These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why does it cost ISK to Research and Manufacture in the POS?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hiyora Akachi
Blood Alcohol Content
T O P S H E L F
#21 - 2014-07-25 19:19:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Budrick3 wrote:
TharOkha wrote:
just use npc station slots... they are unlimited now and still pretty cheap in some stations

Difficult to do when you live in a wh.

If you live in a WH, your jobs will be ridiculously inexpensive anyway.


According to one WH denizen I've spoken to, it costs 750mil to install a Paladin at a WH POS.
Senyu Takashi
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2014-07-25 21:31:27 UTC
On one hand we have the option of doing indy stuff in NPC stations

Pros:
You dont have to buy the station.
You have everything in a single "item tab".
(Almost) all types of slots in a single facility.
Stations cannot be destroyed so your items inside are completely safe.
Easy to use.
0 isk fuel cost.
Store ALL YOUR BPOS in a single place.

Cons:
10% additional tax.


On the other hand we have POS indy stuff:

Pros:
No 10% tax.

Cons:
Having to spend several hundreds of million isk (maybe even a bil if you are going all serious) just to buy that whole thing.
Having to pay 500m isk for fuel.
Living in fear that someone might wardec your corp and take out that POS "for the lulz", thus ruining your entire investment.
Losing not only the POS but also some of your blueprints in the process.
Having to anchor and online the whole thing (i.e. sitting in space, open to any attack).
Having to haul materials and blueprints between station and POS if you dont want to risk it all.
Paying fee for using your own installations, that you supply with fuel and you defend (because logic).


Yeah.....I will surely choose POS for indy stuff....
Belt Scout
Thread Lockaholics Anonymous
#23 - 2014-07-25 21:50:54 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Hiyora Akachi wrote:
POS workers unionized and started demanding proper wages.
Yes, this too.

You could hire Fedos instead of human workers, for -80% costs but +5% materials (they sometimes eat the materials).


What EvE needs is children to do the manual labor. Maybe in the next patchspansion.

.

They say most of your brain shuts down on the EvE forums. All but the impatient side, and the sarcastic side. No wonder I'm still awake.

**This IS my main so STFU.
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#24 - 2014-07-25 21:51:44 UTC
ISK Sink... but it's "OK", it's only another symptom of a mismanaged economy... sort of like China, with debt approaching 250% of it's GNP... before it all drops in the pot one day.

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
#25 - 2014-07-25 22:24:18 UTC
Unless there are suddenly unlimited moons to anchor a POS at... I see no reason an ISK sink had to be added.

Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy.

I invented Tiericide
Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#26 - 2014-07-25 22:25:47 UTC
If your profit margins were so low that these tiny costs are killing all profitability then you were doing it wrong and should just stop anyway.

Or, ya know, move to a system with a lower index so that you can build cheaper.

The Drake is a Lie
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#27 - 2014-07-25 22:28:00 UTC
Val'Dore wrote:
Unless there are suddenly unlimited moons to anchor a POS at... I see no reason an ISK sink had to be added.

More ISK sinks (and especially more varied and dynamic ISK sinks) are always needed.
And with the new moons on top of the fair underused set already available, they might as well be unlimited.
Zero Sum Gain
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOM
#28 - 2014-07-26 01:00:44 UTC
CCP is collaberating with the renters blue donut to make high sec less dangerous. And goons.
Serene Repose
#29 - 2014-07-26 07:49:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Serene Repose
Anybody who listens to George Michael should be shot. Anybody who listened to one of his songs long enough to write a parody of it, well...we have institutions and jackets that tie in the back for such people as these...ew.

YOUR POS PAYMENTS ARE WAGES TO THE EMPLOYEES YOU PRETEND YOU DON'T HAVE.

I mean, if you can pretend you aren't using labor, CCP can pretend you are
and make you pay what would be their wages.

I'm sure you thought of this all by yourself and you're just pretending you haven't RIGHT?

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Guttripper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#30 - 2014-07-26 11:00:13 UTC
Tippia wrote:
More ISK sinks (and especially more varied and dynamic ISK sinks) are always needed.

And if you just so happen to not be able to afford those ISK sinks for whatever reason, CCP is having a sale on plex...

CCP might just be running a tad in the red, so what a subtle way to get more real life cash. Twisted
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#31 - 2014-07-26 11:34:02 UTC
Just woken up so not reading the whole thread (I know, I'm awful), but:

Ultimately, you're paying fees in your starbase because that's the balance tradeoff for unlimited slots for everyone. If we take slots away we need some form of substitute (pseudo-)scarcity so that everyone in the universe doesn't just build in Jita 4-4, which would be bad for various reasons but primarily because it removes a whole lot of interesting decisions and makes the rest of the map an industrial wasteland, which is not a thing we want. We felt that scaling fees were a good solution to this, as fees were already a thing (even though they were essentially irrelevant) and because ISK is kinda the nexus of decision-making for serious industrialists. If we're going to use fees, we pretty much have to apply them everywhere, including starbases because they scale too well otherwise and we don't want to re-add pseudo-slots to stop them from being too powerful.

The lore reason is just something to the effect that (Abraxas has the real version, if I was in the office I could look it up but I'm not) CONCORD has stopped paying worker costs for capsuleer industrialists, so now you have to pay them instead. We deliberately talk in terms of workforce fees to try and reduce the cognitive dissonance of "why do I have to pay in my starbase" and "why is it the same all over the system", but obviously it's am imperfect fix.

We totally understand why people are having this reaction, though - it's your tower, why are you having to pay extra? - and it's probably an area of the design that could be adjusted to give a better result, but not obviously without trading off against reduced ease-of-use. We could, f.ex, require "workers" to be put into labs and assembly arrays as fuel, which are purchased for ISK, so you're not paying money on the job but you are paying the equivalent amount on the back end... but then you have more fuel to haul around and people generally hate doing that. Swings and roundabouts.


Oh, and as to the "this extra cost hurts me", that should cancel out economically, because everyone's paying the same extra cost in a given location so prices ought to rise accordingly.


Anyway, like I said, just got up, trying to help, may be some crazy in the above I'm not spotting currently, sorry :)
Derrick Miles
Death Rabbit Ky Oneida
#32 - 2014-07-26 12:30:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:

More ISK sinks (and especially more varied and dynamic ISK sinks) are always needed.
And with the new moons on top of the fair underused set already available, they might as well be unlimited.

From what I gather so far, there are a whole bunch of new moons with an ISK sink that ensures nobody wants them.
Inzax
#33 - 2014-07-26 13:00:28 UTC
Tried paying with paddleball's. Little devils didn't go for it.

http://youtu.be/to9kPkMPmiA
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#34 - 2014-07-26 13:04:24 UTC
Derrick Miles wrote:
Tippia wrote:

More ISK sinks (and especially more varied and dynamic ISK sinks) are always needed.
And with the new moons on top of the fair underused set already available, they might as well be unlimited.

From what I gather so far, there are a whole bunch of new moons with an ISK sink that ensures nobody wants them.

Not quite. There are a whole bunch of new moons which completely counteract the added ISK sink, so anyone who has done their maths and who doesn't fall afoul of various kinds of false economy thinking or sunk cost fallacies wants them.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#35 - 2014-07-26 13:22:05 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Just woken up so not reading the whole thread (I know, I'm awful), but:

Ultimately, you're paying fees in your starbase because that's the balance tradeoff for unlimited slots for everyone. If we take slots away we need some form of substitute (pseudo-)scarcity so that everyone in the universe doesn't just build in Jita 4-4, which would be bad for various reasons but primarily because it removes a whole lot of interesting decisions and makes the rest of the map an industrial wasteland, which is not a thing we want. We felt that scaling fees were a good solution to this, as fees were already a thing (even though they were essentially irrelevant) and because ISK is kinda the nexus of decision-making for serious industrialists. If we're going to use fees, we pretty much have to apply them everywhere, including starbases because they scale too well otherwise and we don't want to re-add pseudo-slots to stop them from being too powerful.

The lore reason is just something to the effect that (Abraxas has the real version, if I was in the office I could look it up but I'm not) CONCORD has stopped paying worker costs for capsuleer industrialists, so now you have to pay them instead. We deliberately talk in terms of workforce fees to try and reduce the cognitive dissonance of "why do I have to pay in my starbase" and "why is it the same all over the system", but obviously it's am imperfect fix.

We totally understand why people are having this reaction, though - it's your tower, why are you having to pay extra? - and it's probably an area of the design that could be adjusted to give a better result, but not obviously without trading off against reduced ease-of-use. We could, f.ex, require "workers" to be put into labs and assembly arrays as fuel, which are purchased for ISK, so you're not paying money on the job but you are paying the equivalent amount on the back end... but then you have more fuel to haul around and people generally hate doing that. Swings and roundabouts.


Oh, and as to the "this extra cost hurts me", that should cancel out economically, because everyone's paying the same extra cost in a given location so prices ought to rise accordingly.


Anyway, like I said, just got up, trying to help, may be some crazy in the above I'm not spotting currently, sorry :)


What a joke.
You had a system that worked for years and years.
Then , about 18 months ago, we start hearing the whining from the cartel propagandists, specifically from malcanis and mynnna, about how unfair manufacturing slots were to poor, destitute null sec.

Lo and behold, we now have this mess.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#36 - 2014-07-26 13:26:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
What a joke.
You had a system that worked for years and years.
What system are you talking about? Definitely not industry because it hasn't worked for many many years, which is why people have been begging for a revamp for many many years. Remember when Quantum Rise was getting everyone's hopes up for a industry revamp and then all we got was the Orca? You know, back in 2008?

Quote:
Then , about 18 months ago, we start hearing the whining from the cartel propagandists, specifically from malcanis and mynnna, about how unfair manufacturing slots were to poor, destitute null sec.
Do you have any examples of this (especially the timeline)?

Quote:
Lo and behold, we now have this mess.
What's messy about these massive improvements?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#37 - 2014-07-26 13:28:03 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


What a joke.
You had a system that worked for years and years.
Then , about 18 months ago, we start hearing the whining from the cartel propagandists, specifically from malcanis and mynnna, about how unfair manufacturing slots were to poor, destitute null sec.

Lo and behold, we now have this mess.


People being rewarded for leaving highsec and building stuff in more dangerous parts of EVE. Dinsdale is FURIOUS.
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#38 - 2014-07-26 13:32:05 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Just woken up so not reading the whole thread (I know, I'm awful), but:

Ultimately, you're paying fees in your starbase because that's the balance tradeoff for unlimited slots for everyone. If we take slots away we need some form of substitute (pseudo-)scarcity so that everyone in the universe doesn't just build in Jita 4-4, which would be bad for various reasons but primarily because it removes a whole lot of interesting decisions and makes the rest of the map an industrial wasteland, which is not a thing we want. We felt that scaling fees were a good solution to this, as fees were already a thing (even though they were essentially irrelevant) and because ISK is kinda the nexus of decision-making for serious industrialists. If we're going to use fees, we pretty much have to apply them everywhere, including starbases because they scale too well otherwise and we don't want to re-add pseudo-slots to stop them from being too powerful.

The lore reason is just something to the effect that (Abraxas has the real version, if I was in the office I could look it up but I'm not) CONCORD has stopped paying worker costs for capsuleer industrialists, so now you have to pay them instead. We deliberately talk in terms of workforce fees to try and reduce the cognitive dissonance of "why do I have to pay in my starbase" and "why is it the same all over the system", but obviously it's am imperfect fix.

We totally understand why people are having this reaction, though - it's your tower, why are you having to pay extra? - and it's probably an area of the design that could be adjusted to give a better result, but not obviously without trading off against reduced ease-of-use. We could, f.ex, require "workers" to be put into labs and assembly arrays as fuel, which are purchased for ISK, so you're not paying money on the job but you are paying the equivalent amount on the back end... but then you have more fuel to haul around and people generally hate doing that. Swings and roundabouts.


Oh, and as to the "this extra cost hurts me", that should cancel out economically, because everyone's paying the same extra cost in a given location so prices ought to rise accordingly.


Anyway, like I said, just got up, trying to help, may be some crazy in the above I'm not spotting currently, sorry :)


What a joke.
You had a system that worked for years and years.
Then , about 18 months ago, we start hearing the whining from the cartel propagandists, specifically from malcanis and mynnna, about how unfair manufacturing slots were to poor, destitute null sec.

Lo and behold, we now have this mess.


The only joke running around here is you.

The Tears Must Flow
Mason Antilles
Anarcho-Syndicalist Revolution
#39 - 2014-07-26 13:32:56 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Just woken up so not reading the whole thread (I know, I'm awful), but:

Ultimately, you're paying fees in your starbase because that's the balance tradeoff for unlimited slots for everyone. If we take slots away we need some form of substitute (pseudo-)scarcity so that everyone in the universe doesn't just build in Jita 4-4, which would be bad for various reasons but primarily because it removes a whole lot of interesting decisions and makes the rest of the map an industrial wasteland, which is not a thing we want. We felt that scaling fees were a good solution to this, as fees were already a thing (even though they were essentially irrelevant) and because ISK is kinda the nexus of decision-making for serious industrialists. If we're going to use fees, we pretty much have to apply them everywhere, including starbases because they scale too well otherwise and we don't want to re-add pseudo-slots to stop them from being too powerful.

The lore reason is just something to the effect that (Abraxas has the real version, if I was in the office I could look it up but I'm not) CONCORD has stopped paying worker costs for capsuleer industrialists, so now you have to pay them instead. We deliberately talk in terms of workforce fees to try and reduce the cognitive dissonance of "why do I have to pay in my starbase" and "why is it the same all over the system", but obviously it's am imperfect fix.

We totally understand why people are having this reaction, though - it's your tower, why are you having to pay extra? - and it's probably an area of the design that could be adjusted to give a better result, but not obviously without trading off against reduced ease-of-use. We could, f.ex, require "workers" to be put into labs and assembly arrays as fuel, which are purchased for ISK, so you're not paying money on the job but you are paying the equivalent amount on the back end... but then you have more fuel to haul around and people generally hate doing that. Swings and roundabouts.


Oh, and as to the "this extra cost hurts me", that should cancel out economically, because everyone's paying the same extra cost in a given location so prices ought to rise accordingly.


Anyway, like I said, just got up, trying to help, may be some crazy in the above I'm not spotting currently, sorry :)


Giving you the benefit of the doubt 'cause you just woke up, but the op wasnt about having to pay isk to manufacture at a pos(at least primarily). The complaint was about that isk having to come from the corp wallet he doesnt have access to.
Antihrist Pripravnik
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#40 - 2014-07-26 13:46:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Oh, and as to the "this extra cost hurts me", that should cancel out economically, because everyone's paying the same extra cost in a given location so prices ought to rise accordingly.


So you are artificially creating inflation, forcing consumers to grind more ISK in order to pay for stuff and devaluing ISK in the process... and all that is accomplished not with player actions, but with bad balancing of the new game mechanics. I'm not saying there shouldn't be taxes, I'm saying that there shouldn't be insane taxes of hundreds of millions of ISK just to research a blueprint (and this is measured in an uncontested/empty system - these are minimal prices... average prices are measured in billions for a single blueprint). It looks and feels like Incarna has been zombified.

Another thing worth mentioning is a perfect combo of significant research time increase (for capitals it's measured in months) and significant copy time decrease, which tremendously helps players (or entities) with collections of already researched blueprints over players who are starting to venture into industry. It would be interesting to see some statistics of which entities hold the most of researched (especially capital) BPOs, because I smell favoritism.

Basically, with this expansion you have revived three of the biggest mistakes you made in the past:

  1. Prices utterly disconnected with reality
  2. T2 BPO fiasco... What? Are you going to pull the old "Buy it from the market" mumbo-jumbo for researched BPOs now? Aren't players supposed to discover what game has to offer in a natural way - by buying the BPOs from NPCs like we did for the last decade and actually researching them without being heavily penalized and investing months more in research than the current BPO holders? And all that happens while the current researched BPO holders can print copies faster than ever.
  3. Potential player favoritism, but that one should hang in the air without being confirmed until you publish the actual statistics. It sure looks like favoritism.


I'm not saying that the new system is inherently bad, I'm saying that you failed miserably in the balancing department.