These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mariko Musashi Hareka
Kaishin.
#301 - 2016-10-11 15:23:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Mariko Musashi Hareka
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks, thanks for all the replies so far. I'm going through everything and I'll be making a big Q&A post with answers at some point soon.



Why are you making it so everyone can see what you are building? Was never able to before and should stay that way unless only the ones who own the manufacturing job can actually see it

Also why the docking restrictions? If you can build it in that particular EC it should be able to dock in it, If it cant dock in the structure then it shouldnt be able to be built in it, by your(CCP) reasoning that the docking restrictions are there is because they aren't large enough to allow specific ships to dock then how the hell can they hold them after they are built?

Why is CCP so against solo and small groups? Seems like everything so far is designed to push them either into a large group or out entirely, the costs of setting up and running a large pos versus even the smaller structures are no wheres near close

When can we expect all of the November stuff to be on Singularity? Here it is almost halfway through October and yet the only things available on Sisi are command burst n ship explosions, which are nice but honestly who cares we need the other stuff on there ASAP so it can be tested and also see if its something we are going to be able to do or start looking for something else
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#302 - 2016-10-11 15:37:16 UTC
Mariko Musashi Hareka wrote:
...Also why the docking restrictions? If you can build it in that particular EC it should be able to dock in it, If it cant dock in the structure then it shouldnt be able to be built in it, by your(CCP) reasoning that the docking restrictions are there is because they aren't large enough to allow specific ships to dock then how the hell can they hold them after they are built?

...


It could be argued that the ship is basically hard tethered to the EC whilst being built ( tough I'd have a shroud around it rather than just being open to view. As this is a 'dry-dock' it has all the construction equipment in there rather than the docking support systems instead. Once the ship is complete it is cut loose and finished fitting on a standard tether ( much like a ship now gets the hull built and then launched from dry dock before they finish fitting).
Darrien
Ouroboros Logistics
#303 - 2016-10-11 15:37:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Darrien
Hmm not impressed, the fuel block consumption is so high ( why would ever bother fitting these services to a citadel, might as well made them engineering complex only ).
The only way to max the efficiency of the fuel block consumption to utility ratio is to go with a Sotiyo ( Say about 50-55bill with rigs and modules ? ).

As several people have posted I think:
Medium should have a 75% fuel block reduction large, Large 50%, XL 25%
Black Pedro
Mine.
#304 - 2016-10-11 15:38:38 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Any amount of time that production lines are down hurts the industrialists' bottom line. Sure, their capital investment may be relatively safe, but they are losing ISK every second it's not working. If you don't understand this, you should not comment on industry. Not all loss is measured in killmails. You can drive someone out of business with war declarations. That's not a bad thing, even if you never get a fight.

I'll also point out that "encouraging cooperation" is another way of saying "the biggest blob wins."
I understand this perfectly.

You are not entitled to have 100% uptime in your production lines. You are suppose to be vulnerable to the other players in this shared universe. This is not a single player game where you get to build a spreadsheet, click a bunch of buttons, and be guaranteed ISK at the end. You are intended to account for and respond to the actions of other players. Whining that you are "loosing" profit because you have to take down your assets and put them somewhere safe is not a very sympathetic position.

I get that industrialists are already affected by war declarations, but that is completely intentional and not the point. What is however true, is that under the current system POSes are at no direct risk in highsec. Doesn't that seem a little broken? They are also incredibly powerful in that they can build almost anything with no trade-offs or choices having to be made by the industrialist. They can just deploy almost every array (on-lining/off-lining if need be) and build anything without any hard decisions on the part of the user, and the user doesn't even have to worry about defense as they have a 100% avoid PvP card that can be played by just taking them down during the first 24h. They needed an adjustment, and that is what they got.

Anyways, it is not my place to defend or champion CCP's changes to the game. They are more than capable of that themselves. But I did want to point out to those making silly suggestions to make them invulnerable again and able to do everything that these changes are not oversights, and completely intentional on the part of CCP. Perhaps there are too many different M rigs, or there are other minor things that could use tweaking, but the core idea that ECs will be vulnerable and require fitting decisions on your part is not going to change.

As for the "blob fears", I just don't see it. Only a handful of Citadels have been attacked and destroyed in highsec, and these will be even less profitable to explode, perhaps not even dropping enough to cover the 100M ISK in wardec fees you have to pay for the right to even try. It will be perfectly possible for a small group, or even a solo player, to use these things pretty safely. There should be advantages for industrialists who group up though, and non-zero risks for in-space infrastructure used by them, and with these things there will be.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#305 - 2016-10-11 15:40:17 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Urziel99 wrote:
Then CCP doesn't want their new structures to be used. Part of their stated design philosophy for new structures was to ensure same functionality. So far they have failed miserably with EC's
I see usually one, of not multiple, Citadels in every system I visit. And those things do practically nothing. I have no doubt these will get used, and used widely.

If you don't want to use them, you don't have to though. You can build in an NPC station and it will probably be cheaper for most casual players to do so. Or pay someone else to use their EC and outsource the hassle of deploying, fueling and defending them. You will be at a disadvantage to players braver and/or more organized than you, but you definitely do not have to use these structures if you don't want to.

But what you will no longer be able to do is hide behind CONCORD mechanics and run your invulnerable one-man, build anything in the game operation and still be competitive with the larger groups who organize, invest in, and defend their industrial operations. Sure, this is a hit to a previously popular playstyle, but really it is how the game should have worked in the first place. If you were starting over and designing a competitive sandbox game, you would want the rules to encourage players to have to make choices and trade-offs, join forces, and be able to disrupt each other in order to build things.

This just seems like CCP is just correcting the mistakes of the past to make the game more like is intended to work. I am not their spokesperson though and don't really know their intentions, so if you take issue with this change, I suggest you talk to CCP or your CSM representative to voice your displeasure.

Sorry Pedro but you might want to go "read" the blog.
Pos's are going nowhere for the medium term ( a good while yet), Pos's once setup are more efficient than even the best set up EC and far cheaper to run, easier to defend, cheaper to replace (worst case your pos dies to a rare highsec wardec), cheaper initial outlay (by at least 100% over a medium EC).

Cost (in time and isk) vs Reward - There is as of November NO reason to change what you do now for your manufacturing needs.
EC's are to expensive to buy and maintain, too vulnerable, too limited in output options - for not enough return.
For what these things can do and how vulnerable to destruction they are - They should be as cheap or cheaper than current pos's.
Alternately - Just never remove pos's so manufacturers don't have to risk going broke because Devs have no idea about how Eve is played.
For shites sake, CCP is bleeding subscriptions then Devs come up with new ways to encourage more to quit, how fukin smart is that.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#306 - 2016-10-11 15:47:22 UTC
Jawen Serce wrote:

I was refering to a Medium Citadell cost from hull to modules, to rigs, and services.
5b-ish, it is roughly the price for an Astrahus well fitted (with T2 rigs).

But the question is not really the cost.
When we think about it, is what CCP wants for his game.
And the answer is clearly : nomore solo player / small entities thing.

I personnally think that it's a very bad idea for a game calling itself a "Sandbox".
You don't force people to socialise in a sandbox, you persuade them to.
Here CCP is clearly forcing solo players or small entities to use wealthier people's / bigger entities' platforms/stations.

If it can be seen as an annomaly for solo players or small entities to be able to manufacture anything anywhere (your words), which i'm agree on, to a certain extent, it would've been way smarter from CCP to use other subtle ways to reduce this possibility while still maintaining the whole "adventure" thing we love in Eve Online.

I'm not talking specificly about manufacturing gameplay actually, i'm talking about the whole idea of "housing" / "sturcture" in this game.
And what CCP is clearly showing, is that they do not give a freaking f.ck about solo players and small entities.

Wether they would want to just have an owned home in space, a self owned factory, or a self mining haedquarter, they will have no other choice than using others' structures, or NPCs' ones.
That therefore means, that if they want to venture in a far-away-land, and try to build from scratch in this, they believe, isolated system, they won't be able to anymore.
They'll have to spend a lot of money to own theirs, and risk a lot, or they'll have to use another one's station, and therefore, forget about going in this adventure in that far-away-land as "pioneers".

That's not what i'm calling an "enhanced Sandbox experience".

Going out there, in Minecraft, harvesting blocs, to build his own dirt house sounded way for sandbox-y than what this all Eve Online structure thing is.
POSs were those blocs.
CCP just needs to add a small-sized version of all those structures to let solo players / tiny small entities experience this game as a real Sandbox.


"Sandbox" simply means a freeform play-style without a predefined goal - it doesn't mean every last player gets to have all of their hopes and dreams automatically fulfilled.

It's hard to take people seriously when they instantly descend into unrestrained paranoid delusions in which CCP is trying to personally destroy them. Roll

My own industrial operation is just me, myself, and my alts, so I definitely fall into the "little guy" group in that regard. There are things I like about this, there are things I dislike about it. I'm quite sure I'll be able to adjust my operation to continue functioning just fine, though I'm not sure what that will look like just yet. For the immediate future, I suspect I'll continue using my POS until there is some firm data to play with, as I don't see much benefit (for me) in early adoption.

It wouldn't hurt my feelings any if the base fuel cost for the non-capital service modules were reduced to 16. With the EC bonus, this would then make a basic manu/research medium cost 36 blocks per hour, which is quite a bit more palatable than 45, while still being far more than I spend on my medium for a wider array of bonused services.

I'm mostly in favor of the rig consolidations Winter proposed a page or two back, but I also would like to see a more functional market for intermediate goods, so I'm not quite fully sold on that just yet.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Black Pedro
Mine.
#307 - 2016-10-11 15:51:24 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Sorry Pedro but you might want to go "read" the blog.
Pos's are going nowhere for the medium term ( a good while yet), Pos's once setup are more efficient than even the best set up EC and far cheaper to run, easier to defend, cheaper to replace (worst case your pos dies to a rare highsec wardec), cheaper initial outlay (by at least 100% over a medium EC).

Cost (in time and isk) vs Reward - There is as of November NO reason to change what you do now for your manufacturing needs.
EC's are to expensive to buy and maintain, too vulnerable, too limited in output options - for not enough return.
For what these things can do and how vulnerable to destruction they are - They should be as cheap or cheaper than current pos's.
Alternately - Just never remove pos's so manufacturers don't have to risk going broke because Devs have no idea about how Eve is played.
For shites sake, CCP is bleeding subscriptions then Devs come up with new ways to encourage more to quit, how fukin smart is that.
I did read the blog, and am aware they aren't going anywhere for a while.

But the time is fast approaching. Feature parity is closer than you think. Outpost deployment is being frozen already in December and from the CSM minutes they are working hard to get to the point as soon a they can to delete the hated POS code.

CCP is correct to go slow and ease them out of the game only once everything has a replacement. But manufacturing is one of the major uses for POSes and we can tick that off the list, leaving just the upcoming Drilling Platform and perhaps some form of the player star gates which could be out by the spring which will be around the time they start phasing them out. Enjoy your POSes while you still can.
Bobb Bobbington
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#308 - 2016-10-11 15:55:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Bobb Bobbington
I believe that the rig bonuses are far too specialized. For instance, I manufacture T2 Amarr ships and t1 battleships from bottom up. With the current rigs though, I would have to buy multiple industrial arrays in order to maintain bonuses on my setup- Component bonuses, t2 small bonuses, t2 medium bonuses, t1 medium bonuses, t1 large bonuses, copying bonuses, invention bonuses, etc. Even with that setup I'm losing other more insignificant bonuses, and any benefit I could get to installing all of these is destroyed by the massive fuel costs coming from two or more arrays.

I realize that other people would probably be using the same arrays, and we could split fuel costs. However, multiple people will rarely ever be producing the same items. Half of the people would still be missing out on bonuses relevant to them, and they may as well manufacture in a station. With the way they are currently planned, it is un-economical for anything but the most massive corps with multiple people making the same things to set up arrays. Everybody else will be shafted into using arrays placed in highsec that others have put up, or in stations, limiting the variety of space in which industry can be accomplished. It is simply unfeasible for mediums and larges to be used by small corporations due to the limited variety of bonuses, and any large corp would be better off shelling 30b for the x-large to avoid prohibitive fuel costs.

I try, however, not to criticize without posting solutions. There are two ways of making things easier. Seperate the large and x-large rigs so that one is ME and one is TE, but then combine the groupings. For instance, instead of T1 small, t2 small, t1 medium, t2 medium, t1 large, and t2 large, there would be T1 ship ME, T1 ship TE, T2 ship ME, and T2 ship TE. This would allow people to choose what bonuses they wanted, but over a wider variety of items, making it easier to support medium sized groups by larges. I still believe in even my example that there would be too many different rigs and bonuses, but I think it would be a step in the right directions.

I also have a few misc. questions for CCP

  • Since null and wormholes seem to get the same bonuses, will wormholes also get a way to reduce system cost index?
  • Will rig costs also be decreased and by how much? What are they expected to cost?
  • How much are the service modules expected to cost?
  • What will happen to jobs in progress if the service modules become unfueld?

This is a signature.

It has a 25m signature.

No it's not a cosmic signature.

Probably.

Btw my corp's recruiting.

Icarus Narcissus
Pathway to the Next
The Revenant Order
#309 - 2016-10-11 15:57:57 UTC
As for people who say the vulnerability timer isn't a factor as POSes are always vulnerable, POSes also could shoot back on their own. A lone battlecruiser can knock down a Raitaru if it catches the corp owning it unaware. A POS would have been able to at least disable or even destroy that same battlecruiser, or even a small gang.


Like everyone else, I have my own opinions as to how we could remedy the situation. My recommendations would be:

1) Change vulnerability to be 2x the vulnerability of Citadels rather than 3x for the Medium and Large Engineering Complexes (6 and 12 hours respectively). Leave the Sotiyo as is on this front.

2) Reduce the DPS limits by 33% to make it so they take 30 minutes to knock over. Currently they take only 20 minutes to reinforce. This keeps the fact they can be knocked over by a smaller group, but gives the owner the same warning they would get if a Citadel were under attack.

3) Add a mid slot to each of them, so they aren't as much of sitting ducks. Citadel mids don't change the world, but it would help just a bit.

4) Change the ML Bonuses to the following:
-1% bonus to all material usage for all Manufacturing Jobs
Reduce the bonus from Rigs to compensate for the 1% reduction, so the max bonus in null sec from T2 rigs is still -6%
T1 Rig becomes: -1.9% base
T2 Rig becomes: -2.4% base

5) Leave TL bonuses as is.
von Susla
Green Peace Labs
#310 - 2016-10-11 16:04:49 UTC  |  Edited by: von Susla
@CCP

Quote:
Our current plan is that as of our December release (the first regular monthly release after the expansion) it will no longer be possible to deploy new outposts or outpost upgrades.


What will happen with not-deployed outposts after December release?
Will be they reimbursed somehow or become a pumpkin?
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#311 - 2016-10-11 16:17:00 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks, thanks for all the replies so far. I'm going through everything and I'll be making a big Q&A post with answers at some point soon.

Please consider allowing Rorqual to dock in a large EC instead of that bull**** with remote hangar access that you are trying to band-aid.
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#312 - 2016-10-11 16:20:37 UTC
I like the new structures so far. My industry alt has long suffered trying to do everything with a POS and a bajillion different arrays and it got to the point where I just didn't bother using it anymore. When a wardecc shattered that damn wreck I could only think "Thank god!"

With this new thing, I'll probably go the route of specializing it to produce one specific type of thing and only this. Of course, nothing will prevent me from using this new space factory for other stuff, it'll be just a lot less min-maxed.

The fuel costs are where I'm stuck right now: It's 20 blocks per hour per service module, right? So this means a single medium factory has about 3x the fuel costs of a medium POS tower or 1,5x the fuel cost of a large POS. Not as expensive as I feared, but it's still a hefty step up from the small POS.

Anyway, I can see saving a lot of fuel costs by simply leaving everything offline until I need it. On the other hand, that would mean others couldn't use the structure even if I allowed this.

I've seen people claiming public ECs with zero fees will be everywhere soon, but with the fuel cost for leaving all service-modules running this seems to be a rather costly and uncharacteristically altruistic affair. I'm not so sure I'd let people run jobs for free if I have to pay the fuel costs for them.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#313 - 2016-10-11 16:23:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Skia Aumer
@CCP Fozzie

Also, when are you planning to iterate on Citadel/EC [in]vulnerability mechanics? I've heard a lot of discontent about it from many sources. For example, people outside of major time zones (AUTZ and RUTZ specifically) feel like they're going to lose a lot of content after POS warfare is gone.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#314 - 2016-10-11 16:32:51 UTC
Owen Levanth wrote:
Anyway, I can see saving a lot of fuel costs by simply leaving everything offline until I need it. On the other hand, that would mean others couldn't use the structure even if I allowed this.

Unobvious decision = fun gameplay, isnt it?

Quote:
I've seen people claiming public ECs with zero fees will be everywhere soon, but with the fuel cost...

You underestimate how many space rich people are there and how space rich they are. Do you know Lenny Kravitz2 is anchoring 6 freeport Keepstars in lowsec as we speak (and dozens of Fortizars on top of that)?
Careby
#315 - 2016-10-11 16:40:22 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks, thanks for all the replies so far. I'm going through everything and I'll be making a big Q&A post with answers at some point soon.


I think most people are assuming EC owners will be able to monetize public research and manufacturing, but it might not hurt to clarify how this will work, i.e. is it a % of job installation cost?
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#316 - 2016-10-11 16:45:09 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
@CCP Fozzie

Also, when are you planning to iterate on Citadel/EC [in]vulnerability mechanics? I've heard a lot of discontent about it from many sources. For example, people outside of major time zones (AUTZ and RUTZ specifically) feel like they're going to lose a lot of content after POS warfare is gone.


People are discontent that they can't attack something 24x7 when there are no defenders to defend it

I wouldn't expect a lot of potential iteration on that. A major design goal of the structures were that the choice of when a structure gets attacked goes to the defender as there is no gameplay for the defender relative to the attacker having it shot in an off timezone scenario. While there is an aspect of "reduced gameplay" for the attacker, it is also gameplay where there is no defender in many, if not most cases. CCP stated they wanted increased interaction at the expense of this "gameplay" and made it so that the attacker has to be inconvenienced (potentially) in order to engage a defender when they likely will be present. The extended vulnerable hours on the EC and other potential future structures makes interaction with them more likely compared to a citadel which is designed to be the home base of a defender.


Alan Mathison
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#317 - 2016-10-11 17:05:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Alan Mathison
Folks:

It's been an interesting day and an interesting thread. As usual we've had the usual range of "opinions."

I think, largely, we have two possibilities with respect to the ECs as they've been given to us. Either CCP is deliberately trying to change the Industrial Meta and nerf it significantly, or we have an entire office today reading this and acting as if they've just come off a bender and have the worst hangover ever!

I'll tend to think its not the latter. Having said that, it also seems clear that the ECs are not financially competitive with POSs.

If CCP wants to change the Industrial Meta, that's fine, but realistically, as far as I can see, ECs, as they're currently depicted here, will largely lay unbuilt until POSs are completely taken out of the game.

Nothing will realistically change as long as the POSs are in the game. Once they're taken out, both the industrialists and the markets will adjust, but I don't see anything past taking POSs out that will force that.

I'm not sure THAT was what CCP had in mind. It'll be interesting to see how they deal with that.

-- Alan Mathison, Explorer & Industrialist, Star Tide Industries

Jawen Serce
La Forge.
Toilet Paper.
#318 - 2016-10-11 17:18:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Jawen Serce
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Jawen Serce wrote:

I was refering to a Medium Citadell cost from hull to modules, to rigs, and services.
5b-ish, it is roughly the price for an Astrahus well fitted (with T2 rigs).

But the question is not really the cost.
When we think about it, is what CCP wants for his game.
And the answer is clearly : nomore solo player / small entities thing.

I personnally think that it's a very bad idea for a game calling itself a "Sandbox".
You don't force people to socialise in a sandbox, you persuade them to.
Here CCP is clearly forcing solo players or small entities to use wealthier people's / bigger entities' platforms/stations.

If it can be seen as an annomaly for solo players or small entities to be able to manufacture anything anywhere (your words), which i'm agree on, to a certain extent, it would've been way smarter from CCP to use other subtle ways to reduce this possibility while still maintaining the whole "adventure" thing we love in Eve Online.

I'm not talking specificly about manufacturing gameplay actually, i'm talking about the whole idea of "housing" / "sturcture" in this game.
And what CCP is clearly showing, is that they do not give a freaking f.ck about solo players and small entities.

Wether they would want to just have an owned home in space, a self owned factory, or a self mining haedquarter, they will have no other choice than using others' structures, or NPCs' ones.
That therefore means, that if they want to venture in a far-away-land, and try to build from scratch in this, they believe, isolated system, they won't be able to anymore.
They'll have to spend a lot of money to own theirs, and risk a lot, or they'll have to use another one's station, and therefore, forget about going in this adventure in that far-away-land as "pioneers".

That's not what i'm calling an "enhanced Sandbox experience".

Going out there, in Minecraft, harvesting blocs, to build his own dirt house sounded way for sandbox-y than what this all Eve Online structure thing is.
POSs were those blocs.
CCP just needs to add a small-sized version of all those structures to let solo players / tiny small entities experience this game as a real Sandbox.


"Sandbox" simply means a freeform play-style without a predefined goal - it doesn't mean every last player gets to have all of their hopes and dreams automatically fulfilled.

It's hard to take people seriously when they instantly descend into unrestrained paranoid delusions in which CCP is trying to personally destroy them. Roll

My own industrial operation is just me, myself, and my alts, so I definitely fall into the "little guy" group in that regard. There are things I like about this, there are things I dislike about it. I'm quite sure I'll be able to adjust my operation to continue functioning just fine, though I'm not sure what that will look like just yet. For the immediate future, I suspect I'll continue using my POS until there is some firm data to play with, as I don't see much benefit (for me) in early adoption.

A "Sandbox" is a game in which exist minimal limitations, an idea of freedom to roam and change/build/destroy the virtual world a plyer "live" in.
Going from a POS system, with low cost, minimal requirements, (too imo) huge defences, quick deployment, to this structure idea, is anti-sandbox.
They sold us this whole new structure idea, i quote : "to emphasise and enhance the sandox side of Eve Online".
By puting more limitations than before, they are actually doing the exact opposit.

I'm not paranoid at all, that's a fact.
CCP wether did not think at all about solo players and tiny small entities; or they are meaning to limit the interactions they can have within the game.
That's just an objective observation.

There is something definitly missing in this awsome idea, to make it really Sandbox-y.

___

Your own industrial operation might be just fine for you. But, please, remind me how many years are you playing this game ?
How many ISK you saved during all those years ?
How many knowledge did you accumulate throughout those years ?
Etc.. etc...

Yeah, i certainly bet that a guy playing for 11 years have no worries whatsoever about what would mean these changes.
Don't be so selfish, and try to look at the bigger picture.
Try to put yourself in different skins than yours, and think about what could mean those changes for a guy playing this game for only a year, or even two, and wanted to start an industrialist carrier. There are multiple ither scenarii that you could imagine if you were doing the effort to think out of your box.

That's my answer to your allusions on me being a "paranoid capricious kid".
Beware the words you are using my dear, i'm not your friend, nore your son.
Darrien
Ouroboros Logistics
#319 - 2016-10-11 17:24:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Darrien
How about this. Scrap the structure fuel reductions. Flatten fuel block consumption to 5 per hour for all service modules.
Large have a increased fuel cost of 100%
X-Large have a increased fuel cost of 200%

Medium structure owners aren't penalised for having to specialise and have better fitting flexibility.
Large structures have the usual extra module access and are cheaper to run.
X-Large top tier utility and running costs should be trivial to alliance large corps.

Fuel costs will be easier to calculate also.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#320 - 2016-10-11 17:25:25 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Owen Levanth wrote:
Anyway, I can see saving a lot of fuel costs by simply leaving everything offline until I need it. On the other hand, that would mean others couldn't use the structure even if I allowed this.

Unobvious decision = fun gameplay, isnt it?

Quote:
I've seen people claiming public ECs with zero fees will be everywhere soon, but with the fuel cost...

You underestimate how many space rich people are there and how space rich they are. Do you know Lenny Kravitz2 is anchoring 6 freeport Keepstars in lowsec as we speak (and dozens of Fortizars on top of that)?


"Freeport" means anyone can dock there, it doesn't mean every service is free-as-in-beer. The public market fee on at least the Aunenen keepstar is set at 1%.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/