These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Citadel concept and industry do not match

Author
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2016-10-01 10:46:03 UTC
With being in the dark about the industry structures to come and their mechanics, my concern becomes stronger, that CCP may overlook or underestimate a principle incompatibility of today's Citadels with industry mechanics.

Industry uses system indexes to encourage decentralized and "roaming" production. Hence the goal for an industrialist is to find a quiet system with low industry competition, to settle down for some time. If the index raises too much, you can pack up and move to the next system. Centralization and collaboration with other industrialists are actively discouraged. Both is easy and quite cheap to achieve with NPC stations and POSes.

Citadels, and if constructed similar also the new Industrial Complexes, encourage to choose once, settle down and hold the line defending your investment. Also standing and fuel mechanics encourage renting out services to cover costs, fascilitating group play and collaboration. The hull price, rigs, fuel and (un)anchor mechanics pin you down to the spot.

Those two systems just do not fit together as of now.

I'm my own NPC alt.

Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2 - 2016-10-01 10:49:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
I agree with the sentiment and hope the engineering complexes have more flexibility than the citadels and not just larger bonuses compared to performing the same functions in a Citadel.

Would be good if they are more mobile too. We know there will be 3 sizes and hopefully the smallest will be quick to deploy and take down and small enough to fit in a DST.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#3 - 2016-10-01 11:02:12 UTC
There really needs to be an equivalent of a small tower.

Inexpensive, fast to anchor & online, reasonably secure.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#4 - 2016-10-01 11:27:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Pahrdi
I'm not fond of the whole new structure concepts so far. Not unless we get more of it later on that's more like POSs are today.

Tau Cabalander wrote:
There really needs to be an equivalent of a small tower.

Inexpensive, fast to anchor & online, reasonably secure.

And unanchor. Don't forget the unanchoring.

Remove standings and insurance.

Do Little
Bluenose Trading
#5 - 2016-10-01 12:37:11 UTC
Everything I've seen indicates the Engineering Complexes will be medium, large and XL - same as Citadels. They will be less expensive and less defensible.

I think CCP was thinking destructible Outpost replacement when they designed these things - they have a place in Nullsec. For a small highsec industrialist - I haven't been able to come up with a compelling business case but there are still a lot of question marks.

I would also like to see a replacement for the small POS - cheap, portable, deploy or recover in less than half an hour.

We'll see when the devblog is published.
Kahawa Oban
New Groton Industrial Works
#6 - 2016-10-01 12:46:59 UTC
I think we'll end up with several trade offs.

If you want to have higher percent material requirements you will need to go to the larger structures. My assumption is that bonuses will scale with the size of the structure. The XL offering the best bonuses. This does create a push pull relative to the amount of activity in a system. To get the best bonuses you need the XL or L, but that attracts more players driving up the system cost.

It will be interesting to see the blog post later this month.
TigerXtrm
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2016-10-01 17:08:57 UTC
Quote:
Industry uses system indexes to encourage decentralized and "roaming" production. Hence the goal for an industrialist is to find a quiet system with low industry competition, to settle down for some time. If the index raises too much, you can pack up and move to the next system.


Yeah, no one actually does this unless we're talking about a 100m+ difference in build cost. And that only really starts happening when building capitals, and I can tell you they don't move around their production all the time either.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2016-10-01 17:30:15 UTC
Tipa Riot wrote:
Industry uses system indexes to encourage decentralized and "roaming" production. Hence the goal for an industrialist is to find a quiet system with low industry competition, to settle down for some time. If the index raises too much, you can pack up and move to the next system. Centralization and collaboration with other industrialists are actively discouraged. Both is easy and quite cheap to achieve with NPC stations and POSes.

Citadels, and if constructed similar also the new Industrial Complexes, encourage to choose once, settle down and hold the line defending your investment. Also standing and fuel mechanics encourage renting out services to cover costs, fascilitating group play and collaboration. The hull price, rigs, fuel and (un)anchor mechanics pin you down to the spot.

Those two systems just do not fit together as of now.
Why not? It encourages you to do something about your competitors which will create content and business opportunities for selling ships Twisted. This is one of the intended reasons for wardecs with a predefined goal instead of blanket wardecs for profit or harassment. If youe competitor moves the wardec becomes void as it should be.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#9 - 2016-10-01 17:31:18 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
Quote:
Industry uses system indexes to encourage decentralized and "roaming" production. Hence the goal for an industrialist is to find a quiet system with low industry competition, to settle down for some time. If the index raises too much, you can pack up and move to the next system.


Yeah, no one actually does this unless we're talking about a 100m+ difference in build cost. And that only really starts happening when building capitals, and I can tell you they don't move around their production all the time either.

Umm ... we do this.

It makes a huge difference for BPO research.

Example: one BPO to ME10 was 3.5 billion in one system, and 85 million in another with a low index.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#10 - 2016-10-01 17:53:52 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
Quote:
Industry uses system indexes to encourage decentralized and "roaming" production. Hence the goal for an industrialist is to find a quiet system with low industry competition, to settle down for some time. If the index raises too much, you can pack up and move to the next system.


Yeah, no one actually does this unless we're talking about a 100m+ difference in build cost. And that only really starts happening when building capitals, and I can tell you they don't move around their production all the time either.

I do it.

I know I'm just one person, so hardly representative of a big trend, but more than no one does it.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Black Pedro
Mine.
#11 - 2016-10-03 09:29:52 UTC
Tipa Riot wrote:
With being in the dark about the industry structures to come and their mechanics, my concern becomes stronger, that CCP may overlook or underestimate a principle incompatibility of today's Citadels with industry mechanics.
I get that some people are concerned and fearful of change, but as you say we are in the dark on much of the details. Perhaps it would be worth waiting the week or two before starting a discussion with no real facts at hand.

But from what we know I don't see an incompatibility. Unless you are building caps, you can deploy a relatively cheap Medium Engineering Complex in multiple systems if you are worried about industry indices, which seems to be the whole point of the index in the first place. Choosing a system to build/research in is indeed important, but it's not something that changes on the time scale of hours or anything. I see no reason how a week delay would be crippling if you have/want to move, given the amount of effort and time scale it takes to set an industrial operation up and running. Sure, there is the rig cost, but that gives you a reason to defend that system.

If anything, it might actually stimulate conflict between industrial operations in a particular system as there is now a target you can try to remove and evict your competitors who are increasing your indices. Given how few conflict drivers are left in this game, I see that only as a good thing.
Toobo
Project Fruit House
#12 - 2016-10-03 13:55:48 UTC
I think unanchoring of citadels is actually precisely designed to make it impossible to unanchor a structure before a war begins in 24 hours. CCP doesn't seem to want people the option to avoid defending by unanhoring before war dec goes live.

Cheers Love! The cavalry's here!

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#13 - 2016-10-03 14:53:46 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Kahawa Oban wrote:
I think we'll end up with several trade offs.

If you want to have higher percent material requirements you will need to go to the larger structures. My assumption is that bonuses will scale with the size of the structure. The XL offering the best bonuses.


Citadels don't work that way. The magnitude of the bonus is a function of the tech level of the rig and security level, with larger rigs granting a bonus to a greater breadth of stats in a single slot.

What little they said in the CSM minutes indicated that the engineering complexes will follow this model.

Quote:
Discussion then moved to the Engineering Complexes
Sullen asked what the benefits of the bigger complexes, to which CCP Fozzie replied that it would be similar to the Citadel in providing bonuses to more things at once as you increase in size. CCP also explained that the new rigs would provide bonuses to manufacturing (both TE and ME)


I do wish they would hurry-up-and-dev-blog-already.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#14 - 2016-10-03 15:37:42 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Kahawa Oban wrote:
I think we'll end up with several trade offs.

If you want to have higher percent material requirements you will need to go to the larger structures. My assumption is that bonuses will scale with the size of the structure. The XL offering the best bonuses.


Citadels don't work that way. The magnitude of the bonus is a function of the tech level of the rig and security level, with larger rigs granting a bonus to a greater breadth of stats in a single slot.

What little they said in the CSM minutes indicated that the engineering complexes will follow this model.

Quote:
Discussion then moved to the Engineering Complexes
Sullen asked what the benefits of the bigger complexes, to which CCP Fozzie replied that it would be similar to the Citadel in providing bonuses to more things at once as you increase in size. CCP also explained that the new rigs would provide bonuses to manufacturing (both TE and ME)


I do wish they would hurry-up-and-dev-blog-already.

Third week of October. We've been told that's when the dev blog will be.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2016-10-03 16:47:49 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
If anything, it might actually stimulate conflict between industrial operations in a particular system as there is now a target you can try to remove and evict your competitors who are increasing your indices. Given how few conflict drivers are left in this game, I see that only as a good thing.

Unlikely, production POSes are already an easy to evict target, Citadels are more difficult to remove and drop less loot. But my point regarding incompatibility is the fact, that engineering complexes will require much higher base costs than current solutions (if the service modules follow the established rules) which require scale (industry as a "job") or cooperation of players and share resources which is penalized by the index system.

I'm my own NPC alt.

Memphis Baas
#16 - 2016-10-03 17:18:49 UTC
Tipa Riot wrote:
CCP may overlook or underestimate a principle incompatibility of today's Citadels with industry mechanics. [...] Industry uses system indexes to encourage decentralized and "roaming" production. [...] Citadels, and if constructed similar also the new Industrial Complexes, encourage to choose once, settle down and hold the line defending your investment.


"Hold the line defending" is pretty much like trying to argue with the Internet; impossible, frustrating, and pointless. The initial introduction of the citadels has pretty much proved this. As further evidence (albeit anecdotal), when CCP releases this industry expansion, I imagine that the guy with the glasses (and also the Rokhs), will be featured (again) in the advert movie for the expansion.

CCP doesn't want you to be "decentralized" and "roaming"; they don't want you to be pushed away by the competition, they want you to be destroyed, ruined. Their vision is as incompatible with the current industry mechanics as "Move to Lowsec" is with the current high-sec PVE playerbase. And IMO it will produce the same results, too.
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#17 - 2016-10-03 17:59:39 UTC  |  Edited by: PopeUrban
IDK, indices in practice don't seem to encourage roaming as much as they encourage spreading out. You can find stations with relatively stable indexes, and if you're building a ton of stuff its generally more efficient to just spread the production and research rather than constantly pick up all your stuff. it basically keeps you from putting all your eggs in one basket by making production cost scale upward by volume. If you have a pretty solid setup where you run say 40 lines, you can pretty easily bring costs down with less logistical headaches by spreading your production to multiple systems. It encourages people to occupy and put up infrastructure in more places, which results in a less clumpy overall player activity map, and encourages import/export play as a viable alternative to making your own components and sourcing your own raw materials.

Assuming industry structures are a straight upgrade in ISK/hour efficiency, then the offset of indices seems pretty clear. You're still not intended to put all your eggs in one basket, but the flip side is that you can own other people's baskets. Kinda like POCOs that way. Either you invest muscle and ISK in to wide coverage with relatively low use and rely on the income of people paying to use your superior facilities, or you gain an ability to use more liquid capital in place of raw materials, which significantly improves your logistics despite maintaining a higher system index.

The priamry difference being that if you wanna chase competition out of a system you aren't limited to also sabotaging your own operation by driving up the index, but in stead can just, like, blow up their facility and ban them from yours.
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#18 - 2016-10-03 20:07:43 UTC
the citdel structures were dreamed up by someone who had a vision but it got destroyed by a person that only wants to hack pvp.

the next set of structures are even worse in design because ccp does not think things out completely..

hence they forgot to add insurance, repair to citadels. my question how on earth do you even forget to add key features and then claim you didn't see issues coming so far head?
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#19 - 2016-10-03 20:14:45 UTC
Milla Goodpussy wrote:


hence they forgot to add insurance, repair to citadels. my question how on earth do you even forget to add key features and then claim you didn't see issues coming so far head?



Uhm. You know citadels automatically repair you, for free, while you're tethered?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#20 - 2016-10-03 20:17:51 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Milla Goodpussy wrote:


hence they forgot to add insurance, repair to citadels. my question how on earth do you even forget to add key features and then claim you didn't see issues coming so far head?



Uhm. You know citadels automatically repair you, for free, while you're tethered?

'

um you do know that ccp said while they do that, they are not exactly working as intended in instance to restoring cap.. those things are still bugged and broken as fawk.. and you are aware you cant dock up in a citadel and instantly just repair your ship like you can do in a station.. which is the main purpose of citadels to replace the outpost..
12Next page