These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Summer 2014] Starbase tweaks

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#41 - 2014-05-05 15:42:01 UTC
Plug in Baby wrote:
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:
Plug in Baby wrote:
Nothing about a capital component lab so lowsec can build capitals that can compete with null?

I heard such a lab with a large ME bonus was planned? Or is capital production going to null for sure now?



That will have a miner effect compared to the 10% mineral advantage null will have on lowsec, plus the 5% ME for the amarr stations


That is the point the advantage of null refine and ME bonus was supposed to be able to offset by using a POS arrray in low. I cant find a source for this but I'll try and link it when I find it.

Without one there is no way lowsec can compete with 200-300m cheaper caps per unit from null for the small price of a jumping them to lowsec to sell. Unless there are some amazing teams to give a huge bonus, but there is no reason to think they wouldn't also be used in null.



It was mentioned in the Industry panel.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#42 - 2014-05-05 15:45:10 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
Querns wrote:
Has there been any internal discussion about how scaling costs will work in a POS that can be shared?

A reminder -- I had an excellent suggestion on how to scale the costs without murdering the server. tl;dr: count the total number of structures for the manufacturing type owned by your corp in the system and scale based on that.

I believe there was some follow-on discussion about avoiding obvious exploits. For example:
  • Only count online modules
  • Only count those online modules which were online (and have remained so since) at some appropriate point-in-time in the past.

One suggestion was to count the online modules at downtime. That seems to mean that the module isn't usable until "tomorrow" (depending upon where you live on Earth). Probably not a problem for ship builders, but will surely annoy module & ammo builders.

Another suggestion was to record the module's "last onlined" timestamp, and then at the time of job installation count the ones which were online at least as long as the proposed job takes (with some floor/ceiling limits). This removes the downtime calculation for all systems, replacing it with a calculation for each job. That's surely more calculations, but it doesn't impede startup, and it places the calculation penalty squarely on the beneficiary (installer).

MDD
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#43 - 2014-05-05 15:47:35 UTC
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:
Bakuhz wrote:

So how about upscaling the ammount of slots in the labs aswell to compete with the no slots in station?
if ownign a starbase and producing stuff within own resources we should get a bit more then those patetic amateur sized research and inventions slots now!!!!



They removed ALL slots

That means NOTHING has slots

Did I mention, NO SLOTS

NONE
ON ANYTHING


NO MORE SLOTS

Except offices. Apparently slots there (24 per station) are still ok. X

MDD
Echo Mande
#44 - 2014-05-05 15:48:13 UTC
All in all decent, though I would also like more hangar space.

Will missile sentries get looked at (CPU use dropped to 0)? They really need it.

One thing you could also look at is the CPU and power use by the various assembly arrays. If the intent is to promote construction and shipbuilding at POSses then in my opinion these values could stand being lowered a bit.

The ship arrays could also use some changes. The small and medium arrays have fairly small hangar sizes (2M m3 for a medium) compared to the modified non-ship arrays. The ship arrays' CPU and power could also use a tweak (down) or alternately the basic ship arrays' values could be lowered and the advanced arrays could be modified to allow building of T1 and T2 ships. Note that a decent production run of marauders or HACs can easily use multiple freighterloads of materials.

Wallet remarks everywhere
Plug in Baby
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2014-05-05 15:52:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Plug in Baby
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:
Low sec has a POS array that is better than high sec, and worse than null sec 70Bil minnie station, all assembly arrays are the same ME modifier

so null > low > high sec
I am pretty sure that is where it is supposed to be..


I should be happy that low sec will outperform highsec at building caps? Great! Big smile


Uncle Shrimpa wrote:

Do you want a low sec only assembly array with an extra 10% ME to make up for the better mineral refine rate in null??


erm..yes? It is pretty simple if lowsec becomes ~15% less efficient than null they may as well get rid of lowsec cap production.

The idea that 70bn is some how a relevant amount of ISK is laughable. If that 70bn did nothing but give the bonus i.e. no other value docking, or safety or anything just a bonus it would repay itself after 70 / 15%*1.5bn = ~300 caps, which is about a year for me, pretty awesome ROI.

So the station bonus could realistically be a very good investment for 1 player, never-mind an entire alliance.

edit: Hey thinking about it, screw giving us a new POS mod, give me a lowsec station upgrade for 70bn and I'll be happy Big smile

This is not a forum alt, this is a forum main.
Uncle Shrimpa
Lap Dancers
Brothers of Tangra
#46 - 2014-05-05 15:52:46 UTC
Echo Mande wrote:
All in all decent, though I would also like more hangar space.

Will missile sentries get looked at (CPU use dropped to 0)? They really need it.

One thing you could also look at is the CPU and power use by the various assembly arrays. If the intent is to promote construction and shipbuilding at POSses then in my opinion these values could stand being lowered a bit.

The ship arrays could also use some changes. The small and medium arrays have fairly small hangar sizes (2M m3 for a medium) compared to the modified non-ship arrays. The ship arrays' CPU and power could also use a tweak (down) or alternately the basic ship arrays' values could be lowered and the advanced arrays could be modified to allow building of T1 and T2 ships. Note that a decent production run of marauders or HACs can easily use multiple freighterloads of materials.



Fozzie mentioned making missile batteries not horrible during the stream. He said prolly not this expansion, maybe a point release, but it is on someone's radar

So far their increases on cargo of pos mods have been incredibly anemic at best. We are trying to get them increased to decent levels.....

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 :)
Uncle Shrimpa
Lap Dancers
Brothers of Tangra
#47 - 2014-05-05 15:55:12 UTC
Plug in Baby wrote:
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:
Low sec has a POS array that is better than high sec, and worse than null sec 70Bil minnie station, all assembly arrays are the same ME modifier

so null > low > high sec
I am pretty sure that is where it is supposed to be..


I should be happy that low sec will outperform highsec at building caps? Great! Big smile


Uncle Shrimpa wrote:

Do you want a low sec only assembly array with an extra 10% ME to make up for the better mineral refine rate in null??


erm..yes? It is pretty simple if lowsec becomes ~15% less efficient than null they may as well get rid of lowsec cap production.

The idea that 70bn is some how a relevant amount of ISK is laughable. If that 70bn did nothing but give the bonus i.e. no other value docking, or safety or anything just a bonus it would repay itself after 70 / 15%*1.5bn = ~300 caps, which is about a year for me, pretty awesome ROI.

So the station bonus could realistically be a very good investment for 1 player, never-mind an entire alliance.


but there is risk

If you refine at minnie station, you ahve to haul - refine - freighter to amarr station to get max bonus - there is a **** ton of risk for that, not to mention haulign expense, both in isotopes to get it there and time to freighter it

If you refine at amarr, the 10% drops to 3%, so the total of 8% isn't bad

It isn't a one all be all answer, but that advantage does have some severe risks associated with it

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 :)
Alabia
Doomheim
#48 - 2014-05-05 15:55:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Alabia
Will you have to pay tax/instaltion cost when using a assembly array on a starbase?
If so how will that tax/instalation cost be calculated?
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#49 - 2014-05-05 15:55:31 UTC
If you are concerned about the storage/grid ratio of the component array: just like double or quadruple the capacity and the associated fitting. Presto, many problems solved without any problems like an all-CAA storage pos.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
MasterMag
Melons and Bananas
#50 - 2014-05-05 16:01:42 UTC
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:
Plug in Baby wrote:
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:
Low sec has a POS array that is better than high sec, and worse than null sec 70Bil minnie station, all assembly arrays are the same ME modifier

so null > low > high sec
I am pretty sure that is where it is supposed to be..


I should be happy that low sec will outperform highsec at building caps? Great! Big smile


Uncle Shrimpa wrote:

Do you want a low sec only assembly array with an extra 10% ME to make up for the better mineral refine rate in null??


erm..yes? It is pretty simple if lowsec becomes ~15% less efficient than null they may as well get rid of lowsec cap production.

The idea that 70bn is some how a relevant amount of ISK is laughable. If that 70bn did nothing but give the bonus i.e. no other value docking, or safety or anything just a bonus it would repay itself after 70 / 15%*1.5bn = ~300 caps, which is about a year for me, pretty awesome ROI.

So the station bonus could realistically be a very good investment for 1 player, never-mind an entire alliance.


but there is risk

If you refine at minnie station, you ahve to haul - refine - freighter to amarr station to get max bonus - there is a **** ton of risk for that, not to mention haulign expense, both in isotopes to get it there and time to freighter it

If you refine at amarr, the 10% drops to 3%, so the total of 8% isn't bad

It isn't a one all be all answer, but that advantage does have some severe risks associated with it


Risk for what, your cyno frigate?
Plug in Baby
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2014-05-05 16:03:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Plug in Baby
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:

but there is risk


Yeah there is some risk, albeit small in blued up regions. My point is that null could be better without making lowsec construction impossible. Bear in mind margins are typically <10% on capitals.

It's not a trade off it won't be like:

'oh well low isn't as good but you have it easy there are less risks so you make less ISK, that is fair'

it will be:

'oh you can't possibly build in low because it will cost more to build than market price from null'

It is fine if that is what CCP want, but I was under the impression they wanted to keep some construction in low from the fanfest discussion.

This is not a forum alt, this is a forum main.
Lemmih AI
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#52 - 2014-05-05 16:04:58 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

  • X-Large Assembly Array is being renamed Capital Assembly Array to better reflect what it actually does.
  • Capital Assembly Array is being renamed Supercapital Assembly Array for the same reasons.

That sounds great except the part where the same name refers to a different item before and after an instant in time. It could be very confusing when people find older guides on the internet. If you renamed the X-Large Array to "Capital Ship Assembly Array", at least there'd be some indication that the names have changed, but even that would still be confusing.

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Advanced Mobile labs:
Time multiplier for Research ME: 0.75 (was 0.75).
Time multiplier for copying: 0.6 (was 0.65).
Time multiplier for invention: 0.5 (was 0.5).

Considering that slots are going away, I really can't see anyone favoring the Advanced Mobile Lab over the Mobile lab with these stats. Maybe if copy time dropped all the way to .5 or if it had a stronger bonus to invention than the mobile lab (the whole reason for the Advanced Mobile labs was to support copying for invention, right?), it would be worth considering. Alternately, if there was an advantage to having multiple labs, it might get used, but when you just need one lab for all your research, the Mobile Lab is the clear winner.
Uncle Shrimpa
Lap Dancers
Brothers of Tangra
#53 - 2014-05-05 16:07:57 UTC
Plug in Baby wrote:
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:

but there is risk


Yeah there is some risk, albeit small in blued up regions. My point is that null could be better without making lowsec construction impossible. Bear in mind margins are typically <10% on capitals.

It's not a trade off it won't be like:

'oh well low isn't as good but you have it easy there are less risks so you make less ISK, that is fair'

it will be:

'oh you can't possibly build in low because it will cost more to build than market price from null'

It is fine if that is what CCP want, but I was under the impression they wanted to keep some construction in low from the fanfest discussion.



What if you live in catch, Tenerfis, stain??

Not everyone lives in deklein or Branch

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 :)
Plug in Baby
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2014-05-05 16:12:09 UTC
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:

What if you live in catch, Tenerfis, stain??

Not everyone lives in deklein or Branch


That isn't really my point, I'm not on some anti-null mission here, I am just stating the facts. There are plenty of safe regions with no slot limits and enough pilots to produce caps at a reduced cost to drive the prices.

Currently that reduced cost will be greater than the profit margin on the product.

If you accept those two as fact, even with slightly increased in jump cost it really is the obvious conclusion. I'm not say all of null are going to benefit, I'm not saying all of null is some perfectly safe heaven.

This is not a forum alt, this is a forum main.
Lemmih AI
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#55 - 2014-05-05 16:15:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Lemmih AI
NM, was confusing two different costs
Uncle Shrimpa
Lap Dancers
Brothers of Tangra
#56 - 2014-05-05 16:15:34 UTC
Plug in Baby wrote:
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:

What if you live in catch, Tenerfis, stain??

Not everyone lives in deklein or Branch


That isn't really my point, I'm not on some anti-null mission here, I am just stating the facts. There are plenty of safe regions with no slot limits and enough pilots to produce caps at a reduced cost to drive the prices.

Currently that reduced cost will be greater than the profit margin on the product.

If you accept those two as fact, even with slightly increased in jump cost it really is the obvious conclusion. I'm not say all of null are going to benefit, I'm not saying all of null is some perfectly safe heaven.



Here is the question...

Do you balance risk/reward against Deklein or Catch?

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 :)
Oxide Ammar
#57 - 2014-05-05 16:19:49 UTC
Is it possible that medium ship assembly array overlap the small one, and large array overlap the medium and small one ? means I can build anything starting from frigs to BS in the large ship array ?

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Plug in Baby
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2014-05-05 16:21:22 UTC
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:

Here is the question...

Do you balance risk/reward against Deklein or Catch?


I'm sorry what are you suggesting? You think that Deklein and Catch should have a bonus over other null regions because they have more risk? I honestly don't understand what you are getting at

Deklein and Catch can still compete with other regions unlike low as they still have the potential to make a profit.

This is not a forum alt, this is a forum main.
Valterra Craven
#59 - 2014-05-05 16:21:42 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


Then, laboratories:


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 0.65).
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).


Wouldn't it make more sense to do this instead:

Research Lab: (WasMobile lab)
Time multiplier for Research ME: 0.7 (was 0.75).
Time multiplier for Research TE: 0.7 (was 0.75).
No Copy, (was Time multiplier for copying: 0.75).
No Invention (was Time multiplier for invention: 0.5).

Invention lab: (was Advanced Mobile)
No ME research (was Time multiplier for Research ME: 0.75).
Time multiplier for copying: 0.6 (was 0.65).
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).
No Invention (wast ime multiplier for invention: 0.5)

That way you have more incentive to have different types of labs on your pos? And choices are easier, and you can create more named modules better in the future based on this gradient?
Korthan Doshu
Doomheim
#60 - 2014-05-05 16:23:03 UTC
Two things:

1. Hate to be a pita, but can we get a solid statement whether these (or slight tweaks to the numbers here) are the only changes coming on June 3? There's only a month left and some of us need to plan for the transition including POS setup, how many AMLs/MLs we'll need, etc..

2. I just want to reiterate that the lack of slots completely obliterates the function of MLs and AMLs as we know them today. Shaving a little bit of time off of them doesn't change that. That said, people will still use them for convenience or on the off chance the time savings facilitate a particular workflow (especially where people want to do long jobs and are okay risking the BPO). This leads to the problem of the useless AML. There are very few situations where the slight extra copy time will justify sinking money in an AML rather than an ML. Make the AML truly advanced by giving it ME and taking away invention from MLs.