EVE Information Portal

I'm kind of waiting for these too..I get the design you intend with the job cost scaling, but to work out what it actually means in specific systems/cases and to optimise our infrastructure I'd like to have these..

The only thing I can think of regarding online/offline shenanigans is that if offline structures count, the optimal starbase to conduct RAM at will always be a small, since you can anchor a number of offline modules far afield of what that tower could normally hold, assuming the maximum benefit is calculated for a large tower.

If the maximum benefit is calculated per tower, depending on the size, then this is a non-concern. I suppose it might let you, e.g., online one each of lab and assembly array, then anchor enough offline ones to confer the maximum cost reduction for both activities, but in that case the penalty for having to do all that green boxing far outstrips the potential monetary gain. :V

Er. Not that I wouldn't absolutely love for things to stay this way, but it is pretty game-breaking. A dozen of online arrays means you can barely have any hardeners or guns online. Similarly, a dozen of online arrays means you can't have a dozen of a different type of array also onlined.

Letting bonuses apply from offline structures means being able to just stick 40bil of arrays onto a single Minnie tower, offlining all but one of each kind, proceeding to online a mass of guns and hardeners, and still getting full bonuses for everything. I definitely wouldn't complain if you allowed that, but I also wouldn't consider it very fair to other players.

Thank you very much. I'm also concerned about the offline modules being counted. It seems like I could set up a single pos with a pile of offline labs, component arrays, and ship assembly arrays and crank out t2 frigs with heavy bonuses all the way through the chain, unless I'm missing something.

Hey I'm sorry to put it like that, but stacking a massive amount of offline structures inside a POS just to have the max bonus, seems like a very bad mecanic.

Or, perhaps add a feature like the PI command center upgrade option, giving you the option of upgrading a specific module to give better bonus, for a (steeply) growing cost per improvement step. And of course, lost when the module is offlined or destructed. That would make much better sense than just stacking identical modules, even if the offline sillyness was weeded out.

If you would like improvements to be player produced (like a stack of 15 identical modules), you could make those improvements come in the form of rigs for POS modules. That would make even more sense. But I don't know if that is an option codewise.

Personally, I no longer place a high priority on getting multiple starbase arrays to provide any bonus come Crius, as opposed to at some later date. I've found other ways of gaming that system, although they are a bit cumbersome. I doubt I reflect the opinion of most POS manufacturers on this one though.

About the structures giving a cost reduction, potential for abuse... I think the relevant solution should be simple... while jobs in structure type X are in progress, putting one of those structures offline will turn them all offline, and putting one back online will turn them all back on.

It's still ugly, I know... due to this sort of mutual shared bonus/function maybe some day the structures can be arranged into groups? Then they use as groups..


At any rate, I think the material bonus is weird as an advantage of multiple structures... however, if it were a time bonus (maybe just a little bit of a material bonus) that I think would make more sense as you could say that all of the structures are doing some part of the project in parallel, and then the manufacturers running POS's get their advantage in production volume and/or being able to get their product to market sooner where they see a profit to be made, instead of days later when the margin worth rushing for is already gone.

Also, with those cost reductions, any single corp could choose a product type to dominate, get max bonus for that type, and then win that market by having very large volume potential and also the lower prices to be able to undercut anybody all the time...


Well before I babble any more I'm going to call this post done xD hope it was good for thinking exercizes
*reluctantly gets back to work while at work*

I just followed the news link to this post. We are lucky that facility is available otherwise important info like this would just get lost and most people wouldn't know about it.

First of all people are referencing your post regarding the implied ability to online X amount of exact same arrays to gain bonuses then offline all but the array where the job/s is/are set up. Your post doesn't specifically state that this is possible or allowed but then quips that it could be possible but it might not be a problem. If all this is possible and allowed would it also be possible to unanchor the excess number of arrays used to attain the bonuses received and remove them from the POS while still continuing to receive the bonuses A massive loophole in the making.

The above paragraph points out what a car crash of a system you have designed and are seriously considering putting into place. I bet ten quid you haven't realised the above yet either If you are still going ahead with this multiple array bonus scheme I suggest you amend it so that ALL the arrays involved in attaining the bonus have to remain online until job completion.

Secondly my suggestion of issuing skillbooks, at 10x skill training if you wish, to receive cost bonuses on jobs at POSes is a far, far better method than the multiple array method you are planning to deploy. Of course I'm not stupid and I can see your plan also connects with other issues within New Eden such as the POS fuel market, ice mining & P.I. but I still believe my idea is the better one.

"Multiple array bonus scheme"........err.......yes I know.......it reminds me of something else too.

Question for clarification. Is the "build cost bonus" a reduction in the materials needed for production (material cost reduction) or a reduction in the workforce cost?

Because really a 21% material reduction for BS at POS would be game breaking but a 21% workforce cost reduction would be cool. At one point you where talking about a 2% material cost reduction for POS manufacturing, but in most of the DEV Blogs about the new industry the "cost reductions" are talking about workforce cost reductions. It would be good to get some clarification so I know what to expect.