These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Crius] Starbase feedback

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kale Freeman
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#281 - 2014-07-09 20:50:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Kale Freeman
Seith Kali wrote:
Kale Freeman wrote:

Obviously napkin maths is napkin maths and might be horribly wrong.


It is. The stacking bonus for building 1-2J out of jita (pretty much the only place in the game where it matters) was going to be significant. People will have to spread farther afield now to achieve comparable reductions. This is probably a good thing anyway.


Misunderstood you. Makes sense now. Ignore post.

Delete
Letto Atreides
Still Water Intergalactic Holdings
#282 - 2014-07-09 21:08:04 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

Update on multiple-structure bonuses for starbases.

We've just had another discussion about this system as-implemented, and based on your feedback, the technical challenges involved in implementing it in a fully user-friendly way, and the somewhat limited upsides of the feature, we've decided to cut it from Crius.

Having multiple starbase structures of the same type at a starbase will no longer grant you any bonus above those inherent in the structure itself

The only substantial downside to this is that it makes it much easier to weaponize an industry tower, so we are considering upping lab/array fitting costs substantially in a later release. We likely will not do this in Crius itself as people will need time to reconfigure their setups.

We are looking into what we can do to mitigate the expected glut of labs resulting from this change; more info as we work through this process :)

Thanks for all your feedback,
-Greyscale


Great Decision! Thanks for listening to all the player feedback.

For those of you that are writing angry posts in response to this decision, please consider how tedious your life would have become managing 13 arrays to get the same bonus.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#283 - 2014-07-09 21:42:08 UTC
Kenneth Skybound wrote:
Oh lovely, you actually misread what I posted. Brilliant. I know there are not going to be slots. Lack of slots as in slots are being removed.

The whole point of the original consideration of stacking bonuses was to handle the fact that otherwise, and without slots, only one of each industry posdule type is needed for a given area of use.

A lot of people do not use every single structure out there - industrialists specialise. That's how you profit, by being the better player at a small number of things, not flailing around with a lot. Almost any group considering and desiring to use the majority of industry posdules would do so either in separate starbases or non-concurrently already.

And that whole "silent delay for up to an hour" is amazing. I mean, it's once again laughing in the face of everyone who has ever worked with starbases and got the mental capacity to understand a one hour cycle. Even the consideration of "Oh, this person has to wait an hour for changes to take place." Industry, as you have said yourself, is about manufacture and research in bulk and at a large scale. One hour is a long time to a frigate pilot firing at another frigate pilot. One hour is a short hop around for any major industrialist as the overwhelming majority of jobs exceed that time and a non-trivial amount exceed it by orders of magnitude.

This is hand waving at it's very best. You don't cancel an entire section of content because some people cannot fathom things happening on a 1 hour cycle. Would you remove the rest of starbase mechanics affected by this 1 hour cycle until it can be very carefully presented to the layest of men? Or would you leave the content in to be used with a note in a description or two explaining there is such a cycle, while working on a way to make it clearer in a later patch?



Changes only taking effect on a long, silent cycle is a microcosm of everything that's wrong with starbases, and we no longer operate in a mindset where that sort of functionality is considered acceptable.

The one-hour tick also poses major problems to any straightforward attempts to get around online/offline shenanigans. Yes, it's relatively straightforward to specify solutions, but in practical terms it did not look likely that we were going to be able to fix this prior to release.

It's also an additional source of complexity and confusion in a system that's already got a lot of moving parts.

Balanced against those downsides, the upsides are that a) it offers a very small additional build cost reduction (this can be accomplished in other ways if the actual cost/benefit is an underlying problem), b) it prevents a market glut of labs, c) it adds a bit more decision-making to tower setup and d) it makes research towers visually more distinctive. If we can get a near-instantaneous update easily, the small cost of adding this feature is just about justified by the upsides. Where that's not practical, it no longer justifies itself, so we cut it (less than an hour's work, including testing).

We want to address b and possibly c; if a is a problem we can tackle that through other means; d is unlikely to have effort invested in it with a fuller rework on the cards.

If you feel like current starbase mechanics are entirely acceptable to you and you'd be happy with more in the same vein, then you've probably got a competitive advantage there against many other players that I'm sure you're leveraging to the fullest, but it's not a development position that we are intending to take.
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#284 - 2014-07-09 21:45:24 UTC
The big advantage I'd see for a POS is that you'll be able to set up in a system with no stations, which means that there should theoretically be fewer people doing industry in that system and as a result theoretically lower costs on top of the POS discount.
Darnok Iksnibiks
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#285 - 2014-07-09 21:51:17 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

Update on multiple-structure bonuses for starbases.

We've just had another discussion about this system as-implemented, and based on your feedback, the technical challenges involved in implementing it in a fully user-friendly way, and the somewhat limited upsides of the feature, we've decided to cut it from Crius.

Having multiple starbase structures of the same type at a starbase will no longer grant you any bonus above those inherent in the structure itself

The only substantial downside to this is that it makes it much easier to weaponize an industry tower, so we are considering upping lab/array fitting costs substantially in a later release. We likely will not do this in Crius itself as people will need time to reconfigure their setups.

We are looking into what we can do to mitigate the expected glut of labs resulting from this change; more info as we work through this process :)

Thanks for all your feedback,
-Greyscale



In my opinion this is bad decision. It removes risk vs. reward layer from POS.

With multiple structure bonus one could balance his reward (lower cost) by risk (less defense). This, in connection to BPO and BPC changes gives some nice scenarios to consider:

1) I'm lazy, and job cost don't interest me too much, since its remote system. I put my BPO into tower, single array and full defense.

2) I get my BPC, not much ISK in those, so I can afford for better system. As alternative I can put more arrays, reduce costs but i risk my tower being ganked.

3) I'm feeling lucky, so I cut costs with multiple arrays, skip BPC (reduced cycle time/cost) and tower weapons. Real mean Hope Tank anyway...

Those are choices that matter.

With multi-array bonus being thrown away, choices are boring:

1) i put BPO into fully weponized tower, make ISK
2) I'm an idiot by doing additional cycles for BPC, have them on single array, death star POS with no advantage...

With regards
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#286 - 2014-07-09 22:21:10 UTC
About the entire multiple lab thing:
Right now we have several different types of labs and industry arrays for doing different things. Instead, how about:
Just a few types, each of which can do many things.
Three different sizes for each type; small, medium and large.

(This is why we reduce the number of types, we are increasing the number by adding sizes.)

The larger the module, the more power and cpu it needs, which tends to force the tower size upward.
The larger the module, the better the bonus.

I'm not sure how the changeover could be done. All current modules would be "small". Maybe BPC's that take several modules as input and output one larger one?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#287 - 2014-07-09 22:52:44 UTC
The right decision. POS manufacturing is already getting buffed as it is. Activity-related installation cost penalties are already very easy to avoid, and it's only getting easier due to the huge buff to Scientific Networking / Supply Chain Management. Benefits for multiple lab arrays are no longer a priority, and getting full bonuses from offline arrays is just plain ridiculous.

It was already more profitable to abuse the Scientific Networking buff than to stack POS arrays, even if offline labs gave full bonuses. Looking at just final isk/hr/effort, completely putting aside the cost of buying a full supplement of labs.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#288 - 2014-07-09 23:10:43 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

Update on multiple-structure bonuses for starbases.

We've just had another discussion about this system as-implemented, and based on your feedback, the technical challenges involved in implementing it in a fully user-friendly way, and the somewhat limited upsides of the feature, we've decided to cut it from Crius.

Having multiple starbase structures of the same type at a starbase will no longer grant you any bonus above those inherent in the structure itself

The only substantial downside to this is that it makes it much easier to weaponize an industry tower, so we are considering upping lab/array fitting costs substantially in a later release. We likely will not do this in Crius itself as people will need time to reconfigure their setups.

We are looking into what we can do to mitigate the expected glut of labs resulting from this change; more info as we work through this process :)

Thanks for all your feedback,
-Greyscale


How do I downvote this?

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#289 - 2014-07-10 00:23:44 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
How do I downvote this?


By unsubbing :)

That way, costs go down for me when you don't manufacture anything.
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#290 - 2014-07-10 00:50:01 UTC
Probably for the best. Save it for the major POS overhaul and do it right the first time.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
#291 - 2014-07-10 01:08:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Maenth
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

Update on multiple-structure bonuses for starbases.

We've just had another discussion about this system as-implemented, and based on your feedback, the technical challenges involved in implementing it in a fully user-friendly way, and the somewhat limited upsides of the feature, we've decided to cut it from Crius.

Having multiple starbase structures of the same type at a starbase will no longer grant you any bonus above those inherent in the structure itself

The only substantial downside to this is that it makes it much easier to weaponize an industry tower, so we are considering upping lab/array fitting costs substantially in a later release. We likely will not do this in Crius itself as people will need time to reconfigure their setups.

We are looking into what we can do to mitigate the expected glut of labs resulting from this change; more info as we work through this process :)

Thanks for all your feedback,
-Greyscale


How abooout a sort of multiple-structure build-time bonus and say that the same-type structures work parts of the jobs in parallel so they get done faster ...

Other consideration: multiple structures are still multiple containers, good for organization ... the ability to set title-based restrictions/permissions on structures would be nice

But I must agree to some notes earlier: that's a heavy ball to drop after setting us up for so long saying there would be that bonus (or at least A bonus) for multiple structures, letting people believe that they should spend millions or billions on structures to just end up saying "mmm nah never mind" ... even if it's a little bonus that isn't well described in the current interface, that could be fixed later once you have a decision and to a nice pos overhaul or whatever... but please just don't cancel the whole thing. that's just kinda terrible (sorry to sound mean!)

Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#292 - 2014-07-10 06:02:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
TigerXtrm wrote:
Probably for the best. Save it for the major POS overhaul and do it right the first time.


Oh you mean the POS overhaul that will take place when pigs fly?

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
mr stephenson
Dodgy at Best
#293 - 2014-07-10 06:50:56 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I know that the POS code is supposedly a mess, but please stop using that as an excuse to avoid fixing it. Everyone knows they're broken and simply reminding us of how broken they are instead of doing the work to fix them is highly unprofessional in my book. There's a lot of good gameplay to be had there if you just fixed them.


Fixing POS code is next on our list after industry, as per the EVE Keynote at Fanfest this year.


you cant fix industry without fixing pos they are to interlinked
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#294 - 2014-07-10 08:04:40 UTC
Scout Vyvorant wrote:
Why don't you create a structure that does nothing by itself but just give the bonus intended for the multiple structures?

Make two types, one for research/invention and one for manufactoring, and create a small, medium and large variant scaling the bonus in the same way the pos fuel is scaled, meaning a large one give -24, a medium -12 and a small -6. That is easier than nerfing the online cost of the existing structures.

Edit: the structure is intended to be max one, giving the bonus once, not addictive with similar structres, so anchoring 2 smalls wont give +12. If you want +12 use a medium.

In this way you have to choose between being cost effictive or weaponized, and choosing is at core of this patch


Another option is "normal" and "intensive" versions of each lab. The "normal" version is what we have now, with the lower bonuses, with the "intensive" having better bonuses, requiring "inferno" drugs for fuel, but providing higher bonuses (and shortening the lifespan of your research team) :)

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Kenneth Skybound
Gallifrey Resources
#295 - 2014-07-10 10:14:34 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Changes only taking effect on a long, silent cycle is a microcosm of everything that's wrong with starbases, and we no longer operate in a mindset where that sort of functionality is considered acceptable.

The one-hour tick also poses major problems to any straightforward attempts to get around online/offline shenanigans. Yes, it's relatively straightforward to specify solutions, but in practical terms it did not look likely that we were going to be able to fix this prior to release.

It's also an additional source of complexity and confusion in a system that's already got a lot of moving parts.

Balanced against those downsides, the upsides are that a) it offers a very small additional build cost reduction (this can be accomplished in other ways if the actual cost/benefit is an underlying problem), b) it prevents a market glut of labs, c) it adds a bit more decision-making to tower setup and d) it makes research towers visually more distinctive. If we can get a near-instantaneous update easily, the small cost of adding this feature is just about justified by the upsides. Where that's not practical, it no longer justifies itself, so we cut it (less than an hour's work, including testing).

We want to address b and possibly c; if a is a problem we can tackle that through other means; d is unlikely to have effort invested in it with a fuller rework on the cards.

If you feel like current starbase mechanics are entirely acceptable to you and you'd be happy with more in the same vein, then you've probably got a competitive advantage there against many other players that I'm sure you're leveraging to the fullest, but it's not a development position that we are intending to take.


This reasoning I can appreciate more than your previous statements. Doesn't mean I'm happy with it by any means, it's still discarding that area without replacement, but alas that seems to be what we're getting now.

Let us hope that the POS rework coming up is prompt and successful (with all the possible tools for varied gameplay, including the in-corp taxes raised in another thread). It's the little tools or options that make interesting, new and emergent player directions, as I'm sure you're aware.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Bitter Fremlin
Heimatar Enhanced Fleet Industries
#296 - 2014-07-10 10:26:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Bitter Fremlin
Kale Freeman wrote:
Obviously napkin maths is napkin maths and might be horribly wrong.

You're forgetting the time benefit. More napkin maths...

Say a product makes you 60k ISK per hour on one industry slot. The 25% reduction from using a POS makes you an extra 20k an hour -- 24 hours a day, 30 days a month and with 10 slots, that's 144 million extra from one character. Or 1/3rd of your fuel bill. Of course, that assumes you can run at full chat and that the extra production doesn't increase your material or job costs or reduce your sell price.

Using a POS for industry will *not* be a no-brainer if you have access to other facilities. It will depend on where you are, how many other people are sharing it with you, how many other other people (sic) are using the system, and what you are using the POS for. There will be "soft" factors as well -- for example, the hassle of and cost of running your POS might be outweighed by the convenience of basing closer to a trade hub but away from the main NPC-factory systems.

Which is good. A POS should confer an advantage if done right, but in no way should it be an "I win Industry!" button.
Erick Asmock
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#297 - 2014-07-10 12:14:43 UTC
CCP....stop wasting our time with these meaningless dead ends. Fix the POS code (rewrite it) so it works and is actually better.

Then you can make meaningful industry changes. Until you do this any changes to industry will be hampered by POSes.
Estela Mongaguarda
In this Moment After
Goonswarm Federation
#298 - 2014-07-10 13:33:16 UTC
First and foremost, the one problem for industrialists that will never end is the fact that industry is tweaked taking into consideration pvp. While industry is limited by pvp, and not the other way around, neither will improve.

That, however is a underline condition EVE will never get rid of, as it seems.

For the time being tho, in my tests I notice that lots of changes can be pointless just by not leaving jobs unattended and just take care of it closely. At least from what I see in the test server, you can get better results by simply doing tasks by smaller parts or runs more times instead of just doing it all at once. Which is kinda nonsense.

Lots of operations in anchoring or changing POS itens do not show the changes being started or progressing, and UI in that regard isnt showing much progress.

Capital ship construction is not really that pumped up as people is lead to believe. In having seeded itens in the test server you really had a pump up, but when you do the thing from the raw material however, the other changes really messed up the process to get the components for the actual "improved" part of using the capital blueprint to make it.

Again, POS is not really viable for small corps because now its maintenance and structuring for non money printer systems in null makes it a very risky investment, as the wardec harassment tool you can get a very unexpensive small group of ships to put down a very expensive now needed structure for industry operations. Meanwhile the harassment small corps can use the bumps in industry to make their own non expensive factories of non expensive weapons of spreading misery.

And that ends the circle where the result is industry being a tool for spreading the misery, instead of creating an portion of industry aimed to spread misery. Which in turn tweak the Nash equilibrium in EVE universe to favor those interested in destruction and limitation, restricting those wanting to build and structure.
Careby
#299 - 2014-07-10 13:59:04 UTC
Estela Mongaguarda wrote:
...And that ends the circle where the result is industry being a tool for spreading the misery, instead of creating an portion of industry aimed to spread misery. Which in turn tweak the Nash equilibrium in EVE universe to favor those interested in destruction and limitation, restricting those wanting to build and structure.

From one paranoid to another, have you considered it from the perspective of DvP?
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#300 - 2014-07-10 15:23:56 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I know that the POS code is supposedly a mess, but please stop using that as an excuse to avoid fixing it. Everyone knows they're broken and simply reminding us of how broken they are instead of doing the work to fix them is highly unprofessional in my book. There's a lot of good gameplay to be had there if you just fixed them.


Fixing POS code is next on our list after industry, as per the EVE Keynote at Fanfest this year.


I thought it was corp management?

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!