EVE Information Portal

pi isn't moonmats and nothing is comparable between the two

Now I am entirely confused. There are far too many numbers going around with fuel and consumption.

Can someone explain what that means? 40/80/20 or whatever that is.

Is it possible to update the main blog with all this information so anyone can come into the thread and know what is going on?

Also what is WRT or whatever abbreviation the dev was using?

What is going on with faction towers? First they are just getting a fuel bay increase, now the reduced fuel consumption is something that is going into effect rather than the larger fuel bays?

What about the issues with the faction towers, you know the fact that they don't drop anymore? Can we get this fixed?

Is it possible to upgrade the SMA's so they are organized like a CHA - allowing each player to have a safe spot to put his ships?

Also would it be possible to be able to assign each hanger tab to only 1 player? As it stands if I give someone the ability to access High Slot 1 - they have the ability to access High Slot 1 on all CHA's unless one of them requires higher access (fuel tech or the ability to anchor)

WRT = "with regards to"

Large (non-faction, no-sovereignty) tower will consume 40 blocks per hour under the increased granularity (and the batch size for production gets moved from 4 to 40). Medium towers consume 20 blocks/hr, small towers consume 10/hr.

Faction towers keep their fuel savings bonus (and the sov bonus now works again).

Faction tower drop rates have not been answered - separate issue.

The questions about SMAs and corp hangars are outside the scope of this dev blog.

Since the stront bay is untouched Im guessing unchanged.

remember the "good ol days" when reinforced poses could run for a week?

Also Robotics are used for more than just POS Fuel ... Like other POS fuel items they are also used in T2 productions (eg drones)
So instead of feeding all my supply to the POS fiends I may be able to increase the rate of T2 production to keep those NPC rats satiated instead.

Checking the market it seems that reduced use for POS fuel isn't necessarily going to have a big impact on the market as Robotics have still creeped up in price lately.

I'm still a bit confused as to why the m3 on this fuel is so high. Why should it be so painful to fuel a pos for a month or two? Probably shouldn't go to 0, but making the m3/month drop to like 60% of the old amount seems like a no brainer.

Does anyone really enjoy the game more if they have to make more logistics runs?

Seems like CCP is making a concerted effort to hit a lot of the annoying aspects of eve, what reason for the high m3/month for fuel other than "because we are sticking with old values"?

My two cents exactly.
Of course pellets should be non refineable in this case.

I also think people overestimate the impact of hw/lo consumption, the added isk cost to run a pos a pos at 100% is neglible.

Hw eapecialy as mentioned has been almost worthless for ice miners and need a boost in consumption, Im also going to bet that liquid ozone sees more use from cyno beacons than from pos consumption same with isotopes, a carrier can burn more doing logistical jumping than in a day than 10 large towers consume in isotopes.
I would seriously be very suprised if this has any real ompact on the market. As for the PI whiners.

1
Ever consider that if fueling becomes easier more people will start using towers thus increasing the total market
1b)
since many pos owners have been doing Pi solely to decrease hauling\cost for pos's
They are now most likely going to stop and just buy pellets ready made thusly increasing market demand on those who operate in a slightly larger scale.

2
This pi decrease is realy just a decrease for the smaller towers of whom there realy isn't that many of.

Bottom line deal with it. Do what the eve community has done for almost a decade which is adapting.

This was lost back on page 42.

CCP/Greyscale, what about the changes to the Orca suggested here? Can you make this part of the fuel change proposal?
Being able to use the Ore Hold to haul Fuel Cubes *and* compressed ore/ice would add a welcome 50K m3 to the new hauling exercise here.

Put it right above the request for distinct color/designs for the fuel cubes.

Thanks for listening.

I think this is a good point. The purpose of these changes is to simplify the process of fuelling towers and to make it easier and less time consuming, so would they achieve that in their current form? It seems to me that in some cases they definitely would, but in other cases they might make things worse.

When the cost of fuel is a minor consideration (for example if the tower isn't being used for making money, or where the fuel cost is insignificant relative to the income the POS generates, such as mining high value moon materials), then fuelling will just involve buying some blocks from the market and hauling them to the tower. To compare the steps involved in the current and new processes:

Current process:

1. Calculate fuel quantities neeeded, taking CPU and PG use into account.
2. Purchase various quantities of eight different fuel types.
3. Haul fuel to the tower.
4. Transfer the fuel over to the fuel bay.

New process:

1. Purchase a number of fuel blocks from the market based on the number of hours needed. No other calculations needed.
2. Haul fuel to the tower.
3. Transfer the fuel blocks over to the fuel bay.

In this case there are fewer steps involved, with the first and second steps in the current process either removed completely or greatly simplified.

However, the fuel blocks will obviously sell at a premium to the cost of the materials needed to make them, and so buying them will be a trade off between convenience and extra cost. When the fuel cost consumes a significant amount of the income generated by a tower, or when multiple towers are involved and the added percentage cost of buying fuel blocks becomes significant (e.g. if fuel blocks are sold at a profit of 10%, the additional cost to an operation running ten towers of buying fuel blocks relative to buying the individual fuels is equivalent to the expense of running an extra tower), a lot of people will turn to manufacturing the fuel blocks themselves to avoid the extra cost. In that case, the comparison between the current and new processes would look like this:

Current process:

1. Calculate fuel quantities neeeded, taking CPU and PG use into account.
2. Purchase various quantities of eight different fuel types.
3. Haul fuel to the tower.
4. Transfer the fuel over to the fuel bay.

New process:

1. Calculate fuel quantities needed for manufacturing the required number of fuel blocks. CPU and PG use can now be ignored.
2. Purchase various quantities of eight different fuel types.
3. Haul fuels to a fuel block assembly line.
4. Transfer fuels over to the hangar for manufacturing.
5. Install fuel block manufacturing jobs.
6. Wait for the fuel block manufacturing jobs to complete (at five minutes per block: sixty hours of manufacturing time for thirty days of fuel blocks for a single large tower, divided between however many manufacturing slots are available).
7. Haul the completed fuel blocks from the assembly line to the tower, if an array at the tower was not be used.
8. Transfer the fuel blocks over to the fuel bay.

It seems in this second case that although the calculation in the first step is slightly simplified, there are potentially more steps involved in the new process than the current process requires, and there is a delay between the time that any new fuel is purchased and the time it can be transferred to the tower that does not exist in the current system. The significance of this delay would vary depending on the circumstances; for example it could be relevant for a manufacturing operation, where the added time needed to make fuel for the tower would displace whatever other activity the required manufacturing slots were usually in use for. In circumstances where a POS was being used for very long manufacturing jobs, it might be necessary for a fueller to reschedule their manufacturing based on the need to intermittently use their factory slots to produce fuel blocks for the tower.

Some of the additional steps in this case could be avoided by, for example, allowing towers to consume both fuel blocks and the current differentiated fuels, or keeping the current differentiated fuels and introducing fuel blocks as a sort of marketable cargo parcel that could be unpackaged or refined inside a fuel bay. However, some of the replies to this thread have already indicated that those types of solutions might require impractical coding changes.

The only other solution I can think of to mitigate some of the extra hassle that people taking the second option of making their own fuel blocks might encounter relative to the current system would be to reduce the manufacturing time for fuel blocks down further from five minutes to seconds. Although there might still be a few extra steps involved in the entire proces, if the amount of time required for manufacturing were trivial it would not present any problems to people for whom losing manufacturing slots for extended periods would be a meaningful loss.

I keep looking at the posting date to make sure it isn't April 1st....