These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1961 - 2014-05-12 13:51:36 UTC
Can we get confirmation of the intended changes to outpost bonuses too? If they exist, I cannot find them. Perhaps in a thread like the starbase changes?

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 

Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#1962 - 2014-05-12 15:19:19 UTC
Seith Kali wrote:
Can we get confirmation of the intended changes to outpost bonuses too? If they exist, I cannot find them. Perhaps in a thread like the starbase changes?


try reading the devblog, that is where they were listed. they haven't said much other than that
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1963 - 2014-05-12 17:01:54 UTC
Seith Kali wrote:
Can we get confirmation of the intended changes to outpost bonuses too? If they exist, I cannot find them. Perhaps in a thread like the starbase changes?

cost devblog

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

Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#1964 - 2014-05-12 17:49:34 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Seith Kali wrote:
Can we get confirmation of the intended changes to outpost bonuses too? If they exist, I cannot find them. Perhaps in a thread like the starbase changes?

cost devblog



Thanks, yeah, I guess with like a ton of devblogs, i could have been slightly more helpful....
Dingoo Ridgeback
Bitten By Science
#1965 - 2014-05-12 20:34:07 UTC
I'm looking forward to the industry changes but one thing keeps bugging me; I'm using POS for T2 manufacturing and that means I have to stick around to manualy move materials between various modules (like component and equipment assembly arrays). The remote job installing is no good since the more complex assembly arrays (like equipment, drone or ship) cannot take materials from component assembly array or corporate hangar (which wouldn't help anyway, because the goods from component assembly array cannot be delivered to corp hangar). The same thing happens when you run out of material in one of the modules but you still have plenty in the other - once again you have to travel to your POS just to move stuff around.

Will this be addressed in some way? I haven't realy found an answer to that but I sure hope it will. Right now I can manufacture T2 components remotely but then I still have to warp to my POS to move them to different module in the same POS. That kinda beats all the benefits of remote job management and I don't know why since all the materials are at the POS anyway. Thanks

We had to work hard to become the top of the food chain so enjoy your steak.

Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1966 - 2014-05-12 20:53:15 UTC
Been hoping for some kind of silo module myself. Right now literally the only way to handle scale industry is with a corporate office Evil

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#1967 - 2014-05-13 06:43:08 UTC
Dingoo Ridgeback wrote:
I'm looking forward to the industry changes but one thing keeps bugging me; I'm using POS for T2 manufacturing and that means I have to stick around to manualy move materials between various modules (like component and equipment assembly arrays). The remote job installing is no good since the more complex assembly arrays (like equipment, drone or ship) cannot take materials from component assembly array or corporate hangar (which wouldn't help anyway, because the goods from component assembly array cannot be delivered to corp hangar). The same thing happens when you run out of material in one of the modules but you still have plenty in the other - once again you have to travel to your POS just to move stuff around.

Will this be addressed in some way? I haven't realy found an answer to that but I sure hope it will. Right now I can manufacture T2 components remotely but then I still have to warp to my POS to move them to different module in the same POS. That kinda beats all the benefits of remote job management and I don't know why since all the materials are at the POS anyway. Thanks


Maybe an alt sat in or near the POS would be a good comprimise for now, with the appropriate roles of course? Looks liker I have to wait until July to play with POS but I'd rather that than them be wrecked by a rushed release
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#1968 - 2014-05-13 22:44:53 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
5% material reduction.

Gah. That's a /major/ change.

5%, so basically the pinnacle of manufacturing then. Ok interesting.
Logan Revelore
Symbiotic Systems
#1969 - 2014-05-16 11:56:44 UTC
Querns wrote:
NOTE: "I had to suffer for it so others should also have to either suffer or pay me" is not a valid reason.


What makes this invalid? That is exactly how I feel. If I worked my ass off in missions getting to 7 faction standing so I could anchor in 0.7 then a change to a no standing requirement is naturally going to annoy me.

I think it's a perfectly valid reason for thinking it's a bad idea to remove the standing requirement.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1970 - 2014-05-16 12:01:43 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
5% material reduction.

Gah. That's a /major/ change.

5%, so basically the pinnacle of manufacturing then. Ok interesting.



It's been changed since then. now 2% reduction.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Vexo Colari
Dark Sanctum
#1971 - 2014-05-17 06:59:55 UTC
I realize this is part of the tweaking from the other Indi changes but are the POS's ever gonna be reworked?

I mean in my opinion the entire POS system is probably the oldest part of EVE, set up is terrible, etc.

I think it needs a complete overhaul.

These ideas that were in the commonly proposed ideas area should definitely be looked at.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6342&find=unread

They are in the 4th post.

I think there were some great ideas in there that can be tweaked and will fit into this whole summer industrial expansion you guys are doing.

Hopefully you have something planned out already!

Cheers
Sigras
Conglomo
#1972 - 2014-05-17 10:04:15 UTC
Logan Revelore wrote:
Querns wrote:
NOTE: "I had to suffer for it so others should also have to either suffer or pay me" is not a valid reason.


What makes this invalid? That is exactly how I feel. If I worked my ass off in missions getting to 7 faction standing so I could anchor in 0.7 then a change to a no standing requirement is naturally going to annoy me.

I think it's a perfectly valid reason for thinking it's a bad idea to remove the standing requirement.

By that logic nothing should ever get fixed... allow me to illustrate:

I had to suffer through the time when a TItan could remote DD a grid through a cyno. Thats right, the titan didnt have to be on grid, he didnt even have to be in the same system, he could just DD you if there was a cyno on grid with you.

Right when I get one, CCP changes it so you have to be on grid to DD someone.

Now is it better for me to complain that everyone should have to suffer the way I did? or is it better to recognize the fact that the game mechanic was beyond stupid in the first place and the game as a whole is now better off even if it hurts my character personally?
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
#1973 - 2014-05-17 10:17:47 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Logan Revelore wrote:
Querns wrote:
NOTE: "I had to suffer for it so others should also have to either suffer or pay me" is not a valid reason.


What makes this invalid? That is exactly how I feel. If I worked my ass off in missions getting to 7 faction standing so I could anchor in 0.7 then a change to a no standing requirement is naturally going to annoy me.

I think it's a perfectly valid reason for thinking it's a bad idea to remove the standing requirement.

By that logic nothing should ever get fixed... allow me to illustrate:

I had to suffer through the time when a TItan could remote DD a grid through a cyno. Thats right, the titan didnt have to be on grid, he didnt even have to be in the same system, he could just DD you if there was a cyno on grid with you.

Right when I get one, CCP changes it so you have to be on grid to DD someone.

Now is it better for me to complain that everyone should have to suffer the way I did? or is it better to recognize the fact that the game mechanic was beyond stupid in the first place and the game as a whole is now better off even if it hurts my character personally?



Hello Apples! This is my friend, Oranges. Let's discuss comparisons. Shall we?

Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown

JanSVK
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1974 - 2014-05-19 12:57:56 UTC
Hello everyone.

All jobs in POS are corporation jobs. Anyone in the corporation with the right roles can access, see, deliver, manipulate the jobs of everyone using the POS laboratory or assembly arrays. And anyone who wants to use POS for production or researge needs exactly these roles. This brings up the issue of security and corp thieves espetially in larger corporations.

Researching blueprints is a minimal risk being stolen by corp members as Blueprints can be locked and even if anyone from the corp would steal the finished output products (BPC) then the loss in isk is not that high (< 100 mil).

If I decide to use a POS to build T2 equipmen I have to trust any corp member not to steal my stuff when it is finished with little to no security system in place. Potentially bilions of isk in assets at risk when producing t2 stuff for example.

My suggestion would be to make the POS jobs owner restricted or give the ability for players to controll which characters can access deliver/cancel their jobs. While we at it same could go for the materials in the laboratories. Another solution would be if all labs could access the personal storage hangar in the POS.
Dingoo Ridgeback
Bitten By Science
#1975 - 2014-05-19 16:11:04 UTC
JanSVK wrote:
Another solution would be if all labs could access the personal storage hangar in the POS.


That would be nice since that would fix the security issues and the remote access issues I posted earlier. Of course the assembly array would have to be able to take materials and deliver the product from/to the hangar.

We had to work hard to become the top of the food chain so enjoy your steak.

Big Dallocort
Mine 'N' Refine
Goonswarm Federation
#1976 - 2014-05-20 12:33:47 UTC
So with the standing restrictions lifted for high sec pos, will you be able to put all structures like drug lab and reactors into the pos or are they still only for low sec
Flay Nardieu
#1977 - 2014-05-21 00:08:40 UTC
I continue to hold the position that a total removal of anchoring restrictions is a bad idea. Originally I was completely against it, but after further thought have concluded that having it limited to the lowest security in high-sec (0.5) would be of benefit to both entry level POS managing corps AND established corps willing to commit to allying themselves with a particular empire faction.

All of the comparisons/analogies I've seen comparing this particular change to previous changes and examples lack common ground or parity. I can even further the argument by saying a group or individual investing in the faction of one empire runs foul of the opposing faction and their allies. Case in point this character is a Gallente aligned industrialist, and is "shoot on site" by Caldari and Amarr navies. A complete removal will lend to a noncommital approach to gameplay where only the Faction Warfare players are at risk venturing into enemy territories.

The mechanics that allow players/corps anchor a POS in high-sec also has the side affect on where those players can venture most importantly in wars between corps or alliances. Again empire navies will engage players in appropriate security level systems based on their standings hence preventing them from join battles in those systems, I would say it is a good thing because it forces even more strategy when attacking or defending space bound assets. Without the reason to gain the standings the rewards for doing standing missions become very less appealing since the cumulative gain was more important than the individual standing mission rewards.

The complete removal of empire standing need in anchor will have some very subtle and rippling effects in other areas.
Marcus Iunius Brutus
Hoborg Labs
#1978 - 2014-05-22 13:07:00 UTC
With merge of extra materials into base materials, if I understand correctly, insurance on many hulls will significantly go up.

My question is how are ships insured pre-patch going to pay out if destroyed after patch - old rate or new rate?
iwannadig
Doomheim
#1979 - 2014-05-31 10:23:10 UTC
As a part of industry UI improvements I would like to have an opportunity to link not only item from item blueprint, but also item blueprint from item (where applicable).
Leptus
3 Musketeer's
#1980 - 2014-06-08 01:55:01 UTC
This dev blog states:


"-Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials."

So CCP is going to force industry players to put all of their BPO's into the POS and at risk . This is not a risk reward design. Industry corps may have billions of isk and years tied up in researched BPO's for copy/ building . This is the industrialist profession and how they sustain income. To force all of our assets into space for the taking is ridiculous. This turns contracts into a shopping list of POS's to plunder for the BPO one is looking for. A couple of BS BPO's are worth attacking a POS, what about the corps with carrier, titans, or T2 BPO's?

If CCP is attempting to cut off supplies and alienate high sec industrialist then this is the way to do it.