These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 tweaks: an update

First post First post
Author
Daioh Azu
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#121 - 2011-11-24 05:27:02 UTC
Largo Coronet wrote:
Am I blind, or has there been no CCP response in this thread to the loss of sovereignty bonuses? And if there hasn't been, could we please get one?


Apparently, you are blind. You’ll find your answer back on post #45.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
Chigger Troutslayer wrote:
Faction tower fuel savings was addressed. Does this mean we will also get a fuel use bonus for Sov?


Yes.


Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#122 - 2011-11-24 06:21:31 UTC
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.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Sader Rykane
Midnight Sentinels
#123 - 2011-11-24 06:22:42 UTC
What is so difficult about allowing the use of fuel blocks and regular fuel exactly?


Do you have something against choice?
Aluminy
Stargazer Exploration Company
#124 - 2011-11-24 07:45:25 UTC
ZaBob wrote:
Aluminy wrote:

m3 = i do believe several have done the math and the cubes for the same amount of time now compared to ice / pi fuels of an equal time the cubes come out roughly smaller anyway... not by much no but there is no EXTRA hauling here... even for those that manufacture the pellets, you had to haul the fuel in to begin with... so you either haul the ice like you always have or you haul the pellet... no change here really~



I really think you shouldn't whine about people whining, when you haven't even bothered to understand what they're talking about.

Compare the m3 of the *ice fuel alone* (which is all we need haul) to the m3 of the fuel pellets.

I gave hard numbers way back when.

Maybe instead of flaming and whining yourself, you could engage in constructive dialog? Reading and thinking before writing might be a good place to start.


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

Quote:
Spacenumbers.
Large tower, 40blocks of 5m3 per hour: 200m3/hour
Current fuel, without stront, at max usage: 228.5m3/hour

Scorpio DK
Doomheim
#125 - 2011-11-24 07:50:09 UTC
i have been running poses since the beginning of when poses were about and personally i am happy with the change

after the initial chaos of the swap over of fuel types i think things will be easier for most

currently you can get fuel 2 ways

those being buy is and fuel towers or you can use pi and mine the ice products and fuel the towers either way its work depending on how many towers are deployed

the only way i seeing this changing things is it adds a extra options to get the fuel, always a good thing in my opinion

you can buy the fuel make a blocks and fuel the tower, mine the ice pi the fuel and make the blocks and fuel the tower, or now just buy the blocks and fuel the tower

that's just the getting the fuel stage and the way i see things the more options we have the better, if i want to be lazy 1 month i just grab the blocks and fuel it

when it comes to actually fueling the tower its much easier its a gallente tower i need x amount of gallente blocks, not x amount of 8 different fuel types so this part i really like just for making it easier.

the only thing i don't see mentioned anywhere mabee its on the old comments thread i cant remember but what % is the sov bonus going to be at after the blocks come into effect?
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#126 - 2011-11-24 08:09:59 UTC
Pierced Brosmen wrote:
I surely hope CCP forsees the increased traffic in the high-sec systems with Thukker Mix stations and place them on reinforced nodes for a few days after the expansion


Time dilation should address that problem suitably.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#127 - 2011-11-24 08:16:48 UTC
Helena Russell Makanen wrote:
1) You are making PI harder/more expensive


More profitable actually. Demand for some items will go up, some will go down, those who know which way to go will already be manufacturing the stuff that's going to be in high demand come patch day.

Helena Russell Makanen wrote:
3) You are using the BP aspect to try to (once again) force people to do faction warfare or incursions.


How does that work? These BPOs come from Thukker Mix. No militia or CONCORD involvement. Even then, you won't have to actually buy the BPO from Thukker Tribe, guaranteed someone will be trying to sell unresearched copies via contracts claiming they are highly researched. Scam, but no need to do business with Thukker Tribe.

Helena Russell Makanen wrote:
4) In many stations manufacturing slots are already at a premium, so now you are going to make that situation WORSE? FOREVER?


If you see a shortage in manufacturing slots, aim to provide more manufacturing slots to take advantage of the shortage. Rent them out to make ISK.

Fuel pellets will make POS fuelling much easier in the long run.Those capsuleers who specialise in manufacturing will quite happily manufacture the pellets, those people who specialise in fuelling towers while half asleep now only need to check that they're putting the right fuel type in the right tower, with no concerns about transposition or typographic errors leading to towers going offline in the middle of a long weekend.

The fact that there is a new manufacturing step involved is an opportunity to be taken advantage of. Stop making it sound like it's the end of the world!
Icarus Helia
State War Academy
Caldari State
#128 - 2011-11-24 08:20:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Icarus Helia
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%

Why you no care?

Sassums
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#129 - 2011-11-24 09:05:28 UTC
While for face value this update to POS's looks great, but when you dig down a bit, I do hope you aren't pulling what the NGE did to SWG. Please don't dumb to game down to drawn more players. Companies have tried that, and failed miserably.

It seems CCP takes the easy way out of some issues, such as the ECM Exploit you had with Magnatar systems in WH space. When will this issue be resolved. Instead of fixing the issue, you simply removed the advantage to the system altogether.

What about faction towers? You had said their drop rate was far too frequent, rather than fixing that up front, you simply remove them from dropping at all. When will they be reintroduced into the game?

When will you give CEO's and POS managers better control over who can access what? If I give someone access to High Slot 1, they can access High Slot 1 on every CHA within the pos. The only way to change this, is to require Config Starbase equipment or fuel manager. But even then, you can only divide up the access so far.

When will we have the ability to divide up the SMA like we do the CHA, to prevent theft among the corp members.

When will we have better logs on who is doing what within the POS, to allow us to catch thieves in the act?
JohnnyRingo
Regiment Of Naga Association
OnlyFleets.
#130 - 2011-11-24 09:22:43 UTC
Brunaburh wrote:
Although I am glad you listened to the concerns about block size and faction towers, there still remains one significant issue, which is the fuel consumption.

Riptard Teg covered it in a blog post, if you aren't running a full grid/full cpu tower (as in probably 90% of towers out there) there are significant changes to cost since you aren't allowing for fuel variance in the ice products.

I want to say this again, I love the idea of fuel blocks.

I don't love the idea that fuel isn't variable based on CPU/Grid usage.

I mean really, you think after all these years it would be so hard to make a fuel block of all the static fuels and just have to measure Ozone and Heavy Water?

Fuel blocks should combine the PI materials and the Isotopes (all static measured fuels today), and then the ozone and heavy water should be variable (as it is today) based on usage.

It's not that complicated. It's also not 75-IQ stupid, which means it requires thought and planning, things that EVE is known for (in a good way).

Fuel blocks would still be racial due to the isotope inclusion.

Please?

?


^^^^^ THIS PLEASE ^^^^^
Danastar
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#131 - 2011-11-24 09:27:56 UTC
Scorpio DK wrote:


when it comes to actually fueling the tower its much easier its a gallente tower i need x amount of gallente blocks, not x amount of 8 different fuel types so this part i really like just for making it easier.




my oh my...
if you want to make your own fuel, you will still need x numbers of 8 different fuel types - guess some of us will learn that the hard way
it is completly different matter if you are lazy and want to buy already manifactired fuel blocks - you will have to pay extra, beacuse someone has done it for you and he would want to be paid for that

Overal this change is bad for the ones willing to make the fuelblocks themselves and good for the ppl with deep pockets, who will not mind paying say 10% more but save themselvs some brain effort.

And i want to make something clear - there is nothing wrong if CCP wants to make our life miserable. It may even be regarded as good thing, because fighting new challenges is what makes us not lose interest. But saying "guys we want to help you on this one" and implementing feature that actually makes things worse - that is wrong.
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices
#132 - 2011-11-24 10:39:21 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
All that pushing the testing*

*Anyone saying that writing the script should be trivial is, uh, not speaking from a position of authority, but it's the testing time that's the real workload, because every time we want to test if it works (which we need to do at least once and potentially two or three times to test fixes for problems caught in earlier runs) we have to actually run the upgrade on a copy of TQ, which takes a large amount of setup and prep time. (And before anyone says "surely that's really simple", it's not, and that's really all there is to say about it :P)


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 :)
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#133 - 2011-11-24 10:56:14 UTC
I like this change a lot, however if you want to benefit from this change you will have to pay a player introduced higher cost because any Eve player putting stuff on market will try to profit from anything... As mentioned the cost-effecient people will have to haul everything as usual AND manufacture the fuel cells themself.

What is the m3 of the materials required to build a 4m3 fuel cell?
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#134 - 2011-11-24 11:15:12 UTC
Salpad wrote:
So, will the BPOs and so forth for fuel pellets be available with the launch of Crucible, so that POS owners have about 2 weeks to buy or produce pellets before the fuel switchover?



Yup.

Largo Coronet wrote:
Am I blind, or has there been no CCP response in this thread to the loss of sovereignty bonuses? And if there hasn't been, could we please get one?


See page 3 :)

Sassums wrote:
While for face value this update to POS's looks great, but when you dig down a bit, I do hope you aren't pulling what the NGE did to SWG. Please don't dumb to game down to drawn more players. Companies have tried that, and failed miserably.


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.
Andina
Pixel Knights
Dead Pixels Inc
#135 - 2011-11-24 11:40:26 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


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.



Then let more then 1 pilot anchor/online/offline modules so it isent a solo thing, make it a group effort. But keep it so only 1 pilot can manage 1 module at the same time.
Vyktor Abyss
Abyss Research
#136 - 2011-11-24 11:57:34 UTC
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!Big smile

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.

Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#137 - 2011-11-24 12:02:47 UTC
Andina wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


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.



Then let more then 1 pilot anchor/online/offline modules so it isent a solo thing, make it a group effort. But keep it so only 1 pilot can manage 1 module at the same time.


This is not very relevant any more as the anchoring / onlining times (with a very few exceptions) are now effectively instant.

Which means that if you want to make it co-operative and have multiple people with POS roles, you can do so, basically taking turns hitting anchor and online while rapidly placing each module where you want it to go.
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#138 - 2011-11-24 12:58:21 UTC  |  Edited by: D'Kelle
"
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. "

Is it just me, but that word should makes me nervous.
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#139 - 2011-11-24 13:21:05 UTC
D'Kelle wrote:
"
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. "

Is it just me, but that word should makes me nervous.


CCP having bugs in their code that ensures all POS towers in EVE turn off simultaneously, offlining everything? As if that could ever happen.. pffft...

You worry too much!

I'm sure CCP is competent and has carefully tested their code and...

..

...

What? STOP LAUGHING! It might all work out just fine!
Buhtlica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#140 - 2011-11-24 13:49:53 UTC
Good and sensible changes, good work CCP!