EVE Information Portal

Other points aside, let me get this part straight.

One of the main points of contention is that...

...after the well publicized expansion that everyone playing will be aware of...

...and after every POS owner in the game is notified directly of how to handle the change over...

...and after everyone has two weeks to prepare...

...people are writing incessant posts demanding a script be written to do the fuel change over automatically. Some even insisting it would be better to forget the whole thing if that can't happen.

I would think with the juggling of several different fuel types we do already you could remember to add one more item to the list sometime within that generous window.

If you can't remember to add one more item to the list ONCE, at some point in a two week window, you are undoubtedly the most incompetent POS manager in the game.

lol maybe you should take your own advice bout not posting when you dont know what your talkin bout

Time dilation should address that problem suitably.

For all panicing high-sec bear-POS owners

Please quit panicking...please. your costs are going to go DOWN. here is a breakdown currently on standard minmatar towers (most relevant to me - racial iso has no bearing in this argument)

BTW - this assumes 100% CPU and 10% PG usage (for all of you "efficient" POS owners)

Large Tower - Current Cost/30 days = 347mil ISK. New Cost = 363m ISK (equal at 50%PG usage)
Medium Tower - current = 202mil ISK. New = 182mil ISK
Small Tower - current = 129mil ISK. New = 91mil ISK

PS - if you aren't using all the PG and CPU you possibly can, then you aren't being efficient. the cost of all the other materials dwarfs the cost of LO/HW on all tower sizes and you should be ashamed that you weren't putting those other mats to good use by employing the maximum possible heavy water and liquid ozone usage. Also - small and medium towers are getting a cost reduction even at 0% usage of PG AND CPU

PPS - for the m3 people calling for reduced size to represent roughly 80% PG and CPU usage - they already did that.

228.5m3/hr at 100%
204.5m3/hr at 80%

^^^^^ THIS PLEASE ^^^^^

You know, it's nearly 2012, we do have storage snapshots, virtualization snapshot, even i can take a snapshot of my gf, just to keep a nice copy of her :)

Yup.



See page 3 :)



Generally speaking, we want to keep the deep complexity in core systems that make the game mechanically interesting, but we also want people to spend as much time as possible interacting with other people (because they're the most interesting "content" we have avaliable). We'd generally like to find ways to spend less time on mechanical tasks - through streamlining or, where acceptable, simplification - so they can spend more time dealing with people.

Like most normal Eve players (I'm not really!) I fully support the current transition plan to fuel blocks taking a couple of weeks because realisticly for the additional effort of creating a script that works without bugs, that time is better invested in other features that actually improve the game longer term.

All the people crying about the transition plan are lazy morons if they think a 2 week window is not a reasonable enough time to get split fuel stacks in their POS for the actual transition.

Now Greyscale, lets talk about those future POS iteration plans!

Please oh please, consider divorcing Control towers for all the different fuctions of POS and separating those functions out into unique individual anchorables.

As I see it POS are used for the following distinct functions:

1. Moon mining
2. Strategic Defense/Logistic focal points (Deathstars, Jumpbridges etc)
3. T3 Prodcution bases
4. (Super) Capital Construction
5. Research
6. Booster Production
7. Regular Production (Often faster T2 lines)
8. Reacting Moon minerals
9. Refining (doubt anyone uses them for this any more due to major inefficiencies)

Probably missed a few other functions, but current mechanics require knocking on up to a 40 million hp shielded structure (twice!) just to disrupt any or all of those functions.

I was a big advocate of the "Lego" build-able starbases from the original dead horse thread, but then I realised we'd just end up with some generic optimal build resulting in something resembling todays high hp towers.

My opinion/suggestion is that a much better solution would be to have individual structures for most of those functions. Here's just an example: but a structures like Moon mining anchorable could use much less fuel improving its efficiency, but also have much less hp than current control towers, making them small gang targets.

With the functions separate you could also then bring in concepts like reinforcing a moon mining anchorable allows it to be hacked and the juicy moon goo stolen. It could also mean that Strategic starbases and focal points could be changed to be scalable with todays nullsec alliance PVP requirements - with a scalable amount of fuel blocks and effort required for each function to maintain unlike current POS.

Anyway, I hope this gives you some food for though on the subject Greyscale. Alas, downtime is over or I'd ramble longer on the subject. Any feedback you have on this different approaach would be appreciated. Cheers.

"
starbase tweaks: an update
reported by CCP Greyscale | 2011.11.23 13:14:14 | NEW | Comments
You may remember from the earlier blog (hint: read that blog if you haven't already) that we're making some adjustments to starbases in Crucible. Based on discussion in the feedback thread, we have made some changes to our plan, which will be detailed here.


We recommend ensuring that you keep enough old-style fuel in your tower to last three days past the scheduled switchover patch - so that, in the unlikely event that the patch runs into a technical glitch that prevents deployment, your towers won't go offline - and fill the rest up with fuel blocks. This should ensure a smooth switch-over. "

Good and sensible changes, good work CCP!