EVE Information Portal

I do not think this is as easy as you think. Too easily manipulated by on-lining just to install, then off-line and on-line other types of arrays. This would force them to then track some sort of mod-online-minutes. I think this is the "performance hit" mentioned in the blog.

The other problem I can see with the "obvious solution" is that the number of arrays only seems to matter at the point you are installing the job. For the system-level bonus, this isn't much of a problem, as NPC stations and Outposts don't tend to change very often. However, at the starbase level, the arrangement of online facilities can change very rapidly.

i.e. what would happen if someone had one lab and one factory that they kept online all the time, into which they placed all of their jobs. They then have a load of other factory and lab arrays that are anchored but offlined. They online as many labs as possible just before they start placing lab jobs, so when they place the jobs, the cost calculation sees lots of labs online and applies a discount. They then offline all the labs, online all the factories and place manufacturing jobs. Again, at the point the job is placed, the cost calculation sees lots of factories online and applies a discount.

I can think of three ways around this:

1) Track a one-to-many relationship between the job and the arrays that were online when it was placed. Use this relationship to either offline the job if any of those arrays go offline (rather than just the one it was actually placed in), or add some mechanism whereby you must pay the additional install cost that you would have paid had the array not been online when the job was originally placed, before you can offline the array. Either way, this is a lot more information to track and means touching the online/offline rules. It also significantly limits the legitimate flexibility of the starbase.

2) Have the discount be based on an average of the number of arrays online over the last X days. This would be less prone to active gaming, but would mean that it took a while for a newly deployed starbase to ramp up to full effectiveness. It would also mean tracking the online/offline history of the arrays in a way I don't think is done at the moment.

3) Have the bonus work more like the "fraction of global job hours" term, but with "fraction of starbase job hours" across the arrays. This would force you to spread the jobs over all the arrays at the starbase to get the advantage, thereby ensuring they all had to remain online. However, this embeds the "many small arrays" model of starbases, when the consensus seems to be that we want to move away from that to something that is more unified at the starbase level. So I'm not sure this is the direction we'd want to go in.


The suggestion by Querns to scale by the number of organisation-owned arrays in the entire system sounds sensible - it's a much easier query to run, and is consistent with the approach taken of aggregating NPC facilities across the entire system. However, it doesn't get around the problem of gaming the system with rapid online/offlining of "secondary" arrays.

To be honest, the only thing that will make this work on a practical level is the new UI, with it's ability to just click on a BP and see the relevant cost at a glance.

The base cost of copying will be 0.3% for copying in the busiest system.

And that is the upper bound, a completely dead system copying will be 0.02% of the cost of the final item.

The base cost of installing a job is multiplicative.

If I multiply 2% by 15% I get 0.3%. So the costs of copying, research, and so forth is likely to be quite small.



Me too.

Let's put some numbers on this:

Heavy Neutron Blaster II, valued at 1.3m isk.

To make a Heavy Nuetron Blaster II, I need a max run Heavy Neutron Blaster 1 BPC. This is 300 runs per copy. The cost of a Heavy Neutron Blaster 1 is ~200k isk.
That means my BPC is worth 300 * .02 * 200k * (station costs) = 1.2m * (station costs)
Assuming the station has 5% of global hours, the sqrt of this is .22 ('we'll round down to .2).
Now the cost of the BPC is 1.2 * .2 = 240k isk to make.

The net result in my spread sheets is about a 120k isk price increase to the 1.3m isk build price of the Heavy Neutron Blaster Cannon II.

From the stats I've seen released by CCP, that seems not to be the case for majority of players.

Yes, there is a large chunk of the player base (like 5% of active accounts(and since every industrialist has 4 alts, like 25% of actual people)) that love shooting stuff, and it is a good thing you do as it creates demand for the rest of us that like to harvest and build.

It has to be a tough position for CCP to try to balance between the 75% that like to do boring stuff, which it is hard to create cool videos for... with the minority for whom it is all pew pew.

BUT, to be fair, it had been MANY years of new ships, ship re-balance, tiericide, exploration, null sov udates... etc. etc. since industry got any love. Can we not have ONE release for industry?

I protest these insane labour costs. Amarrian facilities should be exempt from labour costs - we use free and fresh Minmatar stock for all our menial labour needs!

Surprisingly, slavery isn't necessarily a cost effective industry model.

Hmm need to see these numbers in action. And I'm not sure about this flat 10% tax. Corporate standing and skills related to taxes should modify this number.