These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1041 - 2014-04-16 21:12:57 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Zappity wrote:
Dinsdale, isn't it just possible (however unlikely) that CCP might be trying to end up with viable industry in all parts of space?


By giving null sec the same amount of infinte slots as high sec, that was the final leveling of the playing field.
I never had a problem with null, or wh space, getting 100% refine, or a huge bump in available research / mfg slots.

I do have huge problems with the fact that it will now cost more, with a huge increase in risk, for high sec players, while we KNOW that null sec will be given huge advantages, just like they got with refining efficiency, that high sec can't compete with.

The only reason there is no "viable" null sec industry, outside of the HUGE supercap industry, is that the sov null sec players can make so much more ISK doing other things. Now, if the null sec cartel *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. are to be believed, all their high sec mfg alts will be incentivized to head back to null and build right there, since there are big bonuses for doing so, and they can make good coin. Also, if the CSM gets its way, eventually enough people will be economically forced to move to null sec and null sec trade hubs may emerge.

Of course, the typical null sec line member will be paying a slot tax (as I predicted many months ago) directly to the station owners aka the cartel leaders. And in the meantime, the true high sec industrialists will be in very dire straits, as any null sec industrialist can for example, fill his jf with 100,000 DC II's and flood Jita with them at no price that no high sec player can match.
Marsha Mallow
#1042 - 2014-04-16 21:17:46 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Weaselior wrote:
people just haven't realized that you don't need research corporations anymore: individuals will do their own research and industrial corps will lock their bpos in factories for building

^ True that. In some ways this allows more collaboration as people can merge industrial corps together and still retain private control of their BPs in personal hangars. Even if there isn't a major overhaul to roles members with starbase roles can still lock people out of their personal towers (other than dir/ceo etc). Provided they are only putting relatively cheap prints into their towers it isn't a massive deal anyway.
*Snip* Removed reply to a deleted post. ISD Ezwal.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

Altessa Post
Midnight special super sexy
#1043 - 2014-04-16 21:30:41 UTC
I am really disappointed.

I have no problem with risk, hiring mercenaries, cost etc. These can all be estimated and factored in. And they are the same for everybody (expect for T2 BPOs but that is another topic). But how about the effort I put into the game in the last two years to position myself ahead of competition?

Yes, research and copy slots are currently a scarce resource. This is why setting up a POS in high sec is desirable. I can imagine that with the righ progressive pricing, having your own POS is still an advantage.
In the past, seting up a high sec POS was not easy. Building up the necessary faction standing was tedious and mildly boring. Yet, I did this to have a competitive advantage. And this now flies out of the window. Free POS in high sec for everybody!

I have no problem with adapting to new playgrounds. Yet, I think CCP is about to remove something for which I worked really hard. This appears neither balanced nor fair.

On the internet, you can be whatever you want to be. It is amazing that so many people chose to be stupid.

Muestereate
Minions LLC
#1044 - 2014-04-16 21:36:43 UTC
If changes increase the profit margin, I won't mind increases but I think all profit margins will minimalize with softer borders. The original regions are profitable across borders but with in the borders racial items are very slim margins. API and marketing tools erased the borders between regions price wise. Regular market efficiencies stepped in and turned mfg into the mess it is requiring huge capital to compete pushing out newer players not only by ignorance and capital but research and acquisition times.

When the hi low null demarcations soften, over all margins will go down while prices rise to compensate for the adjustments. I see more suckage in our future.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#1045 - 2014-04-16 21:46:59 UTC
I will just leave this here...

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Simili
Kaira Innovations
#1046 - 2014-04-16 21:50:39 UTC
I am ready to keep an open mind as far as the BPOs needs to be where the build is happening (hense no more POS builds). That would mean that for those of of having 60+ concurent builds, we will probably be splitting our builds on multiple stations instead of 1 location. This means a lot more hauling, a lot more materials splitting too, which can become very annoying. Might I suggest some kind of magical button that could split your materials from current station (or a station) and then drop them in a selected container and/or ship and/or container in a ship and/or to a transport contract?

I would really like to know what' the average number of concurent builds per person (yes, person, not character) for people that are builders (not just someone building once in a while). From what I see of those new game mechanics, it will make it very difficult to have a good income over quantity because oh how much time you'll have to invest on each build which will end up, maybe, starving the market. You'll tell me that if market starve, more people will get into manufacturing and/or more profit per build will show up, true, but then prices will also jump and people will need to grind for isk to buy their stuff which would have a negative effect on subscriber base.

Thanks a lot,
Sim
Jen Takhesis
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1047 - 2014-04-16 21:54:45 UTC
Canine Fiend wrote:
I feel like there will now be even more High Sec POSes due to the removal of the standings requirement. This will inevitably lead to more people setting up and abandoning towers. Will there be any consideration for how to remove these large high sec towers that have been abandoned? It can be pretty disheartening to go set up a new tower only to find out that most moons are occupied by abandoned towers that would take a massive BS fleet hours to take out.



When they stop paying taxes, Concord/crimewatch sets the POS suspect until it starts paying taxes again. Alternatively, you can use your POS salvage deployable to slowly extract all of the materials used in the construction.
Saraki Ishikela
Perkone
Caldari State
#1048 - 2014-04-16 21:57:39 UTC
I'm sure it's been said, but I'm really not thrilled with new UI. Sure on the surface it looks very appealing but it is also not very intuitive. Pictures should also have labels. I should be able to read the item names and memorize the icons.

One newbies quest to ExploreEVE: [u]Youtube[/u]: www.youtube.com/exploreeve - **[u]**Blogspot:[/u] http://exploreeve.blogspot.com [u]Twitter:[/u] www.twitter.com/exploreeve** - [u]Facebook[/u]:** www.facebook.com/exploreeve

Jingo Aulmais
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1049 - 2014-04-16 21:59:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Jingo Aulmais
Ohhh it's so democratic to delete posts!
Just say the THRUTH! You want to make us buy PLEX for IRL!
And when you deleting this you just proofing this!
Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#1050 - 2014-04-16 22:04:39 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Allison A'vani wrote:
Why are you adding cost scaling onto POSes? You already pay for fuel. There is literally zero lore or other fantasized reason to put cost scaling on POSes. I OWN THE POS and I OWN THE ASSEMBLY ARRAY.

the reason to put cost scaling on a pos is because otherwise i would replace the eight component assembly arrays on my pos with a single one because slots are now infinite

so you make it so that it's basically free if i install ten jobs but ramps up after that, if it's done right having two assembly arrays will mean that i can install basically 20 free jobs, etc etc

like seriously people use some brains here

Have fuel use scale with active slots.


They did *away* with that very system a few years back because it made logistics a freakin nightmare.
Bellasarius Baxter
Zilog Enterprises
#1051 - 2014-04-16 22:24:46 UTC
My two cents worth on this dev blog: I approve of every change mentioned EXCEPT the BPO "safety" changes.

Why ?

1) It already costs a lot of ISK, and requires a lot of work to keep a POS running, even in high sec.

2) It makes Supply Chain Management, and Scientific Networking skills useless.

3) It makes the Station Manager role too powerful, as it would enable that pilot to simply offline, and unanchor a lab with valuable bpos in it, and make off with it in a couple minutes.

4) If I understood the dev blog correctly, research slots will still be avaliable only in the same stations as they are available now, so that will create congestion in those solar systems, automatically driving the slot prices up at the same time.

5) It is impossible to share the use of bpos between multiple pilots, and keeping them even a little bit safe at the same time.

6) The idea to use copies might work if you had only a couple things you build, but if you build 50 or so things, you would spend a major part of your time making copies, instead of doing something useful, like researching other bpos.

7) If everybody had to have a corp office where research/manufacturing is done, the limited flexibility of the corp/role management system makes it very hard to set up correctly, if you have more than two offices.

8) Any POS lab, or assembly array, found after the change would be almost sure to contain valuables, and as such be a magnet for Wardecs, and theft. Any POS without labs or arrays are pretty useless in high sec, so what would be the point of having one in the first place.

9) Bpos for the above POS modules will become almost useless to high sec indy pilots.

10) The number of bpcs that the servers have to cope with, and keep track of will increase dramatically.


Enough points made, for now, though I am sure there are more.

I cannot stress this enough, although I will refrain from typing the entire sentence in capital letters: "Please,* do not make changes to bpo safety in this way".

*) Insert as many "Please," in the above, as needed to make CCP understand the chaos, frustration, and extra work this will impose on industrialists.

Any comments, thoughts, and feedback to this post is welcome, as always.

Circumstantial Evidence
#1052 - 2014-04-16 22:27:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Circumstantial Evidence
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
When this is all done, sov null sec will be better than high sec in every single way.
Better anoms, better rats, better ice, better rocks, better refining, and now, better industry efficiency.
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Is this supposed to be a surprising statement? Nice advertisement for heading to Nullsec. This is what the EVE box has said since day one: null is supposed to have the best resources in the game... stuff worth fighting over... (snip from my previous post.)
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Wrong. One of the dev's, I can't remember now, likely one of the ones let go, said quite explicitly that Eve was NEVER about enshrining a system where one area of the game was completely independent of another.
... the only thing null sec will lack is the critical mass of players to actually build decent trade hubs...
"Wrong?" I did not say that having better resources across all categories, meant null was so good it didn't need highsec, that is your fear. I just pointed out that you seemed to be stating the obvious as if it were a problem: that Null had better resources. Thats the way the game has always been.

How much better is it, really? Game designers are applying scaling factors to everything... does 40% (hypothetical) better resources and production ability (lower costs, etc), in sov-null, make highsec redundant? I think I will still find players in highsec. And if that is the reason I someday stop finding them, game designers can re-adjust the scaling factors. Does a net exodus from highsec mean players quit EVE, or just moved? ** Players can grumble that null has it 40% better, and keep on doing what they do with the game time they have available. Or they can network with other grumblers, negotiate, conquer, or rent.

You admit that complete independence isn't true atm, due to established trade hubs creating a need for highsec at some level. I think the ease of "projection" (a topic of debate for CSM 9) and the efficiency of the FedEx hub-and-spoke distribution system centered on Jita, is one of the reasons highsec is and will continue to be enhanced by sov-null.

Highsec buyers benefit from centralized competition. (ok, everyone benefits.) Highsec freight movers and traders profit by moving and selling items from Jita out to other trade and mission hubs.

**(Edit: snipped trying-to-be-clever quote of 'loving arms of the null-sec cartels" which made absolutely no sense.)
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1053 - 2014-04-16 22:37:06 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
I will just leave this here...


I only know 1 player who writes like this: do I mean I now know who you are in game? Twisted
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1054 - 2014-04-16 22:48:35 UTC
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
When this is all done, sov null sec will be better than high sec in every single way.
Better anoms, better rats, better ice, better rocks, better refining, and now, better industry efficiency.
Is this supposed to be a surprising statement? Nice advertisement for heading to Nullsec. This is what the EVE box has said since day one: null is supposed to have the best resources in the game... stuff worth fighting over... "inspire" battles and market demand for all the stuff we can make and sell. If players are not up to the very hard job of organizing a force to unseat an existing nullsec power, some decide its worth paying a "rental fee" to a sov-holder for access to that better stuff. Null is where the "end game" content is. You can't play SuperCaps Online(tm) in highsec.


Yes but this is atrocious game design.

Hi sec is basically a wrong solution to a non problem.

Should never have been created beyond the few new player starting systems.

But hi sec seems not going anywhere anytime soon and is part of a sandbox game.

Now, if you establish a canned path that says: "IF you want to progress (in a meaningful way) you SHALL move from A to B" then you have just created a theme park game, a WoW in space.

This is what I am fighting against since so many years, I can't play a fake sandbox that in reality is a canned path game.

Either convert hi sec into something else or leave it viable.
I'd really prefer the first solution but CCP so far have gone for the latter.
By abdicating to the latter and also not doing the former, they are just going to enforce an obligatory path and thus create a canned progression game.

That is, a stink like most fail MMOs currently out.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1055 - 2014-04-16 22:59:26 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
When this is all done, sov null sec will be better than high sec in every single way.
Better anoms, better rats, better ice, better rocks, better refining, and now, better industry efficiency.
Is this supposed to be a surprising statement? Nice advertisement for heading to Nullsec. This is what the EVE box has said since day one: null is supposed to have the best resources in the game... stuff worth fighting over... "inspire" battles and market demand for all the stuff we can make and sell. If players are not up to the very hard job of organizing a force to unseat an existing nullsec power, some decide its worth paying a "rental fee" to a sov-holder for access to that better stuff. Null is where the "end game" content is. You can't play SuperCaps Online(tm) in highsec.


Yes but this is atrocious game design.

Hi sec is basically a wrong solution to a non problem.

Should never have been created beyond the few new player starting systems.

But hi sec seems not going anywhere anytime soon and is part of a sandbox game.

Now, if you establish a canned path that says: "IF you want to progress (in a meaningful way) you SHALL move from A to B" then you have just created a theme park game, a WoW in space.

This is what I am fighting against since so many years, I can't play a fake sandbox that in reality is a canned path game.

Either convert hi sec into something else or leave it viable.
I'd really prefer the first solution but CCP so far have gone for the latter.
By abdicating to the latter and also not doing the former, they are just going to enforce an obligatory path and thus create a canned progression game.

That is, a stink like most fail MMOs currently out.

Honest question. What form of eve do you envision that supports the current levels of activity and interaction in highsec without highsec?
Marsha Mallow
#1056 - 2014-04-16 23:06:27 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Either convert hi sec into something else or leave it viable.
I'd really prefer the first solution but CCP so far have gone for the latter.
By abdicating to the latter and also not doing the former, they are just going to enforce an obligatory path and thus create a canned progression game.

That is, a stink like most fail MMOs currently out.

You need to have a bit more faith Blink
Our devs are only really silly every few years - don't be so jaded from other games. Seagull looks capable of keeping them in line. And really, if you're concerned to the point you think indy interests are under-represented on things like the CSM, why not run yourself, or endorse a candidate? There's at least 5 people I can think of active in MD with the influence to sponsor a pure indy candidate (across various blocs). Considering the last one was LVV (?) and he was recruited by CCP, there is a gap. It's not going to get filled unless some of you use that accrued influence for collective benefit.

Jingo Aulmais wrote:
Ohhh it's so democratic to delete posts!
Just say the THRUTH! You want to make us buy PLEX for IRL!
And when you deleting this you just proofing this!

Sorry, but you have to earn thrust in Eve
When he comes back I'm throwing you out front and legging it

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

Macker Momo
The Big Moe
#1057 - 2014-04-16 23:11:17 UTC
From the dev blog...
Quote:
In turn, this allows us to change several points:

Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course).


Could you please define "anywhere?" Are POS still limited to available moons, or can we simply create a safe spot and anchor there? There is a problem with all the abandoned POS filling up available moons.

Life is short. Have fun.

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1058 - 2014-04-16 23:13:33 UTC
Macker Momo wrote:
From the dev blog...
Quote:
In turn, this allows us to change several points:

Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course).


Could you please define "anywhere?" Are POS still limited to available moons, or can we simply create a safe spot and anchor there? There is a problem with all the abandoned POS filling up available moons.


It means "at moons only." That part is not changing. The statement means that POS are no longer restricted from 0.8 – 1.0 security systems.

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

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1059 - 2014-04-16 23:19:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
ISD Ezwal wrote:
I will just leave this here...

im just going to make a small suggestion that actually editing and hiding ccp dev posts may be flying a bit too close to the sun

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Cassandra Kazan
Padded Helmets
#1060 - 2014-04-16 23:23:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Cassandra Kazan
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Of course, the typical null sec line member will be paying a slot tax (as I predicted many months ago) directly to the station owners aka the cartel leaders. And in the meantime, the true high sec industrialists will be in very dire straits, as any null sec industrialist can for example, fill his jf with 100,000 DC II's and flood Jita with them at no price that no high sec player can match.


...and if all of this is true it will be extremely good for the game.

The tradeoff for the advantages that CCP is trying to give nullsec is risk. Risk, risk, risk.

If people do more stuff in lowsec or nullsec because it is advantageous, they are forced to take a risk. Pos can be shot, ships moving items can be shot*, stations can be shot and captured, people's space that they have upgraded can be shot at and destroyed or captured, transport and travel within nullsec and between points in nullsec can be harassed, detained, or otherwise interfered with (also through shooting) and so on. It is correspondingly much harder to do most of these things in highsec -- shooting pos requires wardecs and long hours, shooting ships requires the same (or expensive suicide ganking which was nerfed in the past year), and stations are much more difficult to interfere with.

I think you'll find that members of your purported "nullsec cartel" in general favor a gameplay style that rewards risk-taking and support any idea which increases both the risks and the rewards of nullsec. (Hell, one of Goonswarm's own CSM candidates favors destructible stations -- hardly a fantastic idea for an alliance with a hundred trillion ISK of assets locked up in VFK-IV.)

The reason that these players support risk is that risk creates content. If you take a risk, it means that someone else can come shoot at you and that is the draw for these players. CCP's goal isn't to create a progression from highsec to nullsec necessarily -- it is to motivate players willing to take risks to do so and thereby create more content as people fight over nullsec's resources.

* Jump freighters, and more generally any capital which can dock at a station, are currently quite difficult to interfere with. They are key to life in nullsec right now but if all of these changes go through as planned and lead to nullsec having a more sustainable economic model then changing them should be on the table for the same reasons.