These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New dev blog: Starbase happy fun time

First post First post
Author
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#521 - 2011-11-07 22:49:33 UTC
CCP goes a couple of derp-free weeks and now they're back to their old, familiar, paste-eating shenanigans.

The Tier 3 battlecruisers are a colossally stupid solution in search of a problem. 'Tier 2 battlecruisers (drake/hurricane) are overpowered! Let's introduce Tier 3 battlecruisers! Derp!'

POS pellets are another colossally stupid solution in search of a problem. Catering to the large alliance drones who fuel multiple towers is bullshit. If people want to claim a bunch of moons, it SHOULD be a pain in the ass.

Besides, if it's all about logistics, reduce the size of a few items by .1 here or .2 there and presto, you've achieved the same result without reducing the glorious complexity/diversity that is emblematic of EVE. Or better yet, introduce these stupid pellets of yours, not as POS fuel, but as items that can be reprocessed at a POS corporate hangar into POS fuel at the stated amounts. That way the people who are too stupid to use spreadsheets can enjoy the logistical benefits of their POS pellets and those of us who like the options that are available with the current system can continue to enjoy them. ... And you get to **** over the market speculators as an added bonus.
Sadew42
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#522 - 2011-11-07 22:50:27 UTC
Quote:
The one downside of this big-blocks approach is that it's impossible to give faction towers a fuel consumption bonus any more (you can't consume 2/3 of a block). We talked to some large-scale starbase operators about this, and they told us that the main bonus of faction towers for them is actually that they last longer between fuel cycles. To try and compensate for the increased running costs, we've taken the above bay size increases and added +25% bay size on top of that for the "tier 1" faction towers, and +50% bay size for the "tier 2" ones. We're hoping people will find that a satisfactory tradeoff, but we're listening for further feedback on this change.


You could, in theory, consume "2/3 of a block" if you just made it take longer for the faction towers to consume fuel. This way they last longer AND have the reduced cost. I don't know if this was suggested earlier in the thread (don't have time to read through 26 pages) or if this would be ridiculously hard, but I think it would be a good idea.


EDIT: Looking through just the few posts before mine I see this was suggested. Ah well, at least I'm not the only person witht he idea.
Terminal Entry
New Fnord Industries
#523 - 2011-11-07 22:50:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Terminal Entry
POS Fuel blocks, about bloody time!

And the reason why we couldn't have had this sooner is?

CCP Greyscale wrote:
We didn't do this ages ago because I couldn't see a good way to handle the handover until someone pointed out the (obvious) half-and-half solution, at which point I punched myself in the head for not seeing that earlier.


Perhaps next time you or your fellow Devs have this sort of problem they should consider asking the player base for help via a forum or Dev Blog post? As my old departed Gran use to say, 'Many hands make light work'. And no it wasn't because she had a hand cranked generator Big smile.

Term.

***
Sir HyperChrist
Persnickety Pilots
#524 - 2011-11-07 22:51:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Sir HyperChrist
Woot, pos refuelling always sucked, even though I finally got the hang of all the numbers

After a few pages I skipped the comments, only scanning for CCP comments. I saw the comment that sov and faction tower fuel bonuses are still being considered.

SOLUTION TO ALL FUEL USAGE AND HAULING ROUNDING PROBLEMS


Sov bonus is 25% off, Faction bonus is a lil more random, but 25% off on the ice products, nothing on the robotics and a bit more on some of the others. 25% average, considering changing fuel prices isn't far off in my experience.

So on the smallest tower, when both bonusses apply, the smallest fraction is 3/4 * 3/4 = 9/16.
The smallest tower should use a base 16 units per hour, 12 when one bonus applies, and 9 when both bonusses apply.
Medium then uses 32/24/18
Normal (large) Towers then use 64/48/36

Now a normal tower with max CPU and grid uses 228.5 m3/hour worth of fuel volume. This can last for 481 hours, or 20 days.
228.5 m3 / 64 pellets per hour gives a pellet size of 3.57 m3.
A normal tower with 50% grid and cpu uses 168.5 m3/hour => 2.6 m3 per pellet.

Round the pellet size to 3 m3 to make the WH-space denizens happy. They'll prolly run more stuff on it than 50% grid and cpu anyways.

Fuel cost was the most important reason for me to buy a faction tower. I WILL increase the price of my T2 stuff in Jita if fuel costs rise because of this or any other reason. No-one wants inflation :)

PS, why not leave the old fuel system in place? Towers can first try to consume a (few) pellet(s), and if those aren't available, then check if there's old-skool fuel units available.
Gimvor Goldeneyes
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#525 - 2011-11-07 22:55:35 UTC
+1 to block granularity increases for faction Towers and Sov fuel savings

+1 to balancing Ozone and Heavy Water in ice

+1 to decreased manufacturing time

-1 to weird extended duration for faction towers - BAD idea, keep timers based on one hour. Period. Granularity increase FTW!

Other than that - GOOD WORK CCP! thanks Greyscale. Now fix alliance POS usage issues.

Oh, +1 to that idea of several sizes of Corp Hangar Array. That could work.
Burseg Sardaukar
Free State Project
#526 - 2011-11-07 22:55:54 UTC
Any chance we can also get a "Come out at X time" to replace the current reinforced timer system?

Can't wait to dual box my Dust toon and EVE toon on the same machine!

Rek Esket
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#527 - 2011-11-07 22:59:54 UTC
Sir HyperChrist wrote:
Fuel cost was the most important reason for me to buy a faction tower. I WILL increase the price of my T2 stuff in Jita if fuel costs rise because of this or any other reason. No-one wants inflation :)


Cost-push inflation is entirely justified, and isn't at all what people are usually discussing when they talk about inflation in MMOs.
Doctor Ungabungas
Doomheim
#528 - 2011-11-07 23:04:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Doctor Ungabungas
Since changes are being made can we add the ability for third parties to be able to unanchor offline POS (or possibly drop mods which will force a POS to unanchor 24 hours later if it's offline)?

Ed: Require a war dec as well for empire.
Fioda Skiza
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#529 - 2011-11-07 23:06:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Fioda Skiza
I just hate the idea of having an ammunition assembly array. It adds complexity to my POS-operator's duties. Why not let the POS itself convert old-styled fuels into new-styled pellets?
Say i load the old fuels into the fuel bay, press the button and POS converts them into pellets.
Nightwraith II
Night's Shadows
#530 - 2011-11-07 23:06:14 UTC
Let's do this right. Faction Towers should NOT be screwed here.Oops People paid a LOT of ISK, and the proposal is to make them no better than a tower costing 1/5th or less, at today's prices. Larger bay is of no consequence to ANYONE running a tower or two in highsec. Sure nullsec alliances with 50-200 towers will like the additional time between fuelings, but unless ALL their towers are faction, they still have to run around as usual, dropping fuel in numerous towers each week.

Granularity has been proposed. It's a good idea. Find the least common denominator between the fuels savings inherent in the current faction towers and the Sov advantage, and then increase the granularity to that point. Someone has already done that in an earlier post, take advantage of it, check their math, tweak what needs tweaking and move on.

Different colored fuel blocks is appropriate, how hard can that be?

And make them by god a lot faster to make. It's ridiculous that making a month's worth of fuel for a POS should take more than half a day, or even an hour. We're really just packaging it, right? Are we using some arcane formula to bake hash cookies here? Nope.

And by all means, allow reprocessing of unused blocks back into their components. why not?

Thanks for reading these blog comments. Listening to these and the comments on the hybrid re-balancing project, and making good, player-centric decisions will keep this game alive, and earn our respect back as a player base faster than cool battlecruisers, walking in stations, or links to the upcoming dust514 console game. Big smile
Doctor Ungabungas
Doomheim
#531 - 2011-11-07 23:06:34 UTC
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Besides, if it's all about logistics, reduce the size of a few items by .1 here or .2 there and presto, you've achieved the same result without reducing the glorious complexity/diversity that is emblematic of EVE. Or better yet, introduce these stupid pellets of yours, not as POS fuel, but as items that can be reprocessed at a POS corporate hangar into POS fuel at the stated amounts. That way the people who are too stupid to use spreadsheets can enjoy the logistical benefits of their POS pellets and those of us who like the options that are available with the current system can continue to enjoy them. ... And you get to **** over the market speculators as an added bonus.


The size isn't the problem, the problem is that 'pos fuel' is bullshit complexity for the sake of complexity. Having to manage pos fuel isn't fun and doesn't add anything to the game. More changes like this thanks.
Doctor Ungabungas
Doomheim
#532 - 2011-11-07 23:08:17 UTC
Nightwraith II wrote:
Let's do this right. Faction Towers should NOT be screwed here.Oops People paid a LOT of ISK, and the proposal is to make them no better than a tower costing 1/5th or less, at today's prices. Larger bay is of no consequence to ANYONE running a tower or two in highsec. Sure nullsec alliances with 50-200 towers will like the additional time between fuelings, but unless ALL their towers are faction, they still have to run around as usual, dropping fuel in numerous towers each week.


The cost of something should be irrelevant to whether it is changed. (Look at supercarriers, they cost 12b and they still need to be changed.) It's even more irrelevant when the cost of the tower is solely player driven and out of touch with the materials required to build it.

Doctor Ungabungas
Doomheim
#533 - 2011-11-07 23:09:55 UTC
Fioda Skiza wrote:
I just hate the idea of having an ammunition assembly array. It adds complexity to my POS-operator's duties. .


Pay someone else to do the assembly. Pass the cost onto your end users. Problem solved.
ViperLok
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#534 - 2011-11-07 23:17:32 UTC
Faction BPC's for fuel blocks that make the blocks less m3, that can only be used in Faction Towers ?
Spergison
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#535 - 2011-11-07 23:26:10 UTC
First, I'd like to say one thing that really really worries me before I address the ideas in this post.

These types of market changing updates -however small they may be- need to be managed better.

This information needs to be protected and released at a scheduled time so that all players have a fair chance at being notified. Changing market mechanics can't be haphazardly discussed like this.

CSM members, or CCP players that may be aware of these ideas well before they are implemented may place orders for affected commodities and sell on the speculation bubbles these announcements create.

This is along the lines of Don't fly what you can't afford to lose...
Trust no-one, including CCP.

/Tinfoil Hat

Now to the meat of the idea, specifically the fuel blocks.

A lot of people have said this and I'm gonna have to agree. Most of the changes you've been working on make large alliance life easier or more interesting and seem to be focused on stirring up the big sov world. At the same time you're working on making the beginning-game enticing to new players. As a less-than-a-year-old guy what I see is that you're bringing sov mechanics to the game as a whole. Every noob corp that dreams of its own POS, or noob player who wants to delve in PI or moon goo now has to take into account the local PI market and taxes at customs. The cost of stepping out as a POS holding entity will be enourmously increased by the customs offices and now the fuel reqs. If you can't fuel a tower at fuel utilization, you can't play little empire builder.

As a WH resident and sometime fuel bay admin for a few towers, I am not happy with the recent changes in wspace PI and POS fueling. Both changes are perhaps nifty for large alliance kspace folks, but they make wspace more complicated and risky. You just took the math out of the logistics runs for people who don't make their own fuel and transferred it to the people who make fuel, which is 99% of all WH dwellers, and increased fuel use significantly. Our fueling is now more expensive and more complicated.

IMHO make a new product that has some tangible benefit besides 'math iz hard' so people can choose to use the new fuel or not. Smaller perhaps, or globally burnable (works with all faction towers regardless of 'tope type). Or make it so the POS always uses the same amount of fuel but can be fueled without this new 'convenient' product.
Otherwise the goals of self sufficiency in localized areas are not being served by this idea and the smaller enclaves of players are being penalized with yet more clicking and basically a barely simplified spreadsheet. Right now we stuff PI into the tower, sell excess occasionally for beer money, and make risky runs for ice products. Soon we will need to make and anchor customs modules, defend them, set up another array, and change our math to burn more fuel than we burn right now. that is not happy fun time. This is spend more to spend more to risk more to click more to get what we already have.

My idea of happy fun time involves addressing roles and rights for us content creators so we can work together better. One of the biggest barriers to player interaction is the levels of mistrust the Corporation and POS roles create. The ONLY way to assign any type of access control in a POS involves putting the entire station at risk. You need to make it easier for us to trust each other when we want to involve more pilots in our endevours. This is why WH corps require personal POS, New Eden has FTL travel but can't put padlocks on ships.

How about 'Dock for Self' and 'Dock for Corp' in the SMAs, with a corp role that can undock/pilot any ship in a given SMA?

How about repackaging things in a CHA, or swapping subsystems without having to go to kspace. Or anchorable personal hangars instead of a bunch of cans when you're hiking.

My crystal ball, dusty as it may be, shows me a future where PI products are the new technetium, regional production is monopolized by large alliances and coalitions, and the startup and maintenance cost for any corp wanting a POS is prohibitively high.
Sneaky Neko
Invalid Input
#536 - 2011-11-07 23:26:46 UTC
I was already excited about the winter patch, now I can't wait! Seriously, balancing and quality of life fixes for the win.

I hope large towers still get a sov. bonus for fuel (3 blocks instead of 4). Also, the manufacturing time does seem a tad long. Ignoring faction issues I do like the 1, 2, 3, 4 fuel block thing. 1 block for small, 2 for medium, 3 for large with sov. and 4 for large without sov.
Challu Ni
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#537 - 2011-11-07 23:28:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Challu Ni
This will go a long way to making POS maintenance less of a PITA - nice job, CCP.

Just two things come to mind, that have already been pointed out in some form or another:

- to preserve faction or sov bonuses, use a number like 120 that you can get 1/2 and 1/4 of, or take 25%, 33% or 50% of without getting into fractions. LCM is a powerful tool - use that to accommodate any other special case. Fuel cost savings are a huge reason for putting up with the high cost of faction towers; whichever nugget told you it was about convenience is very misinformed, and simply increasing fuel bay size will be a poor substitute to doing the right thing.

- change the color of the blocks.. really hard to tell them apart. Granted, it's not turret-icon bad, but consider making the blocks the faction hue instead of spearmint blue; I think it's only appropriate that Minnies will be filling their towers with fuel that looks like rusty Jello.
Raid'En
#538 - 2011-11-07 23:29:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Raid'En
stocks of heavy water on high sec systems of all regions of new eden have been bought and relisted at 100-200 isk / unit...
Integra Arkanheld
Andorra Paradis Fiscal
#539 - 2011-11-07 23:30:05 UTC
There seems to be some problems for WH POS users, alliances with Sov and faction POS owners.
In the same way empire charters still must be used as fuel in empire, why not remove the ice from the fuel cube and have only 1 type of fuel cube? Make this fuel cube a P4 item produced by PI.
Then reduce the ice needed for faction towers.
Faction tower will still have less fuel consumption.
Also Sov will give a reduction in ice consumption

WH corps, can produce the p4 inside and only need to bring the ice. It seems the easier way to do it.
Doctor Ungabungas
Doomheim
#540 - 2011-11-07 23:38:12 UTC
Integra Arkanheld wrote:
There seems to be some problems for WH POS users, alliances with Sov and faction POS owners.
In the same way empire charters still must be used as fuel in empire, why not remove the ice from the fuel cube and have only 1 type of fuel cube? Make this fuel cube a P4 item produced by PI.
Then reduce the ice needed for faction towers.
Faction tower will still have less fuel consumption.
Also Sov will give a reduction in ice consumption

WH corps, can produce the p4 inside and only need to bring the ice. It seems the easier way to do it.


WH corps can put up their own ammo arrays and keep doing what they're doing. Or they can outsource it to empire pubbies and just raise their prices.