These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Blueprint adjustments hopefully coming to SiSi this weekend

First post
Author
peroxide chase
Os Group
#21 - 2014-07-29 14:49:35 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
One of the good things about caps (and supers) is that it takes a while to build the ships and the modules they need. It should not be trivial to build a capfleet (and even more so, to replace it).

A supercarrier fleet that lost its bombers was severely crippled for a week or more, even more if someone (*cough*) bought all bombers from the public market right after, or even during the fight.

That was a very interesting gameplay opportunity on many levels that has changed for the worse (or less interesting)

Was there a compelling reason to change that? I don't think so, but I would like to hear your arguments. (

I'm a bit mad at myself that I missed the change when I looked over your blueprint data adjustment files, I would have made myself heard earlier)


Nope, no compelling reason, I just picked numbers that looked pretty.

How long *should* it take to replace capital gear, and what numbers get us there? I'm trying as much as possible in this project to avoid "just make it like it used to be", but if people can come up with approximations for targeting industrial stats onto reasonable external targets, I'm all ears.


it's really hard to come up with numbers that are not the old ones when thinking the old ones were better :D

replacing a supercarriers ~15 fighters takes a day in crius. that's shorter than pretty much all reinforcement timers. not cool. the longest reinforcement timer is 74 hours on an outpost. so ~7 hours per fighter(bomber) would move us somewhere interesting (not being able to completely replace a lost drone bay until the next timer) bombing the (fighter)bombers of your enemy a few times can mean that he may run into problems in a prolonged war, especially if you start controlling the jita market. (rank somewhere close to the one medium control towers have)

cap modules would be next. i know that hulls take 10 days to build (and i think that this is a very reasonable value)

however, controlling the market for cap hulls is hard, controlling the market for crucial modules isn't nearly as hard (a corpmate of mine often bought all bubble launchers in an enemies staging system when they tried to pin our ships down with lots of dictors. buying dictor hulls would have had the same effect at a much higher price. it's like a pressure point. The same thing happened to us when someone bought all subsystems of a certain kind. many of us were simply unable to replace the lost proteus and we were forced to switch to a less effective doctrine for some days.

if you can prevent (or slow down) your enemy from reshipping into dreads by buying all siege modules, you can have a nice and measurable effect that works on a completely different level, even forcing an enemy to reship into T1 instead of T2 dreads has an impact. (because us nullsec overlords can pay pretty much any price).

i would argue for ~20 hours per capital module, maybe shorter for guns and (remote) repair things, but longer for triage and siege modules. (rank somewhere close to the one large control towers have)

that means it takes a single character using a single slot about 7 days to rebuild everything for a triage carrier (up to 7 capital mods). the same character, using all his slots would be able to build the fitting for ~1.5 carriers per day.

you can't really solve the problem via price. we are so spacerich that we will pay pretty much any price when necessary. the only thing you can't buy when it's to late is time. you can try to prepare for all kinds of situations, but preparation opens a whole rabbit whole of meta gaming opportunities. even thinking about some traitor being in charge of our strategic bomber reserve excites me.


Good reasoning, I'll go talk to people about this :) To be clear, we're not opposed to ending up somewhere near the old numbers, but we'd prefer the reasoning driving that to be this sort of thing ("how quickly can a single blueprint replenish a fighter bay") rather than just wanting to return to the old arbitrary balance because the new arbitrary balance is different.


t2 capital modules take long enough to produce as is, unless we are talking about a time reduction then by all means please do it.

To copy a triage module its 7:39:00 in a pos (1 run) or 15:18:00 in a npc station
To invent a triage II module its 5d 0:37:45 in a pos or 10d 1:15:30 in a npc station (10 runs)
to build a single triage II module takes 16:45:00 in a pos or 22:16:37 in a npc station
+ time to build the t1 input 9 hrs in a pos or 12 hrs in a npc station
so 41 hours for a single Triage II module (single item copy and invention times divided by 10, ignoring 50% invention chance)
or ~60 hours in a station ......
Arcosian
Arcosian Heavy Industries Corp Holding
#22 - 2014-07-31 15:27:28 UTC
So the T3 changes hit tranquility today and apparently subsystems were not changed at all and ships are now cheaper to make than before? Not that I'm complaining or anything but I thought T3 cruisers were going to be more expensive to make.

Before Change 10 run BPC:
216 Nanowire Composites
167 Metallofullerene Plating
89 Fullerene Intercalated Sheets
20 Fulleroferrocene Power Conduits
10 Neurovisual Output Analyzer
10 Emergent Neurovisual Interface
167 R.A.M.- Starship Tech

After Change 10 run BPC:
196 Nanowire Composites
147 Metallofullerene Plating
79 Fullerene Intercalated Sheets
20 Fulleroferrocene Power Conduits
10 Neurovisual Output Analyzer
10 Emergent Neurovisual Interface
147 R.A.M.- Starship Tech
Fango Mango
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2014-08-14 20:40:46 UTC
Not Sure if this is the correct place to point this out . . .

R.A.M. usage since crius appears to be off.

My understanding was that with crius all R.A.M. values would be multiplies by 100 to get rid of the stupid percent usage.
That's nice and all, but for all the blueprints that I use, R.A.M. usage is wack.

Examples
Eos
Before : 15 @ 95% usage which should be equal to around 1425 under the new system but my blueprint is only asking for 23

Energized Thermic Membrane II
Before : 1 @ 20% or usage of about 20 under the new system but my blueprint is only asking for 1

In fact, every single module/ammo requires 1 R.A.M. no matter what is requirement before was. Before modules ammo had wildly different usage based on size and type (larger of the same type always required more). Now they all require the minimum theoretical amount of R.A.M.

Was this intended (and its fine it it was, but at this point you might as well remove R.A.M.

-FM
Fango Mango
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2014-08-15 01:56:55 UTC
Just realized what went wrong.

New R.A.M. Quantity Should have been = Old R.A.M. * Usage * 100

Instead it was erroneously treated as any mineral/component

New R.A.M. Quantity is = Old R.A.M. (Ignores Usage) * 1.5 (Mineral Increase for all T2 Truncated to 1 for everything that was 1 before)

So double fail with the maths . . .

-FM
Previous page12