These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Starbase changes for Crius

First post First post
Author
Theodore Knox
Ducks in Outer Space
#81 - 2014-06-16 17:55:14 UTC
Vodka Tequila wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Theodore Knox wrote:
Does the Assembly Array stacking bonus apply to arrays of only one type, or can you mix and match in each category? e.g. will i need 13 Medium Ship Assembly Arrays, or can I have 12 MSAAs and 1 Advanced to get the same bonus to jobs in the advanced array?


They stack within the same category.


That is not bad.
But may i suggest you increase cost reduction per structure for Small ship assembley arrays and Component/Equipment arrays. The total bonus should stay the same as in devblog, but there won't be a requirement to anchor 27 and 50 arrays. It seams to me, there are not many manufacturers (if any), who currently use so many arrays of these types on the same POS.

And would you be so kind to clarify, would the offline structures count towards the bonus or not.


The max bonus seems to based on a tower with max number of arrays in the same category. If you reduce the bonus per array, you open the possibility of getting better bonuses across a broader range of activities.

Seems like they want each pos to specialize to get the best saving.
Pic'n dor
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2014-06-16 17:58:09 UTC
Letto Atreides wrote:
Stacking Multiple Arrays in the POS is going to be such a clickfest.

Example: if i want max boost for research that's 13 labs.
1. 13 times to anchor
2. 13 times to online/offline if i want to change to other types of arrays
3. 13x7 (corp hanger divisions) = 91 divisions, which are unsearchable from assets tab, where my that bpc copy that was just delivered may be hiding, etc etc

It would be much better if we could just anchor one array and then upgrade it using some mix of isk and materials like we do with POCOs or in PI command centers. It could still take up the same power/cpu as 13 individual arrays but it wouldn't be a management nightmare.



+1 clickfest >>> you make S&I more complicated than before and far less newcomers friendly (those experienced builders will burn the margins..)

Upgrading labs and arrays or even "rig" style them > destroyed upon unanchoring... anything that cost time and money to get and is worth to have but no click fest... you wanted S&I to be more productive, intuitive etc (think of the redo job you made)...

91 division unsolvable dilemma >>> http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/a75RVNb_460sa.gif

COUCOU TOUCHE TOUCHE

Theodore Knox
Ducks in Outer Space
#83 - 2014-06-16 18:00:26 UTC
probag Bear wrote:
Theodore Knox wrote:


When I want to switch back and forth between them, that's a lot of off-lining and on-lining to do, unless I sink more isk into pos costs and get me a second large tower - destroying my margins further. And then my head starts to hurt, because I'm trying to work out, how many jobs at 25% lpwer install cost am I going to need to run to break even on the pos fuel costs.

Have you any idea how cluttered my tower is going to be? I make it 63 assembly arrays alone... This is a profoundly messy game mechanic.


No one is forcing you to take advantage of this mechanic. Especially since this mechanic isn't meant to be for "small scale" manufacturers; it's meant to somewhat preserve the current balance for large-scale manufacturers. If you don't already have multiple POSes up, you are not going to be particularly affected by the install cost changes.


"No one" except the inexorable tug of market forces. Blink

I'm not too bothered by small players getting squeezed out the market, though. This is just another example of the shoddy POS code forcing, frankly, poor game play options.

E.g. Could we get the option to online / offline multiple assembly arrays, instead of one at a time? That won't affect combat mechanics, but it will save a lot of needless RSI-inducing mouse clicks.
Theodore Knox
Ducks in Outer Space
#84 - 2014-06-16 18:03:56 UTC
Letto Atreides wrote:
Stacking Multiple Arrays in the POS is going to be such a clickfest.

Example: if i want max boost for research that's 13 labs.
1. 13 times to anchor
2. 13 times to online/offline if i want to change to other types of arrays
3. 13x7 (corp hanger divisions) = 91 divisions, which are unsearchable from assets tab, where my that bpc copy that was just delivered may be hiding, etc etc

It would be much better if we could just anchor one array and then upgrade it using some mix of isk and materials like we do with POCOs or in PI command centers. It could still take up the same power/cpu as 13 individual arrays but it wouldn't be a management nightmare.


+1

See my previous post.

I understand the mechanics of why up to 50 modules need to be used to get max bonus (forcing extreme specialisation) but can CCP at least admit this is a temporary mechanic, as POS code is due to get a huge overhaul soon, or in the mid-term future.

Introducing a click-fest when you've just taken one away in industry is not a net win.
Theodore Knox
Ducks in Outer Space
#85 - 2014-06-16 18:10:46 UTC
Chris Winter wrote:
Why does it cost to build things at a POS? I built the POS, I'm paying for fuel for it, why am I getting charged again to manufacture things?


There needs to be an ISK sink in every game activity, to spread the sinking of ISK evenly. Wouldn't want one category of player complaining about how other's get off scot-free, would we?

Or are you asking for a "back story" reason? Ugh
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#86 - 2014-06-16 18:13:56 UTC
Myxx wrote:
Quote:
Timed restriction to anchor Control Towers

Newly formed corporations will need to wait 7 days before being able to anchor Starbases. This is to inhibit players from immediately moving Starbase assets to another corporation if under a war declaration.


The clever among us have pre-formed alt corporations. All this will do is make it so that alt corporations are formed far ahead of time for this specific purpose of avoiding the timer. Its mildly idiotic to have that restriction with that in mind. All you're doing is being an annoyance.

Edit: Also, dickstars. oh gods the dickstars...

the clever among you are wasting approximately 200-250m a month per altcorp on an alt wasted in a holding corporation

not sure clever is the word you're looking for there
Ereshgikal
Wharf Crusaders
#87 - 2014-06-16 18:15:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ereshgikal
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:
Ereshgikal wrote:
Qoi wrote:
Quote:
Whole and single items will not be affected by this calculation. This is most relevant for Tech I items required to manufacture Tech II variations. For example, building 10 Paladins will not require 9 Apocalypse if you have a 10% ME.


You just brought extra materials back. Roll

What exactly is a "whole and single" item? (in term of invTypeMaterials and ramTypeRequirements?)

I thought you wanted to simplify the material calculations. What?


My take is that a job consisting of X number of runs will require at least X number of units of each component; but I am not sure. The "whole" part makes me think that if a run requires 2.000000 units (not rounded, but "whole") of stuff then 20 runs need 40 units of stuff regardless of ME, but since that is quite a big difference from 36 units of stuff when running with 10% ME....argh, my head hurts.

Clarification from CCP is certainly needed. :)


the example given right in the same paragraph is very clear -- for tech II items the tech I component needed will alway match in number to the number of final items.

How could "For example, building 10 Paladins will not require 9 Apocalypse if you have a 10% ME." be any less than clear? You will alway need the 10 Apocalypses - one ship won't materialize out of thin air without a base item.

A module example: "For example, building 10 Damage Control IIs will not require 9 Damage Control Is if you have a 10% ME."


Yes, the example given is clear. However, the phrase "whole and single" can be interpreted several ways. One way is that only fractional parts of a certain material will be affected by scaling the number of runs. For example, one run uses 2 units of Toiletpaper, with 10% ME bonus this becomes 1.8 units of Toiletpaper, rounded up to closest integer (2). Working with 10 runs this becomes 18 units of Toiletpaper. This is what we expect.

A second way to interpret this is that there are materials/components (beyond T1 version in T2 BPC) that behave like the old extra materials.

Also, it is worth pointing out if it is only the T1 version component in a T2 blueprint that behaves like this; or if there are other materials.

Will 1 morphite as input for 1 Blargh turn into 9 or 10 units of morphite when build 10 units of Blargh?

Swap "whole and single" to "lowest amount of any material needed (after applying all bonuses) will always be equal to the number of runs". And maaybe add "Really, this only impacts T1 versions used as input for their T2 counterparts"...unless, it is not true.

Edit: Edited for clarity and added a suggested phrase.
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#88 - 2014-06-16 18:21:40 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Chribba wrote:
Arrgh dem starbases!

... Veldqual, you shall never compress again Sad

Structure cost scaling - I will have to pay tax at my own starbase? (Haven't followed the discussion on this)

/c


You have to pay the installation (or build) cost where ever you install jobs.

There's an additional 10% tax on top of that for NPC stations.

So, not only will I put out a lot of ISK building a POS with modules, I'm getting taxed on my own production in my own POS (eg tax that is paid to SCC or something)? That sounds stupid...

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar

Anders Madeveda
Usque Ad Mortem
#89 - 2014-06-16 18:24:44 UTC
Congratulations CCP, in your quest to REDUCE the amount of clicks required by Industrialists in the game, you have created a Golem of clicks in the form of stacking arrays for discounts. Just when I thought you were on the right track you pull defeat from the jaws of victory.
Meizu Kho
Kho Incorporated
The Lone Space Wolves
#90 - 2014-06-16 18:28:57 UTC
concerning the online/offline workarounds for the build cost bonus i would like to remind CCP off what they once told us:

no matter how boring, tedious or time consuming an activity is, if it's the most efficient/safest way of doing it, the players will do it.

If you allow people to take advantage of a 26% build cost advantage without having to risk 13 arrays of the same type because they can offline and unancher then during the job they will do it. they will get freighters with 12 arrays ready and do it every job.

I don't mind the bonus but i do if you can dodge the risk.
Aliventi
Southern Cross Silver Shields
Flying Dangerous
#91 - 2014-06-16 18:39:23 UTC
Is there a way to allow the Thukker Component Assembly Array to be anchored in NPC nullsec that does not get the benefits of being SOV nullsec?
Bessa Miros
#92 - 2014-06-16 18:48:43 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Querns wrote:
Could I ask for some clarification on one point? I don't think I fully understand the change to Supply Chain Management (SCM) and Scientific Networking. Are you removing the regional restriction for starting RAM jobs remotely? For example, if I had SCM trained to 1, could I start a job in Muvolailen (The Citadel) from Jita (The Forge)?


Yes, regional limits are being removed. The new skills will just check for jump distance between blueprint and yourself.

really love this. If you could make markets work this way too I'd be really really happy.
Arronicus
Madness Unchained
#93 - 2014-06-16 18:50:43 UTC
timm mmah wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
The screenshot for the Thukker array says you can build T2 components and T3 components in it. The dev blog says capital & advanced capital only. Can you confirm which is correct?


Thukker Component Assembly Array will only be able to build Capital and Advanced Capital Components, description is being fixed, thanks for pointing that out citizen.


Can you confirm they will only be allowed to be anchored in lowsec and not nullsec?


Dude, just read the dev blog:

As we mentioned some time ago, we are also going to introduce a new type of Component Assembly Array to help low-security Capital ship builders to compete with the reprocessing changes.
This structure will give 25% reduction in manufacturing time, 10% reduction in manufacturing required materials and may only be anchored in low-security solar systems.

It's incredibly clear to anyone interested in building capital ships that it will ONLY be anchorable in lowsec.

The picture of it even says "Restricted to security level greater than 0.1"
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Dracarys.
#94 - 2014-06-16 18:51:20 UTC
Arronicus
Madness Unchained
#95 - 2014-06-16 18:52:29 UTC
Chribba wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Chribba wrote:
Arrgh dem starbases!

... Veldqual, you shall never compress again Sad

Structure cost scaling - I will have to pay tax at my own starbase? (Haven't followed the discussion on this)

/c


You have to pay the installation (or build) cost where ever you install jobs.

There's an additional 10% tax on top of that for NPC stations.

So, not only will I put out a lot of ISK building a POS with modules, I'm getting taxed on my own production in my own POS (eg tax that is paid to SCC or something)? That sounds stupid...


NPC stations. Not POS, NPC stations. There's an additional 10% tax on NPC station jobs.
Arronicus
Madness Unchained
#96 - 2014-06-16 18:54:02 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
really happy i didn't train that rorq pilot


CCP has mentioned some 'big change' for rorquals that should motivate pilots to fly them beyond just running ganglinks from a pos, including some incentive to actually put the ship in the belt. Sounds pretty ambitious, and I'm expecting something completely underwhelming, but hopefully I'm wrong.
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Dracarys.
#97 - 2014-06-16 18:59:16 UTC
I could still go ahead and train the spaceship command skills in the future. I like the Rorq too, and spider tank battle Rorqs is something i'd like to try.
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#98 - 2014-06-16 19:04:03 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
Chribba wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Chribba wrote:
Arrgh dem starbases!

... Veldqual, you shall never compress again Sad

Structure cost scaling - I will have to pay tax at my own starbase? (Haven't followed the discussion on this)

/c


You have to pay the installation (or build) cost where ever you install jobs.

There's an additional 10% tax on top of that for NPC stations.

So, not only will I put out a lot of ISK building a POS with modules, I'm getting taxed on my own production in my own POS (eg tax that is paid to SCC or something)? That sounds stupid...


NPC stations. Not POS, NPC stations. There's an additional 10% tax on NPC station jobs.

Which is why I was asking because this doesn't make sense to me then:

"In practice, this means that stacking 13 Medium Ship Assembly, Advanced Medium Assembly or Subsystem Assembly Arrays will reduce the total cost to start a manufacturing job at any of those structures by 26%."

So if there is no tax at my own POS - what's the deal with the bonus that gives me a reduction to cost? Or did I mistake that for like mineral reduction cost?

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar

Bridgette d'Iberville
Better Killing Through Chemistry
#99 - 2014-06-16 19:19:32 UTC
Chribba wrote:
"In practice, this means that stacking 13 Medium Ship Assembly, Advanced Medium Assembly or Subsystem Assembly Arrays will reduce the total cost to start a manufacturing job at any of those structures by 26%."

So if there is no tax at my own POS - what's the deal with the bonus that gives me a reduction to cost? Or did I mistake that for like mineral reduction cost?


Reading through this thread, it appears that POS jobs will have an ISK-sink/payment to NPC cost requirement per job. I believe the multiple arrays will reduce that cost.

Jobs that are run at an NPC station will have an additional 10% tax added on to the total job cost as well as not being able to benefit from the multiple array bonus.

"I considered a career in griefing, but then realized that I would never achieve the level of tear generation that CCP manages to do each and every expansion."

Letto Atreides
Still Water Intergalactic Holdings
#100 - 2014-06-16 19:20:39 UTC
Meizu Kho wrote:
concerning the online/offline workarounds for the build cost bonus i would like to remind CCP off what they once told us:

no matter how boring, tedious or time consuming an activity is, if it's the most efficient/safest way of doing it, the players will do it.

If you allow people to take advantage of a 26% build cost advantage without having to risk 13 arrays of the same type because they can offline and unancher then during the job they will do it. they will get freighters with 12 arrays ready and do it every job.

I don't mind the bonus but i do if you can dodge the risk.


In an earlier post I mentioned the idea of changing from 13 arrays to a single array that had to be upgraded (13 times). This mechanic would prevent the hack you are describing here.