These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Building Dreams: Introducing Engineering Complexes

First post First post First post
Author
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#201 - 2016-10-10 22:27:40 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Either way with industry efficiency is all you have.

Duh. That's the whole point of my post.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Arronicus
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#202 - 2016-10-10 22:30:11 UTC
Rowells wrote:
If you haven't already figured out a way to allow ships to access hangars from outside the structures, please allow an exception for the rorqual on the Large EC until that comes into place.

It would be very odd for the rorqual to have a position of ore transport that can't even use the Large. Otherwise you'll end up with a scenario where people have to keep a freighter and a fort nearby to utilize them both together.


Sit the rorq on the undock, with a DST/freighter/hauler. One drops a can, rorq dumps compressed ore in can, hauler scoops, docks up. problem solved. Mild hassle, but nothing really problematic.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#203 - 2016-10-10 22:37:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
IMHO the differences between sizes of EC should be:

  • number of available activity lines
  • number of types of activities available
  • limits on maximum sizes of ships produced


A small EC should be able to handle 8 activity lines, and perhaps be limited to two activity types and frigate/cruiser ship manufacturing. Then a medium (the current planned smallest EC) could have double the lines, handling up to battleships and orca/freighter and capable of more 4 activity types (e.g.: research, manufacturing, reactions, reverse engineering), then a large capable of capital ships and 8 activity types and 8 times the base activity lines, and an XL capable of supercarriers (and having 16 times the base activity lines, able to handle all activities at once)

Activity lines include:

  • ME research
  • PE research
  • BPO copying
  • Invention
  • Reverse engineering
  • Moon goo reactions
  • Drug manufacture
  • Assembly/Manufacturing


From memory, a large POS was capable of running a dozen ME/PE/copy labs (but with no defences online).

Modules to attach to ECs to provide the activity lines could work like subsystems on a T3 cruiser, with size restrictions. So there might be four subsystem modules, with small, medium, large, XL variants containing activity lines in the same way that Mobile Labs, Advanced Mobile Labs and Hyasyoda Mobile Lab contain mixtures of lab types.

Thus a Small Lab Module might contain 1 ME lab and 1 PE lab, or copy lab and 1 invention lab. The medium variant would have double the number of labs, and so on to the XL variant with 16 labs (e.g.: 8 ME + 8 PE, or 8 copy and 8 invention). There could be specialist labs (dropped as BPCs, or offered as rewards from NPCs) with different mixes, such as a Hyasyoda XL Lab Module with 16 invention lines. Larger activity lines would then take up more "space" in an activity module, so one XL assembly module might contain 1 supercapital assembly line, 2 capital assembly lines, 8 large assembly lines, or 16 small assembly lines. One S assembly module might contain a single small assembly line.

Restricting the activity types could be accomplished by not mixing lab types in the modules. Thus a small can be limited to 4 activity lines by only providing activity modules with 1 activity type: 2 ME labs, 2 PE labs, 2 copy labs, 2 polymer reactors, etc. Then the XL modules could have sets of activities, such as "4 ME labs, 4 PE labs, 2 copy labs, 8 invention labs", or "2 ammunition RAM, 2 rig RAM, 2 small assembly lines, 8 ship assembly lines"). Some study of existing POS layouts should give you an idea as to what combinations will be useful to industrialists.

The small EC should be able to handle the work of 2 industrialist characters, 4 for the M, 8 for the L, 16 for the XL.

I know CCP was trying to move away from restrictions on available activity lines, but this is par for the course in POS life. It's part of what industrialists do: want more capacity, add more structures. An external observer should be able to estimate the manufacturing capacity of a system by looking at the number and size of structures in the system. One station should not provide infinite invention queues.

Differentiating sizes by efficiency is basically telling small industrial groups to quit the game.
Soleil Fournier
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#204 - 2016-10-10 22:46:23 UTC
The costs on these complexes are too low. A reduction in HP and super docking shouldn't result in such a stark reduction in cost, given that these structures are going to provide other immense benefits.
Frag Solo
Hidden Baguette
X877.
#205 - 2016-10-10 23:01:44 UTC
Nothing about the refining ....
I think there are too much rigs …
Example: you need 2 xl for refine craft every thing and run research …
This is not normal the ultimate industrial structure have to craft , refine and research without making choices and which rig is the best
Just 1 for the refine , 1 for the production, 1for the research

@Frag_Solo

EVE Paris , EVE Vegas , EVE Fanfest .... I was there

Undefeated champion of Valkyrie

Complaints Department AT Team Captain and director

Careby
#206 - 2016-10-10 23:07:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Careby
I get the desirability of making the smaller structures more specialized to a smaller number of tasks. But does the specialization really need to be permanent?

The cost of the rigs and the inability to remove them without destruction combine to make repurposing a structure impractical. Currently POS modules can be added, removed, offlined, etc, to allow flexibility in configuration.

Allowing the same sort of reconfiguration for the engineering complexes would make them a lot more practical.

My personal preference would be removable rigs which can be added and removed at will, but not repackaged for market resale. This would make moving everything to a new system possible, even if not quick and easy.
Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc.
Brave Collective
#207 - 2016-10-10 23:07:43 UTC
so... i'm curious as to why / how the decision was made to double nerf the defenses of engineering complexes? i mean, i'm perfectly ok with lower hp and dmg output and all that, and i'm ok with increased vulnerability windows, but why on earth do we have to get both? cant you just pick one? and revert the other? like give them the increased vulnerability and nerfed dmg, but leave their hp alone.

any insight on this?
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
#208 - 2016-10-10 23:08:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Winter Archipelago
Mara Rinn wrote:
Nonsense about bringing back limited industry lines.

Limited industry lines were awful, and going back to them would be as foolish as bringing back Learning Skills.
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
#209 - 2016-10-10 23:35:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Messenger Of Truth
Sexy Cakes wrote:
I'm sure what I'm about to type has been stated multiple times through out the process of this structure rework in EVE.

The Medium Engineering Complex will require 9 hours of vulnerability weekly, with 18 hours and 36 hours for the Large and XL Engineering Complexes respectively

... is a stupid mechanic. Give them an extra timer for reinforce or destruction but making something in space invulnerable for all but 9/18/36 hours a week is lame. The most common argument is 'this is the way it worked before technically' and while I agree to some extent with POS's and outposts being easy to change when the timers came out, think of it from a hostile FC standpoint... I want to make a name for myself in my new alliance by going out and reinforcing stuff, picking fights, poking beehives, flying spaceships. With a POS or outpost I can go do that, it's floating in space and I can shoot it to provoke a response. You've made all these structures literally invulnerable for all but a tiny window. It's a giant **** mechanic in a game that used be HTFU or GTFO.


in an NPC station there is no vulnerability period, and in an outpost nothing drops.

This is a massive buff for people who like to blow up structures as the best in class structure for almost every item in every space apart from possibly hisec now drops stuff.

Trade Hub Price Checker: stop.hammerti.me.uk/pricecheck

Visit "Haulers Channel" in game for all matters courier-related.

Structure name/system API: stop.hammerti.me.uk/api

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#210 - 2016-10-10 23:41:25 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
Rowells wrote:
If you haven't already figured out a way to allow ships to access hangars from outside the structures, please allow an exception for the rorqual on the Large EC until that comes into place.

It would be very odd for the rorqual to have a position of ore transport that can't even use the Large. Otherwise you'll end up with a scenario where people have to keep a freighter and a fort nearby to utilize them both together.


Sit the rorq on the undock, with a DST/freighter/hauler. One drops a can, rorq dumps compressed ore in can, hauler scoops, docks up. problem solved. Mild hassle, but nothing really problematic.

I'm aware of the work around, but it's still a terrible design if that is the only/easiest way to do it. It also devalues the rorq as an ore hauler over other options.

On top of the fact that it's a new hassle that seems to have no justification or acknowledgement.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#211 - 2016-10-11 00:04:50 UTC
QUESTION: Are these structures meant to replace reaction arrays and Drug labs? The Gas Guys in the corp need to know if they'll need to fork up a small POS when we move the manufacturing over.


Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:
so... i'm curious as to why / how the decision was made to double nerf the defenses of engineering complexes? i mean, i'm perfectly ok with lower hp and dmg output and all that, and i'm ok with increased vulnerability windows, but why on earth do we have to get both? cant you just pick one? and revert the other? like give them the increased vulnerability and nerfed dmg, but leave their hp alone.

any insight on this?


CCP hates industry.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#212 - 2016-10-11 00:08:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Either way with industry efficiency is all you have.

Duh. That's the whole point of my post.
So at this point did you intentionally miss the idea of seeking specific efficiencies instead of just having them all since you can't work with other aspects?
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#213 - 2016-10-11 00:13:48 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
At a POS I can deploy as many weapons as I want, then bring them online as required. If attacked I have the option to turn off industrial modules and online the weaponry & hardeners.

With Engineering Complexes I will basically be forced to either give up industry entirely, or find a large group of people I can pay to defend my structure against attackers. These things are basically loot piñatas. Larger vulnerability windows, fewer defences, lower hitpoints, same DPS caps (and no rep caps, because we just can't repair them ourselves) … it's going to be far easier to destroy an engineering complex than a POS with similar capabilities (remembering I can change a POS from industrial complex to ECM & resistances dickstar in a matter of minutes).

The message I'm receiving loud and clear is, "don't do industry if you're not one of the two largest coalitions in the game."



Honestly, I always thought that the Eng Complexes should be entremely tough and robust, but have no actual dps.

These things should have a ton of interior generators and excessive armor plating.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#214 - 2016-10-11 00:17:24 UTC
Kynric wrote:
Will it be possible to process gas for boosters, t2 or t3 production within the upwell structure? Will the assembly lines be capeable of supporting pharmacudical manufacture?


Someone who also does gas harvesting!

Are you single ? I'm in love! Blink


Seriously, though, CCP, get in here. We niche manufacturers have more questions than answers atm.

Make a spreadsheet of what modules will get replaced by what structure/rig please!
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#215 - 2016-10-11 00:25:36 UTC
Scuzzy Logic wrote:
QUESTION: Are these structures meant to replace reaction arrays and Drug labs? The Gas Guys in the corp need to know if they'll need to fork up a small POS when we move the manufacturing over.


Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:
so... i'm curious as to why / how the decision was made to double nerf the defenses of engineering complexes? i mean, i'm perfectly ok with lower hp and dmg output and all that, and i'm ok with increased vulnerability windows, but why on earth do we have to get both? cant you just pick one? and revert the other? like give them the increased vulnerability and nerfed dmg, but leave their hp alone.

any insight on this?


CCP hates industry.



No, they're not meant to replace reaction arrays.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Lugh Crow-Slave
#216 - 2016-10-11 00:37:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
so what did docking have to do with pricing? once POS go if these are the general costs its going to make WH space even more prohibitive to the new/small groups that have up to this point thrived in low class holes



also for the love of god can we tax compression
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#217 - 2016-10-11 00:47:34 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
The large one must allow Rorqual docking.

Agreed.

Doesn't make sense to be able to manufacture them, but they can't dock in it.
Zappity
Exit-Strategy
Unchained Alliance
#218 - 2016-10-11 01:30:05 UTC
The Observatory should be able to screen super building status. But the contents should always show up on the killmail.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Nfynity Prime
Nfynity Prime Corp
Shadow of Nfynity
#219 - 2016-10-11 01:31:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Nfynity Prime
I was really looking forward to this expansion, but not any more. Not very happy about most of this, but Attention the fuel costs are especially egregious. Attention

60 blocks / hour for just your basic manufacturing, research, and invention. That's more than 3 times as much as a faction medium tower, which also happens to do everything, not just a couple selective niches, with efficiency, while being much tougher to kill as well as portable and cheaper to put up!.

To put that in perspective, we're talking approximately 750,000,000 ISK / month for this thing (Medium EC) versus around 250,000,000 ISK for the vastly superior POS. Where's the risk vs reward? It's all increased risks and costs for less reward. How much more stuff do you need to make to just recoup the extra 1/2 bil ISK in fuel costs? I don't know about some, but I actually already have a full time job and don't need another.

Attention If nothing else, at least cut the fuel cost in half or less and/or remove the onlining costs for the modules. Attention

It still wouldn't be as good as a POS, due to being locked into certain niches and being much more vulnerable and non portable and more expensive for less functionality, but it might at least be better than going back to a station again. As is, they are all worthless for all but the largest corps, who can keep them running non stop to make up for the fuel costs and have large fleets to protect their paper thin assets!
Urziel99
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#220 - 2016-10-11 01:38:44 UTC
Okay, where to begin?

So the devs hope to encourage small entities to use structures so they give them weaker, less well armed, and more vulnerable structures and actually expect anyone to use them outside of the large power groups? Pathetic.

Then to add insult to injury they hype up mining in a 3 billion isk ship and then not let that ship dock in most of the damn industrial structures they are making. Talk about pants on head ********.

And as if that wasn't enough the pissant structures they did put out lack the versatility to support any decent industrial operation and will drain you dry with fuel costs to boot.

Sorry CCP, but your plans on this kinda blow. I'll stick to NPC stations thanks.