These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New dev blog: Starbase happy fun time

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aluminy
Stargazer Exploration Company
#881 - 2011-11-08 20:17:38 UTC
Balcor Mirage wrote:
You have not thought through the logistics of the production step. Under the current system we have to move the material to the POS. Under the new proposal we have to move it to a production facility, do production... and then move it to the POS. If you're fine with that, good deal. I am showing you why I have a different opinion, not just a complain. I also provide an alternative.


oh but you are so wrong... you move the fuel (preassembled) to your pos (like you just stated you do anyway) and put it together there... a component array / ammunition assembly array is light on fitting for a pos lol... no need to move it to a "production facility" move it to your pos like you always have in the past

even if you move it to a station... (or another pos in the system) just set up storage of fuel in a new location...

do NOT take ice fuels out of the combine... that would put massive calculations back into pos fueling >< which is what we are trying to get around to begin with? Ugh
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#882 - 2011-11-08 20:37:05 UTC
15% & 20% are easily calculated as portions from 20. People who do manufacturing already handle numbers, so "tooany digits" is a silly excuse.
The refuelling technicians (ie trained monkeys) only need to know, "it puts the lotion in the basket." just jam in as many cubes as will fit, job done. Good monkey!

Please, don't make numbers easier for our sake. That is terribly rude and condescending. Bad CCP!

Day 0 Advice for New Players
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#883 - 2011-11-08 20:39:37 UTC
I can live with the modified proposal. GJ CCP
Chesticular Homicide
Boundless Invention
#884 - 2011-11-08 21:15:48 UTC
The modified stuff looks good, I think the amounts for the faction towers looks ok.

Only issue I have is the HW/LO amounts in the blocks, I think they're too high. No tower currently in place uses close to that much.

Different color blocks would be good too, but that bothers me less as I'll be making my own anyway...
Kristen Andelare
Night's Shadows
Dark Souls.
#885 - 2011-11-08 21:19:03 UTC
Thank you Greyscale for listening.

+5 for fuel block/pellet granularity, saving Sov and Faction tower bonuses. I can live with the slight loss of ice bonuses with the gain in PI fuel reduction. They will balance. I'll sell PI to make up for the loss in Ice efficiency.

+1 for reduced production time AND adding Component Arrays to the list of places one can assemble fuel blocks. Good Idea.

If BPOs are researchable, I will research them. If not, I won't need to. Probably they ought not be, for the sake of the WH dwellers.

+2 for making them reprocessable (I think I may have been one of the first in on that request).

Please give us colored blocks, you've not yet mentioned this. A short trip to the Art Department should suffice to nail that one down.

Supporting reduced Ice needs to build or somehow balancing ice mining in highsec seems a worthy endeavor. Please consider it for a future expansion. Or now if you can manage it.

Finally +20 for listening to the active player base on this topic, iterating and communicating clearly and politely not only your plans, but some of your reasoning. THIS is what we, as dedicated players of this great game, hope for from the Developers.
Noriko Mai
#886 - 2011-11-08 21:24:42 UTC
Are the Fuel Blocks or the BPOs now on sisi?

"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
Letrange
Chaosstorm Corporation
#887 - 2011-11-08 21:25:24 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Changes that I've just checked in for testing:


  • Build time now 5 minutes
  • Can build blocks in component assembly arrays
  • Removed capacity bonus from faction towers
  • Upped batch size to 40 and dropped volume to 5m3
  • Increased fuel use in normal towers to 40/20/10
  • Increased fuel use in tier 1 towers to 36/18/9 and tier 2 towers to 32/16/8
  • Sov bonus should kick in for all towers, it will be rounding up though so keep that in mind with your calcs

{Mode changeto="bitter vet"}
Wow, CCP visibly listening to feedback... Who'd have thunk.
{/Mode}
More seriously, yep looks fine. Also don't listen to those who whine about the LO/HW changes. Those were always a pain to deal with for such a limited impact (I ran both research and combat towers and in the long run the differences came out in the wash and they added a massive amount of calculation overhead for very little isk savings. Besides Heavy water was never the issue - LO was the only thing that had a real impact on running costs.
sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Silver Shields
Flying Dangerous
#888 - 2011-11-08 21:32:59 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

  • WRT the changes to robotics use, assuming large towers are the primary use case then going the other way would kick global consumption up by a factor of 3-4, which would make them a gigantic production bottleneck. Reducing the demand on small/medium towers a little is believed to be a better option than significantly driving up the running costs of all non-small towers everywhere.

  • WRT talking to players earlier, we have to strike a very careful balance between getting feedback early and not getting people's hopes up. Ideally we'd get input from everyone as soon as we start design work, but our experience has been that bringing very vague designs to the community, and/or pitching designs that subsequently get cut due to being infeasible, creates more disruption than holding back until we're sure something is actually going to work. We do of course talk to subject-matter specialists (ie, people who play that area of the game regularly) within CCP, and the CSM, in the early stages of the design.


I admire your efforts but just like I suspected, these "specialists" that you speak with are usually all part of large corporations. Actually you pretty much admitted it when you said "Obviously we didn't talk to enough small-scale users" when discussing faction towers.

Well just the same, you didn't talk to enough small-scale fuel providers who make their living by producing POS fuel through PI. You didn't consult with new players who are being pushed into high-sec and who will now find that their only way of making isk is being further nerfed for no good reason than to keep the POS fuelers happy.

If you had consulted them you would have heard from them that this is a ridiculous change. Why err on the side of screwing the little guy to the benefit of the big guy? I just don't get it.

Again, go ahead with all the changes you want. I just don't understand why you need to decrease the POS fuel need for small/medium POS. If it's just a matter of math, find another way to deal with it. Find ways around it. Anything is better than what you're planning on doing right now, which is to screw the little guy. The same little guys who are being screwed by the new COs changes and in the future by DUST. Why the heck would any of these new guys going into PI now? They'll just go back to high sec to run missions instead. Extremely disappointed and all in the name of saving us from a "gigantic production bottleneck"? Last time I checked the market adapts to bottlenecks. It's how it works. What you're doing is central planning of the economy, driving folks from one industry to another, for no apparent good reason.

I appreciate your response, but I'm still extremely disappointed and concerned for those new players who no one is listening to.
sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Silver Shields
Flying Dangerous
#889 - 2011-11-08 21:35:37 UTC
Ahrman Vanaheim wrote:
Edit: I'm not trying to be offensive when I say this, however perhaps this may be a good lesson that you need to speak to more than just your large alliance contacts when making decisions. Cost benefit equations for those with Trillion isk corp wallets are utterly different to the majority of players.


HUGE +1

Amen to that. Gawd.
Grady Eltoren
Hogyoku
#890 - 2011-11-08 21:53:07 UTC
CCP Greyscale et al:

If you can believe it, I read through all 45 pages of this... ::takes a sip from his glass of Scotch::

With that said - seems like a good job. Thanks for listening to the rabble. If you have time though I have a few questions.

1) Will it be possible for the art Dept. to make these blocks color coded depending on race FTW?
(added to reemphacize what so many others have brought up as a good idea).

2) I LOVE the idea of geting rid of PG/CPU and Liq. Ozone/Heavy Water calculations and treating it as 100% for simplicity...however don't you think it a tad unfair (as others have pointed out) that the numbers for the fuel blocks are based on 100%? I propose you drop the LOz/HW requirements for the blocks a tad to make up for the price nerf. Otherwise it just seems like a nerf instead of a fix. Make sense? Your thoughts?

3) Have you done a time analysis on building the blocks versus just doing the math? I bring this up because after having fueled many POS's for years I am just NOT seeing it. To me the math was never a problem; I just used one of the many free websites like chucker's out there. Now we have to build/wait/run an array/haul/move from array to array...etc This new process seems like it is saving time, and just curious as to who it is saving time for?

4) Final thought: I know this is loosely related to starbases, but for the Love of all that is right in the world....CAN YOU PLEASE MODIFY the Corp. Hangar Divisions to include more than just the 7 it allows now?!? PLEASE!? It would make life living out of a corp. hangar array so much easier and safer.

Thank you in advance
Circumstantial Evidence
#891 - 2011-11-08 21:57:42 UTC
Incorporating player feedback - happy days!

+1 to recoloring the fuel block icons.

But if you have to go back to the art department: how about distinctive shapes?

Caldari: functional square blocks.
Gallente: aesthetically pleasing pyramids.
Amarr: "perfect" spheres.
Minmatar: something hexagonal, pitted, and rusty. Defying logic, they work anyway.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#892 - 2011-11-08 22:02:18 UTC
Some of these changes are nice. Others, quite frankly, just dumbing down the game even more. CCP showing again they want WoW in space..

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Neo Agricola
Gallente Federation
#893 - 2011-11-08 22:09:59 UTC
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Incorporating player feedback - happy days!

+1 to recoloring the fuel block icons.

But if you have to go back to the art department: how about distinctive shapes?

Caldari: functional square blocks.
Gallente: aesthetically pleasing pyramids.
Amarr: "perfect" spheres.
Minmatar: something hexagonal, pitted, and rusty. Defying logic, they work anyway.


Best idea about POS Pellet diversification...

I love this idea

DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710
profundus fossura
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#894 - 2011-11-08 22:40:50 UTC
Would it be possible to bring back the fuel saving for faction towers by varying the cycle time? for instance 75 minute instead of 60. The maths for working out the amount of pellets per month would still be easy enough and I guess most people will check the fuel levels by looking at time left in the manage window instead of counting fuel pellets.

If this is tied into the strontium use for reinforcement the bay size could be adjusted to give the same maximum RF period.

Would it also be possible to make the pellets in other pos assembly arrays as not everyone will have ammo array up but might have drone or ship one instead and might not wish to offline stuff to make room for ammo array.
Fuujin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#895 - 2011-11-08 22:53:43 UTC
The replies to this thread make me weep for the future if you guys are indicative of the average reading comprehension.


POS CYCLE TIMES CANNOT BE CHANGED WITH THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION


This is the same code that brought you such features as the ferrogel dupe, which was caused by an error in cycle processing. You don't want to poke that monkey.




Quit suggesting it; it ain't happening. The teased POS overhaul might have this capability, but its too fundamental a change to get into this update.
Templewood Terrinsbar
AntiMacro Decimation
#896 - 2011-11-08 22:55:23 UTC
Neo Agricola wrote:
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Incorporating player feedback - happy days!

+1 to recoloring the fuel block icons.

But if you have to go back to the art department: how about distinctive shapes?

Caldari: functional square blocks.
Gallente: aesthetically pleasing pyramids.
Amarr: "perfect" spheres.
Minmatar: something hexagonal, pitted, and rusty. Defying logic, they work anyway.


Best idea about POS Pellet diversification...

I love this idea


I like this too... HOWEVER... I think Gallente should be the Sphere's (In line with their stations and such), and the Amarr should be the pyramids...
TorTorden
Tors shibari party
#897 - 2011-11-08 23:10:06 UTC
Templewood Terrinsbar wrote:

I love this idea

I like this too... HOWEVER... I think Gallente should be the Sphere's (In line with their stations and such), and the Amarr should be the pyramids...


Agreed on Gallente getting the sphere, the Amarr should however have a giant phallus Blink
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#898 - 2011-11-08 23:19:31 UTC
Grady Eltoren wrote:

4) Final thought: I know this is loosely related to starbases, but for the Love of all that is right in the world....CAN YOU PLEASE MODIFY the Corp. Hangar Divisions to include more than just the 7 it allows now?!? PLEASE!? It would make life living out of a corp. hangar array so much easier and safer.

Asked and answered in numerous other threads. Stuff like that touches the very complex and hard to modify corp UI code, which requires lots of developer time - so it will never be fixed until they have time to do a complete overhaul of the way the corp UI and roles work.
Ugleb
Jotunn Risi
#899 - 2011-11-08 23:22:12 UTC
sukee tsayah wrote:
Again, go ahead with all the changes you want. I just don't understand why you need to decrease the POS fuel need for small/medium POS. If it's just a matter of math, find another way to deal with it. Find ways around it. Anything is better than what you're planning on doing right now, which is to screw the little guy. The same little guys who are being screwed by the new COs changes and in the future by DUST. Why the heck would any of these new guys going into PI now? They'll just go back to high sec to run missions instead. Extremely disappointed and all in the name of saving us from a "gigantic production bottleneck"? Last time I checked the market adapts to bottlenecks. It's how it works. What you're doing is central planning of the economy, driving folks from one industry to another, for no apparent good reason.

I appreciate your response, but I'm still extremely disappointed and concerned for those new players who no one is listening to.


Creating a bottleneck would likely play into the hands of those big alliances that you are worried about. If Robotics become the 'ultimate prize' then the most powerful will seek to monopolise its production. Like we all saw with Tech moons. Tech is a bottleneck in T2 production, so certain groups set out to seize as many tech moons as they could across the map.

If Robotics became a key bottleneck, we'd likely see a greater effort being made to seize control over plasma planets. Distribute the value of resources more evenly however, and we should see fewer monopolies emerging.

http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/

The Jotunn Risi are now recruiting, Brutor ancestry required in order to best represent the Brutor interest.  Join channel JORIS to learn more!
sukee tsayah
Southern Cross Silver Shields
Flying Dangerous
#900 - 2011-11-08 23:32:01 UTC
Ugleb wrote:
sukee tsayah wrote:
Again, go ahead with all the changes you want. I just don't understand why you need to decrease the POS fuel need for small/medium POS. If it's just a matter of math, find another way to deal with it. Find ways around it. Anything is better than what you're planning on doing right now, which is to screw the little guy. The same little guys who are being screwed by the new COs changes and in the future by DUST. Why the heck would any of these new guys going into PI now? They'll just go back to high sec to run missions instead. Extremely disappointed and all in the name of saving us from a "gigantic production bottleneck"? Last time I checked the market adapts to bottlenecks. It's how it works. What you're doing is central planning of the economy, driving folks from one industry to another, for no apparent good reason.

I appreciate your response, but I'm still extremely disappointed and concerned for those new players who no one is listening to.


Creating a bottleneck would likely play into the hands of those big alliances that you are worried about. If Robotics become the 'ultimate prize' then the most powerful will seek to monopolise its production. Like we all saw with Tech moons. Tech is a bottleneck in T2 production, so certain groups set out to seize as many tech moons as they could across the map.

If Robotics became a key bottleneck, we'd likely see a greater effort being made to seize control over plasma planets. Distribute the value of resources more evenly however, and we should see fewer monopolies emerging.


That's fallacy of misleading vividness. Your experience with tech moons is keeping you from thinking that the market can adapt to higher demand for robotics. Would love to argue further, but your logic is simply not sound.

CCP is artificially lowering the demand for robotics. I'm advocating for the opposite. It's not rocket science.