These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#761 - 2014-04-16 09:12:56 UTC
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
That's a plan?Ugh
Having a handful of players that have items from a discontinued mechanics dating back more than 5 years ago controll the market of T2 BPCs is an actual plan? Wow.

Mass printing of T2 BPCs will not "make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing", but make it harder if not impossible for new players to get into T2 invention if they expect to have any profit from it. In fact, new players are not the only ones affected by this but all players that do not have T2 BPOs.
Again, for any item where invention is currently worth-while, BPOs are insignificant and don't control anything. New players getting into T2 manufacturing will have it just as easy to make a profit as people who are currently doing it — viz. very easy. They will also be helped by the improved mechanics and (hopefully) an improved UI to make their lives even easier.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#762 - 2014-04-16 09:14:09 UTC
Dormio wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
[quote=Slappy Andven][quote=CCP Ytterbium][quote=Xaniff]
We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station.
That would mean that office price on lab stations will skyrocket. One of the main reasons for POS in hisec is availability of labs for copy. Removing slots you will remove that reason, will be the efficency enough reason to keep the POS ?

Over the short haul, yes. Over the long haul? Probably not.

It will depend on how safe high-sec POSes continue to be. But since the CCP devs seem hell-bent driven to force high-sec players into PVP situations, this will probably drive most of them to use the NPC stations, even with lower efficiency, when POSes come under frequent attack by PVP corps/alliances.

CCP has repeatedly tried, and failed, to entice high-sec players to take more risks and engage in PVP. But, the highest priority of high-sec players has always been "safety" - this is why they stay in high-sec. No reason to expect this player behavior to change.

I've been watching a similar safety-vs-efficiency trade-off with high-sec mining. Retrievers/Mackinaws and Covetors/Hulks are still the most commonly used mining ships, but Procurer/Skiff usage has definitely been on a steady rise, as ganking continues to spread.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#763 - 2014-04-16 09:22:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Dormio wrote:
CCP Fozzie/Slappy Andven/Ytterbium/Xaniff wrote:

We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station.

That would mean that office price on lab stations will skyrocket. One of the main reasons for POS in hisec is availability of labs for copy. Removing slots you will remove that reason, will be the efficency enough reason to keep the POS ?


This is actually a reason not to rent a corp office. If I cannot use it to store and access my BPs from there for research/invention/manufacturing in the POS, I don't need a corp office to begin with in a 1-man corp. That is a good change, I have to admit, because it potentially saves me millions in ISK. Big smile

--

Sizeof Void wrote:
[quote=Dormio]
I've been watching a similar safety-vs-efficiency trade-off with high-sec mining. Retrievers/Mackinaws and Covetors/Hulks are still the most commonly used mining ships, but Procurer/Skiff usage has definitely been on a steady rise, as ganking continues to spread.


And I am pretty certain that Mackinaws will lose their second place in popularity to the Skiff once the massive buff to the Skiff is out. I will certainly scrap my Mack and switch over to a Skiff, it's a bit more warping to station and back to the belt, but the added safety combined with no yield loss is worth it.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Rek Seven
The Persuaders
#764 - 2014-04-16 09:25:07 UTC
Will we be able to select several single run bpc's to run multiple invention/manufacturing jobs at once?
Aeonidis
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#765 - 2014-04-16 09:27:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
That's a plan?Ugh
Having a handful of players that have items from a discontinued mechanics dating back more than 5 years ago controll the market of T2 BPCs is an actual plan? Wow.

Mass printing of T2 BPCs will not "make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing", but make it harder if not impossible for new players to get into T2 invention if they expect to have any profit from it. In fact, new players are not the only ones affected by this but all players that do not have T2 BPOs.
Again, for any item where invention is currently worth-while, BPOs are insignificant and don't control anything. New players getting into T2 manufacturing will have it just as easy to make a profit as people who are currently doing it — viz. very easy. They will also be helped by the improved mechanics and (hopefully) an improved UI to make their lives even easier.



He said nothing about T2 manufacturing he said new T2 Inventors and to point out the real fault in your statement all T2 Invention should be worthwhile to the new inventor and even more worthwhile to the high skilled inventor. That is what would fall in line with CCPs new approach of having players skill base being highly specialized.
Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
#766 - 2014-04-16 09:29:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Tippia wrote:
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
That's a plan?Ugh
Having a handful of players that have items from a discontinued mechanics dating back more than 5 years ago controll the market of T2 BPCs is an actual plan? Wow.

Mass printing of T2 BPCs will not "make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing", but make it harder if not impossible for new players to get into T2 invention if they expect to have any profit from it. In fact, new players are not the only ones affected by this but all players that do not have T2 BPOs.
Again, for any item where invention is currently worth-while, BPOs are insignificant and don't control anything.


Big smile You can tell that to a player who didn't have contacts with a person who (practically) monopolized Nighthawk and Invu field production for years (among many other things). The fact is I know those who own pretty impressive collections of T2 BPOs and I know how they operate. If I'm certain of one thing it's that you, as a simple player that does not own a T2 BPO, are definitively unable to control the prices or compete with those players if they choose to do so - and they have been in the past on several occasions.

Yes, it would make easier for a MANUFACTURER to get into T2 production, but at a cost of driving INVENTORS out of the business and out of the game.

T2 BPOs can not be obtained any more - the way to obtain them was removed from the game many years ago. The game now functions on a different mechanics - invention. And all industrial players apart from a lucky (or wealthy) few are playing the game by these currently active rules and mechanics. The investment is several months of gameplay, skill training, planning, organisational efforts, forming corporations and ultimately paying for a subscription in order to master a field like Invention that relies on game mechanics that have been active for several years just to be kicked out of the market by a handful of players that are still milking the mechanics that was discontinued all those years in the past and are not part of the current mechanics whatsoever. That is certainly not a wise business decision.
Rek Seven
The Persuaders
#767 - 2014-04-16 09:44:11 UTC
CCP should reintroduce T2 BPO but instead of a lottery, high skilled inventors should be able to invest a lot of isk to make one.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#768 - 2014-04-16 09:47:04 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Zappity
Kurved Trading
#769 - 2014-04-16 09:47:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Why can't offline = abandoned?
Because there's little to no correlation between the two.

Abandonment isn't just a state — it's an intent, or perhaps more accurately a lack thereof. An offline POS is about as abandoned as a ship in your hangar, and for much the same reasons: just because it is current in a state of non-use does not mean that it is not intended to be used, and there are plenty of reason for not having it in use it every second of every day.

Unless you devise a way to measure that intent (something that wardecs already do), you have no way of determining whether the POS you're eyeing is abandoned or not.

Quote:
Why should you be able to lower defensive shields without consequence?
You're not. If you do, you become an instant target for wardecs (which, by the way, creates consequences for more than just your POS).

I simply do not agree with your opinions on this topic. The fundamental difference between an offline POS and an inactive ship is that the ship is in a station. We are repeatedly told that when you undock you consent to PvP and by this definition those ships are untouchable.

A POS is in space, and if you don't take care of it then it should be at great risk. Taking care of it should include keeping it fueled. Your comment about an offline POS instantly becoming a target for wardecs is patently false. I have had several POS offline for quite a while in highsec without any problem. Were they hackable, or have lower EHP, I doubt they would still be there.

It really boils down to a simple principle: if you're not willing to fight for what you have in EVE you don't deserve it, and you should lose it.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Zappity
Kurved Trading
#770 - 2014-04-16 09:49:18 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
CCP should reintroduce T2 BPO but instead of a lottery, high skilled inventors should be able to invest a lot of isk to make one.

Plus one year and you would have an extremely high barrier to entry for new players. And vastly diminished profit margins.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#771 - 2014-04-16 09:52:28 UTC
Aeonidis wrote:
He said nothing about T2 manufacturing he said new T2 Inventors
…except that the quoted post was talking about new manufacturers, not just inventors. As it happens, new players will still have an easy time no matter which route they take.

Quote:
and to point out the real fault in your statement all T2 Invention should be worthwhile
…which doesn't particularly point out any fault with my statement.

Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
You can tell that to a player who didn't have contacts with a person who (practically) monopolized Nighthawk and Invu field production for years (among many other things). The fact is I know those who own pretty impressive collections of T2 BPOs and I know how they operate.
And the way they operate is that for any item worth inventing, they have no control over the market. They have no ability to drive anyone out of the market for those items — old or new — because they lack the production capacity to do so. Nighthawks is one of those low-volume items that are hardly even worth it with a BPO; invulns is one of those high-volume items where inventors have absolutely no problems making a profit.

Quote:
T2 BPOs can not be obtained any more
Sure they can. Just buy one. It's a pretty lousy business decision, though, since they're not all that good for large-scale production.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#772 - 2014-04-16 09:54:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Zappity wrote:
I simply do not agree with your opinions on this topic. The fundamental difference between an offline POS and an inactive ship is that the ship is in a station. We are repeatedly told that when you undock you consent to PvP and by this definition those ships are untouchable.
The point has nothing to do with being touchable or not — it has to do with intent. Again, just because you're not using it does not mean it's “abandoned”. It is abandoned if you have no intention of using it, which cannot be demonstrated just by a its current state of (non)usage.

Quote:
A POS is in space, and if you don't take care of it then it should be at great risk.
It already is. If you're not willing to fight for your POS, you will lose it. That's the whole point of wardecs, after all. That's also why actual willingness to defend the POS, or lack thereof, is a valid measure of abandonment, whereas just sitting offline is not. One is a state with no meaning; the other is a show of intent.

Conversely, if you want that POS spot, you have to be willing to fight for it. The mechanics for doing so are already in place and no-one has been able to articulate any reason why these mechanics need to be displaced that doesn't boil down to sheer laziness and impatience, neither of which are good reasons for a change (quite the opposite). Or, to reverse your question, why should you be able to get rid of a POS without a wardec?
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#773 - 2014-04-16 09:57:40 UTC
Hmmmconspiracy theory moment...many people are saying they will simply not use POS anymore...less people using them makes it easier to replace the entire POS mechanics. Could this be a means to an end?
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#774 - 2014-04-16 10:04:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
A POS is in space, and if you don't take care of it then it should be at great risk.
It already is. If you're not willing to fight for your POS, you will lose it. That's the whole point of wardecs, after all. That's also why actual willingness to defend the POS, or lack thereof, is a valid measure of abandonment, whereas just sitting offline is not. One is a state with no meaning; the other is a show of intent.


And blocking people's access to moons is no intent?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Zappity
Kurved Trading
#775 - 2014-04-16 10:05:11 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
A POS is in space, and if you don't take care of it then it should be at great risk.
It already is. If you're not willing to fight for your POS, you will lose it. That's the whole point of wardecs, after all. That's also why actual willingness to defend the POS, or lack thereof, is a valid measure of abandonment, whereas just sitting offline is not. One is a state with no meaning; the other is a show of intent.

Not true. You have already told us that putting it offline is a valid strategy when the POS is not required. It is a valid strategy because it is SAFE to do so in highsec. You are not defending it all all but rather relying on the mind numbing tedium of a highsec POS takedown to keep you safe.

Can you eject from a ship and leave it floating safely in space? Whether you intend to return for it is irrelevant - it will still be just as stolen when you return.

Make it risky to let a POS run out of fuel. Make it risky when a defensive shield is lowered. If you let your POS run out of fuel I want to be able to pinch it! You have essentially left it unlocked and undefended, regardless of your intent.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
#776 - 2014-04-16 10:19:01 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
You can tell that to a player who didn't have contacts with a person who (practically) monopolized Nighthawk and Invu field production for years (among many other things). The fact is I know those who own pretty impressive collections of T2 BPOs and I know how they operate.
And the way they operate is that for any item worth inventing, they have no control over the market. They have no ability to drive anyone out of the market for those items — old or new — because they lack the production capacity to do so. Nighthawks is one of those low-volume items that are hardly even worth it with a BPO; invulns is one of those high-volume items where inventors have absolutely no problems making a profit.

Quote:
T2 BPOs can not be obtained any more
Sure they can. Just buy one. It's a pretty lousy business decision, though, since they're not all that good for large-scale production.


Heh... the production capacity is not an issue. It haven't been in the past either. But I can see where your assumption comes from. The base of your logic is that a player has a T2 BPO and that the volume is not enough to fill or control the market. But, I'm talking about a single player here with 20+ accounts and dozens of T2 BPOs of the same type. Put several players like that in an entity (like a corporation or alliance) and you'll get market control (yes, those are actual persons and not some hypothetical situation... and no, I'm not naming them). I was there while it was happening and I can assure you that they HAD control over the market in the past and they will have it again if the opportunity like what is going to happen in the summer expansion arrives.

And yeah... good luck obtaining enough T2 BPOs by buying them to even think of competing on the market. And even if you had enough ISK to do that, do you really think that you'd be simply able to go to the Buy Orders section of the forum and just ask for it and be flooded with offers? Big smile Market control is not something an individual is willing to sell - for any amount of ISK. Especially if it's centered around a game mechanics that have been removed for years.

Additionally, your argument is still missing the fact that the majority of industrial players play by one rules for years and the handful of players are milking the game mechanics that was discontinued a long time ago).
Josef Djugashvilis
#777 - 2014-04-16 10:23:37 UTC
I have never manufactured a single item in Eve Online apart from one something or other in the tutorial back in 2007.

However, I have been thinking about having a stab at manufacturing, so, will the wiki be updated so that I will be able to get to grips with the new shiny manufacturing system?

This is not a signature.

Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#778 - 2014-04-16 10:27:42 UTC
Aeonidis wrote:
all T2 Invention should be worthwhile to the new inventor and even more worthwhile to the high skilled inventor.

So you want it to be a press button recieve bacon situation?

That no matter how over-produced a specific T2 item is, it should always be profitable to produce for the new player and even more profitable to produce for the experienced player?

How is that ever going to work in a free market sandbox?

Doesn't that go totally against everything EVE is about?

What you need is for CCP to keep up with the continuous rebalancing effort, so that more and more T2 products become usefull and all T2 prices are set by the inventors.
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#779 - 2014-04-16 10:27:46 UTC
The changes look nice and the pricing of slots could be something awesome, depending on how fast it's going to ramp up.

The one thing I don't like is the Industry mockup;

The material listing is useless, the Icons don't tell you anything unless you can recognize all material and component icons and/or you can browse the market clicking on big icons (that is bad, plz don't do that).

Baddest poster ever

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#780 - 2014-04-16 10:30:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Rivr Luzade wrote:
And blocking people's access to moons is no intent?
It can be. Thus: not abandoned.
The point is that you can't tell simply from the state of them sitting in space. As luck would have it, we already have a mechanic to determine such intent and there's no real reason to bypass or obsolete those mechanics.

Zappity wrote:
Not true. You have already told us that putting it offline is a valid strategy when the POS is not required. It is a valid strategy because it is SAFE to do so in highsec.
…well, apart from the whole “becomes a target for immediate destruction” bit, sure.

Quote:
If you let your POS run out of fuel I want to be able to pinch it!
You already can. Just wardec and go to town.

Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Heh... the production capacity is not an issue. It haven't been in the past either. But I can see where your assumption comes from. The base of your logic is that a player has a T2 BPO and that the volume is not enough to fill or control the market. But, I'm talking about a single player here with 20+ accounts and dozens of T2 BPOs of the same type.
…and their production capacity is not nearly enough to push out inventors from the market. They're not assumptions — they're a matter of recorded fact. Again, if it's worth inventing, inventors control the market and there is nothing the BPO holders can do about it any more. Those days are long gone. The summer expansion does not change this in any way.

Quote:
Additionally, your argument is still missing the fact that the majority of industrial players play by one rules for years and the handful of players are milking the game mechanics that was discontinued a long time ago).
If by “milking” you mean “make far less ISK than if they could produce at high volume” then yes. It's not a particularly intuitive interpretation of the word, though. No, I'm not missing it. I'm saying that it is pretty much irrelevant on the scale of things — most BPO holders these days still haven't paid off their initial investment, and likely never will unless they can find a seller to take on the debt.