These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Building Dreams: Introducing Engineering Complexes

First post First post First post
Author
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#681 - 2016-10-24 08:18:33 UTC
Black Pedro a couple of things.

One why would any industrialist band up with other industrialists and increase their own competition? This is not pvP where more is better this is a market place where more is worse.

As to risk. Yes the new structures are a lot more risk and I really see no point in it.
Yes it does create a higher risk vs reward but the rewards are not huge to begin with and given the cost of the structure and the cost cost the fuel, the only ones who would be likely to risk it are not industrialists but PvPers who can defend their bases.

As for casual players who may currently use a POS which can be pulled down and can even defend itself to some extent, the new citadels are aimed squarely at those who have no life.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#682 - 2016-10-24 08:30:14 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
If I'm forced to pay more (make less profit) due to the high running costs of an EC or using npc stations. It simply means less accounts will get subbed each month, that's really good for eve huh.
Why are you so sure of that? The profit motive might drive industrialists to organize and interact with each other, as well as possibly create conflict and content as industrialists now have reason to shoot one another. Both of these could increase/retain subscribers. In any case, why are you so concerned over CCP's finances? I find it strange so many players resort to the argument "you should tilt the game more in my favour or me and a other bunch of subscribers will quit and CCP will lose money". Don't worry about CCP's finances, that is their problem and they didn't ask for your help. You should focus on providing feedback on how they can make their game better.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Your wrong, I have always had assets at risk - and it was a risk I could manage without turning Eve (A GAME I ALREADY PAY TO PLAY) into a part time job. Did that years ago before I realized how much affect eve was having on my life, so I cut back my eve time to something that fit with my preferred life style - Now CCP (and you) is telling me that to keep up my Eve as I want to play it, I have to dedicate More hours to defending structures? And you try to call that an improvement?
Good for you. According to CCP Quant 85% of the other industrialists do not have any risk as they currently do their industry in invulnerable POSes in highsec. CCP has decided to put them back at some risk, but if you were always at risk I don't see why you are complaining about them being vulnerable. Your POS was vulnerable 24h a day and only had one reinforcement timer. These guys are only vulnerable for a fraction of that time and give you an extra chance to mount a defence. Further, your assets are completely safe even if you lose it (except in a WH) so on paper these things a better in almost every way to defend.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
If I'm forced to pay more (make less profit) due to the high running costs of an EC or using npc stations. It Have you read ANY of the dev blogs from the last 6 months? Do you understand the simple mechanic of limited vulnerability? Do you know ANYTHING about how Eve is played?
Your response would indicate - No you don't - You are simply clueless and seem to enjoy making it up as you go.
Unlike the current POS mechanics, one of these new structures in highsec is actually vulnerable to attack by the other players. Yes, you need a wardec, and yes there are only certain windows you can attack, but it is actually vulnerable now to attack unlike the current POSes which can be taken down during the 24h warm-up to a war. That is a massive improvement to enabling sandbox game play as players can now interact with another group and attack another group if they so wish.

Still highsec is highsec and is suppose to be safer so I have no problem with 24h notice being given before an attack. Similarly, people cannot be online 24h a day so it is reasonable to have defender-selected vulnerability windows so that defenders can shape the time of attack to a window when they are likely to be online. These are reasonable accommodations to the fact this is just a video game but still allow sandbox gameplay to take place if an attacker really wants to interact with another group and attempt to destroy their structures.

I am confused by your ranting though. Do you not think the defender should have limited vulnerability windows? Or are you just attacking me again personally with baseless claims I don't understand the mechanics?


I am sorry you are not happy with these changes, but you can't make everyone happy all the time.

I'm more sorry you can't think for yourself and just go along with whatever schewed metrics Devs throw around.. (only using what they see as applicable - Which is not the true story) Yes many industrialists live out of pos's in highsec but not for the reasons you seem to think. It is because, highsec is where the markets are. It has nothing to do with safety, it is all about maximizing profit. None of this will change simply because CCP decide to introduce a more costly structure. Until pos's are completely removed I would be surprised to see too many EC's go up because pos's are just overall more productive and therefore more profitable.

EC's in their current form offer nothing to the major producers in Eve. They make their profit by minimizing outlay, not investing in structures that cost more to run than the structures they currently use.
I myself was looking forward to the new industrial structures being released - Now, I know for sure, unless pos's suddenly disappear I will not be spending my isk on an EC. They just don't provide what I need for my industrial needs.

With my current requirements, I would need 2 Large EC's and still have to use at least a small pos to supplement my needs . I'm sorry but no matter how Devs feel about it, I am not spending 50% more on fuel (let alone the outrageous build costs) to have less functionality than I do now.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#683 - 2016-10-24 09:09:35 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
why would any industrialist band up with other industrialists and increase their own competition? This is not pvP where more is better this is a market place where more is worse.

Do you think it is a healthy situation when MMO game has no incentives for people to cooperate?
Black Pedro
Mine.
#684 - 2016-10-24 09:10:36 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
One why would any industrialist band up with other industrialists and increase their own competition? This is not pvP where more is better this is a market place where more is worse.
No single industrialist, no matter how many alts or hours they play, can corner all the markets in all areas of production. There is plenty of room for various industrialists to pool resources and collaborate. Industrial corps already exist, and sharing the costs of in-space infrastructure should motivate more to form and get larger.

And of course it is PvP. If the mechanics are such that teaming up and pooling resources increases industrial efficiencies, then players will start to team up. They will work together to increase their competitiveness and produce products cheaper than their competitors. Alternatively, they now have the choice to just go and try to blow up their competitors which is also PvP.

I won't claim that CCP has the specific numbers or design perfect, but the basic idea to make industrial activities require larger organizations that are vulnerable and require defending is a sound one. Certainly it is likely to produce more content than the solo, invulnerable meta of primarily highsec industry we have today, unless of course they are too costly that everyone just stays in the NPC stations. That is the question of balance CCP has to get right.

Mark Marconi wrote:
As to risk. Yes the new structures are a lot more risk and I really see no point in it.
Yes it does create a higher risk vs reward but the rewards are not huge to begin with and given the cost of the structure and the cost cost the fuel, the only ones who would be likely to risk it are not industrialists but PvPers who can defend their bases.

As for casual players who may currently use a POS which can be pulled down and can even defend itself to some extent, the new citadels are aimed squarely at those who have no life.
Casual, solo players should have been doing industry in an NPC station all along. Invulnerable POSes generate little-to-no content, and thus are just complicated busy-work for industrialists to figure out. They make it more costly for new players to get into the business, and honestly are a pain to set up, but were mandatory to compete with other industrialists. By making them not mandatory, new and small-scale industrialists can now compete much easier, just like they can now by removing the requirement for an invulnerable Orca or Rorqual boosting from a POS. The booster was never at risk making it a pointless, but mandatory asset, for a mining operation to have.

Maybe the fuel cost is too high to make them competitive with the NPC station, or the current number of rigs too limiting for the M, but the basic idea that taking risk should be rewarded is central to how this game is designed.

Anyways, enough of this white knighting for CCP. If you don't like the new structures, you can tell CCP directly, or better yet stand up for yourself and show them by unsubscribing. I have made it clear as I can how the design of these structures is consistent with the PvP sandbox game Eve Online has been all along, and it is now up to you, the individual player, to decide if you really want to be playing that competitive game, or if you would rather be playing something else.
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#685 - 2016-10-24 09:28:16 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Anyways, enough of this white knighting for CCP.

I like how good is CCP in communicating. Neither them or CSM are here to explain the design and address concerns. As I mentioned earlier, the clear statement of design goals would've prevented a larger part of frustration - alas, that's too much effort for them I guess.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#686 - 2016-10-24 09:31:05 UTC
Quote:
Black Pedro
I think it is time for you to deal with the new reality. You will not be able to use your structures as efficiently as you did before. They are going to cost more, do less, and if deployed in highsec, you will have to defend them now. Stamping your feet and demanding CCP to explain themselves to you isn't going to get you anywhere. CCP Fozzie or whomever will be along shortly and answer some of our questions and perhaps have some iterations to report based on the feedback in this thread, but the core mechanics of these structures will remain the same.
I'm sorry to say this again but your entirely wrong.
Nothing about how i use my structures is going to change - I won't be wasting my isk on a new structure that costs more to run, cost much more to build, is higher risk and has less diversity, than what I use now.


I'd love to take bets on when, "IF" devs even comment on structures again before release, let alone seriously address any of the player concerns.

First thing that needs to be addressed is "Why go to the trouble of an EC" when existing pos's do a better (or at least the same) job, cheaper..
Now this is an issue Devs must have been aware of during design (I don't think they are stupid so must have been be aware of EC's lack of diversity and increased cost for less productivity) , yet they forged ahead anyway, knowing these new structures are subpar to what is already available.


-- - -- - --
This expansion is supposed to be about improving and updating what is currently available, why introduce something new that is so much less than what is available - These new structures (Citadels included) were to be the way to build player owned cities in space.
Well, sadly the building cities part got thrown out the window or just left behind somewhere. Minimum 1,000Km between structures does not a city make. It is simply 2 or more structures set at a predetermined ranges, that can't in any way interact with each other - That isn't a city by any definition.
It simply creates more of a time sink - more time spent to do things than is needed now.


Forget what Devs say, just read the available information, think for yourself (if you are capable) and just ask yourself.
If I can do something in X amount of time for X cost, why would I change to something new that is less efficient both time and cost wise ? Disregarding safety altogether, look at it solely from an economic point of view - Because if the economic side isn't positive, the only way EC's get adopted is by completely removing any other option.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#687 - 2016-10-24 09:52:01 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Quote:
Black Pedro
I think it is time for you to deal with the new reality. You will not be able to use your structures as efficiently as you did before. They are going to cost more, do less, and if deployed in highsec, you will have to defend them now. Stamping your feet and demanding CCP to explain themselves to you isn't going to get you anywhere. CCP Fozzie or whomever will be along shortly and answer some of our questions and perhaps have some iterations to report based on the feedback in this thread, but the core mechanics of these structures will remain the same.
I'm sorry to say this again but your entirely wrong.
First thing that needs to be addressed is "Why go to the trouble of an EC" when existing pos's do a better (or at least the same) job, cheaper..

It's easy: removing POSes solve this concern. And it will happen once ECs are finished.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Black Pedro
Mine.
#688 - 2016-10-24 09:53:22 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Anyways, enough of this white knighting for CCP.

I like how good is CCP in communicating. Neither them or CSM are here to explain the design and address concerns. As I mentioned earlier, the clear statement of design goals would've prevented a larger part of frustration - alas, that's too much effort for them I guess.

Indeed. I guess the CSM has to walk on eggshells to avoid saying something they shouldn't but it would be nice of CCP to address some of the concerns voiced here. Given though that Eve Vegas starts in a few days and many of them are about to get on a plane, I am not optimistic we will hear much here.

But on the plus side, there will almost certainly be some sort of comment on the ECs during the structure talk on Saturday. I wonder if it will be live streamed?

Sgt Ocker wrote:
I'm sorry to say this again but your entirely wrong...
It doesn't matter what I think, and even less what you think about what I think. If you have a problem with these ECs or how CCP is communicating with you I suggest you stand up for yourself and make a statement by unsubscribing. Quibbling with me over the semi-opaque design intentions of the CCP isn't worth either of our time.

It is obvious what CCP is trying to do with these structures and when they are implemented, it is clear that the NPC station will be a more attractive place to do industry. Whether CCP intends for most industry to be done there, or it only to be a place for new and solo industrialists they have not said so it is hard to judge whether or not their current numbers are too costly, or on target.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#689 - 2016-10-24 10:02:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Skia Aumer wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
why would any industrialist band up with other industrialists and increase their own competition? This is not pvP where more is better this is a market place where more is worse.

Do you think it is a healthy situation when MMO game has no incentives for people to cooperate?

Aside from the fact Eve is supposed to be a sandbox - Meaning no-one should be forced to "co-operate" with anyone should they choose not to.

Do you really think the larger industrialists are going to open their specialized EC's to the public AND create more competition for what they produce and sell?

EC's by Dev design are meant to be specialized structures with no single structure able to do everything - That in itself means, those groups who can afford the best of these structures are going to keep them restricted to them - Not open them up to the average industrialist who may become market competition.
This is the thing Devs missed (or at least haven't offered any explanation for) in their whole design, industrialists don't share. Most are very secretive about what they do and how they do it - And for very good reason. To keep competition down as much as possible and profits as high as possible.

Pedro is right about one thing - No industrialist can corner the market on everything, that is why none of them try. But at the same time, large industrial groups aren't going to share specialized facilities with others and create competition for themselves.

His comparison of market pvp to ship vs ship pvp is totally wrong - Industrialists "teaming up" = less profit for all = teaming up for industrial purposes is a bad thing.
Unfortunately Pedro has no real perspective on market and industrial pvp vs ship to ship combat - "Just go blow up the competitions structures", confirms this.
For what he seems to think is the future of industry to become a reality, would mean major alliances putting EC's up and funding industrialists to build for the alliance as a whole (and take a small % of the profits for their efforts). Nul Alliances have had this type of thing available to them for years (bonused stations reduced fuel costs for pos's with sov, etc) but it has never been successfully don't, because the average industrialist is not going to volunteer his time and resources (characters, build slots etc) so that everyone else makes isk. People get into industry because they like it and want to make isk from it, (over ratting or incursions, etc) they aren't going to donate their income to someone else..

I belonged to an alliance that tried co-operative building to increase super capital production ( a good cause for a nul alliance) - Out of a 4K man alliance, less than 100 people stepped up and most of those, were already involved with the alliance super cap program. The idea died in less than a month and all the alliance was asking for was each industrialist to donate ONE build slot.

Serious industrialists - Don't play well with others.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#690 - 2016-10-24 10:12:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Black Pedro wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Anyways, enough of this white knighting for CCP.

I like how good is CCP in communicating. Neither them or CSM are here to explain the design and address concerns. As I mentioned earlier, the clear statement of design goals would've prevented a larger part of frustration - alas, that's too much effort for them I guess.

Indeed. I guess the CSM has to walk on eggshells to avoid saying something they shouldn't but it would be nice of CCP to address some of the concerns voiced here. Given though that Eve Vegas starts in a few days and many of them are about to get on a plane, I am not optimistic we will hear much here.

But on the plus side, there will almost certainly be some sort of comment on the ECs during the structure talk on Saturday. I wonder if it will be live streamed?

Sgt Ocker wrote:
I'm sorry to say this again but your entirely wrong...
It doesn't matter what I think, and even less what you think about what I think. If you have a problem with these ECs or how CCP is communicating with you I suggest you stand up for yourself and make a statement by unsubscribing. Quibbling with me over the semi-opaque design intentions of the CCP isn't worth either of our time.

It is obvious what CCP is trying to do with these structures and when they are implemented, it is clear that the NPC station will be a more attractive place to do industry. Whether CCP intends for most industry to be done there, or it only to be a place for new and solo industrialists they have not said so it is hard to judge whether or not their current numbers are too costly, or on target.

LOL, typical response from a bad troll - "just unsub".

I have already let more than half my subs lapse over the last year or two - not as any sort of protest but simply because CCP's direction makes subbing them not viable. I may let a few more go inactive once these changes go live but again not as any sort of protest, that would be stupid and anyone suggesting it as an option, well.,.,.

I'd be just as content going back to lvl 5's and not doing any more indy, I would probably make more isk with less hassle but i do enjoy my industrial undertakings and am sad Devs have decided, I can't do it as efficiently and profitably as I do now by releasing sub par structures to (eventually) replace existing infrastructure.

Until the day comes when my current options are removed, I'll carry on as I do now - And best of all, if my competition goes with EC's - My profits will only go up...

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Chani El'zrya
Beyond Frontier
Pandemic Horde
#691 - 2016-10-24 10:33:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Chani El'zrya
Black Pedro wrote:

And of course it is PvP. If the mechanics are such that teaming up and pooling resources increases industrial efficiencies, then players will start to team up. They will work together to increase their competitiveness and produce products cheaper than their competitors. Alternatively, they now have the choice to just go and try to blow up their competitors which is also PvP.

I won't claim that CCP has the specific numbers or design perfect, but the basic idea to make industrial activities require larger organizations that are vulnerable and require defending is a sound one. Certainly it is likely to produce more content than the solo, invulnerable meta of primarily highsec industry we have today, unless of course they are too costly that everyone just stays in the NPC stations. That is the question of balance CCP has to get right.


Humpf,

- Teaming up will not go above 20 player per system due to the resultant 5% system cost index, which make it inefective versus NPS station in 1.5% system. But 20, that's evidently more than a solo ^^
- On defensive side for medium ECs, try to fit one on SISI-> Just not worth the hassle and the cost. It will be blown easily.

The only way to defend it is really to play 100% as industrialist and make connections with PVP groups.
Personnaly, I won't to do it : it's too much time that i agree to dedicate. But some will embrace the new gameplay.

If you want to stay solo-casual, you have to estimate a probability to the events "my ECs will explode after 1 month, 2 months, n months" and make your profits calculation versus NPC station accordingly.

Depending of the fuel cost involved, ME bonus, and the cost of setting a medium ECs the result will push solo to NPCs station or leave some good incentives to try ECs. This is the interaction of those three parameters and the probabilties of the ECs exploding after n months that set the gameplay for a solo.

At the moment, the results are not in favor of using ECs for solo character. It starts to be just interessting from two characters.
I would be fine for instance with keeping those high fuel cost but with a better ME bonus to increase the reward side for a solo.
Space Vixen
Doomheim
#692 - 2016-10-24 10:41:45 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Anyways, enough of this white knighting for CCP.

I like how good is CCP in communicating. Neither them or CSM are here to explain the design and address concerns. As I mentioned earlier, the clear statement of design goals would've prevented a larger part of frustration - alas, that's too much effort for them I guess.


I think this is the biggest issue in this entire discussion.

This entire thread is basically heated debate about the implied design strategy of CCP, based on people's interpretation of the proposed features/tactics.


CCP - if you made the strategy clear, I belive it would be far more acceptable to people.

right now, it seems that the majority of small Indy players/crews ( including myself ) feel completely hard done by.


However, if there was a clearly stated reason why the new changes must negatively affect small crews, then perhaps we wouldn't feel so mistreated.


I feel that at the moment, the message is "small Indy is going to suffer, enjoy!"

I can't imagine a scenario where eve is better because industry is now run almost entirely by large groups.


Looking forward to hearing some more details.

SV





Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#693 - 2016-10-24 11:08:03 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
why would any industrialist band up with other industrialists and increase their own competition? This is not pvP where more is better this is a market place where more is worse.

Do you think it is a healthy situation when MMO game has no incentives for people to cooperate?

Aside from the fact Eve is supposed to be a sandbox - Meaning no-one should be forced to "co-operate" with anyone should they choose not to.

And if I chose to?
You print out walls of text proving the obvious - cooperation is detrimental atm. But your mistake is that you imply this is the way it should be. No, it's not. This is MMO and I should be rewarded for cooperation.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#694 - 2016-10-24 11:10:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Sgt Ocker wrote:

LOL, typical response from a bad troll - "just unsub".

I have already let more than half my subs lapse over the last year or two - not as any sort of protest but simply because CCP's direction makes subbing them not viable. I may let a few more go inactive once these changes go live but again not as any sort of protest, that would be stupid and anyone suggesting it as an option, well.,.,.
It's not trolling, it is reality. You have no say in the development decisions and while you can whine and moan as much as you like, the only concrete step you can take to be heard is to end your relationship with CCP and tell them why.

People threaten CCP all the time demanding that something they personally want to be done to the game, and they rightly can ignore most of this posturing. CCP has to focus on what they think is best for the long-term health of the game, not to satisfy who shouts the loudest, or who threatens to unsub the most accounts. It would be nice if CCP shared a little more of what they think that long-term direction should be so we could help them better with input, but they have to be rightly wary that much of that input we as players offer is coming from a place of short-term self-interest, rather than from a rational and unbiased desire to improve the game.

But in the end it is their game, and the only agency you have is to whether to continue to play or not. Sometimes what brought you to the game changes, goes away or gets boring, or sometimes you change, but all you can do is make the decision to stay or not. Only you can decide if you are still finding enjoyment in the game or not and staying because of some 'sunk cost fallacy' doesn't benefit anyone.

If you are not enjoying the game or are happy with the development direction you should man-up and take your leisure time elsewhere. At the very least you will be reminded of the things about the game you do like and will appreciate it more if or when you decide to come back.
Kinizsi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#695 - 2016-10-24 13:00:08 UTC
I've fitted my Tear Collector II and I'm allready a billionaire from your whiner tears.

1. Fuel consumption does not matter, it can be 200 / hour or 2000 / hour that changes nothing, market prices would follow the rising maintenance costs and risk after POS's phase out. So fear not lads, you'd have roughly the same profit as before, just wait til the POS's phase out. This is fact, not a guess, this is how market works.

2. POS's are more simple, and lower maintenance but THEY WOULD DISAPPEAR asap EC's are finished, so industry guys, HTFU, and get used to EC's, those are your future, not NPC stations if you want to remain in business. No matter how you cry, you'd all end up having EC's or using Freeport EC's like it or not, no matter how you resist. CCP is determined, so it's gona be.

3. I haven't seen any major patch over my 10+ year EVE career that was accepted by all, there were allways whiners, who didn't like something in the new patch. But community is a really creative beast and it would find a good way to operate new stuff effectively as it did allways in the past. Probably those who now resist the most would be the first who exploit the new features to their advance.

So instead of whining over the unchangable facts, why don't you thinking on:

How to use the new structures best, how to maximise profit, and minimise risk?
This would be much more productive than the whining over how bad EC's gona be.....
Tiberius Zol
Moira.
Villore Accords
#696 - 2016-10-24 13:03:37 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Good for you. According to CCP Quant 85% of the other industrialists do not have any risk as they currently do their industry in invulnerable POSes in highsec. CCP has decided to put them back at some risk, but if you were always at risk I don't see why you are complaining about them being vulnerable. Your POS was vulnerable 24h a day and only had one reinforcement timer. These guys are only vulnerable for a fraction of that time and give you an extra chance to mount a defence. Further, your assets are completely safe even if you lose it (except in a WH) so on paper these things a better in almost every way to defend.


Still laughing about this one..

So the mighty invulnerable POSes are vulnerable 24h a day?

Come on... you can do better..

Mr. Tibbers on twitter: @Mr_Tibbers

Mr. Tibbers Blog: www.eve-versum.de

Black Pedro
Mine.
#697 - 2016-10-24 13:14:43 UTC
Tiberius Zol wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Good for you. According to CCP Quant 85% of the other industrialists do not have any risk as they currently do their industry in invulnerable POSes in highsec. CCP has decided to put them back at some risk, but if you were always at risk I don't see why you are complaining about them being vulnerable. Your POS was vulnerable 24h a day and only had one reinforcement timer. These guys are only vulnerable for a fraction of that time and give you an extra chance to mount a defence. Further, your assets are completely safe even if you lose it (except in a WH) so on paper these things a better in almost every way to defend.


Still laughing about this one..

So the mighty invulnerable POSes are vulnerable 24h a day?

Come on... you can do better..
Yup, outside of highsec anyway as our friend was claiming his was located. I can start shooting your POS at any time during our standard 24h clock and on any day of our week. With the new structures, that is not possible as there are only small, defined windows chosen by the defender during which I can attack.

In highsec however, POSes are indeed invulnerable as the defender has plenty of time to take them down during the warm up to a war and stash them nice and snug in the safety of a station. The defender does not have to actually defend their POS if they don't want to and there is no way as an attacker I can force a fight.

I would have thought these simple concepts would be self-evident to any Eve player, but clearly I should be more more precise in how I write.

Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
#698 - 2016-10-24 13:25:01 UTC
Kinizsi wrote:
I've fitted my Tear Collector II and I'm allready a billionaire from your whiner tears.

1. Fuel consumption does not matter, it can be 200 / hour or 2000 / hour that changes nothing, market prices would follow the rising maintenance costs and risk after POS's phase out. So fear not lads, you'd have roughly the same profit as before, just wait til the POS's phase out. This is fact, not a guess, this is how market works.

2. POS's are more simple, and lower maintenance but THEY WOULD DISAPPEAR asap EC's are finished, so industry guys, HTFU, and get used to EC's, those are your future, not NPC stations if you want to remain in business. No matter how you cry, you'd all end up having EC's or using Freeport EC's like it or not, no matter how you resist. CCP is determined, so it's gona be.

3. I haven't seen any major patch over my 10+ year EVE career that was accepted by all, there were allways whiners, who didn't like something in the new patch. But community is a really creative beast and it would find a good way to operate new stuff effectively as it did allways in the past. Probably those who now resist the most would be the first who exploit the new features to their advance.

So instead of whining over the unchangable facts, why don't you thinking on:

How to use the new structures best, how to maximise profit, and minimise risk?
This would be much more productive than the whining over how bad EC's gona be.....

Right now I strongly believe that the concern here is the lack of CCP being active and addressing the playerbase and the close to 40 pages of questions.

Even a "GO **** yourselves" and "Industry is for large groups only" would suffice at this point...
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#699 - 2016-10-24 13:26:23 UTC
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=496518&find=unread


Test server feedback.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.

Samsara Toldya
Academy of Contradictory Behaviour
#700 - 2016-10-24 13:36:23 UTC
Kinizsi wrote:
I've fitted my Tear Collector II and I'm allready a billionaire from your whiner tears.

POS's ... WOULD DISAPPEAR asap EC's are finished, so industry guys, HTFU, and get used to EC's, those are your future, not NPC stations if you want to remain in business.


Well... EC will be introduced Nov 8th 2016 and I really hope POS get removed that day (hint: won't happen).

Because... only when the last POS are gone you'll recognize that neither Citadels nor EC are able to extract moon-goo.

I can't replace a medium industry POS with a XL EC. That's fine. Bet moon-mining will suffer the same problems soon™.
Gone are the days of "one POS will do the job".