These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
The Bastion
#261 - 2016-10-11 09:56:26 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
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.



I'm sure the null blocs will love them, all 10 to 20 of them they have to build to do the same things that POS can do now. I'm sure miners will love trying to dock their rorquals in them and having to resort to DST hand offs because the devs didn't think an INDUSTRIAL CAPITAL SHIP should be able to dock or even interface with an INDUSTRIAL FACILITY. And I'm sure griefers, wardeccers and scumbags like Lenny are chomping at the bit to be the first to kill one of these gimped loot pinatas. So yeah they'll be getting an earful at Vegas. I guarantee it.
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#262 - 2016-10-11 10:15:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Vald Tegor
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.


Actually,
Dev Blog wrote:
This means that there will be some benefits from placing Engineering Complexes in the same solar system as an outpost (especially an Amarr outpost), as well as placing them into highsec systems with large numbers of NPC stations. Engineering Complexes themselves will have no impact on the system cost index multiplier (just like starbases).


Not only will you benefit from banding together to share resources, having people move their activity from the stations in system to your facility will DROP the cost for everyone.

EDIT: Disregard, i derped
John DiGreeze
The Farting Unicorns
#263 - 2016-10-11 10:28:19 UTC
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but the XL array really should have its rig calibration bumped up to 450. It should be able to fit for full T2 rigs.
Lupercus Mars
Hawking Applied Sciences Institute
#264 - 2016-10-11 10:32:08 UTC
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)


You could see index cost teh cost to spin up extra assembly lines. More build jobs in build means more lines requires means higher index cost
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#265 - 2016-10-11 10:38:09 UTC
Careby wrote:
I get the desirability of making the smaller structures more specialized to a smaller number of tasks. But does the specialization really need to be permanent?

The cost of the rigs and the inability to remove them without destruction combine to make repurposing a structure impractical. Currently POS modules can be added, removed, offlined, etc, to allow flexibility in configuration.

Allowing the same sort of reconfiguration for the engineering complexes would make them a lot more practical.

My personal preference would be removable rigs which can be added and removed at will, but not repackaged for market resale. This would make moving everything to a new system possible, even if not quick and easy.

Contract sales are a thing, so not repackaging doesn't do much. For that matter, if you want to relocate, selling the whole structure and getting a new one is a possibility. If you expect to need to repurpose or unanchor the structure, you can also save cost by using strictly t1 rigs.

POSes have great flexibility once you have one up, but let's not forget they also each required a moon of their own. These can be spammed.

JTK Fotheringham
Ducks in Outer Space
#266 - 2016-10-11 10:42:15 UTC  |  Edited by: JTK Fotheringham
One of the biggest issues here, imho, is the imbalanced scaling.

Fuel Costs - a manu/research service module on a Raitaru is extremely limited by the rig selection, while the same modules on a Sotiyo cost the same to run, but are both more flexible, and will be supporting a lot more jobs. I think reducing the service module base fuel costs (e.g. by a factor of 4), and grading the multiplier on larger structures might fix this (e.g. 25% for Raitaru, 15% for Azbel and 10% for Sotiyo).

System Cost Index - a Sotiyo, as the pinnacle of manufacturing services, should rightly attract a lot of jobs. But the System Cost Index very quickly penalises this concentration of activity. I realise bonuses to System Cost Index might be tied to other infrastructure in the future, but shouldn't there be a modest scaling benefit tied to the size of Engineering Complex - to slightly offset the concentration of jobs?
Kaivarian Coste
Whale Patrol
#267 - 2016-10-11 10:43:03 UTC
Should be interesting. Thank you CCP. :)
JTK Fotheringham
Ducks in Outer Space
#268 - 2016-10-11 10:45:08 UTC
Vald Tegor wrote:

Actually,
Dev Blog wrote:
This means that there will be some benefits from placing Engineering Complexes in the same solar system as an outpost (especially an Amarr outpost), as well as placing them into highsec systems with large numbers of NPC stations. Engineering Complexes themselves will have no impact on the system cost index multiplier (just like starbases).


Not only will you benefit from banding together to share resources, having people move their activity from the stations in system to your facility will DROP the cost for everyone.


I think you misurnderstand the intent. Jobs at Starbase still ramp up the System Cost Index, but Starbases do not provide any bonuses to how that scales - unlike, say, some Outpost bonuses.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#269 - 2016-10-11 10:52:56 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

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.

Exactly, and that's why CCP introduced the system index in order to make manufacturing unprofitable with ... the more players "join forces" ... brilliant. If already my little one-man production moves the index by 1% point in the system I'm in, what do you think 10 or 100 players will do?

I'm my own NPC alt.

Careby
#270 - 2016-10-11 10:53:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Careby
Vald Tegor wrote:
Actually,
Dev Blog wrote:
This means that there will be some benefits from placing Engineering Complexes in the same solar system as an outpost (especially an Amarr outpost), as well as placing them into highsec systems with large numbers of NPC stations. Engineering Complexes themselves will have no impact on the system cost index multiplier (just like starbases).


Not only will you benefit from banding together to share resources, having people move their activity from the stations in system to your facility will DROP the cost for everyone.


Unless I misunderstand what you are saying, I don't think it's true.

There is a difference between "system cost index multiplier" and "system cost index". The multiplier is the product of all the "station cost modifiers" in the system, like 0.5 for an Amarr Factory Outpost, or 0.95 for each NPC factory station. Starbases don't affect this multiplier, and it looks to me like Engineering Complexes won't either.

But jobs installed in starbases most certainly do affect system cost index, and I have no reason to think Engineering Complexes will be any different. So I don't think "the cost for everyone" will drop if people move their activity into the structures.

This presents a conflict - I would like to offer engineering services to the public to offset my fuel bill, but I want to keep system cost index low, which is best done by minimizing activity in the system. I can't do both.

(Refer to https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/eve-industry-all-you-want-to-know/ for information on station cost modifiers.)
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#271 - 2016-10-11 10:55:48 UTC
JTK Fotheringham wrote:
Vald Tegor wrote:

Actually,
Dev Blog wrote:
This means that there will be some benefits from placing Engineering Complexes in the same solar system as an outpost (especially an Amarr outpost), as well as placing them into highsec systems with large numbers of NPC stations. Engineering Complexes themselves will have no impact on the system cost index multiplier (just like starbases).


Not only will you benefit from banding together to share resources, having people move their activity from the stations in system to your facility will DROP the cost for everyone.


I think you misurnderstand the intent. Jobs at Starbase still ramp up the System Cost Index, but Starbases do not provide any bonuses to how that scales - unlike, say, some Outpost bonuses.

You're right, my mistake
Black Pedro
Mine.
#272 - 2016-10-11 10:57:48 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
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.
Not be able to earn an income is not the same as your in-space assets being at risk.

Currently, your structures are absolutely, 100%, completely safe. Perhaps not your industrial operation, but I don't see why you think you are entitled to that level of certainty. But regardless, the point is that now the structures you will now be benefiting from to do industry and influence the greater economy are now at risk unlike the current situation.

And if you think the ECs represent less risk than the absurdly 100% safe, take everything down and turtle-up possibility we had before, then you are a terrible judge of risk. Before, only potential profits and time were at risk to other players. Now, actual assets can be exploded and you have to put even more assets at risk to try to defend them.
JTK Fotheringham
Ducks in Outer Space
#273 - 2016-10-11 10:59:56 UTC  |  Edited by: JTK Fotheringham
Is there an L-Set rig that applies bonuses to Capital SHIP construction? If so, which one?
Josh Cox
FC Build 'n Trade
#274 - 2016-10-11 11:03:45 UTC
The rigs for this structures make specialization far too granular, especially since it's not a simple online/offline process. I understand that maybe POS manufacturing was maybe "too easy" because you could do everything at a single POS, but instead of reining it in you've gone full ****** in the other direction. So here's my suggestion:

Get rid of all the current medium rigs, make the current large rigs into the mediums.

New large rigs following groupings something like this:

Ship Module, Ship Rigs, Personal Deployables, Implants, Cargo Containers, Ammo, Charges Scripts
Drones, Fighters
All tech levels of frigates, destroyers, shuttles
All tech levels of cruisers, battlecruisers, industrial ships, mining ships
All tech levels of battleships, freighters, industrial command ships
T2 Components, T2 capital components, Tools, Data interfaces, T3 components, Capital construction components
Structure components, structure modules, Upwell structures, star base structures, fuel blocks
Invention + Blueprint copying
ME + PE Research

(I know it's not perfect but it's a pretty good start).

Also consider adding fuel blocks to more than one rig type (add it to ammo and components as well) as it was available in lots of different starbase structures.

Also, now that I'm reading it again, get rid of starbase structures altogether. They will be phased out eventually but as long as POSs exist they can cover starbase structures. I think you'll get a lot of grief over rigs becoming trash once starbase structures are removed.
El 1974
Green Visstick High
#275 - 2016-10-11 11:31:35 UTC
So you have 104 different rigs. That means you create a million (!) different engineering complex variations. (Fitting name: complexes.) And for every different type of manufacturing job I have to find the right complex. That is, if it's not a complex job. If it's a job in multiple stages I have to find different complexes for each stage and move my stuff. This is terrible game design.
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
#276 - 2016-10-11 11:41:27 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. 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.


24hrs notice, when industrial jobs can be running for weeks or even months. So both time already investment and material inputs are lost with cancellation. No, I will refute the pretense of 100% safe.

Already in the thread people have stated they will not use these things. I will add my voice to say no. I will accept a 25% loss in content (chalk up to manufacturing costs) keep running within a NPC station knowing that the Dream Wreckers have a 100% content loss. I suspect that they will built of course. But it happen that small groups will get war-decced; lose time, lose game play, lose corp members and lose the Array and decide once was enough. I suppose the Dream Wreckers can go back to camping the trade routes - but what happens when that gets stale?
Pumhardt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#277 - 2016-10-11 11:43:15 UTC
This kills the little guy..Shocked
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#278 - 2016-10-11 11:46:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Black Pedro wrote:
Currently, your structures are absolutely, 100%, completely safe.


If I'm wardecced in hisec, I have two options: leave the POS up or pull it down. If I pull it down, my operations are halted.

Sure, qualify your statement by claiming that the POS hardware is "completely safe". All the ships I have in my hangar are also "completely safe". They're also a useless waste of ISK because they're not earning me money.

The reason a hisec POS exists is to make money. I'll be researching BPOs, inventing, or doing some industrial activity that makes it worth fuelling the tower.

Black Pedro wrote:
And if you think the ECs represent less risk than the absurdly 100% safe, take everything down and turtle-up possibility we had before, then you are a terrible judge of risk. Before, only potential profits and time were at risk to other players. Now, actual assets can be exploded and you have to put even more assets at risk to try to defend them.


You're not using The Rightâ„¢ definition of risk ("The Right Way" being a euphemism for "My Way")

RISK = COST OF LOSS x PROBABILITY OF LOSS

The RISK of pulling a POS down during a wardec is 100% of the income stream I would normally be earning + 100% of the value of the jobs I've had to cancel.

The RISK of having an EC in hisec is 100% of the value of the EC, less income the EC has earned me since its construction by simply existing (assuming I am leasing out activity lines to the general public or at least a bunch of blued alliances). My normal income stream is not modified until the EC is destroyed, at which point I also lose the value of any jobs that were in progress.

The income stream from a POS is only from the items I produce in that POS and ship to market.

The income stream from an EC will be all that, plus the income from leasing out services.

So assuming I can make a profit from leasing out EC services compared to fuelling a POS for my own use the EC will only involve more risk than a POS from the time it is anchored to the time it meets breakeven thanks to service leasing. In a busy system it could even be possible to make a profit from simply having the EC anchored, without using it for industry myself.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#279 - 2016-10-11 11:54:27 UTC
Pumhardt wrote:
This kills the little guy..Shocked


It kills the solo industrialist running their own POS and absorbing all the costs themselves. But CCP is committed to removing POSes anyway.

These EC structures enable the loose coalition of industrialist willing to join forces to fund the ongoing operation of an EC. It should be easier for that coalition to defend (or pay for defence of) that EC. You'll have ISK equivalent to a week's worth of your normal production with which to fund mercenary hire when the hat is passed around :D
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
#280 - 2016-10-11 11:54:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Winter Archipelago
After sleeping on this, I'm even less thrilled. The granularity of the rigs is too wide. I understand the desire to push people to specialize their structures (I dislike that, but I understand that's the desire), but having the ME and TE separated on the Medium rigs creates too much specialization. Keep the categories separate (like they currently are with arrays at a POS), but combine the ME+TE and the Cost+Time bonuses to a single rig. We end up with 30 rigs (15 ea. of T1 and T2) instead of 60 rigs (30 ea. of T1 and T2).


  • Standup M-Set Equipment Manufacturing Efficiency I & II
  • Standup M-Set Ammunition Manufacturing Efficiency I & II
  • Standup M-Set Drone Manufacturing Efficiency I & II
  • Standup M-Set Basic Small Ship Manufacturing Efficiency I & II
  • Standup M-Set Basic Medium Ship Manufacturing Efficiency I & II
  • Standup M-Set Basic Large Ship Manufacturing Efficiency I & II
  • Standup M-Set Advanced Small Ship Manufacturing Efficiency I & II
  • Standup M-Set Advanced Medium Ship Manufacturing Efficiency I & II
  • Standup M-Set Advanced Large Ship Manufacturing Efficiency I & II
  • Standup M-Set Advanced Component Manufacturing Efficiency I & II
  • Standup M-Set Basic Capital Component Manufacturing Efficiency I & II
  • Standup M-Set Structure Manufacturing Efficiency I & II
  • Standup M-Set Invention Efficiency I & II
  • Standup M-Set Research Efficiency I & II
  • Standup M-Set Bluepring Copying Efficiency I & II


Right now, with the Mediums having rigs for both ME & TE, both Cost & Time, each of the Mediums is the equivalent of a single array at a current POS, instead of an actual POS replacement. Considering the cost of the structure compared to the cost of an array (roughly 10-12 times the cost) and the cost of the fuel (3-4 times the cost), there's just too much granularity by having all the individual aspects separated.

Update the Large rigs to be a collective group:


  • Standup L-Set Modular Manufacturing Efficiency I & II (contains Equipment and Structure)
  • Standup L-Set Basic Ship Manufacturing Efficiency I & II
  • Standup L-Set Advanced Ship Manufacturing Efficiency I & II
  • Standup L-Set Component Manufacturing Efficiency I & II
  • Standup L-Set Consumables Manufacturing Efficiency I & II (contains Ammo and Drone)
  • Standup L-Set Science Efficiency I & II


This drops the rig count from 32 to 12, still requiring a group to have multiple Larges to get the full functionality from a Large POS, but without the headache-inducing granularity that the current rigs offer.

With the current rigs as they are, you'll need three or four of these structures just to emulate the functionality at a single POS, which means the above costs are 3-4 times higher. By combining the four aspects into two, like they are currently with POS arrays, the Medium becomes more similar to a Small POS, allowing a person to do more than one single thing in it. They'll still have to have more than one Structure if they want to do a more complete amount of manufacturing, but that isn't so different from what exists currently, but still includes a much higher pricetag and make the structures more vulnerable (which seems to be one of the big goals of these structures).