These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Structure fitting in the EVE: Citadel Expansion

First post
Author
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#261 - 2016-02-16 22:16:36 UTC
Thank you for listening to the concerns here!
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
#262 - 2016-02-16 23:44:42 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:
Stuff


I had a look at your excel sheet and arguments, then built my own to double-check everything. I also discussed your points with the team and various designers to get a fresh perspective.

We first envisioned this change to increase Strontium consumption on the 5th fuel block type we were going to introduce for Citadels, since they were not going to require Strontium separately during their reinforcement time. However, we now removed the 5th fuel block type, which creates a cost repercussion on operating Starbases. While our data shows stockpiled fuel blocks and Strontium will be high enough to meet the demand for quite a while, you have strong arguments.

My math concludes that before the change, one high-sec ice site could roughly supply 15k fuel blocks which is 375 hours for the most fuel intensive service module, the Market at 40 blocks per hour (which also is the fuel for a Large Control Tower). Adding 200 units of Strontium will decrease that to 362 fuel blocks approximately, or 9 hours of Market consumption.

We do not want high-sec to be totally autonomous in that particular regard, but numbers don't lie and that is far too much extreme here. We planned to add more Strontium from the sites to compensate for this change, but we will most likely not have time to do so for March.

As such, we will reduce the required Strontium to 20 to manufacturing a batch of 40 fuel blocks for now. That means 3620 fuel blocks created from one high-sec ice site, or 90 hours for the Market service module, which is a much more comfortable number and still is a 4x fuel block reduction from the old number.

Be aware however that we will progressively increase demand on Strontium Clathrates as time passes and Starbases become less and less used to maintain its role within the economy. However that should make the change much less frustrating in the short term and allow everyone to adapt more easily while we monitor the change.


Hope that helps!


First of all, thanks for taking the time to read my previous posts and look into them as you did.

Second, yes, this is a huge help. It's not just because it still leaves a decent amount of production available in hisec without importing stront from elsewhere, but also because it doesn't make strontium a bottleneck to production in all areas of space; nullsec production will still be limited by the amount of racial isotopes there, meaning that there'll either be surplus strontium exported to hisec or else surplus isotopes from hisec exported to nullsec to enable further production. Either way, the additional ice products that hisec produces but cannot turn into fuel due to lack of Strontium will still have demand on the market along with demand for strontium over-produced in nullsec.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#263 - 2016-02-17 01:28:36 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
As such, we will reduce the required Strontium to 20 to manufacturing a batch of 40 fuel blocks for now. That means 3620 fuel blocks created from one high-sec ice site, or 90 hours for the Market service module, which is a much more comfortable number and still is a 4x fuel block reduction from the old number.


That's too bad. I don't think this was necessary, but, hey, your call.

Any idea what you're going to creep the stront requirement up to over time?

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

Roddex
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#264 - 2016-02-17 02:40:50 UTC
Will any changes be made to POS to account for the stront volume change? Without changes max reinforce duration increases by 50%.

Will fuel block size change? If yes, will any changes be made to POS to account for the change?
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#265 - 2016-02-17 02:48:53 UTC
Roddex wrote:
Will any changes be made to POS to account for the stront volume change? Without changes max reinforce duration increases by 50%.

Will fuel block size change? If yes, will any changes be made to POS to account for the change?


With a reduction to 20 stront/fuel batch, there's really no need to change the volume anymore.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

RainReaper
Bras-Tek Industries
Nefatari Union
#266 - 2016-02-17 18:51:43 UTC
Hey CCP! Do you think it would be possible to send out notifications to docked guests in the new structures? Say if the corp who owns the citadel gets war decced they could send out a notification to all the guests docked that the structure could get blasted. To maybe give people a chance to undock their things before the citadel blows up?
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#267 - 2016-02-19 15:09:30 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Jinrai Tremaine wrote:
Stuff


I had a look at your excel sheet and arguments...


Hope that helps!


Thank you for taking a second look at the numbers.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
#268 - 2016-02-19 17:08:51 UTC
Killmarks for citadels. Make it so.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#269 - 2016-02-19 17:21:06 UTC
Irregessa wrote:
Killmarks for citadels. Make it so.


With a little guy in a spacesuit painting them on with a brush a la Red Dwarf...
Pud Li
Doomheim
#270 - 2016-02-20 03:35:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Pud Li
Based on citadel talk, it seems structures will take quite a bit of additional materials and cost to build most POS-like structures.
Seems like we may see quite a drop in the number of structures deployed at least initially. Especially depending on whether CCP limits or provides additional means of recovering materials or costs from old structures.


So if I understand the current fuzzy transition concepts correctly, the transition from existing POS and structures starts with...

(1) for each category of new structure (e.g.citadels first) the existing structures being replaced will remain functional for a limited window if already deployed and online. Old deployments can be taken offline and repackaged. But no new deployments can be made.

(1a) Less clear - towers cannot be turned on once in the offline state??? Problem for POS with more storage than power etc.

(1b) At the end of the transition window (weeks or months) any structures left in deployed state are destroyed without
compensation to owners?

(Be way more cool if this destruction occurred randomly as system-wide visible fireworks display over next 24 hours -
I suspect lots of abandon small stations in hi sec)

I favor any structure contents distributed in blue jetcans. But for reasons of timezones, I again favor actual destruction
be distributed over the day with all structures locked in offline invulnerable state until randomly exploded..


(2) automatic conversion of existing POS and structures into materials as soon as they are repackaged?
so some of existing investment can be used to kick start building new cidatels etc.

Or is CCP just going to stick with 53% reprocessing as originally proposed?
If recycling is the actual method...does that opportunity expire on the same day as deployed structures?
I have heard CCP has occasionally done that in the past. then just destroyed old items not yet recycled at the end.



Eagerly awaiting clarification.
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
#271 - 2016-02-20 05:08:37 UTC
Marcus Tedric wrote:
Tyranis Marcus wrote:
So it sounds like fuel block costs will be going up with the stront addition, so the current poses will become more expensive to operate. Will the fuel consumption on those be reduced to compensate?.................


It would be kind of silly if they did - given the realistic desire to wish to encourage people to remove POSes in favour of Citadels.

Which is why, perhaps, that the 'Assembly Arrays' and 'Drilling Rigs' may need to come sooner rather than later...


Not really. Nerfing old systems to promote new ones always causes trouble.

Do not run. We are your friends.

Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#272 - 2016-02-20 08:25:47 UTC
Tyranis Marcus wrote:
Marcus Tedric wrote:
Tyranis Marcus wrote:
So it sounds like fuel block costs will be going up with the stront addition, so the current poses will become more expensive to operate. Will the fuel consumption on those be reduced to compensate?.................


It would be kind of silly if they did - given the realistic desire to wish to encourage people to remove POSes in favour of Citadels.

Which is why, perhaps, that the 'Assembly Arrays' and 'Drilling Rigs' may need to come sooner rather than later...


Not really. Nerfing old systems to promote new ones always causes trouble.

They dont need to nerf anything.

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Abaddon Nergal
Deadly Interstellar Cynosural Killing Squad
The Watchmen.
#273 - 2016-02-20 14:36:51 UTC
CCP ytterbium

By request of CCP Nullarbor I would seek to draw your attention to the update on the Structure Components release on SISI,
the volumes appear to remain unchanged from the previous values.
Additionally it would appear that "fuel blocks" are not included in the BoM

I assume the latter is intentional, but hey, why not ask.
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#274 - 2016-02-20 14:48:11 UTC
While we are at it, I will post my entire BPO rant here as well


kennethfeld [8:19 AM]
as far as copy number, 7 is meaningless per se. During Crius we complained about the number of runs of cap bpo to greyscale and he finally agreed 5 was horrid. WE mainly browbeat him for a QOL change

[8:20]
he finally settled on 40 because that was roughly a week of build with no bonus

[8:20]
IF and this ia a GIANT if we keep the structure BPO's at rank 200 - then 10 runs is 6D 19H

[8:21]
I think they should be rank 60 with the rest of the capital comp BPO's and if they should be rank 60, then they should be 40 runs

[8:22]
the outposts themselves are 600 - which is the same as titans

[8:23]
the T1 upgrades are rank 200, tier 2 upgrades are rank 400 and T3 upgrades are rank 600

[8:23]
this is in line with capitals (dreads and carriers) at rank 200 as well

[8:24]
I still, for the life of me can't understand why the structure BPO's need to be rank 200 instead of 60

[8:24]
changing it from rank 200 to 60 doesn't affect price or input (edited)

[8:25]
it only affects research time, build time and copy time

[8:25]
the BPO's are cheap as hell compared to capital comp BPO's 200 mil vs 3.4 bil for some of the cap comps

[8:26]
but the research time is incredibly onerous and will reward those of us who have had them for a while and make the barrier for entry into building citadels extremely high

[8:27]
hmm, on second though, wait 6 months until prices have stabilized and I have made a few trillion before you change the BPO ranks LOL :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

kennethfeld [8:38 AM]
Also, if I am not mistaken, the upgrade BPO's never got put in the game......they are in the big dump, but not sure they are actually seeded on TQ despite begging Greyscale


Structure BPO's being rank 200 is incredibly onerous, and just no reason. If you feel they need to be 200 for some reason, I am fine with that, but that doesn't follow much convention.
Kaivar Lancer
Doomheim
#275 - 2016-02-20 17:17:36 UTC
Increasing stront requirements for fuel blocks is a step in the right direction. Anything to encourage miners to explore and leave high sec.
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
#276 - 2016-02-21 12:07:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Gunrunner1775
Someone double check my math please:

Fuel Block (per run w/ 10% ME):
Heavy water x 151
Liquid Ozone x 151
Isotopes x 400
Strontium x18

I processed 10 blocks of regular ice processed to determine my % processing yield (cause I wanted to see exact numbers, appears to be 75%)
Heavy Water was 517
Liquid Ozone was 262
Isotopes was 3105
Strontium was 7

30 days x 24 hours = 720 hours x 20 blocks / hour = 14,400 blocks

1 Blueprint run = 40 blocks,
14,400 / 40 = 360 runs

Isotopes 400 per run * 360 runs = 144,000 isotopes needed, divided by 310.5 isotopes per block = 2066.92 blocks of ice I need to mine per month

Strontium 18 per run * 360 runs = 6480 stront needed, divided by 0.75 stront per block = 8640 blocks of ice I need to mine per month

So, I have went from needing 2067 blocks of ice per month to needing 8640 blocks of ice per month

My 2 skiffs + orca = 4 blocks per min. roughly… so, I just went from just over 8.5 hours of ice mining per month to having to mine 36 hours a month




now. lets assume i spend the 36 or so hours ice mineing and come up with roughly 9,000 blocks of ice
and lets assume i turn it into fuel

leftovers.. what do i do with all these leftovers.... what about the other players makeing fuel..... the market will become massively flooded with leftovers

leftovers =
500,000 or so heavy whater
180,000 or so liquid ozone
2.5 million or so isotopes

by the changes in adding strontium (i understand the concept)... creates a completely different economic issue.... players makeing their own fuel, will have to mine 4 times as much, and process 4x as much... and the leftovers from the processing of the ice ... were is it going??? what will be added or changed in the game to create consumption of these items???
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
#277 - 2016-02-21 13:36:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Jinrai Tremaine
Gunrunner1775 wrote:
[Maths snipped]

by the changes in adding strontium (i understand the concept)... creates a completely different economic issue.... players makeing their own fuel, will have to mine 4 times as much, and process 4x as much... and the leftovers from the processing of the ice ... were is it going??? what will be added or changed in the game to create consumption of these items???


Kind of already covered the maths myself (google sheet with step-by-step maths link yet again: Here).

You're not wrong - the ability for hisec belts to produce fuel locally is getting cut to about 1/4 (hey, it was originally gonna be cut by over 97%, it could be worse). But if you compare hisec production to nullsec production, null is still going to over-produce strontium and under-produce isotopes, so there's plenty of room in the market for either you to sell isotopes to null importers who ship them out to make more fuel, or for you to buy stront from null exporters to supplement your local production of other ice products and make more fuel.

With that said (If CCP Ytterbium or any other devs are reading this) I've gotta admit I'd love it if you could, say, double the stront in hisec ices (which would cut local production to 50% of what it is at present, rather than one quarter). Or, alternately, both significantly buff nullsec strontium production AND make it a lot easier for them to export it in order to allow hisec residents to more easily get their hands on null's excess stront for their own use. I remember seeing a suggestion from someone else in this thread (I forget who, sorry) to allow Strontium Clathrates to be refined into Strontium Isotopes or something similar with much lower volume, so that you could still have triage/siege durations limited by current Stront volumes but also make it much easier to haul a version used solely for fuel production; that would be pretty much ideal, for example.
Oracle of Machina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#278 - 2016-02-21 14:04:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Oracle of Machina
Gunrunner1775 wrote:
Words


You realize that there's stront-heavy ice? I realize it's a null-only ice, but still.

While there's not a lot on market at the moment (because generally there's no reason to even mine it or ship it right now), that would change. Krystallos is able to do about 6-7 runs per block with new requirements, Gelidus is about 4. Aside from that, Strontium itself is very cheap.

Your 360 runs of stront would cost you about ~8.5m at current market values. In fact, the only issue I see is getting the materials around, as it takes up a rather large amount of space, and there's no specialized industrial for ice products. However, the Tayra and Iteron V can both hold up to about ~36k of cargo space fully expanded and trained, which is more than enough room for your single 'month', and almost (but not quite) enough to fit two 'months' worth of stront in their hold.

If you're feeling particularly lazy, you could fit a freighter with expanded holds (rounding it to a nice, even 1m m3, some freighters hold even more) with stront, which would be enough for ~51 'months' worth of runs at the proposed levels, and only cost about 430m at current prices. There are solutions here.

The biggest problem with stront at the moment is it's size. It can't be compressed, it can't be hauled easily, and it's not worth it to export from null, because generally the amount of stront that is transportable in a jump freighter usually isn't worth the fuel cost of jumping it out. If the null market is going to pick up the tab for exporting the stront out, some form of reduction is probably going to be required, or stront prices are going to have to raise significantly higher. If the second becomes true, we'll have some serious problems with sustainability as far as block production goes.
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
#279 - 2016-02-21 14:07:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Gunrunner1775
My biggest problem

"
My 2 skiffs + orca = 4 blocks per min. roughly… so, I just went from just over 8.5 hours of ice mining per month to having to mine 36 hours a month

"

Time invested is my main problem



going from 8.5 hours to 17 hours mineing per month i can possibly deal with (toss in some market tradeing to cut it down)

but going from 8.5 hours a month mineing to 36 hours a month???? even with market tradeing, thats too much for alot of folks,

8.5 hours mining was an acceptable sacrifice to be somewhat self sufficient and have time to do other things

now i am forced to depend on someone else, depend on what looks to be an extremly rocky market. This was one of the extremly few things that i enjoyed, that i could do on my own that did did not force me to depend on others. I may adapt, i may not, who knows, but not likeing this change at all
Jinrai Tremaine
Cheese It Inc
#280 - 2016-02-21 14:15:37 UTC
Gunrunner1775 wrote:
My biggest problem

"
My 2 skiffs + orca = 4 blocks per min. roughly… so, I just went from just over 8.5 hours of ice mining per month to having to mine 36 hours a month

"

Time invested is my problem


going from 8.5 hours to 17 hours mineing per month i can possibly deal with (toss in some market tradeing to cut it down)

but going from 8.5 hours a month mineing to 36 hours a month???? even with market tradeing, thats too much for alot of folks,

8.5 hours mining was an acceptable sacrifice to be somewhat self sufficient and have time to do other things



You're working on the assumption that you've gotta mine everything yourself, which simply isn't the case. Ideally the market balances out with you mining in hisec over-producing isotopes and not getting enough stront, while somewhere in null there's a miner with the opposite problem - too much stront, not enough 'topes. And then along comes a trader who bridges the gap between you both and rewards your surplus isotope production with ISK which lets you buy the stront you can't mine locally.

I think that either null needs a stront production boost and a seperate change to make stront easier to export, or else hisec needs a stront boost to make it less dependant on those exports, but that doesn't change the general principle, just the specifics.