These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Crius] Starbase feedback

First post First post
Author
WEY'0UN
Hoover Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#81 - 2014-06-13 11:44:03 UTC
Will there ever be expansions to pos gunning? Anchoring lvl 5 was a terribly long skill for those of us who trained it... Starbase defence lvl 5 even more so. Have you ever considered adding skills for more guns or tracking etc?
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#82 - 2014-06-13 11:50:54 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
I anchored and onlined a couple of Component Assembly Arrays but I can't seem to find them in the list of manufacturing lines. Bug or am I doing something wrong?


They are delayed by up to an hour, but this behavior is only temporary. They will appear immediately before we go to TQ.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones

MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#83 - 2014-06-13 14:05:35 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Careby wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
...but like I said, small corps will just use NPC stations. With the removal of slots and system wide cost scaling this isn't as big a deal as it used to be with slot constraints.

Those that want to take the risk, enjoy the POS bonuses. The choice is yours.

I may have missed a detail or two, but isn't there going to be a problem with the number of available office slots at stations with research?

Currently a small corp uses a POS for research because of limited station research slots, and can locate their office at any station in the system. If those corps move their research from POS to station post-Crius, it seems to me they will have to locate their office at a station that has research. And because of system-wide cost scaling, there seems to be little incentive to manufacture at stations without research. Which would seem to lead everyone to congregate at the research stations, which would then lead to high office rent at those stations. This might make it very expensive to run corporation research jobs.

A large corporation doing research may have no problem with high office rent. An individual doing research doesn't need to rent an office. But a small corporation which does need a corporation hangar for blueprint research may find the office cost difficult to bear. Are there any planned changes to the number of available offices and/or the rent structure? And if office rent will not be an issue, why will anyone use a non-research station for industry?



This is a very valid concern and something we will keep a close eye on.

This exact issue is what I've been harping on for literally weeks now:
April 30th: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4533016#post4533016
May 13th: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4588758#post4588758
May 21st: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4620510#post4620510

And possibly other posts which I can't be bothered to go find at the moment. All I've ever seen are very tepid, unsatisfactory responses. I get the distinct impression that my view of what's going to happen in Crius and CCP's view(s) are very different.

So let me change tacks. Please run a quick DB query to count the number of free offices in highsec stations which have lab facilities. Run another DB query to count the number of corps with highsec R&D POSes and BPOs in their office hangars. Compare these numbers. I suspect you will find that the latter number (# of corps) FAR EXCEEDS the former number (# of available offices). What, CCP, do you suppose this will mean for Crius?

MDD
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#84 - 2014-06-13 14:32:35 UTC
Angelina Duvolle wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:


It's the Thukker component array. On the market



Thank for pointing it out, I hadn't seen it referred to in any of the dev posts.

It looks good, but I'd sure like to see it have more capacity then 1m m3

Is their some reason it has to be anchored in a system with less then .4? Should be able to anchor in .1-.4 I would think. (I can't find one to test with) I noticed the intensive array requires less then .449


Oh, yeah, the attribute names are wrong. The code is correct, though, we've fixed it so that it includes the relevant number rather than excluding it. Intensive refine I will follow up on.

Jacabon Mere wrote:
Additionally there are some low sec systems that are 0.0 security rating. Hophib for example


Yeah, those are a weird anomaly that we don't have a good solution for right now. They interact strangely with a number of different systems.
Blue Harrier
#85 - 2014-06-13 15:32:53 UTC
Thanks for the earlier reply to my other post.

Now a question;
We now have the facility to anchor a POS in high sector space but do I take it we will not be able to harvest moons?

I did try and set up a Moon Harvesting Array but got a long winded message about it had to be in 0.4 or less (I think). The message vanishes far too quickly to read it all and because it has multiple lines it’s very difficult to read all of it in one go.

"You wait - time passes, Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold." from The Hobbit on ZX Spectrum 1982.

Soldarius
Brand Newbros
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#86 - 2014-06-13 15:52:58 UTC
Kithran wrote:
To illustrate how it would be used (and how I have personally seen it used in the past)

You set up a wallet division called research.

You give the people doing research access to the wallet division research - this means they can put in money when they want to do research.

You set a cost for the research (current process - would be a tax rate under new method).

When someone wants to do research they put the bpo in a lab, they put the isk into the research wallet, they start research.

At present with this arrangement the cost goes into the master wallet, it can then be used to pay for say fuel. What people are suggesting is you should be able to set tax rates on your own pos which would mean the tax part of the cost of a job would go into the master wallet in the same way costs do now.


I agree that you are effectively depending on donations from your players to run your POS.

I also agree that members can simply not pay. Or pay less. Or empty the wallet at will (though that would show in the logs). Or any number of other things that result in you losing isk.

I'm all for having a way to tax for array usage, especially if it allows public fees and access. If we could select which wallet to use to pay for the lab fees, like we can for buying and selling on the market, the entire problem would be solved.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Soldarius
Brand Newbros
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#87 - 2014-06-13 16:01:46 UTC
Blue Harrier wrote:
Thanks for the earlier reply to my other post.

Now a question;
We now have the facility to anchor a POS in high sector space but do I take it we will not be able to harvest moons?

I did try and set up a Moon Harvesting Array but got a long winded message about it had to be in 0.4 or less (I think). The message vanishes far too quickly to read it all and because it has multiple lines it’s very difficult to read all of it in one go.


The tl;dr: You cannot do moon mining in .4 or higher.

That is it. I hope that one day that changes. I've never been a fan of artificial and/or arbitrary limitations. Then again, it would probably completely crash the moongoo market.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#88 - 2014-06-13 16:09:57 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Blue Harrier wrote:
Thanks for the earlier reply to my other post.

Now a question;
We now have the facility to anchor a POS in high sector space but do I take it we will not be able to harvest moons?

I did try and set up a Moon Harvesting Array but got a long winded message about it had to be in 0.4 or less (I think). The message vanishes far too quickly to read it all and because it has multiple lines it’s very difficult to read all of it in one go.


The tl;dr: You cannot do moon mining in .4 or higher.

That is it. I hope that one day that changes. I've never been a fan of artificial and/or arbitrary limitations. Then again, it would probably completely crash the moongoo market.


0.5 or higher as of Crius. We changed a >= to a > so the code does what the authoring was always assuming it did. I just fixed the display text for the attributes this afternoon to reflect this, but the code should already be in place.
Bridgette d'Iberville
Better Killing Through Chemistry
#89 - 2014-06-13 16:12:35 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
0.5 or higher as of Crius. We changed a >= to a > so the code does what the authoring was always assuming it did. I just fixed the display text for the attributes this afternoon to reflect this, but the code should already be in place.


I'm being stupid for asking this since I think you pretty clearly articulated it above, but are you saying you can run moon mining arrays in 0.4 space? Are other modules (hello reactors) that are currently restricted to 0.3 or lower space also getting the make-over?

(As an aside, I've never put up a POS in 0.4 but seem to remember some game guides indicating charters were required for them. That always seemed weird to me and I wondered if that was actually the case).

"I considered a career in griefing, but then realized that I would never achieve the level of tear generation that CCP manages to do each and every expansion."

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#90 - 2014-06-13 16:15:09 UTC
Bridgette d'Iberville wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
0.5 or higher as of Crius. We changed a >= to a > so the code does what the authoring was always assuming it did. I just fixed the display text for the attributes this afternoon to reflect this, but the code should already be in place.


I'm being stupid for asking this since I think you pretty clearly articulated it above, but are you saying you can run moon mining arrays in 0.4 space? Are other modules (hello reactors) that are currently restricted to 0.3 or lower space also getting the make-over?

(As an aside, I've never put up a POS in 0.4 but seem to remember some game guides indicating charters were required for them. That always seemed weird to me and I wondered if that was actually the case).


Yes and yes. Nothing has changed on the structures themselves, we've just changed the code so "0.4" means "up to 0.4" rather than "below 0.4".
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2014-06-13 16:27:05 UTC
dat bombshell

brb, scanning moons
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#92 - 2014-06-13 16:27:43 UTC
My Component Assembly Array tells me it gives a 25% reduction in material. I'm assuming that's a mistake? Lol

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#93 - 2014-06-13 16:28:11 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
Edit: Nevermind. Greyscale's post above clarifies.

MDD
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#94 - 2014-06-13 16:37:53 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Bridgette d'Iberville wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
0.5 or higher as of Crius. We changed a >= to a > so the code does what the authoring was always assuming it did. I just fixed the display text for the attributes this afternoon to reflect this, but the code should already be in place.


I'm being stupid for asking this since I think you pretty clearly articulated it above, but are you saying you can run moon mining arrays in 0.4 space? Are other modules (hello reactors) that are currently restricted to 0.3 or lower space also getting the make-over?

(As an aside, I've never put up a POS in 0.4 but seem to remember some game guides indicating charters were required for them. That always seemed weird to me and I wondered if that was actually the case).


Yes and yes. Nothing has changed on the structures themselves, we've just changed the code so "0.4" means "up to 0.4" rather than "below 0.4".

Actually, I hope you changed the code to be " less than 0.45 " IIRC truesec less than 0.45 is rounded down to 0.4 in the game. Correct?

MDD


This particular bit of code converts the real security value to a single-place decimal (actually, to a integer representation between -1000 and +1000, but whatever) prior to doing the comparison, rounding the same way that we do for ingame sec display.
Circumstantial Evidence
#95 - 2014-06-13 16:43:43 UTC
CCP Greyscale,
Players have dropped a few ideas to help account for POS array "online/offline shenanigans" over here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4697380#post4697380

I made a somewhat complicated suggestion for tracking time and costing benefits per structure, but this idea by Maenth "seems simple" - linking all arrays of same type as a group: you could have all, or none online.
Darkblad
Doomheim
#96 - 2014-06-13 17:22:03 UTC
Bridgette d'Iberville wrote:
I'm being stupid for asking this since I think you pretty clearly articulated it above, but are you saying you can run moon mining arrays in 0.4 space? Are other modules (hello reactors) that are currently restricted to 0.3 or lower space also getting the make-over?
Just to be sure, I tried to anchor and online a moon harvester on Sisi - successfully

NPEISDRIP

Velicitia
XS Tech
#97 - 2014-06-13 20:16:04 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Looks like the (hisec) Repro Array is misbehaving.


Skills --> 5/5/5 Refining, Refinery Efficiency, Veldspar Processing
Batch --> 1 x veldspar (100 units)
Edit -- oh, have the 4% implant too.

POS Result -- 215
Raw Spreadsheet Result (POS) -- 311.25

For reference, stations seem to be OK:
Tax --> 5% (as listed in game -- standings actually bring this down to approximately 3% based on real losses)
Overall -> "70% yield" in station, according to ingame repro window

Station Result -- 289
Raw Spreadsheet Result (Station) -- 289.67


Yes indeed, Reprocessing Arrays aren't taking skills into account yet.

Aww Cry

Well, at least you're aware then Smile.

Any timeline for kicking the POS code into behaving ... or just "soon(tm)"?


I could say "during the next few weeks" but I'm not sure that would help P


well, that's slightly sooner than soon(tm), so I'll take it!

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Laendra
Universalis Imperium
The Bastion
#98 - 2014-06-13 20:24:36 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
Blue Harrier wrote:
Thanks for the earlier reply to my other post.

Now a question;
We now have the facility to anchor a POS in high sector space but do I take it we will not be able to harvest moons?

I did try and set up a Moon Harvesting Array but got a long winded message about it had to be in 0.4 or less (I think). The message vanishes far too quickly to read it all and because it has multiple lines it’s very difficult to read all of it in one go.


The tl;dr: You cannot do moon mining in .4 or higher.

That is it. I hope that one day that changes. I've never been a fan of artificial and/or arbitrary limitations. Then again, it would probably completely crash the moongoo market.


0.5 or higher as of Crius. We changed a >= to a > so the code does what the authoring was always assuming it did. I just fixed the display text for the attributes this afternoon to reflect this, but the code should already be in place.


Two things:

1) Are you still going to require Charters for 0.4?
2) Would you please randomize the minerals for those 0.4 moons on patch day to give back the excitement of scanning :)
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Mercenary Coalition
#99 - 2014-06-13 21:48:08 UTC
Laendra wrote:

1) Are you still going to require Charters for 0.4?
2) Would you please randomize the minerals for those 0.4 moons on patch day to give back the excitement of scanning :)


0.4 does not require charters.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Bridgette d'Iberville
Better Killing Through Chemistry
#100 - 2014-06-13 21:52:09 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
0.4 does not require charters.

Thanks for answering that, I've never tried to put a POS in 0.4 because some of the guides mention that starbase charters were required. There seemed to be little reason to put up a POS in a 0.4 given it seemed to have drawbacks of not doing everything a low-sec POS could do (reactions) while simultaneously requiring annoying Hi-Sec widgets to run.

"I considered a career in griefing, but then realized that I would never achieve the level of tear generation that CCP manages to do each and every expansion."