These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Darkdood
Estrale Frontiers
#861 - 2011-11-08 18:01:13 UTC
One last thing.

Please Please I'm BEGGING YOU. Make the icons have completely different colors.
Nyla Skin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#862 - 2011-11-08 18:21:04 UTC
I can't see this as anything but a good thing. Smile

In after the lock :P   - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
Tao Shaile
Grollwerk
#863 - 2011-11-08 18:32:25 UTC
Wow. Way to go!

All what we need now is a modular POS like suggested in posting #3

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=391410

and a "Walk in POS" Big smile would make me happy.

Ah well... maybe in Winter Expansion 2013 Ugh


We Step On Puppies
Balcor Mirage
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#864 - 2011-11-08 18:36:30 UTC
Greyscale.... *sigh*... do you play this game?

You've gone one step too far and have not thought out the ramifications of the fuel blocks. I like the idea of the blocks as it will make it easier for my fuel technicians to manage the towers. However, you've just created an extra layer to the process and taken away any fiscal responsibility from the corporation by assuming we want to run CPU and Power Grid at 100% all the time... not to mention the rug being pulled out from under the faction tower bonuses. Why do you CONSTANTLY tinker with rules that have a financial commitment associated with them and NOT allow for an isk rebalance along with it?

One step too far... if you had left the ice fuels out of the production bill of material, you could have accomplished the same thing and not taken away the benefits of load balancing a POS or removing the faction benefits. You could have also then tied the production process to planetary interaction instead of creating a new layer of managing fuel production in additional production slots... one step too far.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#865 - 2011-11-08 18:56:19 UTC
Balcor Mirage wrote:
Greyscale.... *sigh*... do you play this game?

You've gone one step too far and have not thought out the ramifications of the fuel blocks. I like the idea of the blocks as it will make it easier for my fuel technicians to manage the towers. However, you've just created an extra layer to the process and taken away any fiscal responsibility from the corporation by assuming we want to run CPU and Power Grid at 100% all the time... not to mention the rug being pulled out from under the faction tower bonuses. Why do you CONSTANTLY tinker with rules that have a financial commitment associated with them and NOT allow for an isk rebalance along with it?

One step too far... if you had left the ice fuels out of the production bill of material, you could have accomplished the same thing and not taken away the benefits of load balancing a POS or removing the faction benefits. You could have also then tied the production process to planetary interaction instead of creating a new layer of managing fuel production in additional production slots... one step too far.



You didn't read far enough before you posted. Go back a couple pages, Greyscale has already outlined changes made based on user input that are now in test.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Aluminy
Stargazer Exploration Company
#866 - 2011-11-08 18:59:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Aluminy
Balcor Mirage wrote:
Greyscale.... *sigh*... do you play this game?

You've gone one step too far and have not thought out the ramifications of the fuel blocks. I like the idea of the blocks as it will make it easier for my fuel technicians to manage the towers. However, you've just created an extra layer to the process and taken away any fiscal responsibility from the corporation by assuming we want to run CPU and Power Grid at 100% all the time... not to mention the rug being pulled out from under the faction tower bonuses. Why do you CONSTANTLY tinker with rules that have a financial commitment associated with them and NOT allow for an isk rebalance along with it?

One step too far... if you had left the ice fuels out of the production bill of material, you could have accomplished the same thing and not taken away the benefits of load balancing a POS or removing the faction benefits. You could have also then tied the production process to planetary interaction instead of creating a new layer of managing fuel production in additional production slots... one step too far.



obviously you cant read as grayscale posted less then a page back

Greyscale wrote:
Changes that I've just checked in for testing:


Build time now 5 minutes
Can build blocks in component assembly arrays
Removed capacity bonus from faction towers
Upped batch size to 40 and dropped volume to 5m3
Increased fuel use in normal towers to 40/20/10
Increased fuel use in tier 1 towers to 36/18/9 and tier 2 towers to 32/16/8
Sov bonus should kick in for all towers, it will be rounding up though so keep that in mind with your calcs


also im assuming you do not play the game either (balcor) - as this is a huge benefit to those that run more then one tower... sure maybe a little hasty but unlike you i do not like "calculating" fuel for dozens of towers - this makes it hella ez to go fuel... and runnin the towers at full cpu / power grid with no fuel balancing makes things even easier for those that run mass operations - and helps with those that do not... now you can run all the defense on that solo tower you own and not have to worry bout using up more LO or HW ...

read before posting - might help ya out some mate
ilmon
Legio Noviomagum
#867 - 2011-11-08 19:16:37 UTC
with the adjustments made i think we can all be happy campers
Darkdood
Estrale Frontiers
#868 - 2011-11-08 19:22:57 UTC
Why not do this?

Give the tier 1 faction towers a 20% discount 32/16/8 and the tier 2 towers a 30% discount 28/14/7. Then make the sov discount 20%.

When you factor in forcing every tower to run max PG/CPU it balances back out to be about the same costs. Sov holders take a small hit but only on non faction towers. Besides they are the ones who can afford it.
TorTorden
Tors shibari party
#869 - 2011-11-08 19:23:08 UTC
Not only a happy camper but a happy hamster :D
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#870 - 2011-11-08 19:28:54 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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.

Tsk, tsk - Greyscale. We've been told over and over (and over) by many "expert" bitter-vet players - a few on this thread, actually - that CCP devs make whatever game-breaking changes they feel like making, and never listen/respond to player feedback. Didn't you get the memo? CCP's renewed commitment to FIS is nothing but a sham.

So, what's the deal here? Are you trying to make liars out of these whiners... er, I mean, valued players?

BTW - Very sharp work on addressing the faction vs. standard tower issue.
Balcor Mirage
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#871 - 2011-11-08 19:37:18 UTC
Aluminy wrote:
[
also im assuming you do not play the game either (balcor) - as this is a huge benefit to those that run more then one tower... sure maybe a little hasty but unlike you i do not like "calculating" fuel for dozens of towers - this makes it hella ez to go fuel... and runnin the towers at full cpu / power grid with no fuel balancing makes things even easier for those that run mass operations - and helps with those that do not... now you can run all the defense on that solo tower you own and not have to worry bout using up more LO or HW ...

read before posting - might help ya out some mate


Thanks for pointing out the updates I missed 40+ pages in. However, it still does not address the additional layer of production this causes, nor the flexibility this takes away from the CPU & Power Grid usage. Looking at WH or nullsec operations we can either (currently) produce the needed non-ice fuel in the system and just dump it in the POS. With this update we either have to move in an additional production facility or take more time transporting to an existing production facility. If the ice fuels were cut out of the bill of material, no such time consuming effort would be needed... and yes, I do play this game Aluminy.
Brock Nelson
#872 - 2011-11-08 19:37:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Brock Nelson
Quote:
- 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 :)


I disagree with making the fuel block blueprint researchable. Why not make it so that there's are extras? Same as the POS Tower blueprint. The new proposed change are already reducing fuel cost overrall and now you want to make it so that it's even more with researched blueprint?

Signature removed, CCP Phantom
Aluminy
Stargazer Exploration Company
#873 - 2011-11-08 19:47:38 UTC
Balcor Mirage wrote:
With this update we either have to move in an additional production facility or take more time transporting to an existing production facility. If the ice fuels were cut out of the bill of material, no such time consuming effort would be needed... and yes, I do play this game Aluminy.


obviously cause producing a 1 step product would be so hard yes? compared to the hours of calculations done to manage 100 towers...

quit complaining dude... the increased ability to use a tower to the fullest of its capabilities without the needed hassle and drawback is awesome... the reduction of actual strain to fuel towers and actually spend that time enjoying the game instead of fueling towers is epic... trust me the time you spend making this super ez one step product will greatly pale in comparison to 10 hours every 20 days to fuel towers... cry me a river

some people just cant get through life without complaining...
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#874 - 2011-11-08 19:50:25 UTC
Brock Nelson wrote:
Quote:
- 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 :)


I disagree with making the fuel block blueprint researchable. Why not make it so that there's no extras? Same as the POS Tower blueprint. The new proposed change are already reducing fuel cost overrall and now you want to make it so that it's even more with researched blueprint?


Actually the other way around. The material costs in the blog are for a fully researched BPO. If you do no research, its higher.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Brock Nelson
#875 - 2011-11-08 19:57:55 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Brock Nelson wrote:
Quote:
- 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 :)


I disagree with making the fuel block blueprint researchable. Why not make it so that there's no extras? Same as the POS Tower blueprint. The new proposed change are already reducing fuel cost overrall and now you want to make it so that it's even more with researched blueprint?


Actually the other way around. The material costs in the blog are for a fully researched BPO. If you do no research, its higher.


Yeah someone just reminded me of that, haven't been feeling well and getting forgetful of the simple things in the game.

Signature removed, CCP Phantom
Doctor Ungabungas
Doomheim
#876 - 2011-11-08 20:12:58 UTC
CCP Greyscale
[* wrote:
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).
[/list]


Man, it's like you think we enjoy fuelling. Gotta say I'm a bit disappointed.
Balcor Mirage
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#877 - 2011-11-08 20:13:06 UTC
Aluminy wrote:
Balcor Mirage wrote:
With this update we either have to move in an additional production facility or take more time transporting to an existing production facility. If the ice fuels were cut out of the bill of material, no such time consuming effort would be needed... and yes, I do play this game Aluminy.


obviously cause producing a 1 step product would be so hard yes? compared to the hours of calculations done to manage 100 towers...

quit complaining dude... the increased ability to use a tower to the fullest of its capabilities without the needed hassle and drawback is awesome... the reduction of actual strain to fuel towers and actually spend that time enjoying the game instead of fueling towers is epic... trust me the time you spend making this super ez one step product will greatly pale in comparison to 10 hours every 20 days to fuel towers... cry me a river

some people just cant get through life without complaining...



You have not thought through the logistics of the production step. Under the current system we have to move the material to the POS. Under the new proposal we have to move it to a production facility, do production... and then move it to the POS. If you're fine with that, good deal. I am showing you why I have a different opinion, not just a complain. I also provide an alternative.
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#878 - 2011-11-08 20:14:55 UTC
I don't buy faction POS's because I don't have to fuel them as often...whoever told CCP this is a moron. I buy faction towers because they are CHEAPER to buy fuel for and pay for themselves over time. I say give faction towers more CPU/PGU to make up for this change. Allow them more defense. This would make me regret selling my faction POS.

Other than that...this is an awesome change.

To those of you Devs that have quoted and replied to the post about "the dead horse" and modular POS's...

If you get my hopes up like that and fail to deliver...it will be hunting season! I will come for you! In the friendliest most non-threatening way possible.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#879 - 2011-11-08 20:15:43 UTC
Doctor Ungabungas wrote:
CCP Greyscale
[* wrote:
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).
[/list]


Man, it's like you think we enjoy fuelling. Gotta say I'm a bit disappointed.



this means that towers will hold exactly what they did as stated in the blog. faction tower fuel discount = faction tower fuel bay increase

OMG when can i get a pic here
Echo Mande
#880 - 2011-11-08 20:16:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Echo Mande
Balcor Mirage wrote:


You have not thought through the logistics of the production step. Under the current system we have to move the material to the POS. Under the new proposal we have to move it to a production facility, do production... and then move it to the POS. If you're fine with that, good deal. I am showing you why I have a different opinion, not just a complain. I also provide an alternative.


CCP has said that the cubes can be built at POSses in ammo and component arrays. A component array has 1M m3 storage which is enough to hold the materials for about 4300 runs. That's enough fuel to run a large POS for 6 months or so and it'd be built in about two weeks as a single job.

Wallet remarks everywhere