These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Antihrist Pripravnik
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#61 - 2014-07-26 17:37:18 UTC
Mara Pahrdi wrote:

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.

Well, now that we have this new system, I can see that the slots were only a limiting factor on top of already existing limiting factor - slots based on skill. The system is actually better than before - the balance, however, is a bit off.
Gynax Gallenor
Conquering Darkness
#62 - 2014-07-26 17:49:39 UTC
Keyran Tyler wrote:

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.


I think you might be playing the wrong game then... :)

Like Greyscale said, if you have a system that can be easily controlled and predicted, you end up with boring, optimal solutions that are no longer fun and interesting.

With the new system, the landscape will be constantly shifting and moving, and therefore, much more interesting and fun.

Fly Reckless, cos flying safe is no damn fun!

http://flyreckless.com/newsite/
Lister Dax
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2014-07-26 19:09:21 UTC
Joseph Soprano wrote:

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


You keep thinking that then kiddo. Meanwhile my alt will carry on with busy-work in a POS, in a factory-less system a handful of jumps from a trade hub.....
000Hunter000
Missiles 'R' Us
#64 - 2014-07-26 20:27:38 UTC
Oh well... it was fun while it lasted. I can't even do invention anymore at my pos so as soon as my final researchjobs are finished i will take it down... i liked doing lots of stuff myself but not to the extend of making it a fulltime job and moving all over the place. Such a shame... this is the first time in 10 years i considered not adapting but just give up on the whole damn thing. Lol
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#65 - 2014-07-26 20:36:09 UTC
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
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.


Yes, they do. We had a straight-up trade-off: we could make the blueprint economy more stable in the long run, and nerf everyone's blueprints in the process to varying degrees, or we could accept we're giving a lot of people a leg up but ensure that people are generally getting a good deal in the short term. Our general tendency is towards the longer-term play, but in this instance we were already making seismic changes to industry gameplay, and we were concerned that a straight-up blueprint stats nerf would cause enough additional negative sentiment to discourage large numbers of industrialists and prevent the feature as a whole gaining momentum out of the gate, which could have significant negative consequences for anyone who likes to buy things. We don't like doing short-term-oriented changes but in this case the risk of "damn the torpedoes" was that they might actually sink us.

Keyran Tyler wrote:
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.


Yes, and this was another big tension throughout development. We have been trying to make industry more fulfilling by increasing the number of decisions that are made, but we're still waiting to see how many people want their industry to be fulfilling vs just want to make low-mental-effort money for various reasons. The hope is that, as the system starts to really pick up and run, people figure out where the optimizations are and we fine-tune a few things, a strong core of industrially-minded players find the new status quo keeps them strongly engaged and creates an interesting landscape for everyone else to play in, industrialist or otherwise. If it doesn't work out, we'll need to reassess.

There is also, though, a degree to which this is representative of one of the fundamental driving forces of EVE: we know that players know that the optimal setup requires perfect stability, and we try really hard to ensure that stability can never quite be achieved, because at that point you've won and the game is essentially over. I'd also like to protest that the rules of the system are entirely static: what's changing is the landscape, which is entirely driven by the action of other players, and to us that's the absolute heart of "the sandbox" in a multiplayer context. It's not interesting because you're allowed to go off and play in your own corner without regard for anyone else, it's interesting because the actions of other players keep throwing up interesting new challenges, be that through direct PvP combat or extremely indirect market dynamics. A static game gets soved and a solved game has no longevity.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#66 - 2014-07-26 20:37:43 UTC
Lister Dax wrote:
Joseph Soprano wrote:

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

You keep thinking that then kiddo. Meanwhile my alt will carry on with busy-work in a POS, in a factory-less system a handful of jumps from a trade hub.....

Ix-nay on the ecret-say auce-say. P
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#67 - 2014-07-26 20:42:20 UTC
Greyscale, just admit it. Its the cost of Obamacare taxation (this joke only works for Americans)
Nikolai Lachance
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2014-07-26 21:56:45 UTC
The empires decided that instead of really having to like you for setting up a POS in their space (faction standings), they'd let anyone do it and just charge them taxes to operate their facilities. Makes them more money.

It's a trade-off. Instead of having to do a massive grind for faction standings, you just pay to use your stuff. Much more accessible.
Circumstantial Evidence
#69 - 2014-07-27 00:14:35 UTC
CCP Greyscale,

The replies you've made in this thread so far would combine well into a good addendum or follow-up dev blog to

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/principles-of-industry-in-eve-online/
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#70 - 2014-07-27 00:21:32 UTC
Nikolai Lachance wrote:
The empires decided that instead of really having to like you for setting up a POS in their space (faction standings), they'd let anyone do it and just charge them taxes to operate their facilities. Makes them more money.

It's a trade-off. Instead of having to do a massive grind for faction standings, you just pay to use your stuff. Much more accessible.

Next up, CONCORD starts a protection racket

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts
#71 - 2014-07-27 00:55:34 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 :)


Is the lore reason that I would pay extra in Amarr that the slave owners are asking for more Salary/Bribery or else they will relocate the workforce elsewhere?
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#72 - 2014-07-27 02:29:30 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
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.


Yes, they do. We had a straight-up trade-off: we could make the blueprint economy more stable in the long run, and nerf everyone's blueprints in the process to varying degrees, or we could accept we're giving a lot of people a leg up but ensure that people are generally getting a good deal in the short term. Our general tendency is towards the longer-term play, but in this instance we were already making seismic changes to industry gameplay, and we were concerned that a straight-up blueprint stats nerf would cause enough additional negative sentiment to discourage large numbers of industrialists and prevent the feature as a whole gaining momentum out of the gate, which could have significant negative consequences for anyone who likes to buy things. We don't like doing short-term-oriented changes but in this case the risk of "damn the torpedoes" was that they might actually sink us.

Keyran Tyler wrote:
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.


Yes, and this was another big tension throughout development. We have been trying to make industry more fulfilling by increasing the number of decisions that are made, but we're still waiting to see how many people want their industry to be fulfilling vs just want to make low-mental-effort money for various reasons. The hope is that, as the system starts to really pick up and run, people figure out where the optimizations are and we fine-tune a few things, a strong core of industrially-minded players find the new status quo keeps them strongly engaged and creates an interesting landscape for everyone else to play in, industrialist or otherwise. If it doesn't work out, we'll need to reassess.

There is also, though, a degree to which this is representative of one of the fundamental driving forces of EVE: we know that players know that the optimal setup requires perfect stability, and we try really hard to ensure that stability can never quite be achieved, because at that point you've won and the game is essentially over. I'd also like to protest that the rules of the system are entirely static: what's changing is the landscape, which is entirely driven by the action of other players, and to us that's the absolute heart of "the sandbox" in a multiplayer context. It's not interesting because you're allowed to go off and play in your own corner without regard for anyone else, it's interesting because the actions of other players keep throwing up interesting new challenges, be that through direct PvP combat or extremely indirect market dynamics. A static game gets soved and a solved game has no longevity.


I made a suggestion (not the first I am sure) to put corp tags on all manufactured stuff including parts.

EVE Industry is pure math. There is no volume of decision making involved. All T1 is for T2. Nobody fits T1 Meta 0. We just don't. All prices in EVE for T2 are at 1% or less over parts cost before T2 bpc. At no point is it ever worth my while to make stuff. It is always in my benefit to sell parts and let someone else do it or for most people, it's better to ignore the whole process and simply grind ISK. This creates one way wealth shifting and while it seems great to be on the one way side, it creates the ISK faucet economy we have. It isn't going to change if the only thing we need to see is math.

If on the other hand we introduce a little politics to the process people might in fact start making stuff. Alliance A is at war with Alliance B. Alliance A finds out they are buying most of the fit modules they use from the very alliance they are at war with, you create a responsive desire to find an alternative. You create motive. None of the changes so far motivate people to stop the ISK farm for buy order. It doesn't create an inflation reducing economy and it doesn't create accountability. Something EVE really needs.
Jacque Custeau
Knights of the Minmatar Republic
#73 - 2014-07-27 02:43:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Jacque Custeau
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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.


There are a limited number of moons, and you removed the ability for POS structures to remotely use a bpo in station. Both of these points guarantee that they won't become too powerful. A medium POS consumes at least 228 mil in fuel a month (assuming 17k fuel block price) - if you are saying that that fee is irrelevant and we still need to pile on manufacturing fees, then remove the fuel requirement. If the vulnerability of POS structures is irrelevant to the payment of this fee, then make them invulnerable.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#74 - 2014-07-27 03:50:42 UTC
Jacque Custeau wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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.


There are a limited number of moons, and you removed the ability for POS structures to remotely use a bpo in station. Both of these points guarantee that they won't become too powerful. A medium POS consumes at least 228 mil in fuel a month (assuming 17k fuel block price) - if you are saying that that fee is irrelevant and we still need to pile on manufacturing fees, then remove the fuel requirement. If the vulnerability of POS structures is irrelevant to the payment of this fee, then make them invulnerable.


No.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#75 - 2014-07-27 04:35:52 UTC
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Mara Pahrdi wrote:

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.

Well, now that we have this new system, I can see that the slots were only a limiting factor on top of already existing limiting factor - slots based on skill. The system is actually better than before - the balance, however, is a bit off.

I don't want a roll back. I'd rather see them implement changes in a way we can decide how a POS is running.

Remove standings and insurance.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#76 - 2014-07-27 04:50:22 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jacque Custeau wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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.


There are a limited number of moons, and you removed the ability for POS structures to remotely use a bpo in station. Both of these points guarantee that they won't become too powerful. A medium POS consumes at least 228 mil in fuel a month (assuming 17k fuel block price) - if you are saying that that fee is irrelevant and we still need to pile on manufacturing fees, then remove the fuel requirement. If the vulnerability of POS structures is irrelevant to the payment of this fee, then make them invulnerable.


No.


Invulnerable POS, nice

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
General Nusense
Doomheim
#77 - 2014-07-27 04:57:51 UTC
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.





Thanks for taking the time to make prices rise without buffing income streams. Not everyone is in a mega blob alliance that gets spoon fed ships. Most, well some, of us actually have to grind isk. Unless your ultimate goal is to make players buy PLEX. Prices for ships are already rising, and this is just the beginning.

Made a signature so I am taken seriously on the forums, since thats the only thing they are good for.
Antihrist Pripravnik
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#78 - 2014-07-27 04:59:09 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
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.


Yes, they do. We had a straight-up trade-off: we could make the blueprint economy more stable in the long run, and nerf everyone's blueprints in the process to varying degrees, or we could accept we're giving a lot of people a leg up but ensure that people are generally getting a good deal in the short term. Our general tendency is towards the longer-term play, but in this instance we were already making seismic changes to industry gameplay, and we were concerned that a straight-up blueprint stats nerf would cause enough additional negative sentiment to discourage large numbers of industrialists and prevent the feature as a whole gaining momentum out of the gate, which could have significant negative consequences for anyone who likes to buy things. We don't like doing short-term-oriented changes but in this case the risk of "damn the torpedoes" was that they might actually sink us.



Makes perfect sense now. Smile Thank you for taking time to extensively communicate with the community about this.

I have read the devblogs and resources that were available about the changes, but there is nothing better than direct Q&A. [:)
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#79 - 2014-07-27 05:48:16 UTC
At some point CCP will figure out that creating a perception that the rewards are increasing for some security sectors and decreasing in others will lead people to move in that direction just doesn't work. But hey, I will let the numbers speak for me.
Ten Bulls
Sons of Olsagard
#80 - 2014-07-27 06:04:22 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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).


As a sideline to this, did CCP consider having a decimal place, why does it have to be whole numbers ?

If your going to stick with these really long research times (like 1 year to research freighter from 9 to 10) would it be terrible if it was done a month at a time instead of one continuous length of time.

But why use whole numbers to start with, why not have a BP that gives say a 9.2% reduction in materials ?