These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Resource Shakeup in Odyssey: Just don’t call it a Cataclysm + Companion blog

First post First post First post
Author
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#501 - 2013-04-30 14:20:47 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselSA
CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • We recognize that the Outpost slot changes do not go as far as many people would have liked, but in this case we want to ensure that we don't design ourselves into a corner later by making outposts impossible to compete with. There may be room to adjust some of the numbers upwards a bit but we probably won't go as high as everyone might hope.

  • Once again thanks for all the feedback.

    To be ungrateful and demanding, is there any way that you'd consider boosting the offices in conquerable stations as well? I don't really have a problem with those being inferior to outposts now slot-wise but more offices is always helpful and is more just an adjustment to the fact 0.0 has a lot more corps than it did when they were seeded.

    I really, really, really would like to have a little less arbitration over our vfk offices between membercorps :argh:
    EvilweaselSA
    GoonCorp
    Goonswarm Federation
    #502 - 2013-04-30 14:21:52 UTC
    Myntelle NicAtoch wrote:

    The best solutions are the ones we come up with ourselves. Let us anchor multiple stations per system, and WE will deal with production capacity in null sec, you won't need to tweak anything.

    iirc this is less a ccp insists you not do this for game balance issue and more an "oh god eight year old spaghetti code that if we touch will break everything" preventing it
    Ereilian
    Doomheim
    #503 - 2013-04-30 14:24:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Ereilian
    Welcome back Fozzie and keep taking the Tylanols :D

    A couple of questions you sort of addressed but didn't..

    1) Can we at least have an estimated number of mining hours needed to pop the new ice anoms please?

    2) Are you willing to commit to revisiting the proportion of high sec/low sec/null sec distribution IF the market prices get out of control (and by that I mean if POS ownership becomes unviable). Alternatively would you be willing to commit to looking at reducing the respawn timer on the new anoms?

    3) Will you be rebalancing the POS fuel requirements/fuel block material requirements in the near future?

    4) Are you happy that after dealing with one bottleneck in the economy you are now, by omission or commision, creating a new set of bottlenecks that are already having a large impact on the economy?

    editted for my own reading fail :D
    MiliasColds
    Strategic Incompetence
    Blue Sun Interstellar Technologies
    #504 - 2013-04-30 14:25:43 UTC
    The thing me and my corp mates are most interested in is this, will these Ice anomalies include all the racial ice types rather than just the one we see in the belts of today, with the expectation of most of the racial ice is correct for the belt it is replacing in the various systems
    Scatim Helicon
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #505 - 2013-04-30 14:48:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
    Frying Doom wrote:
    Meltmind2 wrote:
    Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

    Scanning? Sure, actually make it harder if anything.
    Waiting for 3.5 hours for a new spawn like an idiot? NO WAY.

    Or you could *gasp* move over to another system and/or mine rocks instead.

    Or stop mining all together and do something that will be still profitable in hi-sec, like missions or incursions.

    That would involve adapting which is evidently an unthinkable concept, it's only other people who should Adapt Or Die when changes are made.

    Much better to sulk and cry on the forums about it instead.

    Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

    Taki Natsu
    Minor Inconvenience Inc.
    Memento Moriendo
    #506 - 2013-04-30 14:48:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Taki Natsu
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • We are not currently planning to improve ore or ice compression, including the rates of compression or Rorquals. We encourage those ice miners that outpace their Rorqual capacity to try selling the excess on local markets, I think they may find people willing to buy their products.

  • ...


    I can see your point in as much as it means 0.0 can mass export to hisec, but this also dramatically increases the amount of logistics (time/cost/manpower etc.). This scales horribly if you're trying to encourage people to mine for their local POS networks etc.

    Let's have a look at some numbers: ~ VERY conservative POS Network of 10 POSs for 30days
    Fuel Blocks required: 216,000 (sov bonused 30blocks per hour)
    Isotopes required: 2.16mil units
    Heavy Water: 810k units
    Liquid Ozone: 810k units

    Ice Blocks required:
    ~ Dark Gitter ~= 540 blocks
    ~ Glare Crust ~= 540 blocks
    ~ 0.0 Ice ~= 6172 blocks

    Uncompressed Volume: 7.25mil m3 or 21 Rhea Jumps or 20 Rorqual Jumps
    Compressed Volume: 725k m3 or 3 Rhea Jumps or 2 Rorqual Jumps

    These are very conservative numbers considering that Alliances/Corps in 0.0 often have ten times this size of POS networks.

    Can I suggest some potential compromises then:

    - Increase the isotopes yield of 0.0 isotopes ice so less ice blocks are required (HW - LO is currently fine imo)
    - Increase the volume of the compressed ice and keep the Rorq:Hulk compression ratio the same (previously calculated @ 1:4.3). This way it will limit how much leaks to hisec but reduces the massive logistical cost for moving it locally. Not every sov holder is blessed with a Minmatar Refinery station in their ice systems....


    I honestly don't know how much 0.0 ice is exported to hisec but it can't be much considering 94% of EvE's current needs is supplied by hisec, but uncompressed ice is pretty hard/expensive to move around in its current state.
    Taki Natsu
    Minor Inconvenience Inc.
    Memento Moriendo
    #507 - 2013-04-30 14:54:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Taki Natsu
    double post
    ArmEagle Kusoni
    Knights of Nii
    The 20 Minuters
    #508 - 2013-04-30 14:55:54 UTC
    So, grav sites will not have to be scanned down anymore, right?

    Have you considered that there is completely no possible way to detect an attacker when you want to mine in a wormhole then?
    Before you could at least keep an eye out for probes.
    EvilweaselSA
    GoonCorp
    Goonswarm Federation
    #509 - 2013-04-30 14:58:20 UTC
    Do 0.0 ice anomalies all include the three non-racial ices (the ones with a lot of LO, a lot of stront, and a lot of heavy water lawl), or do the distribution of those ices in anomalies match the current distributions?
    CCP Fozzie
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #510 - 2013-04-30 14:58:39 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
    EvilweaselSA wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • We recognize that the Outpost slot changes do not go as far as many people would have liked, but in this case we want to ensure that we don't design ourselves into a corner later by making outposts impossible to compete with. There may be room to adjust some of the numbers upwards a bit but we probably won't go as high as everyone might hope.

  • Once again thanks for all the feedback.

    To be ungrateful and demanding, is there any way that you'd consider boosting the offices in conquerable stations as well? I don't really have a problem with those being inferior to outposts now slot-wise but more offices is always helpful and is more just an adjustment to the fact 0.0 has a lot more corps than it did when they were seeded.

    I really, really, really would like to have a little less arbitration over our vfk offices between membercorps :argh:


    You'll always have the option of up to 72 offices in CCP-US if you fully upgrade, that should help with the overflow.


    Ereilian wrote:
    Welcome back Fozzie and keep taking the Tylanols :D

    A couple of questions you sort of addressed but didn't..

    1) Can we at least have an estimated number of mining hours needed to pop the new ice anoms please?

    2) Are you willing to commit to revisiting the proportion of high sec/low sec/null sec distribution IF the market prices get out of control (and by that I mean if POS ownership becomes unviable). Alternatively would you be willing to commit to looking at reducing the respawn timer on the new anoms?

    3) Will you be rebalancing the POS fuel requirements/fuel block material requirements in the near future?

    4) Are you happy that after dealing with one bottleneck in the economy you are now, by omission or commision, creating a new set of bottlenecks that are already having a large impact on the economy?

    editted for my own reading fail :D


    1) The numbers will be out on sisi soon anyways, so I'll go ahead and let you know that the high sec anoms contain 2500 units of their racial isotope ice.

    2) We always reserve the right to adjust things as needed. Iteration and all those cool buzzwords.

    3) No plans at this time

    4) Bottlenecks are a tool for creating incentives in a virtual economy. My job isn't to remove them, it's to ensure they create interesting incentives.


    EvilweaselSA wrote:
    Do 0.0 ice anomalies all include the three non-racial ices (the ones with a lot of LO, a lot of stront, and a lot of heavy water lawl), or do the distribution of those ices in anomalies match the current distributions?

    I wasn't happy with the way the best truesec systems often missed out on good ice so each tier builds upon the one before instead of replacing. The best ice anoms found in the lowest truesec in all areas of space will contain all three non-racial ice types.

    Game Designer | Team Five-0

    Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
    Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

    Taki Natsu
    Minor Inconvenience Inc.
    Memento Moriendo
    #511 - 2013-04-30 15:01:37 UTC
    EvilweaselSA wrote:
    Do 0.0 ice anomalies all include the three non-racial ices (the ones with a lot of LO, a lot of stront, and a lot of heavy water lawl), or do the distribution of those ices in anomalies match the current distributions?


    Short answer no.

    Not all 0.0 regions have Glare Crust (HW), but most afaik DO have Dark GLitter for the LO.
    EvilweaselSA
    GoonCorp
    Goonswarm Federation
    #512 - 2013-04-30 15:05:50 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    You'll always have the option of up to 72 offices in CCP-US if you fully upgrade, that should help with the overflow.

    yes but it's like a dinner party the people slightly farther away at the less desirable table feel left out :argh:

    oh well, the new offices everywhere nearby should help enough, thanks!
    CCP Fozzie
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #513 - 2013-04-30 15:07:43 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
    EvilweaselSA wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    You'll always have the option of up to 72 offices in CCP-US if you fully upgrade, that should help with the overflow.

    yes but it's like a dinner party the people slightly farther away at the less desirable table feel left out :argh:

    oh well, the new offices everywhere nearby should help enough, thanks!


    You need somewhere to put the children.

    Comedy answer: alternatively feel free to have fewer friends. Big smile

    Game Designer | Team Five-0

    Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
    Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

    Kadl
    Imperial Academy
    Amarr Empire
    #514 - 2013-04-30 15:08:23 UTC
    Welcome back Fozzie.

    There are a number of people asking that you keep the grav sites as signatures (probable), as opposed to converting them to anomalies. I would like to give you two more reasons to avoid making the conversion. First the work to do this can be avoided, leaving happier players. Second, changing this now and then discovering the problems will only cause more difficulties in the future. Of course, the numerous reasons already listed are also important such as the problems that this causes for wormhole miners, a miner considering low sec, and some null sec miners.

    I would also like to see the new ice sites as signatures, but keeping the grav sites is more important.
    CCP Fozzie
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #515 - 2013-04-30 15:10:15 UTC
    Kadl wrote:
    Welcome back Fozzie.

    There are a number of people asking that you keep the grav sites as signatures (probable), as opposed to converting them to anomalies. I would like to give you two more reasons to avoid making the conversion. First the work to do this can be avoided, leaving happier players. Second, changing this now and then discovering the problems will only cause more difficulties in the future. Of course, the numerous reasons already listed are also important such as the problems that this causes for wormhole miners, a miner considering low sec, and some null sec miners.

    I would also like to see the new ice sites as signatures, but keeping the grav sites is more important.


    We're quite happy in general with the increased risk associated with the increased reward. Ore sites in lowsec, 0.0 and wormholes (especially lowsec) are getting a whole lot more valuable.

    Game Designer | Team Five-0

    Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
    Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

    Max Teranous
    Teranous Productions
    #516 - 2013-04-30 15:14:19 UTC
    How do you feel about moving all the current static ore belts into the anomaly system in the same way you're doing for the ice belts?

    P.S. Do it do it do it
    Rengerel en Distel
    #517 - 2013-04-30 15:15:07 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Kadl wrote:
    Welcome back Fozzie.

    There are a number of people asking that you keep the grav sites as signatures (probable), as opposed to converting them to anomalies. I would like to give you two more reasons to avoid making the conversion. First the work to do this can be avoided, leaving happier players. Second, changing this now and then discovering the problems will only cause more difficulties in the future. Of course, the numerous reasons already listed are also important such as the problems that this causes for wormhole miners, a miner considering low sec, and some null sec miners.

    I would also like to see the new ice sites as signatures, but keeping the grav sites is more important.


    We're quite happy in general with the increased risk associated with the increased reward. Ore sites in lowsec, 0.0 and wormholes (especially lowsec) are getting a whole lot more valuable.


    Are WHs getting the +5/+10 ores as well? The risk in a WH is much greater than everywhere else.

    With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.

    Ereilian
    Doomheim
    #518 - 2013-04-30 15:15:58 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    EvilweaselSA wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • We recognize that the Outpost slot changes do not go as far as many people would have liked, but in this case we want to ensure that we don't design ourselves into a corner later by making outposts impossible to compete with. There may be room to adjust some of the numbers upwards a bit but we probably won't go as high as everyone might hope.

  • Once again thanks for all the feedback.

    To be ungrateful and demanding, is there any way that you'd consider boosting the offices in conquerable stations as well? I don't really have a problem with those being inferior to outposts now slot-wise but more offices is always helpful and is more just an adjustment to the fact 0.0 has a lot more corps than it did when they were seeded.

    I really, really, really would like to have a little less arbitration over our vfk offices between membercorps :argh:


    You'll always have the option of up to 72 offices in CCP-US if you fully upgrade, that should help with the overflow.


    Ereilian wrote:
    Welcome back Fozzie and keep taking the Tylanols :D

    A couple of questions you sort of addressed but didn't..

    1) Can we at least have an estimated number of mining hours needed to pop the new ice anoms please?

    2) Are you willing to commit to revisiting the proportion of high sec/low sec/null sec distribution IF the market prices get out of control (and by that I mean if POS ownership becomes unviable). Alternatively would you be willing to commit to looking at reducing the respawn timer on the new anoms?

    3) Will you be rebalancing the POS fuel requirements/fuel block material requirements in the near future?

    4) Are you happy that after dealing with one bottleneck in the economy you are now, by omission or commision, creating a new set of bottlenecks that are already having a large impact on the economy?

    editted for my own reading fail :D


    1) The numbers will be out on sisi soon anyways, so I'll go ahead and let you know that the high sec anoms contain 2500 units of their racial isotope ice.

    2) We always reserve the right to adjust things as needed. Iteration and all those cool buzzwords.

    3) No plans at this time

    4) Bottlenecks are a tool for creating incentives in a virtual economy. My job isn't to remove them, it's to ensure they create interesting incentives.


    EvilweaselSA wrote:
    Do 0.0 ice anomalies all include the three non-racial ices (the ones with a lot of LO, a lot of stront, and a lot of heavy water lawl), or do the distribution of those ices in anomalies match the current distributions?

    I wasn't happy with the way the best truesec systems often lost good ice so each tier builds upon the one before instead of replacing. The best ice anoms found in the lowest truesec will contain all three non-racial ice types.


    Thank you for the reply, I do have some follow up.

    By my notepad estimate that means each anom will have approx 23 mining hours worth of ice. While that number might seem large for a nullsec system, it is incredibly small for highsec especially for a resource that drives both industry and combat. As sisi is not a real test of the real world implications of this change I ask again can we have a firm commitment of a +x month review of the change. Normally I would not push this way but you must understand the serious and far reaching impact of the change and that it will need to be monitored closely.

    Which leads me into the second part of the follow up. While I understand your desire to craft the game into your own vision that vision may not be what we, the customers want. I will not make the usual "omg ragequit" statements but personally I will be allowing most of my mining alts to lapse as I see the new system as taking change too far. The fact you are trying, in a most clumsy jack booted way, to force conflict where no conflict existed on people who are engaged in constructive actions is very much appreciated. I also find it worrying that CCP is not willing to intervene in the legal RMT market systems but are quite happy to hatchet into systems to create more demand for said RMT.

    I like alot of what is happening in Odyssey, I love the idea of anomalies but I fear you are basically setting up the multi boxers as Kings of the Ice and removing the ability of single miners to compete.
    Kadl
    Imperial Academy
    Amarr Empire
    #519 - 2013-04-30 15:16:10 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Kadl wrote:
    Welcome back Fozzie.

    There are a number of people asking that you keep the grav sites as signatures (probable), as opposed to converting them to anomalies. I would like to give you two more reasons to avoid making the conversion. First the work to do this can be avoided, leaving happier players. Second, changing this now and then discovering the problems will only cause more difficulties in the future. Of course, the numerous reasons already listed are also important such as the problems that this causes for wormhole miners, a miner considering low sec, and some null sec miners.

    I would also like to see the new ice sites as signatures, but keeping the grav sites is more important.


    We're quite happy in general with the increased risk associated with the increased reward. Ore sites in lowsec, 0.0 and wormholes (especially lowsec) are getting a whole lot more valuable.


    Sad I am sorry to hear that. I guess I will have to cross it off of the things to do.
    TheButcherPete
    Blackbase Incorporated
    #520 - 2013-04-30 15:16:12 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Kadl wrote:
    Welcome back Fozzie.

    There are a number of people asking that you keep the grav sites as signatures (probable), as opposed to converting them to anomalies. I would like to give you two more reasons to avoid making the conversion. First the work to do this can be avoided, leaving happier players. Second, changing this now and then discovering the problems will only cause more difficulties in the future. Of course, the numerous reasons already listed are also important such as the problems that this causes for wormhole miners, a miner considering low sec, and some null sec miners.

    I would also like to see the new ice sites as signatures, but keeping the grav sites is more important.


    We're quite happy in general with the increased risk associated with the increased reward. Ore sites in lowsec, 0.0 and wormholes (especially lowsec) are getting a whole lot more valuable.


    While this is true... cloaking seemingly afk campers will become a lot more of a threat if the new grav sites become anomalies.

    Stealthbombers don't normally carry probes, now they won't have to :/

    [b]THE KING OF EVE RADIO

    If EVE is real, does that mean all of us are RMTrs?[/b]