These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Diversify Fuel Blocks
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Pseudo Sasaya
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2011-12-28 00:45:32 UTC
I have been following several of the threads regarding complaints about fuel blocks and a thought comes to mind.... since one of the main issues with them is they removed people's flexibility in fuel requirements (and forced everyone to pay for a null sec use case and created a new artificial demand for null sec fuel that research POSes never needed before.), why not diversify the types of fuel blocks one can produce.

I could easily see something like:

(1) High Energy Fuel Blocks - Full CPU/PG
(2) High CPU Fuel Blocks - High CPU, Low PG (for research POSes)
(3) Minimal Fuel Blocks - Low CPU, Low PG (for temp/staging POSes)

This would reintroduce some of the flexibility of 'match the fuel usage to the use case' while still allowing the simplification fuel blocks give.

It would also make the dependency on OZ dependent on what kind of activity you are doing, rather then the 'one size fits all, this is how null sec people use POSes so of course it should require lots of stuff produced there' model that we have right now.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2011-12-28 01:27:35 UTC
Pseudo Sasaya wrote:
I have been following several of the threads regarding complaints about fuel blocks and a thought comes to mind.... since one of the main issues with them is they removed people's flexibility in fuel requirements (and forced everyone to pay for a null sec use case and created a new artificial demand for null sec fuel that research POSes never needed before.), why not diversify the types of fuel blocks one can produce.

I could easily see something like:

(1) High Energy Fuel Blocks - Full CPU/PG
(2) High CPU Fuel Blocks - High CPU, Low PG (for research POSes)
(3) Minimal Fuel Blocks - Low CPU, Low PG (for temp/staging POSes)

This would reintroduce some of the flexibility of 'match the fuel usage to the use case' while still allowing the simplification fuel blocks give.

It would also make the dependency on OZ dependent on what kind of activity you are doing, rather then the 'one size fits all, this is how null sec people use POSes so of course it should require lots of stuff produced there' model that we have right now.


So your going to complicate a fuel system that was simplified to something more complciated that it was before.

Don't get me wrong...motivation is valid..i get the purpose...but this isn't gonna work.

Might want to go back to the drawing board...don't know of any suggestions off hand...I like the simplicity of new fuel blocks.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2011-12-28 01:42:37 UTC
Pseudo Sasaya wrote:
I have been following several of the threads regarding complaints about fuel blocks and a thought comes to mind.... since one of the main issues with them is they removed people's flexibility in fuel requirements (and forced everyone to pay for a null sec use case and created a new artificial demand for null sec fuel that research POSes never needed before.), why not diversify the types of fuel blocks one can produce.

I could easily see something like:

(1) High Energy Fuel Blocks - Full CPU/PG
(2) High CPU Fuel Blocks - High CPU, Low PG (for research POSes)
(3) Minimal Fuel Blocks - Low CPU, Low PG (for temp/staging POSes)

This would reintroduce some of the flexibility of 'match the fuel usage to the use case' while still allowing the simplification fuel blocks give.

It would also make the dependency on OZ dependent on what kind of activity you are doing, rather then the 'one size fits all, this is how null sec people use POSes so of course it should require lots of stuff produced there' model that we have right now.



You err significantly when you call full CPU/PG a 0.0 use case. Pretty much every tower outside hisec is going to be maxing PG due to the need to fit defenses, while many of these towers use significant CPU (moon mining, refining, assembly, labs) even without considering EWar batteries, such as in the case of a WH dickstar tower, which is going to fill its CPU and PG to the brim even more so than most nullsec ones will.

Also, I do not see the utility of a minimal fuel block over a full-spec one for a staging tower, or even a throwaway one, as leaving a tower defenseless for anything longer than a span of days invites an attack, especially in k-space as there are bored supercap/dread pilots to contend with.
Pseudo Sasaya
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2011-12-28 01:53:32 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:


So your going to complicate a fuel system that was simplified to something more complciated that it was before.

Don't get me wrong...motivation is valid..i get the purpose...but this isn't gonna work.

Might want to go back to the drawing board...don't know of any suggestions off hand...I like the simplicity of new fuel blocks.


I agree it is not quite as simple as 'one block for everything', I think it is less complex then.. what was it.. 7 different commodities each of which need to be dolled out manually at each tower in the right ratios. This setup would at least keep the complexity to the manufacturing end.
Pseudo Sasaya
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2011-12-28 02:02:31 UTC
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui wrote:

You err significantly when you call full CPU/PG a 0.0 use case. Pretty much every tower outside hisec is going to be maxing PG due to the need to fit defenses, while many of these towers use significant CPU (moon mining, refining, assembly, labs) even without considering EWar batteries, such as in the case of a WH dickstar tower, which is going to fill its CPU and PG to the brim even more so than most nullsec ones will.


Good point. I admit I am not a nullbear so it was a case I was only really aware of from reading the other threads and how it seemed to be the one that experienced a decrease in costs.


Quote:
Also, I do not see the utility of a minimal fuel block over a full-spec one for a staging tower, or even a throwaway one, as leaving a tower defenseless for anything longer than a span of days invites an attack, especially in k-space as there are bored supercap/dread pilots to contend with.


In this case I was thinking of very short term towers. I occasionally put up small towers with just a maintenance array and corporate hanger. They were pretty cheap to run and could be used to interface with a freighter after a single op.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2011-12-28 02:37:02 UTC
Pseudo Sasaya wrote:
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui wrote:

You err significantly when you call full CPU/PG a 0.0 use case. Pretty much every tower outside hisec is going to be maxing PG due to the need to fit defenses, while many of these towers use significant CPU (moon mining, refining, assembly, labs) even without considering EWar batteries, such as in the case of a WH dickstar tower, which is going to fill its CPU and PG to the brim even more so than most nullsec ones will.


Good point. I admit I am not a nullbear so it was a case I was only really aware of from reading the other threads and how it seemed to be the one that experienced a decrease in costs.


Quote:
Also, I do not see the utility of a minimal fuel block over a full-spec one for a staging tower, or even a throwaway one, as leaving a tower defenseless for anything longer than a span of days invites an attack, especially in k-space as there are bored supercap/dread pilots to contend with.


In this case I was thinking of very short term towers. I occasionally put up small towers with just a maintenance array and corporate hanger. They were pretty cheap to run and could be used to interface with a freighter after a single op.


THAT particular point was one I didn't touch due to the fact that POS's in nullsec and highsec are worlds apart.

You have CONORD protection....we don't.

Heavy PG/Heavy CPU is a balancing act.

Your fuel changes could cause major problems....but it's not something I'm an expert in.


The frequent issue with most proposals is people don't forget to weigh in all walks of EVE life...tunnel vision is a bit of a draw back.


Null sec life is very hectic and rampant at times....1 fuel block for all things of 1 racial POS type is a quick and dirty solution...even if inelegant...

The only people who are losing out are those who don't employ maxium consumption of the POS resources. It was a sticking point...but one that can be overlooked by propper management.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Pseudo Sasaya
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2011-12-28 03:04:18 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:


THAT particular point was one I didn't touch due to the fact that POS's in nullsec and highsec are worlds apart.

You have CONORD protection....we don't.

Heavy PG/Heavy CPU is a balancing act.

Your fuel changes could cause major problems....but it's not something I'm an expert in.


The frequent issue with most proposals is people don't forget to weigh in all walks of EVE life...tunnel vision is a bit of a draw back.


Null sec life is very hectic and rampant at times....1 fuel block for all things of 1 racial POS type is a quick and dirty solution...even if inelegant...

The only people who are losing out are those who don't employ maxium consumption of the POS resources. It was a sticking point...but one that can be overlooked by propper management.


This is kinda my point. Now there is a one-size solution, but it is optimized for null sec. What I propose is adding in a number of type of fuel blocks so that people in different situations can use a different block. This proposal would still include the current block type but add in two additional types, so trying to get away from the current tunnel vision.
HEPEAJIbHOCTb
State War Academy
Caldari State
#8 - 2011-12-28 05:09:34 UTC
I wouldn't agree its tunnel vision. Making changes generally means somebody benefits and somebody suffers. No matter what the change this is the case. A good change is when the benefits out way the suffering.

Look on the brightside, your now getting FREE PG/CPU so you may as well use it to make your pos look more... busy. Might be helpful in the case of a possible war dec.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#9 - 2011-12-28 12:33:33 UTC
Would be easier to simply have one fuel block for CPU, and another for PG. Have them consumed at a rate matching the percentage used. Call the CPU fuel "coolant" to make it fit the situation better: you fuel your reactor more to drive a higher PG, and your computers run hotter with increased CPU demand.

Or just leave it as is.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2011-12-28 15:31:25 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Would be easier to simply have one fuel block for CPU, and another for PG. Have them consumed at a rate matching the percentage used. Call the CPU fuel "coolant" to make it fit the situation better: you fuel your reactor more to drive a higher PG, and your computers run hotter with increased CPU demand.

Or just leave it as is.


THAT makes sense....good luck convincing CCP however.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2011-12-28 18:07:30 UTC
HEPEAJIbHOCTb wrote:
I wouldn't agree its tunnel vision. Making changes generally means somebody benefits and somebody suffers. No matter what the change this is the case. A good change is when the benefits out way the suffering.

Look on the brightside, your now getting FREE PG/CPU so you may as well use it to make your pos look more... busy. Might be helpful in the case of a possible war dec.

Or, you could slap up some extra labs/assembly arrays and rent the space out!

The moral of the story is: Tower fuel efficiency is dead, so make the maximum use of your towers now!
Xander Hunt
#12 - 2012-01-15 00:18:53 UTC
From what I understand, the problem with renting the slots out is that you have to be part of an alliance. If you're in a corp and not in an alliance, you're being fubarred on the efficiencies.

However, our POS is usually maxed for CPU anyways, so not that huge of an ordeal for us.