These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#681 - 2014-05-10 15:55:58 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Has any additional thought been put to a bonus for multiple starbase arrays?

the issue is not one of thought, but what can be done with the god-awful pos code

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Sienna Toth
Pulsar Phisics Shipyards
#682 - 2014-05-10 18:06:09 UTC
Elmer Scribner wrote:
I really think that the starbase (POS) bonuses needs to be sorted before release.

As has been mentioned, a large portion of high sec industry happens in a POS (or maybe we're all wrong and hardly any industry is happening in a POS?). What benefit to POS owners will exist after release?

Does saving that 10% suddenly make operating a POS not worth it and should I move everything to station instead?

I'm assuming POS arrays still maintain any time bonuses so maybe that will make it worth it to keep a POS running?




This is all getting problematic and POS impacts really should be well described before the release. CCP has thrown the markets into a tissy over the perceived lack for the need of more than 1 lab array per system. Take a look at the markets for how the price for all the labs have tanked.

My mains corp uses the slot rents to compensate for the fuel costs. Corp users of the towers pay for the fuel and those that just rat don't pay fuel costs. So with no explanation of what is going to happen at the POS arrays there are going to be some pretty serious ripple impacts throughout the economy.

On the bright side maybe we wont need POS towers at all !!! :O imagine what will happen to the Ice Markets if that's true. I would feel a little sorry for those that invested in Tower BPO's.

I have also had players say that if this is really as bad as it appears that some players wont need as many accounts! I have a friend that has 2 additional accounts just so he can have (10x6 science jobs) 60 Science jobs to copy blueprints. So good for you CCP for making it cheaper to play this game !!!
Hexatron Ormand
Aperture Space
#683 - 2014-05-13 11:19:43 UTC
Just noticed that most POS related stuff was actually talked about and requested in this devblog here. Posted my ideas to the building better worlds one.. i am sure it gets read there as well, but wanted to copy it to here, in case different devs watch the different topics. So here it is:


As there was a question from the devs earlier, what could make POSes more viable for players. I just had an idea that may be worth something.


Let me start by comparing it to an analogy: We can set the speed of our ships. How fast they should be going. The same is true for nowadays ships, that have things like "Full throttle" or "half speed". How about adding this to the starbases, so its users have more options when it comes to burning through the fuel blocks, as sometimes you do not need "full speed ahead".

give a Starbase a few modes to operate in (using a large POS as example):



  • minimum: just to keep the starbase shield up, everything else offline and unable to work, all arrays unusable, something like a standby mode, that also conusmes very few fuel blocks. Basically setting the tower to "self support only", without any CPU or power to spare.
  • 1/4: only using a fourth of the fuel blocks, and getting only one fourth of the output, roughly putting a large tower to run in "small POS mode", running on 10 blocks per hour.
  • 1/2: using half fuel blocks and half power, a large POS would have the same output as a medium tower at that rate, putting its consumption to 20 blocks per hour.
  • 3/4: giving it a new "inbetween" power output of the medium tower and full consumption, for a large POS that would be running on 30 fuel blocks per hour.
  • full: Operating at 100% with full output and full consumption, what means running on 40 fuel blocks per hour.



This would also open up the doorway for a new sort of gameplay that so many request on the forums. As every tower needs to at least run on minimum - you know risk vs reward. Currently putting an offline tower in HS has no risk attached to it at all, you need to open up a wardec. Use this super low consumtion rate as keeping up minimum operation of the tower. As it could be as low as consuming only one fuel block per hour, that should be affordable by anyone who runs a POS.

In return you could add additional gameplay for "truly offline towers". Whatever it may be. For example a truly offline tower cannot notify concord that it gets attacked, allowing free attack on it. Or... a truly offline tower has its mainframe offline, and cannot withstand hacker attacks. Or whatever else... there are so many ideas about that out there, that could be placed there.

I think this may add variety, may nullify the need to keep towers offlined (some corporations keep different sizes of towers out there, depending on what sort of demand may arise - if they can switch one tower in different modes, this need is gone).

Those modes should also be added to small and medium towers - so if someone just wanted to run an "ore compression tower", they could use a small one and set it to 1/4, running on the barest minimum just for the compression array. That may open the world of POSes to smaller corporations who were unable to afford them so far, but that may now be doable with a small POS that runs on the "one fourth" setting.

The current faction towers would need rework though, to give them a different set of "bonus" to still make them desireable. More CPU output... more power output... maybe bonus that adds additional time or other modifiers to its attached arrays. As those faction towers need to keep their "worth", but overall i feel that this basic idea would add a lot in terms of "making people want to use them", and also opening the doors for "possible offline tower gameplay" - as everyone can keep them in standby for very low costs. Nothing should be for free.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#684 - 2014-05-13 16:27:10 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Wheeeee, update time. Sorry for the delay, Fanfest put a dent in my forum time, and then second half of last week we were working out the details of when we were releasing what and I didn't want to give an update which was likely to be shortly invalidated. Anyway, on with the show!


First thing, in big bold letters: there is no cap to the fees chargeable. The 14% number we've mentioned a couple of times is just the largest amount we saw in the snapshot we took from TQ. Any cap gives the potential for perverse behavior once the cap is reached, as additional jobs stop adding to the cost. In principle it can scale all the way up to 1x build price, for one system with 100% of job hours in it.


Second thing, starbases. CCP Creber Cattus made some adjustments to the starbase code, and we can now look up which structures belong to which tower without difficulty. This is the hard part of multiple-structures bonuses done, and given the movement of Industry work into the Crius release, we're pretty confident we'll be able to do something sensible here. The current design is to just give an extra bonus for each additional online array of the applicable type; we'll still have to address online/offline shenanigans, but that should be manageable.


MailDeadDrop wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
(This post out of order because the forum ate it first time.)
Petard, meet Greyscale. Greyscale, petard.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
Added to this, we wanted to get rid of slots for a variety of reasons (importantly that they scale badly with population and act as a hard limit which distorts decision-making),
Since hard limits are bad, can we *please* visit the corporate office hard limit of 24 per station?

MDD


We'd like to revisit office slots in the future, yes.

ElectronHerd Askulf wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
The balance between this "push" force and the varying "pull" that Teams will exert gives players two forces to balance against each other, with gameplay deriving from figuring out how to best balance those two forces and looking for places where you can out-decide other players to gain competitive advantage.


For null-sec, the cost of logistics acts as another 'push'. The need to use jump freight to import foreign goos and export finished goods now has a very strong damping influence on null industry. The labor cost landscape combined with the posibility of hiring teams might have been enough to counteract this were it not for the increase in jump freight costs that were just announced.


Yes, this is a reasonable point. When we focus in on nullsec industry specifically, this is one of the things we need to find good counterbalances for.

Patri Andari wrote:
Faction LP Ships and Modules built from BPC.

This area of industry just got a bit more interesting. I have no experience manufaturing faction ships, but modules often have trivial material costs (most costs come from tags). I have not done the math, but if the market price is used to calculate build cost I suspect prices should rise a bit in the short term to cover that.

Need to do some research.


Weaselior wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
As in, total global hours for each activity type?


Yeah, so we can model what sort of costs we can expect post-patch. Whatever it is at this moment is 'good enough' for that sort of modeling.


I've got the OK to release those numbers but the guy who has the data has gone home for the day (I only have percentages in my working sheet). I'll try and post them up tomorrow morning.

Did these get posted? I didn't see them.


Still on my to-do list, sorry about the delay.

Juin Tsukaya wrote:
ElectronHerd Askulf wrote:


Systems with a lot of industrial activity will be rather more expensive than systems with little activity. Systems with a lot of facilities will be somewhat cheaper. A system like Nonni will wind up finding a balance between the two - probably at the point where additional players basing there derive no benefit. That point will depend on the specialities of teams resident in that system compared to what that industrialist is interested in building, but there will come a point where the 'push' overwhelms the 'pull' for any given player.

And yeah, gankers and wardeccers might start camping those systems. They might even follow teams whose specialities are lucrative. That's Eve.


I am not worried so much on those. my concern is population shift as an unintended consequences. I like to run missions. many people do. but those very same systems with many stations is exactly where many mission runners go.I personally don't know many people who run missions from trade hubs because of the over pop, possible td and lag from pop.

this is the potential problem I am wanting to address


Stations that have factory facilities currently will give a larger bonus; I suspect that for the most part mission systems that don't currently attract a lot of industry will continue to not do so in the immediate future.

Iorga Eeta wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:


I... didn't understand any of that...


Basically we discussing if the cost changes result in the prices of all manufactured goods in Eve are spiraling off into infinity or not.


I don't believe they can, as the EVE economy is to a reasonable degree anchored by fixed income from NPCs. While most activities in the EVE economy float, a significant chunk of income is fixed-amount, which ought to act as a natural dampener against serious global inflation. Right? (IANAE)

[quote=Dirty Wrench]How much will it cost to reskin a ship?

Doesn't this require a manufacturing run?

Let me be more specific the blueprints you get from the NEX store that change the paintjob your ship require the use of manufacturing slot.

So if cost is based on the value of the sold...
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#685 - 2014-05-13 17:01:21 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Second thing, starbases. CCP Creber Cattus made some adjustments to the starbase code, and we can now look up which structures belong to which tower without difficulty. This is the hard part of multiple-structures bonuses done, and given the movement of Industry work into the Crius release, we're pretty confident we'll be able to do something sensible here. The current design is to just give an extra bonus for each additional online array of the applicable type; we'll still have to address online/offline shenanigans, but that should be manageable.

This is extremely good news to hear. I almost hate to ask, given the "give an inch and they'll ask for a mile" quality, but is this work that can be reflected in the API to more easily determine which modules are associated with which starbase? Right now, the way that third party tools determine what structures belong to what starbase is to look up their absolute coordinates in space using the Locations.xml.aspx endpoint, then comparing the structures and the starbase itself to find which structures are physically adjacent to which starbase, which is a hilarious workaround for a problem that looks like is being solved with this change.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#686 - 2014-05-13 17:21:40 UTC
"Any cap gives the potential for perverse behavior once the cap is reached, as additional jobs stop adding to the cost. In principle it can scale all the way up to 10x build price, for one system with 100% of job hours in it."

Uh, what? I thought it was

install cost = (price of output) * sqrt( fraction of global job hours )

The largest that fraction can be is 1.0, and sqrt (1) = 1

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
#687 - 2014-05-13 17:25:54 UTC
Querns wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Second thing, starbases. CCP Creber Cattus made some adjustments to the starbase code, and we can now look up which structures belong to which tower without difficulty. This is the hard part of multiple-structures bonuses done, and given the movement of Industry work into the Crius release, we're pretty confident we'll be able to do something sensible here. The current design is to just give an extra bonus for each additional online array of the applicable type; we'll still have to address online/offline shenanigans, but that should be manageable.

This is extremely good news to hear. I almost hate to ask, given the "give an inch and they'll ask for a mile" quality, but is this work that can be reflected in the API to more easily determine which modules are associated with which starbase? Right now, the way that third party tools determine what structures belong to what starbase is to look up their absolute coordinates in space using the Locations.xml.aspx endpoint, then comparing the structures and the starbase itself to find which structures are physically adjacent to which starbase, which is a hilarious workaround for a problem that looks like is being solved with this change.


Potentially... I will have to talk to the team that did the above and see how it was done and if I can use it in the EVE API. Basically I will ask around and see what I can do.

@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Tech Co

Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#688 - 2014-05-13 17:27:42 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
"Any cap gives the potential for perverse behavior once the cap is reached, as additional jobs stop adding to the cost. In principle it can scale all the way up to 10x build price, for one system with 100% of job hours in it."

Uh, what? I thought it was

install cost = (price of output) * sqrt( fraction of global job hours )

The largest that fraction can be is 1.0, and sqrt (1) = 1


...yes, I did my math wrong. Sorry, long day :)
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#689 - 2014-05-13 17:28:18 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:

Potentially... I will have to talk to the team that did the above and see how it was done and if I can use it in the EVE API. Basically I will ask around and see what I can do.

Sweet -- hopefully it works out. If not, don't worry too much about it -- like I said, the associations can still be made with the existing endpoints.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Banko Mato
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#690 - 2014-05-13 17:56:11 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Second thing, starbases. CCP Creber Cattus made some adjustments to the starbase code, and we can now look up which structures belong to which tower without difficulty. This is the hard part of multiple-structures bonuses done, and given the movement of Industry work into the Crius release, we're pretty confident we'll be able to do something sensible here. The current design is to just give an extra bonus for each additional online array of the applicable type; we'll still have to address online/offline shenanigans, but that should be manageable.


So we can even dare to hope for getting something like arrays linked to storage hangar modules? This would mean a great improvement for the hassle that current POS workflows are, and make the remote skills useful again.
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#691 - 2014-05-13 17:58:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenneth Feld
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Querns wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Second thing, starbases. CCP Creber Cattus made some adjustments to the starbase code, and we can now look up which structures belong to which tower without difficulty. This is the hard part of multiple-structures bonuses done, and given the movement of Industry work into the Crius release, we're pretty confident we'll be able to do something sensible here. The current design is to just give an extra bonus for each additional online array of the applicable type; we'll still have to address online/offline shenanigans, but that should be manageable.

This is extremely good news to hear. I almost hate to ask, given the "give an inch and they'll ask for a mile" quality, but is this work that can be reflected in the API to more easily determine which modules are associated with which starbase? Right now, the way that third party tools determine what structures belong to what starbase is to look up their absolute coordinates in space using the Locations.xml.aspx endpoint, then comparing the structures and the starbase itself to find which structures are physically adjacent to which starbase, which is a hilarious workaround for a problem that looks like is being solved with this change.


Potentially... I will have to talk to the team that did the above and see how it was done and if I can use it in the EVE API. Basically I will ask around and see what I can do.



That sir, will get you a bottle of something smooth and tasty (Very much homemade - my Great grandads recipe) if you come to EvE vegas, if you don't...well, I'll still appreciate it.
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#692 - 2014-05-13 18:41:08 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Added to this, we wanted to get rid of slots for a variety of reasons (importantly that they scale badly with population and act as a hard limit which distorts decision-making),
MailDeadDrop wrote:
Since hard limits are bad, can we *please* visit the corporate office hard limit of 24 per station?
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We'd like to revisit office slots in the future, yes.

(DarthVaderVoice) I find your lack of commitment . . . disturbing. (/DarthVaderVoice)
Seriously, your response is so noncommittal it borders on flippant. X I don't get the impression that you have considered what removing remote research ability is going to do to offices at the limited number of stations with lab facilities.

Either hard slot limits are bad or they aren't. You seem to have come down rather soundly on the "hard slot limits are bad" side of the debate. So say office slot limits are bad and just get rid of them. If getting rid of them is not practical at this time, then dial up the limit to some point that they are very unlikely to be encountered, like 1,000 per station. Seriously, how hard is it to make CCP Foozie change one more number?

MDD
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#693 - 2014-05-13 18:52:00 UTC  |  Edited by: LHA Tarawa
From Greyscale's update....

Great. Even with 6 week delay, it is just minor tweaks instead of tossing out all the FUBAR ideas.


Glad I'm already unsubbed. Saves the effort of logging into all my accounts to unsub them.

Sit back, eat popcorn, play EVE Offline, watch as the train races toward the cliff while the game time I stupidly paid for runs out.
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#694 - 2014-05-13 19:16:07 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
From Greyscale's update....

Great. Even with 6 week delay, it is just minor tweaks instead of tossing out all the FUBAR ideas.


Glad I'm already unsubbed. Saves the effort of logging into all my accounts to unsub them.

Sit back, eat popcorn, play EVE Offline, watch as the train races toward the cliff while the game time I stupidly paid for runs out.



When your account runs out, you can't make any more bad posts


Yeah us :)
Sienna Toth
Pulsar Phisics Shipyards
#695 - 2014-05-14 21:06:54 UTC
Good to see the delay.

When can we expect to see these changes on Singularity or Duality?

I'd like to be able to make some product decisions fairly soon as some of my stuff takes as long was 35 days for a soup to nuts delivery. It would be really good if I could make a product discontinue fairly soon so I can burn up inventory.
Rust Connor
Industrias PapaCapim
#696 - 2014-05-19 17:59:24 UTC
Any news about the Material Efficiency skill?
Berluth Luthian
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#697 - 2014-05-19 21:02:32 UTC
Would/are you considering making NPC standings related to installation taxes costs?
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#698 - 2014-05-20 09:41:59 UTC
Berluth Luthian wrote:
Would/are you considering making NPC standings related to installation taxes costs?




That just turns the standings barrier for POS into a standings barrier for manufacturing. Which is still a bad thing.
JanSVK
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#699 - 2014-05-20 12:38:27 UTC
Patri Andari wrote:
Faction LP Ships and Modules built from BPC.

This area of industry just got a bit more interesting. I have no experience manufaturing faction ships, but modules often have trivial material costs (most costs come from tags). I have not done the math, but if the market price is used to calculate build cost I suspect prices should rise a bit in the short term to cover that.

Need to do some research.


Also I would like to point out other rare drop BPCs (faction Towers, 'Magpie' mobile tractor unit) and such.

To the Install cost:
install cost = (price of output) * sqrt( fraction of global job hours )

Why do you want to use the price of output? Why not use the price of input materials? Seems more logical to me.

price of output.
- how is it calculated? Average of global price in the EVE universe, Region, Constelation?
- At the start when there are no orders for a new item how is it calculated?
- is the price calculated at the moment of installing of the job or do you take an average of a certain timespan?
Sigras
Conglomo
#700 - 2014-05-21 02:07:57 UTC
they specifically said theyre not releasing exactly how its calculated to prevent potential exploits