These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#1901 - 2014-04-30 22:01:51 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Probably no devs reading in here anymore, but anyways:

Corp offices are still requirement for POS after the patch? I know you dread your own code these days and this is probably an ancient relic with devilish powers that could annihilate all Iceland in one go, but with the coming changes this should be removed.

Otherwise you pay ISK to the station owner/NPC sink for the office + ISK to the NPC sink for production/Invention/research if you want to use a tower and actually do what you want us to do: use your dreaded and fearmongering mechanics. This added double punishment is unlikely to sit well with the community, and makes you appear in a not so pleasant light (not that this was the case with these changes, but hey... Blink)

So: Remove the station office requirement for POS usage with the expansion.


You never needed an office in system to put up a POS.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#1902 - 2014-05-01 00:33:19 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Querns wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Arrrrgg EvilPirateEvilOopsShockedEvil

DELETE ALL THE OUTPOSTS!

More seriously: will balance time on Hyasoyda lab for that not to happen. Probably tune it down to 0.43 or leave it at 0.45.

Darn -- I was seriously thanking you for reducing our outpost upgrade costs :V

But yeah, that is a good idea.


I checked the viability of Starbases copy lines versus Gallente Outposts, but completely forgot about Invention versus Caldari Outposts.

Outposts have to have a small advantage next to the cost, which was a good point, even if unintentional P


Also people, listing use cases of which Starbase structures have too small cargoholds next to everyday practical use will help a lot in the balancing, so please keep that coming.

EDIT: fixed invention time multiplier on Hyasodiaaarrwhatever mobile laboratory to 0.45 in the previous post.


Equipment Assembly Arrays will need at least 1m Cubic Meters of space to accommodate our moderate production. A lot more for serious operations.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#1903 - 2014-05-01 03:24:36 UTC
Olari Vanderfall wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


Please note we are not removing installation types however – a station that could not handle manufacturing or research will not suddenly be capable of doing so.


Please tell me I am reading this wrong.

If my corporation has thousands of BPOs locked down in station in a system with no research facilities we'll need to move to a system with stations that have research?

No way am I putting expensive BPOs at risk by putting them in a POS.

If that's true then you're going to have a mass exodus to systems with research facilities, severely limiting where any sort of research is going to occur. It will screw over inventors because they will all need to make their copies in a limited number of systems.

There are also many other repercussions as manufacturing will begin to cluster around these research systems due to easy access to copies for invention. If you go this route please look at station densities and locations throughout the entire universe. Some regions have far more stations per system than others (ie Lonetrek and Nonni).


I'm very very sorry to hear that. As a fellow industrialist who himself suffered through hell of locking thousands of BPOs, I feel your pain. It doesn't seem like CCP are even willing to consider going back on this decision, which is to say the least unfortunate.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!
Valterra Craven
#1904 - 2014-05-01 05:29:55 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Another update.

Assembly Arrays:


  • Material reduction from all Assembly Arrays has been reduced from 5% to 2%.
  • Advanced Assembly arrays material waste has been removed. They used to have 10% material waste, they now have 2% material reduction like the regular Assembly Arrays.
  • We are considering increasing cargohold on Assembly Arrays, more updates as we get them.


    • Laboratories:

    More details on what's happening to them since slots are going away.

    Mobile labs:
  • Time multiplier for Research ME: 0.7 (was 0.75)
  • Time multiplier for Research TE: 0.7 (was 0.75)
  • Time multiplier for copying: 0.7 (was 0.75)
  • Time multiplier for invention: 0.45 (was 0.5)

    • Advanced Mobile labs:
  • Time multiplier for Research ME: 0.75 (was 0.75)
  • Time multiplier for copying: 0.6 (was 0.75)
  • Time multiplier for invention: 0.5 (was 0.5)

    • Hyasyoda mobile labs:
  • Time multiplier for Research ME: 0.65 (was 0.75)
  • Time multiplier for Research TE: 0.65 (was 0.75)
  • Time multiplier for invention: 0.45 (was 0.5)



I have an idea for keeping numerous pos modules relevant.

Parallelism.

In other words the "killer feature" of POS would be to allow you to break up research jobs in parallel to complete them faster.
You have two labs, you can break research up to complete twice as fast and so and so forth.

I did some rough estimates, and it looks like with a dread gur tower and assuming labs cpu cost of 500 cpu would allow you to have 15 labs at once if that's all you put on it. So to balance this you could either hugely increase the cpu cost so that it wouldn't be wise to go over 3-4 labs, or limit the amount of jobs that you could run in parallel. (I'd say balance it on the average number of labs people run now). I'd also mess with the current numbers that labs give bonuses to so that they are closer to NPC stations or remove the bonuses entirely since this is a very powerful bonus. In this way, POS don't compete with NPC/Null stations in the same way.

To be fair this could also be adapted to production jobs as well.
Flay Nardieu
#1905 - 2014-05-01 09:18:56 UTC
Apart and somewhat irrelevant to my standing argument about the proposed expansion's flaws. I pose a couple questions to CPP and my fellow players.


  1. Will there be a practical purpose for the Personal Hangar Array? Will jobs at a POS be able to started from that location using material in the individuals 'hangar' and product placed in the same?

  2. Would it not make more sense instead of removing the underpinnings (particularly the ones that work) in the POS model to just scrap it and migrate to something similar to what is seen in various NPC missions under the Mobile/Deployable model frame work?

  3. Exactly how much of this expansion's changes are truly an improvement under intense inspection of the whole and isolated parts?


I am particularly interested in the first and last question.

From the beginning when the Dev-Blogs where released I had already resigned myself to the futile pursuit addressing issues doubting even if I could convince others of the validity of my points, effect something more than a trifling change. So let us see, answers to these questions three.
Uncle Shrimpa
Lap Dancers
Brothers of Tangra
#1906 - 2014-05-01 14:52:48 UTC
Fozzie just mentioned a goal to have us build named modules as well

Why can't we build stations??

We build player owned outpost eggs, but we BUY all upgrades and pedestals from NPC stations

That should be nothing more than adding a some BPO's

CCP Greyscale -Yup, we have data on what happens currently, but we're expecting those use patterns to change substantially when this release. There's a degree of "suck it and see" happening here :)
Quintessen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1907 - 2014-05-02 02:15:13 UTC
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:
Fozzie just mentioned a goal to have us build named modules as well


Where did he say this?
Shinzhi Xadi
Doomheim
#1908 - 2014-05-02 03:46:27 UTC
Quintessen wrote:
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:
Fozzie just mentioned a goal to have us build named modules as well


Where did he say this?


It was today on the fanfest stream. They were talking about ship changes, and he mentioned they want players to be able to make named meta items in the future.

Mac Pro dual 6-core Xeon 3.06ghz, 24gig ecc ram, EVGA GTX 680 Mac Edition, Intel SSD, OS X Yosemite and Windows 8.1 Pro.
Shamus en Divalone
The Clandestine Forge
#1909 - 2014-05-02 07:10:53 UTC
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:
Quintessen wrote:
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:
Fozzie just mentioned a goal to have us build named modules as well


Where did he say this?


It was today on the fanfest stream. They were talking about ship changes, and he mentioned they want players to be able to make named meta items in the future.


I believe they should be looted BPC's or BPC's reverse engineered from a meta 4 loot drop, that would be cool.

Is there going to be some restriction on the amounts of war decs corps can have now seeing as all POS's in high became war dec magnets following this expansion?
Flay Nardieu
#1910 - 2014-05-02 10:23:08 UTC
Shamus en Divalone wrote:
...

I believe they should be looted BPC's or BPC's reverse engineered from a meta 4 loot drop, that would be cool.

Is there going to be some restriction on the amounts of war decs corps can have now seeing as all POS's in high became war dec magnets following this expansion?


I agree they should be drops or reverse engineered, with reverse engineering the preferred method that way people can get a taste of it before venturing into T3 aspect

As for war-dec limits, there have been even stronger arguments for a change in the past. The possibility of them changing it over POS related aggression is probably zero. It could also be argued the increase of war against space assets is the idea, for the removal of anchoring restrictions (which I think due to various reasons is bad)

The risk of blueprint loss due to an attack in high-sec is rather low even with forcing them to be at the POS(another point I've argued against and view as a bad idea) Ugh
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#1911 - 2014-05-04 10:49:57 UTC
The suggestion that POS could be destroyed legally without wardec if starbase charters had not been paid for was popular at Fanfest yesterday.

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
#1912 - 2014-05-04 14:53:14 UTC
Never tried so I don't know : can we start a job in an assembly array with material in a corp hangar array or a personnal hangar array ?

EsiPy - Python 2.7 / 3.3+ Swagger Client based on pyswagger for ESI
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1913 - 2014-05-04 16:10:43 UTC
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
The suggestion that POS could be destroyed legally without wardec if starbase charters had not been paid for was popular at Fanfest yesterday.



I thought people might like it Smile

Granted, it's really easy to stick years in a pos.

But that could be mitigated by increasing the burn rate of charters, if you're not otherwise fueled. Or having yet another bay for them.


A launched POS wouldn't be immediately vulnerable (unless you anchor it /just/ before the fuel tick) giving you time to get it fueled and charters in.

Of course, this requires CCP to touch the scary pos code. which is scary.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1914 - 2014-05-04 17:03:30 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
The suggestion that POS could be destroyed legally without wardec if starbase charters had not been paid for was popular at Fanfest yesterday.



I thought people might like it Smile

Granted, it's really easy to stick years in a pos.

But that could be mitigated by increasing the burn rate of charters, if you're not otherwise fueled. Or having yet another bay for them.


A launched POS wouldn't be immediately vulnerable (unless you anchor it /just/ before the fuel tick) giving you time to get it fueled and charters in.

Of course, this requires CCP to touch the scary pos code. which is scary.


I see you have one of your POS's up at one of my old moon locations. It was a great location.
Do you plan on keeping your high sec POS's up, or are you conceding that any ambitions for viable high sec industry are now smashed?
Shamus en Divalone
The Clandestine Forge
#1915 - 2014-05-04 22:07:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Shamus en Divalone
Quote:
Another update.

Assembly Arrays:


Material reduction from all Assembly Arrays has been reduced from 5% to 2%.
Advanced Assembly arrays material waste has been removed. They used to have 10% material waste, they now have 2% material reduction like the regular Assembly Arrays.
We are considering increasing cargohold on Assembly Arrays, more updates as we get them.


This is great, but, will it have more than 1 job slot?
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1916 - 2014-05-04 23:08:22 UTC
Shamus en Divalone wrote:
Quote:
Another update.

Assembly Arrays:


Material reduction from all Assembly Arrays has been reduced from 5% to 2%.
Advanced Assembly arrays material waste has been removed. They used to have 10% material waste, they now have 2% material reduction like the regular Assembly Arrays.
We are considering increasing cargohold on Assembly Arrays, more updates as we get them.


This is great, but, will it have more than 1 job slot?


Job slots are a thing of the past....supposedly.
However, there may be some arcane calculation imposed on POS's where if you "overload" an assembly array, you pay higher taxes, but CCP has said that industry at POS's will be dealt with "soon".

At the moment, no one has a real clue what the final cost structures are like, because CCP was in such a rush to get this mess out before Fanfest, there are huge holes in the whole thing.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1917 - 2014-05-05 14:08:02 UTC
Moved discussion to Starbase Structure changes to the Feature and Ideas discussion for clarity, please go there if you have comments on that particular field.

Thanks for your time.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1918 - 2014-05-05 14:16:25 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
The suggestion that POS could be destroyed legally without wardec if starbase charters had not been paid for was popular at Fanfest yesterday.



I thought people might like it Smile

Granted, it's really easy to stick years in a pos.

But that could be mitigated by increasing the burn rate of charters, if you're not otherwise fueled. Or having yet another bay for them.


A launched POS wouldn't be immediately vulnerable (unless you anchor it /just/ before the fuel tick) giving you time to get it fueled and charters in.

Of course, this requires CCP to touch the scary pos code. which is scary.


I see you have one of your POS's up at one of my old moon locations. It was a great location.
Do you plan on keeping your high sec POS's up, or are you conceding that any ambitions for viable high sec industry are now smashed?



I'm planning on leaving my POS up (though I may transfer things and alts around to a different corp, depending on incoming wardecs from CSM status)

The numbers I'm seeing at the moment don't have me particularly concerned. (If I move the POS, it'll be to get it into a system with better build multiplier. I'd need more data to see what works.)

Note: Right now, all the numbers I have access are public. I've signed nothing yet.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Masayo Gowa
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1919 - 2014-05-05 22:56:14 UTC
i am not sure if this has been mentioned, but CCP Greyscale mentioned looking into changing the cap on capital construction part BPC's to more then 5 runs.

will this include other BPC's ? at the moment the cap on light tech 2 drones are 100, that results in somewhere aroun 16-17 hours per BPC

thats alot of micro managing if you want to build constantly. not to mention if you actualy have a job on the side and only able to restart builds once a day, the result is upwards of a 42% reduction in production capability per month :(
Uncle Shrimpa
Lap Dancers
Brothers of Tangra
#1920 - 2014-05-05 23:03:41 UTC
Masayo Gowa wrote:
i am not sure if this has been mentioned, but CCP Greyscale mentioned looking into changing the cap on capital construction part BPC's to more then 5 runs.

will this include other BPC's ? at the moment the cap on light tech 2 drones are 100, that results in somewhere aroun 16-17 hours per BPC

thats alot of micro managing if you want to build constantly. not to mention if you actualy have a job on the side and only able to restart builds once a day, the result is upwards of a 42% reduction in production capability per month :(




They have already said other things is a 2 way street. If you up the runs, then it takes longer to make the BPC which negatively impacts invention as they use max run BPC.

So....don't expect increased runs for anything that you can invent from

CCP Greyscale -Yup, we have data on what happens currently, but we're expecting those use patterns to change substantially when this release. There's a degree of "suck it and see" happening here :)