These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#861 - 2014-04-16 13:10:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Until there is a possibility to obtain T2 BPOs like there was before, the unfair advantage will always be there. You can play with words and semantics, but this fact remains.

The fact is that it's not unfair. It is available to anyone who wants to (stupidly) throw their money at such a low-ROI investment.

Moreover, any advantage BPOs offer can be countered by the many advantages invention offer. Like Akita T said, it offers an advantage, but that does not mean that the advantage is insurmountable or unfair or in any way out of whack with what other advantages you can buy yourself. The fact is that among the many advantages available to industrialists, it's a pretty bad one to have on the scale of things.


The only thing I'd add here is 'currently low-ROI'

Depending the actual number changes, this may change. Not worth getting worked up about yet, however

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#862 - 2014-04-16 13:11:02 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Gynax Gallenor wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Extra materials being removed could be a concern, if extra materials are just pushed into basic materials, and thus affected by ME, if there are no other changes. ME -4 doubles material requirements. So a blueprint requiring a ship (or, say, a 425mm Railgun I), would then require 2, unless a decryptor is used to adjust this. This would massively impact the viability of invention, compared to BPOs.

I'd hope this hasn't gone unnoticed.


I think you got your arithmetic slightly wrong there Steve.

ME -4 gives 50% waste, not 100%, so it doesn't double the materials required.

To use your specific requirement, you would then need 1.5 of the T1 item, which gets rounded to 1 doesn't it? (I have it in my head that decimals are always rounded down, but I could be wrong about that)

Best of luck with the CSM vote BTW.



bah. yes. 50%. But iirc, that rounds up. (I'm seeing other things rounding it up. It's possible this is an artefact of my calculator. I'll have to double check it in game. Expanded CargoHold II's are showing 2 Nocx in their base materials at ME -4)


Extra materials and ME could be very significant with T2.

I'm pretty sure that it is rounded up at 0.5. Unless CCP are using funny maths. At least that's what I have been using in all my spreadsheets and it hasn't failed me yet.
Marcus Iunius Brutus
Hoborg Labs
#863 - 2014-04-16 13:11:05 UTC
One great advantage that T2 BPO have is that producing with them is much, much less click-intensive than invention. I think it adds to their value.
With invention/manufacturing clickfest reduced plus batch job submission in summer expansion, T2 BPOs might lose some of their value.
Just a wild guess of course...
Antihrist Pripravnik
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#864 - 2014-04-16 13:12:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Tippia wrote:
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Until there is a possibility to obtain T2 BPOs like there was before, the unfair advantage will always be there. You can play with words and semantics, but this fact remains.

The fact is that it's not unfair. It is available to anyone who wants to (stupidly) throw their money at such a low-ROI investment.

Moreover, any advantage BPOs offer can be countered by the many advantages invention offer. Like Akita T said, it offers an advantage, but that does not mean that the advantage is insurmountable or unfair or in any way out of whack with what other advantages you can buy yourself. The fact is that among the many advantages available to industrialists, it's a pretty bad one to have on the scale of things.


Have a look at the post above your. I have only covered one aspect of making inventions unprofitable with summer changes. There are other things mentioned in this dev blog that will further affect the viability of invention.

And all those issues and game breaking changes for many regular industrial characters are happening because of a legacy support of a discontinued part of the gameplay that haven't been available to players for more than five years. That's truly an "excellent" way of balancing the game.

Basically, you are damaging the currently active game mechanic in order to support a legacy one that does not exist any more.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#865 - 2014-04-16 13:12:22 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:

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.


Sadly you are quite right and these players will be the first to flock over SC once it's out.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Tarikla
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#866 - 2014-04-16 13:14:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarikla
Tarikla wrote:
I have ONE major grip about all this :

Quote:

Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course).


This change is killing the whole point of faction standings. The system was already not really great, for standings that takes weeks or even months of farming missions, all you had was the privilege of anchoring POS in High-Sec, and the 1 time BPC with very high standings.

There is an whole economy revolving around standing boosts and selling of corps with high standings. And you are throwing that out of the window completly. It wasn't hard to find someone with high standings to get you a corp or a boost, with a fee of course.

But now, you can anchor POS all the way up to 1.0 with no effort and an almost blank alt in a corp. What's the point of faction standings then ? Only some BPC, and the usual "if you go below -5 navy chase you" & "can't go higher than l1 mish if below -2" ? Both those things are easily avoided with the Diplomacy skill if you want. So basically, doing storyline missions, who requires an lenghty amount of time to get, only means that you gonna get a small goodie at the end. by the time you reach a BPC, you will certainly got *100 or even more it's value in regular missions.

I don't see any reasons now to do Storyline missions. Factions Standings are utterly useless right now, just for the sake of banalizing POS Usage. The already poor PVE side of Eve got dumbed down a little more.


If possible, i would like a stance from CCP for this. Is it ok with you to kill this part of the game ? I will accept the decision, i'm just bringing it to the table. I thought a better system would be to expand on the standing system for POS in 0.8 and 0.9 systems, not scrap it entierly.
Miktek
Phoenix Connection
Lack of Judgement.
#867 - 2014-04-16 13:15:24 UTC
At the moment I use my own BPOs that I copy in my corps POS, I drag the BPOs to a corp hanger in a station, set the copy jobs and collect from the POS. will this still be a valid method of copying or will I now have to physically take the BPOs to the POS in order to start the copy jobs?
Antihrist Pripravnik
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#868 - 2014-04-16 13:16:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Miktek wrote:
At the moment I use my own BPOs that I copy in my corps POS, I drag the BPOs to a corp hanger in a station, set the copy jobs and collect from the POS. will this still be a valid method of copying or will I now have to physically take the BPOs to the POS in order to start the copy jobs?

You will have to take the BPO to the POS in order to copy it.

Quote from devblog:
Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials.
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#869 - 2014-04-16 13:20:24 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Querns wrote:
I thought of a potential gotcha: Will POS assembly modules also have their slots removed? Will you be able to, e.g., run an infinite number of ammo jobs from a single ammo assembly array?


Yes, slots are being removed on everything, however, cost scaling will still be applicable to Starbases as well. Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details.

Hrmmm Time for a new Speculation Small POS with one of each Lab type on it, overloaded, for a small corp might be more cost effective due to fuel costs than a Large POS with lots of Labs on it with the same number of Jobs being pumped through it?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#870 - 2014-04-16 13:22:32 UTC
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Have a look at the post above your. I have only covered one aspect of making inventions unprofitable with summer changes.
…except, of course, that what you have covered doesn't really affect invention at all. The only thing that might hit invention is the extra materials change, and we haven't seen the actual numbers for that yet.

Quote:
Basically, you are damaging the currently active game mechanic in order to support a legacy one that does not exist any more.
It still exists, though, and in many forms so of course they should support it. If they should happen to fix other mechanics at the same time, then it's a definite bonus.

Miktek wrote:
At the moment I use my own BPOs that I copy in my corps POS, I drag the BPOs to a corp hanger in a station, set the copy jobs and collect from the POS. will this still be a valid method of copying or will I now have to physically take the BPOs to the POS in order to start the copy jobs?
If the station you're in does not have copy services, you'll have to move the BPO. So a suggestion would be to make sure your BPOs are in a station with copying services. Blink
Antihrist Pripravnik
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#871 - 2014-04-16 13:25:38 UTC
Tippia wrote:


Quote:
Basically, you are damaging the currently active game mechanic in order to support a legacy one that does not exist any more.
It still exists, though, and in many forms so of course they should support it. If they should happen to fix other mechanics at the same time, then it's a definite bonus.


The ability to obtain a T2 BPO in a lottery certainly does not exist any more and I know you know that as well.
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#872 - 2014-04-16 13:28:35 UTC
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Tippia wrote:


Quote:
Basically, you are damaging the currently active game mechanic in order to support a legacy one that does not exist any more.
It still exists, though, and in many forms so of course they should support it. If they should happen to fix other mechanics at the same time, then it's a definite bonus.
The ability to obtain a T2 BPO in a lottery certainly does not exist any more and I know you know that as well.

I can start a lottery for one of my T2 BPOs if that would make you feel better.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#873 - 2014-04-16 13:30:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
The ability to obtain a T2 BPO in a lottery certainly does not exist any more and I know you know that as well.

Ok, but if that's what you're referring to, they're also not damaging anything to support it for the simple reason that they're not supporting it any more — it's no longer there; there is nothing to support.
Destiven Mare
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#874 - 2014-04-16 13:30:36 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:

Need more blogs. Any real discussion on this isn't possible until we have the whole picture.



^^ THIS.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#875 - 2014-04-16 13:31:57 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:

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.


Sadly you are quite right and these players will be the first to flock over SC once it's out.


And yet, the CSM and their lackey blithely move along making changes that hurt that demographic the most, acting with arrogance, ignorance, or both. CCP must want that type of player gone from their game, because their actions constantly demonstrate that. For their sake, they better pray that they have not underestimated the size of that demographic.

I ran across a miner in low sec a few days ago (and of course, I did not shoot him. He needed help with some rats and I went on my way), a Jan 2014 char in what appeared to be a new mining / indy corp.
He did not know what a POS was.
Yesterday, I sent him a link to the Eve UNI Wiki on a POS. I told him that there were definite benefits and of course drawbacks with setting up a POS.

That was hours before I read the dev blog.

I will be emailing him today strongly suggesting that his group should stay as far from a POS as they can, because most of the benefits have been wiped out, such as a controllable cost of simply fuel costs on a POS. There is now some idiotic variable cost for using your own mfg slots. In fact, anyone getting into industry is in for some real pain.

I imagine this fellow will be the precise target market of SC.
Antihrist Pripravnik
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#876 - 2014-04-16 13:32:33 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Tippia wrote:


Quote:
Basically, you are damaging the currently active game mechanic in order to support a legacy one that does not exist any more.
It still exists, though, and in many forms so of course they should support it. If they should happen to fix other mechanics at the same time, then it's a definite bonus.
The ability to obtain a T2 BPO in a lottery certainly does not exist any more and I know you know that as well.

I can start a lottery for one of my T2 BPOs if that would make you feel better.


Likewise, I know that you know as well what kind of lottery I was talking about. Blink
Aeonidis
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#877 - 2014-04-16 13:33:03 UTC
now the thread has devolved into a pure troll fest, as all meaningful conversation about the current topic at hand seems to have been exhausted I bid you farewell.
Antihrist Pripravnik
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#878 - 2014-04-16 13:34:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
The ability to obtain a T2 BPO in a lottery certainly does not exist any more and I know you know that as well.

Ok, but if that's what you're referring to, they're also not damaging anything to support it for the simple reason that they're not supporting it any more — it's no longer there; there is nothing to support.

The mechanics is not there... the items that were produced by the mechanics that is not there any more are still there. So, yes... they are supporting a byproduct from a discontinued game mechanics.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#879 - 2014-04-16 13:36:56 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
And yet, the CSM and their lackey blithely move along making changes that hurt that demographic the most, acting with arrogance, ignorance, or both.
How are these changing in any way hurting highsec players the most?

Quote:
CCP must want that type of player gone from their game, because their actions constantly demonstrate that.
Yes, by constantly making their lives easier and safer, they demonstrate that they want them gone… wait what?

Quote:
I will be emailing him today strongly suggesting that his group should stay as far from a POS as they can, because most of the benefits have been wiped out, such as a controllable cost of simply fuel costs on a POS. There is now some idiotic variable cost for using your own mfg slots.
…which can be controlled, so that along with all the other benefits remain. Hell, it even looks like they're gaining some new ones with these changes. So I can only surmise that you're making that suggestion to cut out the competition.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#880 - 2014-04-16 13:38:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
The mechanics is not there... the items that were produced by the mechanics that is not there any more are still there. So, yes... they are supporting a byproduct from a discontinued game mechanics.

…and they items work the same as any other blueprint, so there is nothing outdated that is given special support at the cost of something else.

I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways here: either they mechanics are supported and still around, or discontinued and thereby no longer supported. There is no middle ground; there is no mix; there is only one or the other.