These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Geksz
The Fountain
#1081 - 2011-11-17 14:57:56 UTC
I haven't got the time to read through all the 54 pages here, so pardon me if i ask something that has already been asked.

So, my question is:

AttentionWhen will the POS system will be completely redesigned?
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1082 - 2011-11-17 16:25:33 UTC
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:
alot of us would like a clear reason as to why you maxed out liquid ozone and heavy water consumption. because to alot of us it seems you just made your own lives easier and not ours by doing this.


give us an answer please
Snaketzu
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1083 - 2011-11-17 19:00:47 UTC
Just a quick thought about the artwork, if that's not already set in stone:

I thought the colored blocks were great to denote the different fuel types. For the color challenged among us, how about adding the appropriate isotope symbol to the icon as well? This makes it instantly clear what kind of fuel block you are looking at, and the art can be borrowed from the isotope icon. Done.
ZaBob
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1084 - 2011-11-18 00:12:59 UTC
Thank you for thinking of us poor Fuel Techs. As amended, the plan sounds good for most.

Unfortunately, as a WH dweller, I don't see that I benefit at all; in fact, my life is slightly more complicated.

I currently must bring in 161.1 m3/hr of ice fuel (at current configuration). The planetary I can produce myself.

The new scheme would have me bring in 200 m3/hr of pelletized fuel, and haul out the planetary fuel
--OR--
Bring in ice fuel just as I do now -- and then manufacture them into pellets, and load them into the tower.

Obviously, the first one is a loser. But the second one is MORE work, not less.

About the only simplification I can see for me is to remove the feature from my spreadsheet that takes CPU/PG into account (i.e. just peg them at max). Even that's more work -- a change I have to make to my existing spreadsheet.

I still have to do exactly the same ship loading calculations, and tracking of supply.

It now takes me longer to fuel, as I have to produce the pellets before I can load them into the fuel bay. Timing is already a headache; this just makes it worse. It's going to mean two sessions, with a longer pipeline, and thus a bigger total inventory.

And it's one more item and one more stage in the inventory pipeline to manage.

For me, a WH dweller, it's nothing bit more work.

Well, except for eliminating the powergrid/CPU thing; at least I won't have to track that.

If you were to drop the m3 by half, it would make things interesting. Haul out the planetary and trade it for pellets, and save overall travel time -- IF my outgoing run is not full?

Or even better: Make my life simpler -- reduce the m3 of the refined ice fuels. THAT will save me time and headaches.
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#1085 - 2011-11-18 01:50:57 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:

The BPOs will be released on Nov 29th - the fuel change-over won't happen until 3-5 weeks later. Which gives you plenty of time to buy a BPO, research it, produce a few weeks of fuel pellets, and stuff a week's worth of pellets into your POS towers prior to to the change-over.

When the change-over happens, you go out to the towers, remove the old style fuel, fill it back up with fuel pellets, then convert the rest of your stockpile over to fuel pellets.



Bob, I was being facetious based on how some previous changes to POS have generally been broken right out the gate.
Mensche
Quantum Innovations
#1086 - 2011-11-18 02:03:14 UTC
I was wondering if it'd be worthwhile to change how the towers consume fuel? Similar to how construction consumes R.A.M. by damaging it. Then you can just have the towers do less damage to the fuel pods over time than regular.
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#1087 - 2011-11-18 03:46:11 UTC
ZaBob wrote:

Or even better: Make my life simpler -- reduce the m3 of the refined ice fuels. THAT will save me time and headaches.


I'd love to see the size of the fuel pellets go down another 10-20% - but CCP has chosen to go the *other* way and simply make the POS tower fuel bays larger. Gee, thanks...
Sassaniak
Deadspace Zombie Factory
#1088 - 2011-11-18 04:24:23 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
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.



This doesnt seem like a good answer to me. "Because we can", is a lazy answer. While it would for parts of the eve economy preserve soem aspects of it. it would reduce the additional fuel cost burdens on small time tower owners. increasing the LO and HW requirements on towers that werent previously using the full Capacity only hurts. Most towers do not use every last cpu/pg, while many get close, they dont use the full amount, now they will.
For the single tower owner who may/may not be using the fill PG thats now a huge additional cost to building this new step to fueling.

A Large caldari tower filled only with labs (as are common in hisec) uses just over half its pg. (1,500,000/2,750,000) while using up all its pg (10 adv labs, 3 labs)
At an 1,250,000 additional Cpu cost in fuel costs and space lost int eh fuel bay that could have gone to other fuels.

Why do fuel pellets have to have a racial component at all? just have them be bundled PI materials and keep the Ice stuff separate?

...............................................................................

Sometimes, you all make me very disappointed.

BRIMTAK
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#1089 - 2011-11-18 04:51:26 UTC
This is really a crap idea for us wormhole dwellers.

You say you're making this change to make it easy for people?

Tell me how easy this sounds....

1. Go buy component assembly array
2. Wait for a High Sec K162 (could take weeks) to come into my wormhole. (Because it won't fit in my Prorator and yes my wormhole is a static low-sec)
3. Get ahold of the BPO?
4. Offline a gun that I paid for just to online this component assembly array (because my CPU/PG are maxed out)
5. Spend how long making these stupid fuel pellets from the fuel I already have?

Guess what? I'm still going to be hauling the same fuel back and fourth, the only thing that's changing is I have to go buy crap, offline crap, and spend more time producing these pellets?

Sorry guys but your idea of making it easier for people sounds like you missed the boat on this one.
Vandal Warrior
Not going Away
#1090 - 2011-11-18 06:01:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Vandal Warrior
Quote:
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.


What larger and more significant changes would you be referring to? Or "Minor ripples"?
PLEX's? Because that ingenious change has cause them to skyrocket out of control!
Or maybe it was the whole PI thing in the first place?
That wasn't a ripple that was a frackin TIDAL WAVE!
Oh wait don't forget the new Sov mechanics that was a real doosey!
I would rather grind towers because after the SC nerf it will be worse than that!

Bite the bullet and separate the LO and HW from the "Fuel cube" Equation and satisfy both sides of the coin You and Us.

P.S. Why don't you release the "Cube" BPO's a week ahead of time?
That way we can erase alot of those tower owners who gouge the hell out of us researchers with their fees when they are to lazy to make the cubes in time for the patch?
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#1091 - 2011-11-18 12:03:05 UTC
BRIMTAK wrote:
This is really a crap idea for us wormhole dwellers.

You say you're making this change to make it easy for people?

Tell me how easy this sounds....

1. Go buy component assembly array
2. Wait for a High Sec K162 (could take weeks) to come into my wormhole. (Because it won't fit in my Prorator and yes my wormhole is a static low-sec)
3. Get ahold of the BPO?
4. Offline a gun that I paid for just to online this component assembly array (because my CPU/PG are maxed out)
5. Spend how long making these stupid fuel pellets from the fuel I already have?

Guess what? I'm still going to be hauling the same fuel back and fourth, the only thing that's changing is I have to go buy crap, offline crap, and spend more time producing these pellets?

Sorry guys but your idea of making it easier for people sounds like you missed the boat on this one.


You wait for a K162 to open instead of scanning out a path to empire on your own? You don't already have a component assembly (or ammo assembly) array already?

You could, keep in mind, switch PI to P3 and P4 high profit items and haul pellets in with the profits.

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

ZaBob
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1092 - 2011-11-18 12:04:36 UTC
BRIMTAK wrote:
This is really a crap idea for us wormhole dwellers.

You say you're making this change to make it easy for people?

Tell me how easy this sounds....

1. Go buy component assembly array
2. Wait for a High Sec K162 (could take weeks) to come into my wormhole. (Because it won't fit in my Prorator and yes my wormhole is a static low-sec).


Not to detract from your point, with which I agree, but...

You don't have to wait for a hisec K162. Given the right circumstances, you could fly an Impel in via your losec static, or even a Sigil. It's not 100% risk free, but you can be reasonably safe if you're careful and choosy about when and where to try it. And even your K162 isn't 100% safe.

It's still a hassle and risk, i agree. But that part's a one-time cost; we'll also have to deal with making the fuel, and we get no benefit whatsoever by doing so.
Lorna Sicling
Eire Engineers
Pandemic Horde
#1093 - 2011-11-18 20:20:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Lorna Sicling
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Jack Dant wrote:
A few questions:

1) What happens to the sov bonus to fuel use?

2) What's the manufacture time on the blocks? - Answered in the devblog, sorry - 10 minutes.

3) I'm guessing assembling fuel into blocks, inside the fuel bays, over the deployment DT is too complex? That would be a better solution for players.


As it stands currently, you'll get the bonus on large towers but nothing on medium/small due to :math:. Still thinking about that one though

3) is technically feasible but raises the technical risk sufficiently that it'd have pushed the whole thing back to a nebulous "later release" (again), so we skipped it.
[/quote]

OK so make it that instead of producing 4 fuel blocks at 50m3 each, it produces 20 fuel blocks at 10m3 each. Effectively you add a factor of 5 to everything allowing Sov fuel bonuses work.

Small POS uses 5 blocks per hour, medium 10, large 20.

Simples.

This would also allow you to keep a bonus for faction towers.

The fuel pellets give you the nice package everybody (well most people) wanted, just don't oversimplify it to units of 1 when you can use multiples and not nerf mechanics and try to come up with something clever that will probably not quite work how you hoped.

Good simple idea - just keep it simple and we're mostly there.

Industrialist - currently renting in null sec.

Writer of the blog "A Scientist's Life in Eve" - proud member of the Eve Blog Pack

uglybass
Spatial Idiocity Inc.
#1094 - 2011-11-19 00:19:21 UTC
Im too lazy to read 55 pages and cant find anything in devblogs (maybe im dumb, or the topic aint that descriptive) ;)
BUT
what about issues with corp roles, I mean atm you can give access to youre labs/assembly arrays/etc only to either every pos or none of the posses (maybe if I wanna keep handling csaa posses on handful of ppl)

Kitsunebi Sol'Rayven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1095 - 2011-11-19 11:47:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitsunebi Sol'Rayven
I also like this change it will make refueling Our POS much easier!

Was thinking about the Energon cubes and I too like what some have mentioned about changing the colors, it would be nice for them to be faction colors sorta like this so they are easier to differentiate between them. I

On another note I agree with some that it is a shame to cripple the Faction POS's bonus. LIke Lorna Sicling said.

Lorna Sicling wrote:


OK so make it that instead of producing 4 fuel blocks at 50m3 each, it produces 20 fuel blocks at 10m3 each. Effectively you add a factor of 5 to everything allowing Sov fuel bonuses work.

Small POS uses 5 blocks per hour, medium 10, large 20.

Simples.

This would also allow you to keep a bonus for faction towers.

The fuel pellets give you the nice package everybody (well most people) wanted, just don't oversimplify it to units of 1 when you can use multiples and not nerf mechanics and try to come up with something clever that will probably not quite work how you hoped.

Good simple idea - just keep it simple and we're mostly there.
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1096 - 2011-11-19 15:08:58 UTC
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:
alot of us would like a clear reason as to why you maxed out liquid ozone and heavy water consumption. because to alot of us it seems you just made your own lives easier and not ours by doing this.


give us an answer please


this is probably the one thing you are truly screwing up in this patch

stop being pussies and tell us why you are being so foolhardy in this implementation
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1097 - 2011-11-19 20:05:26 UTC
Quote:
While we're waiting to do a proper rewrite of the starbase system...


make this happen

Evelgrivion wrote:
[edit]Edited by: Evelgrivion on 29/05/2011 04:48:41[/edit]
Images have been replaced. Unfortunately, I lost the originals with the forum debacle, but the ones that were linked are an acceptable substitute.

To put it simply, the current POS system is Butt-ugly, lagtacular, overpowered, underpowered, and completely, totally whacky, and fails to live up to the expectations of those who wish to see them for the first time.

This proposal at the very least aims to solve the first and last two issues, whilst providing a way for those who do not have 30 billion to blow on a station to get a suitable level of infrastructure for new 0.0 operations.

In a nutshell, its a modular POS with most of the functionality of a station, depending on the modules attached. How would this all go together? Today's idea comes with pictures!

The heart of the system is a simple interconnecting module. From this modular structure, all modules are referenced, attached, and based within a simple grid system.

Exhibit A

The four corridors allow for easy expansion of the station, and scalable infrastructure can grow with the needs of the corporation. or alliance in possession of it.

Exhibit B

Much like the current POS system, the heart and soul of the station would remain the control tower. For this example, let me introduce Exhibit C, for a small Caldari styled control tower.

Exhibit C

From this control tower, everything else on the POS is referenced. Instead of giving us exact XYZ coordinates of every module in space, they can be instead referenced to the tower and the layout grid on which it is based. After deployment of the control tower, you can begin adding additional structures to the POS to give it the functionality you want it to have. Allow me to present Exhibits D and E.

Exhibits D & E (Large File)

Exhibit D is a storage container module; these provide the storage capabilities for the POS. Exhibit E is a refinery module, which would obviously provide refinery capabilities for the station. Up a certain point, additional refinery modules would provide additional refinery efficiency, though logarithmically decreasing with each one while consuming the same amount of poewr. This could allow larger, more powerful, and more expensive designs to have a place in the universe.

Up to this point, the accessibility remains the same as it is for the current POS, with one user hovering outside the module at a time. To alleviate the issues inherent in that, I present exhibit F; the hangar module. This system is not limited to 1x1 modules, and "supermodules" are a distinct possibility with this system.

Exhibit F

Providing a certain quantity of hangar space (MetersĀ³) depending on size (and expense), the hangar module provides an interface to POS management just like standard stations, allowing simple refining, manufacturing, and possibly even clone bays, depending on the modules that you have installed.

Put it altogether, and you get a simple POS that is easy to manage, expandable, and ranging in capabilities and expense. In its most basic form, I present Exhibit G.

Exhibit G

Here is an optional, more contraversial change that this system would make. If CCP wishes, they could integrate much of a POSs defense into this module system; rather than having free floating, invincible guns, large weapons battery modules could be introduced to the station. Presenting Exhibit H.

Exhibit H

Fully realized, Exhibit I.

Exhibit I (Fully Realised Modular POS)

While this is just a simple example, the potential is there for leagues more complex and powerful bases than those demonstrated here.


Flogging the Dead Horse, best idea for EvE ever.
Charles Edisson
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1098 - 2011-11-19 21:18:42 UTC
So far liking all the POS fule changes after your itterations at the player basses requests.

I think the feed back on this thread had been much more honest than that on say hybrid reballancing or super cap reballancing.

The constructive and honest non self serving feedback here (due to everyone using POS') must be making the ballancing a lot easier than Tallest is getting where non Hybrid/Super users want those ships/platforms nerfed into the ground and most users are asking for unrealistic buff/un-nerfs.

Never going to happen though in those threads though due to the fact that us humans are rather horrible things on average. Especialy on-line where people have anonimity.
Retmas
Common Sense Ltd
Nulli Secunda
#1099 - 2011-11-19 22:11:01 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).

  • 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.


    Good Master Greyscale, Can you please update the devblog to reflect this change (or issue a new one relating it)? you still have the 1/2/4 concept posted on the features page for crucible, and [selfish] i'm getting really tired of arguing with friends, enemies, random people, et al, that you guys have bumped the granularity up, removed/un-removed faction tower bonuses, etc etc.

    thank you, it's much appreciated ^_^
    Calumbacha
    guided by voices
    Democratic Socialist Party
    #1100 - 2011-11-20 11:03:39 UTC
    ZaBob wrote:
    Thank you for thinking of us poor Fuel Techs. As amended, the plan sounds good for most.

    Unfortunately, as a WH dweller, I don't see that I benefit at all; in fact, my life is slightly more complicated.

    I currently must bring in 161.1 m3/hr of ice fuel (at current configuration). The planetary I can produce myself.

    The new scheme would have me bring in 200 m3/hr of pelletized fuel, and haul out the planetary fuel
    --OR--
    Bring in ice fuel just as I do now -- and then manufacture them into pellets, and load them into the tower.

    Obviously, the first one is a loser. But the second one is MORE work, not less.




    WHY do you want me to do MORE work? (This is a serious question the rest below is a rant.)

    All the talk about Faction Towers and Colour of the new fuel, one thing has being breezed over time and time again, this just makes more work. Adding another process in the line is crazy and lets not touch on the Heavy water use.

    Thanks CCP for another release to waste my time.

    Many have come to know over the years the futility of banging ones head again the gates to CCP, one will just bleed to death before they open up to listen and STOP stupid ideas from hitting TQ.