These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: The Price of Change

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#461 - 2014-04-30 00:57:02 UTC
mechtech wrote:
That's why people still love wormhole content years down the line.

Hmm... really? From the various player stats, I gathered that WH players are among the smallest minority groups in the game.
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#462 - 2014-04-30 00:58:19 UTC
Swidgen wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We're not going to go into details on exactly how we're dealing with manipulation issues; the reason we're pretty confident is that we already use this system to price FW LP payouts and we've not seen a repeat of the price manipulation issues that system previously had since we put the new system in place. If there was manipulation to be done, we assume it would already be happening in FW.

Famous last words. Security through obscurity is never a good idea. Reveal your anti-manipulation methods, please. The global pricing thing has always had an air of randomness about it. Make it transparent so people can compare apples to apples. By not doing so you tacitly acknowledge that what you're doing is not foolproof and you yourselves don't really trust it. It sounds like a massive exploit just waiting to happen.



No anti-manipulation system is foolproof. Find me one that is and you'll win yourself several million dollars in mathematics awards and a lucrative contract with a big security form.


And again, FW already exists with the same system.... So why are you whining now, except out of complete ignorance?
Swidgen
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#463 - 2014-04-30 01:14:19 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Without a multiplier, they are completely pointless.

Have you considered the possibility that that is the point?
Alpharius Astartes
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#464 - 2014-04-30 01:14:33 UTC
Can't wait for the Teams devblog! For now I assume workforce efficiency and cost will be in reverse proportion to each other. Using the % I expect this would translate to something like this:

1. Team Awesome +40% cost / -40% manufacturing time
2. Team Looking Good +20% cost / -20% manufacturing time
3. Team Not Too Shabby +10% cost / -10% manufacturing time
4. Team Put The Screw Here +0% cost / -0% manufacturing time
5. Team Minmatar Slaves -10% cost / +10% manufacturing time
6. Team Trained Monkeys (they got some implants though) -20% cost / +20% manufacturing time
7. Team Trained Monkeys (not enhanced, sorry about that) -40% cost / +40% manufacturing time
8. Team Do It Bloody Yourself -60% cost / +60% manufacturing time

In other words a better team will manufacture things faster (allowing a higher turn-over) but will cost more to hire. An intriguing concept: when do I make more ISK? Selling less items with lower manufacturing cost or more with higher? I expect entire essays to be written about this in time!

Also, CCP Grayscale it makes sense that better teams not only use their time more efficiently but that they also make less mistakes and have a lower wastage factor. So better teams should perhaps also reduce the mineral cost requirements? That would be a truly awesome system to tweak and work with!

Big smile
Jesterspet
Creative Research and Production Services
#465 - 2014-04-30 01:28:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Jesterspet
I'm sorry, but saying: "As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor." is a very poor excuse of an answer and just blows me away. This tells us that you really don't actually care about something that is quite central to the entire industrial complex.

Also, fees imposed on the building of an item should not be based on the market cost of the finished item, but the cost of the materials that go into that item, if you impose those costs at all. How does this equate out for super caps or capitals as a whole?
Scarlett LaBlanc
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#466 - 2014-04-30 01:28:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Scarlett LaBlanc
As with each Dev blog and forum Thread, I have read every post before throwing in my two cents.

Im still pumped over this update.

I'm a little on the fence on the ME changes to research, but I can deal with it.

What is going to happen to POS owners is a real blow to me.

From what I have read the only "reward" you get for the risk of production and science in a POS is a small bonus to job time.

I think I understand the huge mess the current POS code is in, and what that does to restrict options, however if I am understanding the current plans, there is simply no point in using a POS. They will just get packed up or left as dead sticks on a moon.

While we will all adapt, it will do far more to "dumb down Eve" than all the little things the bitter ones keep throwing around. If POS becomes unfeasiable Eve will have lost something at its core.

A POS is more than a place to research blueprints, it's the first thing, and for many people the only thing that a corp can claim as "ours" and defend it.

Unless you carve out SOV somewhere, a POS is it. If Eve loses that, it will have lost something special
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#467 - 2014-04-30 01:31:43 UTC
Alpharius Astartes wrote:

Also, CCP Grayscale it makes sense that better teams not only use their time more efficiently but that they also make less mistakes and have a lower wastage factor. So better teams should perhaps also reduce the mineral cost requirements? That would be a truly awesome system to tweak and work with!

Big smile

If teams can reduce the mineral requirements by, lets just say 5%, they will be too expensive for frigates & destroyers, since mineral requirements translates directly into cost, & you would always use them for Battleships since the cost saving would always be enough.
What you are asking for is the ability to pay 1 isk in order to save 2 isk. That equation is never going to be a value judgement, just basic maths.
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#468 - 2014-04-30 01:45:07 UTC
Scarlett LaBlanc wrote:
As with each Dev blog and forum Thread, I have read every post before throwing in my two cents.

Im still pumped over this update.

I'm a little on the fence on the ME changes to research, but I can deal with it.

What is going to happen to POS owners is a real blow to me.

From what I have read the only "reward" you get for the risk of production and science in a POS is a small bonus to job time.

I think I understand the huge mess the current POS code is in, and what that does to restrict options, however if I am understanding the current plans, there is simply no point in using a POS. They will just get packed up or left as dead sticks on a moon.

While we will all adapt, it will do far more to "dumb down Eve" than all the little things the bitter ones keep throwing around. If POS becomes unfeasiable Eve will have lost something at its core.

A POS is more than a place to research blueprints, it's the first thing, and for many people the only thing that a corp can claim as "ours" and defend it.

Unless you carve out SOV somewhere, a POS is it. If Eve loses that, it will have lost something special




Evidently you didn't read every post or else you'd know POS get other benefits
Scarlett LaBlanc
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#469 - 2014-04-30 02:06:54 UTC
Loraine Gess wrote:
Scarlett LaBlanc wrote:
As with each Dev blog and forum Thread, I have read every post before throwing in my two cents.

Im still pumped over this update.

I'm a little on the fence on the ME changes to research, but I can deal with it.

What is going to happen to POS owners is a real blow to me.

From what I have read the only "reward" you get for the risk of production and science in a POS is a small bonus to job time.

I think I understand the huge mess the current POS code is in, and what that does to restrict options, however if I am understanding the current plans, there is simply no point in using a POS. They will just get packed up or left as dead sticks on a moon.

While we will all adapt, it will do far more to "dumb down Eve" than all the little things the bitter ones keep throwing around. If POS becomes unfeasiable Eve will have lost something at its core.

A POS is more than a place to research blueprints, it's the first thing, and for many people the only thing that a corp can claim as "ours" and defend it.

Unless you carve out SOV somewhere, a POS is it. If Eve loses that, it will have lost something special




Evidently you didn't read every post or else you'd know POS get other benefits


Clearly then I failed to grasp what I was reading.

Since you have obviously trained "Forum Warror" to level V, how about you point me to the post that exposes my ignorance?
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
#470 - 2014-04-30 02:20:14 UTC
So if POS's are the solution for cheaper manufacturing then wouldn't be nice fuel costs and charters were used at much slower rate...

I suggest this, because if the fuel/charters is more than station costs, then what is the benefit minus "maybe" a faster build? Everything else is more painful and risky (materials/bpo/bpc/ etc. all in space).
Sylvanium Orlenard
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#471 - 2014-04-30 02:26:40 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

We are totally open to suggestions for what to do with starbases as they relate to industry. In particular, if anyone who does starbase work can spend a few minutes outlining the *simplest* changes they think would be sufficient to keep starbases in a reasonable place for this release, we're very interested in hearing them. Yes, we know "throw it out and start over" would be great, but we're not getting that done between now and the summer release, no matter how much we'd like to.


Suggestion.

Give Labs and Assembly arrays inherent workers. Example : Equipment Assembly Array have 6 Inherent workers. The first 6 jobs (one worker per job) running at the same time will use the basic price and any extra jobs (past number 6) that is running concurrently will use the standard price scalling mechanic as it would apply for any job in the system.

This would effectively give POS owners a price advantage, so maybe the calculation would have to be a discount for the first 6 jobs and then full price. This would effectively give a reason to have more then one module of one type attached to a POS but also keep the unlimited jobs per module option. Having more modules then becomes a ISK vs RISK calculation (should I have more defences online or should I have more assembly arrays online)

I used 6 for the Equip Assembly array because this is the current number of slots this modules gives. Please feel free to change that number to whatever you feel is more appropriate.

If you have an easy, non server intensive way to calculate how many concurrent jobs are running in a single array then this should be somewhat easy to implement. If you don't then this point is moot and forget this suggestion.
Korthan Doshu
Doomheim
#472 - 2014-04-30 02:36:31 UTC
Sylvanium Orlenard wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

We are totally open to suggestions for what to do with starbases as they relate to industry. In particular, if anyone who does starbase work can spend a few minutes outlining the *simplest* changes they think would be sufficient to keep starbases in a reasonable place for this release, we're very interested in hearing them. Yes, we know "throw it out and start over" would be great, but we're not getting that done between now and the summer release, no matter how much we'd like to.


Suggestion.

Give Labs and Assembly arrays inherent workers. Example : Equipment Assembly Array have 6 Inherent workers. The first 6 jobs (one worker per job) running at the same time will use the basic price and any extra jobs (past number 6) that is running concurrently will use the standard price scalling mechanic as it would apply for any job in the system.

This would effectively give POS owners a price advantage, so maybe the calculation would have to be a discount for the first 6 jobs and then full price. This would effectively give a reason to have more then one module of one type attached to a POS but also keep the unlimited jobs per module option. Having more modules then becomes a ISK vs RISK calculation (should I have more defences online or should I have more assembly arrays online)

I used 6 for the Equip Assembly array because this is the current number of slots this modules gives. Please feel free to change that number to whatever you feel is more appropriate.

If you have an easy, non server intensive way to calculate how many concurrent jobs are running in a single array then this should be somewhat easy to implement. If you don't then this point is moot and forget this suggestion.


+1. This is pretty much the proposal I've made two times now (scale with jobs on array, not number of arrays at starbase). Yes, it's reintroducing slots through a back door. But it should work to keep something like the status quo until CCP can make a more developed, informed decision about starbases.
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
#473 - 2014-04-30 02:38:26 UTC
Could we make all those people i have in my hangers useful? Marines/Slaves/Janitors/Strippers/etc. MaybeQuestionAttention
Brakoo
Shiva
Northern Coalition.
#474 - 2014-04-30 03:38:11 UTC
Sylvanium Orlenard wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

We are totally open to suggestions for what to do with starbases as they relate to industry. In particular, if anyone who does starbase work can spend a few minutes outlining the *simplest* changes they think would be sufficient to keep starbases in a reasonable place for this release, we're very interested in hearing them. Yes, we know "throw it out and start over" would be great, but we're not getting that done between now and the summer release, no matter how much we'd like to.


Suggestion.

Give Labs and Assembly arrays inherent workers. Example : Equipment Assembly Array have 6 Inherent workers. The first 6 jobs (one worker per job) running at the same time will use the basic price and any extra jobs (past number 6) that is running concurrently will use the standard price scalling mechanic as it would apply for any job in the system.

This would effectively give POS owners a price advantage, so maybe the calculation would have to be a discount for the first 6 jobs and then full price. This would effectively give a reason to have more then one module of one type attached to a POS but also keep the unlimited jobs per module option. Having more modules then becomes a ISK vs RISK calculation (should I have more defences online or should I have more assembly arrays online)

I used 6 for the Equip Assembly array because this is the current number of slots this modules gives. Please feel free to change that number to whatever you feel is more appropriate.

If you have an easy, non server intensive way to calculate how many concurrent jobs are running in a single array then this should be somewhat easy to implement. If you don't then this point is moot and forget this suggestion.

Sounds like a reasonable adjustment when you consider the changes

supported
May O'Neez
Flying Blacksmiths
#475 - 2014-04-30 04:13:48 UTC
Loraine Gess wrote:
You'll be "pissed off" at the new industry system?


Then don't do industry? Maybe it's not for you???


You take an easy shortcut there (and read my post a bit quick). I was mentionnning the fact that forcing people to move ALL their stuff (ie BPs and materials) regularly because the station they build in is no more viable, plus having to multiply travels because of POS usage for mineral compression, will globally increase the tediousness of the tasks.

Personnally I already play the "Docking Game" as I buy from up to 20 places at times, but there's lot of people who don't care buying outside their own station. Good luck to them.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#476 - 2014-04-30 04:14:47 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Alpharius Astartes wrote:

Also, CCP Grayscale it makes sense that better teams not only use their time more efficiently but that they also make less mistakes and have a lower wastage factor. So better teams should perhaps also reduce the mineral cost requirements? That would be a truly awesome system to tweak and work with!

Big smile

If teams can reduce the mineral requirements by, lets just say 5%, they will be too expensive for frigates & destroyers, since mineral requirements translates directly into cost, & you would always use them for Battleships since the cost saving would always be enough.
What you are asking for is the ability to pay 1 isk in order to save 2 isk. That equation is never going to be a value judgement, just basic maths.



Nah.... teams is going to be multiple players in the same corp working on a project together, to build it faster.... that is my wild guess. If so, it had BETTER not apply to T2 BPO!
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#477 - 2014-04-30 04:28:09 UTC
Jesterspet wrote:
I'm sorry, but saying: "As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor." is a very poor excuse of an answer and just blows me away. This tells us that you really don't actually care about something that is quite central to the entire industrial complex.


All of which carries the unspoken admission that:

A) We want people to colonize Null space, so we'll make Industry more a more attractive "carrot" to lure them out there. Maybe.

B) Buuuuuuuuuuuut... we can't be bothered to give them a place to do it, so they'll have to live in Outposts controlled by other alliances that will simply gouge any possible profit margin out of the equation anyway -- thus making the whole effort pointless.

But that's "Okay" because we don't want to fix something that needs fixing.

SEEMS TO ME we went through the whole mindset a number of years ago, followed by profuse apologies... and then more profuse apologies.

Here we go again.

Roll



"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#478 - 2014-04-30 04:48:24 UTC
Felicity Love wrote:
Jesterspet wrote:
I'm sorry, but saying: "As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor." is a very poor excuse of an answer and just blows me away. This tells us that you really don't actually care about something that is quite central to the entire industrial complex.


All of which carries the unspoken admission that:

A) We want people to colonize Null space, so we'll make Industry more a more attractive "carrot" to lure them out there. Maybe.

B) Buuuuuuuuuuuut... we can't be bothered to give them a place to do it, so they'll have to live in Outposts controlled by other alliances that will simply gouge any possible profit margin out of the equation anyway -- thus making the whole effort pointless.

But that's "Okay" because we don't want to fix something that needs fixing.

SEEMS TO ME we went through the whole mindset a number of years ago, followed by profuse apologies... and then more profuse apologies.

Here we go again.

Roll




The theory that I have heard that makes the most sense....

While not a problem in the USA (where we have 4 main and several smaller), the China server has only one big trade hub, and for a gazillion jumps in any direction, there are no station slots available. Players get very frustrated that there are simply no slots within dozens of jumps.

So, to "fix" China, they are moving to this unlimited slots, with cost adjustment. People that want to be close to the trade hub can, but people that are willing to trave a dozen or two dozen jumps can get cheaper install costs.....

Let's also drastically clean up the UI and make that a better user experience.

From there, it seems most other changes are just a lot of "oh, didn't think about that".



Let's get BPOs into the POS: Copy hell. Faster copy? What does that do to T2 BPO production? Oh hell. Increase max runs? Breaks invention? What? Copy runs is not linear time?

The UI better be better per job, because to use a POS and keep BPOs safe from corp theft, we're talking MASSIVE number of copies that need to be made.

ME skill? Hmmmm? Let's figure out something to so with that.

Removing the reason to have a POS? Opps... quick, players, help us come up with a new reason to have a POS.

High sec manufacturing price will skyrocket and high sec industrialists are dropping... 50% increase in jump freighter fuel requirements, and NOOOO this is not about moving people out of high sec.

What to do about POS structures that used to get copy time bonus? Ummmmm???? We're trying to figure that out.


It seems to me that this was just not thought threw AT ALL. Typical for Agile. The iteration methodology makes everyone focus on this iterations stories, meeting this iterations velocity target milestones, keep moving forward.... even if we've not picked up our heads to see if we know where we are going.

I currently work for my 3rd employer to use Agile. Faster, cheaper, and horrid quality.

Agile requires even stronger product management than traditional development, but product management becomes the first thing cut.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#479 - 2014-04-30 04:51:56 UTC
Felicity Love wrote:
Jesterspet wrote:
I'm sorry, but saying: "As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor." is a very poor excuse of an answer and just blows me away. This tells us that you really don't actually care about something that is quite central to the entire industrial complex.


All of which carries the unspoken admission that:

A) We want people to colonize Null space, so we'll make Industry more a more attractive "carrot" to lure them out there. Maybe.

B) Buuuuuuuuuuuut... we can't be bothered to give them a place to do it, so they'll have to live in Outposts controlled by other alliances that will simply gouge any possible profit margin out of the equation anyway -- thus making the whole effort pointless.

But that's "Okay" because we don't want to fix something that needs fixing.

SEEMS TO ME we went through the whole mindset a number of years ago, followed by profuse apologies... and then more profuse apologies.

Here we go again.

Roll





The fact that the dev's are openly soliciting for ANY ideas about how to handle POS's shows 2 things:

1. The dev's don't understand how POS's are used in the game, and frankly, don't have a clue about industry in this game, and this release should be delayed until it is complete, which includes POS's industry advantages.
2. The chief architects of these changes never planned on using POS's in their manufacturing strategy, other than for super-capital ships, so they focused on their stations, and ignored POS's.
Kun'ii Zenya
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#480 - 2014-04-30 05:24:12 UTC
Felicity Love wrote:


B) Buuuuuuuuuuuut... we can't be bothered to give them a place to do it, so they'll have to live in Outposts controlled by other alliances that will simply gouge any possible profit margin out of the equation anyway -- thus making the whole effort pointless.


Probably not.

Research in this area indicates otherwise. And the research are simulations...alot like EVE. And the findings are if you act like a complete ****, the other guy will **** you over even if it hurts him. Lesson...don't be a complete ****. And amazingly...people are often not complete dicks. In fact the research indicates that very early on in these games people offer fair splits.

So, no they likely wont gouge out all the profits...a share of the profits sure, and why not they are letting you use facilities that they acquired and are paying for.