These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Summer 2014] Starbase tweaks

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#221 - 2014-05-07 16:16:41 UTC
NEONOVUS wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
What ever you do, an unmanned POS should NOT lock any faster than they do now.

why not?
Do they randomly shoot people still?



Yes, poachers with siphons
Sigras
Conglomo
#222 - 2014-05-07 16:17:54 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Sigras wrote:
I have two questions regarding how the 2% ME discount is calculated.

1. it is 2% and not 2 ME levels right? Just confirming because if not you've just condemned all invention to only ever be done in 0.0 amarr factory stations...

2. is the 2% calculated per job or per run?

I realize that in most cases #2 makes absolutely no difference, but think about manufacturing Small CCCs or even medium CCCs... a 2% discount per run is not going to help either of those products at all, but a 2% discount per job certainly could

TL;DR
is the 2% discount calculated ROUNDUP(RequiredMaterial * 0.98) * NumberOfJobs or is it calculated ROUNDUP(RequiredMaterial * NumberOfJobs * 0.98)?

The material reduction is applied per run last I checked, but we have plans to apply it to the whole job, so that blueprints with small amount of components also benefit from it. Not sure if we can squeeze this for summer though, going to ask around - thanks for the reminder.

do iiiiiiiittttt! That would be awesome!
ElectronHerd Askulf
Aridia Logistical Misdirection
#223 - 2014-05-07 16:54:48 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Cry

Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now.


So SDM gets easier to train to support the increased use of POSes while the isotope market gets mucked with because there will be fewer?
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#224 - 2014-05-07 16:58:58 UTC
ElectronHerd Askulf wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Cry

Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now.


So SDM gets easier to train to support the increased use of POSes while the isotope market gets mucked with because there will be fewer?


I believe their stated reasoning was SMALLER ones in the isotope change.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#225 - 2014-05-07 17:12:39 UTC
Spectre Wraith wrote:
These are all very good changes, however, let me reiterate the one thing that is almost universally wanted/requested, and that is....

MODULAR STARBASES!!

There was a thread created years back of this very idea, including CAD/3d models of what this would be like, and ever since, has probably been the most requested/wanted for starbases.



This. We've been demanding this feature for seven years now. CCP provides a service, why are we not being served?
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#226 - 2014-05-07 17:17:41 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Spectre Wraith wrote:
These are all very good changes, however, let me reiterate the one thing that is almost universally wanted/requested, and that is....

MODULAR STARBASES!!

There was a thread created years back of this very idea, including CAD/3d models of what this would be like, and ever since, has probably been the most requested/wanted for starbases.



This. We've been demanding this feature for seven years now. CCP provides a service, why are we not being served?



Because they're working on all the background services needed, before modular starbases are really viable?

Like corporation management.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#227 - 2014-05-07 17:19:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve Ronuken
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Sigras wrote:
I have two questions regarding how the 2% ME discount is calculated.

1. it is 2% and not 2 ME levels right? Just confirming because if not you've just condemned all invention to only ever be done in 0.0 amarr factory stations...

2. is the 2% calculated per job or per run?

I realize that in most cases #2 makes absolutely no difference, but think about manufacturing Small CCCs or even medium CCCs... a 2% discount per run is not going to help either of those products at all, but a 2% discount per job certainly could

TL;DR
is the 2% discount calculated ROUNDUP(RequiredMaterial * 0.98) * NumberOfJobs or is it calculated ROUNDUP(RequiredMaterial * NumberOfJobs * 0.98)?


The bonus is a 2% material discount, not ME level since that's going away in the new system.

The material reduction is applied per run last I checked, but we have plans to apply it to the whole job, so that blueprints with small amount of components also benefit from it. Not sure if we can squeeze this for summer though, going to ask around - thanks for the reminder.



Oh god, can't believe I missed this.

Material discounts at job rather than run level would be a major, major change.

(I like it. But it would require a rework of a whole bunch of tools to take run numbers into account as well. And I'm not /sure/ about how it affects bpc vs bpo. I'm generally in favor.)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Korthan Doshu
Doomheim
#228 - 2014-05-07 17:55:59 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Sigras wrote:
I have two questions regarding how the 2% ME discount is calculated.

1. it is 2% and not 2 ME levels right? Just confirming because if not you've just condemned all invention to only ever be done in 0.0 amarr factory stations...

2. is the 2% calculated per job or per run?

I realize that in most cases #2 makes absolutely no difference, but think about manufacturing Small CCCs or even medium CCCs... a 2% discount per run is not going to help either of those products at all, but a 2% discount per job certainly could

TL;DR
is the 2% discount calculated ROUNDUP(RequiredMaterial * 0.98) * NumberOfJobs or is it calculated ROUNDUP(RequiredMaterial * NumberOfJobs * 0.98)?


The bonus is a 2% material discount, not ME level since that's going away in the new system.

The material reduction is applied per run last I checked, but we have plans to apply it to the whole job, so that blueprints with small amount of components also benefit from it. Not sure if we can squeeze this for summer though, going to ask around - thanks for the reminder.



Oh god, can't believe I missed this.

Material discounts at job rather than run level would be a major, major change.

(I like it. But it would require a rework of a whole bunch of tools to take run numbers into account as well. And I'm not /sure/ about how it affects bpc vs bpo. I'm generally in favor.)


+1. Cool bonus, but please let the math be doable for non-programmer excel warriors.
Sigras
Conglomo
#229 - 2014-05-07 17:57:31 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Oh god, can't believe I missed this.

Material discounts at job rather than run level would be a major, major change.

(I like it. But it would require a rework of a whole bunch of tools to take run numbers into account as well. And I'm not /sure/ about how it affects bpc vs bpo. I'm generally in favor.)

the tools are already being changed, and it only slightly adversely effects BPCs depending on how the rounding works.

Speaking of which, how does the rounding for a discount work? does it roundUp roundDown or just roundClose?

how would a 2% Material cost bonus effect a theoretical item taking 24 trit? 25 trit? 26 trit?
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance
#230 - 2014-05-07 17:58:40 UTC
CynoNet Two wrote:
remco1 wrote:
guess people who trained anchoring 5 for posguns get skillpoints back then ??


Spectre Wraith wrote:
Can those of us who trained Anchoring V (twice, ugh) expect something for our time investment in that skill?


Flyinghotpocket wrote:
O COMON i just trained up anchoring 5 just for this skill.

SP reimbursement!


All of you are why we so rarely get nice things :(

If everyone got a free titan in the next patch you'd probably complain it was the wrong colour.

i wouldnt. i never go into null. i have no reason to ever anchor bubbles. lowsec is where i live.

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#231 - 2014-05-07 18:07:39 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Spectre Wraith wrote:
These are all very good changes, however, let me reiterate the one thing that is almost universally wanted/requested, and that is....

MODULAR STARBASES!!

There was a thread created years back of this very idea, including CAD/3d models of what this would be like, and ever since, has probably been the most requested/wanted for starbases.



This. We've been demanding this feature for seven years now. CCP provides a service, why are we not being served?


Beware. "Served" applies to both sides of the transaction.

Next Stop, The Twilight Zone.

"To Serve Man"

"It's a cookbook!!!!!"
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#232 - 2014-05-07 18:12:59 UTC
Iosue wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Seraphina Amaranth wrote:
So is there any incentive to run more than one of each type of lab/array any more?

that you're using them as storage :v:


along that line, can we get a new CHA size? i mean its kinda silly to keep using assembly arrays in place of CHA's as a work around. having another Large CHA that matches the size and fitting requirements of the large ship assembly array would be great.



I agree. CHA should be at least as large as the largest storage of any assembly array.... and take the same power and cpu....

Oh, wait....

Maybe CHA, with lower cpu and power, OR assembly array with larger capacity but higher fitting needs, is meaningful game play decision. The kind of trade off CCP is looking for.
Marcus Iunius Brutus
Hoborg Labs
#233 - 2014-05-07 18:14:19 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Material discounts at job rather than run level would be a major, major change.

(I like it. But it would require a rework of a whole bunch of tools to take run numbers into account as well. And I'm not /sure/ about how it affects bpc vs bpo. I'm generally in favor.)


Yes, that would change a lot.

I manufacture a lot of things that require small numbers of components and thus have very low perfect ME.
It would completely change landscape of T2 rigs for example where 1 component like Intact Armor Plates is worth 3M ISK.
Decryptor math would change a lot because adiitional runs on BPCs could add or remove some material due to rounding.

Worst scenario that I can imagine is having to produce less runs than BPC has (because with more runs, more high-value material would be used).
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#234 - 2014-05-07 18:24:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve Ronuken
Sigras wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Oh god, can't believe I missed this.

Material discounts at job rather than run level would be a major, major change.

(I like it. But it would require a rework of a whole bunch of tools to take run numbers into account as well. And I'm not /sure/ about how it affects bpc vs bpo. I'm generally in favor.)

the tools are already being changed, and it only slightly adversely effects BPCs depending on how the rounding works.

Speaking of which, how does the rounding for a discount work? does it roundUp roundDown or just roundClose?

how would a 2% Material cost bonus effect a theoretical item taking 24 trit? 25 trit? 26 trit?



Heh. These are details I'm wanting to get my hands on too.

Along with a copy of the SDE to play with (and convert. From third party session, blueprint stuff will be in yaml)



Important questions:

When do numbers get rounded.
Regular ME per run, bonus from array via job?

There are edge cases where doing it either way is beneficial.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#235 - 2014-05-07 18:33:02 UTC
NEONOVUS wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
What ever you do, an unmanned POS should NOT lock any faster than they do now.

why not?

Because I know the motivation behind the suggestion and it has very little to do with a manned POS's lock time.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#236 - 2014-05-07 18:33:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
-double post-
Robert71
Finanzamt Hannover-Mitte
#237 - 2014-05-07 18:54:47 UTC
It seems that this patch is exactly I've expected :-(
My job is mostly doing Cap and sometimes SCap-Production with a few other people.

In an older Dev-Blog I read announcements about:
- reducing reprocessing efficiency for NPC stations (reprocressing - not reffining!)
- improving research and manufaturing at POS
- greatly improving copying times to efficiently work with BPC's!

Now, I read:

Time multiplier for copying: 0.6 (was 0.65).

Now an Archon takes 26 Days instead of 28 Days - great Deal especially in doubt the BPO's have to reside at the POS!
===> Job "working with BPC's" dead!

Capital/Supercapital Ship Assembly Array with !!0!!% waste or time change - beside the other arrays which all got boosts.

Now it takes the same time but instead of doing logistics with few freighters I have to bring in tons of mins since mineral-compression by creating/refining items is no longer possible.
===> Job "SCAP production as not so big player" dead too!

Sorry, but I don't see any improvements (at least for player doing in research and production).

Even there is no improvement for new players trying research and production since they would need a POS to do anything useful which can eventually be sold on the market with some profit. (even if CCP so often tells us that anything is going to be noob-friendly)

But it seems that is the way to go... and go more and more offline for high SP casual players.
thetwilitehour
Caldari Provisions
#238 - 2014-05-07 19:56:16 UTC
mynnna wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Looks good.

Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.

Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train.


But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Cry

Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now.


Wanna change some more numbers and do a balancing pass on POS guns and buff their stats a bit, since they haven't been touched since an era when a dreadnaught had less EHP than a cruiser can get today?


e: This goes especially for scan res. In context of such a change I'd propose massive increases to scan res, on the order of tenfold, but perhaps a corresponding increase in the automatic lock delay as well. That way an unmanned POS still takes its sweet time doing anything, but a manned POS is able to swiftly react to a changing combat landscape. You've got that huge tower there, why are its targeting arrays so bad?


Buff the guns scanres by 200% per level of anchoring.
Banko Mato
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#239 - 2014-05-07 20:52:39 UTC
thetwilitehour wrote:

Buff the guns scanres by 200% per level of anchoring.


I definitely approve this idea. Makes the skill at V useful outside of bubbles/outpost building and solves the scanres issue of manned POSes in an elegant way.
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#240 - 2014-05-07 20:56:12 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
NEONOVUS wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
What ever you do, an unmanned POS should NOT lock any faster than they do now.

why not?

Because I know the motivation behind the suggestion and it has very little to do with a manned POS's lock time.

Could you private mail me why?
Im now curious