These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#41 - 2014-07-26 13:49:31 UTC
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:

  • 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.
    • [/list]



    And who would that be? There are MILLIONS of researched BPOs out there.
    Antihrist Pripravnik
    Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
    Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
    #42 - 2014-07-26 13:51:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik
    baltec1 wrote:
    Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:

  • 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.
    • [/list]



    And who would that be? There are MILLIONS of researched BPOs out there.

    I'd start with looking at capital, supercapital and titan BPOs. Those are not measured in millions and have a huge impact on endgame.
    Joseph Soprano
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #43 - 2014-07-26 14:26:32 UTC
    baltec1 wrote:
    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.


    And I always thought you guys were pretty safe deep in Nullsec. I guess that Botox agreement is over then?
    Phoenix Czech
    AZ Solutions CZ
    #44 - 2014-07-26 14:38:24 UTC
    Here is easy solutions about this. Players will soon figure out, that own POS for industry is much more expensive than use stations. So they put POS offline and start using stations. There are some little benefits from using POSes for industry - its time reduction and 2% materiál reduction. But this gives economical advantage only when POS is used for industry in massive job numbers. And it is realy hard to calculate when it is still profitable and when is better to use stations. Single players with a few alts and small corporation simply cancel POS industry. Because when job at station costs for example 100 milions and job on POS cost 100 milions + lets say 10 days job on large pos 200 milions fuel minus 20 milions POS materiál reduction. We are here at about 100 milion station or 280 milions POS - what do you guess that player wiil choose?

    So I agree with you about needs to force players start industry everywhere (not only jita). But this cost scaling systém is not balanced - realy not. And it will lead only to much less online poses + ICE market ruined. But mabye not - mabye you will use your CCP magic to fix it when it start happening Big smile.
    J'Poll
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #45 - 2014-07-26 14:40:38 UTC
    Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
    Endless Whimper

    Writen by Unsuccessful at Everything
    Produced by Unsuccessful Productions™
    Loosely based on 'Careless Whisper" by George Michael

    Its been said before im sure..
    Eve is dying,
    And CCP’s intentions, are no longer pure..
    Eve will surely die..
    More tears fill my eyes..
    Highsec took a deathblow in the spleen..
    Now.. its time to whine..

    I'm never gonna sub again..
    All my stuffs, no you cant have them.
    Im having trouble trying to comprehend..
    Why buff highsec aint the rule..
    I should have known better than to invite my friends..
    And subject them all to this fiasco.
    So i'm never gonna sub again..
    Im going back to WoW!!!

    The next release wont end
    The endless whimpers of entitlement.
    Highsec is no longer kind
    All ISK should be mined!!!
    Ill find some comfort in the fact
    SC should be ready any time!

    I'm never gonna sub again..
    All my stuffs, no you cant have them.
    Im having trouble trying to comprehend..
    Why buff highsec aint the rule..
    I should have known better than to invite my friends..
    And subject them all to this fiasco.
    So i'm never gonna sub again..
    Im going back to WoW!!!

    Tonight the crying is getting loud!
    Tears are flowing from the highsec crowds,
    Catering to them made them this way,
    “I want more! gimme gimme” is all you hear them say!
    Why is highsec not made any safer?
    Protect me from all the suicide gankers!!
    Don’t tell me how to play my game!
    Go away.

    I'm never gonna sub again..
    All my stuffs, no you cant have them.
    Im having trouble trying to comprehend..
    Why buff highsec aint the rule..
    I should have known better than to invite my friends..
    And subject them all to this fiasco.
    So i'm never gonna sub again..
    Im going back to WoW!!!

    Youll realize once im gone..
    Youll realize once im gone..
    Youll realize once im gone..
    What you did was wrong!
    Now ill just watch your servers die.. so long!


    UAE can we get a book with all your glorious lyrics in itQuestion

    Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

    Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

    Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
    J'Poll
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #46 - 2014-07-26 14:44:11 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.



    I'm manufacturing very cheap tin foil hats at my POS in a desolate system, you want to buy some?

    Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

    Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

    Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
    Tippia
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    #47 - 2014-07-26 14:49:46 UTC
    Phoenix Czech wrote:
    Here is easy solutions about this. Players will soon figure out, that own POS for industry is much more expensive than use stations.
    Oh yes. I do hope that people “figure out” this soon so I can start making serious money… Lol
    Joseph Soprano
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #48 - 2014-07-26 14:58:33 UTC
    Tippia wrote:
    Phoenix Czech wrote:
    Here is easy solutions about this. Players will soon figure out, that own POS for industry is much more expensive than use stations.
    Oh yes. I do hope that people “figure out” this soon so I can start making serious money… Lol


    My guess is you'll probably use some backwater system with no stations. Anyway gl with that.
    CCP Greyscale
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #49 - 2014-07-26 15:14:13 UTC
    Mason Antilles 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 :)


    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.


    Oh, right, sorry. We're adding a "pay from personal wallet" option ASAP :)

    Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
    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.


    What are your assumed goals for cost balancing here?

    Picking favorites among our customers is utterly uninteresting to me and not worth my time discussing, you can hang it in the air all you like but I'm not picking it up Smile
    Tippia
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    #50 - 2014-07-26 15:25:26 UTC
    Joseph Soprano wrote:
    Tippia wrote:
    Phoenix Czech wrote:
    Here is easy solutions about this. Players will soon figure out, that own POS for industry is much more expensive than use stations.
    Oh yes. I do hope that people “figure out” this soon so I can start making serious money… Lol

    My guess is you'll probably use some backwater system with no stations. Anyway gl with that.

    No, it's more about not picking the old obvious industry hubs that have now maxed out all the indices and taxes. Luck isn't really a factor.
    Antihrist Pripravnik
    Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
    Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
    #51 - 2014-07-26 15:27:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik
    CCP Greyscale wrote:

    What are your assumed goals for cost balancing here?

    To give new players and players who are starting industry now (after the industrial expansion) a fair chance to be competitive compared to players who already have researched BPOs by achieving that through industry gameplay without having to buy already researched BPOs from contracts (like it was the case with T2 BPOs for about 5 years). Nothing more, nothing less.

    The balancing and number tweaking should be done while the developer's work on industry is still fresh and not to be delayed 5 years like it was done with T2 BPOs.

    The price should be there, but not measured in multiple hundreds of millions for a single research point and billions for the whole research process. Significant time increase shouldn't be there either.
    CCP Greyscale
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #52 - 2014-07-26 15:46:38 UTC
    Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:

    What are your assumed goals for cost balancing here?

    To give new players and players who are starting industry now (after the industrial expansion) a fair chance to be competitive compared to players who already have researched BPOs by achieving that through industry gameplay without having to buy already researched BPOs from contracts (like it was the case with T2 BPOs for about 5 years). Nothing more, nothing less.

    The balancing and number tweaking should be done while the developer's work on industry is still fresh and not to be delayed 5 years like it was done with T2 BPOs.

    The price should be there, but not measured in multiple hundreds of millions for a single research point and billions for the whole research process. Significant time increase shouldn't be there either.


    Ok, so that's probably where we're having a disconnect here. The primary goal I've had for blueprint research pricing is to try and push closer towards a place where at least the higher levels are a non-trivial decision for players likely to be using them about whether you want to research them or not, rather than simply "does it yield a benefit? -> if yes I should research it". From that perspective, prices high enough that people say "wait, how much?" are likely achieving that goal. In terms of new player accessibility, there's definitely area for concern there, but in terms of headline "look at these big numbers" stuff, there's IMO a more nuanced consideration to be had in terms of what blueprint it is, how much the base cost is, where a player is approximately likely to be in net-worth terms when they're getting up to the higher levels of research, and to what degree we want people to be maxing blueprints sequentially vs taking a "old one to 9, new one to 9, old one to 10"-esque approach (over n blueprints, not just over two). It's quite possible that the balance can be improved in those terms, but that sort of conclusion IMO would come out of either a very extensive set of modelling of likely startup-industrialist behaviors, or just waiting to see how things shake out on TQ and where the (hopefully highly emergent and thus difficult to predict) behavior settles out in practice and if that ends up causing significant speedbumps that need addressing. As you can probably see here for yourself, the desire to create an open-ended, emergent, player-driven system at leas somewhat works against the goal of precise balance, because we're deliberately trying to design systems where we can't easily predict the outcomes - because if we can predict them, it's a pretty safe bet that at least some players can predict them too because there will always be players smarter than us, and predictable systems are solvable, and solved systems are boring. Fun times :)
    Antihrist Pripravnik
    Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
    Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
    #53 - 2014-07-26 16:20:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik
    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:

    What are your assumed goals for cost balancing here?

    To give new players and players who are starting industry now (after the industrial expansion) a fair chance to be competitive compared to players who already have researched BPOs by achieving that through industry gameplay without having to buy already researched BPOs from contracts (like it was the case with T2 BPOs for about 5 years). Nothing more, nothing less.

    The balancing and number tweaking should be done while the developer's work on industry is still fresh and not to be delayed 5 years like it was done with T2 BPOs.

    The price should be there, but not measured in multiple hundreds of millions for a single research point and billions for the whole research process. Significant time increase shouldn't be there either.


    Ok, so that's probably where we're having a disconnect here. The primary goal I've had for blueprint research pricing is to try and push closer towards a place where at least the higher levels are a non-trivial decision for players likely to be using them about whether you want to research them or not, rather than simply "does it yield a benefit? -> if yes I should research it". From that perspective, prices high enough that people say "wait, how much?" are likely achieving that goal. In terms of new player accessibility, there's definitely area for concern there, but in terms of headline "look at these big numbers" stuff, there's IMO a more nuanced consideration to be had in terms of what blueprint it is, how much the base cost is, where a player is approximately likely to be in net-worth terms when they're getting up to the higher levels of research, and to what degree we want people to be maxing blueprints sequentially vs taking a "old one to 9, new one to 9, old one to 10"-esque approach (over n blueprints, not just over two). It's quite possible that the balance can be improved in those terms, but that sort of conclusion IMO would come out of either a very extensive set of modelling of likely startup-industrialist behaviors, or just waiting to see how things shake out on TQ and where the (hopefully highly emergent and thus difficult to predict) behavior settles out in practice and if that ends up causing significant speedbumps that need addressing. As you can probably see here for yourself, the desire to create an open-ended, emergent, player-driven system at leas somewhat works against the goal of precise balance, because we're deliberately trying to design systems where we can't easily predict the outcomes - because if we can predict them, it's a pretty safe bet that at least some players can predict them too because there will always be players smarter than us, and predictable systems are solvable, and solved systems are boring. Fun times :)


    Pretty good clarification. Thanks.

    However, I still think that the old blueprint holders have a significant advantage - at least by having blueprints that probably already stepped beyond the "high-bar" that new researchers are not willing to invest above. Especially when there are copies of those high quality blueprints flooding the market after copy speed changes.
    Keyran Tyler
    Bionesis Technologies
    #54 - 2014-07-26 16:21:48 UTC
    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
    CCP Greyscale wrote:

    What are your assumed goals for cost balancing here?

    To give new players and players who are starting industry now (after the industrial expansion) a fair chance to be competitive compared to players who already have researched BPOs by achieving that through industry gameplay without having to buy already researched BPOs from contracts (like it was the case with T2 BPOs for about 5 years). Nothing more, nothing less.

    The balancing and number tweaking should be done while the developer's work on industry is still fresh and not to be delayed 5 years like it was done with T2 BPOs.

    The price should be there, but not measured in multiple hundreds of millions for a single research point and billions for the whole research process. Significant time increase shouldn't be there either.


    Ok, so that's probably where we're having a disconnect here. The primary goal I've had for blueprint research pricing is to try and push closer towards a place where at least the higher levels are a non-trivial decision for players likely to be using them about whether you want to research them or not, rather than simply "does it yield a benefit? -> if yes I should research it". From that perspective, prices high enough that people say "wait, how much?" are likely achieving that goal. In terms of new player accessibility, there's definitely area for concern there, but in terms of headline "look at these big numbers" stuff, there's IMO a more nuanced consideration to be had in terms of what blueprint it is, how much the base cost is, where a player is approximately likely to be in net-worth terms when they're getting up to the higher levels of research, and to what degree we want people to be maxing blueprints sequentially vs taking a "old one to 9, new one to 9, old one to 10"-esque approach (over n blueprints, not just over two). It's quite possible that the balance can be improved in those terms, but that sort of conclusion IMO would come out of either a very extensive set of modelling of likely startup-industrialist behaviors, or just waiting to see how things shake out on TQ and where the (hopefully highly emergent and thus difficult to predict) behavior settles out in practice and if that ends up causing significant speedbumps that need addressing. As you can probably see here for yourself, the desire to create an open-ended, emergent, player-driven system at leas somewhat works against the goal of precise balance, because we're deliberately trying to design systems where we can't easily predict the outcomes - because if we can predict them, it's a pretty safe bet that at least some players can predict them too because there will always be players smarter than us, and predictable systems are solvable, and solved systems are boring. Fun times :)


    Did you considered that we play industrial precisely because we appreciate to be able to control and predict the outcome of our operations? A sandbox with rules changing constantly is not funny.
    Mario Putzo
    #55 - 2014-07-26 16:40:00 UTC
    Told ya so. Just wait until the mineral market starts tanking from the reduction of reprocessed minerals. A net reduction in overall production capacity.
    Tippia
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    #56 - 2014-07-26 16:48:01 UTC
    Mario Putzo wrote:
    Told ya so. Just wait until the mineral market starts tanking from the reduction of reprocessed minerals. A net reduction in overall production capacity.

    Why would that tank the market when there are such vast resources yet untapped and when you can actually gather minerals more efficiently now than before?
    Chi'Nane T'Kal
    Interminatus
    #57 - 2014-07-26 16:48:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Chi'Nane T'Kal
    CCP Greyscale wrote:

    Ok, so that's probably where we're having a disconnect here. The primary goal I've had for blueprint research pricing is to try and push closer towards a place where at least the higher levels are a non-trivial decision for players likely to be using them about whether you want to research them or not, rather than simply "does it yield a benefit? -> if yes I should research it". From that perspective, prices high enough that people say "wait, how much?" are likely achieving that goal.


    I'm completely with you in that regard.

    But then you threw the whole concept overboard with the conversion of existing blueprints (additionally allowing people to game the market by researching BPOs they never planned on using just so they can profit from the conversion). So any serious industrialist pre Crius won't EVER have to make that decision, because all their blueprints are minimum ME9 du to your generous conversion gifts. In thr process you invalidated research for expensive BPOs for years to come.

    All that means is that for a small risk of alienating a few stubborn veterans (most of which would probably have seen the logic and accepted a 1:1 conversion of their invested currency - research time) you are alienating every single future potential industrialist, once they realize what happened here. As if player retention wasn't the top issue regarding numbers in EVE.
    Antihrist Pripravnik
    Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
    Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
    #58 - 2014-07-26 16:53:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik
    Mario Putzo wrote:
    Told ya so. Just wait until the mineral market starts tanking from the reduction of reprocessed minerals. A net reduction in overall production capacity.

    That would be good, actually, as mining would become more profitable and more attractive source of income. At the end it will all balance out.
    Mario Putzo
    #59 - 2014-07-26 16:56:58 UTC
    Tippia wrote:
    Mario Putzo wrote:
    Told ya so. Just wait until the mineral market starts tanking from the reduction of reprocessed minerals. A net reduction in overall production capacity.

    Why would that tank the market when there are such vast resources yet untapped and when you can actually gather minerals more efficiently now than before?


    If they are untapped now they won't be tapped tomorrow. There will be no mass migration, and axing a big chunk of supply side mineral procurement is going to result in a net drag. The changes and costs of BP research is also going to result in a net drag.

    All this at a time when people are leaving the game because of stagnation in gameplay.

    The market change has done nothing to "fix" anything, because there was never an issue to begin with...it has always been more profitable to be a production character in Null Sec...if it wasn't used before it won't be now.
    Mara Pahrdi
    The Order of Anoyia
    #60 - 2014-07-26 17:27:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Pahrdi
    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    Just woken up so not reading the whole thread (I know, I'm awful), but:

    NP. I went right back to bed after breakfast and slept the whole day. It's been a tough week Blink.

    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    Just woken up so not reading the whole thread (I know, I'm awful), but:

    I understand your reasoning. And that's fine with stations. But if I had a choice, I'd rather take the slots on a POS. That's ofc due to my individual situation. Others may think differently here.

    Maybe you can take that into account when you redo POSes.

    Remove standings and insurance.