These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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] Industry Landscape feedback

First post First post
Author
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#101 - 2014-06-16 17:31:14 UTC
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
DooDoo Gum wrote:
Whilst we are getting an industry overhaul, would getting stackable blueprint copies (by me/te) be possible?

This would reduce clutter in any industrialists hanger, and make sorting through the torrents of blueprints a much less daunting task.
The developers have not touched this before, because each BPC has a unique ID. I'd like to see some kind of virtual container be created automatically on a stack attempt, so that BPC's with identical stats can *look* like they are stacking. Once a BPC's stats have changed through use, it would not fit back onto the same "stack."


Perhaps if BPCs with identical stats except for runs could be "compressed" into one BPC... or perhaps weight the end stats based on the input stats...


http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Sigras
Conglomo
#102 - 2014-06-16 19:42:11 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Also I just invented a BPC with no decryptors and a 0/0 input BPC and it came out ME 2% PE 4% I thought everything was being rebalanced so that it was ME 0 PE 0 base with decryptors giving you a bonus?

Additionally I found that the materials required to build were equivalent to -4.5 ME of the old system...

Lastly, I found that the RAM tech tools have not yet been changed over yet... :(


What changes were you expecting to see in RAMs?

The posted change about removing damage and multiplying by 100 etc...
peroxide chase
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2014-06-16 22:06:24 UTC
Have t2 BPO's have their base build cost permanently adjusted 35% upward, along with new material requirements added on all non ammo BPO's?

T2 Ship BPO's seem to be capped at 9 runs at a time, t2 drones are at 19, t2 modules are at 9 and t2 ammo is capped at 19 max runs per install. Seems like a bug?
Sigras
Conglomo
#104 - 2014-06-17 07:15:04 UTC
Sigras wrote:
it looks like the POS discount is WAY out of whack

Im using a component assembly array (supposed to give a 2% discount) and each run costs 7.425 sylramic fibers and 29.7 crystalline carbonide

that same BPO in a station costs me 9.9 sylramic fibers and 39.6 crystalline carbonide per run

thats a 25% discount not 2%

additionally I was also able to start an invention job without selecting an outcome .... im excited to see what comes out.

It doesnt seem to be related to the number of arrays online either, and there are no teams active here either... any thoughts?
Alexander Lion
Suicidal Actions
#105 - 2014-06-17 12:13:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexander Lion
I would like to know on which base the System Costs are calculated. are they bassed on total jobs, on an time pool or the number of chars which install the jobs?


I installed a frighter BPO for ME research yesterday and the System Costs where a Lvl 0. i had to pay 415k to research to lvl 3. i did this job with 6 BPOs at the same time. today the same job costs 16.5mil, this is about 40 times as much. there are no other research facilities in the system, nor stations with research facilities.

So basicly i can **** up everybodies research/production by putting up a pos and installing some BPOs, research them and then the system costs explode for everyboddy.

i think i have to by some towers and annoy some prodders.

P.S:

so the real winners are again the big 0.0 blocks. they can keep there system costs low by regulating the amount of people researching/prodding in the same system. the Lowsec will be spammed by alt indu corps, where they log in once a week for 10 min and in highsec indu corps have to move there stuff around like ants to find a system where the production costs are low enough to build a item for profit.
mr roadkill
Silent but Violent
#106 - 2014-06-17 19:35:18 UTC
So putting up a pos means you pay to run research jobs in labs that you pay to run already by fueling a tower but just you don't get taxed on it.....?

Or are pos exempt from charges since you own them??
Alexander Lion
Suicidal Actions
#107 - 2014-06-17 19:42:40 UTC
nope you have to pay to install a job at your own pos
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#108 - 2014-06-17 20:09:42 UTC
In pos Pay job install cost , dont pay npc station tax.
In NPC station - pay job install cost, pay NPC station tax. I dont know if Sov stations ahve the same thing, but i dont think so.
Job install cost is new for pos as is the npc station tax (which is in addition to the install cost of the job)

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#109 - 2014-06-18 03:16:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Bugsy VanHalen
please delete
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#110 - 2014-06-18 03:19:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Bugsy VanHalen
double post sorry
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#111 - 2014-06-18 03:25:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Bugsy VanHalen
Not sure where to put this, but what is up with the new freighters??

You give up basically 75% of your cargo to tank it, but since you can not equip a damage controller, even with the reinforced bulkheads bonus, you can only get up to about 240,000 ehp? Why not enough CPU for a DC II?

What is the point of giving a bonus to fit reinforced bulkheads if you are stuck with 0 resists on the hull? the most important module for hull tanking is a damage controller II.

I know there was talk about being careful to not make them too gank resistant, but WTF, reducing the cargohold to just over 300,000m3 with 3 reinforced bulkhead II's you should do better than 240,000 ehp. I do not see how ~500,000 ehp is overpowered for a max tanked freighter, they would still be dead slow and easy to gank, Cut it down to 2 low slots, but give us a CPU bonus to fit a damage controller. Hulk tanking is actually feasible for capital ships, and what else would you expect for a capital industrial. I have always hull tanked my ORCA's, give the freighter a "real" hull tanking option. A 75% reduction in cargo for a decent hull tank is a fair option. Or change the penalty on the reinforced bulkhead II from -20% cargo to a speed and/or agility penalty. So you are not giving up 75% of your cargo for a 20% increase to tank.

For me, the lost cargo needed to get this pathetic amount of tank, and it is pathetic for a capital ship. A max tanked freighter should be in the 500,000 ehp range, cargo reduced to around 300,000m3 when max tanked is acceptable. there should also be a good speed/agility option, inertial stabilizers, and overdrives, do not have much impact.

There should basically be three options for freighter pilots. A speed/agility fit, for faster align times and travel, A cargo fit, and a tank fit. These should not be slight variations, but significant changes. Speed fit should have base cargo, weakest tank, but great algin and travel times, get you where you are going much faster. Tank fit should have smallest cargo, base speed, but have huge ehp, while the cargo fit would have base ehp, slowest speed, and huge cargo

Please give us enough power grid and CPU to be creative with some fits, and we will sort this out ourselves. If someone comes up with a unexpected fit that is overpowered, you can easily make another pass. Would it really be so bad to give freights so love and ability to resist ganking comparable to what the mining ships got. Most mining ships now require a ganking fleet that costs more than the value of the ship. Give freighter the same treatment. currently, according to miniluv doctrine it costs about 800,000,000 isk to gank a freighter. It should be well over 1,000,000,000. If this is all you are going to do, then might as well have not even touched them.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#112 - 2014-06-18 10:41:51 UTC
Sigras wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Also I just invented a BPC with no decryptors and a 0/0 input BPC and it came out ME 2% PE 4% I thought everything was being rebalanced so that it was ME 0 PE 0 base with decryptors giving you a bonus?

Additionally I found that the materials required to build were equivalent to -4.5 ME of the old system...

Lastly, I found that the RAM tech tools have not yet been changed over yet... :(


What changes were you expecting to see in RAMs?

The posted change about removing damage and multiplying by 100 etc...


Yeah ok, I'll look into that.

peroxide chase wrote:
Have t2 BPO's have their base build cost permanently adjusted 35% upward, along with new material requirements added on all non ammo BPO's?

T2 Ship BPO's seem to be capped at 9 runs at a time, t2 drones are at 19, t2 modules are at 9 and t2 ammo is capped at 19 max runs per install. Seems like a bug?


Build costs up, yes, to balance the invention buff out. Max runs per install should be limited to 30 days IIRC, not sure if that's related to what you're seeing or not? The numbers seem to be really weird there, everything ending with a 9 is not something we'd set up on purpose :)
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#113 - 2014-06-18 11:04:51 UTC
RAMs are working internally at least, I haven't verified SiSi but they *should* (apparently) be divided up there too.
Droidyk
Maniacal Miners INC
#114 - 2014-06-18 12:45:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Droidyk
It is the opposite for me, every blueprint I invent ends up on 1 run no matter how many runs on tech I copy.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#115 - 2014-06-18 13:15:33 UTC
Droidyk wrote:
It is the opposite for me, every blueprint I invent ends up on 1 run no matter how many runs on tech I copy.


Every run should result in a max-run T2 BPC, subject to decryptors changing this. The runs on the T1 copy should make no difference. Note that T2 modules now have 10 max runs and T2 ships/rigs now have 1 max runs.
Yongtau Naskingar
Yongtau Naskingar Corporation
#116 - 2014-06-18 13:22:44 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Droidyk wrote:
It is the opposite for me, every blueprint I invent ends up on 1 run no matter how many runs on tech I copy.


Every run should result in a max-run T2 BPC, subject to decryptors changing this. The runs on the T1 copy should make no difference. Note that T2 modules now have 10 max runs and T2 ships/rigs now have 1 max runs.

So you get 10 runs on a ship when using an Augmentation, even though the 'max runs' is 1? 'Max runs' is more of a guideline, then.

I'm aware there's some high-run BPCs from before the copy limit was introduced, just wondering if it's intentional. Might be a bit confusing to call it max runs then. (And I thought this patch was to reduce confusion :)
Unkind Omen
Voyagers Inc.
#117 - 2014-06-18 13:47:39 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Droidyk wrote:
It is the opposite for me, every blueprint I invent ends up on 1 run no matter how many runs on tech I copy.


Every run should result in a max-run T2 BPC, subject to decryptors changing this. The runs on the T1 copy should make no difference. Note that T2 modules now have 10 max runs and T2 ships/rigs now have 1 max runs.


Why not change decryptors so that they just work as a run multiplier instead? "You get max runs times decryptor output multiplier"?

Example: former +0 runs decryptor get x1 multiplier instead. And a ship bpc invented with former +0 runs decryptor gets max runs(1) x multiplier = 1 run. Former +9 runs decryptor gets x10 multiplier so the ship bpc invented with this gets max runs(1) x multiplier = 10 runs.

This will also fix the decryptors usage for modules and ammunition allowing to multiply 10 default runs by x10 from a max run decryptor instead of just getting 10+9.

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#118 - 2014-06-18 13:55:46 UTC
Unkind Omen wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Droidyk wrote:
It is the opposite for me, every blueprint I invent ends up on 1 run no matter how many runs on tech I copy.


Every run should result in a max-run T2 BPC, subject to decryptors changing this. The runs on the T1 copy should make no difference. Note that T2 modules now have 10 max runs and T2 ships/rigs now have 1 max runs.


Why not change decryptors so that they just work as a run multiplier instead? "You get max runs times decryptor output multiplier"?

Example: former +0 runs decryptor get x1 multiplier instead. And a ship bpc invented with former +0 runs decryptor gets max runs(1) x multiplier = 1 run. Former +9 runs decryptor gets x10 multiplier so the ship bpc invented with this gets max runs(1) x multiplier = 10 runs.

This will also fix the decryptors usage for modules and ammunition allowing to multiply 10 default runs by x10 from a max run decryptor instead of just getting 10+9.



We're expecting to revisit decryptors more comprehensively in the near post-Crius future :)
Makari Aeron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#119 - 2014-06-18 15:13:29 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Droidyk wrote:
It is the opposite for me, every blueprint I invent ends up on 1 run no matter how many runs on tech I copy.


Every run should result in a max-run T2 BPC, subject to decryptors changing this. The runs on the T1 copy should make no difference. Note that T2 modules now have 10 max runs and T2 ships/rigs now have 1 max runs.


Max runs are 10 on Adaptive Invul Field II, I'm still getting 1 run on a T2 BPC after inventing.

CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty.

CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#120 - 2014-06-18 15:29:51 UTC
Makari Aeron wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Droidyk wrote:
It is the opposite for me, every blueprint I invent ends up on 1 run no matter how many runs on tech I copy.


Every run should result in a max-run T2 BPC, subject to decryptors changing this. The runs on the T1 copy should make no difference. Note that T2 modules now have 10 max runs and T2 ships/rigs now have 1 max runs.


Max runs are 10 on Adaptive Invul Field II, I'm still getting 1 run on a T2 BPC after inventing.


I think there's still a bug there that Nullabor's got on his to-fix list.