These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Dreams: Introducing Engineering Complexes

First post First post First post
Author
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#181 - 2016-10-10 21:27:35 UTC


How can a new players enter the industry gameplay when the basic structure with rigs and modules is going to be well over the 1bil cost, onlining the 3 basic module is going to cost probably 5k blocks (around 100+ mils)
[/quote]

For what has to be the umpteenth time, now: By using OTHER PEOPLE'S STRUCTURES.

Please stop with the insipid implication that you can't even enter industrial play without owning your very own EC. It's ignorant at best, and an unabashed lie, at worst.

Using someone else's POS was generally infeasible because of the lack of personal storage and sufficiently granular permissions. There's no such concern under the new structure model.[/quote]

Because you really going to start a long manufacturing / research job in someone station that can be offlined from a moment to another, on top of being easly destructable and almost impossible to defend?

If i've to choose between a station or your EC, I'll pick the station anyday. These changes are to move people from station or pos to EC, but in this state they'll drive people from pos to station again.[/quote]

Then you should probably choose the structure owned by a group you know can defend it.
If you are otherwise too paranoid to trust other people in even the smallest way. Then use a station.

All structures are going to be better than stations, and are going to come with risks. Either you have to risk having to defend your own structure (god forbid), or you are going to have to trust someone else to be able to defend it.

And if you just can't bring yourself to do either of those things. Use a station and stop bitching, or reconsider why you are paying money to play a game with other people when you refuse to work with any of them.[/quote]

I'm sorry, but in a game that almost give you a medal for awoxing and stealing your friends and corp mate stuff, I'm not going to entrust a random stranger with billions in bpos.

Also like the poster above said... crap trolling mate[/quote]


How are you "entrusting" them with your BPOs? They literally CANNOT steal them under the new structure model, which is what makes public structures feasible in the first place. You can't even lose them if the structure is destroyed (WH space aside).[/quote]



We know that, but you do have to trust them to keep the fuel going and defending it so you don't lose manufactured stuff, or have to start a months and months long research over again.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#182 - 2016-10-10 21:30:40 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Milla Goodpussy wrote:



they didn't even mention the tax or timeframe it would take for a bpo to transfer to the next citadel.. which can easily be taken as they're avoiding really pissing off the fanbase cause asset safety mechanic is scewed up already.


Sure they did. The asset safety system works exactly the same way as Citadels. This was explicitly mentioned in the blog.

Quote:
Both Engineering Complexes and Citadels use the same asset safety system for recovering contents when destroyed or unanchored


So IIRC, that means:

-If there's an NPC station in system, free recovery in 5 days
-No NPC station in system, or if you haven't recovered within 21 days: 15% tax, recovered at a remote NPC station.


Quote:
We know that, but you do have to trust them to keep the fuel going and defending it so you don't lose manufactured stuff, or have to start a months and months long research over again.


Yeah? And? Oh, no, you have to make a decision weighing the benefits and risk of one option against another.

The horror. And, of course, there's absolutely nothing you could ever personally do to address or ameliorate the risks involved, either.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Lorgal Khanid
The Howling Teapot Gang
#183 - 2016-10-10 21:34:36 UTC
This concept of "specialized small complexes" are bad because this specialization does not provide any bonuses, its just a forced restriction.

Problems:
1. Smallest M-EC (Raitaru) just too big (expensive, risky, etc..) for Solo player and too small for the Indy corp of ~5-10 players.
It will not help "small group of industrialists", because the one EC will be not enough for your group. You gonna need a several ECs in order to maximize ME\TE and minerals refining.
Multyple M-EC with specialized rigs setup will cost you as much ISK and time as an L-EC with multi-purpose rigs, so there is no reason for M-EC to exist anywhere in the game.

2. L-EC has the same poblem: XL-EC outshines it, not as much as L-EC outshines M-EC, but still, any "Industrial group" will end up having an XL-EC, no matter what goods they are producing.

If you want this concept to actually work, the more specialiazed versions of riggs must provide actually more ME, TE, etc than the multi-purpose ones.
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
#184 - 2016-10-10 21:36:09 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Justine Musk wrote:


How can a new players enter the industry gameplay when the basic structure with rigs and modules is going to be well over the 1bil cost, onlining the 3 basic module is going to cost probably 5k blocks (around 100+ mils)


For what has to be the umpteenth time, now: By using OTHER PEOPLE'S STRUCTURES.

Please stop with the insipid implication that you can't even enter industrial play without owning your very own EC. It's ignorant at best, and an unabashed lie, at worst.

Using someone else's POS was generally infeasible because of the lack of personal storage and sufficiently granular permissions. There's no such concern under the new structure model.


As a solo industrialist (with 2 account) in a C3 with 2 towers, Rorqual and Chimera.

I am looking forward to you setting up a Fortizar & Large Indy in the wormhole so that I may continue with my existing gameplay by using OTHER PEOPLE'S STRUCTURES
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#185 - 2016-10-10 21:40:22 UTC
How I would change Engineering Complexes to be a little more flexible:


  1. Provide more fitting slots than a citadel
  2. Provide less CPU, PG than a citadel
  3. Ensure that assembly arrays and labs can be paused at any time without damaging the work in progress
  4. Allow the station operator to offline and online modules at will
  5. Add a DPS floor set at 20% of the DPS cap, meaning that if incoming DPS drops too low the repair timer will not pause. No plinking away with a stealth bomber or cloaky recon, keeping the repair timer active while dealing 200 DPS for half a day waiting for your corp mates to wake up and attend the structure bash
  6. If not a DPS floor, add a repair cap allowing hull, armour, shields to be repaired but limiting incoming repairs to a certain amount of HP/second
  7. Add a hard repair timer of one hour starting from the end of the vulnerability window so that an attacker can't keep the station vulnerable for up to 24 hours from the vulnerability window by simply shooting the structure with a small fleet until the defender has to go to work/bed


This will at least allow the EC (which is much more valuable than a citadel in terms of strategic worth) to be treated like a POS. We can have it bristling with offensive and defensive systems, along with all those lovely labs and activity lines, and offline the weapons while focussed on industry. Then when under attack we can offline the industry modules and online the weapon systems.

Add a rig or module which will reduce the vulnerability window. Seriously, the structure with the smaller HP has the larger vulnerability window? Why?

Provide meaningful gameplay, encourage structure owners to be active during the structure's vulnerability window.

At the very least it should be possible for the owner of a small EC in hisec to e.g.: online enough hardeners to reduce the incoming DPS from a 12 battleship fleet to the point that the repair timer will start again, while maintaining reps on their own fleet to try and drive off the attackers.

Previous discussion about work to prevent a repair timer being indefinitely prolonged:


That's all I could find, a suggestion that maybe CCP will look at a DPS floor set to a percentage of the structure HP. Please let me know if there has been more discussion that I have simply not seen.
Justine Musk
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation
#186 - 2016-10-10 21:43:00 UTC
Tipa Riot wrote:
Disappointed, you just throw the same mechanics working fine for citadels on the industry structures, which do not fit here. You know, the index prevents people from banding together and share resources ...



Nobody quoted or noticed this.

The index system was thought and presented because they wanted "nomadic industries", something that now it's impossible with 24h anchoring time and i guess the same 7 days unanchoring.

So even if you anchor a structure, open it to the pubblic to cover the fuel cost the more the people use your facility the less it's going to be desirable, since the index is going to rise.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to mix an almost static system of deploying EC with the actual dynamic cost index system.
Justine Musk
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation
#187 - 2016-10-10 21:51:43 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
How I would change Engineering Complexes to be a little more flexible:


  1. Provide more fitting slots than a citadel
  2. Provide less CPU, PG than a citadel
  3. Ensure that assembly arrays and labs can be paused at any time without damaging the work in progress
  4. Allow the station operator to offline and online modules at will
  5. Add a DPS floor set at 20% of the DPS cap, meaning that if incoming DPS drops too low the repair timer will not pause. No plinking away with a stealth bomber or cloaky recon, keeping the repair timer active while dealing 200 DPS for half a day waiting for your corp mates to wake up and attend the structure bash
  6. If not a DPS floor, add a repair cap allowing hull, armour, shields to be repaired but limiting incoming repairs to a certain amount of HP/second
  7. Add a hard repair timer of one hour starting from the end of the vulnerability window so that an attacker can't keep the station vulnerable for up to 24 hours from the vulnerability window by simply shooting the structure with a small fleet until the defender has to go to work/bed


This will at least allow the EC (which is much more valuable than a citadel in terms of strategic worth) to be treated like a POS. We can have it bristling with offensive and defensive systems, along with all those lovely labs and activity lines, and offline the weapons while focussed on industry. Then when under attack we can offline the industry modules and online the weapon systems.

Add a rig or module which will reduce the vulnerability window. Seriously, the structure with the smaller HP has the larger vulnerability window? Why?

Provide meaningful gameplay, encourage structure owners to be active during the structure's vulnerability window.

At the very least it should be possible for the owner of a small EC in hisec to e.g.: online enough hardeners to reduce the incoming DPS from a 12 battleship fleet to the point that the repair timer will start again, while maintaining reps on their own fleet to try and drive off the attackers.

Previous discussion about work to prevent a repair timer being indefinitely prolonged:


That's all I could find, a suggestion that maybe CCP will look at a DPS floor set to a percentage of the structure HP. Please let me know if there has been more discussion that I have simply not seen.

Knitram Relik
Atomic Amish
#188 - 2016-10-10 21:53:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Knitram Relik
Question and comment:

Question - Building freighters, Orcas, Bowheads, and Jumpfreighters. Will this require a capital shipyard or can we use a Manufacturing plant? Those ships can currently be built in a Large Ship Array and I wonder if that will carry over.

Comment - It seems there's nothing comparable to the Thukker array and the bonuses one gets from it. Am I missing something?

"The problem with quotes on the internet is that it's really hard to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln

Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
#189 - 2016-10-10 21:56:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Irregessa
There are separate rigs for ammunition/charges/scripts vs fuel blocks (which are part of the structural components) all the up to the XL Engineering complex. Will I really need two different rigs to manufacture boost charges and fuel blocks in the same Engineering Complex and get a bonus to TE/ME?
Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
#190 - 2016-10-10 21:59:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Althalus Stenory
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

How are you "entrusting" them with your BPOs? They literally CANNOT steal them under the new structure model, which is what makes public structures feasible in the first place. You can't even lose them if the structure is destroyed (WH space aside).

With asset safety, you'll only recover the BPO, and it's not what's "in risk" (even if you pay to recover it), but it's everything around if the jobs work as they currently are: material components used for jobs. You'll lose them in many case you cannot "choose": structure offline, destruction, access rights and trust around these.
I mean choose, because when you / your corp own a structure, you are able (at least, more than if you don't own it, compared to EC) to deal with your job if you are at war, attacked etc. You'll lose isks too, for sure, but it'll be your choice between "trying to keep the job running" and "stop it now and be sure you'll not have any problems"

Angela Zelin wrote:
There is risk involved in doing things in eve. If you want higher rewards, higher risk comes with that.
Where are those "higher rewards", because there are none with the current structures bonuses. (I'm not considering 0.8% material bonus compared to POS is a "higher reward" considering the price behind and the trust required).

This mechanics works really well with citadels, but it won't with EC, because currently it's not "switching from POS to structures", it's "forcing people to renounce to some... way to play".
You cannot use "everyone's structures" everytime, and especially everywhere. I don't believe everypeople in 0.0 will have "shared" EC. neither will those who live in WH.

EsiPy - Python 2.7 / 3.3+ Swagger Client based on pyswagger for ESI

menscortator
Judas Disciples
#191 - 2016-10-10 22:05:13 UTC
Im a bit confused. With all the bonuses to ME from rigs, will the complex be more effective at manufacturing stuff than standard POS? To be specific, will I be able to build T3 stuff cheaper in the complex than Im able now at my POS? Reactions excluded, just component and subsystem manufacturing
Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
#192 - 2016-10-10 22:09:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Althalus Stenory
menscortator wrote:
Im a bit confused. With all the bonuses to ME from rigs, will the complex be more effective at manufacturing stuff than standard POS? To be specific, will I be able to build T3 stuff cheaper in the complex than Im able now at my POS? Reactions excluded, just component and subsystem manufacturing

POS have a base 2% ME bonus in all array (edit: except subsystem assembly array, lol). The current EC will have 2.4/2.88% (T1/T2 rigs) base bonus (in highsec, more if lower) if you have all required rigs, so yes, you will be able to manufacture your T3 stuff cheaper

EsiPy - Python 2.7 / 3.3+ Swagger Client based on pyswagger for ESI

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#193 - 2016-10-10 22:11:07 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Althalus Stenory wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

How are you "entrusting" them with your BPOs? They literally CANNOT steal them under the new structure model, which is what makes public structures feasible in the first place. You can't even lose them if the structure is destroyed (WH space aside).

With asset safety, you'll only recover the BPO, and it's not what's "in risk" (even if you pay to recover it), but it's everything around if the jobs work as they currently are: material components used for jobs. You'll lose them in many case you cannot "choose": structure offline, destruction, access rights and trust around these.



Yes, I'm aware. That's all completely irrelevant in the context of what I responded to, because the person I was responding to was specifically complaining about having to entrust their BPOs.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#194 - 2016-10-10 22:12:44 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
A big part of the game of manufacturing revolves around working towards maximum efficiency. Max efficiency reduces cost and maximises profit.

This is not something that people worry about when fitting rigs to ships. People are happy to accept a trade off.

Yet here, 3 rig slots each structure and 400 calibration, yet all t2 rigs require 150 calibration.

This is really saying, you can only maximise efficiency on 2 things, and not quite on another.

What's the thinking behind this restriction? Why not let us work to maximise what we can in 1 structure, rather than not be possible?

It seems like yet another gimp of industrial gameplay for no real reason. The more I look at this devblog, the worse it looks for small groups and solo play.
You're reasoning for ships is a bit off. People fit ships around function realizing that doing it all means not doing any one thing exceptionally well. You pick a task or somewhat narrow series of tasks and spec out for that. That IS fitting for efficiency, and needing to give up flexibility for it rather than have both without issue.

And it looks like that's the point here to some extent.

Rigs don't specialise the task on a ship. The ship hull and its bonuses do. Rigs just add slightly greater efficiency in some area based on fitting. They aren't designed on a ship, to be the efficiency.

Here, in relation to manufacturing rigs are the total customisation for the efficiency, which is a huge part of the industrial game, but is gimped here.
The bonuses point it in a direction rather than specialty. Some work out such that the bonuses determine that specialty since the bonuses are all that make it work but not always. And even then you can push things between rigs and mods (do I push a secondary aspect [tank/fitting] or throw everything into max performance on a single metric [DPS/hauling capacity/range/etc])

Either way with industry efficiency is all you have. So you still have only 2 ways of doing things. Limit the amount you can do, which went out the window with the industry changes, or limit the ability to seek specific efficiencies.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#195 - 2016-10-10 22:13:27 UTC
Iowa Banshee wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Justine Musk wrote:


How can a new players enter the industry gameplay when the basic structure with rigs and modules is going to be well over the 1bil cost, onlining the 3 basic module is going to cost probably 5k blocks (around 100+ mils)


For what has to be the umpteenth time, now: By using OTHER PEOPLE'S STRUCTURES.

Please stop with the insipid implication that you can't even enter industrial play without owning your very own EC. It's ignorant at best, and an unabashed lie, at worst.

Using someone else's POS was generally infeasible because of the lack of personal storage and sufficiently granular permissions. There's no such concern under the new structure model.


As a solo industrialist (with 2 account) in a C3 with 2 towers, Rorqual and Chimera.

I am looking forward to you setting up a Fortizar & Large Indy in the wormhole so that I may continue with my existing gameplay by using OTHER PEOPLE'S STRUCTURES


The reason people quote what they're responding to is to provide context for their response.

I've now underlined an important contextual element that you opted to ignore. As a solo industrialist in a C3 with 2 towers, a Rorqual, and Chimera, you're not a new player.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Arronicus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#196 - 2016-10-10 22:14:26 UTC
Cyno McLongNeck wrote:
Arronicus wrote:
Whoever on CCP thought it was a good idea to implement the structure showing when a a super is in build seriously needs to have their employment with the company reconsidered. Like many others, I am a big fan of there being proportional risk to reward, things like having rorquals in teh belt mining, ganglinks being on grid, level 5 mission runners not being unprobe-able, etc, but this is just stupid.
Spies are everywhere, people fly through every system. Under the current meta, you protect your super builds through two ways

1: secrecy. The SSAAs do not have any visual indicator that something is being built, so as long as corp leadership keeps tight lips, no one should know when something is actually in build

2: diversions: by deploying 15+ SSAA decoy pos's, it becomes a guessing game for attackers, not only making it much more annoying to blow up the real one, but making it far more time consuming, providing batphones much more time to get the bats in

Additionally, SSAAs do not show up in local. I'm not advocating for this, but paired with the visual for a titan being built, it makes things FAR, far riskier

The fact that this must have been brought up with the CSM, and didn't draw enough criticism to yield change concerns me. This is a change making it so only a select few super alliances will actually be able to build supers, without paying hefty fees to protection alliances.


So...what you are saying is that you want to build the most powerful ships in the game in complete safety?


No, I'm saying that having a giant 'KILL ME' sign painted on the front of the structure any time there is a supercapital build going on is toxic to the ability of any smaller group to produce a super. This wasn't the case before, this is something completely new. It's fine that they're moving supercap production to a 30 billion isk structure, that shows up on the overview, even though that adds far more isk on top of the current system, but on top of that, a big 'we're building a super' sign is completely unnecessary, while doing nothing to stop production by the entities that already have tons of them.
Angela Zelin
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#197 - 2016-10-10 22:15:03 UTC
Althalus Stenory wrote:
menscortator wrote:
Im a bit confused. With all the bonuses to ME from rigs, will the complex be more effective at manufacturing stuff than standard POS? To be specific, will I be able to build T3 stuff cheaper in the complex than Im able now at my POS? Reactions excluded, just component and subsystem manufacturing

POS have a base 2% ME bonus in all array. The current EC will have 2.4/2.88% (T1/T2 rigs) base bonus (in highsec, more if lower) if you have all required rigs


So.. a 44% increase in effectiveness is not significant?
Either, If it were me, and it will be. Using someone elses structure in highsec, will be no less than a large.

Everyone is focusing on the mediums here like they are going to be the end all be all of highsec industry.
Once large's start going up they are going to have pretty nice stats.
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#198 - 2016-10-10 22:16:23 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
How I would change Engineering Complexes to be a little more flexible:


  1. Add a DPS floor set at 20% of the DPS cap, meaning that if incoming DPS drops too low the repair timer will not pause. No plinking away with a stealth bomber or cloaky recon, keeping the repair timer active while dealing 200 DPS for half a day waiting for your corp mates to wake up and attend the structure bash
  2. If not a DPS floor, add a repair cap allowing hull, armour, shields to be repaired but limiting incoming repairs to a certain amount of HP/second
  3. Add a hard repair timer of one hour starting from the end of the vulnerability window so that an attacker can't keep the station vulnerable for up to 24 hours from the vulnerability window by simply shooting the structure with a small fleet until the defender has to go to work/bed


That's all I could find, a suggestion that maybe CCP will look at a DPS floor set to a percentage of the structure HP. Please let me know if there has been more discussion that I have simply not seen.


Uh there's already a dps floor of 10% needed to pause the repair timer. They can't be held indefinitely.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#199 - 2016-10-10 22:18:25 UTC
Justine Musk wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
Disappointed, you just throw the same mechanics working fine for citadels on the industry structures, which do not fit here. You know, the index prevents people from banding together and share resources ...



Nobody quoted or noticed this.

The index system was thought and presented because they wanted "nomadic industries", something that now it's impossible with 24h anchoring time and i guess the same 7 days unanchoring.

So even if you anchor a structure, open it to the pubblic to cover the fuel cost the more the people use your facility the less it's going to be desirable, since the index is going to rise.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to mix an almost static system of deploying EC with the actual dynamic cost index system.

It still works from a point of decentralization, even if not making people actually move due to the structures themselves.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#200 - 2016-10-10 22:25:58 UTC
Justine Musk wrote:


The index system was thought and presented because they wanted "nomadic industries",



The index system was conceived to discourage everyone-builds-in-Amarr-and-Jita mass centralization when slots were removed. That isn't quite the same thing as encouraging nomadic production, which was more of a side effect of system indices combined with highly portable starbases.


"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/