These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#241 - 2016-10-11 07:01:20 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Winter Archipelago wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Nonsense about bringing back limited industry lines.

Limited industry lines were awful, and going back to them would be as foolish as bringing back Learning Skills.


It worked wonderfully before: want more lines, build more POSes. Expenses scaled to demands, and there was no messing around with nonsense "industry indexes". Industry indexes are going to mess things up for non-NPC industry snce the more industry you do, the more expensive it becomes to do your industry.

Need to say 'industry index' never made any sense.

'production line' is a thing in RL. Even in virtual world of processors you can have only so many threads per core running 'simultaneously' because of context switching. To run more of threads you need to add physical cores.
So having such limitation for industry makes sense.

'industry index' on the other hand is more like renting. You have offer and demand and this balance creates the price. Using this system to industry? Shocked

The worst thing was when 'industry index' increased expenses even when you use your own POSWhat? (i could be mistaken here for sure)

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

ShadowFirestar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#242 - 2016-10-11 07:06:00 UTC  |  Edited by: ShadowFirestar
Id think it be interesting to set the array range from a citadel as half of the citadels lock range. Then set the arrays range from another array to double its locks range. Then the citadels would make more sense for defense and offense.




The give would be sync any invul timers for all arrays and citadels with in a fields range.


So say to kill the array you must first reinforce the citadel that the array is linked to.

You have to pick one citadel as your home citadel on that field so you would not be able to just chain arrays and citadels. Maybe make it to where your home citadel gets the reduced range requirements and any other would still have to be 1000k away and any array tied to it would also get the reduced range requirements.

Then this give you options on how many citadels and arrays you have in this configurations. While being able to mix and mach different sizes of citadels and arrays into cities.

or

Another crazier idea make it so citadels can pull in any ship within 1500k range

You could either try to kill the array or reinforce the citadel first. If you ignor the citadel it starts to pull you into its range till your on top of it.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#243 - 2016-10-11 07:24:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
March rabbit wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Winter Archipelago wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Nonsense about bringing back limited industry lines.

Limited industry lines were awful, and going back to them would be as foolish as bringing back Learning Skills.


It worked wonderfully before: want more lines, build more POSes. Expenses scaled to demands, and there was no messing around with nonsense "industry indexes". Industry indexes are going to mess things up for non-NPC industry snce the more industry you do, the more expensive it becomes to do your industry.

Need to say 'industry index' never made any sense.

'production line' is a thing in RL. Even in virtual world of processors you can have only so many threads per core running 'simultaneously' because of context switching. To run more of threads you need to add physical cores.
So having such limitation for industry makes sense.

'industry index' on the other hand is more like renting. You have offer and demand and this balance creates the price. Using this system to industry? Shocked

The worst thing was when 'industry index' increased expenses even when you use your own POSWhat? (i could be mistaken here for sure)

Didn't the idea change to one of hiring NPCs as labor for production needs? Not sure how that's intended to get around physical production line limits but much like our ships are in lore manned why wouldn't a POS be?

Which isn't to say it was good to include POS production but seemed to be the reasoning.
Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#244 - 2016-10-11 07:44:22 UTC
One of the problems is, that people mostly only talk to people in their corp.
What about "research/production as a service"? So you can rent production/invention capacity as a small scale industrial and you get together with others without needing to be in the same corp.
The asset safety works the same as in citadels so you can shoot down a Engineering complex like a citadel to get at your BPOs or materials if you get excluded. Or there could be some mechanic, that the owner can prevent you from starting new jobs and a revocation of docking right gets into effect 24h after the last job finishes. This way you can get your things out if you have a disagreement with the owner.
Pretentious Knob
Silhouette Services
#245 - 2016-10-11 07:56:23 UTC
CCP really appreciate what you are trying to do. I dont agree with many aspects and have learnt that you guys will do what ever you wish. Sometimes to the detriment of EVE, sometimes for the better. Finding that balance.

In regards to these changes I offer my comments and have one question.

As the new replaces the old I was hoping to see minor differences in functionality, bonus, fuel, survivability and cost. This does not appear to be the case.

So my question is. Why not use a modular design? We have it for tech 3 cruisers. This would have been a great opportunity to shine in this aspect. Eventually EVE space is going to be littered with many structures that appear on overview, all looking the same.
Rabbit P
Nuwa Foundation
Fraternity.
#246 - 2016-10-11 07:59:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Rabbit P
question about building Freighter. and fuel cost


dev blog state that Standup Manufacturing Plant I can manufacturing everything expect capital ship.

do we need a Standup Capital Shipyard I to build Freighter , Jump Freighter (and Orca, bowhead)?


Nowadays we can use just one POS, around 30 block/hr, to run many different industry job (research, copy, component manufacture, capital and supercap manufacture )
but i need about 100 block/hr when using the new structure?
Croc Evil
Croc's Family Business
#247 - 2016-10-11 08:18:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Croc Evil
As of great summary up this page:
Winter Archipelago wrote:
Just a little bit of number-crunching here:
...

With current fuel consumption proposal and medium EC cost, this statement in blog is ridiculous:
Quote:
We believe that the Raitaru will represent an extremely popular form of structure for all kinds of activities.

Unless some very much popular industrial system has all of his moon taken by Starbases, nobody would've any reason to put up EC in highsec system for industry. You just need medium tower to have everything ECs offer in highsec with all bonuses at 66% compared to EC but at one place for 20 fuel blocks.

  1. As stated in post above, fuel costs is so high that even medium ECs are not cost effective for small player groups.
  2. Logistics hassle to manufacture anything in optimal way would be pretty hard: to just find and plan all material distribution and inter parts transport between several locations will be PITA even for largest industrialist groups.
  3. Proposed ECs are very vulnerable. Starbases are possible to get attacked any time but it is possible to dismantle and then set them up pretty fast and even when in reinforced state or when coming out of it you have time to save all/most of facilities and content

Proposed ECs are no fun factor added to the game. They are just boring and sterile factor added.

My suggestion for some improvements:

  1. Fuel cost for services (at least for highsec deployable) cut in half. This will bring fuel consumption after bonuses to the level comparable to medium starbases.
  2. Cost of T1 EC rigs around 1mil to allow cost effective changes in complex focus for those enjoying various activity and business field exploration.
  3. Cost of T2 EC rigs 10-20mil to not make highly focused EC juicy target and to make acceptable option to dismantle EC.
  4. Allow (at least medium) EC to be dismantled in 24h and regardless of wardec. This will allow smaller groups to avoid some loses when confronted with bigger groups. There will be enough loses just from cancelled jobs in such cases.

Such changes IMO make ECs competitive choice over Starbases and offer different approach/focus compared to Citadels.
Anthar Thebess
#248 - 2016-10-11 08:30:37 UTC
RainReaper wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Will jobs pause during the reinforce timers?
I can reinforce someone citadel just to make him unable to produce for a week?


Well, if you take them down into structure then all services automaticaly go offline. So I would say that yes. But you have to first go through shields and then armor for this.


Defensive capabilities of higsec structures will be much lower than citadels.
If you put this structure - then all your alts will build in it.
Keeping this structure constantly reinforced give you unique possibility to keep someone production slots blocked for a very long time, unless he will cancel his jobs.

Doing this to M class fab, will be much easier than to typical higsec S or M pos that have guns and hards.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#249 - 2016-10-11 08:42:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Didn't the idea change to one of hiring NPCs as labor for production needs? Not sure how that's intended to get around physical production line limits but much like our ships are in lore manned why wouldn't a POS be?

Which isn't to say it was good to include POS production but seemed to be the reasoning.


"Teams" were scrapped because the concept was fundamentally flawed.

Stuff about teams:


The feature lasted most of a year, and at the time many of us congratulated CCP on having the courage to try a new idea and pull it when they realised it was a mistake.

The System Cost Index is less flawed, and somewhat addresses an issue with NPC stations that I would have addressed a slightly different (but equally convoluted) way if I was king. AFAIK it also applies to player-owned infrastructure, so the more industry you do in your new expensive Engineering Complex, the more expensive it will become.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#250 - 2016-10-11 08:51:01 UTC
Croc Evil wrote:

Proposed ECs are no fun factor added to the game. They are just boring and sterile factor added.

My suggestion for some improvements:

  1. Fuel cost for services (at least for highsec deployable) cut in half. This will bring fuel consumption after bonuses to the level comparable to medium starbases.
  2. Cost of T1 EC rigs around 1mil to allow cost effective changes in complex focus for those enjoying various activity and business field exploration.
  3. Cost of T2 EC rigs 10-20mil to not make highly focused EC juicy target and to make acceptable option to dismantle EC.
  4. Allow (at least medium) EC to be dismantled in 24h. This will allow smaller groups to avoid some loses when confronted with bigger groups. There will be enough loses just from cancelled jobs in such cases.

Such changes IMO make ECs competitive choice over Starbases and offer different approach/focus compared to Citadels.

I am not sure you get it. CCP is trying to correct the mistakes that were made in the past with POSes, just like they are doing for off-grid boosts. It is broken that a lone player can build almost everything with 100% safety in a single highsec POS. It provides for little player choice, incentive to join forces, and provides little content to those looking to wreck dreams rather than build them.

It is completely intentional that you will now be vulnerable. It is completely intentional that you cannot build everything with max efficiency and will have to make choices. It is completely intentional that it is not economical for the typical solo player to run one of these by themselves.

Don't worry, players will adapt. Just like mercenaries who organized and grouped up after the Inferno wardec changes to share increased costs, or the organizational structures highsec gankers formed after the insurance nerfs. Industrialists now have some pressure to form organizations to spread these increased costs and use shared facilities, rather than each one setting up a complete operation in some private bolt-hole. In part, the security problems with POSes encouraged that, but now with the new structures those worries are all but gone.

I am sure CCP is happy to trade a system that was done optimally by single players immune from attack in highsec, to one that encourages cooperation and interaction, and is vulnerable to disruption by other players. Your proposals go directly against that apparent design direction and I presume have no chance of being implemented.


Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#251 - 2016-10-11 09:02:17 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
It is broken that a lone player can build almost everything with 100% safety in a single highsec POS. It provides for little player choice, incentive to join forces, and provides little content to those looking to wreck dreams rather than build them.


There is no 100% safety in hisec POSes. The main reasons that industrialists tend to form single-player corporations are that:

  • hangar access roles suck
  • physical security at a POS sucks
  • separation of duties sucks
  • permissions management sucks
  • allowing public access is hazardous


Only a few of these issues are addressed by structures. Now we have infinite job queues, so there's no need to track individual activity lines, so we can ignore the fact that physical security, separation of duties, permissions and public access are dodgy.

Hangar access still sucks. What we'll see with ECs coming online is the same single-player corporations hosting ECs, with public access to facilities. They might join alliances in order to ensure that defenders can be available, but as far as "wrecking dreams" goes you'll see that hisec wardecs are still mostly about harassment rather than dream wrecking.

POSes were taken down. ECs will be taken down. Nothing will change in that regard.
X Mayce
Kill'em all. Let Bob sort'em out.
Ushra'Khan
#252 - 2016-10-11 09:07:10 UTC
Justine Musk wrote:
Aren't now the Citadels a bit underwhelming compared to the industrial complexes?

As today citadels in general are not hard targets to destroy, however what make them really shine is the asset safety mechanics, the same mechanics that when you released them was said to make them "unique" (do you remeber the dev blog "I feel safe in citadel city"?)

Now you are giving the same mechanics to the industrial complexes, and that's a bold move, but a move I somehow agree. What forbid people to stop using (or spamming) astrauses and start using industrial complexes considering the share the same docking rights, the same assets safety mechanics and they cost 1/5th of the astrauses?

Does the release of these complexes imply that citadels need an offesive buff, at least in their medium and large counterpart?


Cloning-Services
less vulnerable timers
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#253 - 2016-10-11 09:09:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Vald Tegor
Milla Goodpussy wrote:

another thing.. so the L, and XL.. put this in bold please to highlight the fact.. it may be able to SPIT out a capital or super or titan.. but they can not DOCK at it... so its not housing what so ever.

its also very dumb to have the jobs in build on total open view for scouts to easily see whats being built.. its almost like saying "im wearing no panties" which i am not.. but hey.. that should be restricted to view by VIP's (holders,ceo, etc) not the entire public..unless they paid for it some kind of way.. umm wait.

You almost had it there, and yet missed the mark.

They can SPIT out a titan.
Yet a titan cannot dock at it. It does not fit in the hangar. You cannot deliver the job into your hangar and store the finished titan inside the structure.

The screenshot is probably showing the job delivery which spits the Titan out into space? You know, the pinnacle of industry?

Also, it's not a "house". That would be the Astrahouse. These are Factories.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#254 - 2016-10-11 09:09:25 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
It is broken that a lone player can build almost everything with 100% safety in a single highsec POS. It provides for little player choice, incentive to join forces, and provides little content to those looking to wreck dreams rather than build them.


There is no 100% safety in hisec POSes.

...

POSes were taken down. ECs will be taken down. Nothing will change in that regard.

There is 100% safety in highsec POSes. You get 24h notice of a war and have sufficient time to remove every single bit of your in-space infrastructure to the absolute safety of a station. Unless you cannot login during the warm-up period to a war, you can with certainty remove any chance of loss of your space station. They are 100% safe.

ECs cannot be taken down within that 24 hours. Have you not read the devblog, or noticed this fact with Citadels? They take 7 days to unanchor, and thus yes are vulnerable to attack by someone who objects to your industrial operation.

That is a long overdue fix for highsec player-owned structures. I am glad the clock is finally ticking down for those POSes.
Urziel99
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#255 - 2016-10-11 09:26:14 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
It is broken that a lone player can build almost everything with 100% safety in a single highsec POS. It provides for little player choice, incentive to join forces, and provides little content to those looking to wreck dreams rather than build them.


There is no 100% safety in hisec POSes.

...

POSes were taken down. ECs will be taken down. Nothing will change in that regard.

There is 100% safety in highsec POSes. You get 24h notice of a war and have sufficient time to remove every single bit of your in-space infrastructure to the absolute safety of a station. Unless you cannot login during the warm-up period to a war, you can with certainty remove any chance of loss of your space station. They are 100% safe.

ECs cannot be taken down within that 24 hours. Have you not read the devblog, or noticed this fact with Citadels? They take 7 days to unanchor, and thus yes are vulnerable to attack by someone who objects to your industrial operation.

That is a long overdue fix for highsec player-owned structures. I am glad the clock is finally ticking down for those POSes.



Then CCP doesn't want their new structures to be used. Part of their stated design philosophy for new structures was to ensure same functionality. So far they have failed miserably with EC's
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#256 - 2016-10-11 09:33:13 UTC
Cyno McLongNeck wrote:
Justine Musk wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Chani El'zrya wrote:
As a solo and casual industrialist in high sec, i conclude that i'm pushed back to NPC station.
With my current POS set-up i was able to unanchor everything before a wardec kicks in.

Nevyn Auscent wrote:
these structures sit in space at risk, can't be pulled down to avoid a wardec like a POS could

Hisec too dangerous. Consider moving to safer areas of space.


You are actually making sarcasm, but nullsec is overall safer than some high density zones of high sec.

Yes, big fights happen daily in null, but high sec is continous grind


You kinda just proved his point then no? Sarcasm or not.

If you think its too dangerous in highsec, move to lower security areas of space, make some friends and increase your new structures bonuses at the same time. I'm sure you will have many people wanting to be your friend if you can provide them the service of a well fitted and maintained production complex.

Actually, that's not quite right.

If you can provide them with constant supply of the goods they require, they will provide the complex for you.
Lupercus Mars
Hawking Applied Sciences Institute
#257 - 2016-10-11 09:35:53 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
Altrue wrote:
A bit sad over the higher vulnerability timers and the retaining of the system cost manufacturing index, but I understand why both of these aspects are necessary.

What of the ability to use a Market Service Module? Is it limited to L and XL or only for XL?


I expect that the market service module can only be fit to Fortizars, Keepstars, and the Palatine Keepstar. Not the engineering complexes. It would seem counter-design to allow a manufacturing structure to provide the market services of a Citadel. Same, I would expect, for clone services.

As the new structures require both market networks AND medical centers as part of the build, it would seem Devs have repeated the fiasco with the medium Citadels (require market networks to build) by including build items the structure is unable to utilize.


You can still jump clone out of them so they have a basic medic center. You can still make contracts wihtout an actual market module so they will still have some form of market network. There you go found a lore reason to still have those parts in the build, happy now?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#258 - 2016-10-11 09:43:20 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
It is broken that a lone player can build almost everything with 100% safety in a single highsec POS. It provides for little player choice, incentive to join forces, and provides little content to those looking to wreck dreams rather than build them.


There is no 100% safety in hisec POSes. The main reasons that industrialists tend to form single-player corporations are that:

  • hangar access roles suck
  • physical security at a POS sucks
  • separation of duties sucks
  • permissions management sucks
  • allowing public access is hazardous


Only a few of these issues are addressed by structures. Now we have infinite job queues, so there's no need to track individual activity lines, so we can ignore the fact that physical security, separation of duties, permissions and public access are dodgy.

Hangar access still sucks. What we'll see with ECs coming online is the same single-player corporations hosting ECs, with public access to facilities. They might join alliances in order to ensure that defenders can be available, but as far as "wrecking dreams" goes you'll see that hisec wardecs are still mostly about harassment rather than dream wrecking.

POSes were taken down. ECs will be taken down. Nothing will change in that regard.
If these have the same mechanics as Citadels (seems they do), they won't be getting taken down to avoid wardecs. A week to take it down + lost rigs + the invulnerability timer at unanchoring....

More chance, there just won't be many of them around as they are just not worth the outlay and running costs for such limited uses.

Even setting one up for public access - How do you set it up? What rigs (which are very specialized) do you fit. Will there be enough players willing to pay what you need to charge to cover costs (large, at least 50% more than a large pos with far less capability).

Will you run it at a loss for the time it takes to attempt to build up enough customers for it to pay for itself? Or, will you just stick to your pos and make do with what works and shows a profit?

I was looking forward to these being released but with the limited use for such high cost - Forget it, I'll stick to a pos.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#259 - 2016-10-11 09:44:42 UTC
Urziel99 wrote:
Then CCP doesn't want their new structures to be used. Part of their stated design philosophy for new structures was to ensure same functionality. So far they have failed miserably with EC's
I see usually one, of not multiple, Citadels in every system I visit. And those things do practically nothing. I have no doubt these will get used, and used widely.

If you don't want to use them, you don't have to though. You can build in an NPC station and it will probably be cheaper for most casual players to do so. Or pay someone else to use their EC and outsource the hassle of deploying, fueling and defending them. You will be at a disadvantage to players braver and/or more organized than you, but you definitely do not have to use these structures if you don't want to.

But what you will no longer be able to do is hide behind CONCORD mechanics and run your invulnerable one-man, build anything in the game operation and still be competitive with the larger groups who organize, invest in, and defend their industrial operations. Sure, this is a hit to a previously popular playstyle, but really it is how the game should have worked in the first place. If you were starting over and designing a competitive sandbox game, you would want the rules to encourage players to have to make choices and trade-offs, join forces, and be able to disrupt each other in order to build things.

This just seems like CCP is just correcting the mistakes of the past to make the game more like is intended to work. I am not their spokesperson though and don't really know their intentions, so if you take issue with this change, I suggest you talk to CCP or your CSM representative to voice your displeasure.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#260 - 2016-10-11 09:49:23 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
There is 100% safety in highsec POSes. You get 24h notice of a war and have sufficient time to remove every single bit of your in-space infrastructure to the absolute safety of a station.


While your POS is down you are not running a business. Your business is interrupted. That is not 100% safety.

You need to understand what industry is about before you start claiming that POSes have 100% safety.

Even with EC your valuable assets are 100% safe. The only risk you take is if you're the one that owns the EC and don't have enough pilots around to defend it from a wardec, and do not make enough profit from public access to cover the inevitable losses.

With ECs the public access fees may help make the structure profitable of its own accord, where a POS was never profitable on its own accord.

So even though they're destructible, ECs represent less risk than a POS, assuming you can attract other industrialists to use your installation.