These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bobble Gumple
Grand Solar Trinity
#821 - 2011-11-08 15:49:28 UTC
Arana Mirelin wrote:
Bobble Gumple wrote:
So....

Any particular reason that they're nearly quadrupling the fuel costs for large towers?


Because people don't read that each manufacturing run creates 4 blocks of fuel and assume that it only creates 1.


Pshhh! Who would do that? Oops
Arana Mirelin
Te'Rava Industries
#822 - 2011-11-08 15:49:30 UTC
MentalM wrote:
Surely to address the lower running costs of a Faction tower all that needs to be changed is the cycle time changed to 1.25 hours (As an example) between cycle rather than 1 hour? That cannot be too hard to implement?


At present, that would mean your polymer reactors (if you have any) are that much slower as well. Tower update tick updates all timed reactions/etc on the tower.

Thus all of the details on tracking when the tower ticks when updating reaction silos.
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#823 - 2011-11-08 15:52:16 UTC
Bobble Gumple wrote:
So....

Any particular reason that they're nearly quadrupling the fuel costs for large towers?


They're not. (Go back and re-read the blog...)

Small tower costs should (unless fuel prices spike for other reasons) go down 20-30% from their current cost. Even with the increased HW/LOz usage it will still be 10-15% cheaper.

Medium towers go down a bit less (in the 10-14% range).

Large towers go down about 8% (but with the HW/LOz change that might only be a 3-4% savings, or maybe a break-even).
MentalM
Shell Alliance
#824 - 2011-11-08 15:54:38 UTC
Neo Agricola wrote:
MentalM wrote:
Surely to address the lower running costs of a Faction tower all that needs to be changed is the cycle time changed to 1.25 hours (As an example) between cycle rather than 1 hour? That cannot be too hard to implement?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Did you read the last 30 pages or at least the last 3 of them?

Rethorical question.

go 2-3 pages back, read, understand and feel ashamed...





I'm not reading 40+ pages of predominantly waffle, if my input has been discussed already just disregard it, no need for me to feel ashamed for raising what I see as a simple answer to the faction bonuses, although your response to my post doesn't add anything to this discussion and this is why I haven't read the 40 odd pages before because of flaming and waffle like your quoted post! Roll
MentalM
Shell Alliance
#825 - 2011-11-08 15:56:33 UTC
Arana Mirelin wrote:
MentalM wrote:
Surely to address the lower running costs of a Faction tower all that needs to be changed is the cycle time changed to 1.25 hours (As an example) between cycle rather than 1 hour? That cannot be too hard to implement?


At present, that would mean your polymer reactors (if you have any) are that much slower as well. Tower update tick updates all timed reactions/etc on the tower.

Thus all of the details on tracking when the tower ticks when updating reaction silos.


Sorry if I'm covering old ground here, but couldn't the reactors and other POS modules have their own timers, rather than working off the towers timer?
Arana Mirelin
Te'Rava Industries
#826 - 2011-11-08 16:03:20 UTC
MentalM wrote:
Arana Mirelin wrote:
MentalM wrote:
Surely to address the lower running costs of a Faction tower all that needs to be changed is the cycle time changed to 1.25 hours (As an example) between cycle rather than 1 hour? That cannot be too hard to implement?


At present, that would mean your polymer reactors (if you have any) are that much slower as well. Tower update tick updates all timed reactions/etc on the tower.

Thus all of the details on tracking when the tower ticks when updating reaction silos.


Sorry if I'm covering old ground here, but couldn't the reactors and other POS modules have their own timers, rather than working off the towers timer?


They could, and I expect that when they redo starbases entirely, which they seem to be hinting at, something like this may be done. Right now, it's more of a quick change which doesn't offer as much chance of new bugs. Switching fuel type(s) and amount(s) is a less invasive change.
Dex Ironmind
#827 - 2011-11-08 16:03:37 UTC
Since it seems we will have BPOs for this gig, with research capabilities, I am assuming the phrase "ALL STATIONS" in the blog means all stations with Factory services???

Is this a correct assumption? Mind you, the load on public factory slots is still pretty high.

Dex was here. Cool
Namyri'el
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#828 - 2011-11-08 16:09:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Namyri'el
.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#829 - 2011-11-08 16:10:01 UTC
MentalM wrote:
Arana Mirelin wrote:
MentalM wrote:
Surely to address the lower running costs of a Faction tower all that needs to be changed is the cycle time changed to 1.25 hours (As an example) between cycle rather than 1 hour? That cannot be too hard to implement?


At present, that would mean your polymer reactors (if you have any) are that much slower as well. Tower update tick updates all timed reactions/etc on the tower.

Thus all of the details on tracking when the tower ticks when updating reaction silos.


Sorry if I'm covering old ground here, but couldn't the reactors and other POS modules have their own timers, rather than working off the towers timer?


No. The reactors, etc. are of course timed to tick with the POS to accurately determine fuel use per cycle. If you start offsetting them you'll require certain fuels for this percentage of the cycle, a different amount for the rest of the cycle... you don't want to do that to the code.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Arana Mirelin
Te'Rava Industries
#830 - 2011-11-08 16:13:48 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
MentalM wrote:
Arana Mirelin wrote:
MentalM wrote:
Surely to address the lower running costs of a Faction tower all that needs to be changed is the cycle time changed to 1.25 hours (As an example) between cycle rather than 1 hour? That cannot be too hard to implement?


At present, that would mean your polymer reactors (if you have any) are that much slower as well. Tower update tick updates all timed reactions/etc on the tower.

Thus all of the details on tracking when the tower ticks when updating reaction silos.


Sorry if I'm covering old ground here, but couldn't the reactors and other POS modules have their own timers, rather than working off the towers timer?


No. The reactors, etc. are of course timed to tick with the POS to accurately determine fuel use per cycle. If you start offsetting them you'll require certain fuels for this percentage of the cycle, a different amount for the rest of the cycle... you don't want to do that to the code.


That is an issue I didn't consider. However, with the coming fuel changes, this is no longer going to be an issue as LO/HW use are not going to be determined by PG/CPU usage.

If the plan is to move away from those being variable going forward, then this is something which could be changed.
Neo Agricola
Gallente Federation
#831 - 2011-11-08 16:15:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Neo Agricola
MentalM wrote:
Neo Agricola wrote:
MentalM wrote:
Surely to address the lower running costs of a Faction tower all that needs to be changed is the cycle time changed to 1.25 hours (As an example) between cycle rather than 1 hour? That cannot be too hard to implement?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Did you read the last 30 pages or at least the last 3 of them?

Rethorical question.

go 2-3 pages back, read, understand and feel ashamed...





I'm not reading 40+ pages of predominantly waffle, if my input has been discussed already just disregard it, no need for me to feel ashamed for raising what I see as a simple answer to the faction bonuses, although your response to my post doesn't add anything to this discussion and this is why I haven't read the 40 odd pages before because of flaming and waffle like your quoted post! Roll


Yeah it is easier to ask the same question over and over again and complain, because there are so many pages, where you can not find those information, because everyone is asking the same questions over and over again...

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
Amiar
The Fiction Factory
#832 - 2011-11-08 16:27:07 UTC
So ywah... For a corp that bought alot of faction POS's to keep the run cost down we will now have to pull down the faction ones to put up normal ones since its basicly the same now!? Does that makes sence to anyone?

I suggest you keep the fuel benefits for faction towers. Afterall its what we paid fir when billions of isk on towers.

Other that, looking forward to the rest.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#833 - 2011-11-08 16:28:35 UTC
Amiar wrote:
So ywah... For a corp that bought alot of faction POS's to keep the run cost down we will now have to pull down the faction ones to put up normal ones since its basicly the same now!? Does that makes sence to anyone?

I suggest you keep the fuel benefits for faction towers. Afterall its what we paid fir when billions of isk on towers.

Other that, looking forward to the rest.


Current events, three or four pages back.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
bornaa
GRiD.
#834 - 2011-11-08 16:29:00 UTC
Amiar wrote:
So ywah... For a corp that bought alot of faction POS's to keep the run cost down we will now have to pull down the faction ones to put up normal ones since its basicly the same now!? Does that makes sence to anyone?

I suggest you keep the fuel benefits for faction towers. Afterall its what we paid fir when billions of isk on towers.

Other that, looking forward to the rest.


MOTHER OF GOD... DO YOU PPL READ???
[Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
Neo Agricola
Gallente Federation
#835 - 2011-11-08 16:31:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Neo Agricola
Amiar wrote:
So ywah... For a corp that bought alot of faction POS's to keep the run cost down we will now have to pull down the faction ones to put up normal ones since its basicly the same now!? Does that makes sence to anyone?

I suggest you keep the fuel benefits for faction towers. Afterall its what we paid fir when billions of isk on towers.

Other that, looking forward to the rest.

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.


qft

bornaa wrote:
Amiar wrote:
So ywah... For a corp that bought alot of faction POS's to keep the run cost down we will now have to pull down the faction ones to put up normal ones since its basicly the same now!? Does that makes sence to anyone?

I suggest you keep the fuel benefits for faction towers. Afterall its what we paid fir when billions of isk on towers.

Other that, looking forward to the rest.


MOTHER OF GOD... DO YOU PPL READ???

No. reading is overrated. it is so much easier to ask the same questions over and over again and complain that you can not find those information, because everyone is asking the same questions over and over again...

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
Jenn Makanen
Doomheim
#836 - 2011-11-08 16:34:09 UTC
bornaa wrote:
Amiar wrote:
So ywah... For a corp that bought alot of faction POS's to keep the run cost down we will now have to pull down the faction ones to put up normal ones since its basicly the same now!? Does that makes sence to anyone?

I suggest you keep the fuel benefits for faction towers. Afterall its what we paid fir when billions of isk on towers.

Other that, looking forward to the rest.


MOTHER OF GOD... DO YOU PPL READ???



But but but, reading is hard!
Ripard Teg
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#837 - 2011-11-08 16:34:56 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Changes:
  • 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).
    • Excellent. Very happy to hear it!

    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 :)
    • Make them non-researchable, like Nanite Repair Paste. Any corp worth its salt is going to need 5-10 of these BPOs (and really big corps might need more) and researching all of them is going to be a freakin' PITA. Make them time researchable, but not quantity researchable.

    aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
    Echo Mande
    #838 - 2011-11-08 16:35:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Echo Mande
    The changes look very workable and improve what was already a decent proposal. Having the component array being able to build fuel will allow largish fuel builds to be done at one POS for all of a system's POSses (hello wormholers). For instance a job of 4032 runs would be possible, even though it would take the array 10.5 days to finish (this is 24 weeks' fuel for a normal large tower outside sov space).

    Hauling all that fuel is potentially still a problem though, with an iteron V (assumption 38K hold and 200 m3/hr fuel use for a large tower) needing 4 runs to move 4 weeks worth of fuel. Could it be possible for the Rorqual and Orca to be tweaked so that their ore holds can hold POS fuel in addition to ore and ice. As a further tweak, could the Orca also be tweaked so it can also hold compressed ore and ice? With these tweaks an orca can haul 4 weeks' worth of fuel for a large tower while a rorq would be able to move 3 times that. Jump freighters are very nice and all but they're hideously expensive and freighters are slugs.

    Wallet remarks everywhere
    Fuujin
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #839 - 2011-11-08 16:37:26 UTC
    Ripard Teg wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:

    Changes:
  • 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).
    • Excellent. Very happy to hear it!

    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 :)
    • Make them non-researchable, like Nanite Repair Paste. Any corp worth its salt is going to need 5-10 of these BPOs (and really big corps might need more) and researching all of them is going to be a freakin' PITA. Make them time researchable, but not quantity researchable.


    I imagine CCP will have a decent several week leadtime before they flip the fuel switch. If the BPOs have 5% waste as mentioned you'll have plenty of time to optimize your BPs for production and get blocks ready for the big event. As for the act of researching them...well, you DO have a tower, right?
    Kratar Mirat
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #840 - 2011-11-08 16:38:52 UTC
    Fuel block compression could help with faction tower refueling logistics in wormholes.. Especially would be nice if fuel consumption is going up