These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1621 - 2014-04-23 20:34:06 UTC
Querns wrote:
Here is a helpful posting hint for this and future threads: using your subscription as a threat to attempt to coerce change in the game is a very poor tactic. No one likes to be threatened; such an unwise gambit runs the very high risk of the party being coerced simply writing off your threat as an eventuality and soldiering on without actually considering any meat that your argument may contain.


I am not so sure.

Let's say that CCP proposed a change to get rid if ship mining, and make mineral and ice collection like moon mining. Plant a POS and a harvester, wait a week, empty the silos.

Well, then I'd have to inform CCP that there would be no reason for me to have 4 accounts that I use for asteroid and ice mining.

If it is used as a threat, that is one thing.

It you can explain why the changing game mechanic will remove the need for multiple accounts, that is another thing.

Kun'ii Zenya
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1622 - 2014-04-23 22:06:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Kun'ii Zenya
Irregessa wrote:
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:

Yeah because access to slots will be handed out to anyone who asks in null. Roll


Just looking at NPC Delve, there are three stations with research slots and nine with factory slots. No ring kissing required.

Yes, I realize that these stations won't have the same benefits as player-built ones in nullsec, but I bet they won't be as heavily utilized as the high sec ones, and they are right at the source for the best minerals. Risk vs. reward and all that.


And the ratio of NPC null stations to HS is what exactly?

And the costs wont escalate in NPC null?

And your last sentence...it sort of proves my point, you know this part, "but I bet they won't be as heavily utilized as the high sec ones".

And where exactly your going to sell all of the massive amount of goods that are going to be produced in null? In null?
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1623 - 2014-04-23 22:22:25 UTC
And the very best part of these nerfs, the ever so sweet part of these nerfs, is this:

One of the largest demographics hurt by this, the casual high sec player, they don't even know this assault on their playstyle is coming, because they don't even follow the forums and dev blogs.

The only way they will know is when they suddenly don't get perfect refine, and they lose half their mission loot, and they find out that building a Nestor from a BPC they ground LP for just shot up 200 M in cost, and that the cost of their T1 Raven Navy Issue just shot up 10 or 14% in price to buy, plus using an NPC station to build their ammo just went up a 1000 fold in cost, and they have to buy from the market instead.

And a few months after that, when the the people that got shell-shocked in June, when their subs start running out, then we shall witness the true brilliance and beauty of this war on high sec, in its full glory.

Bravo null sec cartels, bravo. A true coup.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1624 - 2014-04-23 22:30:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
And the very best part of these nerfs, the ever so sweet part of these nerfs, is this:

One of the largest demographics hurt by this, the casual high sec player, they don't even know this assault on their playstyle is coming, because they don't even follow the forums and dev blogs.

The only way they will know is when they suddenly don't get perfect refine, and they lose half their mission loot, and they find out that building a Nestor from a BPC they ground LP for just shot up 200 M in cost, and that the cost of their T1 Raven Navy Issue just shot up 10 or 14% in price to buy, plus using an NPC station to build their ammo just went up a 1000 fold in cost, and they have to buy from the market instead.

And a few months after that, when the the people that got shell-shocked in June, when their subs start running out, then we shall witness the true brilliance and beauty of this war on high sec, in its full glory.

Bravo null sec cartels, bravo. A true coup.
Unless the manufacturing slot cost alone for building a Nestor is 1.429Bill or the total build cost of a Navy Raven is 71%-100% slot costs (meaning BPC isk cost and minerals only comprise 0%-29% of the total build cost) this is entirely untrue as I understand it.

Can someone please break this down so I can get how this is actually playing out? I clearly don't judging from what is being claimed.
Flash Phoenix
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1625 - 2014-04-23 22:33:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Flash Phoenix
1. Why can null not have high isk payouts on high risk items for industry, than cannot be made in high sec ?
2. Why can low sec not have pretty good isk payout on items for industry that can not be done in high sec and perhaps not done in null sec ?
3. Why can high sec not have a profitable payout on some items for industry ?

Any item could be made in null sec, perhaps just not much profit or worth the effort. The null sec high profit / high risk items should not be just capital items or items that only old players with high skill points can make or acquire.

What is the deal on leveling the playing field or tilting it to Null? It just makes sense that high sec areas, with police protection and no worries on sov loss would be the place to produce items in mass with some profit. It also makes sense that there be resources that are not in high sec, and cannot be allowed in high sec that are made into hi profit items that are allowed and needed in high sec. You run a risk getting the items, making the items and moving them to high sec.

High Risk and High Profit its such a simple deal and has game content.

This industry balance deal is such a mess when all we need is some new content and game play.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1626 - 2014-04-23 22:42:53 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
And the very best part of these nerfs, the ever so sweet part of these nerfs, is this:

One of the largest demographics hurt by this, the casual high sec player, they don't even know this assault on their playstyle is coming, because they don't even follow the forums and dev blogs.

The only way they will know is when they suddenly don't get perfect refine, and they lose half their mission loot, and they find out that building a Nestor from a BPC they ground LP for just shot up 200 M in cost, and that the cost of their T1 Raven Navy Issue just shot up 10 or 14% in price to buy, plus using an NPC station to build their ammo just went up a 1000 fold in cost, and they have to buy from the market instead.

And a few months after that, when the the people that got shell-shocked in June, when their subs start running out, then we shall witness the true brilliance and beauty of this war on high sec, in its full glory.

Bravo null sec cartels, bravo. A true coup.
Unless the manufacturing slot cost alone for building a Nestor is 1.429Bill or the total build cost of a Navy Raven is 71%-100% slot costs (meaning BPC isk cost and minerals only comprise 0%-29% of the total build cost) this is entirely untrue as I understand it.

Can someone please break this down so I can get how this is actually playing out? I clearly don't judging from what is being claimed.


Pretty simple math.
Cost of using an NPC mfg slot is going to be 14% of the sell price of an item. I was hoping it was going to be cost , but most blogs are making it clear it is sell price. And yes, even with spread out manufacturing, (gonna love building 15 jumps from a trade hub in low sec), there will be huge opportunity costs to bring products to market.

Nestor sells now for 1.5 billion, and the NPC slot cost is going to be 210 million.
Kun'ii Zenya
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1627 - 2014-04-23 22:45:21 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


The only way they will know is when they suddenly don't get perfect refine, and they lose half their mission loot, and they find out that building a Nestor from a BPC they ground LP for just shot up 200 M in cost, and that the cost of their T1 Raven Navy Issue just shot up 10 or 14% in price to buy, plus using an NPC station to build their ammo just went up a 1000 fold in cost, and they have to buy from the market instead.



Bzzt, wrong. Sellers always try to pass along the entire cost increases but the downward slopping nature of the demand curve with respect to price prevents this.

The effect of the increase in costs is thus a burden on both the buyer and the seller.

And that is only if people insist on using the most jammed up building slots. The 0-14% is a sliding scale and is dependent on how intensively the slots are used.

But no, lets simply assume the worst outcome is going to apply everywhere...well except NS where they wont face these kinds of added costs via some sort of elite PVP magic or some such.

Roll
Kun'ii Zenya
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1628 - 2014-04-23 22:46:43 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
And the very best part of these nerfs, the ever so sweet part of these nerfs, is this:

One of the largest demographics hurt by this, the casual high sec player, they don't even know this assault on their playstyle is coming, because they don't even follow the forums and dev blogs.

The only way they will know is when they suddenly don't get perfect refine, and they lose half their mission loot, and they find out that building a Nestor from a BPC they ground LP for just shot up 200 M in cost, and that the cost of their T1 Raven Navy Issue just shot up 10 or 14% in price to buy, plus using an NPC station to build their ammo just went up a 1000 fold in cost, and they have to buy from the market instead.

And a few months after that, when the the people that got shell-shocked in June, when their subs start running out, then we shall witness the true brilliance and beauty of this war on high sec, in its full glory.

Bravo null sec cartels, bravo. A true coup.
Unless the manufacturing slot cost alone for building a Nestor is 1.429Bill or the total build cost of a Navy Raven is 71%-100% slot costs (meaning BPC isk cost and minerals only comprise 0%-29% of the total build cost) this is entirely untrue as I understand it.

Can someone please break this down so I can get how this is actually playing out? I clearly don't judging from what is being claimed.


Pretty simple math.
Cost of using an NPC mfg slot is going to be 14% of the sell price of an item. I was hoping it was going to be cost , but most blogs are making it clear it is sell price. And yes, even with spread out manufacturing, (gonna love building 15 jumps from a trade hub in low sec), there will be huge opportunity costs to bring products to market.

Nestor sells now for 1.5 billion, and the NPC slot cost is going to be 210 million.


Or 0% or 1% or 7.89%.

So, unless HS manufacturing means all slots everywhere in HS are being used at exactly the same levels of intensity your assumption is unwarranted.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1629 - 2014-04-23 22:53:52 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

The only way they will know is when they suddenly don't get perfect refine, and they lose half their mission loot, and they find out that building a Nestor from a BPC they ground LP for just shot up 200 M in cost, and that the cost of their T1 Raven Navy Issue just shot up 10 or 14% in price to buy, plus using an NPC station to build their ammo just went up a 1000 fold in cost, and they have to buy from the market instead.

You are describing a situation in which everyone in highsec is highly vertically integrated. While I'd like to believe that this is just your experience coloring your view on the rest of the game, well, frankly, it's probably the norm, at least if all the varied, sundry anecdotes I've read are true. It's sad, really -- vertical integration is extremely inefficient in this game. We in the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal avoid it whenever possible.

If these changes encourage people to stop needlessly vertically integrating and focus on their niches, the economy will improve considerably, and everyone so inclined will realize a significant increase in wealth.

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

Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1630 - 2014-04-24 01:09:11 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
rhetoric and rehash of old news.

the casual high sec player dgaf how much the product fetches on market, they just want to go through the gameplay of mine, refine, build, right-click sell to regional buy order using their retriever/marauder character with no trade skills or standings.
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
[quote=Tyberius Franklin][quote=Dinsdale Pirannha]

Nestor sells now for 1.5 billion, and the NPC slot cost is going to be 210 million.

guarantee they will still right-click sell to regional buy orders or undercut lowest sell order aka your pile (and my pile). Have you considered that and decided whether you'll give chase with your orders? You can't compete with truly casual players, because they don't have the same goals as you; if they make the connection between belt mining and market as a source of income, they will simply factor in a few more trips in the mining barge and feel right as rain, having discounted their mining time from the start. casual players are just looking to waste their time anyway.
Kun'ii Zenya
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1631 - 2014-04-24 01:45:45 UTC
Another aspect keep in mind is that currently slots have a hard limit once they are full they are full you have to wait. This limits the amount of production at any given time. Now by removing that hard limit and essentially giving stations and infinite number of slots but with a sliding cost scale that is It removes a hard constraint on production. Given that supply currently can be severely limited due to the limitations on slots it stands to reason that prices currently may be higher than they would be with an infinite slot model using a sliding scale cost adder.

To see the effect I am talking about draw a downward sloping demand curve then draw an upward sloping supply curve that at a certain point goes vertical. Now move the demand curve so that is intersecting on the vertical part of the supply curve any further increases in supply will result simply an higher prices no additional production. In this case adding infinite slots even with an increasing cost factor could very well result in lower prices than the current situation.

Of course this assumes that the number of slots are all being fully and totally utilized everywhere and also to the extent that this is not true then this scenario is not a factor. However, in that case it also means that having a sliding cost scale to an infinite slot model will have little impact on final prices.
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1632 - 2014-04-24 03:30:21 UTC
Sentient Blade wrote:
So "lockdown blueprints" now becomes almost entirely useless? We will also have to move those blueprints between multiple hangers when we're using the assembly items, and goodbye to things such as remote filtering and such?

*Scratches head* ... was this designed by someone in photoshop and outlook by any chance? Thus ignoring such trivial things as... ease of use.

I have no earthly idea why a BPO needs to be moved to a starbase in order to use it, when all of us indy types have deliberately trained skills to avoid having to do that, to manage them all centrally (like anyone in real life would do).

Fix things like batch creation.



Indeed ... not being able to pool your hundreds of BPO's in one place (in station) and research remotely, pretty much makes POS's obsolete for research IMO .... no sense risking valuable BPO's at the POS .... imaging making hundreds of trips back and forth from station to POS to carry the bpo's to the right lab, etc. too ... goodbye BPO researching, was nice knowing ya ... oh wait, no, you sucked the whole time (because of bad UI) and are now sucking worse (but with greatly improved UI) .... Yay??

Flay Nardieu
#1633 - 2014-04-24 03:31:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Flay Nardieu
The more I hear of this discussion the more I'm convinced that everyone is getting screwed with expected change.


Infinite slots at stations with sliding cost scale, ok... Only long term shortage of slots I've ever seen is for ME & Coping. Rarely have I seen the actual manufacturing lines completely full for anything longer than a week. With PE and Invention I have NEVER seen all lines at a high-sec station in any system I frequented full, granted I don't set up shop adjacent to major hubs.

WTH should there be taxes levied against operations conducted at a POS anywhere? Ok, my corp (an alt btw) grinds out faction (ie suck up to an empire) set the structures, pay legit dues to anchor in high (charters). Now, if I choose I can have labs, certain manufacturing arrays, maybe the Eve equivalent to a Meth Lab (Drug Lab for boosters, no sure on that one but figure I'd lighten the tone a little).

Here comes summer expansion... Empires suddenly don't mind any ol' Tom, Richard and Scary to plop a POS at a moon it is ok, because we are gonna tax them for whatever they do... Oh pay no mind to it breaking any semblance to rational visage of political paradymns or lore.

Oh, you're in low? Don't worry we got a rusty axle shaft for you too! Concord/Empire doesn't care as much who you are to begin with or generally what you do. Fear not friend or fiend for you shall get taxed too.

(I really wished I had something witty to say about null to follow in the theme but lack experience in that arena, however I don't assume they would get much true benefit realistically)

Let us not belittle the lube for the S&I complex a new interface, mind not the abrasive in said lube in the way of adding more complexity to tracking print real locations or the joy of risking that several billion isk bpo to get it copied to 'safely' produce it *snort...

After 80+ pages I thought a some what satyrical albeit possibly biased (or may not biased) summary was in order. I had a few witty analogies but none where fit for public discourse.

post note: You got to love auto-censor poor Richard
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1634 - 2014-04-24 03:43:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Takara Mora
Andre Coeurl wrote:
Some proposed changes make sense, but some are not really thought out.
The removal of standings for POSes is a bad idea both because it wil promote POS spamming and because it's unfair to the people who endured those long standing grinds CCP forced beforehand.

The need to phisically move BPs is also going to be a terrible change, wasting players' time and adding danger with no tangible reward. it would make sense if a phisically moved BP would provide an advantage of some kind (shorter times, for example) versus the comfort of remote action, but as it's been noted already, it's again unfair against people who trained specific skills, but even more it's farcical to introduce in New Eden, Anno Domini 23341, an activity which is outdated on old XXI century Earth.
...



Yep ....

With this change CCP is actually further discouraging player interaction ... they are instead encouraging industrialists to create SOLO research/manufacturing corps even more than before ... since you can no longer feasibly lock down or manage BPO's via hangar tab permissions in station (but must instead transport them physically to the POS where no security exists), it is too much risk to allow anyone else in corp ... SOLO will be the only way to go > working completely against "Player Engagement".

And pretty much making Faction Standings useless by allowing POS anchoring anywhere regardless of standings .... great, just great, nice to know all that effort was for nothing, and now even a noob corp can now set a POS even in the highest security systems, no effort required ... why destroy a whole aspect of the game like this, thus removing significant "player achievement" mechanics?
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1635 - 2014-04-24 03:57:07 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Sarin Gaston wrote:
"Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements "
Not to be rude but i think removing the standing requirement is stupid. You're basically telling those that actually grinded for the standings "Thanks but it was a waste of your time!" I hope there is some form of a return or something for this because you're about to put the last nail in the coffin for missions/epic arcs and so forth.

it was a waste of your time

the correct solution is an apology and axing that atrocious mechanic forever not "well sarin gaston had to do it once so we must have everyone suffer equally"



It removes a lot of player achievement mechanics, which motivate a lot of players ..... wouldn't we want more achievements rather than less?

Seems to be making the game a lot more shallow rather than deeper and richer .... people who don't like these mechanics really wouldn't seem to be affected much anyway .... why change it?
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1636 - 2014-04-24 04:23:36 UTC
Querns wrote:
Slappy Andven wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Xaniff wrote:

2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).


Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down.


I get the horrible sensation that you think these changes are all good and positive. They are not. The reaction from industrialists that lead to all those abandoned towers will have serious negative effects on the market as well. What will you do when those of us who build things decide it's not worth it anymore and decide to say screw it, we're not building things? Will you just start seeding the market like on Singularity? These changes seem focused on driving up risk for poor return on the reward side. The inability to lock down and safeguard blueprints in a corporate hangar in a station means one thing, and one thing only: You're taking assets that we have spent years and years building, and giving us complete crap in return. Why even bother playing the game with changes like this?


Not really.

These changes are about tilting the game in the direction it's supposed to be tilted -- you must endure risk for reward. A significant portion of the changes in Rubicon and in the new expansion are in the removal of low-to-no risk activities such as reprocessing, research, and manufacturing.

That being said, if you do wish to eliminate risk, you can still utilize station-based RAM lines.



Not sure what the "reward" is supposed to be though now? .... Why would anyone anchor a POS anymore? Why would anyone grind Faction standing anymore? .... Instead just find a cheap out of the way station where you can keep your high value BPO's safe .... this change basically removes (hisec) POS's as a game element.
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1637 - 2014-04-24 04:36:30 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
Makoto Priano wrote:
I hate to be that guy, but: any content for shooting-at-people stuff, or any development along the explore-new-shenanigans and make-new-implants realm?



There will be POS's everywhere and those POS's are now slightly more likely to contain BPO's. I'm pretty sure the shooting-at-people demographic is getting an indirect buff here ;)




Those POS's will no longer contain ANY high value BPO's unfortunately .... and it will be trivial to re-anchor one ... so go ahead, have at'em.

Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1638 - 2014-04-24 04:40:01 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
Querns wrote:
The removal of standings for anchoring POS makes it trivial to evade destruction of your POS.


But the dev blog says "The core goal is to motivate player entities to actually defend their Starbases if attacked". So clearly you must be wrong! ;)



Indeed ... why even defend them? Why even attack them? No one would be crazy enough to put any high value BPO's in POS's now ...
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1639 - 2014-04-24 04:55:50 UTC
Imiarr Timshae wrote:
It's interesting to see that CCP have decided to make the summer expansion not a patch expansion or a content expansion but are actively killing ingame professions.

30-40% reduction in loot reprocessing is very harmful to salvagers.
Limitless station research slots is fatal to highsec researchers who use POS.
No standings requirement to anchor POS is fatal to people who boost standings for POS deployment.

That's two professions dead and a third drastically nerfed right there.

I wonder what the logic is behind this.



And the new name of the EVE Online Summer 2014 Expansion is:


EVE: Contraction

Kun'ii Zenya
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1640 - 2014-04-24 05:22:14 UTC
Sarin Gaston wrote:
"Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements "
Not to be rude but i think removing the standing requirement is stupid. You're basically telling those that actually grinded for the standings "Thanks but it was a waste of your time!" I hope there is some form of a return or something for this because you're about to put the last nail in the coffin for missions/epic arcs and so forth.


And for how long did you benefit from this. I could understand this complaint a bit if you maybe you just go the standings but if you've had them for years now you are complaining because newer players can suddenly compete with you.

Take your profits and HTFU. Roll