These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Momoro
#701 - 2011-11-08 07:51:11 UTC
I have got a feeling that we are going to get stuck with having to make the fuel blocks with ammunition assembly arrays rather than CCP introducing something new like a facility built into the control tower. So how about a boost to control tower cpu and powergrid to compensate?

Currently an ammunition assembly array consumes 150tf CPU and 50,000 power grid. The 150tf CPU seems more critical to me than the 50K power grid, but others may have a different opinion.
Dracus Algor
Deliberate Means
By Deliberate Means
#702 - 2011-11-08 07:55:36 UTC
It will devastate the little guys .... it's a tough game they are playing already.... with a thin profit margin ... limiting ozone use is really important




why not carry out the half and half solution fully .....



add blocks ..... WITHOUT REMOVING THE OLD WAY

everybody wins .... the math impaired can get a simple solution .... and those who have .... oh say ... spent hundreds of hours making web apps and spreadsheets wont loose their advantage
Momoro
#703 - 2011-11-08 08:00:27 UTC
sukee tsayah wrote:

Yeah I definitely have a constructive suggestion that would solve this problem and not ruin all the "good" changes that this update brings. Actually the solution is very simple.

1) go ahead with the fuel blocks
2) do not reduce the amount of POS fuel needed to run a small/medium POS
3) get rid of the silly idea of COs that have to be anchored and can be destroyed. that idea was just so awful that it's hard to put into words just how bad that idea is


1) OK
2) If we go ahead with blocks, either the amount of pos fuel needs to be reduced for small/medium POSes or the amount of fuel for large POSes needs to be increased. A medium POS is supposed to consume fuel at half the rate of a large POS, and a small POS at about one quarter of the rate. Currently, however, a small POS cannot consume 1/4 of a unit of robotics and consumes one unit instead. With blocks a small tower can consume 1/4th of a unit of robotics. One benefit of blocks is that things become more consistent. Your point #1 and point #2 are inconsistent though.
3) I agree, but it seems like a discussion for a different thread. I can see why you continue voice opposition though.
Momoro
#704 - 2011-11-08 08:08:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Momoro
Dracus Algor wrote:

why not carry out the half and half solution fully .....

add blocks ..... WITHOUT REMOVING THE OLD WAY

everybody wins .... the math impaired can get a simple solution .... and those who have .... oh say ... spent hundreds of hours making web apps and spreadsheets wont loose their advantage


I am advocating for a opt in solution where towers would continue working the old way by default but can be modified to work the new way using a sort of script: control tower firmware. The biggest advantage of this is that it gives CCP time to get this right and gives us more time to transition. Additionally, I think control tower firmware could be used for future starbase reform.
sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Silver Shields
Flying Dangerous
#705 - 2011-11-08 08:23:37 UTC
Dracus Algor wrote:
It will devastate the little guys .... it's a tough game they are playing already.... with a thin profit margin ... limiting ozone use is really important




why not carry out the half and half solution fully .....



add blocks ..... WITHOUT REMOVING THE OLD WAY

everybody wins .... the math impaired can get a simple solution .... and those who have .... oh say ... spent hundreds of hours making web apps and spreadsheets wont loose their advantage



This is what I've been saying for a few pages.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=324859#post324859

Of all the updates I've seen since I've started playing these latest changes are the most radically unbalanced yet. They will crush the little guy, to the benefit of the big guy.

Doesn't seem like anyone cares that much though. They must not deal with new players to the game on a daily basis like I do.
Ludi Tomina
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#706 - 2011-11-08 08:23:55 UTC
Don't nerf faction towers, plenty of nice suggestions in this thread how could they keep their fuel advantage (aka the main reason people buy them)!!!AttentionAttentionAttention
Sigras
Conglomo
#707 - 2011-11-08 08:26:43 UTC
sukee tsayah wrote:
Yeah I definitely have a constructive suggestion that would solve this problem and not ruin all the "good" changes that this update brings. Actually the solution is very simple.

1) go ahead with the fuel blocks
2) do not reduce the amount of POS fuel needed to run a small/medium POS
3) get rid of the silly idea of COs that have to be anchored and can be destroyed. that idea was just so awful that it's hard to put into words just how bad that idea is

Why are you posting about this stuff in the wrong thread? it seems you dont have any problems with the POS changes but just want another place to whine about the customs office idea which, btw has its own thread here
Dracus Algor
Deliberate Means
By Deliberate Means
#708 - 2011-11-08 08:28:14 UTC
The only people this helps really is the lowly pos fuel lackey in the big alliances .... would make that job considerably easier. .. but that job isn't hard if the leadership of the corp is passable with making charts or tables.



to be honest I think the change should be going the other way.

moar complicated ..... because MOAOAR!

for starters each fuel should have specific consequences for running out....

lack of coolant / mechanical parts / robotics / oxygen shouldn't result in offline towers .... they should have other consequences, like damage to arrays ...

ie- lack of coolant could cause small amounts of hull damage to all modules ..... and lack of oxygen would start killing off your human population (but I'll get to that in a second)


only lack of uranium and lack of isotopes should mark the offlining of the tower ..... since those would logically be the fuels used in the reactor needed to power the shields



oxygen changes based on human pop ... say 1 oxy per 10 humans

coolant should be constant rate

mechanical parts and robotics should be used up in random amounts on random cycles (used up in large amounts based on semi weekly simulated breakdowns)

ozone / h20 should of course still pwr / cpu



things like humans and other PI products could be needed ..... and would offer certain bonuses to say manufacturing or refining .... the more humans in the pop the better multipliers you get in assembly arrays or labs for instance


there is actually a lot of neat reballancing and options that could be introduced .... making poses more profitable by giving managers more options for how to run it.... and could make poses A LOT MOAR fun and interesting. we could find real use for lots of PI materials.... which would actually help new players


I have a ton of ideas for ways would could make a variety of fueling options .... I could get into it more if anyone is interested in this kind of fueling model
Ciryath Al'Darion
FinFleet
Northern Coalition.
#709 - 2011-11-08 08:28:33 UTC
Wadaya wrote:
Akita T wrote:
blog wrote:
We stuck with small numbers of blocks and no fuel use bonus on faction towers because dealing with small numbers of blocks makes starbases in general easier to use

Why not just have it so that every 4th "tick" (counted from onlining) the faction towers DO NOT consume fuel at all ?
It effectively grants you back the -25% fuel use bonus, and in 99.99% of cases there is no practical difference.



The easiest implementation I see could use already existing framework with another item type, those being the RAM and R.db tools used in T2 construction.
.


The easiest solution is to fiddle with the numbers like 100 people have said already.

When you produce fuel blocks, output is 400 blocks instead of 4, but use same amount of inputs. The size of the block will be 1/100th what was suggested.

Instead of using 1 block per hour, small tower uses 100 blocks per hour. Faction tower can use like 70 blocks and sov can make the number of used blocks even less. The exact numbers can balanced on existing mechanics, these numbers are just thrown as examples.

That requires no coding at all and is something that ccp will do. (assuming that they have brains).

The bigger thing is the transition period, which ccp must realize will be horrible UNLESS they spend a day to write the database magic that converts the fuel inside tower fuel bays to fuel blocks.
sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Silver Shields
Flying Dangerous
#710 - 2011-11-08 08:28:55 UTC
Momoro wrote:
sukee tsayah wrote:

Yeah I definitely have a constructive suggestion that would solve this problem and not ruin all the "good" changes that this update brings. Actually the solution is very simple.

1) go ahead with the fuel blocks
2) do not reduce the amount of POS fuel needed to run a small/medium POS
3) get rid of the silly idea of COs that have to be anchored and can be destroyed. that idea was just so awful that it's hard to put into words just how bad that idea is


1) OK
2) If we go ahead with blocks, either the amount of pos fuel needs to be reduced for small/medium POSes or the amount of fuel for large POSes needs to be increased. A medium POS is supposed to consume fuel at half the rate of a large POS, and a small POS at about one quarter of the rate. Currently, however, a small POS cannot consume 1/4 of a unit of robotics and consumes one unit instead. With blocks a small tower can consume 1/4th of a unit of robotics. One benefit of blocks is that things become more consistent. Your point #1 and point #2 are inconsistent though.
3) I agree, but it seems like a discussion for a different thread. I can see why you continue voice opposition though.


My points are not inconsistent. Through deductive logic anyone can figure out what I'm advocating for.

If this is a decision between:

1) lowering the amount of POS fuel needed to run a small/medium POS (which hurts the little guys)

OR

2) increasing the amount of POS fuel needed to run a large POS (which hurts the big guys)


THEN I'm ALWAYS going to advocate for the option that hurts the little guy less. It's not rocket science. You want to create fuel blocks without hurting new players? Increase the amount of POS fuel needed to run large POS. The big corps can afford it anyway.
sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Silver Shields
Flying Dangerous
#711 - 2011-11-08 08:32:02 UTC
Dracus Algor wrote:
there is actually a lot of neat reballancing and options that could be introduced .... making poses more profitable by giving managers more options for how to run it.... and could make poses A LOT MOAR fun and interesting. we could find real use for lots of PI materials.... which would actually help new players


I have a ton of ideas for ways would could make a variety of fueling options .... I could get into it more if anyone is interested in this kind of fueling model


+1 on any of these ideas that hurt little guys less

C'mon CCP, look out for the new players. Who else will?
sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Silver Shields
Flying Dangerous
#712 - 2011-11-08 08:33:24 UTC
Sigras wrote:
sukee tsayah wrote:
Yeah I definitely have a constructive suggestion that would solve this problem and not ruin all the "good" changes that this update brings. Actually the solution is very simple.

1) go ahead with the fuel blocks
2) do not reduce the amount of POS fuel needed to run a small/medium POS
3) get rid of the silly idea of COs that have to be anchored and can be destroyed. that idea was just so awful that it's hard to put into words just how bad that idea is

Why are you posting about this stuff in the wrong thread? it seems you dont have any problems with the POS changes but just want another place to whine about the customs office idea which, btw has its own thread here


Why did you respond to a post you know nothing about?

Go back and re-read my original post, or just stop trolling.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=324859#post324859
Tao Shaile
Grollwerk
#713 - 2011-11-08 08:37:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tao Shaile
I thinks its a trap!

I just wish the faction tower bonus will still work. Did read somewhere the fuel cycle will be longer?

Holding more pos fuel? Don´t get this!
Its like my little brother: I don´t care how much gas is, I just get gas for $20 anyhow each time

We Step On Puppies
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#714 - 2011-11-08 08:40:35 UTC
Dracus Algor wrote:
The only people this helps really is the lowly pos fuel lackey in the big alliances .... would make that job considerably easier. .. but that job isn't hard if the leadership of the corp is passable with making charts or tables.



to be honest I think the change should be going the other way.

moar complicated ..... because MOAOAR!

*various ideas truncated to save space*


I hope from the bottom of my POS fuel hauling heart, that you and everyone who thinks your ideas are any good dies painfully in a fire, in game ofcourse.
gnome chaos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#715 - 2011-11-08 08:43:17 UTC  |  Edited by: gnome chaos
I like this.

Makes me want to consider hoisting a POS, if I'll eveer need a personal one.

Faction towers got a nerf, bluh-huh. Oh well, things get nerfed all the time, if CCP were to take it into consideration, A LOT of other things are more important than a little margin on profits.

Still, the block manufacturing formula needs to get looked into, really weird that it should be based on maximum consumption and not an average....
Sigras
Conglomo
#716 - 2011-11-08 08:44:33 UTC
Dracus Algor wrote:
The only people this helps really is the lowly pos fuel lackey in the big alliances .... would make that job considerably easier. .. but that job isn't hard if the leadership of the corp is passable with making charts or tables.



to be honest I think the change should be going the other way.

moar complicated ..... because MOAOAR!

for starters each fuel should have specific consequences for running out....

lack of coolant / mechanical parts / robotics / oxygen shouldn't result in offline towers .... they should have other consequences, like damage to arrays ...

ie- lack of coolant could cause small amounts of hull damage to all modules ..... and lack of oxygen would start killing off your human population (but I'll get to that in a second)


only lack of uranium and lack of isotopes should mark the offlining of the tower ..... since those would logically be the fuels used in the reactor needed to power the shields



oxygen changes based on human pop ... say 1 oxy per 10 humans

coolant should be constant rate

mechanical parts and robotics should be used up in random amounts on random cycles (used up in large amounts based on semi weekly simulated breakdowns)

ozone / h20 should of course still pwr / cpu



things like humans and other PI products could be needed ..... and would offer certain bonuses to say manufacturing or refining .... the more humans in the pop the better multipliers you get in assembly arrays or labs for instance


there is actually a lot of neat reballancing and options that could be introduced .... making poses more profitable by giving managers more options for how to run it.... and could make poses A LOT MOAR fun and interesting. we could find real use for lots of PI materials.... which would actually help new players


I have a ton of ideas for ways would could make a variety of fueling options .... I could get into it more if anyone is interested in this kind of fueling model


wow way to take a complicated ridiculous issue and make it . . . even MORE complicated and ridiculous!

and your argument that this is going to make POS's more difficult for the little guy is confusing to me . . . have they mentioned somewhere that these blocks are not going to be able to be sold on the market? are the "little guys" not smart enough to sell their PI products and buy their POS fuel? i have no idea what you mean by this.

I agree that there are several other things that make POS's complicated and if they cant handle fuel theres a lot more trouble in store for them, but you have to start somewhere.
Dracus Algor
Deliberate Means
By Deliberate Means
#717 - 2011-11-08 08:47:28 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
Dracus Algor wrote:
The only people this helps really is the lowly pos fuel lackey in the big alliances .... would make that job considerably easier. .. but that job isn't hard if the leadership of the corp is passable with making charts or tables.



to be honest I think the change should be going the other way.

moar complicated ..... because MOAOAR!

*various ideas truncated to save space*


I hope from the bottom of my POS fuel hauling heart, that you and everyone who thinks your ideas are any good dies painfully in a fire, in game ofcourse.



I'm talking about having moar options in fueling .... in fact would result in less trips .... which is what I want to (ie-less hauling)

but I also want a remote monitor that does the math for you .... telling you whatever the tower needs .... and only 2 required fuels to actually keep a tower online ... so ppl could go simple with minimal bonuses .... or use other fuels (or just things that need to be present) .... for added bonuses ..... you really would like the big picture of what I propose
Sigras
Conglomo
#718 - 2011-11-08 08:48:54 UTC
sukee tsayah wrote:
Sigras wrote:
sukee tsayah wrote:
Yeah I definitely have a constructive suggestion that would solve this problem and not ruin all the "good" changes that this update brings. Actually the solution is very simple.

1) go ahead with the fuel blocks
2) do not reduce the amount of POS fuel needed to run a small/medium POS
3) get rid of the silly idea of COs that have to be anchored and can be destroyed. that idea was just so awful that it's hard to put into words just how bad that idea is

Why are you posting about this stuff in the wrong thread? it seems you dont have any problems with the POS changes but just want another place to whine about the customs office idea which, btw has its own thread here


Why did you respond to a post you know nothing about?

Go back and re-read my original post, or just stop trolling.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=324859#post324859


ok, i read that original post, which, btw did not assist in my opinion of your argument . . . it seems that youre ticked off because the crazy amount of isk you were making from robotics with little risk is being taken away from you in two ways because #1 it takes less robotics to run small/medium towers and #2 you cant do PI in low sec/0.0 that you dont fight for.

To that I have two things to say
#1 you know that PI makes more than robotics right?
#2 oh no, you might have to join with some other people and fight for some space . . . its not like thats what the game is about or anything . . . Roll
Sigras
Conglomo
#719 - 2011-11-08 08:53:18 UTC
gnome chaos wrote:
I like this.

Makes me want to consider hoisting a POS, if I'll eveer need a personal one.

Faction towers got a nerf, bluh-huh. Oh well, things get nerfed all the time, if CCP were to take it into consideration, A LOT of other things are more important than a little margin on profits.

Still, the block manufacturing formula needs to get looked into, really weird that it should be based on maximum consumption and not an average....


It is based on average consumption . . . of all the towers in new eden . . . most of the towers people put up are large, so since the vast majority of towers are large it makes sense to keep them the way they are and change everything else
Dracus Algor
Deliberate Means
By Deliberate Means
#720 - 2011-11-08 09:12:06 UTC
forget I mentioned a moar complicated fueling model .... I love the idea of dynamics fuels ... but I can see why alot of ppl wouldnt (but it could be simlified for things like reactions).... nevermind tho ....




the main 3 ideas I personally want to push ....


1) remote pos fuel monitor - one that wil do fuel calculations for you

could be either in the client or in evegate .... really doesnt matter to me


2) remove liquid ozone and heavy water from the blocks .... so we at least have the option to limit their use


3) make the half and half solution perminant with the tower firmwarm option .... or just make both useable

give people a choice between easy blocks .... or the old way ..