective of this being a video game I don't see how this is supposed to be terribly exciting as an "expansion".

I agree that some aspects of Industry were broken, and needed a revamp but it'd be nice to see changes rolled out over a larger period of time along with some extra content. Also it'd be nice if they could make them somehow more carrot and less stick.

Is it safe to assume that we can expect some update to the POS management system? I find it supremely annoying that the only way I can allow my corpmates to install their own jobs into corporate owned manufacturing and researching facilities is to give them an unprecedented level of control over said structures as well as access to a corporate account, especially since the assembly lines already say that they are publicly available. As we live in W-space, allowing members to build there own equipment and ships without the need to annoy someone with the appropriate roles and trust levels in the corporation would be nice. If I've missed some magical button that already allows this I'd appreciate a redirect as the seemingly days of research and trial and error attempts have yielded no helpful results.

As for the rest of the changes to industry, I love the overall concept. I'll wait and see how they end up affecting life out here on the edge.

perhaps they make more than ammo?

See: "Cease manufacturing in W-space."

ctrl+f

Setting aside the fact that it simply easier to produce T3s in a place where we can quite easily attain all of the materials required to build them, what about research? We have no stations to allow for remote researching, which as of the summer release doesn't matter, so we still have no way of simply allowing people to use the labs that we are more than willing to allow them to use.

Actually, letting the installation cost depend on m3 of materials seems like a very very sensible idea - those workers and especially their unions will definitely make sure that if they have to shift a larger amount of stuff they will have a larger pay. It will be an added bonus to well researched blueprints, it will be immune to manipulation, and it will by and large yield the same general result. There is plenty of variability in the other factors - number of facilities, number of industrialists in system, etc. Market price is a random factor in this respect. Volume matters.

There is a lot to digest, but at first read, these changes seem to be based more on an interest in statistical models than in interesting game play. The changes seem to ignore the relationship of markets (Jita), market transparency, supply and demand and logistical factors that increase value or expense. Market transperancy is really just theory and a statistical model takes away from that idea as a game play motivator.

"What we're doing instead is setting the base price for a job based on two factors: the cost of the job output, and what fraction of the universe's total job-hours are being done in a given system."

Why use a relative value such a fraction of total job-hours? It's an interesting applicaton of math but does it really make sense in a game based on the idea of hyper capitalism? Where do real world parallels exist? They really don't because all kinds of political aspects manipulate and prevent "true cost" accounting methods. A percentage against total job hours implies a perfect accounting method that demotivates gameplay style because why bother looking for opportunties to exploit? Using this logic, then pricing should be viewable not by region, but game wide.

If you want a floating pricing model, it'd make sense to tie a system modifier to it's proximity to volume and pricing of sales. And, why not increase the sales tax on an item based on the volume and rate of items being sold such that it costs more to sell an item in Jita (due to administrative overhead and access to market distribution expertise) than say in a less active selling system? The closer an item is produced to a market hub, the more expensive the costs become because the proximity to the market implies a better competitive edge. Conversely, why not lower prices for products made further away from hubs based on volume and cost (not just cost). These are relatively easy problems to which statistical analysis can be applied.

Tying the modifier to cost of job output or the cost of an item may actually work exactly the opposite to what "real" market forces might dictate, especially if kill mail cost is the slighest bit wonky. Pricing on a ship may go up because of basic market inefficiencies and here the incentive produce is offset by "punishing" a natural response to demand (ie to meet the need which brings down the market price). I predict this will result in player frustration because many entrants into the market are slow to discern market trends, tend to over produce and will lose more in terms of overproduced stock for reasons that are due mainly to an unrealistic model for creating expenses.

Why not tie in some notion of logistics (distance) and regional politics. Charge sales taxes based on differences in regions and hops traveled. Charge not based on total job hours but on job variance - retooling a production line to produce a carrier that normally produces frigates makes more sense from an industrial perspective. And, why charge POS jobs in any way? POS owners already pay fuel costs and charter costs in high sec.

Create incentives to spread out by giving people a reason to sell in places other than Jita and add value to the other element of industry which is logistics. The potential to add value to high end game resources such as jump freighters truly opens up if you factor in these ideas instead of trying to solve not a game play issue but a dev concern.

[quote=Quintessen

While not commenting on the other things you wrote, percentage of global hours worked actually works pretty well to simulate demand of manufacturing labor. It doesn't well describe supply which is being treated like a uniform whole.

All-in-all they could have done a lot worse.
[/quote]

I would agree if we were talking about something like a national model or a tighter model like EU regulation. But the cost of labor in China does not really map to the cost of labor in the US in the way described as a percentage of total job hours. And, I think the eve dynamic more matches a "global" economy than a regional one. This is why I said political forces (easily represented by the 4 different races) have such an impact. Not every producer has equal access to that cheap labor force either. The average small business owner cannot go to China and produce products on the same scale that say a Walmart can. Is this a tempest in a teapot - sure. But so are the fees we're talking about relative to the game expenses. I would hate to end up in a game situation akin to having to track down all the items now represented by a POS fuel block, but I think the proposed solution does not involve some of the best competitive elements or ideas in and around the game.

Market inefficiences are really market opportunities, usually because not everyone has equal access to the resrouce in question. I think the desire to avoid future development or game logic headaches is good (and appreciated it) but I do not see this explanation / logic as enhancing game play.

Doesn't matter what the name of the system is really. The point is if everybody goes there then the price of jobs will sky rocket which will induce people to move.

As for BPOs in POS' and risk that will depend on a host of factors, to say you'll never ever do it, is just as stupid as saying you will always do it.