These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Pyro Miner
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1021 - 2011-11-12 11:51:08 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
20%/10% works for me, and makes much nicer numbers to boot. Any objections? :P

WRT the blueprints, they're set up to do something like 3 hours/level for ME, I think (12000 seconds) with no skills, with a 5% base waste factor (it's kicking the isotopes up to 420).



if i say yes i object ya change it back to 25% ? Lol ,
ya where really fast to say yes to mr csm dude that proberly makes profit selling pi to set it to 20% although i do see that 25% on all would be boosting the factions
the 20% but more hw/ozone consumption wil slighty boost feulcosts for large

as somone else alrdy mentioned, mayby set the hw and ozone abit down to compensate for all tower users, as lab and buildarray users at highsec dont rly use there grid unless in war, and its pretty nice if somone actualy set both cpu and grid to full 100% atm wich i havent seen any of yet
Nose ElGrande
Swarm Of Locusts
#1022 - 2011-11-12 14:36:26 UTC
Simple question:

Why can't Heavy Water and Liquid Ozone be excluded from the fuel block proposal?

This would eliminate the last remaining argument regarding the economic impact of increased Ozone and HW usage. The two components would still be part of the Fuel Bay mix, but would continue to be used on a demand basis, allowing tower owners to determine their rate of consumption (depending on device activity).


Fuel Blocks (fixed fuel consumption) + Liquid Ozone (as required) + Heavy Water (as required) = happy POS manager

Certainly easier than re-balancing the yield of all the ice products...

From a code perspective, you are just adding a new element (the fuel blocks) and removing everything else except the LO, HW, and Charters.
MR DEMOS
Pyke Syndicate
Solyaris Chtonium
#1023 - 2011-11-12 16:02:44 UTC
Umm has anyone dose the math on how much it would actually cost to run the towers? and if my Calculations were correct with Current Priceing Your looking at Round about 270 mill a month for a small 540 for a med and 810 for a lrg?? And if CCP hits us with the PI Increases??? those Costs will go up?? Umm Please check my math on this i want to know if i'm right
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#1024 - 2011-11-12 16:56:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Destination SkillQueue
Nose ElGrande wrote:
Simple question:

Why can't Heavy Water and Liquid Ozone be excluded from the fuel block proposal?

This would eliminate the last remaining argument regarding the economic impact of increased Ozone and HW usage. The two components would still be part of the Fuel Bay mix, but would continue to be used on a demand basis, allowing tower owners to determine their rate of consumption (depending on device activity).


Fuel Blocks (fixed fuel consumption) + Liquid Ozone (as required) + Heavy Water (as required) = happy POS manager

Certainly easier than re-balancing the yield of all the ice products...

From a code perspective, you are just adding a new element (the fuel blocks) and removing everything else except the LO, HW, and Charters.


Making exceptions on what fuels to include and exclude would negate much of the entire point of this change. Furthermore minor ripples in the economy are not a compelling reason to alter an otherwise good plan. The status quo of the economy is not a thing that needs preserving. The general guidelines just have to be somewhat in place and CCP has altered things, if things threaten to get out of hand. That said the EVE market has adjusted to much larger and more significant changes than this and will likely have to do so in the future many more times.
MrEcloth
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1025 - 2011-11-12 17:57:14 UTC
WHAT the only reason i have a faction tower that costs stupid amounts of isk more than any regular tower is so that i can use less fuel in my wh making my logistics less because i have to bring in less fuel
i can understand the plan buy why not make this another PI item and still make people have to use the isotopes water and liquid ozone as usual and then nobody has to make a new array and have it online to construct fuel because instead it can be done on planets
Pyro Miner
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1026 - 2011-11-12 20:53:53 UTC
MrEcloth wrote:
WHAT the only reason i have a faction tower that costs stupid amounts of isk more than any regular tower is so that i can use less fuel in my wh making my logistics less because i have to bring in less fuel
i can understand the plan buy why not make this another PI item and still make people have to use the isotopes water and liquid ozone as usual and then nobody has to make a new array and have it online to construct fuel because instead it can be done on planets


the faction towers willl have a 20% feul discount to all feuls the tower use

aslong they dont change it again
Seigneur Balthazar
Fallen Angels Of Apocalypse
#1027 - 2011-11-12 21:32:50 UTC
during this modification of the fuel POS, CCP could make others like : people could see the hangar of each modul of the POS (lab, corp hangar ....) with the asset window and corporation window.
This modification alloy the player to launch new job in the lab(with the skill scientific networking, because actually this skill is useless for those who use lab in POS) for exemple or see how many block there is in the tower.
Jenn Makanen
Doomheim
#1028 - 2011-11-13 00:19:22 UTC
MR DEMOS wrote:
Umm has anyone dose the math on how much it would actually cost to run the towers? and if my Calculations were correct with Current Priceing Your looking at Round about 270 mill a month for a small 540 for a med and 810 for a lrg?? And if CCP hits us with the PI Increases??? those Costs will go up?? Umm Please check my math on this i want to know if i'm right



Your calculations are wrong.

a single maufacturing run makes 4 blocks.
Strike Severasse
#1029 - 2011-11-13 00:22:11 UTC
CCP Guard wrote:
Greyscale has news for all you starbase managers out there!....
.


Smallholdings?
Smallholdings?
Smallholdings?

What was said would be done.. !

.
Agnemon
Ordos Humanitas
#1030 - 2011-11-13 10:00:05 UTC
Can some one check my naths for me?

For a large Dark Blood Tower with no Sov bonus I get the following values for 28 days

Fuel Blocks 21,504
Coolant 4,301
Enriched Uranium 2,150
Helium Isotopes 215,040
Mechanical Parts 2,150
Oxygen 10,752
Robotics 538
Heavy Water 80,640
Liquid Ozone 80,640

And, to get the Ice products (Liquid Ozone) you would need
Clear Icicle 3,226 blocks per month (28 days) or 116 per day
Enriched Clear Icicle 2,016 blocks per month, 72 per day

which means approx 2 to 2.5 hrs per day ice mining ( mack with level 5 skills and 320 sec cycle time) Sad

plus do the PI stuff
plus do the other Eve stuff that I actually play the game to do
plus have a real life Shocked ( Oops sorry, I know that is not allowed anymore)
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#1031 - 2011-11-13 12:05:53 UTC
Agnemon wrote:
which means approx 2 to 2.5 hrs per day ice mining ( mack with level 5 skills and 320 sec cycle time) Sad

plus do the PI stuff
plus do the other Eve stuff that I actually play the game to do
plus have a real life Shocked ( Oops sorry, I know that is not allowed anymore)

Or you could do like the rest of us do, and buy your ice from the bots ice miners.

Managing a POS, mining ice, collecting PI materials, they are all different professions. Forcing them to cooperate through the market is part of what makes EVE's economy so strong.

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
Hockston Axe
#1032 - 2011-11-13 15:04:09 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi again.

Changes:
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.

[/list]



Well you've already addressed my concern about faction tower fuel bonus. My idea for it before I saw this though was to make the fuel blocks be partially used like R.A.M.s, but have the fuel blocks not be repairable (w/partial used ones only good in faction towers since plain towers would use 100% each hour).

All these changes will make high-sec r&d towers a little more expensive since they don't use much PG, but at least the faction towers aren't totally pointless now since you've preserved the fuel cost bonus. Overall I like the changes I guess. (also asking large-scale operators what's best for all is like asking wal-mart what's best for the mom&pop corner store.)

Now how about allowing anchoring in 0.8? Or at least allow anchoring if the true-sec is 0.7 or lower, I've tried anchoring in displayed 0.8 but truesec is 0.75x and it won't let you.
Lord Timelord
GETCO
#1033 - 2011-11-13 17:16:41 UTC

Hockston Axe wrote:


...Now how about allowing anchoring in 0.8? Or at least allow anchoring if the true-sec is 0.7 or lower, I've tried anchoring in displayed 0.8 but truesec is 0.75x and it won't let you.


I'd go so far as to CCP crunching the database numbers and starting to open up the higher sec systems as needed due to congestion.
Vireck
Octopoda
#1034 - 2011-11-13 17:20:10 UTC
Cant be bothered reading 52 pages so if it's already been said ignore it. Anyway:

Increasing faction tower fuel bay capacity isn't really much of a bonus. Given fuel consumption will now be constant regardless of load why not just give faction towers more cpu and grid so they can get a bonus from having more online structures.

Seemples
Harisdrop
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1035 - 2011-11-13 18:34:03 UTC
Well here is something to consider.


Everything in EVE was once one size.

Lets make Large, Medium, and Small, fuel blocks.

Faction towers should be based on time of consumption.
Harisdrop
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1036 - 2011-11-13 19:16:01 UTC
Lord Timelord wrote:

Hockston Axe wrote:


...Now how about allowing anchoring in 0.8? Or at least allow anchoring if the true-sec is 0.7 or lower, I've tried anchoring in displayed 0.8 but truesec is 0.75x and it won't let you.


I'd go so far as to CCP crunching the database numbers and starting to open up the higher sec systems as needed due to congestion.

Wont this make moons even in highsec valueable and wars will ensue. That would be good..
Jenshae Chiroptera
#1037 - 2011-11-14 14:17:54 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
I haven't seen a thread about this, so if I missed it, sorry. I did look.

From here

CCP Greyscale wrote:
... The CPU and Power load will no longer have any impact on your fuel needs - all towers now need the same amount of fuel, regardless of configuration. ...


My POS will now be safer for the same fuel. Thank you very much. I am very happy about this change. Smile


Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
I really want them to fix the alliance settings on POS. Small alliances can send 1-3 people to a POS from each corp, so there is only 5-18 people using it.
More people using it, makes more demands and they would naturally expand to more POSes. In the mean time, the small are more vulnerable with multiple POSes that are under used and under protected.


...

I only got told about this thread now

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Farrisen
MoaR ChickeN
#1038 - 2011-11-14 18:54:30 UTC
Any news on the Faction tower front ? (are they still going to be useless? ie: not fuel efficient anymore) Sad

http://i.imgur.com/DWBuV.png

Originally by: CCP Spitfire: It's because of falcon.
Zleon Leigh
#1039 - 2011-11-14 18:57:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Zleon Leigh
So for funs you decided to reduce the demand for Robotics cause you don't like to do math? CCP keeps screwing PI over, with it getting pounded down in production ability and market in the last 3 major releases.

Hope the POS boys like paying more for fuel, or start doing their own mindless PI, cause the PI guys are going to throw in the towel.

Yes, damn right I'm mad...

Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital. CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day

PvP's latest  incentive program ** Unified Inventory **  'Cause you gotta kill something after trying to use it
Pyro Miner
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1040 - 2011-11-14 20:38:31 UTC
Farrisen wrote:
Any news on the Faction tower front ? (are they still going to be useless? ie: not fuel efficient anymore) Sad


faction towers are atm getting a 20% feulbonus to all feul the tower use

on the guy above, robotis is also used for other stuff then posfeul, and not everyone use faction towers, not the mention that robotics is insane high compared to the good old days ;o