These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Reprocessing Array vs. Intensive Reprocessing Array
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#21 - 2014-08-22 17:56:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Komi Toran
BFE wrote:
When did I ever say that a POS should be armed, defended, etc for reprocessing only?

Your error is in thinking that a POS that reprocesses should be doing anything else. Just because you want to do something inefficiently does not mean the game should be balanced around your inefficient method.
BFE wrote:
You are all missing the point... the point is that the two POS reprocessing units are too close in return to demand that much of a difference in CPU/Power......

You're missing the point, which is that the difference in CPU/Power is irrelevant because it's still the same cost regardless: 30 minutes and 10 fuel blocks. For it to be relevant, the IRA's grid would need to require a medium POS.
BFE
Shadow Flight
#22 - 2014-08-22 21:57:20 UTC  |  Edited by: BFE
Komi Toran wrote:
Your error is in thinking that a POS that reprocesses should be doing anything else. Just because you want to do something inefficiently does not mean the game should be balanced around your inefficient method.


So, obviously you have never onlined a POS with more arrays deployed than your cpu/power allows. And obviously have not offlined something in order to then online the IRA to reprocess your materials instantly, then offlined it again to re-online the original Array. No, obviously not. You would rather spend 30 mins onlining and wasting fuel, then 30 mins offlining to get your minerals... You only invalidate your own arguement. So you are saying that a POS with a reprocessing array must ONLY have a reprocessing array.

Komi Toran wrote:
You're missing the point, which is that the difference in CPU/Power is irrelevant because it's still the same cost regardless: 30 minutes and 10 fuel blocks. For it to be relevant, the IRA's grid would need to require a medium POS.


Of course. If you have a small tower in low/null/WH, you're just asking for others to nuke it anyways.
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2014-08-22 23:02:22 UTC
BFE wrote:
No, I'm not saying the entire crius change be flipped on its head..... only that the two reprocessing arrays should have more of a difference for the range of cpu/power usage..... Quite the difference than flipping the entire update.....
the Minmatar outpost just got rebalanced to be the best preprocessing system in the game, and you now want to give that 50-60bil cost advantage to a cheap POS array. Why? You so realize benefit vs cost (fitting cost or otherwise) are not linear but exponential. Again, if you asked for lower fitting requirements, I might be inclined to agree to a certain point, but invalidating the best system is not fair or balanced at all. It still provides benefits better than any NPC station and is equivalent to a in-upgraded mommy outpost (if you don't include taxes).
BFE
Shadow Flight
#24 - 2014-08-23 00:07:55 UTC
Rowells wrote:
BFE wrote:
No, I'm not saying the entire crius change be flipped on its head..... only that the two reprocessing arrays should have more of a difference for the range of cpu/power usage..... Quite the difference than flipping the entire update.....
the Minmatar outpost just got rebalanced to be the best preprocessing system in the game, and you now want to give that 50-60bil cost advantage to a cheap POS array. Why? You so realize benefit vs cost (fitting cost or otherwise) are not linear but exponential. Again, if you asked for lower fitting requirements, I might be inclined to agree to a certain point, but invalidating the best system is not fair or balanced at all. It still provides benefits better than any NPC station and is equivalent to a in-upgraded mommy outpost (if you don't include taxes).


Holy Christ.... I'll explain it one more time.... F*ck all the rest of the stuff in the game. I'm not comparing them... I'm comparing the two POS arrays, as the post title explains. THOSE TWO ALONE are not balanced with each other.

As I've already said many times, I do not want the IRA to be comparable tothe outpost, that's the point of building an outpost. I want the two arrays to be worth it. So, if you don't want to raise the yield of the IRA, fine. Simply lower the yield of the regular array so the increased cpu/power costs are worth 0.02% increase over the regular array.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#25 - 2014-08-23 02:03:29 UTC
BFE wrote:
So, obviously you have never onlined a POS with more arrays deployed than your cpu/power allows. And obviously have not offlined something in order to then online the IRA to reprocess your materials instantly, then offlined it again to re-online the original Array. No, obviously not.

Your best option here, which is actually pretty good, is to offline four shield hardeners to make your array active. If it's a large POS outside of high-sec, this is easy, and makes the fitting requirements moot again. If it's not a large POS, well, you weren't intending on keeping it, were you?

As for me, my ore operation is mobile. It's geared to process ore efficiently. My kind of operation is the one CCP needs to balance around, as if it gets too efficient it will crowd out every other method. Yours, where ore processing is just tacked on to your other operations? Not the benchmark.
BFE wrote:
You would rather spend 30 mins onlining and wasting fuel, then 30 mins offlining to get your minerals... You only invalidate your own arguement.

And you are invalidating the assumption that you are math literate. 7:30 + 7:30 + 15 != 60. Doubly embarrassing considering the math was already done for you.

But you're right. It's much easier to maintain a dozen or so POSes across several reagions, keeping them fueled constantly and hoping no one takes notice of my large network, just so I don't have to deal with the occasional short anchoring times.

And I'll let you know when I lose a POS.
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2014-08-23 03:09:14 UTC
BFE wrote:
Rowells wrote:
BFE wrote:
No, I'm not saying the entire crius change be flipped on its head..... only that the two reprocessing arrays should have more of a difference for the range of cpu/power usage..... Quite the difference than flipping the entire update.....
the Minmatar outpost just got rebalanced to be the best preprocessing system in the game, and you now want to give that 50-60bil cost advantage to a cheap POS array. Why? You so realize benefit vs cost (fitting cost or otherwise) are not linear but exponential. Again, if you asked for lower fitting requirements, I might be inclined to agree to a certain point, but invalidating the best system is not fair or balanced at all. It still provides benefits better than any NPC station and is equivalent to a in-upgraded mommy outpost (if you don't include taxes).


Holy Christ.... I'll explain it one more time.... F*ck all the rest of the stuff in the game. I'm not comparing them... I'm comparing the two POS arrays, as the post title explains. THOSE TWO ALONE are not balanced with each other.

As I've already said many times, I do not want the IRA to be comparable tothe outpost, that's the point of building an outpost. I want the two arrays to be worth it. So, if you don't want to raise the yield of the IRA, fine. Simply lower the yield of the regular array so the increased cpu/power costs are worth 0.02% increase over the regular array.

That's where your reasoning goes wrong. The fact that you are not considering the other aspects of reprocessing and simply trying to buff one module into the heavens. You seem completely staunch on thinking that if the yield doesn't increase it's not worth it. You said the fittings cost vs. the increase of yield were unbalanced. So why not ask for lower fitting costs? It would become (according to my understanding of the OP) more balanced compared the the regular array and wouldn't throw every other reprocessing system out of whack. It essentially solves your complaint with minimal collateral damage. Is there something wrong with that? Or are you just demanding more yield for the sake of wanting more?
BFE
Shadow Flight
#27 - 2014-08-27 00:54:08 UTC
Rowells wrote:
That's where your reasoning goes wrong. The fact that you are not considering the other aspects of reprocessing and simply trying to buff one module into the heavens. You seem completely staunch on thinking that if the yield doesn't increase it's not worth it. You said the fittings cost vs. the increase of yield were unbalanced. So why not ask for lower fitting costs? It would become (according to my understanding of the OP) more balanced compared the the regular array and wouldn't throw every other reprocessing system out of whack. It essentially solves your complaint with minimal collateral damage. Is there something wrong with that? Or are you just demanding more yield for the sake of wanting more?



... You may have missed the post where I stated:
BFE wrote:
...I'm comparing the two POS arrays, as the post title explains. THOSE TWO ALONE are not balanced with each other.

As I've already said many times, I do not want the IRA to be comparable tothe outpost, that's the point of building an outpost. I want the two arrays to be worth it. So, if you don't want to raise the yield of the IRA, fine. Simply lower the yield of the regular array so the increased cpu/power costs are worth 0.02% increase over the regular array.


I DON'T want them to "...buff one module into the heavens." I actually said they need to nerf the regular reprocessing array. Quite the opposite of buffing any of them. Now, if you want to nerf the yield of the regular, or nerf the fitting cost of the intense, well, that's the most legitimate post I've read so far as a response in this forum. Thank you Rowells, this is worth discussing now.
HeyZues Christy
Nevermind the Man Behind the Curtain
#28 - 2014-08-27 20:15:20 UTC
BFE wrote:
I DON'T want them to "...buff one module into the heavens." I actually said they need to nerf the regular reprocessing array. Quite the opposite of buffing any of them. Now, if you want to nerf the yield of the regular, or nerf the fitting cost of the intense, well, that's the most legitimate post I've read so far as a response in this forum. Thank you Rowells, this is worth discussing now.


I agree. The difference in fitting costs doesn't accurately reflect the difference in yield. Also, as other posters have said, both POS arrays should not be as much yield as Outpost, but there should be a more definitive difference between the arrays....
BFE
Shadow Flight
#29 - 2014-08-27 20:20:52 UTC
Thank you HeyZues... That's all I was saying. The difference in fitting costs is not comparative to the difference in yields..... FINALLY, someone gets it.

Either:
A) Nerf the yield of the Reprocessing Array, or
B) Reduce the fitting cost of the Intensive Reprocessing Array.

These will then be more aligned, and yet those with Outpost SOV will still have their domination in indy bonuses.
Sigras
Conglomo
#30 - 2014-08-28 01:20:48 UTC
The difference in fitting cost does not increase the fuel cost of the POS and therefore it is negligible

The difference is almost literally 0 because arrays online and offline nearly instantly (unless youre stupid enough to only have defensive modules on your refining deathstar for some reason...)

Both arrays can be fit to a small POS meaning that small mobile operations like Komi's dont take an extra hit when using it, and if you're not using it on a small POS than you're doing other things on that tower which can be offlined for the 5 seconds it takes to online the array and refine at it.

You would have had an argument back when CPU/PG usage was tied to fuel usage... You would even have had an argument if using an intensive reprocessing array forced you to use a particular type of control tower but it doesnt.

You can make up the in CPU by offlining two corp hangers which will be back in less than 30 seconds.

Seriously, I challenge you to design a POS that has a non ridiculous purpose (other than winning this challenge) where there is room for a refining array but not an intensive one...

I doubt you can but if you can ill give you 10 million ISK.
BFE
Shadow Flight
#31 - 2014-09-09 17:36:23 UTC
Sigras wrote:
...You would have had an argument back when CPU/PG usage was tied to fuel usage... You would even have had an argument if using an intensive reprocessing array forced you to use a particular type of control tower but it doesnt.

You can make up the in CPU by offlining two corp hangers which will be back in less than 30 seconds.

Seriously, I challenge you to design a POS that has a non ridiculous purpose (other than winning this challenge) where there is room for a refining array but not an intensive one...

I doubt you can but if you can ill give you 10 million ISK.



It doesn't matter if it increases the fuel cost or not. What matters is how much of the tower's CPU/Power you need to spend on it, and don't gain much. Yes, I know you can offline other arrays to online the refinery, but that's besides the point. Just make the cpu/power increase reflect the increase in yield. That's all.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#32 - 2014-09-09 18:24:53 UTC
BFE wrote:
It doesn't matter if it increases the fuel cost or not.

Yes. Yes it does.
BFE wrote:
Just make the cpu/power increase reflect the increase in yield. That's all.

See, if you started out with this idea--that cpu/power should be adjusted--you might have gotten somewhere. Instead, you went with the crazy idea that not only should the refining efficiency be adjusted (upward), but also that there should be a linear relationship between grid and efficiency.
Steppa Musana
Doomheim
#33 - 2014-09-14 14:26:05 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
BFE wrote:
[quote=Rowells]Why pay 33.3% more CPU/Power for a 0.02 (3.85%) increase from one array to the other?

Why bother with a POS at all for the first 0.02 increase? When you stop to think about it, that really is the bigger of the two burdens.

The math still works out for some. I know a multiboxer that uses one, he says he gets about 1.5% extra profit out of it (0.5% equivalent cost in fuel).


Hey guys.
Previous page12