These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Crius] Starbase feedback

First post First post
Author
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#141 - 2014-06-17 09:42:50 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:

You might notice something else too.

You can start jobs in facilities where you have a blueprint. regardless of region, as long as they're in range.


You mean that, even if I am in Domain, I can still start jobs in Tash-Murkon or Kador as long as it is within the range the Scientific Networking skill allows me to start jobs?


Yes.


Does this also work now for Marketing and Daytrade?


No just for the industry skills.


This feels really unfair.

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-

Prince Kobol
#142 - 2014-06-17 10:04:53 UTC
mynnna wrote:


One real problem from the risk side of things is that the POS ability to defend itself - or rather, be used by a player or group of players to defend itself - is absolutely laughable. Stats on the modules are dated to an era where a dread had less EHP than can be achieved by a well tanked cruiser or battlecruiser these days, not to mention the ridiculous lock times. The UI to actually manage your weapons is pretty bad too, but that's a harder problem to tackle, I suspect. All of that, though, means that "highsec POS users" are another group that would benefit from POS guns not being awful.

I suggest:

  • Buff damage numbers a bit, and perhaps damage application numbers.
  • Buff Starbase Defense Management to be two arrays per level instead of one.
  • Increase scan resolution on weapon batteries by a factor of five and scan resolution on electronic warfare and neuting batteries by a factor of ten. To balance this and maximize the benefit of these changes to manned towers, increase the random lock delay by the same factor.
  • Have a look at the stats on neuting batteries. Not relevant to highsec but in theory they should be the best weapon against capitals or supers; in practice, 1k cap is nothing. Alternatively, give us different sizes of neuting batteries - small, medium, large, and extra large.


Do all that and then if a "small corp" or indeed any corp is vigilant with their defense, they'll have the capability to defend their POS. Granted, it'll mean some tradeoffs, fewer labs and arrays if they want to supplement gun batteries with shield hardeners and electronic warfare, but that's as it should be - at least doing so would actually be a viable option.



Re: Extra moons and supply/demand, my napkin estimate says new supply from the new 0.4 moons is to a fart in a hurricane. I'm not exactly concerned.



Totally agree with mynnna.

PoS defences are joke these days. You can easily take out a fully defended pos in HS these days little more then a small group of BS's with next to no effort.

PoS defensive modules are a poor joke.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#143 - 2014-06-17 13:09:45 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
A time reduction is not as good as a material reduction. Stuff is done faster, but not cheaper. The profit per unit stays the same. If that profit is eaten up by costs like transportation, things remain unprofitable, no matter how fast you can make them.



Time reductions are the 'safe' modifier. While they can destroy a market through oversupply, they can't make it completely unprofitable for other people.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

iskflakes
#144 - 2014-06-17 20:24:04 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
mynnna wrote:


One real problem from the risk side of things is that the POS ability to defend itself - or rather, be used by a player or group of players to defend itself - is absolutely laughable. Stats on the modules are dated to an era where a dread had less EHP than can be achieved by a well tanked cruiser or battlecruiser these days, not to mention the ridiculous lock times. The UI to actually manage your weapons is pretty bad too, but that's a harder problem to tackle, I suspect. All of that, though, means that "highsec POS users" are another group that would benefit from POS guns not being awful.

I suggest:

  • Buff damage numbers a bit, and perhaps damage application numbers.
  • Buff Starbase Defense Management to be two arrays per level instead of one.
  • Increase scan resolution on weapon batteries by a factor of five and scan resolution on electronic warfare and neuting batteries by a factor of ten. To balance this and maximize the benefit of these changes to manned towers, increase the random lock delay by the same factor.
  • Have a look at the stats on neuting batteries. Not relevant to highsec but in theory they should be the best weapon against capitals or supers; in practice, 1k cap is nothing. Alternatively, give us different sizes of neuting batteries - small, medium, large, and extra large.


Do all that and then if a "small corp" or indeed any corp is vigilant with their defense, they'll have the capability to defend their POS. Granted, it'll mean some tradeoffs, fewer labs and arrays if they want to supplement gun batteries with shield hardeners and electronic warfare, but that's as it should be - at least doing so would actually be a viable option.



Re: Extra moons and supply/demand, my napkin estimate says new supply from the new 0.4 moons is to a fart in a hurricane. I'm not exactly concerned.



Totally agree with mynnna.

PoS defences are joke these days. You can easily take out a fully defended pos in HS these days little more then a small group of BS's with next to no effort.

PoS defensive modules are a poor joke.


+1

A rebalance of POS module stats would not take much work and would sort out a lot of problems with towers.

The cruise missile/torp batteries are useless. The blasters don't have enough optimal range to hit anything. The lock times are too long. The scrams don't actually scram you. The anti-capital weapons don't threaten capitals. The list goes on..

-

xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#145 - 2014-06-18 07:32:34 UTC
iskflakes wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
mynnna wrote:


One real problem from the risk side of things is that the POS ability to defend itself - or rather, be used by a player or group of players to defend itself - is absolutely laughable. Stats on the modules are dated to an era where a dread had less EHP than can be achieved by a well tanked cruiser or battlecruiser these days, not to mention the ridiculous lock times. The UI to actually manage your weapons is pretty bad too, but that's a harder problem to tackle, I suspect. All of that, though, means that "highsec POS users" are another group that would benefit from POS guns not being awful.

I suggest:

  • Buff damage numbers a bit, and perhaps damage application numbers.
  • Buff Starbase Defense Management to be two arrays per level instead of one.
  • Increase scan resolution on weapon batteries by a factor of five and scan resolution on electronic warfare and neuting batteries by a factor of ten. To balance this and maximize the benefit of these changes to manned towers, increase the random lock delay by the same factor.
  • Have a look at the stats on neuting batteries. Not relevant to highsec but in theory they should be the best weapon against capitals or supers; in practice, 1k cap is nothing. Alternatively, give us different sizes of neuting batteries - small, medium, large, and extra large.


Do all that and then if a "small corp" or indeed any corp is vigilant with their defense, they'll have the capability to defend their POS. Granted, it'll mean some tradeoffs, fewer labs and arrays if they want to supplement gun batteries with shield hardeners and electronic warfare, but that's as it should be - at least doing so would actually be a viable option.



Re: Extra moons and supply/demand, my napkin estimate says new supply from the new 0.4 moons is to a fart in a hurricane. I'm not exactly concerned.



Totally agree with mynnna.

PoS defences are joke these days. You can easily take out a fully defended pos in HS these days little more then a small group of BS's with next to no effort.

PoS defensive modules are a poor joke.


+1

A rebalance of POS module stats would not take much work and would sort out a lot of problems with towers.

The cruise missile/torp batteries are useless. The blasters don't have enough optimal range to hit anything. The lock times are too long. The scrams don't actually scram you. The anti-capital weapons don't threaten capitals. The list goes on..


+2

Starbases used to be a real threat to Dreadnoughts and Carriers. Now they struggle to kill cruisers and frigates.

Why are our former Deathstars now less scary than an X-Wing?
Blue Harrier
#146 - 2014-06-18 10:39:52 UTC
First for all you old hands reading this please remember that although I have played Eve on and off for many years I have never set up a POS before so please bear with me.

From questions I have asked (and yes I did the ‘research’) the information on setting up a POS is in most cases woefully inadequate. It is further exasperated by lacking ‘information’ given on some modules descriptions.

I also understand talking about the POS code is a taboo subject and I will try and refrain from doing so.

As most reports here are for problems with the client I thought I would report some things that seem to be working.
I have successfully set up a Gallente Medium Tower in a 0.8 area of space and installed and tested both a Compression Array and a Reprocessing Array and although I had to fight with the arcane interfaces was able to do so with the minimum of help.

Setting up a Caldari Medium Tower in a 0.4 system was however a different experience. Getting the tower launched, anchored and online was the easy bit. Installing a Moon Harvesting Array and a Silo and getting them to both do actual work and also work together was a nightmare.
My first problem was finding that although the anchor and online menu was on the Array the actual ‘what I want this Array and Silo to do’ instructions were on a none intuitive tab on the ‘Manage’ interface of the tower. It took quite a few offline/online click this and click that before I had the full information to get both items working and together.

The final piece of the puzzle came when I realised I had to drag and drop the harvested ‘stuff’ from the Harvester to the Silo (on the tab) then click [Apply] then online the Silo first then the Harvester to get the blasted things working.

Next was setting up some Railgun Batteries for defence work, sadly the information panel for the batteries forgot one crucial bit of information ‘They have to be anchored outside the force field’, I spent quite some time (yes you can ROTFL if you wish), trying to anchor them. After asking in game and finding out yes this was so and trying yet again I finally found I had to click in just the right place when the box is outside the force field to get the little popup menu for anchor.

So CCP yes it all works if you can spend the time fighting the interfaces but some of the information panels could really do with some updates on how things should be done. Oh yes and the WiKi could do with an update as well.

Sorry for the long post, regards BH.

And a +3 to the above posts.

"You wait - time passes, Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold." from The Hobbit on ZX Spectrum 1982.

Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#147 - 2014-06-18 11:30:48 UTC
'Structure Cost Scaling'

Otherwise known as onlining multiples of the same array to gain tax bonuses at POSes.

CCP devs seem unwilling to discuss or answer questions on this issue at the comments section of the original announcement and at the latest dev blog comments section. I have been directed here from the 'Blueprints' channel even though I don't think this is the ideal forum.

I and others feel that the proposed method of attaining additional tax bonuses at POSes by anchoring & onlining multiples of the exact same array at POSes is messy and a very bad method. CCP Greyscale still seems very confused as to how it will work in practise and doesn't think offlining the remaining arrays after the job is started is a problem, a pointless exercise, or an alleviation of the intended risk factor. No consideration has been given as to whether the additional arrays will, or can, be unanchored and removed after the job has been set up. In short it's a bodge job wrapped in a pretty bow of massive loopholes.

This idea is apparently being done to protect certain markets. I don't think the POS array or POS tower markets are going to suffer post Crius so there shouldn't be any worries about less arrays at towers or size of towers being deployed. Be sure there will be much more POS destruction with the possibility of expensive BPOs dropping and the disruption & destruction of others markets. This destruction will all have to be replaced.

A far better method would be to introduce new skillbook/s, maybe at 10x skill training if you so wish, to give tax bonuses on jobs at POSes. This lines up with current policy such as making refining/reprocessing something you have to spend significant time skilling into. A proper profession.

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#148 - 2014-06-18 11:55:26 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
'Structure Cost Scaling'

Otherwise known as onlining multiples of the same array to gain tax bonuses at POSes.

CCP devs seem unwilling to discuss or answer questions on this issue at the comments section of the original announcement and at the latest dev blog comments section. I have been directed here from the 'Blueprints' channel even though I don't think this is the ideal forum.

I and others feel that the proposed method of attaining additional tax bonuses at POSes by anchoring & onlining multiples of the exact same array at POSes is messy and a very bad method. CCP Greyscale still seems very confused as to how it will work in practise and doesn't think offlining the remaining arrays after the job is started is a problem, a pointless exercise, or an alleviation of the intended risk factor. No consideration has been given as to whether the additional arrays will, or can, be unanchored and removed after the job has been set up. In short it's a bodge job wrapped in a pretty bow of massive loopholes.

This idea is apparently being done to protect certain markets. I don't think the POS array or POS tower markets are going to suffer post Crius so there shouldn't be any worries about less arrays at towers or size of towers being deployed. Be sure there will be much more POS destruction with the possibility of expensive BPOs dropping and the disruption & destruction of others markets. This destruction will all have to be replaced.

A far better method would be to introduce new skillbook/s, maybe at 10x skill training if you so wish, to give tax bonuses on jobs at POSes. This lines up with current policy such as making refining/reprocessing something you have to spend significant time skilling into. A proper profession.


We're not replying because you're putting words into our mouths and making thinly-veiled insults, which is usually an indicator of an unproductive discussion waiting to happen.

The multi-structure bonus is still being worked through, we are intending to handle the online/offline issues in the coming weeks but we don't have a firm solution yet.

Your skillbook suggestion does not address the issue that this bonus is trying to resolve, namely that without it the optimal setup is one of each type of structures and a load of defenses, which is uninteresting.
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#149 - 2014-06-18 12:17:21 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Your skillbook suggestion does not address the issue that this bonus is trying to resolve, namely that without it the optimal setup is one of each type of structures and a load of defenses, which is uninteresting.


On that note, how about some way to siege in highsec, allowing dunking large towers without hundreds of man hours? A new flavor of bastion module that couldn't track a stationary bus, for example. Pirate Dunno about you but I'd call that interesting!

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 

Calorn Marthor
Standard Fuel Company
#150 - 2014-06-18 13:35:00 UTC
Seith Kali wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Your skillbook suggestion does not address the issue that this bonus is trying to resolve, namely that without it the optimal setup is one of each type of structures and a load of defenses, which is uninteresting.


On that note, how about some way to siege in highsec, allowing dunking large towers without hundreds of man hours? A new flavor of bastion module that couldn't track a stationary bus, for example. Pirate Dunno about you but I'd call that interesting!


Mobile Siege Cannon FTW!
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#151 - 2014-06-18 14:05:48 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
'Structure Cost Scaling'

Otherwise known as onlining multiples of the same array to gain tax bonuses at POSes.

CCP devs seem unwilling to discuss or answer questions on this issue at the comments section of the original announcement and at the latest dev blog comments section. I have been directed here from the 'Blueprints' channel even though I don't think this is the ideal forum.

I and others feel that the proposed method of attaining additional tax bonuses at POSes by anchoring & onlining multiples of the exact same array at POSes is messy and a very bad method. CCP Greyscale still seems very confused as to how it will work in practise and doesn't think offlining the remaining arrays after the job is started is a problem, a pointless exercise, or an alleviation of the intended risk factor. No consideration has been given as to whether the additional arrays will, or can, be unanchored and removed after the job has been set up. In short it's a bodge job wrapped in a pretty bow of massive loopholes.

This idea is apparently being done to protect certain markets. I don't think the POS array or POS tower markets are going to suffer post Crius so there shouldn't be any worries about less arrays at towers or size of towers being deployed. Be sure there will be much more POS destruction with the possibility of expensive BPOs dropping and the disruption & destruction of others markets. This destruction will all have to be replaced.

A far better method would be to introduce new skillbook/s, maybe at 10x skill training if you so wish, to give tax bonuses on jobs at POSes. This lines up with current policy such as making refining/reprocessing something you have to spend significant time skilling into. A proper profession.


We're not replying because you're putting words into our mouths and making thinly-veiled insults, which is usually an indicator of an unproductive discussion waiting to happen.

The multi-structure bonus is still being worked through, we are intending to handle the online/offline issues in the coming weeks but we don't have a firm solution yet.

Your skillbook suggestion does not address the issue that this bonus is trying to resolve, namely that without it the optimal setup is one of each type of structures and a load of defenses, which is uninteresting.


I apologise sincerely if you felt I insulted you personally. I am genuinely one of the good guys in RL and I'm not nasty in New Eden either for the most part. I just that the issue wasn't being looked at from all angles.

I concede defeat in the face of overwhelming adversity ...... although wouldn't a selection of different manufacturing, science, and defensive arrays within a POS shield be diverse rather than 'uninteresting' ? Don't reply. I concede.

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#152 - 2014-06-18 14:08:23 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


The multi-structure bonus is still being worked through, we are intending to handle the online/offline issues in the coming weeks but we don't have a firm solution yet.



So this whole disaster goes live , in what, now 34 days, and you guys are still throwing darts at a wall in design?
Hilarious.

Do everyone a favour, and back the dump of this on TQ until the fall, and give the design process a deadline of say, July 11.
Better still, scrap the whole thing, though I am sure the null sec cartels would scream blue murder at that.
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#153 - 2014-06-18 14:30:09 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
So this whole disaster goes live , in what, now 34 days, and you guys are still throwing darts at a wall in design?
Hilarious.

Do everyone a favour, and back the dump of this on TQ until the fall, and give the design process a deadline of say, July 11.
Better still, scrap the whole thing, though I am sure the null sec cartels would scream blue murder at that.


Dude.. 34 days isn't a trivial amount of time =P I don't know what kinda joint you work at, but its more than enough time to prototype through a few iterations, if they're even half way agile..

In so far as it's equally possible to stack 13 mods in high, low and null sec, not sure how this is favors null, but don't let that get in the way of your paranoia. And heavens forbid, you suggest something remotely constructive..

CCP Greyscale, you gotta admit, this mods scaling thing is a pretty inelegant solution to preventing rainbow fits. Here's a thought - why don't you scale the costs based on how many types of arrays there are. Perhaps with a formula like this:

Factor = (1.01) ^ (# array types - 1)

Which gives the following:

1 1.000
2 1.010
3 1.020
4 1.030
5 1.041

Thus, if you want to rainbow up with 5 types of arrays, it costs you 4.1% extra compared to using just 1 type in a pos.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#154 - 2014-06-18 14:33:44 UTC
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:
CCP Greyscale, you gotta admit, this mods scaling thing is a pretty inelegant solution to preventing rainbow fits. Here's a thought - why don't you scale the costs based on how many types of arrays there are. Perhaps with a formula like this:

Factor = (1.01) ^ (# array types - 1)

Which gives the following:

1 1.000
2 1.010
3 1.020
4 1.030
5 1.041

Thus, if you want to rainbow up with 5 types of arrays, it costs you 4.1% extra compared to using just 1 type in a pos.


That way, we still don't get any tradeoff between industrial and defensive structures, plus the math could be simpler.

What exactly about what we've proposed do you find inelegant?
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#155 - 2014-06-18 15:02:47 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
That way, we still don't get any tradeoff between industrial and defensive structures, plus the math could be simpler.

What exactly about what we've proposed do you find inelegant?


Thanks for getting back so quickly!

It's not so much in the "(# arrays) * 2%" formulation - that's simple enough and offers a direct incentive to stack up on one type of array.

Rather, the main discomfort is at the prospect of getting that benefit through offlining mods. I know you've said you're looking at it, just wanted to reiterate that this should not be possible, as it's basically a hack, and like most hacks, fairly inelegant. It's also prone to gaming the system - if I wanted three types of arrays, I'd have 13 of each in the pos, run the first job with 13, offline 12, run the second job with 12, offline 11, and then run the last one with 11 and then offline 10, after which I'd set up the dickstar.

The more subtle issue is with the actual aim of this bonus - it's not that we particularly want 13 of a particular array type, but that we want people to have to make tradeoffs and not go for a rainbow fit. Another idea that directly corresponds to less rainbowing is to cause arrays to require more CPU/PG when multiple types are in the same pos.

And yes, the math could certainly be simpler, where we just do a (# array types) * 1% multiplier to essentially get the same effect. I'd initially started to put in the numbers of each types of array too and the exponential was to prevent things getting out of hand. That issue isn't there for a simpler scaling scenario.
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#156 - 2014-06-18 15:15:56 UTC
Surely the simplest solution to offlining array abuse is to tag the job with the number of arrays used when it was started. Then keep it paused if that tower doesn't have that number online, in the same way jobs are paused now when the initial array is offline.

So if my tower has 5 Ammunition Assembly Arrays online when I start a huge batch of ammo, it will become paused if there are ever less than 5 arrays online until that job completes.
Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#157 - 2014-06-18 15:31:31 UTC
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
That way, we still don't get any tradeoff between industrial and defensive structures, plus the math could be simpler.

What exactly about what we've proposed do you find inelegant?


Thanks for getting back so quickly!

It's not so much in the "(# arrays) * 2%" formulation - that's simple enough and offers a direct incentive to stack up on one type of array.

Rather, the main discomfort is at the prospect of getting that benefit through offlining mods. I know you've said you're looking at it, just wanted to reiterate that this should not be possible, as it's basically a hack, and like most hacks, fairly inelegant. It's also prone to gaming the system - if I wanted three types of arrays, I'd have 13 of each in the pos, run the first job with 13, offline 12, run the second job with 12, offline 11, and then run the last one with 11 and then offline 10, after which I'd set up the dickstar.

The more subtle issue is with the actual aim of this bonus - it's not that we particularly want 13 of a particular array type, but that we want people to have to make tradeoffs and not go for a rainbow fit. Another idea that directly corresponds to less rainbowing is to cause arrays to require more CPU/PG when multiple types are in the same pos.

And yes, the math could certainly be simpler, where we just do a (# array types) * 1% multiplier to essentially get the same effect. I'd initially started to put in the numbers of each types of array too and the exponential was to prevent things getting out of hand. That issue isn't there for a simpler scaling scenario.


Or we can live with imperfect but really simple solution while ccp is looking fpr way to block offlining modules.

We really are tslking about shaving off few percent of work cost. Lets wait and see how high this will get.
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#158 - 2014-06-18 15:44:47 UTC
look anyone insane enough to offline/online 25 arrays and like 16 hardeners on a regular basis is insane enough to just stick the tower in a station-free system that has job hours of approximately zero and pay approximately zero install fees

since they're paying approximately zero install fees, they no longer need to do all that effort to save approximately 25% of zero
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#159 - 2014-06-18 15:45:59 UTC
No idea how viable it is, but:

Add a 20 minute online time (but not offline, preferably) to all arrays and labs. Then sure, you can play online/offline shenanigans, but it'd be annoying as hell to do regularly, with large times to do (as you can't online two things at the same time)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#160 - 2014-06-18 16:17:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Retar Aveymone
Steve Ronuken wrote:
No idea how viable it is, but:

Add a 20 minute online time (but not offline, preferably) to all arrays and labs. Then sure, you can play online/offline shenanigans, but it'd be annoying as hell to do regularly, with large times to do (as you can't online two things at the same time)

As someone who occasionally has to put up towers I cannot oppose this idea more strongly (and who has legitimate reasons to offline arrays frequently: on a CSAA tower once you're done with the component construction you offline your component arrays to add hardeners while the CSAA cooks the supercap).

Online times on tower mods are one of the most unfun things in the game to deal with and they should not be made worse at all: I would much rather some highseccers be exploiting the hell out of offline/online shenanigans than make setting up an industry pos become a multi-hour sit around and watch paint dry activity.