These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Neo Agricola
#761 - 2011-11-08 12:24:24 UTC
Floydd Heywood wrote:
Midnight Hope wrote:
This sucks from a WH perspective. Now you not only have to haul in ice products but you also you have to create the stupid blocks. I fail to see how this "simplifies" anything.


You don't have to build anything. Just buy the blocks in hisec.


Yeah. because they apperar out of thin air, without any costs.
Those NPCs which are producing the block will sell them below or for the same isk value which they need to produce it.
And since they are NPCs they dont need any earnings....

[/sarcasm]

DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#762 - 2011-11-08 12:41:01 UTC
Hi again.

Changes:

  • We're going to kick the build time down to 5 minutes and see where that gets us to.
  • We're going to allow component assembly arrays to build fuel blocks too because why not.
  • We're going to kick the granularity up by a factor of ten and re-implement ~15%/~25% fuel use bonuses for faction towers (and remove the faction-tower-specific bay size increases at the same time).
  • CORRECTION: offline timers are not changed, that's still instantaneous; sorry for any confusion, I'm going to get the blog updated in a bit.


WRT the faction tower fuel use, we were hoping that what we were being told by various large-scale fuel operators that maintaining the high refuel interval was the main benefit for most people, as all other things being equal a 1/2/4 scheme is easier to work with than a 10/20/40 one. Obviously we didn't talk to enough small-scale users for whom the use bonus is a bigger deal; this feedback thread has established that this is still a big deal, so we're dropping to our first fallback position and doing 10/20/40 instead.

Things we're not considering:

  • Upping cycle times. It breaks reactors etc, and it makes the system harder for players to wrangle. We'd like to move away from designs that require you to memorize data tables to use them properly.
  • Making the handover (or anything else to do with this change) more complex/more automated. If for example we determined that we couldn't do this without some form of upgrade script, we'd have cut the feature, because it increases the workload and the risk of this change by a factor of two or three, and at that level we can't justify committing to it. This goes for putting fuel into towers, it goes for running two fuel types at once (which would require major code changes) and so on.


Other things:

  • You'll be able to reprocess fuel blocks in the normal way, getting back all the materials etc.
  • Currently they're configured to be researchable, with fairly short durations. I'm seeing some questions about this here - is there a strong reason why these need to be unresearchable? I don't have an industry designer on hand right now or I'd ask them :)
  • We'll keep an eye on the ice use situation and make further changes there if needed
  • WRT the changes to robotics use, assuming large towers are the primary use case then going the other way would kick global consumption up by a factor of 3-4, which would make them a gigantic production bottleneck. Reducing the demand on small/medium towers a little is believed to be a better option than significantly driving up the running costs of all non-small towers everywhere.
  • The handover isn't doing anything magic - it'll use old fuel before the switchover and new fuel afterwards. We're saying "half-and-half" because we're recommending you all put a mix of old and new fuel in your towers while the switch is happening, so it has old fuel available before the switch downtime and new fuel available after the downtime.
  • WRT talking to players earlier, we have to strike a very careful balance between getting feedback early and not getting people's hopes up. Ideally we'd get input from everyone as soon as we start design work, but our experience has been that bringing very vague designs to the community, and/or pitching designs that subsequently get cut due to being infeasible, creates more disruption than holding back until we're sure something is actually going to work. We do of course talk to subject-matter specialists (ie, people who play that area of the game regularly) within CCP, and the CSM, in the early stages of the design.
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#763 - 2011-11-08 12:42:33 UTC
Neo Agricola wrote:
Floydd Heywood wrote:
Midnight Hope wrote:
This sucks from a WH perspective. Now you not only have to haul in ice products but you also you have to create the stupid blocks. I fail to see how this "simplifies" anything.


You don't have to build anything. Just buy the blocks in hisec.


Yeah. because they apperar out of thin air, without any costs.
Those NPCs which are producing the block will sell them below or for the same isk value which they need to produce it.
And since they are NPCs they dont need any earnings....


The blocks are around 8% cheaper than the current fuel costs. Selling the blocks at that 8% gives a very generous 1.2b/month profit per character building them (300 mil more if building at a small tower). Somehow, I don't think supply will be an issue.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644

Neo Agricola
#764 - 2011-11-08 12:44:58 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi again.

Changes:
...[/list]



Great!

Thx for listening!

DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710

Neo Agricola
#765 - 2011-11-08 12:47:15 UTC
Jack Dant wrote:

The blocks are around 8% cheaper than the current fuel costs. Selling the blocks at that 8% gives a very generous 1.2b/month profit per character building them (300 mil more if building at a small tower). Somehow, I don't think supply will be an issue.


if you are using a Tower with 100% CPU and PG....

DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710

Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#766 - 2011-11-08 12:50:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Dant
Great changes there :)

CCP Greyscale wrote:
Currently they're configured to be researchable, with fairly short durations. I'm seeing some questions about this here - is there a strong reason why these need to be unresearchable? I don't have an industry designer on hand right now or I'd ask them :)


PE research is fine, and will benefit people who turn block-building into their profession.

Wastage and ME research, I'm not convinced. It will delay the initial availability and/or make fuel more expensive during the changeover period, as people either build them wasting materials or wait to research them. Plus ME research slots are always busy in empire, so you are "forcing" pos owners (especially WH corps) to also get a lab to research the BPOs.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644

Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris
#767 - 2011-11-08 12:54:04 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi again.

Changes:

  • We're going to kick the build time down to 5 minutes and see where that gets us to.
  • We're going to allow component assembly arrays to build fuel blocks too because why not.
  • We're going to kick the granularity up by a factor of ten and re-implement ~15%/~25% fuel use bonuses for faction towers (and remove the faction-tower-specific bay size increases at the same time).
  • CORRECTION: offline timers are not changed, that's still instantaneous; sorry for any confusion, I'm going to get the blog updated in a bit.


WRT the faction tower fuel use, we were hoping that what we were being told by various large-scale fuel operators that maintaining the high refuel interval was the main benefit for most people, as all other things being equal a 1/2/4 scheme is easier to work with than a 10/20/40 one. Obviously we didn't talk to enough small-scale users for whom the use bonus is a bigger deal; this feedback thread has established that this is still a big deal, so we're dropping to our first fallback position and doing 10/20/40 instead.

Things we're not considering:

  • Upping cycle times. It breaks reactors etc, and it makes the system harder for players to wrangle. We'd like to move away from designs that require you to memorize data tables to use them properly.
  • Making the handover (or anything else to do with this change) more complex/more automated. If for example we determined that we couldn't do this without some form of upgrade script, we'd have cut the feature, because it increases the workload and the risk of this change by a factor of two or three, and at that level we can't justify committing to it. This goes for putting fuel into towers, it goes for running two fuel types at once (which would require major code changes) and so on.


Other things:

  • You'll be able to reprocess fuel blocks in the normal way, getting back all the materials etc.
  • Currently they're configured to be researchable, with fairly short durations. I'm seeing some questions about this here - is there a strong reason why these need to be unresearchable? I don't have an industry designer on hand right now or I'd ask them :)
  • We'll keep an eye on the ice use situation and make further changes there if needed
  • WRT the changes to robotics use, assuming large towers are the primary use case then going the other way would kick global consumption up by a factor of 3-4, which would make them a gigantic production bottleneck. Reducing the demand on small/medium towers a little is believed to be a better option than significantly driving up the running costs of all non-small towers everywhere.
  • The handover isn't doing anything magic - it'll use old fuel before the switchover and new fuel afterwards. We're saying "half-and-half" because we're recommending you all put a mix of old and new fuel in your towers while the switch is happening, so it has old fuel available before the switch downtime and new fuel available after the downtime.
  • WRT talking to players earlier, we have to strike a very careful balance between getting feedback early and not getting people's hopes up. Ideally we'd get input from everyone as soon as we start design work, but our experience has been that bringing very vague designs to the community, and/or pitching designs that subsequently get cut due to being infeasible, creates more disruption than holding back until we're sure something is actually going to work. We do of course talk to subject-matter specialists (ie, people who play that area of the game regularly) within CCP, and the CSM, in the early stages of the design.

+10
Always ... Never ... Forget to check your references.   Peace out Zulu! Hope you land well!
Elgaris Dukor
Umbram Adversus
#768 - 2011-11-08 12:54:42 UTC
Why not just increase the cycle time of faction towers instead of only increasing there fuel bay size?
Jackeroo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#769 - 2011-11-08 12:55:22 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi again.

Changes:

  • We're going to kick the build time down to 5 minutes and see where that gets us to.
  • We're going to allow component assembly arrays to build fuel blocks too because why not.
  • We're going to kick the granularity up by a factor of ten and re-implement ~15%/~25% fuel use bonuses for faction towers (and remove the faction-tower-specific bay size increases at the same time).
  • CORRECTION: offline timers are not changed, that's still instantaneous; sorry for any confusion, I'm going to get the blog updated in a bit.




Great news. I was just wondering what a 15% and 25% bonus on small towers means? Will you round it down? Cause 10 blocks per cycle -15%/25% (1,5 or 2,5) doesn't work.

And how does it work with SOV bonus. Will that count as well?

Anyways, good changes!
Neo Agricola
#770 - 2011-11-08 12:57:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Neo Agricola
Just for the lols:

Nice to Have: Fuel Hauler

e.g. take the Orca and delete:
- 250% bonus to Tractor Beam range
- 100% bonus to Tractor Beam velocity
- 500% bonus to Survey Scanner range
- 99% reduction in CPU need for Gang Link modules
- Can use 3 Gang Link modules simultaneously

change the 50k ORE Hold to 210k Fuel hold (for every kind of POS Fuel inkl. Pellets/Blocks whatever)
+ Jump drive (like JF)
+ paint it green and print a BP on it... (scnr)
e vola...

(skill requirements = Orca + Jumpdrive)

DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710

Mar Drakar
LDK
#771 - 2011-11-08 12:59:22 UTC
Here you go your bacon now.

Now I'm gonna have to make me some more.
Neo Agricola
#772 - 2011-11-08 12:59:39 UTC
Elgaris Dukor wrote:
Why not just increase the cycle time of faction towers instead of only increasing there fuel bay size?

read the last 30 pages.
it is written at least 50 times:
it will change the moon mining, prducing, inventing a.s.o. cycle also...

DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#773 - 2011-11-08 13:01:30 UTC
Jackeroo wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi again.

Changes:

  • We're going to kick the build time down to 5 minutes and see where that gets us to.
  • We're going to allow component assembly arrays to build fuel blocks too because why not.
  • We're going to kick the granularity up by a factor of ten and re-implement ~15%/~25% fuel use bonuses for faction towers (and remove the faction-tower-specific bay size increases at the same time).
  • CORRECTION: offline timers are not changed, that's still instantaneous; sorry for any confusion, I'm going to get the blog updated in a bit.




Great news. I was just wondering what a 15% and 25% bonus on small towers means? Will you round it down? Cause 10 blocks per cycle -15%/25% (1,5 or 2,5) doesn't work.

And how does it work with SOV bonus. Will that count as well?

Anyways, good changes!


It'll be rounding up in all cases I suspect. Not totally optimal, but the 64-block version doesn't deal with 15% well either and I don't want to go much bigger than that if I can help it. The fewer zeroes people have to punch into text boxes, the fewer times they're going to screw up their numbers.
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#774 - 2011-11-08 13:02:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Scrapyard Bob
Most of the complaints in the last dozen pages have been:

- Faction tower fuel savings.

Which can easily be addressed with finer granularity of the fuel pellets such as 100/200/400 for regular towers. At which point you can add back in the Faction/Sov fuel savings. Changing timers is a non-starter, a lot of the POS code probably depends on the assumption that a tick is exactly 60 minutes.

Plus, with a higher granularity - it would allow CCP to introduce *other* structures that consume fuel pellets in varying amounts without having to lock them to the same fuel consumption pattern of 1/2/4. That flexibility alone is a strong reason to go with fuel pellets instead of massive fuel blocks.

- Another step in the fuel production chain.

Unless they charge more then a few million for the BPO, it will just be something where you centralize your fuel production and/or just bring fuel pellets from market (and sell your raw PI/ / ice products at the market). Anchor an Ammo Array at your tower, put it online for 2 days a month and you have enough fuel produced to last a month.

Could be ameliorated a bit if the fuel pellet size is reduced another 10-15% over the current plan. That would mean transporting fuel pellets would save you 20-25% cargo space over hauling the raw products. Which makes logistics slightly easier. It would also mean you could fit closer to a full 28-30 days of fuel in the towers (fewer fueling events per month).

- Heavy Water usage is OMG going up!

Hi-sec towers were probably already capped on CPU (HW usage) due to being focused on research labs. Lo/Null may have consumed less, but I think you'd find that the vast majority of towers out there were already using 50-60% of their CPU.

The cost per month in Heavy Water for a large tower running full tilt on its CPU was a measly 2.2M ISK. Even if HW goes up 10x in price, it doesn't change the fuel costs by more then 22M ISK per month. There have been bigger spikes then that from the POCO speculation and the varous "gank a mack" events over the years.

(Liquid Ozone usage is where things might really get interesting. But overall, fuel needs are being reduced slightly for the large towers, so it will end up being about equal with the costs from before.)

- W-Space Logistics

You're still hauling ice products in from outside. Now you just need to add an ammo array to a POS tower and make it on site.

One big issue here is that the AAA capacity is too low for what it is being asked to do. The capacity of the Ammo Assy Arrays needs to be increased by 2x or 3x.

Edit: Ninja'd by the CCP Devs!
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
Goonswarm Federation
#775 - 2011-11-08 13:03:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Smoking Blunts
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi again.

Changes:

  • We're going to kick the build time down to 5 minutes and see where that gets us to.
  • We're going to allow component assembly arrays to build fuel blocks too because why not.
  • We're going to kick the granularity up by a factor of ten and re-implement ~15%/~25% fuel use bonuses for faction towers (and remove the faction-tower-specific bay size increases at the same time).
  • CORRECTION: offline timers are not changed, that's still instantaneous; sorry for any confusion, I'm going to get the blog updated in a bit.


WRT the faction tower fuel use, we were hoping that what we were being told by various large-scale fuel operators that maintaining the high refuel interval was the main benefit for most people, as all other things being equal a 1/2/4 scheme is easier to work with than a 10/20/40 one. Obviously we didn't talk to enough small-scale users for whom the use bonus is a bigger deal; this feedback thread has established that this is still a big deal, so we're dropping to our first fallback position and doing 10/20/40 instead.

Things we're not considering:

  • Upping cycle times. It breaks reactors etc, and it makes the system harder for players to wrangle. We'd like to move away from designs that require you to memorize data tables to use them properly.
  • Making the handover (or anything else to do with this change) more complex/more automated. If for example we determined that we couldn't do this without some form of upgrade script, we'd have cut the feature, because it increases the workload and the risk of this change by a factor of two or three, and at that level we can't justify committing to it. This goes for putting fuel into towers, it goes for running two fuel types at once (which would require major code changes) and so on.


Other things:

  • You'll be able to reprocess fuel blocks in the normal way, getting back all the materials etc.
  • Currently they're configured to be researchable, with fairly short durations. I'm seeing some questions about this here - is there a strong reason why these need to be unresearchable? I don't have an industry designer on hand right now or I'd ask them :)
  • We'll keep an eye on the ice use situation and make further changes there if needed
  • WRT the changes to robotics use, assuming large towers are the primary use case then going the other way would kick global consumption up by a factor of 3-4, which would make them a gigantic production bottleneck. Reducing the demand on small/medium towers a little is believed to be a better option than significantly driving up the running costs of all non-small towers everywhere.
  • The handover isn't doing anything magic - it'll use old fuel before the switchover and new fuel afterwards. We're saying "half-and-half" because we're recommending you all put a mix of old and new fuel in your towers while the switch is happening, so it has old fuel available before the switch downtime and new fuel available after the downtime.
  • WRT talking to players earlier, we have to strike a very careful balance between getting feedback early and not getting people's hopes up. Ideally we'd get input from everyone as soon as we start design work, but our experience has been that bringing very vague designs to the community, and/or pitching designs that subsequently get cut due to being infeasible, creates more disruption than holding back until we're sure something is actually going to work. We do of course talk to subject-matter specialists (ie, people who play that area of the game regularly) within CCP, and the CSM, in the early stages of the design.



thanks for taking teh time to read players points, understand and correct things.

the only small thing left(and yes its small) is the LO/HW amounts used. you will find very few pos's that use full LO and HW all the time. so to avoid massive issues with the markets on both of these products and a increased cost, can these two amounts be reduced slightly.75%/75% not 100%/100%

atm is like your power company billing you for every appliance in your house even though they are off and not using power

OMG when can i get a pic here

Lokeesha Lai'Daigano
Bushwood Industries
#776 - 2011-11-08 13:05:14 UTC
So this means faction towers will use 15% and 25% less fuel total? So instead of a 50% ice reduction it will be a 25% total fuel cost reduction... What kind of effect will this have on PI prices?

CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi again.

Changes:

  • We're going to kick the build time down to 5 minutes and see where that gets us to.
  • We're going to allow component assembly arrays to build fuel blocks too because why not.
  • We're going to kick the granularity up by a factor of ten and re-implement ~15%/~25% fuel use bonuses for faction towers (and remove the faction-tower-specific bay size increases at the same time).
  • CORRECTION: offline timers are not changed, that's still instantaneous; sorry for any confusion, I'm going to get the blog updated in a bit.


[/list]

Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#777 - 2011-11-08 13:09:43 UTC
Lokeesha Lai'Daigano wrote:
So this means faction towers will use 15% and 25% less fuel total? So instead of a 50% ice reduction it will be a 25% total fuel cost reduction... What kind of effect will this have on PI prices?


At a guess, not much - because PI is so easy to get into, as it becomes more profitable more people jump on the bandwagon (it's only a 3-5 day skill train) which drives prices back down. Not hard to train up to run (5) PI harvest planets and make enough raw P1s to keep a few large towers running each month (sell P1 for ISK, buy what you actually need).

The bigger issue with PI prices is going to be how POCOs play out in lo-sec where the yields are higher, or whether all of those PI harvest planets move back to hi-sec (which will restrict supply). The tariff amounts on PI products will also have an effect (and PI prices will go up to match whatever the new tariffs end up being).
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#778 - 2011-11-08 13:14:02 UTC
ED209X wrote:
Jack Dant wrote:
Even for WH people, the changes should bring some advantages despite the extra step. Just import the ice as always, dump it with your PI output in an ammo array, and do as many runs as you can without the need for more math.

Ammo arrays are easy enough to fit, much easier than a CHA. But it would be nice of CCP to increase their cargo to match component arrays, or allow blocks to be built in component arrays too.

For everyone else, I don't see how this is less convenient. If you were buying fuel from market, this simplifies your life enormously. If you were doing PI to feed your tower, you were already doing a lot more work than assembling the blocks will be. But if the extra step bothers you, just sell your PI products and buy the assembled blocks.




How is more steps to build your fuel an advantage?


Simple really. First, you don't have to have stockpiles of various PI chunks, isotopes, waters, ozones filling your arrays. You bring in the ice products and as you get the PI made you convert them over to fuel.

OR - Option B...

Stop using your own PI for fuel and instead convert it to high value P3 and P4 items, like those being required for the PCO construction. Buy your fuels and bring them in, bring out and sell the P3 and P4 stuff. Giggle at your profits.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

Ludi Tomina
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#779 - 2011-11-08 13:14:11 UTC
Thank you CCP Greyscale, your response to players not only un-nerfs faction towers, but speaks a lot about new CCP approach (you listen to sensible player suggestions) which I approve very much!! Bear
Halloween Harry
Doomheim
#780 - 2011-11-08 13:14:55 UTC
Great change.