These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Khan'nikki
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1941 - 2014-05-07 04:18:16 UTC
Size matters & Standings

Will you be limiting the size of the tower in empire based on standings mechanics instead ?

If so, what happens to those Large CT's already set up?

There has to be an angle in there someplace.

Thanks!



Sigras
Conglomo
#1942 - 2014-05-07 06:27:45 UTC
Khan'nikki wrote:
POS DEATH & DESTRUCTION

Congrats on the lifting of Standings for structures in Highsec Space! Score one for small biz.

Now next on the list -- taking care of the Moon Squatters. Folks that anchor and forget.

Here's an idea: Moon Starbases that are not powered up take long term damage (be it NPC pirates, meteorites or just plain bad space mojo) and ultimately die. Their shields go down and structures decay. Maybe they spawn some kind of site that can be salvaged, raided, scanned .. you're the Makers.

.. just make them go away!

This would take care of the windfall that some ppl expect from the 'Can I Haz your lootz' of hacking into abandoned labs and such, while providing more anchorable places.

Thanks for reading!

Or you could... You know... Use the mechanics available to you and war dec the Corp and knock their tower out yourself instead of asking CCP to do it for you.
Flay Nardieu
#1943 - 2014-05-07 14:21:03 UTC
I seriously wonder how many of the people posting about removing high-sec restriction on POS anchoring will be a boon to the small corp have even set a POS? Under the indicated direction of the expansion S&I is going to be a vagabond/nomad culture for the smaller groups, chasing the bonuses to improve the margins.

There is a significant amount of time involved not to mention the volume of the tower, lab, arrays, fuel, and stronthium. A setup for a small tower with labs and limited arrays would barely fit in an Orca. Then you need to load materials to do the actual work, which at least matches the volume of the tower and structures. The there is the tear down cycle...

People really need to research the POS operations process. CCP would be wise to limit the removal of restrictions to 0.5 security systems instead of a blanket removal. Security 0.5 systems are the fringe of high-sec offering all the "protection" of being in high-sec it also will give the "small" corps a foothold AND competition for moons. With the competition it would force novices to learn the mechanics better and give them a choice of working to increasing the standings with an empire to open more locations fostering a commitment (even if marginal) to the region of space they operate in.

Lifting the restrictions on only 0.5 space IMHO would be more pragmatic, logical, and balanced. Also it will allow more corps to "cut their teeth" on POS ops and maybe make them more secure in their abilities to pursue low-sec operations if that is the direction a corp decides to pursue
Masayo Gowa
Kaira Innovations
#1944 - 2014-05-07 16:08:18 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:


Increasing Max run on T2 BPOs, increases the output from invention, because the number is used in the formula to calculate output runs.

Invention Output Runs = MIN(MAX(ROUND_DOWN( (Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 10) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), 1), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy)

(this may be the old formula. The difference isn't huge tbh, just effecting how decryptors apply)

Most T2 modules, amm0 and drones have a max run of 100, leading to an invented run of 10 (with a max run copy)
T2 Ships and rigs have a max run of 10, leading to a invented run of 1 regardless of input runs. (excluding decryptors)

Increase those numbers by at least 10, and you add runs to the output of a max run invention job.

i stand corrected :)

i wasn't aware that the invention BPC run was linked to the T2 BPO, i figured it was a fixed variable since not all invented BPC's have a matching BPO.

but in that case it shouldn't be a problem anyways, just multiply the amount of runs with 100 and change to invention formula equaly.

Invention Output Runs = MIN(MAX(ROUND_DOWN( (Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 1000) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), 1), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy)

that would keep the invented BPC's the same and let the ones making copy's from BPO's create BPC's that will be able to run for the full time you can rent a team and not just 17 hours at a time.
Sigras
Conglomo
#1945 - 2014-05-07 18:37:35 UTC
Masayo Gowa wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:


Increasing Max run on T2 BPOs, increases the output from invention, because the number is used in the formula to calculate output runs.

Invention Output Runs = MIN(MAX(ROUND_DOWN( (Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 10) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), 1), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy)

(this may be the old formula. The difference isn't huge tbh, just effecting how decryptors apply)

Most T2 modules, amm0 and drones have a max run of 100, leading to an invented run of 10 (with a max run copy)
T2 Ships and rigs have a max run of 10, leading to a invented run of 1 regardless of input runs. (excluding decryptors)

Increase those numbers by at least 10, and you add runs to the output of a max run invention job.

i stand corrected :)

i wasn't aware that the invention BPC run was linked to the T2 BPO, i figured it was a fixed variable since not all invented BPC's have a matching BPO.

but in that case it shouldn't be a problem anyways, just multiply the amount of runs with 100 and change to invention formula equaly.

Invention Output Runs = MIN(MAX(ROUND_DOWN( (Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 1000) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), 1), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy)

that would keep the invented BPC's the same and let the ones making copy's from BPO's create BPC's that will be able to run for the full time you can rent a team and not just 17 hours at a time.

This is not a good idea... assuming that you also increase the max runs on all T1 BPCs as well, you're going to increase the time it takes to get a max run BPC, and therefore increase the cost inf invention.
Dramaticus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1946 - 2014-05-07 18:47:14 UTC
Just make offline towers shootable without wardecs. CONCORD shouldn't be concerned that you're shooting abandoned space trash.

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them

Masayo Gowa
Kaira Innovations
#1947 - 2014-05-07 18:53:24 UTC
Sigras wrote:
This is not a good idea... assuming that you also increase the max runs on all T1 BPCs as well, you're going to increase the time it takes to get a max run BPC, and therefore increase the cost inf invention.

i am only talking about T2 BPO's

and only to keep them usefull, i am pretty sure there will be some short commings if the T2 BPO's for drones and ammo suddenly arent getting used and all the ammo supply would be comming from inventions.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1948 - 2014-05-07 20:14:33 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Masayo Gowa wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:


Increasing Max run on T2 BPOs, increases the output from invention, because the number is used in the formula to calculate output runs.

Invention Output Runs = MIN(MAX(ROUND_DOWN( (Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 10) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), 1), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy)

(this may be the old formula. The difference isn't huge tbh, just effecting how decryptors apply)

Most T2 modules, amm0 and drones have a max run of 100, leading to an invented run of 10 (with a max run copy)
T2 Ships and rigs have a max run of 10, leading to a invented run of 1 regardless of input runs. (excluding decryptors)

Increase those numbers by at least 10, and you add runs to the output of a max run invention job.

i stand corrected :)

i wasn't aware that the invention BPC run was linked to the T2 BPO, i figured it was a fixed variable since not all invented BPC's have a matching BPO.

but in that case it shouldn't be a problem anyways, just multiply the amount of runs with 100 and change to invention formula equaly.

Invention Output Runs = MIN(MAX(ROUND_DOWN( (Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 1000) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), 1), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy)

that would keep the invented BPC's the same and let the ones making copy's from BPO's create BPC's that will be able to run for the full time you can rent a team and not just 17 hours at a time.

This is not a good idea... assuming that you also increase the max runs on all T1 BPCs as well, you're going to increase the time it takes to get a max run BPC, and therefore increase the cost inf invention.



Changes to cost of copy for invention are tiny when compared to "other onputs" becoming regular inputs and subject to the 10% increase (so BPO build is the same with 10% reduction with research) and then increased another 40% for negative ME.

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1949 - 2014-05-07 20:22:08 UTC
Masayo Gowa wrote:
Sigras wrote:
This is not a good idea... assuming that you also increase the max runs on all T1 BPCs as well, you're going to increase the time it takes to get a max run BPC, and therefore increase the cost inf invention.

i am only talking about T2 BPO's

and only to keep them usefull, i am pretty sure there will be some short commings if the T2 BPO's for drones and ammo suddenly arent getting used and all the ammo supply would be comming from inventions.



For items where T2 BPO is more than enough to supply demand, then T2 BPO build cost sets the market price. Removal of T2 BPO means prices will jump to invention cost.

For items where T2 BPO is not sufficient to meet demand, invention already sets the price (giving T2 BPO holders for these items FAT profits). In this case, price would only be effected by changes in invention cost.

And there is the great big issue!!!

If datacores and decryptors and such maintain a constant supply, but invention jumps because of T2 BPO removal, then the price of these items will jump, pushing up the cost of invention, and all T2 invented items. That will spiral until the supply increases (datacores, more people can grind skiils and standings to sign up with R&D agents), price hits equilibrium (decrypter so expensive no longer worth using) or demand declines to meet supply.


So... a big thing that I think CCP will have to balance with T2 BPO removal, is supply of invention materials.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1950 - 2014-05-07 20:38:02 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Masayo Gowa wrote:
Sigras wrote:
This is not a good idea... assuming that you also increase the max runs on all T1 BPCs as well, you're going to increase the time it takes to get a max run BPC, and therefore increase the cost inf invention.

i am only talking about T2 BPO's

and only to keep them usefull, i am pretty sure there will be some short commings if the T2 BPO's for drones and ammo suddenly arent getting used and all the ammo supply would be comming from inventions.



For items where T2 BPO is more than enough to supply demand, then T2 BPO build cost sets the market price. Removal of T2 BPO means prices will jump to invention cost.

For items where T2 BPO is not sufficient to meet demand, invention already sets the price (giving T2 BPO holders for these items FAT profits). In this case, price would only be effected by changes in invention cost.

And there is the great big issue!!!

If datacores and decryptors and such maintain a constant supply, but invention jumps because of T2 BPO removal, then the price of these items will jump, pushing up the cost of invention, and all T2 invented items. That will spiral until the supply increases (datacores, more people can grind skiils and standings to sign up with R&D agents), price hits equilibrium (decrypter so expensive no longer worth using) or demand declines to meet supply.


So... a big thing that I think CCP will have to balance with T2 BPO removal, is supply of invention materials.


Datacores mostly come from FW these days. Supply really isn't a problem.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

TopTrader
Tech3 Company
#1951 - 2014-05-10 16:47:32 UTC
TopTrader wrote:
Hey,

since there are like unlimited slots based on the price your are willing to pay i have the following to say:

- as an POS owner, how will the new slot-layot work with the arrays? the arrays has 6 slots but how will this with Kronos? Do we need still the same amount of arrays as before on the POS or what will change? If you dont have clearly answers, when will these changes will be ready to test on singularity?

- in general, with the new slot-system, if you buy your slot late its cost you more and its scale with your item you want to build that means if you build expensive stuff like capitals you are forced to use systems that are not very much known

- is there anything besides the 2% material reduction and the little mobile lab buffs we get as POS owner? Ok 5% material reduction are to much but please we got the fuel costs which the station user dont have and as i understand they have literly the same slotcosts. The lab buffs are good but the most old POS owner already have their stuff well researched. Its right, there is allways new stuff to ME & TE :) but please aware the old POS owner, thanks

Do you have like a timeline when the single industry changes (frome the devbglogs) will be ready to test on singularity? I just can remember from the fanfest that you say that the new UI will be implimented on sisi within this week.


Thats it so far for my first feedback. Looks good and would be fun to see how the flexiblity will develop. Hope to get some answers from you guys.

TopTrader


CCP, can i have an answer please? The new industry UI is still not on sisi. You said it will be available within this week. You have an timeline about the other stuff or not? I read something about next week...
Saeth Thara
Blue Printers Cooperative
#1952 - 2014-05-10 20:06:37 UTC
I'm probably repeating a lot of what others have said, so sorry in advance for that. I appreciate that others will like the changes and disagree with my feelings – I respect this and I’m not saying my opinions are definitely the right ones, I’m simply trying to put across my point of view in as clear a way as possible.

Reprocessing Compression

Overall I have no issue with this part - the variation in refining yields with different facilities offers an increase in options for refining in terms of effort/risk input to reward. The skill changes also make a previously useless bunch of level 5 skills relevant and worth training.

The changes to compression also seem logical to me, helping to reinforce the value of the rorquals & pos modules functions.

The new reprocessing window looks like a good improvement over the old design, looking much clearer. The estimated values before and after should make it a lot quicker and easier to get an idea of how worthwhile the reprocessing is.

Manufacturing

The change to RAM and R.db makes sense, simplifies things a bit. Likewise with the changes to extra materials, given the change to reprocessing it seems sensible to do away with the extra materials and simplify it a bit.

The slot changes I guess on the whole are a good thing, however I've always got the impression that CCP wanted players to interact more, not less. With this change coupled with the change to remote research I would imagine a lot of people will move to using npc research slots rather than going to the effort of setting up a pos and (most likely) buying fuel from other players.

While removing standing requirements from pos anchoring also has it benefits it does again seem a bit odd. If the Amarr Empire dislikes player X so much that they'll shoot him on sight it seems unlikely they'd let him put up a pos in one of their systems uncontested. Also a lot of people have put in a lot of effort to get the required standing and it seems like a bit of slap in the face to say that they wasted their time. Lowering the standing requirements, maybe half of the sec status (so corp standing 2.5 to anchor in 0.5 for example) would seem like a better fitting idea, both in terms of making sense from a game law perspective and also making it more attainable to players.

The removal of using a pos to research a bpo that’s in a station also doesn’t agree with me. While I appreciate risk vs rewards needs to be a factor the current setup is not completely safe. As it stands my current setup involves having 3B~ sat in space with a monthly fuel bill of roughly 300M. In exchange for that I get open slots and a bonus of between 25% & 35% depending on the activity. If I was war dec'd and either had the pos shot down or had to take it down myself I would stand to loose an additional 400-500M in bpcs being produced, plus loosing and ME/TE research I may be part way through.

With the proposed changes I would need around 27B sat in space and in exchange for this I gain a further 10% to 15% benefit (so 30% / 35% compared to npc). So my risk, in terms of assets that others can directly harm, goes up by 900% and my jobs get an extra 10%-15% off. I would imagine others will have significantly higher value BPOs and as such the increased risk could be much more in many cases.

Your changes to BPO research times also means that they could need to be at the pos for a much greater length of time again massively increasing the risk of the pos coming under attack and forcing you to loose a potential much larger amount of invested time.

Given that a pos with a lab up is also now almost definitely going to contain bpos I imagine getting war decs will become more frequent making it harder for smaller and more casual corps to employ them in a useful capacity. I for one wont be able be able to justify it – as I casual player I often wont login for a few days. The same is true of many of my corp mates. It would be entirely possible for all of us to be offline for long enough for the corp to be war dec'd, the pos reinforced and shot down before any of us logged on. Currently that means we run the risk of loosing 3B in equipment and probably 500M to 750M in lost bpcs and value of the research. Its not the end of the world, but it would be enough to hurt. After the changes the risk would become so skewed vs the reward that not using the npc slots would seem incredibly stupid on our part. I know the blog says they dont expect more expensive bpos to be risked like this, but realistically speaking these bpos are the area the a pos offers the best bonus for, and are likely what they are mostly used for currently (who is going to set a pos up just to save 35% of the time on a bpo that reaches perfect ME in a week or two?).

I would much rather see a system where you are more able to pick the level of risk you run. Maybe having it so the closer to the pos the bpo is the great the benefit. Or having to have a module at the pos to broadcast data to and from the station at the cost of either increasing tax or reducing the number of labs/jobs that a given pos could handle.
Saeth Thara
Blue Printers Cooperative
#1953 - 2014-05-10 20:07:35 UTC
The reduction in copy times makes sense in so much as it seems odd that building the thing takes longer than making a copy of the bpo, but in doing so it does mean that certain bpc markets, such as capital ship / components, are likely to get flooded with the increased number of bpcs causing more work and a lot more clicking creating lots of smaller lower value contracts. Also the only reason I can see for reducing the copy time is to compensate for the massively increased risk of working at a pos caused by the mobile research changes, which as already stated I oppose anyway.

Industry UI

I personally don’t have any issues with the current UI although I agree its probably looking a bit dated now.

The new bpo info looks good, got no complaints with that.

The manufacturing screen...i personally feel looks more confusing and cluttered than the old. A number of things, like the picture of the station and output location could probably loose the pictures to make things a little less congested visually. Likewise, while the picture of the finished product does a good job of filling up space on the right hand side I don’t feel it adds much function – the person in question should know what they’re building regardless of the presence of a big picture of it.

I also don’t feel the connection lines help that much. Yes have a colour to show if all the things are ready or not – but I don’t feel the little dots around to tell me how many are ready helps, especially with items requiring a larger number of inputs.

No issues with the new activity icons. The input groups – I like the idea of grouping them by type, but think id prefer a drop down text list (guess I’m old fashioned that way...).

Again with the thing in the middle I don’t feel the flashing lights add anything for me, but they don’t detract either so no real issue. And as long as you keep the text box so I can type in how many runs I want rather than fighting with a slider I don’t mind that either.


The jobs tabs, some options could be nice here. For example having the activity name not the picture as an option. Being able to turn of some of the columns could be good as well (I wouldn’t use the sec status one for example). And being able to show the system location would be nice as well (seems odd this is missing?).

The BPO filter looks great, I look forward to being able to find things without opening so many containers.

Renaming PE to TE is a good change, glad to see it happen.

Overall I have no issues with most of this – but this especially will benefit from hands on experience, so I look forward to it being up on the test server.


Research

Copying changes, as stated earlier, does make sense to me but I do worry about the effect of greatly increasing the number of bpcs will have on the market for things like capital ships. The extra clicking to make the larger number of contracts certainly will be a downside.

The changes to ME/TE I’m broadly against. The changes at one and the same time punish newer player, causing a much enlarged gap between old and new for larger items and also punishes older players with higher researched bpos by effectively wasting a large amount of invested time. The only people to come out well from this are those with a broad collection of lightly researched bpos.

I don’t feel that the current system, one of diminishing returns for a consistent amount of time invested per level is that hard to grasp. By all means put info on what the perfect ME for a bpo is in the info screen, or even make it so you cant go above perfect ME, or improve tutorials to help better educate players, but doing this seems to an overly complicated and unfair change to a large group of players and I don't feel its needed at all. As others have pointed out, the chances of a new player catching up with someone who say has a current level ME10 carrier BPO is unlikely.

Also, while I appreciate that those with ME10/PE10 or above end up with max level bpos under the new system I don't really feel its fair to take away the time we invested and effectively wasted above me/te10 without any additional benefits over those who only took them to 10 in the first place. If you decided that skills were to complicated and cut them from all going to level 5 being the max to level 4, you wouldn’t expect those who had trained skills to level 5 to just sit back and accept they'd been idiots for training past level 4 and you'd find some way of compensating them for the time they invested, leaving them with some advantage over someone who only went to level 4 in the first place. At the end of the day the only difference here is the name – the point is time was invested for a benefit, with that benefit now being taken away.

With the remote research changes and the fact that the research time is going to be years for a single level in some cases, it will likely have to be done in a station, making it even harder to catch up in a sensible time frame. I feel that this attempt to simplify things also detracts from some of the challenges of industry. Currently while the benefits of higher level bpos are smaller they can often be enough to be worth it if you are making that item a lot. With the new system everyone being capped at level 10 leaves much less room for someone who really wants to make an item to invest more time in the bpo to give him an advantage of the competition (some items I know have low levels of perfect ME but most don't).

I have seen some people suggest the changes to a max level of 10 would help allow a cleaner bpc sale system. While it would be nice to have a better system, even with only 10 options for each you would still have the potential for 100 different bpcs even before you took the number of runs into account.

In short I feel the change punishes old and new players alike, admittedly in different ways.
Saeth Thara
Blue Printers Cooperative
#1954 - 2014-05-10 20:08:35 UTC
Job Cost Scaling

Starting off, I do agree manufacturing and npc research costs are to low, not really factoring in to most peoples costs in a significant way.

The proposed system seems interesting, in the short term I do worry about the market shorty after the patch, but as always I’m sure it will sort itself out soon enough.

I will be interested in how the job costs actually vary over time. While I don’t believe people should necessarily be static all the time I don’t want to be moving my setup every month in order to find a suitably cheap location to build at.

I worry that larger groups will just pick a system, hire good teams and raise the price enough that others wont deem it worth going there, however this will likely be down to player trends so its hard to predict how things will go I guess.

But overall it seems like interesting idea and I look forward to seeing how it works in practise.


Teams

I'm not entirely sure what I expected when I saw talk about teams. I had hoped for a system whereby multiple players could come together in some meaningful way to coordinate research and manufacturing, rather than a system which is basically bidding for a npc team to magically appear in system with a knowledge of industry that appears to far outstrip that of a capsuleers (admittedly at the cost of using dangerous drugs), who are usually much better at things than non capsuleers if ship piloting etc are anything to go by.

I guess some sort of PI link could have been used, maybe having people sacrifice harvesting/factory planets to produce some sort of product that would make such activities more effective. Which in turn would allow for Dust (or Legion as Dust is apparently dead) players to get involved in some useful capacity destroying or defending the installations, and also being a drive for conflict between eve pilots in a slightly deeper way the one group having more isk to throw at a team than another group.

Overall I haven't got anything id say is definitely better than the currently proposed idea for teams, but it would have been nice for it to have been something players actually did, rather that just paying off some npcs, whom I thought we were meant to be distancing ourselves from.
Je'ron
The Happy Shooters
#1955 - 2014-05-10 20:52:25 UTC
Can I save on team costs if I let these guys Scientist or any of the other listed here work for me? That would finally make them useful.
Zorrkinae vonHui
Gnostics of the Sense of Life
#1956 - 2014-05-10 22:15:43 UTC
"building better worlds" ... can´t stop thinking bout Wayland Corp Blink
...evil eve world, wanna make money of the dead P

"there are million ways to death, but only one way leads to life"

Sigras
Conglomo
#1957 - 2014-05-11 01:55:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
Saeth Thara wrote:
Manufacturing

The slot changes I guess on the whole are a good thing, however I've always got the impression that CCP wanted players to interact more, not less. With this change coupled with the change to remote research I would imagine a lot of people will move to using npc research slots rather than going to the effort of setting up a pos and (most likely) buying fuel from other players.

The removal of using a pos to research a bpo that’s in a station also doesn’t agree with me. While I appreciate risk vs rewards needs to be a factor the current setup is not completely safe. As it stands my current setup involves having 3B~ sat in space with a monthly fuel bill of roughly 300M. In exchange for that I get open slots and a bonus of between 25% & 35% depending on the activity. If I was war dec'd and either had the pos shot down or had to take it down myself I would stand to loose an additional 400-500M in bpcs being produced, plus loosing and ME/TE research I may be part way through.

With the proposed changes I would need around 27B sat in space and in exchange for this I gain a further 10% to 15% benefit (so 30% / 35% compared to npc). So my risk, in terms of assets that others can directly harm, goes up by 900% and my jobs get an extra 10%-15% off. I would imagine others will have significantly higher value BPOs and as such the increased risk could be much more in many cases.


Given that a pos with a lab up is also now almost definitely going to contain bpos I imagine getting war decs will become more frequent making it harder for smaller and more casual corps to employ them in a useful capacity.

A few things on this:

1. a POS gives you a 45% bonus to copying which is a huge deal for inventors (though I agree, I dont see much research being done in a POS unless they have extra CPU)
2. nobody ever looses BPOs to a POS bash in high sec. You get a 24 hour notice if anyone is going to attack your tower; you can even have your phone alert you to a war dec. This gives you 24 hours to get your BPOs out of the tower and put away before you can be attacked. If you cant be asked to log in after you get a notification that someone has war decced you, maybe POS mechanics arent for you?
3. Given that only the laziest of the lazy lose BPOs in a POS I dont think that they're going to be as common as you may think
Sigras
Conglomo
#1958 - 2014-05-11 02:06:54 UTC
Saeth Thara wrote:
Job Cost Scaling

I worry that larger groups will just pick a system, hire good teams and raise the price enough that others wont deem it worth going there, however this will likely be down to player trends so its hard to predict how things will go I guess.

You have to remember that if you're paying the price, so are they, so if it isnt worth it for you to work there, it isnt worth it for them to work there either. The only difference is that they had to spend the ISK to move the team there, so you actually come out ahead in that scenario.
Saeth Thara wrote:
Teams

I'm not entirely sure what I expected when I saw talk about teams. I had hoped for a system whereby multiple players could come together in some meaningful way to coordinate research and manufacturing, rather than a system which is basically bidding for a npc team to magically appear in system with a knowledge of industry that appears to far outstrip that of a capsuleers (admittedly at the cost of using dangerous drugs), who are usually much better at things than non capsuleers if ship piloting etc are anything to go by.

I guess some sort of PI link could have been used, maybe having people sacrifice harvesting/factory planets to produce some sort of product that would make such activities more effective. Which in turn would allow for Dust (or Legion as Dust is apparently dead) players to get involved in some useful capacity destroying or defending the installations, and also being a drive for conflict between eve pilots in a slightly deeper way the one group having more isk to throw at a team than another group.

Overall I haven't got anything id say is definitely better than the currently proposed idea for teams, but it would have been nice for it to have been something players actually did, rather that just paying off some npcs, whom I thought we were meant to be distancing ourselves from.

They said that is probably going to be in a future iteration. In fact the PI thing that you suggested was exactly their idea. Whether or not that comes to fruition is ... debatable, but they did think of that.
Hexatron Ormand
Aperture Space
WYNX
#1959 - 2014-05-11 11:31:07 UTC
As there was a question from the devs earlier, what could make POSes more viable for players. I just had an idea that may be worth something.


Let me start by comparing it to an analogy: We can set the speed of our ships. How fast they should be going. The same is true for nowadays ships, that have things like "Full throttle" or "half speed". How about adding this to the starbases, so its users have more options when it comes to burning through the fuel blocks, as sometimes you do not need "full speed ahead".

give a Starbase a few modes to operate in (using a large POS as example):


  • minimum: just to keep the starbase shield up, everything else offline and unable to work, all arrays unusable, something like a standby mode, that also conusmes very few fuel blocks. Basically setting the tower to "self support only", without any CPU or power to spare.
  • 1/4: only using a fourth of the fuel blocks, and getting only one fourth of the output, roughly putting a large tower to run in "small POS mode", running on 10 blocks per hour.
  • 1/2: using half fuel blocks and half power, a large POS would have the same output as a medium tower at that rate, putting its consumption to 20 blocks per hour.
  • 3/4: giving it a new "inbetween" power output of the medium tower and full consumption, for a large POS that would be running on 30 fuel blocks per hour.
  • full: Operating at 100% with full output and full consumption, what means running on 40 fuel blocks per hour.


This would also open up the doorway for a new sort of gameplay that so many request on the forums. As every tower needs to at least run on minimum - you know risk vs reward. Currently putting an offline tower in HS has no risk attached to it at all, you need to open up a wardec. Use this super low consumtion rate as keeping up minimum operation of the tower. As it could be as low as consuming only one fuel block per hour, that should be affordable by anyone who runs a POS.

In return you could add additional gameplay for "truly offline towers". Whatever it may be. For example a truly offline tower cannot notify concord that it gets attacked, allowing free attack on it. Or... a truly offline tower has its mainframe offline, and cannot withstand hacker attacks. Or whatever else... there are so many ideas about that out there, that could be placed there.

I think this may add variety, may nullify the need to keep towers offlined (some corporations keep different sizes of towers out there, depending on what sort of demand may arise - if they can switch one tower in different modes, this need is gone).

Those modes should also be added to small and medium towers - so if someone just wanted to run an "ore compression tower", they could use a small one and set it to 1/4, running on the barest minimum just for the compression array. That may open the world of POSes to smaller corporations who were unable to afford them so far, but that may now be doable with a small POS that runs on the "one fourth" setting.

The current faction towers would need rework though, to give them a different set of "bonus" to still make them desireable. More CPU output... more power output... maybe bonus that adds additional time or other modifiers to its attached arrays. As those faction towers need to keep their "worth", but overall i feel that this basic idea would add a lot in terms of "making people want to use them", and also opening the doors for "possible offline tower gameplay" - as everyone can keep them in standby for very low costs. Nothing should be for free.
Flay Nardieu
#1960 - 2014-05-11 11:39:49 UTC
Sigras wrote:

A few things on this:

1. a POS gives you a 45% bonus to copying which is a huge deal for inventors (though I agree, I dont see much research being done in a POS unless they have extra CPU)
2. nobody ever looses BPOs to a POS bash in high sec. You get a 24 hour notice if anyone is going to attack your tower; you can even have your phone alert you to a war dec. This gives you 24 hours to get your BPOs out of the tower and put away before you can be attacked. If you cant be asked to log in after you get a notification that someone has war decced you, maybe POS mechanics arent for you?
3. Given that only the laziest of the lazy lose BPOs in a POS I dont think that they're going to be as common as you may think


I would have to disagree with 2 & 3 in the above quote. Irregardless of the fact of lower risk of loss in high-sec and external utilities to notify a player of wars or the perception of only the lazy would lose forcing the BPO into a POS for work, specifically the R&D aspect is counter-intuitive. It seems that people forget that Eve: online is a game and real world situations take precedence over entertainment. Computers crash, internet connections go down, and many worse things can happen outside of a player's control.

Eve of course is a game of potential loss and that is acceptable in and unto itself. However for industrialists BPOs are very close to being on par with time and isk spent on SP and Standings especially for the independents and small groups where loss of BPOs would cripple their abilities to come back from large losses due to whatever reason. If something was ever introduced that could affect a player's skills or standings negatively in their absence there would be a revolt. Of course the argument can and will be made that BPOs are transferable assets, which is true, however the also convey an ability to do something and are fundamental necessity in that regard.

Granted many players get their enjoyment on the suffering of others whether the suffering player deserves it or not. Also gods forbid that anyone argues in the favor of fairness. Even though the changes as stated will affect me only on the nuisance level I do feel this part of the changes affect on gameplay is in need of being represented.

Setting aside the grief junkies position, removal of remote from station is a bad idea on many levels that I have pointed out in the past and I believe firmly. Hell, even if a small/micro corp loses multiple billions with a POS bashed and offices assets impounded due to failure to pay office rental it wouldn't garner the Rage-quit that someone would have coming back after an absence and losing key abilities and assets.