These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#741 - 2016-10-26 05:54:37 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
How it works with POSes:

  • get wardec
  • pull down POS
  • jump corp
  • put up POS


No break in production other than cancelling current jobs :D

How it works with EC:


  1. Spam public EC to raise system indexes
  2. CCP changes NPC stations so they are always more expensive than system index
  3. wardecs come, ECs are blown up, but you already earned replacement value
  4. Deploy private EC in back woods hisec to reap rewards



Remembering that everyone else is playing by the same rules with no POSes and either EC or NPC labs to work with.

Nice description of how it might work out once pos's are removed but until that time, what are the incentives for anyone in highsec to pay the price of a more vulnerable, more costly to run and build EC?

Even for many lowsec and nulsec entities, there is no incentive to make the switch, aside possibly for super cap builders, who will still need to do their sums carefully before deciding..

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.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#742 - 2016-10-26 07:57:56 UTC
Bussan wrote:
Ok, so let's put it this way:
- Indy is all about make stuff and sell stuff.
- A corp wardecs me.
- I can choose to:
1. risk my assets, keep the pos on, production on, and defend it if needed (and loose everything, if I loose)
2. don't risk them, take pos down, and don't get any profit for at least one week.

To me, it looks like I have a choice, and I get some good reward if I decide to risk.

With the new system:
- A corp wardecs me.
- My choices are:
1. get my stuff away immediately, don't get any profit and loose the structure
2. try to defend it, get some more time of production and loose the structure

To me, it looks like the choices are quite similar... just with the new system I cannot save the structure.
Unless I can defend it... but at the present status, in a POS I could have some chances, in an EC I have a lot less.
And with a POS, the risk/reward is bigger than with ECs.
The problem with the current systems is you are not risking anything by deploying a POS in highsec. You are right, you could leave your undefended industrial POS up and keep churning out product during a war, or you can do what almost every industrialists does and pull it down and lose nothing. That is not risk. At best it is a disruption of your operation, but your assets are not at risk. You are fully benefiting from all your in-space industrial structures with literally zero risk of losing them as you have a get-out-of-war-free card in the 24h warm-up period to a war.

That is silly. Why force industrialists to click a bunch of times to put up, and then take down a structure that cannot be lost? It is just useless overhead that provides no additional game play or choices to the industrialist. It just makes it mandatory for everyone who wants to build anything to go through the motions of setting up an industrial POS they have no intention of defending so they can compete with all the other industrialists who do the same. It makes total sense to push these industrialists back into NPC stations where they can still be invulnerable and build without any requirement to defend their operation, and are free of the tedium of POS setup and tear-down.

As you identify, but don't seem to understand the importance of, the ECs cannot be torn down on a whim. They have to be defended or lost. This completely changes the calculus of using an player-owned structure. You now have an incentive to defend it or you will actually lose assets. Before, if someone declared war you could take everything down, either hop corp or wait a week, and set everything back up and your net worth would be identical. With ECs, if you try to the evade a war by hiding in a NPC station your net worth will be -1B ISK or whatever an exploded EC will cost you. That threat of loss is your motivation to fight to defend it now, or find/hire people to do that for you.

This is actual game play. There are choices now to be made with various risks and various rewards and with various vulnerability to disruption by the other players. This is unlike the current, broken system, where highsec industrial POSes do nothing but waste people's time with an unfun mechanic, generating little conflict and offering very little real choice as they are so powerful they are all but mandatory.

As to the defendability of POS vs EC, I think that depends on the attacker and space that you are in. Certainly the EC offers many advantages to the defender over a POS including an anti-blob DPS cap, the ability to control when the structure can be attacked, and an extra reinforcement window, and the fail-safe of asset safety. The POS had probably more fitting choices and could be fit to be more annoying, and had the advantage it would shoot things unattended. I think on the whole the EC is easier to defend for a group that is planning to defend it (and the POS was better for someone who was not intending to defend but just rely on weaponized boredom to deter attacks), but they will also cost several times what a POS did so it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

In any case there is no choice. POSes are leaving and ECs will soon be the only choice. I suggest if you have specific ideas or concerns over the ECs and how they relate to industry you make them clearly to CCP in this thread. Just offering up that you "don't like them" or "these things are worse than POSes" isn't especially constructive. In less than two-weeks these will be in the game so time is running out.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#743 - 2016-10-26 08:25:25 UTC
Actually you hit the nail on the head there.

Black Pedro wrote:
As you identify, but don't seem to understand the importance of, the ECs cannot be torn down on a whim. They have to be defended or lost.

So they are primarily for alliances with a pvp arm.

Casual players cannot use them, normal industry solo players cant use them, small indy corps cant use them. The only ones who really can are large alliances. Defending these against gankers and merc corps for indy players would be a suicide mission and will just give the PvP players more reason to war dec and kill small players.

As for this just put it up and you will get the cost back, as seen earlier in this thread. Given how pretty they will look on killboards I doubt any of them will be up long enough in hi-sec for anyone to do anything, other than lose isk.

So all in all it is just another punch in the head for the little guy over the null sec alliances.
CCP has tried this for so long and it just fails, no wonder no one votes for the CSM any more except the Null alliances, their INFLUENCE has once again done nothing for the little guy or gal.

Just another attempt to make everyone join a null alliance, stick with NPC stations or just quit.

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.

Bussan
Kabukicho
#744 - 2016-10-26 09:03:16 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

The problem with the current systems is you are not risking anything by deploying a POS in highsec. You are right, you could leave your undefended industrial POS up and keep churning out product during a war, or you can do what almost every industrialists does and pull it down and lose nothing. That is not risk. At best it is a disruption of your operation, but your assets are not at risk. You are fully benefiting from all your in-space industrial structures with literally zero risk of losing them as you have a get-out-of-war-free card in the 24h warm-up period to a war.


A POS was not completely undefended, you could switch from full indy to full ****/deathstar if needed, and use your ship (and your mates if you had) to help. ECs have the power of an average ship (haven't really checked their power, but looks pretty low), and you have to actually use it, so cannot use your ship.
And as I said, you DO risk something, because you decide to risk both your pos and the stuff inside to keep the production on.
I guess you would be surprised at how many industrialists never even touched their POSes during wardecs. Even less shut them down and remove them.
Now you have no choice, because your EC will always be there. You cannot choose, you are just a target.

Black Pedro wrote:

As you identify, but don't seem to understand the importance of, the ECs cannot be torn down on a whim. They have to be defended or lost. This completely changes the calculus of using an player-owned structure. You now have an incentive to defend it or you will actually lose assets. Before, if someone declared war you could take everything down, either hop corp or wait a week, and set everything back up and your net worth would be identical. With ECs, if you try to the evade a war by hiding in a NPC station your net worth will be -1B ISK or whatever an exploded EC will cost you. That threat of loss is your motivation to fight to defend it now, or find/hire people to do that for you.


Well, to be honest I value more 1 week of disrupted business rather than a lost EC...
Again, I don't see why you keep posting so much in a thread that has nothing to do with your playstyle (well, yeah, other than blowing up indy stuff, of course^^), and that you don't even know well... just keep saying that things will change anyway and will have to adapt to it is useless... we already know it.

Black Pedro wrote:

This is actual game play. There are choices now to be made with various risks and various rewards and with various vulnerability to disruption by the other players. This is unlike the current, broken system, where highsec industrial POSes do nothing but waste people's time with an unfun mechanic, generating little conflict and offering very little real choice as they are so powerful they are all but mandatory.


ECs will give less choices to industrialists... will force them in a single playstyle and will make their game more static.
Plus risks won't change, or will even become less.
Plus I'm not so sure people will waste time with an unfun mechanic that generate little conflict and offer no choices at all, and even no real rewards (I'm talking about a pvp team shooting for xx time an harmelss structure more than once, with nobody defending, just to get a killmail, as the loot will be negligible.)
I guess at the beginning many groups will try to kill ECs as much as they can... then will become boring and they will stop it (look at POCOs... or even citadels...)

Black Pedro wrote:

defend but just rely on weaponized boredom to deter attacks), but they will also cost several times what a POS did so it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges.


mhm? if you talk about small POSes yeah... but M ECs should be compared to L POSes, and the second in general was more expensive (not talking just about the stick...)

Black Pedro wrote:

In any case there is no choice. POSes are leaving and ECs will soon be the only choice. I suggest if you have specific ideas or concerns over the ECs and how they relate to industry you make them clearly to CCP in this thread. Just offering up that you "don't like them" or "these things are worse than POSes" isn't especially constructive. In less than two-weeks these will be in the game so time is running out.


Already said that I made a post with my ideas and suggestions... if you just wanna look better than me with comments like this, welcome... :)
Black Pedro
Mine.
#745 - 2016-10-26 09:39:47 UTC
Bussan wrote:
A POS was not completely undefended, you could switch from full indy to full ****/deathstar if needed, and use your ship (and your mates if you had) to help. ECs have the power of an average ship (haven't really checked their power, but looks pretty low), and you have to actually use it, so cannot use your ship.
And as I said, you DO risk something, because you decide to risk both your pos and the stuff inside to keep the production on.
I guess you would be surprised at how many industrialists never even touched their POSes during wardecs. Even less shut them down and remove them.
Now you have no choice, because your EC will always be there. You cannot choose, you are just a target.
Yes, you could choose to take a risk and players sometimes do, but the point is that by deploying the POS you were not at risk. You always had the 'evade war' card in your back pocket so you didn't have to fight if you didn't want to and yet you still could benefit from in-space industrial structures.

Now the decision as to whether to defend or not has to be made before the structure is deployed, not after a war is declared, as it properly should be. Otherwise, there is only reward, no risk, when CONCORD is protecting your POS for you.

Bussan wrote:
Again, I don't see why you keep posting so much in a thread that has nothing to do with your playstyle (well, yeah, other than blowing up indy stuff, of course^^), and that you don't even know well... just keep saying that things will change anyway and will have to adapt to it is useless... we already know it.
I keep posting because people keep directly addressing me. It would be rude to ignore them if I had the time and something worthwhile to add.

I am glad you understand that change is coming. That is hard to tell from many of the posts here that act like there is some room for keeping POSes if they complain loud enough. You can't see the future, I can't see the future, and even CCP can't know how this will work out, but they have a vision for this game and are continuing to work towards that. Communication is good, and providing feedback on how you think these changes will help CCP achieve their vision is good, but just whining about you don't like where CCP is taking the game isn't very productive.

Bussan wrote:

ECs will give less choices to industrialists... will force them in a single playstyle and will make their game more static.
Plus risks won't change, or will even become less.
Plus I'm not so sure people will waste time with an unfun mechanic that generate little conflict and offer no choices at all, and even no real rewards (I'm talking about a pvp team shooting for xx time an harmelss structure more than once, with nobody defending, just to get a killmail, as the loot will be negligible.)
I guess at the beginning many groups will try to kill ECs as much as they can... then will become boring and they will stop it (look at POCOs... or even citadels...)
You could be right on the fact that very few ECs will get attacked. There is little reason to do so it being pretty grindy still, and the precedents of the other structures is not great. Still, the possibility of forcing someone to defend is better than allowing everyone to evade whenever they choose as was the case with highsec POSes so I think we are ahead.

But if that is the case and ECs are like Citadels/POCOs and rarely attacked in highsec, then there will definitely be more options for industrialists. The increase cost/risk of these structures over the cheap, invulnerable POSes will make NPC stations look better by comparison, plus there is this completely new option of renting out a public EC. Definitely there will be more ways to do industry on the table. There will also be actual decisions to be made again by industrialists on how to build stuff which will have different solutions depending on the size and type of the industrial operation.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#746 - 2016-10-26 11:53:50 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Actually you hit the nail on the head there.

Black Pedro wrote:
As you identify, but don't seem to understand the importance of, the ECs cannot be torn down on a whim. They have to be defended or lost.

So they are primarily for alliances with a pvp arm.

Casual players cannot use them, normal industry solo players cant use them, small indy corps cant use them. The only ones who really can are large alliances. Defending these against gankers and merc corps for indy players would be a suicide mission and will just give the PvP players more reason to war dec and kill small players.

As for this just put it up and you will get the cost back, as seen earlier in this thread. Given how pretty they will look on killboards I doubt any of them will be up long enough in hi-sec for anyone to do anything, other than lose isk.

So all in all it is just another punch in the head for the little guy over the null sec alliances.
CCP has tried this for so long and it just fails, no wonder no one votes for the CSM any more except the Null alliances, their INFLUENCE has once again done nothing for the little guy or gal.

Just another attempt to make everyone join a null alliance, stick with NPC stations or just quit.

You right, CCp's has been trying and failing dismally for several years to make nulsec space something worth moving to.
The most exciting thing to happen in nulsec in years was the money badger coalition and even it got old after a week because every fleet was just blob blob blob. That sort of thing, due in part to EULA changes, is very unlikely to ever happen again.

So Devs in their infinite wisdom (I jest) decided to release a complete line of structures specifically designed for nulsec blob alliances, without taking into consideration how the game play involving these structures works (in not only nul but the major and by far more populated parts of TQ, highsec and lowsec).
It is a sad day when "designers" don't understand who they are developing for. It is worse when the "new" is far less functional per isk than what is currently available.

Thankfully we have a good while before pos's are removed.

As for the CSM, it should have been left to die a natural death about 3 years ago, when we had the last CSM worthy of the votes. Some outdated, redundant traditions CCP just can't let go of, others they are happy to ignore or just toss under the bed to be forgotten (right where the CSM should be).
-- - -- - -- - --

I can understand CCP wanting to create something new and interesting and pos code does have serious issues but why introduce a line of new structures, which so many have/had been looking forward to, that quite openly discriminate against every small group in the game?
Introducing new things into a game this old that are subpar to what has been the standard for many years, just smacks of poor design and no consideration for the player base. More so when, like most of CCP's work, players are left in the dark until it is too late for any decent feedback to be taken into account.

Not too long ago at a recent fanfest, CCP announced they would make efforts to improve communication between players and Devs - That little speech was valid for about 30 seconds longer than it took for Seagull to say it.

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
#747 - 2016-10-26 11:57:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Mark Marconi wrote:
Actually you hit the nail on the head there.

Black Pedro wrote:
As you identify, but don't seem to understand the importance of, the ECs cannot be torn down on a whim. They have to be defended or lost.

So they are primarily for alliances with a pvp arm.

Casual players cannot use them, normal industry solo players cant use them, small indy corps cant use them. The only ones who really can are large alliances. Defending these against gankers and merc corps for indy players would be a suicide mission and will just give the PvP players more reason to war dec and kill small players.

As for this just put it up and you will get the cost back, as seen earlier in this thread. Given how pretty they will look on killboards I doubt any of them will be up long enough in hi-sec for anyone to do anything, other than lose isk.

So all in all it is just another punch in the head for the little guy over the null sec alliances.
CCP has tried this for so long and it just fails, no wonder no one votes for the CSM any more except the Null alliances, their INFLUENCE has once again done nothing for the little guy or gal.

Just another attempt to make everyone join a null alliance, stick with NPC stations or just quit.

You right, CCP has been trying and failing dismally for several years to make nulsec space something worth moving to.
The most exciting thing to happen in nulsec in years was the money badger coalition and even it got old after a week because every fleet was just blob blob blob. That sort of thing, due in part to EULA changes, is very unlikely to ever happen again, so nul has once more gone back to the risk free isk making space it has always been.
Funny, CCP is constantly saying there is too much isk in the game, then design new additions to the game specifically designed to improve isk making in the easiest, most risk averse place in eve to make it. Just a little contradictory..

So Devs in their infinite wisdom (I jest) decided to release a complete line of structures specifically designed for nulsec blob alliances, without taking into consideration how the game play involving these structures works (in not only nul but the major and by far more populated parts of TQ, highsec and lowsec).
It is a sad day when "designers" don't understand who they are developing for. It is worse when the "new" is far less functional per isk than what is currently available.

Thankfully we have a good while before pos's are removed.

As for the CSM, it should have been left to die a natural death about 3 years ago, when we had the last CSM worthy of the votes. Some outdated, redundant traditions CCP just can't let go of, others they are happy to ignore or just toss under the bed to be forgotten (right where the CSM should be).
-- - -- - -- - --

I can understand CCP wanting to create something new and interesting and pos code does have serious issues but why introduce a line of new structures, which so many have/had been looking forward to, that quite openly discriminate against every small group in the game?
Introducing new things into a game this old that are subpar to what has been the standard for many years, just smacks of poor design and no consideration for the player base. More so when, like most of CCP's work, players are left in the dark until it is too late for any decent feedback to be taken into account.

Not too long ago at a recent fanfest, CCP announced they would make efforts to improve communication between players and Devs - That little speech was valid for about 30 seconds longer than it took for Seagull to say it.

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.

Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#748 - 2016-10-26 12:15:48 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

and even CCP can't know how this will work out, but they have a vision for this game and are continuing to work towards that.

To honest, I don't think they have one beyond "everything in player hands, everything destructible". Sadly the Citadel/EC mechanics show this, they throw half-baked structures into the game, don't fix problem for 6 months, throw in another set of structures with same mechanics to serve a completely different purpose and let the players find out what they can be used for. Personally I expect more from game design, EvE being a sandbox is not an universal excuse.

I'm my own NPC alt.

Urziel99
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#749 - 2016-10-26 14:58:32 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

and even CCP can't know how this will work out, but they have a vision for this game and are continuing to work towards that.


If you call this shitshow a vision, it has a pretty epic case of Myopia and Glaucoma.
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
Together We Solo
#750 - 2016-10-26 15:56:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Manssell
Tipa Riot wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:

and even CCP can't know how this will work out, but they have a vision for this game and are continuing to work towards that.

To honest, I don't think they have one beyond "everything in player hands, everything destructible". Sadly the Citadel/EC mechanics show this, they throw half-baked structures into the game, don't fix problem for 6 months, throw in another set of structures with same mechanics to serve a completely different purpose and let the players find out what they can be used for. Personally I expect more from game design, EvE being a sandbox is not an universal excuse.


And this is why these conversations always devolves down to talking past each other. For BP, CCP is developing a good ‘vision’ for the new structures, it’s just a ‘vision’ that aligns with his preferred play-style.

The problem of course is it doesn’t fit at all with the play-styles of small groups and solo players. Now many people here like BP and others don’t feel that that play-style is as legitimate as theirs. Whatever. But CCP has been endlessly telling everyone it is. And they’ve been selling the new structures as fitting in with that play-style too. That everyone can own a home and feel invested. Even though I find it rather telling that CCP never did (that I know of) any sort of round table discussion with small groups and solo players to address concerns of the new Citadels, Seagull has emphasized that in the videos (that was linked to constantly when this discussion happened over Citadels) that these are meant for small groups too. And they keep saying so on the forums. The problem of course is they aren’t really, because CCP is developing these with Null Sec groups in mind which happen to be larger in size. And I’m not necessarily saying they shouldn’t, BUT CCP needs to stop right now and rip this bandaid off and come clean that they are. They keep saying one thing, and releasing another while also saying ‘don’t worry, new structures will be out in the future to address your concerns’. Only now new structures are out and they still don’t address those concerns.

While these discussions that are going on here all seem to devolve down to ‘numbers per hour’ or Hi-sec versus Null sec, one of the often overlooked problems with the new structures (I think) compared to the old POS is that small groups (and I’m including ‘Solo’ in with “small groups”) could put one down and pretty much go unnoticed. You could hide them off scan from gates in many systems. You could bury them in the POS list of larger ones. Unless someone was purposefully checking a system for all the POSs you could slip by under the radar. Small groups had a structure they could fit to use as a base of operations for combat or manufacturing that had a bit of ’stealth’ to it and could defend itself to an extent. And in the small POS one that they could consider disposable. Now that the new structures are not only very expensive (related to small POSs) they all pop up in space for anyone jumping into system to see, CCP just hung a giant ‘kick me’ sign on all small groups that use these, and upped the ante to do so.

CCP made a mistake when they promised to cary all the functionality of the POSs over to the new system. When they killed the idea of the ‘Small’, mobile, cheap structure with auto defenses that can be ‘hidden’ to an extent, they broke that promise. Wether they did that on purpose or not doesn’t matter (I do not think they did!), but they need to come clean now and stop selling these as something small groups can use they way they did POSs. If by ‘small groups and solo people can partake in the new structures too’ from the intro video on these CCP really meant, ‘well you might be able to dock in someone else’s’ then they need to just say that! Will there be tears? Oh some Norse god yes, but it’s better to just do this now than let this charade keep going. Or if they actually do have some other plan for structures that address these concerns they need to say that now too (they fact that they are dragging their feet so much on getting back to us I think suggest they don't).
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#751 - 2016-10-27 13:23:05 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks, thanks for all the replies so far. I'm going through everything and I'll be making a big Q&A post with answers at some point soon.
Whoops, guess I should have put a ™ on that "soon". Sorry for the delay folks, I got pulled into some other things that required my time. Work on updating the design to help address your concerns has continued over the past two weeks however, with the CSM playing a big part in discussing the options with us. The people taking the lead during this period are just not as big into forum posting as I am.

Ok I'll have a big Q&A below, but first let's go over some of the changes to the plan we've made since this blog released thanks to your feedback and that of the CSM.

The big one is removing the rig strength bonus from the Complexes and replacing it with flat across the board bonuses to job materials, time and cost. This means that when you are running a job in an Engineering Complex without the specific rigs for that job type installed, you'll still receive some strong bonuses. The rigs will then allow you to specialize above and beyond the generalized base bonuses.

Under this new scheme, the role bonuses for each Engineering Complex will be:

RAITARU
1% reduction in manufacturing job required materials
15% reduction in manufacturing and science job required time
3% reduction in manufacturing and science job required ISK cost
25% reduction in Engineering Service Module fuel consumption

Azbel
1% reduction in manufacturing job required materials
20% reduction in manufacturing and science job required time
4% reduction in manufacturing and science job required ISK cost
25% reduction in Engineering Service Module fuel consumption

Sotiyo
1% reduction in manufacturing job required materials
30% reduction in manufacturing and science job required time
5% reduction in manufacturing and science job required ISK cost
25% reduction in Engineering Service Module fuel consumption

To go along with these changes, the bonuses of the rigs themselves will be adjusted as well:
  • Material Reduction Rig Base Bonus: 2% T1, 2.4% T2
  • Time Reduction Rig Base Bonus: 20% T1, 24% T2
  • Cost Reduction Rig Base Bonus: 10% T1, 12% T2
  • Lowsec rig bonus multiplier: 1.9x
  • Nullsec rig bonus multiplier: 2.1x

The end result of these changes should be a better balance between encouraging benefits of specialization and providing strong general bonuses that work for all science and industry jobs.

We also agree with the feedback that the fuel costs are too high in the initial design. So we've reduced the fuel cost of all the Engineering Service Modules (by -40% for the Manufacturing, Research and Invention services, -20% for Capital Shipyards and -10% for Supercapital Shipyards)
The new fuel requirement design is:
  • Manufacturing, Research, Invention: 12 blocks per hour (9 with EC bonus)
  • Capital Shipyards: 24 blocks per hour (18 with EC bonus)
  • Supercapital Shipyards: 36 blocks per hour (27 with EC bonus)

We're also planning on tuning down the vulnerability hours of the larger Engineering Complexes a bit, to 14 hours for the Azbel and 26 hours for the Sotiyo.

Finally, we have some additional info that's been requested.
BPO Costs:
  • Raitaru Blueprint: 4,000,000,000 isk
  • Azbel Blueprint: 25,000,000,000 isk
  • Sotiyo Blueprint: 100,000,000,000 isk

Rig Material Requirements
You'll notice that compared to the Combat and Reprocessing rigs, the Engineering Rigs have a smaller gap in price between the sizes and a smaller gap (especially at large sizes) between T1 and T2 prices.

Big thanks to everyone posting feedback in this thread so far, and to the CSM.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#752 - 2016-10-27 13:23:15 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
That picture of a Titan at the end means that super capitals in build will be visible from outside the structure, yes? That's quite a big change to not mention anywhere in the blog, just saying.
We are considering adding external visibility for supercap construction jobs in the future, but that feature is definitely not part of the November expansion. There is still more work that would need to be done to get that feature working and we have some higher priority items on our backlog at the moment.

TigerXtrm wrote:
I'm assuming that the reprocessing rigs will be getting their bonused structure with the release of Drilling Platforms, right? Or are those meant to be specific to Citadels (makes less sense if you ask me).
Yes the drilling platforms are currently intended to be the bonus structure for reprocessing. Engineering Complexes will have the same reprocessing ability as Citadels.

Altrue wrote:
What of the ability to use a Market Service Module? Is it limited to L and XL or only for XL?
The Market Service module will be installable on the Azbel (large) and Sotiyo (Xl) Engineering Complexes.

Angela Zelin wrote:
So lowsec is losing the production buff it has in the form of the Thukker array?
Is this an oversight or intended? IF not intended, is there anything in the works to keep the current benefits to producing in lowsec?
We have some plans in the works to replace some of the specific functions of the Thukker array. This replacement won't be in the first Ascension release, but it will be ready before we phase out the Thukker array at some point in the future.

Tash'k Omar wrote:
Does the invention service module also add the ability to run T3 invention jobs (formerly reverse engineering) that are currently limited to research outposts and experimental labs?
Yes the Invention service module will enable T3 invention.

Tash'k Omar wrote:
And gas reactions?
Reactions are not be changed at this time and will continue to be starbase-only. We'll communicate about them again well before we make any changes for them.

Ishido Attaka wrote:
So... Can I install Standup Invention Lab I module into Astrahus?
Yes.

Kahawa Oban wrote:
So quick question: Can you stack rigs (2 of the same, potentially 2 T2's and a T1 of the same) and if so are there stacking penalties?
No. As with the existing structure rigs, only one rig of any given type (T1 and T2 inclusive) can be fit to the same structure at the same time.

Knitram Relik wrote:
Question - Building freighters, Orcas, Bowheads, and Jumpfreighters. Will this require a capital shipyard or can we use a Manufacturing plant? Those ships can currently be built in a Large Ship Array and I wonder if that will carry over.
Freighters, Jump Freighters and Industrial Command ships will be built using the normal Manufacturing plant, and can be built in a Raitaru.

Manssell wrote:
I may hav missed it, but are these just going to appear in space the way citadels do or will you have to scan them down the way POS's are now?
Engineering Complexes will appear in space in the same way that Citadels do.

frightning wrote:
I may have missed the confirmation but when are Small Engineering Arrays & Small Citadels being released?
We have no plans to introduce Small Engineering Complexes or Small Citadels at this time.

Yatolilaboboolia Yatolila wrote:
Can the smallest engineering complex build a keepstar?
Yes.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#753 - 2016-10-27 13:56:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Skia Aumer
Space Vixen wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
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.

And the big questions remain without answers.
1. What are the design goals?
2. Why u no change NDA and let CSM speak for themselves?
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC
Nefatari Union
#754 - 2016-10-27 14:12:04 UTC  |  Edited by: RainReaper
I LOVE YOU CCP! the new Raitaru services are now 12 blocks every hour! with a further decrease of 25% on the engineering complexes! for around 27 blocks now. way better than it was att first! and the fact that all the engineering compelxes gets a flat 1% bonus to any manufacturing ME makes it a good choice to build anything in the new structures. while ofcourse being able to be specialised further :D

Altough i have to say.
Decreasing the vulnerability windows on only the azbel and sotiyo is a bit meh.
Shouldent the Raitaru get a bit of a decrease to? 3 times the vulnerability of the astrahus medium is prety insane...
Atleast decrease it to 6-7 hours or something.
Also its cpu and powergrid is trash. You get 3 high 2 med and 1 low. And you cant even use them all if you use all service slots so you can do all of your industry.
Its trash in the def department.
Matthew Reddy
One Less Gun
#755 - 2016-10-27 14:14:00 UTC
Will the rigs apply their bonuses to capital and super capitial construction?.
Darrien
Ouroboros Logistics
#756 - 2016-10-27 15:08:03 UTC
Are there anymore Citadel Service modules down the line that will provide Astrahus's with a bit more utility ?
Max Caulfield
SwEaTy ArMpIT RaIDeRs
The Initiative.
#757 - 2016-10-27 15:11:22 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We are considering adding external visibility for supercap construction jobs in the future, but that feature is definitely not part of the November expansion.

The needs to be ingame and better sooner than later! It's in line with the features which make EvE great.

The new structures make it really hard (wide vulnerability timers, low ehp/defenses, somewhat reduced competitiveness) for solo industrialists to continue producing. Will this be addressed somehow? Or it's just solo indy operations were never intended in the first place?
Mr Grape Drink
Better Off Builders
Unspoken Alliance.
#758 - 2016-10-27 15:11:59 UTC
Matthew Reddy wrote:
Will the rigs apply their bonuses to capital and super capitial construction?.


I think there's now a rig for caps on Sisi? That's an addition Mr Foz forgot to note, if I'm correct.
petosorus
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#759 - 2016-10-27 15:13:07 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


  • Lowsec rig bonus multiplier: 1.9x
  • Nullsec rig bonus multiplier: 2.1x



Will there be bonuses to rigs for wormhole complexes?
Mr Grape Drink
Better Off Builders
Unspoken Alliance.
#760 - 2016-10-27 15:16:20 UTC
petosorus wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


  • Lowsec rig bonus multiplier: 1.9x
  • Nullsec rig bonus multiplier: 2.1x



Will there be bonuses to rigs for wormhole complexes?


Wormhole is the same as Null