These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Althanaslas Imhari
Have Guns Will Travel
#1241 - 2014-04-18 00:04:11 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Althanaslas Imhari wrote:

That was not necessarily my point. My point was about the devaluation of the time spent on the grind. More towers and more labs means good things for the economy, I agree wholeheartedly. The way this change seems , to use an example, would be say a kickstarter where the original investors get the same product that is later given away for free. That's life, yes, but it is certainly going to upset the people who invested.

this is akin to how i paid like a thousand dollars for my computer three years ago and i could build a better one for $500 now

sure i spent $500 more but i got the computer three years ago


You do indeed have a point there. I withdraw my argument :)
Eodp Ellecon
Nous Defions.
The Initiative.
#1242 - 2014-04-18 00:34:37 UTC


These skills seem to be missing: Destroyer Construction, Battlecruiser Construction, and Supercapital Construction.

MDD[/quote]


Dessy is small ring therefore covered by Frigate Construction.
Cruiser is medium ring which covers battlecruiser.
Supercapital is part of Capital Construction (IV).

We don't need more stratification skills, imho.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1243 - 2014-04-18 00:43:46 UTC
Kaius Fero wrote:
Querns wrote:
Althanaslas Imhari wrote:
Just out of curiosity, with the requirements now removed for anchoring towers, will there be any form of compensation for those who had to previously grind their asses off to get the standings to anchor one? I agree with most everything in the blog, but that particular change seems like a shot at older players as much as a good change for newer players.

Your compensation was an uninterrupted decade of highsec POS hegemony.

And your decade of carebearing in Deklein was intrerupted by... who? Most probably by Larry Forever ... Roll

And by the way, you dudes knew nothing about the changes regarding the POS anchoring in hi sec, right? Just 3 weeks ago was a big rush to drop tons of POS in some hi sec systems, all of them are offline and owned by a one man corp. I'm sure this is just pure coincidence.


Can you give some system locations for this one man corp POS's? It would be easy to map them if they roll over to new owners. Also, what are the features of these systems? Do they hold copy / research slots at NPC stations? If they do, that is one heluva big red flag.
Dearthair
Goibhniu Industries
#1244 - 2014-04-18 04:27:09 UTC
Someone might have pointed this out already, but there are items that cannot be made at a POS. POS structures, for one, which is probably a fairly minor issue, but as far as I know, you also cannot make rigs at a POS. That is a bigger issue. I could, of course, be wrong about the rigs. I don't currently own a POS. Are there any plans to allow rig and/or POS structure manufacture at a POS?

NBLID (Not Blue Let It Die), the new motto for miners, manufacturers, and retailers everywhere.

Chiralos
Chiral's Angels
#1245 - 2014-04-18 04:50:30 UTC
This is positive. Simplifying without dumbing, more attention paid to risk and reward.

About time we had some sort of economic model behind NPC industry facilities. I always tried to make up a rationale why the Empires operated a system with a fixed number of slots for capsuleers at a fixed price, which had some standing idle others were oversubscribed. Probably some sort of treaty which has now been scrapped, opening up slots that were always there but denied to capsuleers.

Also, about time perfect refining was got rid of. It just seemed like something that should have been pre-nerfed from the start of the game - setting the nominal max refine at 50% would have given plenty of room for players to invest in higher efficiency, specialisation, etc.
unimatrix0030
Mass Collapse
It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake
#1246 - 2014-04-18 05:34:09 UTC
After reading this only more people wil be demanding a alliance roles revamp and a pos revamp!
Because now many more people will know the "joys" of managing roles and pos'es... .

No local in null sec would fix everything!

Vesago
Doomheim
#1247 - 2014-04-18 05:40:05 UTC
I apologize if I didn't see this in the last 33 pages because I just stopped reading after that, but has any Dev responded to the no standings requirements for high sec POS's issue?

I read a lot, and it looked like it was completely ignored. Again I apologize if something proactive was said by a Dev in the last 33 pages.

On to my gripe... No standing requirements for high sec POS's...This is a horrible idea!

I predict that by day 3, there will be no available moons in high sec. Everyone and their brother is going to throw one up. I guess i'm safe enough until I get a war dec, and I have to tear it down or lose it. By the time my war dec is done, I may as well sell my equipment because all of my high standings toons wont be able to find another moon.

Massive indy corps that cant possibly put up high sec POS's will suddenly be able to. That means tens of thousands of new high sec POS owners overnight.

I do have a couple of ideas to fix what I see as a potentially huge problem right from the start.

1. If I have a POS at a moon, let me tear it down in case of war decs, and reserve the moon by paying for the space with charters. So this doesn't get abused make it so that the option is only available in the event of a war, and make it so that you can only pay charters for 7 days (or some reasonable amount of time) to re-install your POS, after your wars are finished, or you forfeit your claim to the space.

2. Allow more than one POS per moon. There is literally no reason this shouldn't be possible. If you need control over this in higher use systems, limit the moons number of POS's based on sec status or something.

I don't think these ideas impact the changes you are making negatively, and will allow the little guys like me to continue to use POS's in High Sec.

Darryn Lowe
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1248 - 2014-04-18 05:43:09 UTC
Paul Otichoda wrote:
So those 6 months grinding standings for a high sec POS has been wasted?

I must say this rather does remove much need to have high standings with a faction and not a corporation now


I think this is the point. It seems that CCP has been moving more and more away from dependence on NPC and moving more and more towards autonomy for corporations.

Personally I love this change. I skilled up to build a Loki for a corp member who lost his in battle only to find that I couldn't build it because nowhere in the BP did it say you needed access to a station with a ship building array which was only available in a player owned station. Being new to Tech II builds I did not know this so the whole idea was wasted. Now if what I'm reading is true then this is going to add an awesome dynamic to industry.

It sounds as though it doesn't even need to be built at a moon. Be pretty cool to sit a station in a belt and mine with big guns protecting you. It probably doesn't work like that but one can dream. :-)
George Wizardry
Asian P0RN
#1249 - 2014-04-18 05:43:52 UTC
This may be a little off topic ( but it fits with all the chat here )

Because CCP is trying to force more ppl into low and null sec area's why don't they allow concord to police low sec but have them take longer to respond? e.g instead of the 5 seconds per level below 1.0 make the response times 10 seconds per level below 1.0 for security area's 0.4 to 0.1 inclusive?

This still allows for a lot of PvP/ganking in those regions but the gankee has a chance of surviving and a lot more players would take the risk.

Within the EVE universe I have no interest or desire to kill other players, real life is a different story......

Aineko Macx
#1250 - 2014-04-18 05:48:08 UTC
We need an API for querying the tax scaling of stations.
Bawb Zennshinagas
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1251 - 2014-04-18 07:00:40 UTC
If the ability to send Blueprints remotely is going away, what is happening to the skills that enable remote management?
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1252 - 2014-04-18 07:04:04 UTC
Firvain wrote:
Arsine Mayhem wrote:
Oxide Ammar wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
i look forward to crushing all of the ~industrialists~ who are unable to adapt to even small changes

the weaselior division of Goonswarm Incorporated will soon be dominating all of your old markets


I'm sure this will look perfect in your RL resume when you are applying to job, pls update your linkedin with your new skills like crushing and goon industrialist.

where the hell these ppl come from ?


Goon are stupid. Need I say more?


You mean smart enough to adapt?


And when they don't want to adapt, they push to adapt the game to suit them Pirate
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#1253 - 2014-04-18 07:33:55 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Althanaslas Imhari wrote:

That was not necessarily my point. My point was about the devaluation of the time spent on the grind. More towers and more labs means good things for the economy, I agree wholeheartedly. The way this change seems , to use an example, would be say a kickstarter where the original investors get the same product that is later given away for free. That's life, yes, but it is certainly going to upset the people who invested.

this is akin to how i paid like a thousand dollars for my computer three years ago and i could build a better one for $500 now

sure i spent $500 more but i got the computer three years ago

Sure, but how would you feel if you bought the computer last month for $1,000 and the company announced yesterday that the price was now $500, for a better model?

Would you still feel that you got full value for your $1,000?

There are quite a few newer players who have been painfully doing the standings grind, and have not yet been able to benefit substantially from it.
Micheal York Solette
PathFinder's Initiative
#1254 - 2014-04-18 07:39:00 UTC
Ok this what I would like clarified with POS's the way the wording is it sounds like I no longer need to anchor a POS to a moon that I can just drop it anywhere in space. So does it still need a moon or will be able to just drop one anywhere?

MYS
Cool
G'host Warrot
Doomheim
#1255 - 2014-04-18 07:47:21 UTC
Thought the same. Hidden hint?
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#1256 - 2014-04-18 07:55:34 UTC
Gospadin wrote:
What is your plan for T2 BPOs?

T2 BPO's should be removed from the game. It would make the game simpler and easier to balance - all T2 stuff will come from T2 BPCs and invention. No more endless and tedious arguments about how a change here or there to invention will screw over either the T2 BPC inventors or the T2 BPO owners.

And, I should think that the same argument that many players have against "reimbursement for the standings grind" should really apply here:

The owners of T2 BPO's have enjoyed the benefits and profit for years. They have been long since fully compensated for their investment.

However, to help reduce the sting, I don't mind suggesting to convert each T2 BPO to a number of limited run BPCs (say, 100 copies or so).
Kaius Fero
#1257 - 2014-04-18 08:17:29 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Kaius Fero wrote:
Querns wrote:
Althanaslas Imhari wrote:
Just out of curiosity, with the requirements now removed for anchoring towers, will there be any form of compensation for those who had to previously grind their asses off to get the standings to anchor one? I agree with most everything in the blog, but that particular change seems like a shot at older players as much as a good change for newer players.

Your compensation was an uninterrupted decade of highsec POS hegemony.

And your decade of carebearing in Deklein was intrerupted by... who? Most probably by Larry Forever ... Roll

And by the way, you dudes knew nothing about the changes regarding the POS anchoring in hi sec, right? Just 3 weeks ago was a big rush to drop tons of POS in some hi sec systems, all of them are offline and owned by a one man corp. I'm sure this is just pure coincidence.


Can you give some system locations for this one man corp POS's? It would be easy to map them if they roll over to new owners. Also, what are the features of these systems? Do they hold copy / research slots at NPC stations? If they do, that is one heluva big red flag.

I don't wanna jump to conclusions, therefore I still consider it a.. coincidence. But about 3 weeks ago I followed this guy for a while because he was jumping from moon to moon in a shuttle looking for free spots, then he started to drop a lot of towers, none of them were onlined yet (last time I checked was more than a week ago). Point is.. a one man corp cannot afford to drop so many towers, even if all of them are offline. So he knew something big is coming. Or.. maybe he is just a businessman and everything is a pure coincidence.

Anselmo & The Illegals

Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
#1258 - 2014-04-18 08:41:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Althalus Stenory
Sizeof Void wrote:
Gospadin wrote:
What is your plan for T2 BPOs?

T2 BPO's should be removed from the game. It would make the game simpler and easier to balance - all T2 stuff will come from T2 BPCs and invention. No more endless and tedious arguments about how a change here or there to invention will screw over either the T2 BPC inventors or the T2 BPO owners.

"Remove t2 BPO"... But.. Did you never notice that, having a t2 bpo is not only an advantage ?
1) It costs so much you need more than 3-4 years to make interest on the price you paid
2) it's only 1 job -> making a ton of t2 requires tons of time
3) it's only 10-30% more isks gain than your invention

The only advantage I see is not to have to make invention. That's the main point.

Atm, I make much more t2 items using invention than i'd make with the same t2 bpo... making 20 invention and 20 t2 production job in parallel gives much more ISK at the end.

And no, I do not own any t2 BPO, and I don't want any anyway ^^


To come back the real subject of the thread : I still don't get why POS/Outposts owner should have tax from running job in their OWN sructures. That's non sense. Either telling "it's for npc workers in the POS/Outpost" or just telling "never not 0% tax in player structure" is just a shame.

I really like the new way we are going to use industry in EVE, trust me, but, as you CCP says in devblog
Quote:
Any industry feature must have an actual gameplay attached to it in order to exist
Any industry feature must be balanced around our risk versus reward philosophy
Any industry feature must be easily understandable and visible to our player base

Well...
- being able to remote start a blueprint from station corp hangar to POS had an actual gameplay attached, but it's being removed.
- Hauling materials/Ore to station to make items / mineral compression had balance between risk versus reward while you hauled it, but it's being remove in profit for ore compression only in POS (when will we be able to contract courier from station to POS ?)
- Removing used features is sometimes not ******* understandable but visible to your players, but you still do it :) (little troll, I had to)

The only thing I thing behind all these (real for sure in some case) improvements, is the "we need to create isk sink".

EsiPy - Python 2.7 / 3.3+ Swagger Client based on pyswagger for ESI

Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#1259 - 2014-04-18 09:33:18 UTC
Althalus Stenory wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
Gospadin wrote:
What is your plan for T2 BPOs?

T2 BPO's should be removed from the game. It would make the game simpler and easier to balance - all T2 stuff will come from T2 BPCs and invention. No more endless and tedious arguments about how a change here or there to invention will screw over either the T2 BPC inventors or the T2 BPO owners.

"Remove t2 BPO"... But.. Did you never notice that, having a t2 bpo is not only an advantage ?
1) It costs so much you need more than 3-4 years to make interest on the price you paid
2) it's only 1 job -> making a ton of t2 requires tons of time
3) it's only 10-30% more isks gain than your invention

The only advantage I see is not to have to make invention. That's the main point.

Atm, I make much more t2 items using invention than i'd make with the same t2 bpo... making 20 invention and 20 t2 production job in parallel gives much more ISK at the end.

And no, I do not own any t2 BPO, and I don't want any anyway ^^

Well, then, you should have no objection to removing the T2 BPO's from the game. So, I'm not sure I see your point.

And, most of the T2 BPO owners have had them for much longer than 3-4 years, and didn't pay all that much them in the BPO lottery... just FYI.
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#1260 - 2014-04-18 09:48:53 UTC
Micheal York Solette wrote:
Ok this what I would like clarified with POS's the way the wording is it sounds like I no longer need to anchor a POS to a moon that I can just drop it anywhere in space. So does it still need a moon or will be able to just drop one anywhere?

MYS
Cool


read the OP it directs you to this about your question: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4476028#post4476028