These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Introducing Upwell Refineries

First post First post First post
Author
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
#181 - 2017-03-22 22:48:47 UTC
I will start with the preface that mining is the introduction to Industry. Mining Barges requires Science and Industry skills - which are the pillars of an Industry career. So here we are talking about Refining which is the immediate step from harvesting and structures to support this. But no where in the entire conversation about Upwell so far is "introductory citadel". So, what happened to "the promise being kept to big and small".

Can there be limits to being able to anchor citadels. As a small note of history I participated in a war-dec to obtain a moon from another corporation. Location, Location, Location. It was to anchor a POS. Conflict over a resource is a cornerstone of this game. But no longer. There is no limit to the number of citadels or their position. There should be more reasons to flight, this is one less.

Can there be places where citadels cannot be placed. Similar to how shattered wormholes work. Logistics adds vulnerability and rewards ingenuity. How, where or why, I'll leave up to you, CCP.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#182 - 2017-03-22 23:06:19 UTC
Lunarstorm95 wrote:
Querns wrote:
mkint wrote:
Hooray, even stricter dividing lines between the mega-alliance-null-stagnation and the 90%-of-the-playerbase! Exactly what this game needed! The barriers of entry to go from difficult to impossible! awesome!


So the large number of moons being freed up because of a need for active mining is somehow going to make "stagnation" worse?



I don't know what you don't get... in theory maybe but no one will be able to harvest them in enough capacity to matter.....


Considering we don't know how big the exploded asteroids will be or what their yield will be, I fail to see how you can possibly know this.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#183 - 2017-03-22 23:07:54 UTC
Hoshi wrote:
Querns wrote:
mkint wrote:
Hooray, even stricter dividing lines between the mega-alliance-null-stagnation and the 90%-of-the-playerbase! Exactly what this game needed! The barriers of entry to go from difficult to impossible! awesome!


So the large number of moons being freed up because of a need for active mining is somehow going to make "stagnation" worse?

I do see a future where several of the large blocks like PL and Goons actively going around with their supers and killing drilling refineries just to stop others from gaining utilizing those moons that they don't want to use themselves.


If this was going to happen, we'd already be doing it. POS are quite a stitch easier to take out, and require far fewer folks to exploit once owned.

The idea that we'd somehow start doing this after the process is changed to take longer and require several orders of magnitude more manpower is uniquely insane.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Orakkus
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#184 - 2017-03-22 23:08:33 UTC
zluq zabaa wrote:


The one good thing that could come out of it is the end of largely passive income for the already rich... Muahahahahaha!!!111
It just forces them to behave more like other Null Lords and find mining contractors willing to pay to be allowed mining their fields for some margin of profit.


Not sure how you came up with that.. at least directly. Sure, we don't know specifics, but it has gone from being a huge passive isk generator to an isk generator that requires bodies to run well. Stuff like that usually ends up removing isk in the long run. And with the numbers of moons many of the larger alliances have, you are talking a lot of potential drama and diplomacy issues too. Not to mention the fact that quite a few low-sec and null-sec alliances are going to be seeing if they can muscle their way into the mix as well.

Plus, I didn't see if moons were limited to just one refinery or if more can be had.

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#185 - 2017-03-22 23:09:13 UTC
Leo Augustus wrote:
Moons won't be "freed up." It's just more tedium to extract the goodies.

Anyone planning on taking a fleet of hulks into PL space to mine under their cit's guns, nm their fleet?

Sign me up for that.. lol.


Moons will be "freed up" in the sense that it makes zero sense to pay fuel every month to hold a moon that you lack the manpower to exploit.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#186 - 2017-03-22 23:10:37 UTC
ITTigerClawIK wrote:
I think large alliances have just gotten WAY to used to such huge amounts of no effort passive income from some of the comments in here XD

Agreed. Nerf the big alliances!

Hrm, wait...

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

SIEGE RED
The Darwin Foundation
#187 - 2017-03-22 23:15:23 UTC  |  Edited by: SIEGE RED
zluq zabaa wrote:


Read all the posts, look at who is writing it and you will basically see the types:
* already rich SOV Null Entity guy loves the idea, trying hard to convince others it'll be great and hide that only he will profit
* Lowsec Dudes shocked how CCP again shifts to a little less fun, a little more grind
* Wormholies trying to get additional source of income (tbf, WH is risky enough for most so it should pay out)
* Highseccers dreaming of the day they can make Null profits with less risk (pro tip: Sov Nullsec is already less risky than Highsec)

The one good thing that could come out of it is the end of largely passive income for the already rich... Muahahahahaha!!!111
It just forces them to behave more like other Null Lords and find mining contractors willing to pay to be allowed mining their fields for some margin of profit.

Any small-time guy or gal who already got moisty, do you really think that with the current outlines anything apart from Ninja-Mining will suddenly become profitable or even doable? Do you really think that any Alliance will allow anyone to just use moons in "their" area, wether they use them or not? If people can't make a profit for themselves, it doesn't mean that they won't be motivated destroying your efforts to make some. If it was any different you'd all be already out there Moon Mining with the current mechanics (some are, which is good, but it will be harder for them in the future).


Duh, I thought this was pretty clear already. Doesn't take a genius, EVE has experience with the introduction of this kind of systemic mechanisms with origins in mechanical (as opposed to behavoural) focus. It's an exact repeat of the POS Moon Mining introduction once upon a time.


@ CCP, it's been a long road and you've learned a lot, New Eden and you are better for it. But as it stands now, this is a conceptual catch22 which seems to have sprung from something which I haven't seen in a long time: an approach from mechanical to behavioural, whereas the awesome experience built up with this behavioural pressure cooker called EVE demonstrates that the approach should be the other way around.

That prevents stumbling into perception problems as well as the old adagio of n+1, but it also provides balances between the metrics and indexes versus the actual required dynamic nature of the pressure cooker.

It should be clear that just about every response you are going to get is geared around interests, you know this. It isn't hard to extrapolate behavioural effects from the current state of proposed changes and introductions.

The gist of it is that it promotes short term upheaval at a cost of long term affirmation of status quo behaviour. Yes, it introduces new conflict niches, but you cannot look at those without also looking at the frame they exist in and the dependencies shared by the people operating those frames. Yes, I can see the consequences for the precious indexes, but this state follows the same pattern as the original POS concepts introduced once upon a time very very very long ago.

To be blunt, I like the concept. I can see where it is coming from (literally, I've seen ancient player proposals on the old forums and friggin Google Docs that are an exact match for this - but yes, I can also see the line of thinking, but keep in mind that in mechanical design focus form follows function, while you essentially deal with behaviour). But the direction of that line has the wrong starting point. You're looking at consequence models, whereas a decade plus of EVE demonstrates that it is the effects that matter. Subtle but significant difference.

The irony here is that this current state of what is presented would actually be as required for instigating a pattern of dynamic shifts for recurring conflict niches (and catalysts) if you added resource migration/depletion to the mix. How odd. Are you sure this isn't something on the drawing board? Cause from this behavioural approach the mechanisms follow a challenge (as opposed to a support) function. I know, the old fears pop up. Blue donut. But consider scarcity effects on economics of scale. It makes things blow up. It's why the very concept of proxy wars was invented by humans for crying out loud :P Why institutional corruption is a factor of both conflict and entropy. Need I go on? See how close you are with this concept, yet *just* that bit off?

And that's not just more fun and more activity without enforcing the same organisational behaviour on every existing niche big and small, it's also a lot healthier in terms of resource allocation. After all - with the caveat that you're not thinking about migration/depletion - you're just replacing one set of mechanical constraints with another on a larger scale. I know, no more legacy code issues. But it's still a trap of resource allocation and setting priorities for design down the road. While everybody behaves in accordance to fixed boundaries that do not change. Status quo.


There's a thing called dependancy management for geo-economics which interestingly is also present in group psychology (as well as other fields like political economics, geo-politics et alii). You're *this* close with this concept to applying that effectively, but if it isn't a full match, it only reinforces static consumption and control. So either something has to be added to the mix in order to put behavioural focus first, or we're back to migration/depletion.


Keep in mind, I don't think this will be read - everything seems to be taking place on Reddit and Twitter, neither of which are really suitable for the feedback processes you appear to be asking for - but hey, I'm old in EVE, so it'll be interesting to see if the next communication shows any hint of processing feedback routines Cool
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#188 - 2017-03-22 23:16:50 UTC
Moons should be mineable anywhere but hisec (the Empires control those moons). If CCP want WH's to be different in moongoo terms make the detonated crusticles produce random elements in random yields, varied based upon WH class.
SIEGE RED
The Darwin Foundation
#189 - 2017-03-22 23:19:07 UTC
Querns wrote:

Moons will be "freed up" in the sense that it makes zero sense to pay fuel every month to hold a moon that you lack the manpower to exploit.


I remember that argument from several times over Cool It never came to be. Humans and their behaviour, what can I say. Maybe it's time for an invasion of aliens - might be better odds at getting some common sense in this universe.

SIEGE RED
The Darwin Foundation
#190 - 2017-03-22 23:23:38 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Moons should be mineable anywhere but hisec (the Empires control those moons). If CCP want WH's to be different in moongoo terms make the detonated crusticles produce random elements in random yields, varied based upon WH class.


Careful, by that argument it would follow that players should be able to at some point strike deals with the empires for moon mining licenses - oh wait :P

It says a lot that CCP strongly considers keeping this concept out of highsec. It pretty much shows their expectations on function of these mechanisms as boundaries for set behaviour. Which as I explained earlier, is for this kind of model the incorrect order of things. Understandable, but it makes it a repeat application of something which has only ever reinforced status quo and the adoption of the same organisational models (plus n+1) everywhere.

The WH statement does sound interesting. Feels a bit like gas mining.
Orakkus
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#191 - 2017-03-22 23:29:24 UTC
SIEGE RED wrote:
Querns wrote:

Moons will be "freed up" in the sense that it makes zero sense to pay fuel every month to hold a moon that you lack the manpower to exploit.


I remember that argument from several times over Cool It never came to be. Humans and their behaviour, what can I say. Maybe it's time for an invasion of aliens - might be better odds at getting some common sense in this universe.



Your previous post compared this to POSes, but I don't agree with that comparison. POSes required fuel, yes, but outside of that it is a passive isk generator that needs only a single person to maintain. This new system requires multiple people (and don't say bots, because this would be the perfect bot trap in CCP's mind) and there is only finite amount of time a single pilot can give. Not saying the smarter alliances won't find some way to mitigate or even find some financial advantage, but we can only speculate from what we know.

And so far, this would break up the stranglehold on a lot of moons.

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander

Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
Together We Solo
#192 - 2017-03-22 23:35:34 UTC
"with prices between that of Engineering Complexes and Citadels" I had hoped this was not going to be the case.

So you've effectively taken booster production which can and is currently being done by small groups or individuals in a small-med POS (which can be both cheap and 'hidden' in all the POS trash of a system) and handed it over only to entities big enough to drop a defense fleet on a large open target. So just one more thing the new structures have taken away from the little guy. (And don’t say 'you can uses someone else's, no one in many lowsec regions lets anyone else manufacture in their Engineering Complex now, why would reactions be different).

I hope I’m wrong, but on the face of it you really seem to have managed to screw the small groups and solo players over with all the new Upwell structures (you know the exact thing you promised not to do when announcing them!). You've done nothing but increased the barrier to structure ownership with the new structures and have removed any intermediary steps in both production and ownership a small entity can take to work their way up in game. You've also managed to remove any niches a small group or solo people could previously use POS's to exploit to get ahead in production, staging logistics and even moon mining (especially in Lowsec for even medium sized entities). Look, I get why you did this, and I support quite a lot of it, but in your effort to 'fix' what you see as broken with large 0.0 entities you've thrown all the solo-20 man (or more) corps I know under your Upwell bus. I'm sure they will really enjoy the limited gameplay you've left them with in the future.

And why the mining ledger, shouldn’t you be allowing for lying, stealing and backstabbing? Oh and if your “ninja-mining” is being recored you’re not really a “ninja” are you. It sounds like just another intel tool to prevent the little guy from working within the ‘cracks’ of the big guys.
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc
#193 - 2017-03-22 23:36:08 UTC
Mining, really? Shocked
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#194 - 2017-03-22 23:44:59 UTC
Moongoo represents the smallest part of our income for our alliance. Shifting it to be a group activity that others can come party crash is about as good as you can get in EVE. More things in space that go boom is always a good thing. We all abused the top down income stream for all of these years. Time to let bottom up income flourish even more than it already is.

Smaller entities will indeed have to adjust. Invite others to come mine and tax them. Shift to other income streams. Wail and gnash your teeth. The choice is yours.

Fun fact. We had been investing in this for years ahead of time on a personal and alliance level. I am pretty smug about the random Reddit post a while back showing a single spec can of mine that was full of goo. Checkmate.


Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

SIEGE RED
The Darwin Foundation
#195 - 2017-03-22 23:45:41 UTC  |  Edited by: SIEGE RED
Orakkus wrote:
SIEGE RED wrote:
Querns wrote:

Moons will be "freed up" in the sense that it makes zero sense to pay fuel every month to hold a moon that you lack the manpower to exploit.


I remember that argument from several times over Cool It never came to be. Humans and their behaviour, what can I say. Maybe it's time for an invasion of aliens - might be better odds at getting some common sense in this universe.



Your previous post compared this to POSes, but I don't agree with that comparison. POSes required fuel, yes, but outside of that it is a passive isk generator that needs only a single person to maintain. This new system requires multiple people (and don't say bots, because this would be the perfect bot trap in CCP's mind) and there is only finite amount of time a single pilot can give. Not saying the smarter alliances won't find some way to mitigate or even find some financial advantage, but we can only speculate from what we know.

And so far, this would break up the stranglehold on a lot of moons.


Let me clarify, I'm not looking that much at the mechanics of an introduction like this. I'm looking at it from a behavioural angle. As CCP often mentions, the reason why EVE works is because it's essentially an emergent dynamic - a closed environment where behaviour dictates function. Which is subtly but significantly different from a mechanical approach where behaviour follows form follows function.

Even just within a mechanical approach, the very same variables apply. Teamwork, resource requirements, risk assesments, combined use paths, and so forth. POS Moon Mining was actually once presented by a CCPian as bot proof. Well ... *cough*

It's a design/development challenge either way, they need to introduce mechanisms that follow behavioural options and choices, while also subtly guiding those - and sometimes providing boundaries. The mechanical approach however is always in line with EVE's fundamentel model of functional dependancies, and as such vulnerable to us players going apeshit as usual. Economics of scale applies, N+1 applies, and there's the very same behavioural effects which we've seen demonstrated as being negative (even unhealthy) like enforcing the same organisational models on all (regardless of niche of play) and the pitfalls of grind.

As I said, they're incredibly close to something which would avoid the known stumbling blocks - no pun intended :P From a des/dev angle this mechanical approach comes extremely close to a functional behavioural model. But because it just misses that mark, the consequences may be nice in the statistical reporting and analysis, but the behavioural effects are the same as before/current. Thus making this a matter of resource allocation to realistically achieve only a short term effect.

Lowsec will be affected by this, absolutely. As a composite niche of play the stimuli generated by the current form of this concept can only reinforce the pattern where organisational states of null sec are copied - or where local dynamics are replaced by the proverbial long arms of null sec (in a very similar manner to what I predicted to follow when citadels were introduced for hub behaviour, see Perimeter, Amarr, etc, which are increasingly subject to those patterns).

Null won't really be affected. The organisational and behavioural models there can easily cope with the mechanical changes. Expensive, sure. Does it require much adaptation? Not really. In terms of behaviour itself it only reinforces status quo. Yes, it creates room/incentive for more population, but no realistic triggers for behaviour that instigates dynamic shifts. Nice for the young kids now to have a future mining in null, nice for taxes, but it's the same pattern as when pos based moon mining made its shift from private to corp to alliance use.

Highsec is a non-factor, as it appears. Which more or less makes sense really.
SIEGE RED
The Darwin Foundation
#196 - 2017-03-22 23:59:50 UTC  |  Edited by: SIEGE RED
Aryth wrote:
Moongoo represents the smallest part of our income for our alliance. Shifting it to be a group activity that others can come party crash is about as good as you can get in EVE. More things in space that go boom is always a good thing. We all abused the top down income stream for all of these years. Time to let bottom up income flourish even more than it already is.

Smaller entities will indeed have to adjust. Invite others to come mine and tax them. Shift to other income streams. Wail and gnash your teeth. The choice is yours.




Yes, but I presume you can see how this concept creates so called expanded boundaries for geo-demographical growth. The teamwork dependancies require applying a uniform approach towards resource consumption - we're humans, we go min/max and n+1.

It'll create a pull factor for higher population. Not a big one, but scale applies, so add taxes and you have one hell of an added cow to milk. I can completely understand why many groups like the very idea, because it's easy to use the way we're used to.

Whether that is really healthy in the long run, well, that is a question. I do think it is fair to say that creating systems which either allow for or cause CCP to only look back years later hasn't exactly had great precedents. To say the least.

I can understand some of the comments from low sec groups here. In a way some of them are very much in tune with both behaviour and dependancy of specialisation present throughout EVE. They see that they will have to adopt organisational models, as well as behaviour which is pretty much the same as what we know from null. It kinda makes sense for them to not be too thrilled this way.

They too get a theoretical bonus potential similar to null in terms of pull factor for demographics - yet it still is lowsec. We can't compare that environment really with null or high, thus we can't really think it would be "ok" to have them magically end up the same as null groups that scale. If anything, and I think - I forget the alt name - Helen who's Eve's first ever Aeon got splashed in the drones once upon a time in ancient times - made a very good point. Even if those niche groups follow function, they will still become just short term targets much the same way as the current market hub citadels - an arena which they can't match.

The intended consequences by CCP are mostly clear, and in terms of shaking things up while also smoothing things out it isn't bad, it's actually very close to good. But in EVE it's always the effects and the long term that matters for health of the dynamic itself.

There's nothing wrong with adaptation. On the contrary, change is and should be the only constant. Question is, does this current concept really introduce change in its effects? Not really, it doesn't instigate new behaviour or diversity of / in behaviour, it stimulates adopting the same behaviour. And that, in the long run, creates the very same problems which POS also created over time. Which is kinda frustrating, because CCP got really close with this concept. It's a bit of irony that many years ago they disproved player suggest concepts which were exactly the same as this CCP introduced concept on this very reasoning. Yet now this appears a little forgotten.
Leo Augustus
Rolex Classic
#197 - 2017-03-23 00:05:09 UTC
There are two issues at play here.

Moon Mining

Reactions and t2 production...

Agreed, moon mining is very passive income. As much as I hate the thought of introducing serious mining into t2 production, I can see where the thought is coming from. This might also equalize prices across moons, as r16 and r8 mats might actually be in demand owing to labor shortages.

I still think the concept of generating "content" by forcing relatively defenseless ships to sit at a known area at a specified time is very lacking, but that's what we have with entosising and the nerf of off grid boosts.

There's two types pvp... pvp for fun, which industrialists don't generally revel in, and there's pvp to save your system, structures, sov, etc. Industrialists and political powers will fight and finance to the death if only to keep from having to redo their spreadsheets. To my mind, that's real content, but to each his own. With asset safety, a lot of content has been reduced to miner tackled, save or don't save him.

Reacting is not really passive income, requiring substantial logistics, daily maintenance, upkeep of cyno and trade alts, and active regional defense. Until now, it was essentially separate from typical t2 production with the vast majority of t2 builders beginning at finished reactions or even components. It is, however, a living a determined spreadsheeter could achieve largely on one toon if part of a cooperative alliance.

Moving reactions into the industry UI really turns it into T1 production. You've just added a new class of asteroids and two entirely redundant steps to the typical process. Instead of reaction - component - ship, it's first level reaction, final reaction, components, ships.

This reduces the complexity of t2 production and increases the redundancy and tedium... more flavors of asteroids/minerals, more steps in process, but no unique process, substantive investment, or expertise... just a skill and a citadel. It's akin to mining relic sites for relic dust that a 5M bpo turns into ancient salvage.

If it made any sense to me, I'd try to be on board.

When did I miss the outcry about there not being enough mining required in Eve? Who has been begging for more 80Msp proteus vs 6m sp npc corp mining alt "rich content" pvp?

Who has been clamoring for redundancy in t2 production?

I'm serious, someone please explain to me, like I'm an idiot, what the point is. I keep expecting CCP to evemail me explaining how they've totally reconsidered given all my excellent insights, but so far, nuthin.. lol

Hilti Enaka
Assisted Homicide
#198 - 2017-03-23 00:06:31 UTC
WTF is Fozzie doing.

You do realise this is a game right? You do realise people sign in to escape horrible ******* mudane interactions with work, wives and kids....

**** this game I so looking forward to this and left incredibly disappointed. Your also feeding the ******* goats in high sec who can IsBox the hell out of their clients and make easy quick risk free wins. Let's all just be ******* gankers.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#199 - 2017-03-23 00:16:05 UTC
Hilti Enaka wrote:
WTF is Fozzie doing.

You do realise this is a game right? You do realise people sign in to escape horrible ******* mudane interactions with work, wives and kids....

**** this game I so looking forward to this and left incredibly disappointed. Your also feeding the ******* goats in high sec who can IsBox the hell out of their clients and make easy quick risk free wins. Let's all just be ******* gankers.


You do realize that none of the mining stuff in this devblog is going to be in highsec, right? All highsec gets from this is a reprocessing structure.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Jonathon Silence
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#200 - 2017-03-23 00:20:22 UTC
Does this mean that moon 'content' will be scaled like planets.

So a moon might have variable amounts of a resource in it?

Does this mean that CCP could potentially add small amounts of R64 (and other types) ore to other moons?