These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Resource Shakeup in Odyssey: Just don’t call it a Cataclysm + Companion blog

First post First post First post
Author
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#321 - 2013-04-27 15:36:44 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Caneb wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

Maybe you could elaborate on how you believed they earned the right to between 36,000 and 50,400 manufacturing slots?

Yes I do believe they need more slots and even more than what has been proposed but 36,000 + slots?

Not sure where you're getting those numbers from.

We currently have 28 Amarr outposts and 44 other outposts.

If we fully upgrade all our Amarr outposts (unlikely, but let's run with it) we'd have 230*28 = 6440 manufacturing slots, plus say 500 more from non-amarr outposts depending on upgrade level and direction.

We have 121 sovereign systems. 72 of them already have outposts and are accounted for above. If we fill the remaining 49 systems with fully upgraded Amarr factories we'd have another 11270 manufacturing slots, or roughly 18000 in total, a pretty far cry from the 36-50 thousand you pulled out of your ass.

Reading before commenting is a good skill.

Learn it.


So is understanding. Try it.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Caneb
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#322 - 2013-04-27 15:38:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Caneb
Malcanis wrote:

I believe he was replying to Tippia's assertion that 0.0 stations should be upgradeable to match the best hi-sec systems @ 700 slots or so.

My bad then.

Another solution to the lack of slots would be to add an assembly array with a bonus to material efficiency to offset the cost of running the POS (Assuming the array slots are used efficiently), so that POS based manufacturing could be competitive with station manufacturing.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#323 - 2013-04-27 15:43:10 UTC
Caneb wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

I believe he was replying to Tippia's assertion that 0.0 stations should be upgradeable to match the best hi-sec systems @ 700 slots or so.

My bad then.

Another solution to the lack of slots would be to add an assembly array with a bonus to material efficiency to offset the cost of running the POS (Assuming the array slots are used efficiently), so that POS based manufacturing could be competitive with station manufacturing.


The interesting aspect to all this is that hi-sec is grossly oversupplied with build slots. I'd be surprised if 50% of then are in use at any time. It's probably less then that.

Given that, why would anyone care how many build slots 0.0 has? What does it even matter if a 0.0 bloc has more than hi-sec?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#324 - 2013-04-27 15:49:39 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Given that, why would anyone care how many build slots 0.0 has? What does it even matter if a 0.0 bloc has more than hi-sec?

Because build slots = shiny toys and HIGHSEC WANT ALL AND NULLSEC CAN'T HAVE.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Lord Haur
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#325 - 2013-04-27 15:56:51 UTC
Caneb wrote:
edit: Derp, you get three T1 upgrades, not two. Math corrected.
You were right the first time. While you do get 3 basic upgrade slots, you can only install one of a particular upgrade. The third basic slot will need to be filled with something other than additional manufacturing slots, most likely the office upgrade.
Caneb
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#326 - 2013-04-27 16:15:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Caneb
Lord Haur wrote:
Caneb wrote:
edit: Derp, you get three T1 upgrades, not two. Math corrected.
You were right the first time. While you do get 3 basic upgrade slots, you can only install one of a particular upgrade. The third basic slot will need to be filled with something other than additional manufacturing slots, most likely the office upgrade.

Look at me getting schooled all over the place.

Ok so the ideal setup would be

Amarr Outpost - 50 slots
T1 Factory upgrade - 20 slots
T1 Plant upgrade - 20 slots
T1 Whatever upgrade - 0 slots
T2 Factory upgrade - 40 slots
T2 Plant upgrade - 40 slots
T3 Factory upgrade - 60 slots

Total 230 slots. Correct?
Octoven
Noir Holdings
#327 - 2013-04-27 16:18:49 UTC
Dilbert HighSeed wrote:
Bottom line, another massive transfer of wealth from high sec to null sec and wh's.
Demand for high sec mins was just wiped out as null sec now is overflowing with low end mins in high sec ores.

And wh's no longer have a trit / pyerite scarcity issue.


So heres the rub and "bottom line" high sec space is a great place, its "relatively" safe and you can mine quite a bit, you can mission, run incursions...suffice it to say high sec is NOT short of any forms of income. With that being said, null sec is. Why the hell would you go out to null sec to mine Ark when you can mine veld and make more doing it? In wormhole space its opposite of course because you at least have some level of control and protection. Its not like a fleet of carriers and dreads are going to hot drop you. Also, traffic isn't as bad so you tend to mine ark first.

The "bottom line" as you put it is that although I lived in and mined high sec and dont even touch null, I still think this change was needed. Its way too easy to make more money mining in high over null. At least this way players dont have to go to high sec to mine or import it from there. They can get back out in the belts in null and use the ore instead of letting the space just sit there and rot.

High sec miners shouldn't be complaining, they should be glad...it means less people are stealing your ore :) The changes aren't severely overbalanced. You can still make quite a bit of money mining high sec, you just arent going to get filthy rich from it. I suggest finding an incursion fleet.

As for null space, yes they have benefited from the insanity of moon goo, but that has been changing in steps and phases. Now even it is a bit more balanced and doesnt put profits in the hands of just one or two alliances.

The point is, stop complaining. If you think you can make more money in null sec then high...move there. It is now correctly balanced. You are paying for slightly less valued ore by mining in a slightly more protected system. I really dont see anything wrong with this trade off.
Lord Haur
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#328 - 2013-04-27 16:21:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Haur
T3 can be either Factory or Plant, the only difference is the time bonus is on T1 or T2 ships respectively. But yes that's right, if your only concern is maxing the slots out.
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
#329 - 2013-04-27 16:26:09 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ice anom sizes are tuned so that high sec is capable of providing about 80% of the ice needs of New Eden right now, if fully mined.

Will this be adjusted down so as to eat into stockpiles, cause else the 20% deficiency is going to take years before non-high-sec ice mining will be needed.

Nyan

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#330 - 2013-04-27 16:27:23 UTC
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ice anom sizes are tuned so that high sec is capable of providing about 80% of the ice needs of New Eden right now, if fully mined.

Will this be adjusted down so as to eat into stockpiles, cause else the 20% deficiency is going to take years before non-high-sec ice mining will be needed.

lol, can you imagine the outcry if this were to be adjusted down?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Traidir
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#331 - 2013-04-27 16:30:40 UTC
KIller Wabbit wrote:
Once the scans are done and end up in Dotlan - end of game and a lot of wasted CCP dev work.

Not if the resources deplete.
Octoven
Noir Holdings
#332 - 2013-04-27 16:32:21 UTC
Von Keigai wrote:
I am concerned about the proposed mechanics of icebelt respawn. Respawn happens a fixed and exact four hours after depletion of the last icebelt. This is a bad idea. It creates a "gold rush". It rewards solo play. It rewards semi-AFK players, who will be able to log in on a known schedule for their setup keyclicks. And it creates a quite unrealistic ability to know when something will be discovered in the future. "We know ice will be discovered in Otela at exactly 17:32. Just not where." A miner could be in one system, tap out the ice, then move to a nearby system for the four hours with absolute certainty that he is not missing any ice. A mining team could theoretically establish a schedule among a set of nearby ice belts, by carefully not-mining the last little bit of ice until it accords with a schedule.

The obvious tweak is make the respawn variable in time, averaging four hours but perhaps ranging anywhere from 1 hour to 7. This gives the same expected ice production, while making it impossible for players to trivially predict just by coming back in exactly four hours.


There are a couple issues I have with your assessment of this situation.

A. Solo play should always be rewarded, it is a slowly disapperaing aspect of this game and im glad it is being supported a bit more now. Players who use macks are still going to solo no matter where they go...respawn rates are irrelevant to that fact. Another thing to think of is that most miners who solo play will have 3-4 accounts that they engage in mining with. So in a technical term its not eexactly solo play...from a social stand point it is but not from a 3rd person point of view.

B. I fail to see how this rewards semi-afk play. Yes, ice harvesters are being penalized with longer cycle times; however, having lowers amounts of ice depleting over more areas is much better. We all know that depleting an ice roid the way they are set now is a *****. Even with a good sized fleet it would take you all day to do just one roid. Having them pop every hour or so helps.

C. As for the ability to know where it will be discovered in the future that one is easy. The new discovery scanner can be set to auto-scan and pick up new ice belts, the belts are not moving from the current systems they are in...just away from static belts.

D. The 4 hour spawn rate being an issue is irrelevant. I mean technically the way it is now with standard ore belts is respawning at DT. So as a miner you know that exactly 11:30 every day that belt will get new ore. Thus you can set a time table there as well.

E. Finally yes, a miner could get a fleet together and tap out a belt so to speak, but another fleet could be tapping out a belt in a different system, and the first fleet may move to the system the second fleet was in and find it devoid of ice. This isnt an issue. Having the respawn set in stone at exactly 4 hours helps players who play in varoius time zones to be able to take advantage of it and organize a fleet within their time zone to take advantage of it.

To be honest, I love the 4 hour exact timing of it. It allows miners to plan when they want to deplete a belt; AND...yes there is an and, it allows gankers to know exactly when ice will be available too. Thus if you mine you have the edge and if you gank you have equal footing PLUS every time zone can gain an equal edge. To be honest your concerns are misplaced to me.
Sissy Fuzz
Sissy Fuzz Communications
#333 - 2013-04-27 16:36:51 UTC
10 years of dumbing down EVE! And still going strong!

"We will also be making a significant change to the way hidden asteroid belts will be found by players. We are phasing out the Gravimetric signature category, and instead pilots will be able to find all Ore Sites using their ship’s built-in anomaly scanning equipment. This change will make finding hidden belts much less difficult for both miners and for those who would prey on them, so pilots are always advised to practice vigilance."

Love this one: Changing the way hidden asteroid belts will be found by players.

I'd say - they won't be hidden anymore, will they. Way to take away one small thing that is actually fun i high sec.
Why not add an AutoMine and AutoGank function too? Or even better: Also add a NavigateToAndMine and NavigateToAndGank option to the autopilot!! Then you won't even have to be in the actual system when you get the urge to mine or gank something.

Then it will be really noob friendly for all types of players.

/SF
Octoven
Noir Holdings
#334 - 2013-04-27 16:39:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Octoven
Sissy Fuzz wrote:
10 years of dumbing down EVE! And still going strong!

"We will also be making a significant change to the way hidden asteroid belts will be found by players. We are phasing out the Gravimetric signature category, and instead pilots will be able to find all Ore Sites using their ship’s built-in anomaly scanning equipment. This change will make finding hidden belts much less difficult for both miners and for those who would prey on them, so pilots are always advised to practice vigilance."

Love this one: Changing the way hidden asteroid belts will be found by players.

I'd say - they won't be hidden anymore, will they. Way to take away one small thing that is actually fun i high sec.
Why not add an AutoMine and AutoGank function too? Or even better: Also add a NavigateToAndMine and NavigateToAndGank option to the autopilot!! Then you won't even have to be in the actual system when you get the urge to mine or gank something.

Then it will be really noob friendly for all types of players.

/SF


I sense someone is pissed that they cant mine hidden from gankers anymore...This isnt dumbing eve down its making it less work and more play. Im a miner and I support these changes.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#335 - 2013-04-27 16:48:28 UTC
Traidir wrote:
KIller Wabbit wrote:
Once the scans are done and end up in Dotlan - end of game and a lot of wasted CCP dev work.

Not if the resources deplete.



depleting moongoo is a really bad idea
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#336 - 2013-04-27 17:21:57 UTC
Quote:
A. Solo play should always be rewarded, it is a slowly disapperaing aspect of this game and im glad it is being supported a bit more now. Players who use macks are still going to solo no matter where they go...respawn rates are irrelevant to that fact. Another thing to think of is that most miners who solo play will have 3-4 accounts that they engage in mining with. So in a technical term its not eexactly solo play...from a social stand point it is but not from a 3rd person point of view.


nope, it should be possible, but this is a MULTIPLAYER game, teaming up should be rewarded

Quote:
B. I fail to see how this rewards semi-afk play. Yes, ice harvesters are being penalized with longer cycle times; however, having lowers amounts of ice depleting over more areas is much better. We all know that depleting an ice roid the way they are set now is a *****. Even with a good sized fleet it would take you all day to do just one roid. Having them pop every hour or so helps.


semi-afk play should not be rewarded

Alice Katsuko
Perkone
Caldari State
#337 - 2013-04-27 17:43:32 UTC
On the whole, I like these changes, but some I think are a mistake:

Arrow Please do not add more slots to outposts, except perhaps for additional corporate office slots. Industry in null should take place in POSes, not in outposts. POS industry is better from a game design perspective than outpost industry. First, POSes require fuel, so increased POS use stimulates PI and ice mining; more POSes means more PvE, which means a more active economy, more ISK in player pockets, AND more targets in space to shoot at. Second, POSes are objectives to fight over. Third, a POS is a stake in the ground, and creates a sense of ownership. Fourth, POS industry encourages cooperation between corp members, and creates openings for corp thieves.

I've written extensively on why outpost slot availability is not a bottleneck in null industrial production. In brief -- the drone regions produced all of their T1 ship and ammo needs up until the removal of drone alloys, using POS industry slots. There's no reason to expand outpost slots, and doing so does not promote player interaction.

Arrow Please leave the random hidden belts as grav sites that must be probed down. These are the belts that spawn randomly, and are not tied to the industry index of a system. They should be better than regular belts, given the effort it takes to scan them down and then make use of them, especially in lowsec; better for a low/null miner means safer.

Arrow If I understand correctly, the new 'discovery' scanner will produce instant results. This is a mistake. Miners need the ten second window in order to (1) see the hostile pilot in local and (2) get into warp. Mining barges are very, very slow; this change risks turning mining in null, lowsec, and wh space into a turkey shoot. The stupid miners will go back to high-sec, and the smart miners will start mining while permanently aligned to a safe tower; both will result in reduced targets. If i-hub-spawned belts are moved to the new discovery/system scanner, then either they should not appear immediately on the scan results or, alternatively, the i-hub should spawn duplicate belts -- that is, it should spawn an additional belt or two at each level, instead of one belt, so that it is more difficult to drop in on the mining operation.

I have little experience with wormholes, but considering how easy mining barges are to kill, and how difficult it is to detect hostiles in wormholes even under the current probing/scan mechanic, grav sites in wormholes should remain part of the exploration system and should require probes to locate. Unless the discovery scanner also shows all ships within scan range, which renders this issue moot.

Arrow The addition of low-end minerals to high-end ore is awesome, and should make null industry possible, and should also increase the rewards of mining in null by a substantial degree. I am somewhat concerned about the risk of low-end minerals from null flooding into high-sec. Maybe it might make sense to increase the volume of high-end ore (and increase yield per unit proportionately in compensation), in order to make exporting raw high-end ore to high-sec less profitable. No sane person will normally move low-end minerals via jump freighter, so that should not be a substantial issue except in shallow null.

Arrow The ice mining changes are great.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#338 - 2013-04-27 18:02:16 UTC
Alice Katsuko wrote:
Arrow Please do not add more slots to outposts, except perhaps for additional corporate office slots. Industry in null should take place in POSes, not in outposts. POS industry is better from a game design perspective than outpost industry. First, POSes require fuel, so increased POS use stimulates PI and ice mining; more POSes means more PvE, which means a more active economy, more ISK in player pockets, AND more targets in space to shoot at. Second, POSes are objectives to fight over. Third, a POS is a stake in the ground, and creates a sense of ownership. Fourth, POS industry encourages cooperation between corp members, and creates openings for corp thieves.
That would make sense if POSes were actually in any way useful for large-scale industry, which would require a complete revamp of everything POS related. Moreover, POSes don't solve the problem of highsec since a) the same POSes are available there and b) since we still have the highsec stations, which are the real problem to be solved.

So no, add craptons of slots to outposts, and then — should POSes ever be reimplemented — maybe it would be time to scale back station and outpost slots. But certainly not before then.
Liz Laser
Blood Tribe Inc
#339 - 2013-04-27 18:09:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Liz Laser
Gilbaron wrote:


semi-afk play should not be rewarded



Kiss 100,000 accounts goodbye, then.

I've been playing games that don't reward semi-afk play and I can't see any reason to pay for alt accounts on those games.

If you're fully involved with little downtime there's little temptation to pay for additional accounts.

I could be happy if Eve fully involved me, but except for cynos, I can't imagine why I'd want my other 5 accounts... and 3 extra cynos aren't worth $11 a month to me.
Fergus Runkle
Truth and Reconciliation Council
#340 - 2013-04-27 18:16:47 UTC
Dilbert HighSeed wrote:


You can bet that ice interdiction parties by the null sec cartels will be a common thing.
They have the resources, pilots, and organization to mine out ice belts FAST, and at the same time bump/ destroy any other non-allied mining ships from the belts.

It will become a situation that they will have ongoing threads on their private forums stating the precise time that a new belt will spawn, allowing the next wave of their pilots 4 TZ's over to grab the entire belt's worth of ice.

Welcome to the new resource chokepoint / oligopoly commodity.
But hey, the goon lead game designer said he wanted ice to become the oil of Eve.

Well, expect goons, test, and others to continue to act like u.s., China, Russia, and the other major powers do in the real world with oil, and do their best to have their industrial corps control the supply, backed by whatever military might is required.



Pretty much this.

1) why can't the ice belts spawn anywhere rather than in fixed systems, thats not making it harder for bots

2) why the move from signatures to anomalies for the ore belts and new ice belts, leave them in the exploration system. Gives the explorers a sense of the gold rush pioneers. theres ice in this 'ere system

(unless the move to anomalies is in preparation for ALL ore to be moved to them, no static belts of any kind anymore)