These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

Dev blog: Building better Worlds

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#681 - 2014-04-16 00:44:14 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient?


The issue is that wardeccing to remove an inactive POS requires several things.

1) A 50m ISK payment
2) Waiting 24 hours
3) Assembling a fleet to do 20-50m EHP of damage (that's four to ten battleship hours, this isn't lowsec where dreads are an option)



No requirement is onerous on its own (except the EHP of a large POS, ugh, ban them in highsec already), however, combined they make sure players can't really remove POSes on a whim. POS removal in highsec is a methodical, planned, deliberate operation. But putting one up need not be.


Remove the wardec requirement for inactive POSes only, and you'll have fleets whelp one offlined POS in a system then move on to the next one (perhaps while waiting for something else to do), rather than have POS litter on every moon.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Drahcir Nasom
Independent Manufacturers
#682 - 2014-04-16 00:46:32 UTC
If we are going to have to start building from BPCs instead of expensive BPOs at POS, please increase the maximum number of runs for a BPC or allow us to queue BPCs while still only using 1 'slot' from a characters maximum number of slots.

Example, I have a 125mm Autocannon 2 BPO which in a Rapid Array I can build 745 guns per week. The maximum number of runs for a BPC from this BPO is 100, which is less than 24h production. I currently build from 42 T2 BPOs every week, and I set each of them doing 7 days production and then once a week I restart them. If I'm having to restart jobs every day running from BPCs then I am just going to give up producing as it then becomes a day job and not a game.

Similarly with capital components, at the moment a run of components for our capital production includes 240 drone bays, we build them from 4 BPOs, putting in a run of 60 on each BPO taking about 5.5 days. With capital component BPCs limited to 5 runs, we'd need 48 BPCs to do the same, and if we were to use just 4 slots to build them it would mean someone having to restart a new job every 10 hours or so.

As a rule of thumb you need to be looking at the maximum number of runs for a BPC to be no less than the number of that item that can be built in say 10 days in the most optimal production environment (rapid/component/ship/ammo array with a high level of PE on the BPC, Industry skill at lvl 5 for the character and possibly even a Beancounter -4% implant)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#683 - 2014-04-16 00:47:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Sylvanium Orlenard wrote:
3. You mentioned in the Dev Blog that copy times will be decreased in order to make it a viable option to rectify point number 2. Which is all nice however, T2 components BPOs require items (reports I believe) in order to make copies of them, which couple with the new escalating price scheme will effectively raise the price of production and force me to haul yet more stuff. (but who knows maybe you have an answer for that waiting for me in an future dev blog)

This is a good question.

I don't know if it was your (CCP's) intent or not to make copying the new go-to method for distributed manufacturing, but if it is, have you taken into consideration the full range of requirements for those copies? In quite a few cases, copying is currently deliberately slow and difficult compared to other things you can do to a BPO — will those cases be re-examined and rebalanced to match the new workflow? I suppose that some of this will be answered in detail in the research devblog, but already now it would be nice to know if it's something you've thought of or if it's just a new meta that has been exposed in this thread?

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Remove the wardec requirement for inactive POSes only, and you'll have fleets whelp one offlined POS in a system then move on to the next one (perhaps while waiting for something else to do), rather than have POS litter on every moon.

But again, that's the main problem: what counts as “inactive” or as “abandoned”? Just being offline isn't enough — there are plenty of legitimate reasons for leaving a tower offline.

If there's a wish to remove the grind part on properly abandoned POSes, then the idea of a hacking deployable linked earlier is a far more equitable solution since it only works on towers no-one actually cares about. Either way, removing the waiting period to anything less than the time it takes using a wardec is just a disaster waiting to happen since you have now invalidated a large point of wardecs.
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#684 - 2014-04-16 00:51:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitty Bear
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient?


The issue is that wardeccing to remove an inactive POS requires several things.

1) A 50m ISK payment
2) Waiting 24 hours
3) Assembling a fleet to do 20-50m EHP of damage (that's four to ten battleship hours, this isn't lowsec where dreads are an option)



No requirement is onerous on its own (except the EHP of a large POS, ugh, ban them in highsec already), however, combined they make sure players can't really remove POSes on a whim. POS removal in highsec is a methodical, planned, deliberate operation. But putting one up need not be.


Remove the wardec requirement for inactive POSes only, and you'll have fleets whelp one offlined POS in a system then move on to the next one (perhaps while waiting for something else to do), rather than have POS litter on every moon.


maybe after 30 days of inactivity they could become un owned and offlined
scoopable to the first person that finds it available

no need for wardecs
no need for tedious pos bashing

of course I don't know how feasible something like is within eve's coding infrastructure
but if it is, does it sound reasonable ?



[edit]
or they can be dealt with in the same way that anchored containers are
npc cleanup crews ... (would have to limit it hisec and lowsec though, The Empires aren't really a prevalent force in 0.0 & J-space)

either option I think would be good, the first just makes it player centric and a profit opportunity
this just leaves nul-sec and wormholes with abandoned POS structures that need to removed with fire.
sorry nul/wh guys, I know pos bashing is a slow & painful system, but for the time being it's here to stay
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#685 - 2014-04-16 00:52:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
gifter Penken wrote:
RIGS!

Rigs and ammo, and that is pretty much it.

You nail it! It is the rat drop that is better than can be built that kills T1 manufacturing, and in turn, that kills T2 manufacturing as industrialists are forced to find something, anything, that is profitable.

I don't disagree, but there are still lots of even non-T2 that are decent for manufacturing:

Some non-T2 stuff that I've built for profit, because they sell to pretty much everyone:
* T1 Salvagers
* T1 Data Analyzer
* T1 Relic Alalyzer
* T1 probes
* T1 probe launchers
* T1 Small Tractor Beams
* T1 Strip Miners
* T1 Ice Harvesters
* T1 Gas Harvesters
* T1 Miners
* T1 gang links
* T1 cloaks
* T1 mobile warp disruptors
* T1 Combat Drones
* T1 Sentries
* T1 fighters
* T1 bombers
* T1 ammo, including scripts and cap charges
* T1 ECM (I can't explain either)
* T1 small weapons
* T1 bomb launchers
* T1 rigs
* T1 frigates (Love you RvB!)
* T1 cruisers (bulk buyer for T2)
* T1 battleships (bulk buyer for T2)
* T1 shuttles (I like to drop these at random stations when moving stuff with my freighters)
* T1 Industrials (larger shuttles)
* T1 freighters
* Orca
* Noctis
* Navy and pirate ships
* Personal mobile structures
* Structures
* Containers
* Capital components
* R.A.M.

I'm reminded of Sarurday Night Live's "First CityWide Change Bank" sketches about an obviously unprofitable business:
All the time, our customers ask us, "How do you make money doing this?" The answer is simple: Volume. That's what we do.
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#686 - 2014-04-16 01:00:56 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Halia Thorak wrote:
I have a couple of questions and comments about the changes, but over all the look really good.

Firstly how do you intend to address invention and the to make it less clunky without totally breaking it with these changes. In the current pos system if I can't run jobs remotely from a station I need to go to a POS to run the jobs which locks down a toon to the system as the cycle times are only 1.25 hours, do you intend to streamline this?

Secondly I think that a hard cap of 14% is faaaar to low, the fee's as they stand right now are a joke compared to the cost of fueling a pos per slot. The current prices even at 500% its almost equal the cost per hour to run a job in a reasonably fit pos.

Lastly while we're changing copying times I'd like to see T2 BPO copy times remain where they are, if they become more viable then invention you will likely see that system in its current state fizzle out really really quickly. People who got lucky in the T2 BPO lottery already have piles of money, there is absolutely no need to line their pockets even more (imo they should all be done away with to make it fair but oh the rivers that would be cried if you did that).


You will be able to install invention jobs remotely.


I hope you will need a skill for that?

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#687 - 2014-04-16 01:02:53 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Remove the wardec requirement for inactive POSes only, and you'll have fleets whelp one offlined POS in a system then move on to the next one (perhaps while waiting for something else to do), rather than have POS litter on every moon.

But again, that's the main problem: what counts as “inactive” or as “abandoned”? Just being offline isn't enough — there are plenty of legitimate reasons for leaving a tower offline.

If there's a wish to remove the grind part on properly abandoned POSes, then the idea of a hacking deployable linked earlier is a far more equitable solution since it only works on towers no-one actually cares about. Either way, removing the waiting period to anything less than the time it takes using a wardec is just a disaster waiting to happen since you have now invalidated a large point of wardecs.


If a tower has been out of fuel for a full week, it's 'properly abandoned'. It should be able to be taken down (or possibly stolen if this can be coded) by anyone that wants to.

Wardecs would absolutely remain the main way you'd go after anyone with a POS that is actually using it. Wardeccing a corp where noone has logged on in six weeks is not some exciting activity.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc
#688 - 2014-04-16 01:03:55 UTC  |  Edited by: McBorsk
Well that kinda ruins my cap building future and my current t2 career. Nobody in their right mind will have cap bpos in a pos. Those who are enthralled can buy my alts in a few months. Cool
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries
Orion Consortium
#689 - 2014-04-16 01:05:51 UTC
Finally I will be able to reprocess my procurer stack for a profit. No longer will I need to spend years selling them off. Cool
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#690 - 2014-04-16 01:05:55 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
If a tower has been out of fuel for a full week, it's 'properly abandoned'. It should be able to be taken down (or possibly stolen if this can be coded) by anyone that wants to.

Wardecs would absolutely remain the main way you'd go after anyone with a POS that is actually using it. Wardeccing a corp where noone has logged on in six weeks is not some exciting activity.

... and towers offline with fuel?
Jake Centauri
Doomheim
#691 - 2014-04-16 01:09:07 UTC
So you are flushing the tremendous effort to grind standings to anchor POSes in hisec down the toilet. How will you compensate people for this?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#692 - 2014-04-16 01:11:21 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
If a tower has been out of fuel for a full week, it's 'properly abandoned'.
Not really, no. Just because it's been a week doesn't mean no-one will come and defend it if you try to get rid of it. And as mentioned, what you describe will create just as many “littering” POSes as we have right now.

Quote:
It should be able to be taken down (or possibly stolen if this can be coded) by anyone that wants to.
You already can Just wardec and blow it up.

Quote:
Wardeccing a corp where noone has logged on in six weeks is not some exciting activity.
No, but it's going to have to be the minimum amount of time required to destroy the stuff since anything shorter will only ever be abused. So again, if you want a mechanism for blowing up POSes that no-one cares about, then there are ways of doing that that could work. Bypassing wardecs or otherwise getting the spot in less than, say, 48h, isn't one of them.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#693 - 2014-04-16 01:12:20 UTC
Jake Centauri wrote:
So you are flushing the tremendous effort to grind standings to anchor POSes in hisec down the toilet. How will you compensate people for this?

Not at all. It was effort that paid for itself many times over a long time ago. It's a sunk cost and you should be very very happy that you never have to pay it again.
Halia Thorak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#694 - 2014-04-16 01:16:07 UTC
Drahcir Nasom wrote:

Example, I have a 125mm Autocannon 2 BPO which in a Rapid Array I can build 745 guns per week. The maximum number of runs for a BPC from this BPO is 100, which is less than 24h production.


You do realize that I have to put in new invention jobs every 1.25 hours, given your number of 745 it would take me about 150 invention jobs to produce enough bpc's (quick match i might be off a bit) to produce that in a week on top of already having to work off of only bpc's. Lets fix one system before buffing another that's already working better then the rest.
Zifrian
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#695 - 2014-04-16 01:18:53 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Good thing that I'm very explicitly not doing that, then. Well, good for me at least; not so good for you since it means your ad hominem fallacy is even less valid than it might otherwise have been.

You are implicitly arguing for it though. Although, it is pretty obvious. Does that make it explicit? I also have the feeling you have a high sec pos that is offline from time to time.

Not good for me? Heh, I really don't care. You, by your post count and quoting ability, clearly do. Well good for you, you pointed out that I think you are a forum troll and let some ad hominem slip (although is it a fallacy if I know I believe own opinion?).

Anywho, sleep well knowing that you won some inconsequential argument with a random guy on the internet that plays the same video game you do.

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#696 - 2014-04-16 01:23:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Jake Centauri wrote:
So you are flushing the tremendous effort to grind standings to anchor POSes in hisec down the toilet. How will you compensate people for this?

Not at all. It was effort that paid for itself many times over a long time ago. It's a sunk cost and you should be very very happy that you never have to pay it again.


You sure are quick to trivialize... running for CSM?

He put significant investment and effort into something that CCP is now going to give away for free to people who will compete with him directly.

CCP continues to screw vets over their attempt to keep their chin above water...
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#697 - 2014-04-16 01:26:03 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Remove the wardec requirement for inactive POSes only, and you'll have fleets whelp one offlined POS in a system then move on to the next one (perhaps while waiting for something else to do), rather than have POS litter on every moon.

But again, that's the main problem: what counts as “inactive” or as “abandoned”? Just being offline isn't enough — there are plenty of legitimate reasons for leaving a tower offline.

If there's a wish to remove the grind part on properly abandoned POSes, then the idea of a hacking deployable linked earlier is a far more equitable solution since it only works on towers no-one actually cares about. Either way, removing the waiting period to anything less than the time it takes using a wardec is just a disaster waiting to happen since you have now invalidated a large point of wardecs.


If a tower has been out of fuel for a full week, it's 'properly abandoned'. It should be able to be taken down (or possibly stolen if this can be coded) by anyone that wants to.

Wardecs would absolutely remain the main way you'd go after anyone with a POS that is actually using it. Wardeccing a corp where noone has logged on in six weeks is not some exciting activity.

Absolutely. There should be cost or risk associated with allowing your tower to go offline. At the moment it is the only strategy that makes sense if you use it occasionally (like I do).

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#698 - 2014-04-16 01:30:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Galphii
What I'm really liking about this and other changes is the slow but steady overhaul of the POS system elements contained within these other systems. Great to hear people don't have to grind missions just to put up a tower! The sneak peek at the UI looks great too, this is going to be huge! Urge to play... rising...

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
#699 - 2014-04-16 01:41:40 UTC
Grarr Dexx wrote:
While we're talking about unavoidable costs in 0.0 stations, is there a reason repairs can be set to 0? Who is paying the guys patching up your ships? What about the materials needed to bring back structural integrity? It makes no sense.


Nanites.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#700 - 2014-04-16 01:43:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Zifrian wrote:
You are implicitly arguing for it though.
Yes, by saying that these are great changes, I'm implicitly arguing for the status quo. Roll
Project more.

If you don't care that your arguments are easily dismissed as fallacies, then that just means you think of your arguments as worthless and irrelevant. That's not a good thing. You're confusing “status quo” with “things you want to see changed for no adequately explained reason”. The reason I'm against those is because of the whole lack of adequate reasons part, not because of the change part.

KIller Wabbit wrote:
You sure are quick to trivialize... running for CSM?

He put significant investment and effort into something that CCP is now going to give away for free to people who will compete with him directly.
He put significant investment and effort into something that he gained lots of benefit from. It is a sunk cost due to a horrible flaw. He can benefit from this improvement just as much as everyone else.

Why should he be compensated for having had a huge advantage all this time? It doesn't really make much sense.