These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post First post
Author
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#581 - 2014-04-15 21:56:34 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
Come on. Post the next blog already.


CCP are employing a simple and oiled strategy well known in the marketing world: when you approach a (yearly) period of low sales (this period being one) start throwing appetizers to catch interest and glue potential buyers to you.

Posting stuff in phases is exactly an expectation raiser => fidelization.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#582 - 2014-04-15 21:57:29 UTC
Altrue wrote:
6 - POSes in high-sec without standing requirements? Cool! But we still need a way to easily remove offline POSes!


Shoot them. How much easier do you need it?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#583 - 2014-04-15 21:58:21 UTC
Querns wrote:
It gives the pos haver warning and lets them online the tower.
So? Then it is obviously an actively occupied moon.

Ranger1 wrote:
i think the wardec solution works great vs an active corp.. however vs abandoned POS's that are out of fuel I do not thing a simpler, shorter, (and less expensive) option would not go amiss.
If it's abandoned POSes that need to go, I'd prefer something along the lines of what's discussed in this thread.
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#584 - 2014-04-15 21:59:25 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Querns wrote:
El 1974 wrote:
No need to remove offline POSses. Allow players to shoot them without a wardec and they will clear them. Perhaps make attackers suspect, but keep concord out. Give players a chance, you can always remove POSses later if that doesn't work.

If offline pos spam is a concern, this is an elegant solution.

Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient?

It's been sufficient for me, many, many times in the past.

I have never, ever, had any issue getting a moon (or multiple moons) in the system I want.

I can understand introducing a new and interesting mechanic to enrich the game, but in the absence of that I don't see a need to make it any easier than it already is to get a moon.

Add to this the vast amount of quality real estate that will be added by opening up the higher sec systems and I don't really see it as an issue worthy of additional developer time.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#585 - 2014-04-15 22:00:03 UTC
Canenald wrote:
Lors Dornick wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Canenald wrote:
Sounds to me like manufacturing and research is about to be dumbed down.

Yeah, just like the creation of a GUI dumbed down computer use. Roll

Hell, now EVERONE will be able to do it... sheesh.


We talk a lot about good and bad complexity within the team. A fair portion of the industry changes are pretty clear examples of removing bad complexity, while still keeping the interesting problems for players to solve.

Some of the changes are also centered around cleaning up years of legacy code, freeing us up to better iterate on the feature and do more sexy looking UI Cool

Success in industry should be about knowing what to build, how, where, when, sourced from where and sold at the right place and at the right time.

Edit: and for the right price.

It should never be about to be able to stand or navigate a stupid UI.


I wasn't referring to the new UI, which I also like. I was referring to the changes to R.A.M. and similar components, the extra materials and the station slots. As with many features of EVE, variety, complexity and realism is what sets eve apart from generic MMOs. Take that away and manufacturing in EVE will become more like crafting in every other game.

It makes more sense for tools like R.A.M. to be gradually damaged than consumed by the process of manufacturing. If you wanted to do away with the randomness, just give them a limited number of uses rather than making them consumable materials like everything else.

Extra materials also add a nice non-generic flavour to the manufacturing process.

Removal of extra materials and semi-consumable components is justified by the fact that many less experienced players are calculating their manufacturing costs wrongly, but then you replace manufacturing slots with gradually increasing manufacturing fee. Don't you think many newbies will engage in unprofitable manufacture because they will not notice that they are being charged more than their eventual profit by manufacturing in a busy system?

Fair enough, but the total cost to manufacture will be clearly visible before you begin the job. So... yes, some will. Big smile
But none of those paying at least slight attention to what they are doing will.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#586 - 2014-04-15 22:02:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Querns wrote:
It gives the pos haver warning and lets them online the tower.
So? Then it is obviously an actively occupied moon.

Ranger1 wrote:
i think the wardec solution works great vs an active corp.. however vs abandoned POS's that are out of fuel I do not thing a simpler, shorter, (and less expensive) option would not go amiss.
If it's abandoned POSes that need to go, I'd prefer something along the lines of what's discussed in this thread.

Hehe, I had missed that one. Yes, that looks far more entertaining.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

gifter Penken
State War Academy
Caldari State
#587 - 2014-04-15 22:03:34 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
gifter Penken wrote:
So, while it may at first appear that increasing the supply of T2 items that can be produce via T2 BPO would increase profitability of those T2 BPOs... it is not necessarily the case. Some T2 items will still have demand that exceeds supply that can be met by T2 BPOs and those will become more profitable. Other are likely to shift from invention being the price point, to BPO being the price point, and profit on those could decline.


You need to consider the extremely limited output supplied by T2 BPO's. For example, a well researched T2 cruiser BPO can build about 1 ship a day.



I did consider both cases.

1) For some items, T2 BPO supply will now exceed demand, profitability may go down as invention is no longer the price setter.
2) For some items, T2 BPO produced items will still be insufficient to meet demand, profitability will go up for the BPO holders.

If I had to guess, I would bet the increased profits from the second case would be much larger than potential reduced profits from the first case.


The real point was an attempt to counter Tippa's comment that invention supplied quantity and T2 BPO supplied quantity are unrelated. That is not true. Total demand will be filled by the sum of T2 BPO produced and invention produced. The more produced by BPO, the less needed to be invented.

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#588 - 2014-04-15 22:03:40 UTC
Question to the devs: Will S&I missions be addressed during the upcoming release?
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#589 - 2014-04-15 22:06:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve Ronuken
For a slightly more in depth reaction (bearing in mind I still need to read the other dev blogs, so all reactions are muted by 'other changes are coming)

Market Groups: Good change.

RAM: Great change. Removes a bit of pointless complexity.

Extra Materials: Going to have to see how this is implemented. For example, when a ship is a component. I know how it's handled behind the scenes (with recyclable materials reducing base materials.) Going to have to rewrite my calculator for this Blink In addition, it means that when recycling some T2 things, you'll be able to get back some components you couldn't get before. Unless it's handled differently. tl;dr: Not a bad change. Going to have to see the exact implementation

Cost Scaling: I really need to see the blog on this, before commenting. It sounds like it could be a good change, but I'd prefer to see no upper cap on the cost.


As for T2BPO copying, this could be a real game changer, and one I'm not hugely keen on. depends on how much the cost is reduced. Maybe add some datacores to the cost for copying? Right now, their limitation comes from invention being able to massively outproduce them. Really fast copies could cripple that, which hands a major advantage to the T2 BPO owners.

The UI: oooooo, shiny.




Edit:

No remote blueprint job starting: This is a potentially major concern, due to the risks it opens up when you want to manufacture at a corporate POS. Because there's no lockdown on some /very/ expensive BPOs. Sure, copying is an option. But it might not be sufficient.


Possible mitigation: Add a small (like 100m3) personal hangar to all arrays and labs, which can be used for very expensive things.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
#590 - 2014-04-15 22:08:44 UTC
Just a quickie:

Post 'Tiericide' and Extra materials, I don't think you have changed the Insurance payouts to reflect the new relative build costs.
For Example:
- A Platinum Insured Dominix still only seems to payout about 60m whereas it retails for circa 200m.
- A Platinum Insured Hyperion still returns perhaps 150m and retails for roughly the same now as a Dominix.

This disparity appears to occur across all the recently balanced ship classes and really skews ship choices for PVP - surely it would make sense to rectify this while you confirm the new 'baseline' costs of ships by eliminating extra materials? Either that or I'm badly misunderstanding how insurance works now. Thanks.

Oh and that bottom screenshot looks like a horribly random placement of information. At least when it is all linear you can quickly scan across to find what you want - explosively scattering the information all over the screen for the sake of 'pretty' seems silly to me - but I guess I'll reserve my functionality comments for the UI blog.

Thanks.


Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#591 - 2014-04-15 22:08:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
gifter Penken wrote:
The real point was an attempt to counter Tippa's comment that invention supplied quantity and T2 BPO supplied quantity are unrelated. That is not true. Total demand will be filled by the sum of T2 BPO produced and invention produced. The more produced by BPO, the less needed to be invented.
That's not my comment, though. My comment was about production, which are unrelated. You're working on the assumption that supply and demand are matched 1:1; that an increase in one production method automatically means reduction in the other; and that “need” is measurable by either party.

The likely scenario is that inventors will keep inventing at the same speed, BPO holders will build at slightly higher speed, and that the difference is lost in the noise of regular market fluctuation. The fact that BPO holders can now produce slightly more has exactly zero impact on how much inventors choose to produce.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#592 - 2014-04-15 22:10:34 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:

The UI: oooooo, shiny.



Please take to heart to push CCP to schedule an overhaul of the markets charts, including by implementing candle stick bars.

After all they did "took an hint" from my RL derived market charts in the last Fanfest so they have the data and "tech" to do it.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#593 - 2014-04-15 22:11:49 UTC
Vyktor Abyss wrote:
Just a quickie:

Post 'Tiericide' and Extra materials, I don't think you have changed the Insurance payouts to reflect the new relative build costs.
For Example:
- A Platinum Insured Dominix still only seems to payout about 60m whereas it retails for circa 200m.
- A Platinum Insured Hyperion still returns perhaps 150m and retails for roughly the same now as a Dominix.

This disparity appears to occur across all the recently balanced ship classes and really skews ship choices for PVP - surely it would make sense to rectify this while you confirm the new 'baseline' costs of ships by eliminating extra materials? Either that or I'm badly misunderstanding how insurance works now. Thanks.

Oh and that bottom screenshot looks like a horribly random placement of information. At least when it is all linear you can quickly scan across to find what you want - explosively scattering the information all over the screen for the sake of 'pretty' seems silly to me - but I guess I'll reserve my functionality comments for the UI blog.

Thanks.
I thought insurance actually did take mineral costs into account. Maybe the extra minerals aren't factored in? If that's the case this change may rectify that. Otherwise I'm not sure.
Zappity
Exit-Strategy
Unchained Alliance
#594 - 2014-04-15 22:11:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
I am worried about reduced copy time devaluing invention. Please nerf T2 BPOs. No, I don't have any ;)

But they still need to be nerfed otherwise newer industry players are at an enormous disadvantage.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

gifter Penken
State War Academy
Caldari State
#595 - 2014-04-15 22:12:38 UTC  |  Edited by: gifter Penken
Steve Ronuken wrote:
For a slightly more in depth reaction (bearing in mind I still need to read the other dev blogs, so all reactions are muted by 'other changes are coming)

CLIP


Nice summary, but you missed what I consider to be the biggest change of all. No more building or researching from BPO that is safely locked down in corp hanger in station.

The hassle that is going to create... alt corp running a high sec large tower to allow safe research and copy of 10s of billions of ISk worth of BPOs.. MAJOR dumb complexity.

They are never going to get the intended change of 10s or 100s of billions of ISk worth of BPOs being put into POS structures where they can be stolen, destroyed or captured as loot drop. Players are just not that stupid!
Zifrian
Deep Space Innovations
#596 - 2014-04-15 22:13:24 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Querns wrote:
El 1974 wrote:
No need to remove offline POSses. Allow players to shoot them without a wardec and they will clear them. Perhaps make attackers suspect, but keep concord out. Give players a chance, you can always remove POSses later if that doesn't work.

If offline pos spam is a concern, this is an elegant solution.

Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient?

It takes too long.

The pos is abandoned or the corp doesn't care enough about it to fuel it and online it. It is literally taking up space for no other reason than to "save a spot".

If you can't be bothered to fuel your pos and use it...and take it down when you aren't, then you don't need it up in the first place. Giving someone 24 hours to power it up to "keep the spot" doesn't further the goal of providing opportunities for using the POS bonuses in this blog nor does it support the risk vs. reward for industry.

Change the rules: Abandoned POSs can be attacked with suspect flag. If you forget your pos or don't want to use it, you accept the risk for not paying attention for losing it. Simple, efficient, and 100% EVE.

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder

The Anti-Hero
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#597 - 2014-04-15 22:13:41 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Garth of Izar wrote:
how does this effect locked down BPOs? Can't lock down at a POS AFAIK


Yes, we had a look at that as well. Allowing people to lock blueprints down in Starbases with current vote / lock mechanics would not be a good idea, so it won't be possible for now.


The whole idea seems to be to force people to defend their assets, yet there is no way now to defend them from a thief in their own corp? How is a person supposed to join a corp of sufficient size to defend their POS, while in the same motion, removing the ability to secure the prints from thieves in the same corp? I thought we were shifting away from the horribly broken (and apparently unfix-able) POS mechanics, not forcing people to risk billions of isk in assets at them.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#598 - 2014-04-15 22:16:39 UTC
gifter Penken wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
For a slightly more in depth reaction (bearing in mind I still need to read the other dev blogs, so all reactions are muted by 'other changes are coming)

CLIP


Nice summary, but you missed what I consider to be the biggest change of all. No more building or researching from BPO that is safely locked down in corp hanger in station.

The hassle that is going to create... alt corp running a high sec large tower to allow safe research and copy of 10s of billions of ISk worth of BPOs.. MAJOR dumb complexity.

They are never going to get the intended change of 10s or 100s of billions of ISk worth of BPOs being put into POS structures where they can be stolen, destroyed or captured as loot drop. Players are just not that stupid!



Bah! I did miss commenting on that here, yes (mentioned it on twitter Blink ). I'll update.

I did notice it. and it is a concern. Though possibly mitigated by the reduced copy times.

Ideally you'll have small personal hangars added to all arrays. If that's possible.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

gifter Penken
State War Academy
Caldari State
#599 - 2014-04-15 22:17:49 UTC
Zappity wrote:
I am worried about reduced copy time devaluing invention. Please nerf T2 BPOs. No, I don't have any ;)

But they still need to be nerfed otherwise newer industry players are at an enormous disadvantage.




IMHO, the worst part of T2 BPOs are the hate and discontent they create in new(er) players. No matter how long we play, we will never get a change to become an instant mega billionaire, simply by winning a T2 BPO lottery. We will always be at a SERIOUS disadvantage to other players, simply because we are newer.


Real mega-advantage or not, it is the perception that creates the hate.


I know CCP has a policy of not removing things, but they could buff invention so that inventors are on an equal footing with T2 BPO holders. There, didn't "remove" T2 BPO, just made them irrelevant.

Kyshonuba
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#600 - 2014-04-15 22:19:48 UTC
The Anti-Hero wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Garth of Izar wrote:
how does this effect locked down BPOs? Can't lock down at a POS AFAIK


Yes, we had a look at that as well. Allowing people to lock blueprints down in Starbases with current vote / lock mechanics would not be a good idea, so it won't be possible for now.


The whole idea seems to be to force people to defend their assets, yet there is no way now to defend them from a thief in their own corp? How is a person supposed to join a corp of sufficient size to defend their POS, while in the same motion, removing the ability to secure the prints from thieves in the same corp? I thought we were shifting away from the horribly broken (and apparently unfix-able) POS mechanics, not forcing people to risk billions of isk in assets at them.


POS rework is stil underway. I feel that those concern's should rather be acknowwledged by "new POS design" then under "please give us remote research back"