EVE Information Portal

Currently it is possible to put two CSAAs on the same tower. It is generally thought to be a completely idiotic idea and every titan builder who is not an incorrigible moron will have one CSAA per tower.

The same "exactly how many eggs do you want to stuff in that basket" issue will probably be the same: wouldn't you rather have ten pos with one titan each than one pos with ten titans?

Titan building goes sequentially because of components: you use all your component bpos at once to build the components for a titan as fast as possible, then install that titan, then move on to the next. There's no extra effort to do it at a second pos instead of reusing your original pos. Your component build speed determines how many towers you need (divide titan hull time build by component build time, add one: you need that many towers to hit your maximum rate of production with no doubling-up of titans in any pos).

One of the main bonuses of a POS in Sov null is the fuel savings (25% IIRC). Some labs/arrays also had bonuses over stations, IIRC, but it has been awhile since I did invention and manufacturing.

Back when I did HS invention (and why do it in null when you have more security risks plus the hassle of logistics) I used a POS for copying, inventing, and improving BPOs. Manufacturing was all done in station and there was no issue at all finding vacant slots. Copying, invention and improving BPOs (e.g. ME research) was not feasible due to congestion. That is I'd have to wait forever to try and get that stuff done in station...and I was far more than 1-2 jumps from Jita.

Going forward, it might be the case that one wont even need a POS. Sure you might have what is essentially a 14% tax on your ME, PE, and copying jobs, but keep in mind that running a small POS in empire is going to run you 108 million isk+ every 30 days. Even if you do face the 14% "tax" if it is less than 108 million you are coming out ahead (and that is assuming a small tower suited your needs, if you were running a large tower then the amount of isk you spent was substantially higher). And lets be clear hear, nobody knows how fast these things will scale. Will all ME slots basically become infinite but with the 14% "tax"? Maybe, or the underlying mechanic could result in the tax being, on average, 5%.

And as I noted there are additional potential cost reductions here. Granted it wont show up in a freaking ledger (damn accountants) but not having to log in an fuel your tower is a good thing. Not having to buy fuel and scrounge for charters another good thing (and the latter represents a reduction in risk too as you wont be out there booming around in a freighter with fuel blocks or PI stuff in your cargo hold and risk getting ganked). Heck, if it turns out you can move everything to a station you would even substantially reduce the risk of war decs (if you no longer have a tower and turtle up for the dec, then there is nothing for them to shoot at) which is another benefit.

There is so much hand wringing here by the HS people it really is hard not to take an attitude of contempt towards them....

For example most of them have an almost irrational fear of null. Not living there, but that they somehow run the entire show and that this change will drive all S&I to null. But as I noted above what these changes may do is shift S&I from POS's into stations. If the tax that S&I people face is less than the cost of running a POS or two then you move into station, take down the POS (recovering that fixed investment, BTW) and chug along on your merry way.

Where they face the biggest threat, IMO, is the increased competition...in HS! With the removal so slot limitations AND the removal of POS standings requirements it opens up S&I to ALOT more players....in HS. Now the only barrier to entry are skills which is not much of a barrier.

Granted increased S&I in null will increase competition for HS S&I guys, but null has that annoying problem of crappy markets and logistics. I might make a pile of T2 tracking enhancers...but now what? Unless my alliance is going to buy them in bulk from me or there is huge demand where I live (bahahahahahahaha) chances are I'll want to move them to a trade hub. Get out the JF, extra expense of fuel, extra time moving crap around, etc. And as noted, there might be 1-2 outposts within 4-5 jumps with slots, so I could be hitting that 14% alot sooner than in HS. And yeah, while null is often pretty darn boring and safe, that one time it isn't and you are in a 6.5 billion JF..... And lets ignore the office issue as well. Outposts and stations have a limited number of offices, if one is not free then I don't have the benefit of common hangars to share stuff between alts/partners in my S&I work.

Nope, in HS there will be a huge sucking sound as all industry suddenly shifts forever to null. GMAFB

it'll certainly be interesting to see how this plays out, my guess is there will be what I previously jokingly called the 'Laziness Event Horizon' about 4-5 jumps out from the trade hubs where the extra cost will balance against the intrinsic laziness in people who don't want to travel further. I toyed with calling it the 'Brown ring of Arsedness' but the thought of that being quite a mouthful put me off my lunch.

The sucking sound will be the souls leaving the bodies of those who choose to move to null of course ...

I definitely look forward to the changes as it gives me a whole order of magnitude more stuff to learn. Whether I think they are right or wrong (from my perspective of course) or I agree with the push to move people to null is entirely separate to that.

CCP is creating an ISK sink, plain and simple. ISK comes in, ISK has to go out. It doesn't really go out when a mission runner buys ammo or mods, because that ISK (other than small market fees and tiny slot fees) just goes to another player.

So now, some % of that ISK will actually leave the game, in the form of higher slot fees.

People are not going to manufacture at a loss. Initally, prices will go up to match higher costs.

The mission runners will see profitability go down (higher ammo costs, lower melt loot prices). Some will park their missioning ships and go mining instead (as it will be more profitable than missioning). Then price of minerals will fall until mining again matches profitability of missioning. Once equalibrium is reached.


It is, in fact, because everyone is getting screwed, that no one is really getting screwed. The market will adjust and go on.

demand essentially dictates the price of items produced at a constant supply or is a byproduct of something else (e.g. rat drops, nobody rats more if suddenly meta 2 mods double in price, and moon goo which is basically produced at a constant rate unless its so worthless nobody bothers to mine the full supply)

demand heavily impacts items that are produced in a specific proportion (moon goo again, minerals mined from cyclable 0.0 mining anoms, salvage) due to the 'bottlenecking effect' : when the demand for those items is in a proportion noticably different from the proportion they are produced in, the most in-demand items capture all of the value while the less demanded items become worthless

when it comes to manufacturing however demand is essentially irrelevant most of the time: demand will affect supply and that plays out when demand suddenly changes (forcing lower supply or higher supply and creating dramatic margin shifts until it moves) but in the absence of sudden demand shifts the market will have settled to a small profit and the price is dictated by cost

change cost, change price in a nearly 1:1 ratio permanently

change demand, you change price for a short time but it will still tend to settle back at cost+% and as soon as that short time is over demand is essentially irrelevant

Correct. Manufacturing is the middle man that passes the supply/demand pricing mechanism from end user to input supplier. Supply/demand effect sale price of the finished good, and that same supply/demand pushed the price right through manufacturing, to the manufacturing input.

Wrong.

No demand. No price.

No supply. No price.

Heck no demand or no supply, then no market and no price.

Thus, to say demand is irrelevant is just a erudite as saying supply is irrelevant.

After going back to the EDITED first post an aspect that is proposed is remote running of jobs from containers. To that I say Kudos, brilliant, and about time. However not likely to change BP security issues especially if in a POS anybody who can remove the container in it's entirety can throw it in a personal hangar wait till an audit log reaches the point where you can repackage the container and bang repack it and and have it's contents.

The continued indication to have a tax levied on any POS no matter where is BS there is already associated cost operating a POS as it is, seriously is there gonna be a little customs agent audits maybe Scottie the Docking Clone has a cousin named Richard the Customs Agent Clone?

Removing standing restrictions in high-sec... it makes no sense there is no risk to losing a POS if every war-dec a corp packs up shop without worrying... "wait with those new guys we added we won't be able to reset it..."

Back to the BP must be in POS to use thing, it would stifle everything except POS structure fabrication since those HAVE to be done at a station or outpost. Transport of BP to and from trade hubs is bad enough, more than once I've had a ship ganked on undock at Jita with a several hundred mill un-researched BPO in the hold.

Dev's keep rethinking it, there some Good, a lot of bad, and way to much Ugly at the time of this post

Based on the discussion and time to reflect on the issues about POS and blueprint locking, I see two consequences - I don't know if they are intended or unintended.

1) Many industrialists with significant libraries of BPOs will move to single player corporations. Since they can not lock the blueprints down, and they can't use them from station on a POS, they will have no choice but to move out of multi-player corporations into single player (multi-toon) in most cases corporations to protect their library of high value prints. This may lead to an increase in solo player activity or it may lead to a number of alliances being created between solo-player corporations. Only time will tell. I suspect that industry as an activity will increasingly be done as solo play with little player to player interaction.

2) The number of corporate offices in stations will decline. Since the office can't be used to hold blueprints in safety anymore, many people will decide that it is far better to forgo the cost of the office. This becomes increasingly true if many of the corporations that are industry focused become single player corporations. The need for an office disappears.

Based on prior CCP posts on their goal of most social play, I have to wonder if this is in the spirit of those goals, or not.

It will be interesting anyway to see how this plays out over the next year. I for one am evaluating whether I stay in a multi-player corporation or not. I am also evaluating the future of the miner/industrialist role in Eve. It will be interesting to see about this time next year what the percentage of full time mining/industry players is.

There is a category of joke that illustrates the idea that something can be true, and useless.

In EVE, everything that can be manufactured is a commodity. The only exceptions, broadly, would be items manufactured from loyalty point stores, because loyalty points are odd (e.g., why the Nestor is so incredibly expensive despite low demand: because its price is set by the LP->ISK conversion rate achieved by Sisters Core Scanner Probes).

In a commodity market, there is no innovation in the product, only in the ways in which the product can be made in greater quantity and at lesser expense per unit. Demand is fairly reliable. Margins are low enough that although demand is technically significant, it pales in significance to cost. Your statement becomes more true when there is a disruption (a major new fleet meta, or a rebalance), but it quickly settles back down to business as usual, because the most significant variable by an order of magnitude is input cost. That is how you know you are dealing with commodities.

I could argue that demand as constrained by buyer logistics is the only significant form: how many people here have swallowed a 50% markup on some kind of 1MN Afterburner rather than go 5 jumps out for a 2% markup, only because the real cost is so low that the markup amounts to mere thousands of ISK? Contrary to an alarming number of people in this thread, the hauling you do is not free (I am not considering carriers or jump freighters, clearly). How much is your time worth? That opportunity cost will set the premium you are willing to pay relative to the number of jumps you would have to make to avoid paying the premium.