These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Crius] Jump Drive Isotope Consumption

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Anthar Thebess
#581 - 2014-05-20 07:33:59 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Why does it cost as much to jump a Thanatos, Nyx, and Erebus the same distance? That's where you should look into increasing "demand" for topes.


I posted the same.
There is no difference on the ship size so jumping titan , mothership or a carrier cost the same amount fuel.
EVE SHIP SIZE

When you compare the size of those ships and use carrier fuel usage as a base then:
- mothership (based on the model size ) should burn at least 4 times more fuel.
- Titan (again ) should burn at least 10 or more times more than a motherships.

You think that those numbers are insane.
Well , yes , but take into consideration strategic application of those ships.
Currently the same cost in fuel is to drop carrier, mothership or titan.
Compare EHP.....

If those scaling could be applied then blobs will think where to place their ships to make the best use of them.

Next B-R will also be more likely to happen.

Currently , few times a week people save their super capitals, because quickly enough allied supercapital force arrives.
After this change those ships will be more spread out.
So this will mean more time needed for other people to come, especially tat reinforcements will be arriving all the time for both sides.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#582 - 2014-05-20 12:34:46 UTC
Question - since you have switched to these short development cycles why are you implementing this change now to fix a problem that doesn't exist yet? Wouldn't the logical thing to do be to see if the changes create an issue in the isotope market and if changes are needed implement them 1 month later in the next patch?
Dave Stark
#583 - 2014-05-20 19:55:09 UTC
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#584 - 2014-05-21 04:54:52 UTC
Gaijin Lanis wrote:
Just hopping in to let everyone at CCP know the change worked! Isk/hr of ice mining has been increasing steadily since this change was applied! As, per fozzie's predictions, the increased usage has increased demand of the various isotopes and maintained the viability of ice mining!

Wait, hold on, the change hasn't been applied yet.

Meaning just talking about doing this has already caused isotope prices to skyrocket. Meaning once the change actually hits, prices will simply balloon further. Like others have mentioned in this thread, the supply of ice is essentially fixed. So steadily increasing demand of a commodity with a fixed supply means it will quickly price itself out of the range of everyone other than the power blocs.

The power blocs, of course, will be unaffected because they have no choice but to maintain their levels of projection or lose their assets.

This change does not exist in a vacuum. You cannot assume that isotope and ice prices are going to go up just because jump drive isotope consumption will.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Gaijin Lanis
Gallente Federation
#585 - 2014-05-21 23:31:03 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gaijin Lanis wrote:
Just hopping in to let everyone at CCP know the change worked! Isk/hr of ice mining has been increasing steadily since this change was applied! As, per fozzie's predictions, the increased usage has increased demand of the various isotopes and maintained the viability of ice mining!

Wait, hold on, the change hasn't been applied yet.

Meaning just talking about doing this has already caused isotope prices to skyrocket. Meaning once the change actually hits, prices will simply balloon further. Like others have mentioned in this thread, the supply of ice is essentially fixed. So steadily increasing demand of a commodity with a fixed supply means it will quickly price itself out of the range of everyone other than the power blocs.

The power blocs, of course, will be unaffected because they have no choice but to maintain their levels of projection or lose their assets.

This change does not exist in a vacuum. You cannot assume that isotope and ice prices are going to go up just because jump drive isotope consumption will.


The prices have already increased. As the potential for more expensive isotopes due to the limited nature of isotope supply created instant demand for isotopes of non-insane prices. The assumption there will be potentially lower number of smaller controls towers (due to most control towers being basically useless after the sloticide) is speculative at best, but closer to completely faulty. As others have mentioned in all the threads surrounding this issue, hisec will still be the best place to manufacture, as nullsec will be even worse than it is now (due to the removal of mineral compression and the increase in jump fuel costs) and nothing beats having your towers protected by concord and 24 hours warning on it lifting.

To say, import/export is the lifeblood of a functional economy, and Crius looks to be centered around shooting import/export in the face.

The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all.
Jason Pareka
Project Sanctuary
#586 - 2014-05-22 16:57:49 UTC
So BLOP fleets now become cost ineffective as well as largely impractical? any thought on at least not increasing the cost per m3 for the covert jump portal?
Allison A'vani
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#587 - 2014-05-22 17:24:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Allison A'vani
Gaijin Lanis wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gaijin Lanis wrote:
Just hopping in to let everyone at CCP know the change worked! Isk/hr of ice mining has been increasing steadily since this change was applied! As, per fozzie's predictions, the increased usage has increased demand of the various isotopes and maintained the viability of ice mining!

Wait, hold on, the change hasn't been applied yet.

Meaning just talking about doing this has already caused isotope prices to skyrocket. Meaning once the change actually hits, prices will simply balloon further. Like others have mentioned in this thread, the supply of ice is essentially fixed. So steadily increasing demand of a commodity with a fixed supply means it will quickly price itself out of the range of everyone other than the power blocs.

The power blocs, of course, will be unaffected because they have no choice but to maintain their levels of projection or lose their assets.

This change does not exist in a vacuum. You cannot assume that isotope and ice prices are going to go up just because jump drive isotope consumption will.


The prices have already increased. As the potential for more expensive isotopes due to the limited nature of isotope supply created instant demand for isotopes of non-insane prices. The assumption there will be potentially lower number of smaller controls towers (due to most control towers being basically useless after the sloticide) is speculative at best, but closer to completely faulty. As others have mentioned in all the threads surrounding this issue, hisec will still be the best place to manufacture, as nullsec will be even worse than it is now (due to the removal of mineral compression and the increase in jump fuel costs) and nothing beats having your towers protected by concord and 24 hours warning on it lifting.

To say, import/export is the lifeblood of a functional economy, and Crius looks to be centered around shooting import/export in the face.



Pretty much this. I have no idea how anyone at CCP thinks that these changes at all benefit Null sec production. Every one of the proposed changes (except the outpost buff) is a nurf to null sec production. No one is going to risk having their BPOs in a POS in Low Sec or 0.0. The risk is just far too high (you don't keep gold bricks on your porch and just put a fence around it, that is extremely dumb). Coupled with the proposed fuel consumption increases PLUS the nurf to compression. There is zero reason to even bother producing anything (other than capitals) in Low/Null. No one takes mining in Null seriously at all either. If your system has any industry upgrades at all then you are instantly the target of every fleet for 3 regions in every direction.
Allison A'vani
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#588 - 2014-05-22 17:32:20 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Why does it cost as much to jump a Thanatos, Nyx, and Erebus the same distance? That's where you should look into increasing "demand" for topes.


I posted the same.
There is no difference on the ship size so jumping titan , mothership or a carrier cost the same amount fuel.
EVE SHIP SIZE

When you compare the size of those ships and use carrier fuel usage as a base then:
- mothership (based on the model size ) should burn at least 4 times more fuel.
- Titan (again ) should burn at least 10 or more times more than a motherships.

You think that those numbers are insane.
Well , yes , but take into consideration strategic application of those ships.
Currently the same cost in fuel is to drop carrier, mothership or titan.
Compare EHP.....

If those scaling could be applied then blobs will think where to place their ships to make the best use of them.

Next B-R will also be more likely to happen.

Currently , few times a week people save their super capitals, because quickly enough allied supercapital force arrives.
After this change those ships will be more spread out.
So this will mean more time needed for other people to come, especially tat reinforcements will be arriving all the time for both sides.



Except for the fact that it would have zero impact at all. All the large null blocks can just shrug off that charge. Isotopes are a very minor cost compared to other expenses such as: POS Fuel Blocks, Solv Bills, Super Cap subsidies and Ship Reimbursement. Let us not forget what is historically one of the biggest expenses for Alliances every year, the Alliance Tournament.

There will be no change in usages of capitals nor supers nor JF. The only limiting time factor, as always, has and will be jump range and moving cynos.
Anthar Thebess
#589 - 2014-05-26 13:07:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
Allison A'vani wrote:

Except for the fact that it would have zero impact at all. All the large null blocks can just shrug off that charge. Isotopes are a very minor cost compared to other expenses such as: POS Fuel Blocks, Solv Bills, Super Cap subsidies and Ship Reimbursement. Let us not forget what is historically one of the biggest expenses for Alliances every year, the Alliance Tournament.

There will be no change in usages of capitals nor supers nor JF. The only limiting time factor, as always, has and will be jump range and moving cynos.


So we can , apply this change?
If you say that this will not change any thing - then lets make EVE more REAL!.

I didn't expect that someone from PL will support my idea.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Lahingingel
Fallout Research
Heavens Angelic Locusts
#590 - 2014-05-29 10:59:09 UTC
Gaijin Lanis wrote:


The prices have already increased. As the potential for more expensive isotopes due to the limited nature of isotope supply created instant demand for isotopes of non-insane prices. The assumption there will be potentially lower number of smaller controls towers (due to most control towers being basically useless after the sloticide) is speculative at best, but closer to completely faulty. As others have mentioned in all the threads surrounding this issue, hisec will still be the best place to manufacture, as nullsec will be even worse than it is now (due to the removal of mineral compression and the increase in jump fuel costs) and nothing beats having your towers protected by concord and 24 hours warning on it lifting.

To say, import/export is the lifeblood of a functional economy, and Crius looks to be centered around shooting import/export in the face.



I, for one, expect to see significant drop in empire POS tower numbers. Ofc this will affect most caldari (as armor cap fleets are still the main thing and caldari towers were mostly used in hi sec R&D).

The reason why I believe so is
(1) added hassle of juggling with materials for any semi-serious manufacturing op.
(2) the new POS labs are just screaming "BPO in here" so I do not expect anyone to put anything other than some ammo and rig prints in there and frankly, POS is not quite worth it running for just the ammo and rig print research.
(3) the lack of slots was limiting factor so far, with the slot limits gone and PLEX prices as they are you can almost compensate for the POS effectivity difference by having an extra account of R&D alts (for approx the same price as fuel for large tower) (33 extra jobs) - AND you can lock down your BPO's in corp hangar (with the way POS roles work good luck maintaining any kind of security).
(4) Large tower is not any more secure than a small tower - all it takes is just a little more time and if properly gunned then couple more logi. It is trivial to wardec with 1 man corp and then corp-hop for the kill so even with large tower you will need to evacuate prints for every random wardec you get or you will lose your library rather sooner than later.

So in a nutshell I do not expect to see hi sec POS'es used for industry related tasks other than some casual people and select few being in a single corp with all their alts assuming that they can pull the crap out before wardec goes active.
Gaijin Lanis
Gallente Federation
#591 - 2014-05-29 14:54:56 UTC
Lahingingel wrote:
I, for one, expect to see significant drop in empire POS tower numbers. Ofc this will affect most caldari (as armor cap fleets are still the main thing and caldari towers were mostly used in hi sec R&D).

The reason why I believe so is
(1) added hassle of juggling with materials for any semi-serious manufacturing op.
(2) the new POS labs are just screaming "BPO in here" so I do not expect anyone to put anything other than some ammo and rig prints in there and frankly, POS is not quite worth it running for just the ammo and rig print research.
(3) the lack of slots was limiting factor so far, with the slot limits gone and PLEX prices as they are you can almost compensate for the POS effectivity difference by having an extra account of R&D alts (for approx the same price as fuel for large tower) (33 extra jobs) - AND you can lock down your BPO's in corp hangar (with the way POS roles work good luck maintaining any kind of security).
(4) Large tower is not any more secure than a small tower - all it takes is just a little more time and if properly gunned then couple more logi. It is trivial to wardec with 1 man corp and then corp-hop for the kill so even with large tower you will need to evacuate prints for every random wardec you get or you will lose your library rather sooner than later.

So in a nutshell I do not expect to see hi sec POS'es used for industry related tasks other than some casual people and select few being in a single corp with all their alts assuming that they can pull the crap out before wardec goes active.
You are correct. The number of towers used exclusively for research is going to drop significantly.

The problem is the manufacturing and reprocessing changes. CCP is going to make it so reprocessing arrays have the highest reprocessing yield short of a fully skilled character at a fully upgraded minmatar outpost while simultaneously cutting all other reprocessing yields in NPC stations so all of hisec will have worse yeilds than low, low worse yields than null, etc. Then they're adding a 2% material reduction to manufacturing arrays. Then, on top of everything, they're bumping import/export costs, removing mineral compression, and much more! Did I mention the reprocessing arrays also don't require any skills beyond anchoring?

So, basically, hisec POSs are going to become the primary means of production. As concord protection and 24 hour warning on it lifting, on top of all the other fun quirks of Crius, kinda trumps all other concerns.

But this is all somewhat moot. They're adding fuel conservation modules (not rigs) on top of nerfing import/export into the ground. So, if anything, ice is going to crash hard no matter what. But Crius looks like its going to crash the entire market as well. So fun times.

The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#592 - 2014-05-29 17:02:38 UTC
Gaijin Lanis wrote:


As concord protection and 24 hour warning on it lifting, on top of all the other fun quirks of Crius, kinda trumps all other concerns.

Details on this bit?

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Gaijin Lanis
Gallente Federation
#593 - 2014-05-30 04:58:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Gaijin Lanis
De'Veldrin wrote:
Gaijin Lanis wrote:


As concord protection and 24 hour warning on it lifting, on top of all the other fun quirks of Crius, kinda trumps all other concerns.

Details on this bit?
Unless they are changing or have changed it, CONCORD will defend player owned structures in hisec from attack unless a war is declared. War declarations take 24 hours to go active.

The More You Know

The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all.
Jaari Val'Dara
Grim Sleepers
#594 - 2014-05-30 09:39:08 UTC
I feel obliged to complain. Black ops has insanely small fuel bay, increasing fuel costs, but not decreasing fuel volume enough will make black ops fleets even less viable. If you know what's good for eve, buff black ops fuel bay, to at least 3 or 4 thousand m^3.
Joraa Starkmanir
Station Spinners United
#595 - 2014-05-30 09:46:56 UTC
Jaari Val'Dara wrote:
I feel obliged to complain. Black ops has insanely small fuel bay, increasing fuel costs, but not decreasing fuel volume enough will make black ops fleets even less viable. If you know what's good for eve, buff black ops fuel bay, to at least 3 or 4 thousand m^3.


Isnt volume changed so you can jump just as long with full fuelbay as before, just at a higher cost?
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#596 - 2014-05-30 09:52:28 UTC
Gaijin Lanis wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
Gaijin Lanis wrote:


As concord protection and 24 hour warning on it lifting, on top of all the other fun quirks of Crius, kinda trumps all other concerns.

Details on this bit?
Unless they are changing or have changed it, CONCORD will defend player owned structures in hisec from attack unless a war is declared. War declarations take 24 hours to go active.

The More You Know


I believe he might be thinking of the option ot (perhaps) lift CONCORD protection from offline towers in hi-sec. Which was, I believe, once mentioned during some fan-fest roundtable as one of the options under consideration.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#597 - 2014-05-30 10:14:23 UTC
Jaari Val'Dara wrote:
I feel obliged to complain. Black ops has insanely small fuel bay, increasing fuel costs, but not decreasing fuel volume enough will make black ops fleets even less viable. If you know what's good for eve, buff black ops fuel bay, to at least 3 or 4 thousand m^3.



They probably already have plans fro black ops changes on the tiercide pass, so might be irrelevant to make these adjustments now.

The only ships still m,issing from tiercide are Recons, T3, Black ops and capitals if memory serves me right.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#598 - 2014-05-30 11:30:38 UTC
Carniflex wrote:
Gaijin Lanis wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
Gaijin Lanis wrote:


As concord protection and 24 hour warning on it lifting, on top of all the other fun quirks of Crius, kinda trumps all other concerns.

Details on this bit?
Unless they are changing or have changed it, CONCORD will defend player owned structures in hisec from attack unless a war is declared. War declarations take 24 hours to go active.

The More You Know


I believe he might be thinking of the option ot (perhaps) lift CONCORD protection from offline towers in hi-sec. Which was, I believe, once mentioned during some fan-fest roundtable as one of the options under consideration.

Thanks. I had not heard that.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#599 - 2014-05-30 11:32:23 UTC
Joraa Starkmanir wrote:
Jaari Val'Dara wrote:
I feel obliged to complain. Black ops has insanely small fuel bay, increasing fuel costs, but not decreasing fuel volume enough will make black ops fleets even less viable. If you know what's good for eve, buff black ops fuel bay, to at least 3 or 4 thousand m^3.


Isnt volume changed so you can jump just as long with full fuelbay as before, just at a higher cost?

Yes, they are reducing the volume of the fuel. I haven't run the math to know if the ranges will be exactly the same, but they should be close.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Joraa Starkmanir
Station Spinners United
#600 - 2014-05-30 11:46:24 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
Joraa Starkmanir wrote:
Jaari Val'Dara wrote:
I feel obliged to complain. Black ops has insanely small fuel bay, increasing fuel costs, but not decreasing fuel volume enough will make black ops fleets even less viable. If you know what's good for eve, buff black ops fuel bay, to at least 3 or 4 thousand m^3.


Isnt volume changed so you can jump just as long with full fuelbay as before, just at a higher cost?

Yes, they are reducing the volume of the fuel. I haven't run the math to know if the ranges will be exactly the same, but they should be close.


+50% = 150% reduced to 2/3 = 100% or the exact same as before.