These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1781 - 2014-04-26 00:30:57 UTC
Petrified wrote:


I am very, very curious what the in-game reason will be for some third party taxation of research jobs run by a corporation in a POS. Are we paying for researchers to research for us (in which case, do we need research skills? P)? The reason would have to be consistent across Empire, Null Sec, and Wormhole space. Do we need to supply researchers for the POS?


Apart from that...

Could you please make POS inventories truly unified? As in: Materials in Mobile lab 1 can be used by Mobile lab 2 and if that Assembly array is short Tritanium it can pull it from Mobile Lab 3 because the inventory is unified? This would simplify POS industrial management considerably.

Think about it as a line cost more than a 'tax'. Since the money is vanishing to thin air, not going to an entity. So doing jobs actually costs isk. you have to pay 'workers', buy materials, etc. The more congested the facility is, the more it costs to add an extra 'worker'.

Once you put it in that kind of mindset, it stops being unreasonable that a POS has to pay costs also.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#1782 - 2014-04-26 01:06:49 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Petrified wrote:


I am very, very curious what the in-game reason will be for some third party taxation of research jobs run by a corporation in a POS. Are we paying for researchers to research for us (in which case, do we need research skills? P)? The reason would have to be consistent across Empire, Null Sec, and Wormhole space. Do we need to supply researchers for the POS?


Apart from that...

Could you please make POS inventories truly unified? As in: Materials in Mobile lab 1 can be used by Mobile lab 2 and if that Assembly array is short Tritanium it can pull it from Mobile Lab 3 because the inventory is unified? This would simplify POS industrial management considerably.

Think about it as a line cost more than a 'tax'. Since the money is vanishing to thin air, not going to an entity. So doing jobs actually costs isk. you have to pay 'workers', buy materials, etc. The more congested the facility is, the more it costs to add an extra 'worker'.

Once you put it in that kind of mindset, it stops being unreasonable that a POS has to pay costs also.


And when the devblog on Teams comes out, we'll have our answer to the question about third-party taxation of jobs run by a corporation in a POS or outpost. What I expect to see is NPCs that we pay to do our research for us.
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
#1783 - 2014-04-26 01:45:07 UTC
Is there a timeline for the additional Blogs? I have no idea why it is taking so long on such a key item like industry. At this rate the last Blog will come out..what? a week before release?

We are not children in need of comfort. Release the info already!

Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#1784 - 2014-04-26 01:49:51 UTC
Patri Andari wrote:
We are not children in need of comfort. Release the info already!


Maybe they're toying with us. Or maybe they're organising FanFest 2014, so lots of other things are falling to the wayside.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1785 - 2014-04-26 01:54:49 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Petrified wrote:


I am very, very curious what the in-game reason will be for some third party taxation of research jobs run by a corporation in a POS. Are we paying for researchers to research for us (in which case, do we need research skills? P)? The reason would have to be consistent across Empire, Null Sec, and Wormhole space. Do we need to supply researchers for the POS?


Apart from that...

Could you please make POS inventories truly unified? As in: Materials in Mobile lab 1 can be used by Mobile lab 2 and if that Assembly array is short Tritanium it can pull it from Mobile Lab 3 because the inventory is unified? This would simplify POS industrial management considerably.

Think about it as a line cost more than a 'tax'. Since the money is vanishing to thin air, not going to an entity. So doing jobs actually costs isk. you have to pay 'workers', buy materials, etc. The more congested the facility is, the more it costs to add an extra 'worker'.

Once you put it in that kind of mindset, it stops being unreasonable that a POS has to pay costs also.


Research is one of the most labour intensive things you can do, most of the work would be done by lab techs running reactions, producing reports on results, rerunning reactions to get correlated results and repeatable processes etc etc. It isn't unreasonable to model this work as a cost when people run up shitloads more jobs. Likewise with manufacturing as output is scaled up so are support costs. I have no problem with these changes.

I'm still not supportive of null being buffed to be better in every way. It makes for a very 'nilla choice. make profit? move to null. Scratch a living as you don't have time to devote to worshipping the overblown egos of the few in charge? Tough. That may be a bit tongue in cheek but the point stands. It simply doesn't make sense that the best industry would be in the most chaotic and volatile regions. I still believe that s more people are forced to null things will become much more dull. Right now if I need to move something I use cheap and cheerful tech 1 haulers. Things get more dangerous? I'll fly the BR I trained for and rarely even be seen.
Need moon goo? someone needs to move it to high sec. In future? no need just build inside the secure null bubbles of sov.

I would much rather see the controlled sections of null that have been stable for a long time start to have more NPC stations set up. after all these companies would want profit, therefore would move into the new markets. By this means the number of factory/research/copy lines would increase in null which is the point of the changes according to those who live in null. If industry is to be viable in null let it at least be on a level playing field. As systems become more populated with NPC stations the region becomes more stable, starts having mission agents etc etc. Only it is sov controlled, not concord controlled. Pockets of sov controlled hisec start to appear in null which would directly model such expansion as in America into the wild west that we are told null is ( or at least should be).

I cannot see how moving anything and everything of increased value into one section of space can be good. Having read the arguments put forward I can see the reasons why null sec needs more industry capability but this should come through NPC stations being built at planets alongside the player owned POS etc. This would then push areas of null into competitive states with hisec/losec but would have the risk/reward advantage of having more resources available (in some cases resources that hisec simply does not have which I would also change). Pos's would still be viable in the same way as in hisec to increase availability of slots etc but would again be more advantageous than in hi/losec as they are already bonused for null operation.

In short I would much rather change to model the whole of industry in every sec status region but with resources available on a risk/reward basis as we currently have. That way in hisec you need to work harder/smarter/ for your money but can still compete if you are a skilled S&I bod. Losec would be the fulcrum of the balance. Reasonable resources but with the risk that comes with it. Losec would be the best returns on resources if you control space well enough to provide security for the region. The more secure the region (i.e. the longer it is held and is below some measurable level of risk) the more NPC's come and build stations. Perhaps they should be invited in by the SOV owners so that they get a say in the services provided and where. You own the region? you get to ick and choose who does business with you. Take control of the region? you get to tell the corps there to change services if you choose.

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1786 - 2014-04-26 01:56:17 UTC
Patri Andari wrote:
Is there a timeline for the additional Blogs? I have no idea why it is taking so long on such a key item like industry. At this rate the last Blog will come out..what? a week before release?

We are not children in need of comfort. Release the info already!


Several reasons why they have not released the followup blogs. Take your pick as to which ones are most likely.

1. They want to have something to talk about at Fanfest, so will be releasing 2 or more then.
2. The dev's truly are on vacation, and this is standard quality of work.
3. CCP is perhaps realizing the blowback on this mess is going to be more that the null sec cartels assured them it would be, and they are scrambling to reduce the impact by altering the mechanics before they announce them.
4. CCP is giving the groups that have the full story, the inside information, as much time to get their ducks in a row to consolidate their economic position as possible.
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Dracarys.
#1787 - 2014-04-26 05:17:39 UTC
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#1788 - 2014-04-26 06:08:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Kusum Fawn
history has show us that its a combination of three. one of them is false.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Oxide Ammar
#1789 - 2014-04-26 07:55:53 UTC
Where the hell the rest of the Blogs?...jeez

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.

Lorna Sicling
Eire Engineers
Northern Coalition.
#1790 - 2014-04-26 16:25:32 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:

Regarding manufacturing and supply in Eve, I don't disagree.

As for passing along costs...here, let me explain how I was doing invention:

this entire story is you discovering return on capital over time is different than profit per unit, and is important (this is, incidentally, why low-demand markets stabilize at higher profits per unit)

it is not relevant to our discussion on price. it is you realizing that your invention business is about earning a percentage return on your money and that a loss on a unit may be preferable to keeping the isk tied up making no money for a long period of time.

the entire story is the short period when demand changes and the market has not yet stabilized, something I've alluded to many times in my posts and you seem to have not understood. if you hold onto your units you can be assured you will sell them eventually at the new cost+%: that just might be a stupid decision because you spend so long making no return on that amount that you wind up with a lower roi than if you'd taken a loss immediately and reinvested in more profitable enterprises.


Do Goons still believe that moon goo is free?

To not think that adding the need to copy things before manufacturing now, or instead to have to flow BPO's around hi-sec for your minions to gank is a bad idea is clearly motivated by the desire to see the latter. Oh yeah, all of those BPO's are only 50 mil max. Can you contract me 10 battleship BPO's and I'll accept it for 500 million ISK.

The reality is that larger and more established industrialists will spread out a bit and be annoyed and inconvenienced, especially if the lock mechanism isn't changed. The smaller and newer industrialists will have to move poorly researched BPO's around and end up getting banked by your Goons while you relax with your CSAA hidden from danger deep in null.

Not a good change for newer players, but a major PITA for most others.

Industrialist - currently renting in null sec.

Writer of the blog "A Scientist's Life in Eve" - proud member of the Eve Blog Pack

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1791 - 2014-04-26 16:38:58 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Korthan Doshu wrote:
Mynnna's post is informative if not entirely on-point.

I don't think anybody cares whether all industry moves to nullsec. What people care about is whether the majority of industrial profits move to nullsec. Mynnna hedges in the article about whether this will happen. We need to see the numbers from the next few dev blogs to be able to make better predictions about that.


Of course. We haven't even internally decided how to do final exploitation of the new mechanics until we see all the final blogs. However, from what has been released, its clear the high margins of some types of productions are going to get compressed. by nullsec. To claim doom and gloom for highsec production though is laughable. Those of you in sweet spots like JF's are going to get creamed though.


So bottom line, goons will control any high profit product, and leave the dregs for high sec .
Good to know.

Yeah, congrats.
Well played on how you designed these changes to explicitly benefit the cartels.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1792 - 2014-04-26 16:44:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Petrified wrote:


I am very, very curious what the in-game reason will be for some third party taxation of research jobs run by a corporation in a POS. Are we paying for researchers to research for us (in which case, do we need research skills? P)? The reason would have to be consistent across Empire, Null Sec, and Wormhole space. Do we need to supply researchers for the POS?


Apart from that...

Could you please make POS inventories truly unified? As in: Materials in Mobile lab 1 can be used by Mobile lab 2 and if that Assembly array is short Tritanium it can pull it from Mobile Lab 3 because the inventory is unified? This would simplify POS industrial management considerably.

Think about it as a line cost more than a 'tax'. Since the money is vanishing to thin air, not going to an entity. So doing jobs actually costs isk. you have to pay 'workers', buy materials, etc. The more congested the facility is, the more it costs to add an extra 'worker'.

Once you put it in that kind of mindset, it stops being unreasonable that a POS has to pay costs also.


WTF is that logic. My POS uses Drones and Robots, they get fueled and provided with energy by the tower. I already pay for that with POS Fuel. Now what?

This is as stupid as the the 4.99 for watching the recorded CCP videos on Twitch, that CCP introduced yesterday afternoon.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Barune Darkor
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1793 - 2014-04-26 17:43:27 UTC
In general, I like the changes. This coming from a high sec industrialist.

But...in regards to a POS

1. I'd like to see some type of anchor-able secure container, maybe a new blueprint container (without the stacking issues), that allows a locked blueprint to be installed to labs/assembly lines and returned to the container in a locked state once the job is delivered. A means of bpo security at the pos.

2. Materials that are consumed by assembly lines should be fed from an anchored corporate hanger. No one likes the click fest of moving materials to all of the different assembly lines.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1794 - 2014-04-26 17:58:40 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:

WTF is that logic. My POS uses Drones and Robots, they get fueled and provided with energy by the tower. I already pay for that with POS Fuel. Now what?

This is as stupid as the the 4.99 for watching the recorded CCP videos on Twitch, that CCP introduced yesterday afternoon.


We already know ships have crews, stations are almost certain to have them too. Doesn't matter anyway, it's its just an additional cost however you rationalize it.
ScrapinJen
Panthera.
#1795 - 2014-04-26 18:38:44 UTC
Thead Enco wrote:
Altrue wrote:
First :DDamn!

I started reading and I really like the whole "splitting in six", it helps give each change its spotlight while splitting discussions, and integration of what these change means, for the average player.

Edit :

1- I don't like the icons on the show info of bill of materials. They are very 2003. The whole gratient background and stuff. Their shape in itself is also quite.. meh :D. You should make these icons in line visually with the little skillbook on the ship show info.

2 - The line "After summer, R.A.M. and R.db will instead behave like any other material in the game. However, to keep loss ratios similar l we will:" contains a typo. There is a "I we" that snuck inside the final devblog :p

3 - Kuddos for the removal of Extra Materials!!!

4 - Cost scaling system for industry jobs, hahaha so evil Twisted. Sounds awesome! (Also stealth isk sink) IMHO, limiting it to 14% of the base item is way too low as a hard cap, but thats my opinion.

5 - "The Blueprints in question can be researched remotely, by installing them at a station while using a Starbase Mobile Laboratory in the same solar system. With the removal of slots this use case is no longer that important, as we expect research slots to be widely more available." o_O I didn't know that! Seems broken, happy that it goes away.

6 - POSes in high-sec without standing requirements? Cool! But we still need a way to easily remove offline POSes !!

7 - And this last teaser of the new industry UI... Aaawww so sweeeeeeet!!



Answer to number 6, Wardec>Blap POS>WIN


Yes the pos thing is to allow the alliances that can no longer handle living in null sec to be able to Wardec in high sec.

Can't get high sec people to null sec? Bring the null sec to the high sec people!

Twisted
Flay Nardieu
#1796 - 2014-04-26 18:48:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Flay Nardieu
I've been waiting for someone to make the argument on how keeping BP's secure at a POS... I don't see happening soon so I'll just make the Pro BP at POS argument and then promptly squash it.

Blueprints will be secure at a POS because since we will be able to run them from containers and audit contains can lock items so they can be viewed without taken, You only need to be able to see the blueprint to use it much the same as in corporate hangers now. And having them locked in an audit container keeps them in one place too.

Above is about the best argument that could be made...

However

  • Corporate roles and permissions regarding container access is not exactly straightforward especially at a POS
  • This of course assumes you can run jobs from an anchored corporate hangar at the POS
  • Audit containers rely on passwords, that can be requested if a member has a permission or role(s) that allow it, simply unlock the item and take
  • The type of audit containers that could be located at a POS are generally small enough to be taken assembled in the typical industrial ship
  • Even if the BPs (or other items) are locked it only requires waiting till the activity log has been idle long enough then repackage, result 1 repackaged audit container and everything that was in it right there in a personal hangar


Yup zero net gain still, and just as much of an annoyance, Hey at least a thief can still steal big easier....
Flay Nardieu
#1797 - 2014-04-26 19:05:19 UTC
Barune Darkor wrote:
In general, I like the changes. This coming from a high sec industrialist.

But...in regards to a POS

1. I'd like to see some type of anchor-able secure container, maybe a new blueprint container (without the stacking issues), that allows a locked blueprint to be installed to labs/assembly lines and returned to the container in a locked state once the job is delivered. A means of bpo security at the pos.

2. Materials that are consumed by assembly lines should be fed from an anchored corporate hanger. No one likes the click fest of moving materials to all of the different assembly lines.


I always envisioned BP not being physically moved but more akin to DRM (DIgital Rights Mangement) scheme hence the existing status of remote from office, POS work

In regards to your second point, that actually would remove "game play" one of the principles touted in the announcement. Additionally the ease will come at a price, some corporations actually budget materials to each array. So say with your suggestion member A goes a little (probably alot) overboard in producing ammo members B and C can't do their work in drones and small ships (or whatever). The existing method prevents that, requires more management but honestly that is kind of the point in operating a POS.
Barune Darkor
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1798 - 2014-04-26 19:08:17 UTC
Flay Nardieu wrote:
I've been waiting for someone to make the argument on how keeping BP's secure at a POS... I don't see happening soon so I'll just make the Pro BP at POS argument and then promptly squash it.

Blueprints will be secure at a POS because since we will be able to run them from containers and audit contains can lock items so they can be viewed without taken, You only need to be able to see the blueprint to use it much the same as in corporate hangers now. And having them locked in an audit container keeps them in one place too.

Above is about the best argument that could be made...

However

  • Corporate roles and permissions regarding container access is not exactly straightforward especially at a POS
  • This of course assumes you can run jobs from an anchored corporate hangar at the POS
  • Audit containers rely on passwords, that can be requested if a member has a permission or role(s) that allow it, simply unlock the item and take
  • The type of audit containers that could be located at a POS are generally small enough to be taken assembled in the typical industrial ship
  • Even if the BPs (or other items) are locked it only requires waiting till the activity log has been idle long enough then repackage, result 1 repackaged audit container and everything that was in it right there in a personal hangar


Yup zero net gain still, and just as much of an annoyance, Hey at least a thief can still steal big easier....



If you anchor a container at a pos, does it have to be launched for corporation? That would keep it separate from the corporate password request.

At least one person would have the ability to take all of the blueprints. That's a given but seems better than no bpo security at all.

If someone hasn't used their bpos in a month, i doubt they are really and industrialist. I don't think the 30 day audit expiry is really that much of an issue. That could just be categorized as the risk factor.

It would probably require a new type of anchor-able container specifically for bpos.

CCP are the ones that can look at the code. I'd expect them to figure out the details
Barune Darkor
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1799 - 2014-04-26 19:14:42 UTC
Flay Nardieu wrote:
Barune Darkor wrote:
In general, I like the changes. This coming from a high sec industrialist.

But...in regards to a POS

1. I'd like to see some type of anchor-able secure container, maybe a new blueprint container (without the stacking issues), that allows a locked blueprint to be installed to labs/assembly lines and returned to the container in a locked state once the job is delivered. A means of bpo security at the pos.

2. Materials that are consumed by assembly lines should be fed from an anchored corporate hanger. No one likes the click fest of moving materials to all of the different assembly lines.


I always envisioned BP not being physically moved but more akin to DRM (DIgital Rights Mangement) scheme hence the existing status of remote from office, POS work

In regards to your second point, that actually would remove "game play" one of the principles touted in the announcement. Additionally the ease will come at a price, some corporations actually budget materials to each array. So say with your suggestion member A goes a little (probably alot) overboard in producing ammo members B and C can't do their work in drones and small ships (or whatever). The existing method prevents that, requires more management but honestly that is kind of the point in operating a POS.


That why you have different hanger divisions and division access with corp roles and titles. Do corporations give out the rent factory slot rule to a significant number of their membership?
Flay Nardieu
#1800 - 2014-04-26 19:35:05 UTC
@Barune Darkor

In the current mechanics no independent structure can be anchored inside a POS, and dealing with high-sec secure and audit containers can only be anchored in space below a certain level. Anyway to be able to access the arrays the BP has to be in something under the corporate access method either in the array itself or corporate hangar division either at the POS or for now an office in system.

Most corps use POS for corp projects, they aren't geared for individual use. However there IS a way, actually it very similar to renting research slots to alliance members. In either case it is not easy in any way shape or form. It took me over a month to finally get it down and explainable. The instructions would require a topic unto itself and probably be at least 3 posts due to character limit.

It would be nice to see if the teams thing that hasn't been disclosed would change that.

The complexity and scope of corporate management of mid and above size groups is sadly too close to diverting way of topic and I rather say your idea is nice in principle but not in line with past developments or exiting management mechanics Ugh