These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#321 - 2016-10-11 17:41:16 UTC
I may hav missed it, but are these just going to appear in space the way citadels do or will you have to scan them down the way POS's are now?
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#322 - 2016-10-11 17:45:36 UTC
Manssell wrote:
I may hav missed it, but are these just going to appear in space the way citadels do or will you have to scan them down the way POS's are now?

Appear in space like citadels.
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#323 - 2016-10-11 17:45:56 UTC
Manssell wrote:
I may hav missed it, but are these just going to appear in space the way citadels do or will you have to scan them down the way POS's are now?


Just like Citadels. All the structures share the same basic features in that regard
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#324 - 2016-10-11 17:50:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Owen Levanth
So, I took out my calculator again to look at fuel costs for some example cases and here is what I think:

For T2 and T1, it just doesn't work. It works for larger groups or super-rich people because they can take a EC, run all modules 24/7 and then upscale the usage until the now fixed costs are dealt with. In all other cases, it turns out fuel cost for running services is barely offset by the ME and TE bonuses you can rig the structure for when compared to a NPC-station.

So what if I can get 5-6% ME on building a T2-cruiser, if the fuel costs double- or tripple the costs of what I just saved? It actually makes more sense in most cases to build everything in a NPC-station since the station doesn't need fuel.

All those fancy bonuses in most cases are directly eaten up by the fuel costs. Best case scenario, onlining costs for service modules are negligible and you can turn off what you don't need. In that scenario, you can probably find some small niche and wring something out of the EC. Worst case scenario, onlining costs are like for Citadel-services, incredibly high. In which case having a EC means you have three medium sized towers in terms of fuel consumption. Not really feasible for small-time operators.

The only part where the EC wins hands down is in T3 production, since you can't build T3-ships and subsystems in NPC-stations, so there will always be a fuel-cost associated with them. In this case the higher bonuses of the EC can compete with a POS, but only if you can run it 24/7 or if you can feasibly switch the service module on and off depending on need.

Right now this is quite bad. Take my example from before, for example: If you want to build your own components, you add a fuel cost of around 36 million ISK in fuel to the building cost of every Damnation. In my example, I used my skills and used EVE Industry to get some numbers about building costs. With 290 million ISK in costs for materials used in T2-components, a HighSec-EC with T2-ME rig can save about 10,44 million ISK.

A T2-TE rig can (in HighSec) reduce the fuel costs by about 1/3rd, which results in about 12 million ISK saved. If I combine both, I could build the components for a Damnation about 22,44 million ISK cheaper than in a NPC-station. On the other hand, when I take fuel costs into account I'm actually wasting nearly 14 million ISK more than when building in a NPC-station.

I'm sure there are many less damning examples possible, but this one thing alone shows using a EC makes only sense outside of HighSec, where the higher bonuses slowly overtake the higher costs caused by fuel consumption. Looking at the difference caused by the fuel costs, it looks like NullSec and W-Space could barely make it to zeroing out.

The 10% station-tax is laughable when compared to fuel costs. Either CCP massively raises costs of manufacturing and research in NPC-stations, or most people will waste tons of money until they notice how much fuel they need to build and research anything and then just stop using ECs.

Of course, the EC is still good for T3-invention and -production, but that's about it. T2 and T1 production are so burdened by the fuel costs every solo- or small-scale industrialists is basically unable to compete. Heck, even if using a public EC is a possibility, it still means you're forced to tie yourself down near a EC specialized to what you want to build. And if that EC goes down or is replaced by one using other rigs, your entire operation grinds to a halt.

To be competitive with NPC-stations, the fuel costs need to be reduced enormously. Even in my very simplified example, the fuel costs would need to be at least halved before it makes economically sense to use the fancy new space factory instead of your boring old NPC-station.

Anyway, if the fuel costs don't go down, my little industry alt will either stay in station, or I'll at best try a EC specialized for T3-production. Since in T3-production I at least won't compete with zero fuel cost stations.


Edit:

Someone on the other page suggested throwing out the weird 25% bonus to engineering service module consumption and instead giving every medium EC a flat 5 blocks per hour consumption, instead of the 20 (15 with the EC-bonus) we have now.

That's a great idea and would immediately erase all problems I've talked about in that wall of text above!
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#325 - 2016-10-11 17:54:33 UTC
Thanks Rowells, and Obil Que!
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#326 - 2016-10-11 17:59:05 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Jawen Serce wrote:

A "Sandbox" is a game in which exist minimal limitations, an idea of freedom to roam and change/build/destroy the virtual world a plyer "live" in.
Going from a POS system, with low cost, minimal requirements, (too imo) huge defences, quick deployment, to this structure idea, is anti-sandbox.


Utter bollocks. Nothing about a "sandbox" guarantees that everything should be affordable and efficient for every player. Just about any gameplay change that yields a net reduction in capability would be "anti-sandbox" under this self-serving nonsense. If we extend your method of thinking to its ultimate conclusion, the mere existence of an economy would be"anti-sandbox". Why won't the game give me the freedom to whelp a dozen titans every weekend? Why is CCP limiting my interactions in the game? I thought this was a SANDBOX!


Quote:

Yeah, i certainly bet that a guy playing for 11 years have no worries whatsoever about what would mean these changes.
Don't be so selfish, and try to look at the bigger picture.


My first reaction to this was that it was going to be a problem for me. It's just that my second reaction was to start thinking about how I'm going to solve that problem for myself. Seems pretty sandboxy to me.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
#327 - 2016-10-11 18:03:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Iowa Banshee
Arronicus wrote:
Rowells wrote:
If you haven't already figured out a way to allow ships to access hangars from outside the structures, please allow an exception for the rorqual on the Large EC until that comes into place.

It would be very odd for the rorqual to have a position of ore transport that can't even use the Large. Otherwise you'll end up with a scenario where people have to keep a freighter and a fort nearby to utilize them both together.


Sit the rorq on the undock, with a DST/freighter/hauler. One drops a can, rorq dumps compressed ore in can, hauler scoops, docks up. problem solved. Mild hassle, but nothing really problematic.



So for the small WH corp or solo player the process would be:

1) Sit in the Rorq on the undock , jet a can - Eject from the Rorq
2) Dock your pod hoping that no-one is watching and steals you Rorq
3) Get into the hauler scoop the can - Dock - Undock in pod
4) Jump in the Roroq - Jet another can - Eject in Pod

Rinse and Repeat

Ok CCP we get: --
Despite the fact I can safely leave my Rorq at a 150mil small POS to swap out pilots -- You want me to buy a freaking huge, expensive, undefendable, garage to park my ships.

So now that I have my space coffin to live in.....
FFS AT LEAST LET US ACCESS THE FLEET HANGER from the CITADEL ... or have a citadel CORP OFFICE hanger we can use from space
TopTrader
Tech3 Company
#328 - 2016-10-11 18:06:13 UTC
Here is a summary of that i discussed with my friends.

1) Oversized
I dont want to buy and pay for a high-rise building if i just want a small house. These structures are designed to be used by a large ammount of corporations and thier players. Small corporations and solo players will have no interest in that.

2) Economy
The most people stopped running thier POS because of the cost for the fuel. Secondly the big industry changes which has also an impact to the production & research on station makes own station nearly worthless. WIth the new changes you even need more pos fuel to run the structure.

3) Efficiency
CCP will take the bonuses away and you have to think really carefully what rigs you choose. You can run your business with one engineering complex but your are very limited. A small organisation with a few people probably will need at least 2-3 of them. So the monthly costs in fuel are damn high and u have to take care of the logistic and stuff.

4) Why you have an own structure
Many players have the same question like we do. After the industrial patch own structures were pretty much useless, not complete. There is no real difference, bonus and benefit to stations any more if you own a structure. Even with the new complex. Small bonus to ME & PE and thats all. For what price?

5) So i got my faction tower
CCP had enough time to find a solution for that and its not the first time that people asking this question. What happens with my faction tower and other stuff when the patch goes live? Now in the devblog i see nothing what could compensate the faction tower and the money we all spend in this.

As an industrial oriented player i am waiting for an big update for years now. If i see what we get in november than im getting sad really quick. Collecting feedback? Ok. But we all know ccp so the most things will come as you see it in the devblogs.

Just my cents
TopTrader
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#329 - 2016-10-11 18:08:51 UTC
Here's something of an ancillary concern:

It's clearly intended for public usage of structures to be a thing. Great. Cool.

With the granularity of the current rig setup, and the structure browser as it currently exists, I don't see any way that finding a public structure with the preferred bonuses will be anything but a miserable experience.

We're going to need to be able to search or filter in a fashion that's just as granular as the array of bonus possibilities.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#330 - 2016-10-11 18:10:38 UTC
Owen Levanth wrote:
So, I took out my calculator again to look at fuel costs for some example cases and here is what I think:


Snipped for brevity (you make a well reasoned argument)

Have you considered comparing:

Guy who runs multiple EC in order to get the specialized rig bonuses on each component
vs
Guy who runs one EC to specialize in the most optimal component and builds the rest unbonused
vs.
NPC stations?

I wonder if you will find the person with the partially specialized MEC being cost competitive with someone eating fuel costs for being specialized in more components.
Justine Musk
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation
#331 - 2016-10-11 18:14:45 UTC
In this thread there are two kind of people, the one that vouch for the group play and the people who vouch for the small or solo entity. Both gameplay are valid, some people like to fly solo and youtube is full of videos of people doing solo / small gang pvp, for this very same reason the solo / small group industry is a playstyle that should be accepted.

The only solution I can think about to preserve the solo / small / casual industry gameplay is to make a second kind of service module, call them "inefficent" if you wish, with very reduced fuel running cost but with a 100% / 200% increase in research / copy / manufacturing time before structure bonuses. If you are crafting stuff for yourself or your tiny corp, making ammunition, building drones and / or t1 ships in 2 hours or 6 wont change much.

With a cheap, inefficent service module if you go pubblic accept you wont be a threat to the one using the costly and effecent one, and those people will play in their leauge with other using the same kind of module. The random person looking for a fast craft or copy will go for the second one, and not the first.

TL;DR Make inefficent service module, fuel cost -75%, craft / research / copy time +200%
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#332 - 2016-10-11 18:18:07 UTC
Obil Que wrote:
Owen Levanth wrote:
So, I took out my calculator again to look at fuel costs for some example cases and here is what I think:


Snipped for brevity (you make a well reasoned argument)

Have you considered comparing:

Guy who runs multiple EC in order to get the specialized rig bonuses on each component
vs
Guy who runs one EC to specialize in the most optimal component and builds the rest unbonused
vs.
NPC stations?

I wonder if you will find the person with the partially specialized MEC being cost competitive with someone eating fuel costs for being specialized in more components.


I don't think it's even remotely unintentional that the new design means you can't trivially build everything with an optimal bonus, and I think it's probably a good thing.

At present I build basically... everything. T1 ships and modules. T2 ships and modules. T2 components. T1 and T2 capital modules. T1 and T2 fighters/drones. Fuel. Structures and structure components. T1 and T2 rigs. I have a look at the market, decide what I'm building next, and seamlessly transition to that without a second thought.

Thing is, everyone else can (and does) do this, too. If there's a supply shortage, it will be erased overnight - usually to excess. Component construction is largely vertically integrated because most people feel that the added margin exceeds the opportunity cost (And it's trivial to make another alt). T1 overproduction, in particular, is rampant.

Adding some inertia to the system could curtail some of this and make for a healthier industrial economy, overall.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Circumstantial Evidence
#333 - 2016-10-11 18:23:46 UTC
Iowa Banshee wrote:
So now that I have my space coffin to live in.....
FFS AT LEAST LET US ACCESS THE FLEET HANGER from the CITADEL ... or have a citadel CORP OFFICE hanger we can use from space
They're working on it :)
CCP Fozzie wrote:
One change we are working towards is the ability to place items into your personal hangar in an Upwell structure from outside of that structure (within docking range). I'm not going to lie and tell you that we know exactly when that feature will be done, but it is on our roadmap.
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#334 - 2016-10-11 18:30:04 UTC
Obil Que wrote:
Owen Levanth wrote:
So, I took out my calculator again to look at fuel costs for some example cases and here is what I think:


Snipped for brevity (you make a well reasoned argument)

Have you considered comparing:

Guy who runs multiple EC in order to get the specialized rig bonuses on each component
vs
Guy who runs one EC to specialize in the most optimal component and builds the rest unbonused
vs.
NPC stations?

I wonder if you will find the person with the partially specialized MEC being cost competitive with someone eating fuel costs for being specialized in more components.


The thing is, if you have an organization able to stem the fuel costs, everything is great. A small or solo-operation runs into gigantic trouble though. The guy who runs multiple EC already has lost if he can't scale his operation up to the point the fuel costs of multiple super-large towers (a medium EC with all three services +25% bonus applied equals 45 blocks per hour, a bit more than a normal large POS) can be somehow integrated into his business-model. It would probably take dozens of alts and more hours than a day has to deal with this.

Specializing the most optimal component is what I basically did in my example already, since a medium EC makes it impossible to not specialize.

NPC-stations are the winner in most cases because the 10% station tax is a bad joke. It makes your installation costs 10% higher, while fuel costs of a medium EC alone are high enough to make you choke. Take that Damnation for example: When trying to get the most optimal EC-build to reduce building costs, the fuel costs where always high enough to make building Damnations in a medium EC a huge loss operation.

It's kind of bad when you can save tons of money by not using the fancy new space factory.
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
#335 - 2016-10-11 18:32:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Iowa Banshee
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Iowa Banshee wrote:
So now that I have my space coffin to live in.....
FFS AT LEAST LET US ACCESS THE FLEET HANGER from the CITADEL ... or have a citadel CORP OFFICE hanger we can use from space
They're working on it :)
CCP Fozzie wrote:
One change we are working towards is the ability to place items into your personal hangar in an Upwell structure from outside of that structure (within docking range). I'm not going to lie and tell you that we know exactly when that feature will be done, but it is on our roadmap.



Hhahahah

and I'm walking around a station showing off my outfits and chatting with other players about the best way to deploy the entosis link
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#336 - 2016-10-11 18:34:36 UTC
Justine Musk wrote:
In this thread there are two kind of people, the one that vouch for the group play and the people who vouch for the small or solo entity. Both gameplay are valid, some people like to fly solo and youtube is full of videos of people doing solo / small gang pvp, for this very same reason the solo / small group industry is a playstyle that should be accepted.

The only solution I can think about to preserve the solo / small / casual industry gameplay is to make a second kind of service module, call them "inefficent" if you wish, with very reduced fuel running cost but with a 100% / 200% increase in research / copy / manufacturing time before structure bonuses. If you are crafting stuff for yourself or your tiny corp, making ammunition, building drones and / or t1 ships in 2 hours or 6 wont change much.

With a cheap, inefficent service module if you go pubblic accept you wont be a threat to the one using the costly and effecent one, and those people will play in their leauge with other using the same kind of module. The random person looking for a fast craft or copy will go for the second one, and not the first.

TL;DR Make inefficent service module, fuel cost -75%, craft / research / copy time +200%


Uh, with your numbers, nothing changes: If you make something cost less fuel, but let it run longer, the end cost is the same. Your "inefficient" module makes things take longer, but every user has the same operation costs.

You could even argue your cheap module is even worse, because now you force people to waste both ISK and time.
Jawen Serce
La Forge.
Toilet Paper.
#337 - 2016-10-11 18:36:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Jawen Serce
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Jawen Serce wrote:

A "Sandbox" is a game in which exist minimal limitations, an idea of freedom to roam and change/build/destroy the virtual world a plyer "live" in.
Going from a POS system, with low cost, minimal requirements, (too imo) huge defences, quick deployment, to this structure idea, is anti-sandbox.


Utter bollocks. Nothing about a "sandbox" guarantees that everything should be affordable and efficient for every player. Just about any gameplay change that yields a net reduction in capability would be "anti-sandbox" under this self-serving nonsense. If we extend your method of thinking to its ultimate conclusion, the mere existence of an economy would be"anti-sandbox". Why won't the game give me the freedom to whelp a dozen titans every weekend? Why is CCP limiting my interactions in the game? I thought this was a SANDBOX!


Quote:

Yeah, i certainly bet that a guy playing for 11 years have no worries whatsoever about what would mean these changes.
Don't be so selfish, and try to look at the bigger picture.


My first reaction to this was that it was going to be a problem for me. It's just that my second reaction was to start thinking about how I'm going to solve that problem for myself. Seems pretty sandboxy to me.

What the hell are you talking about ?
A game offering a structure system cheap, fast, with good defences, that any player, new to veteran can buy and throw in space to have his own little house to do whatever he wants with it, just like in any other Sandbox game, you would be able to build your house, is now transformed into something blingier -nice-, expencive, defenceless, and lacking a lot of what a POS could do ("docking" or the ability to change on the fly what the POS can do).
If, as CCP sold this to us, this new design is supposed to "emphasise and enhance the sandbox side of Eve Online", why are they putting limitations so huge ?
I can see no other answers than the purpose to limit the interaction solo players and small entities are having in this game, by forcing them to :
- stay in NPC stations
- use others' stations
- farm an extended amount of time
- buy mercenaries services to be able to defend it
- or joining bigger entities and losing "independance"
- or buy PLEXs.

What i loved about this game when i started playing it, was the possibility for any players, to buy a POS, go in any system (WH), throw the POS, and make it "your" home, till people come and kick your ass out.

Just like a tent you throw in the wild to live your life. Just like a house you build in any sandbox game (minecraft, rust, etc..)

This sandbox part will be killed the moment POSs disappear if they can't think about a small-size version of this system.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#338 - 2016-10-11 18:37:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Skia Aumer
Obil Que wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
@CCP Fozzie

Also, when are you planning to iterate on Citadel/EC [in]vulnerability mechanics? I've heard a lot of discontent about it from many sources. For example, people outside of major time zones (AUTZ and RUTZ specifically) feel like they're going to lose a lot of content after POS warfare is gone.


People are discontent that they can't attack something 24x7 when there are no defenders to defend it

I wouldn't expect a lot of potential iteration on that. A major design goal of the structures were that the choice of when a structure gets attacked goes to the defender as there is no gameplay for the defender relative to the attacker having it shot in an off timezone scenario. While there is an aspect of "reduced gameplay" for the attacker, it is also gameplay where there is no defender in many, if not most cases. CCP stated they wanted increased interaction at the expense of this "gameplay" and made it so that the attacker has to be inconvenienced (potentially) in order to engage a defender when they likely will be present. The extended vulnerable hours on the EC and other potential future structures makes interaction with them more likely compared to a citadel which is designed to be the home base of a defender.

~Potentially~ that might all be nice and cool.

But the reality is cruel. As long as anyone see a russian-speaking alliance at their doorsteps, they set timers for late EUTZ at best or for early USTZ at worst. Which is midnight to morning for RUTZ. With POSes they can a) kite timers and b) reinforce on Thursday/Friday to have timers on the weekend. Sov warfare is a bit harder, as the former is not possible and the later works only for low ADM systems - but it works. It is a known fact that everyone "love" Fozziesov. It is also a fact that POS warfare was fine since Dominion. Yet, the new structures copy-paste all timezone issues from Fozziesov, without even offering a workarounds like ADMs. It bogs my mind. Furthermore, those issues are multiplied, as there is no more weekend timers - vulnerability schedule spans a week, not a day.

Believe me, it will be mirrored. Russians will set their timers for early day hours. And all those ~potential~ interactions will only be relayed to ****posts on reddit and eve-ru.com
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#339 - 2016-10-11 18:41:50 UTC
Owen Levanth wrote:


It's kind of bad when you can save tons of money by not using the fancy new space factory.


Not a very strong argument, for two reasons:

First of all, there's always going to be a break-even point below which the fuel cost is not worth it. Plenty of people "save tons of money" right now by not owning a fancy space factory POS because their production volume doesn't justify the fuel cost. This is absolutely not a new quality of ECs, it's merely a quantitative alteration.

Secondly, your argument said nothing about USING the fancy new space factory - it says something about OWNING one.

People have been incessantly conflating those two things throughout the entire thread. You can use an EC without owning one, and it could very likely be an economical option.

This whole can't-use-it-unless-I-own-it thing is a mental hurdle people need to get the **** over already.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Justine Musk
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation
#340 - 2016-10-11 18:43:17 UTC
Owen Levanth wrote:
Justine Musk wrote:
In this thread there are two kind of people, the one that vouch for the group play and the people who vouch for the small or solo entity. Both gameplay are valid, some people like to fly solo and youtube is full of videos of people doing solo / small gang pvp, for this very same reason the solo / small group industry is a playstyle that should be accepted.

The only solution I can think about to preserve the solo / small / casual industry gameplay is to make a second kind of service module, call them "inefficent" if you wish, with very reduced fuel running cost but with a 100% / 200% increase in research / copy / manufacturing time before structure bonuses. If you are crafting stuff for yourself or your tiny corp, making ammunition, building drones and / or t1 ships in 2 hours or 6 wont change much.

With a cheap, inefficent service module if you go pubblic accept you wont be a threat to the one using the costly and effecent one, and those people will play in their leauge with other using the same kind of module. The random person looking for a fast craft or copy will go for the second one, and not the first.

TL;DR Make inefficent service module, fuel cost -75%, craft / research / copy time +200%


Uh, with your numbers, nothing changes: If you make something cost less fuel, but let it run longer, the end cost is the same. Your "inefficient" module makes things take longer, but every user has the same operation costs.

You could even argue your cheap module is even worse, because now you force people to waste both ISK and time.


The numbers are just made up, make it even just 50% more but the concept still stand.

And for small entity I don't simply mean the High Sec solo industry guy, I also mean the small WH corp that just need to build the stuff it need to rat and pvp. Moving let's say 20 fuel / hour (14.400 a month) is different than moving 90 fuel / hour (64.800), assuming you have research, invention, shipyard and equipment assembly, all thing imo needed in a WH.