These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Crius] Starbase feedback

First post First post
Author
Goonswarm Federation
#261 - 2014-07-09 18:00:16 UTC
For those who haven't twigged to it yet -- these changes are being made with the expectation that it will cause a drawdown in starbase usage. This is why they are coupling it with an increase in fuel usage for jumping capitals, using jump bridges, and firing the titan doomsday weapons.

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

Gallente Federation
#262 - 2014-07-09 18:10:15 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

Update on multiple-structure bonuses for starbases.

We've just had another discussion about this system as-implemented, and based on your feedback, the technical challenges involved in implementing it in a fully user-friendly way, and the somewhat limited upsides of the feature, we've decided to cut it from Crius.

Having multiple starbase structures of the same type at a starbase will no longer grant you any bonus above those inherent in the structure itself

The only substantial downside to this is that it makes it much easier to weaponize an industry tower, so we are considering upping lab/array fitting costs substantially in a later release. We likely will not do this in Crius itself as people will need time to reconfigure their setups.

We are looking into what we can do to mitigate the expected glut of labs resulting from this change; more info as we work through this process :)

Thanks for all your feedback,
-Greyscale


How about instead of trying to link multiple structures together you just split out the results into variants

Mobile Lab (what we have now)
Upgraded Mobile Lab (2x fitting cost, bonus of having two under the design)
Experimental Mobile Lab (3x fitting cost, bonus of 3)
Prototype Mobile Lab (4x fitting cost, bonus of 4)

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.

AII ShaII Perish
#263 - 2014-07-09 19:02:47 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
The messaging on this has not been sufficiently clear because we (I) have been viewing the multiple-structure bonus as an additional little extra rather than a core balance driver, and weren't expecting people to view it as a make-or-break bonus in comparison to the above list. Sorry for not being clearer about this sooner :)


You weren't expecting people to go out of their way to maximize profits by any means necessary? Do you even ΞVΞ bro?

eBil Tycoon > we're more like megacapitalistic psychotic space cowboys with raging epeens and 3% real girls.

AII ShaII Perish
#264 - 2014-07-09 19:05:38 UTC
Querns wrote:
For those who haven't twigged to it yet -- these changes are being made with the expectation that it will cause a drawdown in starbase usage. This is why they are coupling it with an increase in fuel usage for jumping capitals, using jump bridges, and firing the titan doomsday weapons.


Which suggests to me their planned alterations to POSes in a future update will Break All The Things and this is simply damage control in advance.

eBil Tycoon > we're more like megacapitalistic psychotic space cowboys with raging epeens and 3% real girls.

Caldari State
#265 - 2014-07-09 19:21:24 UTC
Here's a suggestion greyscale.

The Caldari oligarchy ban the use of starbase catalytic converters on the grounds they have been causing brain tumours in the population of nearby planets.

While the claims are unsubstantiated, the other empires have caught wind of this and responded to the terrified outcries of their populace and followed suit. There are rumours of key members of the Caldari Oligarchy having purchased substantial shares in a number of key planetary extraction technology suppliers, which have been unanimously denied by all the involved parties.

The net result is a 30% reduction in fuel block efficiency in all empire held space. That should address the glut, somewhat.

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

#266 - 2014-07-09 19:34:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Careby
Seith Kali wrote:
...The net result is a 30% reduction in fuel block efficiency in all empire held space. That should address the glut, somewhat.

So highsec and lowsec towers would require 43% more fuel than those in nullsec & wormhole space. That part sounds peachy, but my concern for the well-being of nullsec residents gives me pause (I'm assuming brain tumors are a bad thing).
Caldari State
#267 - 2014-07-09 19:36:57 UTC
Unlike the empires, our planets are desolate and unsettled. Don't forget, the Caldari Oligarchy directorate hold no sway out here.

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

#268 - 2014-07-09 19:38:59 UTC
Oh lovely, you actually misread what I posted. Brilliant. I know there are not going to be slots. Lack of slots as in slots are being removed.

The whole point of the original consideration of stacking bonuses was to handle the fact that otherwise, and without slots, only one of each industry posdule type is needed for a given area of use.

A lot of people do not use every single structure out there - industrialists specialise. That's how you profit, by being the better player at a small number of things, not flailing around with a lot. Almost any group considering and desiring to use the majority of industry posdules would do so either in separate starbases or non-concurrently already.

And that whole "silent delay for up to an hour" is amazing. I mean, it's once again laughing in the face of everyone who has ever worked with starbases and got the mental capacity to understand a one hour cycle. Even the consideration of "Oh, this person has to wait an hour for changes to take place." Industry, as you have said yourself, is about manufacture and research in bulk and at a large scale. One hour is a long time to a frigate pilot firing at another frigate pilot. One hour is a short hop around for any major industrialist as the overwhelming majority of jobs exceed that time and a non-trivial amount exceed it by orders of magnitude.

This is hand waving at it's very best. You don't cancel an entire section of content because some people cannot fathom things happening on a 1 hour cycle. Would you remove the rest of starbase mechanics affected by this 1 hour cycle until it can be very carefully presented to the layest of men? Or would you leave the content in to be used with a note in a description or two explaining there is such a cycle, while working on a way to make it clearer in a later patch?

Caldari State
#269 - 2014-07-09 19:47:18 UTC
Kenneth Skybound wrote:

The whole point of the original consideration of stacking bonuses was to handle the fact that otherwise, and without slots, only one of each industry posdule type is needed for a given area of use.


The alternative is to consider that you don't necessarily need slots to impose a concurrent job limit based on the number of online modules. The stacking bonus seemed, to me at least, a little OP considering the number of new moons available in the Jita vicinity.

Greyscale, the UI thing. Similar to the cries about invention, if POS are really next on the agenda following Industry, perhaps a sketchy little mechanic like that is acceptable? Provided you are committed to keeping it temporary.

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

Goonswarm Federation
#270 - 2014-07-09 19:51:24 UTC
Kenneth Skybound wrote:

This is hand waving at it's very best. You don't cancel an entire section of content because some people cannot fathom things happening on a 1 hour cycle. Would you remove the rest of starbase mechanics affected by this 1 hour cycle until it can be very carefully presented to the layest of men? Or would you leave the content in to be used with a note in a description or two explaining there is such a cycle, while working on a way to make it clearer in a later patch?


You're too focused on the "up to an hour" bit. This is not necessarily the case, and I would go so far as to say that it is probably not the case. I suspect it was more related to the technical problems involved with implementing it compared against the possible benefit. Perhaps they are okay with the commensurate reduction in starbase usage that will result from this change.

Also, I hardly think that "hey, anchoring multiple arrays gives a bonus" counts as "content." It was just a gimme to try and justify the use of larger starbases in the post-crius industry landscape. It sounds like they've changed their priorities a bit. It happens, especially as deadlines loom. It's not a big deal.

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

#271 - 2014-07-09 20:06:02 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
it doesnt work on freighters, fitting anything BUT 3 armor tank mods is suicide of the highest degree


Can you explain why you think this is true? I don't agree, and I'm interested in your reasoning.
Amarr Empire
#272 - 2014-07-09 20:16:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Nariya Kentaya
Emizeko Chai wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
it doesnt work on freighters, fitting anything BUT 3 armor tank mods is suicide of the highest degree


Can you explain why you think this is true? I don't agree, and I'm interested in your reasoning.

Fitting cargo expanders implies your putting mroe things in your cargo, argo fo a ship that now has less HP because of the expanders. You now have more value in a ship with WAY less EHP than BEFORE the patch, freighter ganking being a trivial affair before the patch, means that post-patch cargo-fit is almost impossible to carry any amount of materials in that isnt worth ganking for profit.

Even armor tanked, short of minerals, or bulk low-value commodities (which wont be worth hauling post-industry anyways due to reprocessing nerf), theres very little you can FILL your entire cargo hold with that doesnt make you a profitable target over how little it would realistically take to kill you.
Goonswarm Federation
#273 - 2014-07-09 20:17:04 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
. It didnt work on freighters, the approach wont work on POS (and yes it doesnt work on freighters, fitting anything BUT 3 armor tank mods is suicide of the highest degree).

yes please continue armor tanking your freighters

reinforced bulkheads are not a thing, please do not try to fit them
Amarr Empire
#274 - 2014-07-09 20:18:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Nariya Kentaya
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
. It didnt work on freighters, the approach wont work on POS (and yes it doesnt work on freighters, fitting anything BUT 3 armor tank mods is suicide of the highest degree).

yes please continue armor tanking your freighters

reinforced bulkheads are not a thing, please do not try to fit them

you know what i meant, i coudlnt remember the name of bulkheads. armor/hull, outside of amarr its basically the same thing.

Even armor tanked though, fitting those is still WAY more survivability than 3 cargo mods, like, wow, anyone who does that deserves to be ganked.
Working Stiffs
#275 - 2014-07-09 20:31:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Summary:

After Crius, a research POS only needs:
* One Hyasyoda Laboratory for ME / TE research.
* One Design Laboratory for copying and invention.
* One Experimental Laboratory for reverse engineering.

New but also useful additions:
* One Reprocessing Array
* One Compression Array

Manufacturing (risking more BPO and materials) and defences can be added with all the leftover CPU.

You don't want a small tower since the BPO will be in the labs / arrays.
Mercenary Coalition
#276 - 2014-07-09 20:32:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
. It didnt work on freighters, the approach wont work on POS (and yes it doesnt work on freighters, fitting anything BUT 3 armor tank mods is suicide of the highest degree).

yes please continue armor tanking your freighters

reinforced bulkheads are not a thing, please do not try to fit them


Tank? WTF? Istabs. Tank is absolutely overrated. The faster you get away from the gate, the better. However you tank your freighter, it always dies. Getting away from the danger zone as quickly as possible is the only logical fitting.

Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Even armor tanked though, fitting those is still WAY more survivability than 3 cargo mods, like, wow, anyone who does that deserves to be ganked.


Why do I deserve to be ganked when I have to transport large quantities of goods? Or when there are morons out there creating CCs with 900k m³ volume? What kind of reason is that that I deserve to be ganked?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Rote Kapelle
#277 - 2014-07-09 20:34:21 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
. It didnt work on freighters, the approach wont work on POS (and yes it doesnt work on freighters, fitting anything BUT 3 armor tank mods is suicide of the highest degree).

yes please continue armor tanking your freighters

reinforced bulkheads are not a thing, please do not try to fit them

you know what i meant, i coudlnt remember the name of bulkheads. armor/hull, outside of amarr its basically the same thing.

Even armor tanked though, fitting those is still WAY more survivability than 3 cargo mods, like, wow, anyone who does that deserves to be ganked.


Good god you are clueless.
Rote Kapelle
#278 - 2014-07-09 20:37:14 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Summary:

After Crius, a research POS only needs:
* One Hyasyoda Laboratory for ME / TE research.
* One Design Laboratory for copying and invention.

New but also useful additions:
* One Reprocessing Array
* One Compression Array

Manufacturing (risking more BPO and materials) and defences can be added with all the leftover CPU.

You don't want a small tower since the BPO will be in the labs / arrays.


This...

30B isk risked in a small tower with 10M Ehp...
or
30B isk risked in a medium Tower with 75M EHP...
or
30B isk risked in a Large Tower with 150m EHP...

I'll take Option C for 1000 Alex.
Gallente Federation
#279 - 2014-07-09 20:37:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Kale Freeman
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Genoir wrote:
A little confused here.

This means that I'll now be paying an addition 500m+ a month for the pos on top of the taxes I would pay in station but receive no additional benefit for the additional isk I pay out?


So starbase changes as a whole are specified in this blog here: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/starbase-changes-for-crius/

As per my earlier post, the section entitled "Structure cost scaling" has been cut, but everything else stands.

Most notable benefits that you still have for using a starbase in hisec:
- No NPC tax on the job cost (10% in NPC stations)
- Time multipliers between 0.7x and 0.5x for various research job types
- 0.75x time multiplier and 0.98x material multiplier for build jobs in most structures

The messaging on this has not been sufficiently clear because we (I) have been viewing the multiple-structure bonus as an additional little extra rather than a core balance driver, and weren't expecting people to view it as a make-or-break bonus in comparison to the above list. Sorry for not being clearer about this sooner :)


We'll need to see what the jobs costs are. I'm not sure how much actual isk the 10% savings is. Assuming jobs costs are 1% of the material costs, a 10% savings on that is .1% of the materials cost. Combined with the 2% material cost savings you end up with 2.1% material cost. You end up needing to push 23.8b per month through the POS to justify the fuel bill of 500m per month.

23.8b just to get to breakeven. You need to push more than that to start making a profit from using the POS.

IMO the structure cost scaling wasn't actually going to make a big difference, it would have helped a little. But napkin maths seems to show that the case for using a large POS for industry needs more than a little help.

Obviously napkin maths is napkin maths and might be horribly wrong.
Caldari State
#280 - 2014-07-09 20:41:23 UTC
Kale Freeman wrote:

Obviously napkin maths is napkin maths and might be horribly wrong.


It is. The stacking bonus for building 1-2J out of jita (pretty much the only place in the game where it matters) was going to be significant. People will have to spread farther afield now to achieve comparable reductions. This is probably a good thing anyway.

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

Forum Jump