These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Erika Mizune
Lucifer's Hammer
A Band Apart.
#121 - 2014-06-15 18:51:14 UTC
Well it is nice to see Indy get some love, and some of the changes I am happy about, and I know I will be taking advantage of the high-sec pos usage for my alt's single-man corp. I'm not sure about the remote usage with bp's however and I'm a bit worried how all these changes are going to effect the indy corps out there. I like having all the BP's in one centralized location too, lol.

Former DJ & Manager of Eve Radio | Blog | Sounds of New Eden | Twitch | Twitter

Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#122 - 2014-06-15 22:23:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Seith Kali
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.

This is yet another clear example of PL favouritism from CCP. You know full well we can't dip our toes into lowsec without losing a super fleet, and you slap a load more R64's there anyway.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 

Moonlight Jade
Ultrapolite Socialites
#123 - 2014-06-16 01:59:20 UTC
PL is ruining our game again.

This favoritism must stop NOW!
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#124 - 2014-06-16 02:34:11 UTC
We won't know who is playing favorites until SC rebalancing
Laendra
Universalis Imperium
The Bastion
#125 - 2014-06-16 05:22:03 UTC
Something seems to be missing. There is no Access right-click (context) menu for the reprocessing arrays.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#126 - 2014-06-16 08:31:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Moonlight Jade wrote:
PL is ruining our game again.

This favoritism must stop NOW!


Good joke. If the following quote is true, you should try and heed your own mantra of adapt, improve and HTFU for a change:

Seith Kali 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.

This is yet another clear example of PL favouritism from CCP. You know full well we can't dip our toes into lowsec without losing a super fleet, and you slap a load more R64's there anyway.


If you cannot, with your sheer numbers, fend off PL, you clearly have more problems than than falling R64 prices.

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.

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#127 - 2014-06-16 10:58:37 UTC
Aryth wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.


Do you plan on then going back to 50% to keep the current supply/demand ratios the same then?


Not if we can avoid it, no. The 37.5/50 thing was to keep demand the same, particularly as it pertains to ratios between different materials. A general minor increase in supply isn't something we have a lot of immediate concern over, and the risk is compartmentalized separately to the risks involved in manufacturing changes.

Dr Cow wrote:
So does this allow fighter assignment in .4 systems as well?


Probably not, given that this is specifically in the anchoring code, but that's something we should maybe look into at some point.

Dirk MacGirk 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".


Greyscale - What does CCP's economics group have to say about this? I'd imagine its been cleared as a good thing for the markets or that the "gameplay" associated with it has an overwhelming benefit.


I haven't talked to them about it, it didn't seem like a big enough deal for the economy as a whole to worry about.
BigWolfUK wrote:
DoToo Foo wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:


Tax rate at a POS makes no sense, since you can only install corporation jobs that get paid from the corporation wallet, you would only be taxing yourself.



There exist small to medium corps that get together for industry. The game mechanics so far have restricted the number of corps doing this; but they do exist.

We charge pilots using other divisions to do their research/industry, with the tax being paid into the master wallet. We use this to subsidize POS fuel;

Eve University apparently does the same.

We were hoping that while industry and corporations were being re-worked; we would get more control.

I understand corp roles are being re-worked next round, but please don't reduce the limited options for tax that I already have.


This...
I would of thought CCP would have known it was used in this method already...


None of the three or four people involved in the decision have (AFAIK) played in a corp set up so that one division taxes another. It's a pretty niche setup, and we can't afford to do widespread internal reviews for every minor point that comes up. Rather, we generally find it much more efficient to get info to players as early as possible, as you guys have a much broader range of experience than we could ever hope to have internally :)
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#128 - 2014-06-16 11:51:36 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
...and the risk is compartmentalized separately to the risks involved in manufacturing changes.


What on earth are you talking about? An increase in goo supply is going to add a hell of a lot to consider with regards to ME changes. The less expensive T2 is, the less relevant each % of ME is with regards to a manufacturers' bottom line.

You don't 'compartmentalized' them differently (quite the term for someone who speaks the Queen's english Lol) as it serves to flatten the impact of ME advantage choices. Do I buy a team? Do I use a high ME or high run decryptor?

The same is true for TE. The increase in build times in great for introducing more value in TE advantage and the associated choices which were previously undervalued next to ME.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#129 - 2014-06-16 11:58:53 UTC
Seith Kali wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
...and the risk is compartmentalized separately to the risks involved in manufacturing changes.


What on earth are you talking about? An increase in goo supply is going to add a hell of a lot to consider with regards to ME changes. The less expensive T2 is, the less relevant each % of ME is with regards to a manufacturers' bottom line.

You don't 'compartmentalized' them differently (quite the term for someone who speaks the Queen's english Lol) as it serves to flatten the impact of ME advantage choices. Do I buy a team? Do I use a high ME or high run decryptor?

The same is true for TE. The increase in build times in great for introducing more value in TE advantage and the associated choices which were previously undervalued next to ME.


I don't follow your logic here. A percentage reduction is a percentage reduction, it seems like it should have the same impact on your profit margin regardless of what the material costs are. Cheaper items will result in smaller absolute profit in the short term, to be sure, but that is a thing that the market should resolve sensibly over time.
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#130 - 2014-06-16 12:25:11 UTC
Because 1% of 100m is only 0.1% of 1000m. The cheaper a percentage is, the less value you get out of things like outposts, bidding on teams, decyptors and the less relevant station build costs will be. On top of that, the longer it takes to build something, the greater the value of each % of TE.

Due to fuel, hauling stuff about is always going to be a flat rate per volume, regardless of the value of the item.

The greater the value of decryptors next to the output product the less choices you have to use. There is no way you would use a decyptor to make ammo right now, for example. If your ammo bpc produced 100m worth of ammo, you might think about it.

I dunno how I can be more coherent about this really. A % is a %, yes. But you have to buy that %, the less it is worth the less the options that are viable to get it.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 

Jon Lucien
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#131 - 2014-06-16 12:35:13 UTC
Please limit the size of your quote pyramids. Giant 6-layer quote pyramids are difficult to read and take up too much space.
Meytal
Doomheim
#132 - 2014-06-16 12:44:54 UTC
Having more of the better moons in Nullsec and fewer of them in Lowsec, effectively what is being requested, indeed makes sense. Conversely, having more moons available in systems that can't be controlled by anyone to the degree that Sov Null can be controlled is also good for the game overall ... though not necessarily for those who control the majority of them in Sov Null :) A randomisation of the moons in 0.4 at release also makes a lot of sense.

The market will follow the changes. Prices will go down after a little while due to extra resources being available; anyone who has been withholding product to artificially inflate the market or who has been speculating may lose. Good for that. Lower prices means more people will be willing to try a T2 ship instead of a T1 ship, as the cost drops below their personal thresholds for loss values. Increased usage will raise prices, so lower profit per unit but higher volume ... similar profit per hour? Who knows. But it certainly would make T2 more accessible to more players.

And personally, as a wormhole dweller who has seen Nullsec entities farming W-space and helping to tank the T3 industry, I'm all in favour of reducing T2 costs and prices.
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#133 - 2014-06-16 12:58:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Seith Kali
I just want to be clear that 0.4 moon mining isn't something I am opposed to, there's nothing wrong with it in principle. It is just a case of not acknowledging that an increase of goo supply serves to harm the efficacy and, indeed, the viability of particular choices the manufacturer has open to them.

Seeing as that much of the point of crius seems to be to broaden optimization possibilities, de-compartmentalizeratering this rings a couple of alarm bells.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 

mynnna
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#134 - 2014-06-16 12:59:14 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Sentient Blade wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
The ones that don't trust their members or are unable to defend their POS will simply research and copy in (now slotless) NPC stations.


I think you're deliberately confusing a small indy corp with a nullsec alliance or RvB.

The notion of defending a POS is nonsense - If it's online, and armed, then the only groups liable to attack it are those with sufficiently overwhelming force that it's reinforced within half an hour.

That RF can take place at ANY time of the day.

Are you seriously suggesting that to take advantage of researching in POS towers that small indy corps now need enough members to put up an around-the-clock defensive fleet?

What about smaller still, one or two man corps that use industry to fund other things, like PvP? Is it a case of:

"Hey, sorry. We here at CCP think that EVE is serious business and you can forget about that spontaneous weekend trip away with your wife because when you get back your BPOs are all gone."


For a highsec POS at least you will get a wardec notice period before being at risk, 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.


One real problem from the risk side of things is that the POS ability to defend itself - or rather, be used by a player or group of players to defend itself - is absolutely laughable. Stats on the modules are dated to an era where a dread had less EHP than can be achieved by a well tanked cruiser or battlecruiser these days, not to mention the ridiculous lock times. The UI to actually manage your weapons is pretty bad too, but that's a harder problem to tackle, I suspect. All of that, though, means that "highsec POS users" are another group that would benefit from POS guns not being awful.

I suggest:

  • Buff damage numbers a bit, and perhaps damage application numbers.
  • Buff Starbase Defense Management to be two arrays per level instead of one.
  • Increase scan resolution on weapon batteries by a factor of five and scan resolution on electronic warfare and neuting batteries by a factor of ten. To balance this and maximize the benefit of these changes to manned towers, increase the random lock delay by the same factor.
  • Have a look at the stats on neuting batteries. Not relevant to highsec but in theory they should be the best weapon against capitals or supers; in practice, 1k cap is nothing. Alternatively, give us different sizes of neuting batteries - small, medium, large, and extra large.


Do all that and then if a "small corp" or indeed any corp is vigilant with their defense, they'll have the capability to defend their POS. Granted, it'll mean some tradeoffs, fewer labs and arrays if they want to supplement gun batteries with shield hardeners and electronic warfare, but that's as it should be - at least doing so would actually be a viable option.



Re: Extra moons and supply/demand, my napkin estimate says new supply from the new 0.4 moons is to a fart in a hurricane. I'm not exactly concerned.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#135 - 2014-06-16 13:00:27 UTC
mynnna wrote:

Re: Extra moons and supply/demand, my napkin estimate says new supply from the new 0.4 moons is to a fart in a hurricane. I'm not exactly concerned.


So you agree there is a slight smell in the air?

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 

mynnna
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#136 - 2014-06-16 13:13:08 UTC
Seith Kali wrote:
mynnna wrote:

Re: Extra moons and supply/demand, my napkin estimate says new supply from the new 0.4 moons is to a fart in a hurricane. I'm not exactly concerned.


So you agree there is a slight smell in the air?


No, I'm saying it's going to be pretty much unnoticeable.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#137 - 2014-06-16 13:26:47 UTC
A time reduction is not as good as a material reduction. Stuff is done faster, but not cheaper. The profit per unit stays the same. If that profit is eaten up by costs like transportation, things remain unprofitable, no matter how fast you can make them.
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
Villore Accords
#138 - 2014-06-16 14:52:54 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Reshuffle all the moons in 0.4 as of the Crius release

A land rush by those most connected with the community, those most informed, has already begun. As with the last major moon change, where moon deposits were changed, nobody should know until the change actually hits the server.


This.
Danny Centauri
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#139 - 2014-06-16 21:36:25 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Seith Kali wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
...and the risk is compartmentalized separately to the risks involved in manufacturing changes.


What on earth are you talking about? An increase in goo supply is going to add a hell of a lot to consider with regards to ME changes. The less expensive T2 is, the less relevant each % of ME is with regards to a manufacturers' bottom line.

You don't 'compartmentalized' them differently (quite the term for someone who speaks the Queen's english Lol) as it serves to flatten the impact of ME advantage choices. Do I buy a team? Do I use a high ME or high run decryptor?

The same is true for TE. The increase in build times in great for introducing more value in TE advantage and the associated choices which were previously undervalued next to ME.


I don't follow your logic here. A percentage reduction is a percentage reduction, it seems like it should have the same impact on your profit margin regardless of what the material costs are. Cheaper items will result in smaller absolute profit in the short term, to be sure, but that is a thing that the market should resolve sensibly over time.


Think the OP missed that a percentage reduction in material costs will mean the same percentage reduction in final selling price and product value. Ultimately this means a percentage reduction in team costs so everything still lines up nicely.

T2 material prices are irrelevant in every single way other than the volume that one individual can produce higher moon goo prices generally mean one industrialist can shift less product as more ISK is locked down in production.

EVE Manufacturing Guide - Simple guides to manufacturing in EVE for both beginners and more experienced players.

Lelira Cirim
Doomheim
#140 - 2014-06-17 04:03:29 UTC
Bridgette d'Iberville wrote:
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.

With an 11 year old MMO, it's crucial to scrutinise the authorship date of any guide, due to how thoroughly out of date it can become.

Wikis are no different, but at least they are only as out of date as the last person who notices. Smile

Do not actively tank my patience.