These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Now Life
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#541 - 2016-10-15 14:39:32 UTC
I like the idea of Engineering Complexes but what you are coming is weak.
64 M-Set engineering Rigs , Raitaru = 3rig slots (we need to install 11 Raitaru's ? )
32 L-Set engineering Rigs , Azbel = 3 rig slots
8 XL-Set engineering Rigs , Sotiyo = 3 rig slots

Now we just on-line and of-line POS modules in accordance with that you need them
When you get a wardec just stop research of-line Labs and online the guns/launchers and rest of defence.
Now with the Engineering Complexes take a seat and watch how your complex get in reinforset / destroyed.

Raitaru 9h /week vulnerability and no fichter bays and just 1 launcher
Azbel 18h / week vulnerability
Sotiyo 36h / week vulerebility
is that we do not have other things to do in EVE and / or real life

So the most valuable items(BPO's) of a corp / alliance we place them in the weakest and least self-defensive complexes.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#542 - 2016-10-15 15:59:58 UTC
Now Life wrote:


So the most valuable items(BPO's) of a corp / alliance we place them in the weakest and least self-defensive complexes.


Unless you're in WH space, they still have asset safety, so this isn't quite a valid argument. That said, they could absolutely be less vulnerable without stepping on citadels' toes, IMO.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#543 - 2016-10-15 16:05:37 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Now Life wrote:
So the most valuable items(BPO's) of a corp / alliance we place them in the weakest and least self-defensive complexes.

Unless you're in WH space, they still have asset safety, so this isn't quite a valid argument. That said, they could absolutely be less vulnerable without stepping on citadels' toes, IMO.

As jobs in progress are not protected by asset safety, he does have a valid point.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#544 - 2016-10-15 16:11:24 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Now Life wrote:
So the most valuable items(BPO's) of a corp / alliance we place them in the weakest and least self-defensive complexes.

Unless you're in WH space, they still have asset safety, so this isn't quite a valid argument. That said, they could absolutely be less vulnerable without stepping on citadels' toes, IMO.

As jobs in progress are not protected by asset safety, he does have a valid point.


He was specifically complaining about the BPO, which is protected regardless of its installation status.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#545 - 2016-10-15 17:07:20 UTC
Now Life wrote:
Raitaru 9h /week vulnerability and no fichter bays and just 1 launcher
Azbel 18h / week vulnerability
Sotiyo 36h / week vulerebility
is that we do not have other things to do in EVE and / or real life

POS is vulnerable 168 hours/week.
Je'ron
The Happy Shooters
#546 - 2016-10-15 17:20:16 UTC
Probably a bit too late to the table.

But why CCP have you placed all boosting effects in the structure rigs?

I propose something similar to ship modules:

  • Low slot engineering modules provide a small boost to both ME and TE for a particular group(ammo, componennts, modules, small, medium, large, capital or super caps) and are unscripted and unpowered. Eg T1 = 0.5% ME/ 5% TE and T2= 0.6% ME/ 6% TE
  • Medium slot engineering modules provide a larger boost to either ME or TE depending on the script insert for a particular group (see above) and use fuel when 1 or more jobs benefiting that boost are running. Eg. Fuel consumption = 1 block/hr for T1/T2. Bonus T1 = 1% ME or 10% TE. Bonus T2 = 1.2% ME or 12% TE.
  • Rigs are of the usual bonus/penalty and install once type for a particular group. Eg T1 ME bonus rig= 0.75% ME / -5% TE. T2 ME Bonus = 0.85% ME / - 5% TE. T1 TE bonus rig= -0.5% ME/ 7.5% TE. T2 TE Bonus rig = -0.5% ME/ 8.5% TE
  • Stacking penalties should apply per group.
  • Base service fuel consumption should be reduced a lot. Eg 5-10 blocks/hr. Total fuel consumption depends on the number number of medium slot engineering modules in use.


The numbers above used for ME bonus, TE bonus and fuel usage I just made up. They probably should be balanced, but I hope the idea is clear. A Engineering module system for structures which gives flexibility in fitting and operations, with a more competitive fuel usage/ operational cost then what is currently on the table.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#547 - 2016-10-15 17:27:23 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Now Life wrote:
So the most valuable items(BPO's) of a corp / alliance we place them in the weakest and least self-defensive complexes.

Unless you're in WH space, they still have asset safety, so this isn't quite a valid argument. That said, they could absolutely be less vulnerable without stepping on citadels' toes, IMO.

As jobs in progress are not protected by asset safety, he does have a valid point.

BPOs were excluded from the list materials
Darryn Lowe
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#548 - 2016-10-15 18:47:28 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Owen Levanth wrote:
Darryn Lowe wrote:
I may have missed it so apologies if the question has been answered but can I confirm that if I went for the middle of the road complex I can install a market there?

This is the EXACT setup I've been looking for and at the quoted cost it would be a very worthy enterprise for my little corp.


CCP hasn't mentioned anything about this, so the answer is probably a resounding no. You need a Citadel for that. Of course I could be wrong and maybe CCP has just forgotten to mention it, in which case you can test this out for yourself on Monday, when the ECs are supposed to be available for testing on SiSi.

The service module is clearly marked as citadel-only.

Yep, and it was clearly marked for Citadels BEFORE this announcement.

CCP are claiming we can fit any module from a Citadel so I'm only assuming that means market. If this is true though then I've found my perfect home because this is the type of thing I do. Having the ability to manufacture and sell in my own structure is the one thing I've wanted in Eve since I got me a clear path of what I want to do in Eve.
Aluka 7th
#549 - 2016-10-15 19:02:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Aluka 7th
It would be great to get the info about bonuses (manuf. and R&D % bonuses) for each facility (engineering complex) in Industry window under facilities tab in form of a pop-up window while hovering with cursor over the facility.
By hovering over the facility, you would get list of bonuses for each group of products/jobs in that EC and also you would get the info about the tax rate and if it is a freeport. That way you can choose the facility remotely for the range of products that you make.


Also send notifications to all people that have jobs in the EC (even if it is not theirs) when the wardec is declared against the EC owner. So people can move their stuff from that EC in time.


There should be less rigs.
I propose this grouping for EC rigs:
XL rigs - stay the same (4 types)
L rigs (12 types instead of 16 types):
Rig 01 - T1/T2 Ship and Structure rigs; ME and TE bonus
Rig 02 - T1/T2 Frigs, T1/T2/T3 destroyers, Shuttles; ME and TE bonus
Rig 03 - T1/T2/T3 Cruisers, T1/T2 Battlecruisers, Industrials. T2 haulers, mining barges, Exhumers; ME and TE bonus
Rig 04 - T1/T2 Battleships, T1/T2 Freighters, Industrial command ships; ME and TE bonus
Rig 05 - Ship modules; ME and TE bonus
Rig 06 - Ammo, charges, scripts, drones, fighters, personal deployables, implants, cargo containers; ME and TE bonus
Rig 07 - T2/T3 components, T1/T2 capital components, tools, data interfaces; ME and TE bonus
Rig 08 - Structure components, Structure modules, Upwell structures, Starbase structures, fuel blocks; ME and TE bonus
Rig 09 - invention; cost and time bonus
Rig 10 - copy; cost and time bonus
Rig 11 - ME; cost and time bonus
Rig 12 - TE research; cost and time bonus

M rigs (24types instead of 32 types)
Just split two bonuses of L rigs into separate rigs.
Jew Jew Binks
Doomheim
#550 - 2016-10-15 22:39:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jew Jew Binks
Aluka 7th wrote:
It would be great to get the info about bonuses (manuf. and R&D % bonuses) for each facility (engineering complex) in Industry window under facilities tab in form of a pop-up window while hovering with cursor over the facility.
By hovering over the facility, you would get list of bonuses for each group of products/jobs in that EC and also you would get the info about the tax rate and if it is a freeport. That way you can choose the facility remotely for the range of products that you make.


Also send notifications to all people that have jobs in the EC (even if it is not theirs) when the wardec is declared against the EC owner. So people can move their stuff from that EC in time.


There should be less rigs.
I propose this grouping for EC rigs:
XL rigs - stay the same (4 types)
L rigs (12 types instead of 16 types):
Rig 01 - T1/T2 Ship and Structure rigs; ME and TE bonus
Rig 02 - T1/T2 Frigs, T1/T2/T3 destroyers, Shuttles; ME and TE bonus
Rig 03 - T1/T2/T3 Cruisers, T1/T2 Battlecruisers, Industrials. T2 haulers, mining barges, Exhumers; ME and TE bonus
Rig 04 - T1/T2 Battleships, T1/T2 Freighters, Industrial command ships; ME and TE bonus
Rig 05 - Ship modules; ME and TE bonus
Rig 06 - Ammo, charges, scripts, drones, fighters, personal deployables, implants, cargo containers; ME and TE bonus
Rig 07 - T2/T3 components, T1/T2 capital components, tools, data interfaces; ME and TE bonus
Rig 08 - Structure components, Structure modules, Upwell structures, Starbase structures, fuel blocks; ME and TE bonus
Rig 09 - invention; cost and time bonus
Rig 10 - copy; cost and time bonus
Rig 11 - ME; cost and time bonus
Rig 12 - TE research; cost and time bonus

M rigs (24types instead of 32 types)
Just split two bonuses of L rigs into separate rigs.


it would be much better to turn all pos industry array in standup services but without material and time efficiency bonuses and make only 2 rigs. material efficiency rig and time efficiency rig. let players chose what to build in a structure without forcing them to use a 1.5B medium t2 rig or 16B large rig or 300B extra large rig

put the 2% or more (if CCP wants) ME and 25% ME or more (if CCP wwants) in t2 rigs

this way we could also keep the hyasioda labs and thukker component array (wich would have a lower ME bonus to compensate for rig) and rapid equipment assembly array (wich would have own TE bonus and ME penalty)

we would be more than hapy to pay fuel activation cost for anny of the structure service and this way keep the versatility we get from poses
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#551 - 2016-10-15 23:51:43 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
I made it pretty clear in my posting that I'm as veteran an industrialist as you'll find and my concern here is not for my own needs

For arguments sake, let us say a new S-class EC was added. It has one service module slot, a 75% fuel use reduction and requires only 4 hours per week of vulnerability. Build cost of 100 million. With T1 rigs and a service module this is still 500+ million.

Who does this benefit?

Does a new player really want to build this and have to defend it? Should this be the first step in entering industry gameplay? What benefits does it confer over alternatives?
Or, is this something that an established player can better abuse to run a subsection of his jobs at?

wrote:
I don't really see how those definitions really help, since they are symptomatic of exactly the kind of pidgeonhole thinking that leads to this kind of bad design.

Yet that is how game design works. You identify the use cases, then go over how each of them is impacted by the change. I fail to see how this leads to bad game design. Unless you leave out a use case, in which case that is a failure at the task - not a flaw of the process.

People keep complaining this will negatively impact small scale producers. I'm yet to see someone qualify what small scale is, quantify the negative impact (10% less profit? 300% less profit?), or even go so far as to prove one exists.

I have shown before that producing at a public facility, at index values that make hardcore industrialists cringe, with 50% tax rate, yields superior profits to today's small pos on the outskirts. At least according to my quick look at fuzzwork.

Quote:
Not really, because there is no structure setup or operation costs for playstyles that aren't going to be available. Sure you can complain that ECs are out of your price range, but if the EC doesn't suit your needs anyway it really doesn't matter. Ferrari's are too expensive for me to buy, but since I don't drive I don't give it much mind.

What are these play styles that will not be available? Specifics please, not anecdotal opinions.

More specifically, the industry play styles. Not the structure ownership play styles.

Ferrari's might be too expensive for you to buy. You might not even be able to afford a KIA. But since you drive rented cars anyway, and Ferrari's are cheaper to rent than a KIA (Station), you can drive one all you want anyway.

Quote:
If you only develop the system for three industrial cases and only concern yourself with there being a linear progression of increased investment, risk and potential profit margin running through them, then you'll continue to neglect everyone outside of those three narrow and contrived cases.

Also when we talk about new players and smaller industrialists, my main concern is their enjoyment of the game, not really the hard numbers of their situation.


You are conflating the fun of doing industry with the fun of structure ownership and management. They are not the same thing.

Presumably these three use cases are Station Production, Public EC's, and building a personal EC. Lets ignore for the moment the fourth of private, limited access EC's and fifth of putting industry services in a combat citadel for added security.

This is already an improvement over the current system. Currently, it's "do I have a 10 figure wallet?"
No > Station production.
Yes > Make my own Corp. Build my own POS and do EVERYTHING in it.

Can we even go so far as to call that a progression system, let alone a system that presents options to the user?

The new system is far more engaging, partly thanks to the rigs you would like to combine into more broad benefits. Let us take the example of a player building medium T2 ships. Unlike your tower, you will have to choose how to handle each step and it's not a straight forward decision.

Firstly, the copying. Do you risk the BPO being locked in a public EC? Or your own for that matter? Perhaps you can get sufficient copies for your runs in a station with more security?
Invention: Do you use a public facility? Your own? Which rigs are important to you?
Build or buy components? Where?
Build or buy the T1 hull? Where?

Lets assume the player is willing to deploy one personal medium EC. He is willing to T2 a single rig. Which activity does he cater it to?

Potential options include:
Run only manufacturing plant to minimize costs. Focus on ME over volume.
T2 Advanced medium ship ME
T1 Basic medium ship ME
T1 Advanced component ME

This leaves you doing, for argument's sake, copying in stations and invention at a public lab.
Due to using T1 rigs, the latter two might not be as effective as using someone else's facility. If one is available, you could use a time rig for one of the other activities. Note this choice is dynamic based on facilities around you rather than having one right answer. There is a choice to be made of whether you allow public access.

Alternately, you can choose to run a Manufacturing plant and Invention lab
T2 invention cost
T1 invention speed
T1 Adv med ship ME

Copy in stations. Build T1 hull at public facility. Buy pre-built components. Rent out the lab, using the rig to mitigate personal cost. Keep the manufacturing private to control index. Perhaps deliberately NOT rig invention speed, to reduce impact on index?

For best benefits - pair up with a friend. One Builds a lab, the other the factory.

Choices choices choices.

What is the comparable setup cost of a tower than can do all these activities right now? 500 mil? 800 mil? Is that so far off a T1 rigged Raitaru? Considering you get 50% more ME and 34% more TE than an Array, with T1 rigs?
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#552 - 2016-10-16 00:21:35 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Also Vlad you didn't get 'told off' for using a Cruiser on one line. You got told off for attempting to use the cruiser in every single line. A small scale industrialist might very well have 1 or 2 lines of cruisers going, but not 10 & not 30.

I also am going to go back to what I said before. Alts should not be required gameplay for a profession, and that includes alts on the same account.

Alts are not strictly required. It's a choice of whether you scale your operation horizontally, to mass produce inexpensive items, or vertically to more expensive/more skill intensive items with higher input costs per line/time. Presumably, the latter would have a higher profit margin. But there is a ceiling to vertical scaling. Horizontal is capped mostly by the extent of your masochistic tendencies.

Beyond that, production alts are a necessary evil. The alternative would be to allow a single industry character to produce effectively infinite amounts of concurrent goods across all scales of difficulty available to it. Just how much a single character should be able to do, and balance between vertical and horizontal scaling is another question entirely. The changes are bringing faster builds and more material efficiency. Which style does that favor more?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#553 - 2016-10-16 00:37:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Quote:
Vald Tegor
People keep complaining this will negatively impact small scale producers. I'm yet to see someone qualify what small scale is, quantify the negative impact (10% less profit? 300% less profit?), or even go so far as to prove one exists.
I might be able to add a little insight here.

I run a medium pos with a small 5 man alt corp.
I mine as much of my mineral requirements as possible, sell extra to pay for those I can't mine (due to location).

My production lines vary from week to week - Depending on sales and market prices of what I can build.
T1 and T2 - Fighters, Capital modules, Rigs, Entosis links and a variety of other things.
I can simply offline what I am not currently using and online other modules.

With the timing being right and prices not fluctuating too much, I net between 3 and 4 bil per week (which supports 11 active accounts)

Moving to a medium EC (approximately the same setup prices as my faction tower, give or take a couple hundred isk)
I will have far less choices in what I can "optimally" manufacture with at least 50% increased fuel costs, on limited production lines.

Costs - I figure, when I am forced into using an EC, my profit will see about a 25 to 30% reduction.
I will have less choices in what I do with MY structure and sharing a public one only works if I can build what I need to, which is not possible due to Devs idea that no one structure should allow for mixed manufacturing (or simply put, they want small operators to be a the mercy of the rich by limiting what they can do)

NB; Having to find 3 or 4 or even 5 different EC's to optimize my manufacturing - Is a Pita (and really poor game design)
Having to pay to use a public EC on top of all the NPC taxes - Is a pita (and not good game design for small operators)

But as I said previously - Devs don't / can't consider small groups or individuals in design because the large groups, rich players would benefit far too much. So the small guy gets screwed.

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.

Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
#554 - 2016-10-16 01:53:21 UTC
Now Life wrote:
I like the idea of Engineering Complexes but what you are coming is weak.
64 M-Set engineering Rigs , Raitaru = 3rig slots (we need to install 11 Raitaru's ? )
32 L-Set engineering Rigs , Azbel = 3 rig slots
8 XL-Set engineering Rigs , Sotiyo = 3 rig slots

There are both T1 and T2 rigs included in those numbers. If you have a Complex rigged with T2 rigs, you don't need one rigged with T1 rigs. So there are 32 mediums, 16 larges, and 4 XL's, each in both T1 and T2 flavor.
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#555 - 2016-10-16 03:19:17 UTC
Vald Tegor wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
I made it pretty clear in my posting that I'm as veteran an industrialist as you'll find and my concern here is not for my own needs

For arguments sake, let us say a new S-class EC was added. It has one service module slot, a 75% fuel use reduction and requires only 4 hours per week of vulnerability. Build cost of 100 million. With T1 rigs and a service module this is still 500+ million.

Who does this benefit?

I don't think that design would benefit many people at all.

The design I proposed, being an S-class structure that behaves consistently with other S-class structures, would not have any service module slots, fuel consumption, vulnerability timer or rigs. It would just give a single individual the ability to run a maximum of 11 jobs in a system of their choosing, preferably with a small bonus (5% time at most). It would cost no more than 100m complete and have no operating costs beyond the installation fees.

It would be more expensive and riskier to use than a NPC station, but it allows you to choose where you want to build, allowing you to build in a system with a low index. The price point would be inclusive of newer players and smaller industrialists. Without any requirement for a corp, it would be universally available.

I can think of a lot of people who would benefit from that design.
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#556 - 2016-10-16 03:52:55 UTC
Vald Tegor wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
I don't really see how those definitions really help, since they are symptomatic of exactly the kind of pidgeonhole thinking that leads to this kind of bad design.

Yet that is how game design works. You identify the use cases, then go over how each of them is impacted by the change. I fail to see how this leads to bad game design. Unless you leave out a use case, in which case that is a failure at the task - not a flaw of the process.

What you have done is created three somewhat arbitrary and restrictive use cases and attempted to shove everyone in to them (pidgeonholing).

So yes, you've failed at the task.

Vald Tegor wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
Not really, because there is no structure setup or operation costs for playstyles that aren't going to be available. Sure you can complain that ECs are out of your price range, but if the EC doesn't suit your needs anyway it really doesn't matter. Ferrari's are too expensive for me to buy, but since I don't drive I don't give it much mind.

What are these play styles that will not be available? Specifics please, not anecdotal opinions.

More specifically, the industry play styles. Not the structure ownership play styles.

Ferrari's might be too expensive for you to buy. You might not even be able to afford a KIA. But since you drive rented cars anyway, and Ferrari's are cheaper to rent than a KIA (Station), you can drive one all you want anyway.

Consider these few as a starting point, I'm sure there are many more:

1) Players that want to produce in their own facility without being in a corp.

2) Players that want to produce in a system where there is no suitable facility, but cannot afford a M-class EC.

3) Players that want to produce in their own facility, but do not want to take on the risk/effort level of an M-class EC.

4) Players that want to move their base of operations regularly.

5) Players that want to produce in WH space, where an EC is much riskier due to the lack of asset safety, so want to mitigate that risk by cutting back on infrastructure investment.

6) Players that want to produce in low-class WH space, where the volume of an EC may be prohibitive (this may not be a significant case depending on volumes of the final implementation).

7) Players that want to produce in their own facility, within the weapon range of their corp's M+ sized structure for protection.

I'm not sure how non-structure ownership playstyles fit into a discussion about the use cases for structure ownership, maybe you can clarify that for me.

Also, I don't drive rented cars either. I don't fit into the limited transport use cases you have offered me.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#557 - 2016-10-16 13:59:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Bad Bobby wrote:
Vald Tegor wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
I don't really see how those definitions really help, since they are symptomatic of exactly the kind of pidgeonhole thinking that leads to this kind of bad design.

Yet that is how game design works. You identify the use cases, then go over how each of them is impacted by the change. I fail to see how this leads to bad game design. Unless you leave out a use case, in which case that is a failure at the task - not a flaw of the process.

What you have done is created three somewhat arbitrary and restrictive use cases and attempted to shove everyone in to them (pidgeonholing).

So yes, you've failed at the task.

Vald Tegor wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
Not really, because there is no structure setup or operation costs for playstyles that aren't going to be available. Sure you can complain that ECs are out of your price range, but if the EC doesn't suit your needs anyway it really doesn't matter. Ferrari's are too expensive for me to buy, but since I don't drive I don't give it much mind.

What are these play styles that will not be available? Specifics please, not anecdotal opinions.

More specifically, the industry play styles. Not the structure ownership play styles.

Ferrari's might be too expensive for you to buy. You might not even be able to afford a KIA. But since you drive rented cars anyway, and Ferrari's are cheaper to rent than a KIA (Station), you can drive one all you want anyway.

Consider these few as a starting point, I'm sure there are many more:

1) Players that want to produce in their own facility without being in a corp.

2) Players that want to produce in a system where there is no suitable facility, but cannot afford a M-class EC.

3) Players that want to produce in their own facility, but do not want to take on the risk/effort level of an M-class EC.

4) Players that want to move their base of operations regularly.

5) Players that want to produce in WH space, where an EC is much riskier due to the lack of asset safety, so want to mitigate that risk by cutting back on infrastructure investment.

6) Players that want to produce in low-class WH space, where the volume of an EC may be prohibitive (this may not be a significant case depending on volumes of the final implementation).

7) Players that want to produce in their own facility, within the weapon range of their corp's M+ sized structure for protection.

I'm not sure how non-structure ownership playstyles fit into a discussion about the use cases for structure ownership, maybe you can clarify that for me.

Also, I don't drive rented cars either. I don't fit into the limited transport use cases you have offered me.

Ok, I'm going to address your last 2 posts here, as they belong together for purpose.

While the idea of a small structure for manufacturing is good and has merit. You have left out possibly the most important part of their use and availability.
How does one attack or defend one? I am for the most part an industrialist but do like to kill other peoples things as well, so if you have a line of structures that npc corp members can own, there needs to be a way to attack them.

If you make them like mobile depots, MTU's - Anyone can attack them, they are all but useless - Attacking needs rules as does defending, that is why we have a wardec system (as broken as it is).

I would propose, a small EC structure, that costs the same as a small pos to set up with roughly the same utility as a small pos set up for manufacturing.
A; It would have 5 or 6 hours per week vulnerability (even a small corp can be there to defend their structure for 6 hours a week).

B; 3 rig slots, 3 highslots, 3 midslots, 2 lowslots and 3 service slots (powergrid and CPU, I'll not attempt but would be to suit)

C; Anchoring would take 6 hours, unanchoring would take 12 hours, can't be unanchored once a wardec is active - If you want to move your structure, you can but you have to make a sacrifice by staying up late or getting up early. If you want to take it down to avoid a wardec, you need to do it before the 24 hour stasis ends.

D; It would have EHP roughly that of a small pos and only 1 timer, reinforce (with DPS taken limited like other Citadel structures) then destruction. No second timer like Citadels as this would make them more of a nuisance to kill and defend. If you can't defend it after the initial timer (which the owner can set, just like other structures), you don't deserve to have it.

E; Defensive capability - I would suggest Rapid heavy missile equivalent X 2 and possibly an extended range (10K) Large smartbomb (that can be used in highsec for war targets only, it would have no effect on anyone else unless they are attacking the structure (which Concord would respond to), lowsec or nulsec it could damage anyone within range) it would have a 60 second cycle time and no more damage capability than one fit to a battleship.

F; They would have the same asset protection as other new structures.

G; Fuel; Cost for fuel could be set per service running - say 5 fuel blocks per hour for each service you have running - This works out at slightly mre than a small pos but not so much as to make manufacturing unprofitable.

CCP isn't going to give small groups a structure that can't be destroyed and one that can be destroyed without the need for a wardec or other such mechanics is pointless.

** While being in an npc corp and able to own structures would be nice for some., it is also not good design. You want a structure, it is a matter of a few hours skill training and start your own corp (only takes one person) - and take the risks every other structure owner takes.

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.

Albert Spear
Non scholae sed vitae
#558 - 2016-10-16 15:21:45 UTC
I have run my own numbers. I filled several pages of spreadsheet.

As a solo indy player. I will skip structures.

As a new player, it would be discouraging to see the long time players with structures I could not touch.

The income curve just got steeper. To be able to play and gain good to great profitability means making it up a steep set of steps.

I will stick to my small POS and making simple stuff. Yes, I know I am a small time nothing in the game.

My time in the game each week has dropped from 30 to 40 hours, to 1 or 2. I guess I am going thru the same cycle many other players have over time.

I loved the move to the mobile deployables. I wish it would continue for solo players. I would love a small deployable array that would let me build a couple of batches of ammo or crystals or ....

No shields, no stealth, deploy it and wait. Vulnerable to anyone who wants to steal it. Same for single batch, single ore deployables that would allow me to deploy it and wait for my ore to turn into minerals. Maybe even make both of these single use.

Low skill levels, high vulnerability, and low costs.

A couple of units of fuel, and the raw materials. Deploy and pray that no one wants to steal it. Lots of potential game play mechanics and conflict generation.

Some thing for solo players and new players to dip their beak in.

Yes, it is a crazy idea - but it offers something that builds on current mechanics and makes entry level indy, potentially a conflict creator, that ranking is not.

I know, stupid idea - don't know what I am talking about. Not the way the game should be played.
l0cal tears
Deep Thought Labs
#559 - 2016-10-16 16:52:10 UTC
Didn't you get it backwards?

Shouldn't Citadels have longer vuln windows since they can defend themselves and have more EHP? The Engineering complexes with their lower EHP and lesser ability to defend themselves, should be the ones with the shorter window to balance things out.


That smallest complex is gonna be killed far too often!

Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
The Bastion
#560 - 2016-10-16 17:05:13 UTC
l0cal tears wrote:
Didn't you get it backwards?

Shouldn't Citadels have longer vuln windows since they can defend themselves and have more EHP? The Engineering complexes with their lower EHP and lesser ability to defend themselves, should be the ones with the shorter window to balance things out.


That smallest complex is gonna be killed far too often!



They think industrialists are also masochists apparently.