EVE Information Portal

It also dilutes rage....

No wonder CCP is sliding down hill - marketing continues to gain power

Who are you and what have you done with the real CCP? On second thought, here's some spare limestone I had left over in my backyard.

How does this in any way “end” highsec?


Doesn't particularly solve anything and creates pretty large problems. You can already clean up POSes with wardecs.

any chance to ad the ability to merge BPCs? If two BPCs have the same properties (beside runs remaining) it would allow to merge them into one BPC and therefore allow longer jobs.

mission runners who grind standings Jump clone service is still viable

alliance/corp creation services Again people don't want to train those skills still viable

[*] corp standings boosters Again People will still pay for these as they want to use level 4's as soon as they can

Loving the changes, and I hardly do industry!

Why use a multiplication factor of 100 on the R.A.M.'s etc? Why not just use a factor of 10?

Using your example, instead of the invul now requiring 60, it would require 6.

This gives you more room for growth in the future (I shiver at the thought of a future big item requiring something ridiculous like 60,000), and just keeps the numbers a bit more sensible imho.

Also, will you be reducing the m3 of R.A.M.s etc?

As to the removal of standings to anchor a pos in hisec... won't this reduce the (already low) incentive to anchor pos's in lowsec? One of the few benefits of anchoring a pos in lowsec is you don't need standings. Now why would anyone anchor a pos for simple manufacturing in lowsec if they can anchor a pos in hisec anywhere?

I also don't like that this change kills a small but vibrant player service, in the form of corp creation and pos anchoring services.

However, I do like the idea of removing standings to anchor pos's. So I would suggest instead, add some sort of bonus to standings. For example, if your standings are high in a particular faction, your pos fuel consumption is lower, or your manufacturing speed is increased, or you can make more copies per job, research faster, etc.

In other words, removing the standings requirement for anchoring a pos is a good thing... but there should be some compensatory replacement value for grinding racial standings so the gameplay that surrounds this isn't butchered.

Just my two bytes.

GG

Most likely because they're currently percentage-based and doing it in batches of 100 makes for an easy and yet familiar transition. Also, I seem to recall that there are things that do other multiple-of-5% damage, so it would have to be factors of 20 at least anyway.

Jump Clones services are offered free by many corps, including the highly famous EACS. So why bother reinventing the wheel when there's free services ? Same for Alliance/Corp creation services, those are offered free of charge and with no waiting.

And for corp standings boosters, 99% of the demand is for HS POSes. For access to missions, they are services for boosting personal standings in place. But this change effectively kills the corp selling/boosting business.

Yes, I think it is too long. There are tons of systems with towers just sitting there for no other reason than to hold the spot. Is that really intended? Again, I do not think so. It doesn't support the risk vs. reward goal of EVE especially if we are now going to use POSs much more frequently for industry.

What counts as abandoned? How about offline? No one is going to leave a tower offline in nullsec/lowsec why should it be any different in highsec? Also, 24 hours to go and bash a structure that takes hours without a sufficient fleet to destroy. I don't see the point in continuing that type of play style. I, as others here, have also suggested offline towers have shield hps removed so they are easier to destroy. No one in the game likes structure bashing and timers, so why should we continue to support it?

But I'm not going to argue with a forum warrior like yourself, especially when you just argue for the status quo on a patch that is clearly changing it. I don't agree with you and you didn't change my opinion on this, nor did I you. We are not alone in our opinions either.

But I'd leave you with this thought, why is the status quo ok? Isn't this whole industry revamp all about changing the status quo? Why can't we change it instead of using the wardec mechanic to achieve an end that really only deals with people trying to find a spot for a tower? What harm would it cause for someone to actually have to manage risk of a high sec pos and pay the price for not? What harm is there to removing the 24 hour window to a POS that someone doesn't feel they need to fuel?

If this game and this update is supposed to be about more risk vs. reward, then this change is a completely fine with me and I think it supports that goal.

Anywho, CCP will make the final call and I've offered my opinion. o/

It is extremely hard to intillegently comment on changes to industry when you announce that there are 5 (or 6?) more Dev Blogs to come to cover all areas of industry (not counting the changes that will come in what I presume will be the point release, namely to inventions and reverse engineering). So CCP, pls pls pls write and release the rest of the Dev Blogs in this series so that I can understand more how my game play will be affected. For example I'm extremely worried that the fact that I'll have to more around the blueprints (be it be copies or originals) along with the raw materials now, but for all I know in one of the next dev blogs you made BPCs and researched BPOs stackable.

However there are several points I want to bring up.

1. You mentioned that all slots will be removed from the game and the price scale will be implemented everywhere. This is concerning because for those of us using a POS, we already pay a price for those slots, these slots are much much more expensive the the ones that are currently available in NPC stations, we pay for them by fueling our POS, we can do some math and spreadsheet foo to figure out the actual price of these slots. However if slots aren't going to be a thing anywhere and the ISK sink mechanism will be added to Assembly Arrays and Mobile Laboratories then you are effectively saying that I'll be paying twice (once with POS fuel and the second with the ISK sink price scheme) for the right to use said arrays or labs, Am I correct? (again the answer to this riddle may reside in one of the upcoming dev blogs)

2. As has been pointed out at many many occasions throughout this thread, Locking and Unlocking BPOs are going to be a serious problem because now I need to move said BPOs more often then I ever did before. (in order to either build at the POS arrays or to find a cheaper station). If I can't rely on the BPO lock down anymore then I won't have anyone else in my industry corp but my own alts, which is sad and removes partnership and group gameplay.

3. You mentioned in the Dev Blog that copy times will be decreased in order to make it a viable option to rectify point number 2. Which is all nice however, T2 components BPOs require items (reports I believe) in order to make copies of them, which couple with the new escalating price scheme will effectively raise the price of production and force me to haul yet more stuff. (but who knows maybe you have an answer for that waiting for me in an future dev blog)

4. POS standing requirement removed for H-Sec, is worrisome. Some corporations will have more trouble, not less to get their own moon in H-Sec that is respectively close to a trade hub. Why do you ask? Just look at what happened with POCOs, while I'm sure the intend was to put more power to the ppl what really happened is that the big H-Sec corporations took over as many planets has possible and now extort taxes over the small corp players who wish to do PI. I predict that most of the moons in "The Forge" for example will quickly be taken over and a number of placeholder dead sticks will be placed instead and those same big corps will either sell the spots or most likely rent the spots. (Pay me a monthly fee or we war-dec you and you loose that moon). Making it easier from a game mechanic point of view to install a POS also makes it easier for the big guys and thus give them more chances to choke out the small corps. In RL we have Governments that apply regulations against monopolies for example, in EVE requiring standings to anchor a tower played a similar role. This is a good thing. I'm not against revisiting how standings work for POSes but I am against seeing this mechanic disappear entirely and not be replaced by an other.

5. In the Dev blog you mentioned, that you want the ISK vs RISK calculation to be taken into account, which is good but in my opinion forcing BPOs to be brought into a POS array to take advantage of said array is tipping the scale to far towards the RISK side of things. Example, a player specializes in making Command Ships or all kinds, to accomplish this is has 1 T1 battlecruiser BPO, researched, for each command ship and he decides to anchor his POS at a system that has no NPC station with Industry slots of any kind. Associating an ISK value to those BPOs is troublesome at best, because while its easy to figure out how expensive an unrehearsed BPO is, the research one has a different value depending on the price you paid to research them (sliding pay scale for research slots) not counting the 3 to 6 months you spend to do the actual research on them. If he were to loose his tower and all which is in it, then for this player to be able to return to his old set-up would take almost a full year, that is a full year that he has to find other sources of income because he command ship production was blown up. That is a huge, huge amount of risk, and the ISK was probably just enough for him to a for a PLEX every month and do some PvP. In my opinion the balance between ISK and Risk is broken in that instance.

That being said I really really really look forward to the rest of the Dev Blogs in this series so that I can make a more informed decision about it. Until then I count myself has Cautiously Optomistic