These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Concern Over System Index Cost Alongside Engineering Complexs

Author
Lord Ra
Sicarius.
#1 - 2016-10-26 10:01:56 UTC



Cost index was originally designed to work alongside teams to promote cluster industrial activity as opposed to everything being done 1 jump out from Jita.

What you ended up with was an almost nomadic approach to industry to avoid system cost index be it on a small or large scale it was, and still is, easily avoidable by dropping multiple POS in a chain of systems and when the cost index got to high you just hop to the next POS in your chain while the previous system recovers.



The problem with the new expansion threatens the very survival of industry for the smaller operations and the solo player, in addition to this it threatens the viability of medium to large scale operations aswell due to the static design of the Engineering Complex. No longer can you realisticly hop systems when the index gets high and the only alternative i can see to avoid this for myself personally would be to build another Engineering Complex and chain them like with the current system. Then we run into excessive fuel costs not to mention the additional risk v reward being far to favourable towards risk, with a tip of the hat.

Avoiding the cost index obviously wasnt intended by CCP and i don't think it should be possible to avoid it in any significant capacity but currently the mechanic is broken and wont work with the new proposed changes.

Not only are you increasing the fuel costs compared to a large POS (which the smaller entities dont even use anyway) but your also going to have to deal with the increase in system cost index which will be inevitable. I see alot of people saying in various threads " If you cant afford to build or run the complex just use someone elses " this wont even be an option due to the contribution towards the cost index and the ramifications of a station owner allowing access to others assuming he or she is an industrialist themselves.

In addition to the above, the changes will also have a massive impact on the market making almost everything unprofitable to build. We've seen small examples of this with mineral adjustments for ships and it pretty much kills off short to medium term production of impacted items. Lets add additional costs and an over the top ISK sink to the equasion and within a single patch almost everything will be unprofitable to build for quite some time to come. People will continue to use POS as they do but i can;t see you allowing this to run for very long otherwise what would be the appeal to use the complexs as opposed to a POS?.

I can see this pushing ALOT of players out of the industrial sector and possibly out of the game for good, you only need to see the impact increasing broker fees in stations to promote citadel use had on markets at dodixie and amarr to see the consequences of these changes, people didn't simply move and adapt, they got bored and quit.

I'm all for an MMO promoting team play, working together towards a goal and in this context banding together to absorb the costs of running the complexs themselves but the output of any collaboration isnt multiplied in value as it was divided to begin with so you end up with a team effort that just isn't worth it.


I've played for quite somtime and will continue to play on and off as IRL permits but i urge you to reconsider changing the way system cost index works or removing it entirely before the November patch, we need an ISK sink that isnt so harmful to the economy and to the playerbase itself.

Sorry for the wall
Ra
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#2 - 2016-10-26 18:38:19 UTC
Lord Ra wrote:



Cost index was originally designed to work alongside teams to promote cluster industrial activity as opposed to everything being done 1 jump out from Jita.

What you ended up with was an almost nomadic approach to industry to avoid system cost index be it on a small or large scale it was, and still is, easily avoidable by dropping multiple POS in a chain of systems and when the cost index got to high you just hop to the next POS in your chain while the previous system recovers.


And that nomadic approach is, frankly, ridiculous. I do it myself because, under the existing mechanics, it makes sense to do it. That doesn't make it an inherently GOOD thing. I mean really, a nomadic factory? It's patently ridiculous.


Quote:

The problem with the new expansion threatens the very survival of industry for the smaller operations and the solo player, in addition to this it threatens the viability of medium to large scale operations aswell due to the static design of the Engineering Complex. No longer can you realisticly hop systems when the index gets high and the only alternative i can see to avoid this for myself personally would be to build another Engineering Complex and chain them like with the current system. Then we run into excessive fuel costs not to mention the additional risk v reward being far to favourable towards risk, with a tip of the hat.


No, it really doesn't threaten anyone's survivability. What it primarily will do is act as a deterrent to early adoption of ECs for as long as POS remain an option (at least a bonused one).

Once it's a problem for *everyone*, it will just be another cost that's factored into pricing.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Lord Ra
Sicarius.
#3 - 2016-10-27 08:31:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Ra
Quote:
And that nomadic approach is, frankly, ridiculous. I do it myself because, under the existing mechanics, it makes sense to do it. That doesn't make it an inherently GOOD thing. I mean really, a nomadic factory? It's patently ridiculous.


The point was that its going from nomadic to static industry in terms of how things are built and researched and with the new static approach to it you will have no choice but to pay into the new ISK sink, along with the costs to run complexs the ISK sink will be too big, as i said i do agree there needs to be an ISK sink in this area, just not as big as the proposed changes. youve missed the point entirely here i didnt say or even imply that i wanted nomadaic factories. I feel the costs now that we are going to be static with our industry are going to be excessive.

Quote:
No, it really doesn't threaten anyone's survivability. What it primarily will do is act as a deterrent to early adoption of ECs for as long as POS remain an option (at least a bonused one).


This is short sighted and again disregards my point this is the short term repurcussions of the new patch and of course this wont threaten anything but as stated once the playerbase is forced to use the EC it will be a different story.


If you arnt going to read my post and think about it properly dont bother at all? : /


Quote:
Once it's a problem for *everyone*, it will just be another cost that's factored into pricing.


This was my point, how long will CCP wait after introducing a patch all about promoting the strucutres if nobody uses them?.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#4 - 2016-10-27 09:40:30 UTC
Lord Ra wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Once it's a problem for *everyone*, it will just be another cost that's factored into pricing.


This was my point?
Then what is the problem? Everyone has to deal with the new cost structure. Prices will adjust so that profit margins will be the same.

I agree with you that CCP should kill POSes, or at least the industrial arrays in them, sooner rather than later. The longer they let them linger on, the slower EC adoption will be.

But on the idea that new mechanic will have incompatible incentive pressures is not inherently a bad one. In fact, it is these trade-offs and optimizations that make the game more interesting. It is boring if there is a simple solution (like always doing nomadic industry) that is always the optimal solution to the problem. Having to trade-off cost-to-move vs proximity to trade hubs vs concentration of industry means there can be many solutions to the problem, and more opportunity for skillful/smart play to win out than if everyone can just arrive at the same solution by building a simple spreadsheet.

Industry will change yes, and is probably becoming more complicated with the ECs, but I don't see how anything is fundamentally broken with the design. When industrialists shed this OCD-like fetish that they have to build in 0.1% systems, they will likely find plenty of systems where it is indeed still very profitable to build things, and if those profit margins start to shrink there will be pressure for budding entrepreneurs to set up public ECs in under-serviced low-index systems. And they can indeed move if they determine it to be profitable to do so, it just takes a little longer and has non-zero costs (a hundred million or two in rigs should be pocket change for anyone doing enough industry to merit a personal EC.)

On paper at least, it seems like a good design for expanding and making more intricate sandbox game play to me.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#5 - 2016-10-27 15:04:37 UTC


Quote:
This is short sighted and again disregards my point this is the short term repurcussions of the new patch and of course this wont threaten anything but as stated once the playerbase is forced to use the EC it will be a different story.


If you arnt going to read my post and think about it properly dont bother at all? : /


This is all very amusing.

You literally said it, "threatens the very survival of industry." Now you're saying, "Of course it won't threaten anything." I'm going to go ahead and suggest that if there's a problem here, it's with your ability to communicate in a fashion that doesn't jump between mutually exclusive positions like a jack russell terrier on crystal meth.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Lord Ra
Sicarius.
#6 - 2016-10-27 18:40:11 UTC
CCP listened anyway and reduced fuel costs, case dismissed


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6688508#post6688508
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#7 - 2016-10-27 18:52:38 UTC
Lord Ra wrote:
CCP listened anyway and reduced fuel costs, case dismissed


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6688508#post6688508


You were whinging about cost indices, not fuel.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Lord Ra
Sicarius.
#8 - 2016-10-28 06:55:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Ra
No youre blind as a bat i was twisting about fuel aswell Roll