These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bussan
Kabukicho
#721 - 2016-10-25 01:24:50 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

His comparison of market pvp to ship vs ship pvp is totally wrong - Industrialists "teaming up" = less profit for all = teaming up for industrial purposes is a bad thing.
Unfortunately Pedro has no real perspective on market and industrial pvp vs ship to ship combat - "Just go blow up the competitions structures", confirms this.


I guess that this is the problem about most of "discussions" here... industrialists don't like many aspects of the new ECs, and not just because before we had an easy life with POSes. "Pvpers" just see a new chance to easily blow up stuff, so of course they are happy if industrialists are forced into those new structures. Too bad that at the current situation a lot of people will just use NPC stations, making it really 100% invulnerable.

And as stated already in other posts, industrialists mostly don't team up for good reasons... and nothing will change with the new structures. The people that before was working in small groups will keep doing that, solo ones will keep solo. Making big teams just ruin most of the fun and most of the income... so why doing it?
It's a sandbox, it's a mmo, so why I cannot choose when to interact with others and when to go solo?
I don't see ccp forcing people to fleet up to do missions yet... so they should remove them?

And of course no industrialist will make his own ECs open to the public, because it would be just plain stupid.
The only public structures will be made by big corps/alliances just to rent the services (I guess those groups won't do indy at all).
And no industrial will do "indy pvp" like some people suggested here, going to blow up other people structures... it wouldn't be effective at all, just a waste of time and money (and attract enemies, something that no indy want). Thinking like that is obviously a pvp-perspective of the situation, not what actually industrialists would do.


Kinizsi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#722 - 2016-10-25 07:21:30 UTC
Bussan wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

His comparison of market pvp to ship vs ship pvp is totally wrong - Industrialists "teaming up" = less profit for all = teaming up for industrial purposes is a bad thing.
Unfortunately Pedro has no real perspective on market and industrial pvp vs ship to ship combat - "Just go blow up the competitions structures", confirms this.


I guess that this is the problem about most of "discussions" here... industrialists don't like many aspects of the new ECs, and not just because before we had an easy life with POSes. "Pvpers" just see a new chance to easily blow up stuff, so of course they are happy if industrialists are forced into those new structures. Too bad that at the current situation a lot of people will just use NPC stations, making it really 100% invulnerable.

And as stated already in other posts, industrialists mostly don't team up for good reasons... and nothing will change with the new structures. The people that before was working in small groups will keep doing that, solo ones will keep solo. Making big teams just ruin most of the fun and most of the income... so why doing it?
It's a sandbox, it's a mmo, so why I cannot choose when to interact with others and when to go solo?
I don't see ccp forcing people to fleet up to do missions yet... so they should remove them?

And of course no industrialist will make his own ECs open to the public, because it would be just plain stupid.
The only public structures will be made by big corps/alliances just to rent the services (I guess those groups won't do indy at all).
And no industrial will do "indy pvp" like some people suggested here, going to blow up other people structures... it wouldn't be effective at all, just a waste of time and money (and attract enemies, something that no indy want). Thinking like that is obviously a pvp-perspective of the situation, not what actually industrialists would do.




I'll build an open EC for the public with my alt, minor tax would cover the fuel needs, and if it becomes popular it would provide me more income than actual manufacturing. Or just building a public network for the tax income, my job would be only to fuel them. Many would do the same, to free themself of maintaining those EC's, but using them for their benefits.

Minor risk, high revard, there goes your idea about how stupid it would be to open EC's for public. I don't care high income, a small stream of constant ISK is enough for my playstyle. The more the better.

Mercenary business would be a thing again, to removing, defending those structures, more entertaining sandbox game.


Black Pedro
Mine.
#723 - 2016-10-25 07:22:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Bussan wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

His comparison of market pvp to ship vs ship pvp is totally wrong - Industrialists "teaming up" = less profit for all = teaming up for industrial purposes is a bad thing.
Unfortunately Pedro has no real perspective on market and industrial pvp vs ship to ship combat - "Just go blow up the competitions structures", confirms this.


I guess that this is the problem about most of "discussions" here... industrialists don't like many aspects of the new ECs, and not just because before we had an easy life with POSes. "Pvpers" just see a new chance to easily blow up stuff, so of course they are happy if industrialists are forced into those new structures. Too bad that at the current situation a lot of people will just use NPC stations, making it really 100% invulnerable.
Even if every single current highsec industrialist moves into an invulnerable NPC station, we are better off. Prices would adjust to the new cost structure so everyone would make the same profit, and the annoying, buggy, tedious thing that is a POS would be out of the game. Given the current POS is not at any real risk of attack and is generating no content in highsec, moving industrialists to the complete safety of an NPC station doesn't remove anything from the game other than a bunch of clicking for established industrialists and an artificial barrier to entry for upcoming industrialists.

But that is not what is going to happen. There are established industrial groups that will decide the benefits outweigh the risks/costs and deploy them. Brave or foolhardy solo industrialists will be induced by the reduced costs to take a chance and deploy one. New emergent player-built organizations will appear where 'solo' industrialists collaborate in some ways to save costs and provide for mutual defence. Non-industrialists will take a shot at being a landlord and renting out such structures to industrialists. In short, a whole new set of sandbox tools and interactions will be made possible by these new structures.

I don't get all the pessimism. Highsec is overflowing with refining citadels that are rarely being attacked. I get that this is, by many measures, making something worse and no one likes to have their toys taken away, but highsec industrial POSes were adding so little to the game other than needless complexity that most people should be celebrating their death. The dynamic of 'declare war/fold-up POS' was not fun for either side, nor was there any real possibility of collaborating due to the security issues of POSes.

These ECs should be better in almost every way. Yes, that means some former POS owners will now become clients of someone else's EC or inhabit an NPC station, and those players are indeed losing some game play, but on the whole the game should be better for everyone, including them, with the tedium and problems of POS management being deleted from the game.
Bussan
Kabukicho
#724 - 2016-10-25 07:57:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Bussan
Kinizsi wrote:

I'll build an open EC for the public with my alt, minor tax would cover the fuel needs, and if it becomes popular it would provide me more income than actual manufacturing. Or just building a public network for the tax income, my job would be only to fuel them. Many would do the same, to free themself of maintaining those EC's, but using them for their benefits.

Minor risk, high revard, there goes your idea about how stupid it would be to open EC's for public. I don't care high income, a small stream of constant ISK is enough for my playstyle. The more the better.

Mercenary business would be a thing again, to removing, defending those structures, more entertaining sandbox game.


People can do as they please, that's the nice things about a sandbox. Oh well, even not sandbox games are like that... if you don't care about optimizing your income and actually making isks out of your business (EC/indy in this case), it's up to you.
But honestly I don't understand what is your point...
"Real" industrialists put a lot of effort in the min/maxing, they decided to enter in this part of the game instead of another one because they enjoyed it. And honestly it's all about making isks from building/selling stuff. The more the better.

But I'm not even sure if you will actually do indy or not, in your own EC...

If not, I already said that most of the public ECs will be set up by people NOT doing indy themselves. Because attract more people = higher indexes = way less profit (that you won't recover with that minor tax).

Black Pedro wrote:

I don't get all the pessimism. Highsec is overflowing with refining citadels that are rarely being attacked. I get that this is, by many measures, making something worse and no one likes to have their toys taken away, but highsec industrial POSes were adding so little to the game other than needless complexity that most people should be celebrating their death. The dynamic of 'declare war/fold-up POS' was not fun for either side, nor was there any real possibility of collaborating due to the security issues of POSes.

These ECs should be better in almost every way. Yes, that means some former POS owners will now become clients of someone else's EC or inhabit an NPC station, and those players are indeed losing some game play, but on the whole the game should be better for everyone, including them, with the tedium and problems of POS management being deleted from the game.


1st of all. We all agree that POSes are bad, and we all want them to disappear. That's actually the first reason why industrialists are so "noisy" about this. We waited for years, using a buggy and annoying system, waiting for something better... just to get something that is not better in almost any way. Just maybe less buggy and a bit easier to be used.

So the overflowing refining citadels in HS what are actually bringing over the previous status, as (you said) they are rarely being attacked? a bit better refining for single noobs that before used NPC stations? Make it easier to mining in systems without stations? mhmm oh well... and most of them will slowly fade away or be turned off, because not worth the hassle of fueling them.
We all know that when something new arrives in a game, many people wanna try it, and in this case many people built citadels just because they were something new. They will still use them? sure... but you will see less and less public services around.
And people knew that during a wardec corps would remove the POSes, so what is the problem? they just didn't wardec because they wanted to kill a POS from the beginning. They did it for the chance of blowing ships, or getting ransoms, etc.

Why I cannot kill an inty with my dread? they always run away! I wanna kill them... if I can't because of game mechanics, have to be broken? I just kill that BS instead....

So yeah, they DO introduce new possibilities and remove some buggy mechanics from the game, BUT they introduce a lot of hassles, wastes of time, and narrow our possible choices (and then our fun). That's what we are complaining about.

And of course people will adapt... just don't see why we have to have a way worse playing experience than before, when it could be better.... and I already explained some of these points before...
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#725 - 2016-10-25 08:01:42 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
New emergent player-built organizations will appear where 'solo' industrialists collaborate in some ways to save costs and provide for mutual defence. Non-industrialists will take a shot at being a landlord and renting out such structures to industrialists. In short, a whole new set of sandbox tools and interactions will be made possible by these new structures.
I think that should read: An old set of sandbox tools will finally be returned to us after a long period of absence.

POSes weren't always as terrible as they are now. They were made this way because CCP wanted to improve industry.

My concern is, like the previous industry improvements, we'll end up with another half-implemented feature set that will not get iterated and will be abandoned in a few years when the next bright spark with little grasp of the realities and potential of sandbox industry gameplay comes along.

My hope is, unlike the previous industry improvements, CCP will iterate the feature while it's still in development and not dump another incomplete rush job on us before moving on to the next big thing.

For my part, I'll probably be using a combination of NPC sations, POSes and, to a minor extent, an industry service carrying Citadel for my various industry projects. ECs are just too feature light, defensively inadequate and overpriced compared to their utility for the economic maths to make any sense for anything I do. If I was still making supercapitals, then I'd have a reason to use one, but for everything else there are clearly better options.
Tiberius Zol
Moira.
Villore Accords
#726 - 2016-10-25 08:25:36 UTC
All this "POS in Highsec is secure and invulnerable" stuff may be true in theory, but works only for industrialstuff < 24hrs. Which is not the usual way for production. So whenever a group of players declare a wardec on a corp with production POS'es, there is a good chance for running jobs > 24hrs. So the corp has to deside: Can I defend the pos? (and keep the jobs running), do the pos have enough def? or do I have to cancel all the jobs (and maybe lose billions of ISK) to save the POS?

You see, it's not black or white.. and you have to risk your stuff in highsec, if you want to build greater stuff in a POS (like ships).

Yes, I like the Idea that comes with EC's. Yes, I'm a fan of killing all the legacy code around POS. But I also appreciate the concerns from the industrialist side.

Mr. Tibbers on twitter: @Mr_Tibbers

Mr. Tibbers Blog: www.eve-versum.de

Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
#727 - 2016-10-25 09:18:22 UTC
Tiberius Zol wrote:
All this "POS in Highsec is secure and invulnerable" stuff may be true in theory, but works only for industrialstuff < 24hrs. Which is not the usual way for production. So whenever a group of players declare a wardec on a corp with production POS'es, there is a good chance for running jobs > 24hrs. So the corp has to deside: Can I defend the pos? (and keep the jobs running), do the pos have enough def? or do I have to cancel all the jobs (and maybe lose billions of ISK) to save the POS?

You see, it's not black or white.. and you have to risk your stuff in highsec, if you want to build greater stuff in a POS (like ships).

Yes, I like the Idea that comes with EC's. Yes, I'm a fan of killing all the legacy code around POS. But I also appreciate the concerns from the industrialist side.


Most Highsec industrialists that isn't a Nullsec shadow corp, almost always strip the POS down. Probably let the less then 24hr job finish. But, why risk that potential shiny BPO for longer jobs?

Much like every Nullsec carebear, when you have a hint of danger, you dock up. Risk adverse gameplay exist everywhere!

So, yes, a POS in Highsec is technically "secure and invulnerable" simply because of NPC stations. No matter how CCP designs Structures, it'll just happen with them...but with slightly more expensive losses.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#728 - 2016-10-25 09:52:24 UTC
Tiberius Zol wrote:
All this "POS in Highsec is secure and invulnerable" stuff may be true in theory, but works only for industrialstuff < 24hrs. Which is not the usual way for production. So whenever a group of players declare a wardec on a corp with production POS'es, there is a good chance for running jobs > 24hrs. So the corp has to deside: Can I defend the pos? (and keep the jobs running), do the pos have enough def? or do I have to cancel all the jobs (and maybe lose billions of ISK) to save the POS?

You see, it's not black or white.. and you have to risk your stuff in highsec, if you want to build greater stuff in a POS (like ships).

Yes, I like the Idea that comes with EC's. Yes, I'm a fan of killing all the legacy code around POS. But I also appreciate the concerns from the industrialist side.
If that's true, then nothing is changing other than the defender gets more control over when they can be attacked, and more chances to win a battle that will save their structure.

But it is largely not true. The run times for the vast majority of items can be kept to a day or less - even building a battleship only takes a few hours. Aside from long research jobs, the majority of industry can be done in shortish chunks where only pocket change, if anything is at risk.

Further, I will assert that the ability to evade a war by pulling down a structure is a major part of what makes POSes almost completely safe in highsec simply by discouraging most attempts. The fact your opponent can opt-out of your structure bash removes almost all motivation for an aggressor to even try to explode one if they know the most likely outcome is the loss of 50M ISK and the target pulling down their stuff and storing it in an invulnerable station and redeploying it a week later.

It's silly to let industrialists benefit from an invulnerable structure. If they are going to be invulnerable, then let them be invulnerable without the hassle of all that pointless micromanaging. If they want to take a risk for more reward, then let's enable them to do that to.
Kinizsi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#729 - 2016-10-25 10:36:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Kinizsi
Black Pedro wrote:
[quote=Tiberius Zol] The fact your opponent can opt-out of your structure bash removes almost all motivation for an aggressor to even try to explode one if they know the most likely outcome is the loss of 50M ISK and the target pulling down their stuff and storing it in an invulnerable station and redeploying it a week later.

It's silly to let industrialists benefit from an invulnerable structure. If they are going to be invulnerable, then let them be invulnerable without the hassle of all that pointless micromanaging. If they want to take a risk for more reward, then let's enable them to do that to.



Sadly nothing would really change. Defenders would have 48 hours to finish all manufacturing and safe their assets.

24h for war, than 24 hours after they reinforce shield, only armor reinforcement turns services off........

And there will be still 0 benefit for the attackers, casue, even if there were anything in production while the armor was reinforced, the manufacturer probably can cancel the manufacture job, and by that they deny any loot for the attacker except the service modules and citadel fitting, but no loot from the actual in progress manufacture job.

Probably it won't worth to declare war for this low loot, and so much time consumint RF's but who knows? at least there will be a big boom after the finer RF timer, they can't deny that casue the owner won't have time to pick it up.
Chani El'zrya
Beyond Frontier
Pandemic Horde
#730 - 2016-10-25 10:40:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Chani El'zrya
Black Pedro wrote:
Tiberius Zol wrote:
All this "POS in Highsec is secure and invulnerable" stuff may be true in theory, but works only for industrialstuff < 24hrs. Which is not the usual way for production. So whenever a group of players declare a wardec on a corp with production POS'es, there is a good chance for running jobs > 24hrs. So the corp has to deside: Can I defend the pos? (and keep the jobs running), do the pos have enough def? or do I have to cancel all the jobs (and maybe lose billions of ISK) to save the POS?

You see, it's not black or white.. and you have to risk your stuff in highsec, if you want to build greater stuff in a POS (like ships).

Yes, I like the Idea that comes with EC's. Yes, I'm a fan of killing all the legacy code around POS. But I also appreciate the concerns from the industrialist side.
If that's true, then nothing is changing other than the defender gets more control over when they can be attacked, and more chances to win a battle that will save their structure.

But it is largely not true. The run times for the vast majority of items can be kept to a day or less - even building a battleship only takes a few hours. Aside from long research jobs, the majority of industry can be done in shortish chunks where only pocket change, if anything is at risk.



I don't agree.

It is definitly possible to stick with run time < 24 hours. Yes
But there are incentive to run with more than 24 hours, because of the materials saved with longer jobs and better utilisation of production slots.
So most of us take the risks and go above 24h.
Tiberius zol is right when saying billons can be at stake upon wardec. Even for solo.
There is a real risk/reward with POS system.

ECs introduce an other type of risk/reward:
-being able to run safe 6 days jobs
-at the expense of more expensive destructible structure.

It's just a shift.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#731 - 2016-10-25 11:08:51 UTC
Kinizsi wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
The fact your opponent can opt-out of your structure bash removes almost all motivation for an aggressor to even try to explode one if they know the most likely outcome is the loss of 50M ISK and the target pulling down their stuff and storing it in an invulnerable station and redeploying it a week later.

It's silly to let industrialists benefit from an invulnerable structure. If they are going to be invulnerable, then let them be invulnerable without the hassle of all that pointless micromanaging. If they want to take a risk for more reward, then let's enable them to do that to.



Sadly nothing would really change. Defenders would have 48 hours to finish all manufacturing and safe their assets.

24h for war, than 24 hours after they reinforce shield, only armor reinforcement turns services off........

And there will be still 0 benefit for the attackers, casue, even if there were anything in production while the armor was reinforced, the manufacturer probably can cancel the manufacture job, and by that they deny any loot for the attacker except the service modules and citadel fitting, but no loot from the actual in progress manufacture job.

Probably it won't worth to declare war for this low loot, and so much time consumint RF's but who knows? at least there will be a big boom after the finer RF timer, they can't deny that casue the owner won't have time to pick it up.

I agree but at least someone can try to explode the structure now. I have no problem with industrialists choosing to stop their production to safeguard their materials, and they probably should have that option for the same reason the structures have asset safety. But players should not be able to benefit from infrastructure that is invulnerable to attack and this is what is getting fixed.

One step at a time. We will soon have a way for players to directly attack each other's industrial assets in space. I agree there is not much reason to do so now. In fact you will still probably loose financially from the attempt even if your opponent doesn't do anything to defend and you are successful, at least in highsec. Maybe the industry indices will serve as some motivation to do so, and hopefully in the future CCP can turn their minds to adding some more conflict drivers to the game instead of constantly removing them, but for now there will be a skeleton of a game mechanic to support sandbox game play and conflict over production.
Tiberius Zol
Moira.
Villore Accords
#732 - 2016-10-25 11:43:48 UTC
Maybe the definition of invulnerable here is a bit ...odd.

In your example...every ship is invulnerable by your definition. Because you can store your ship in a NPC station in case of a wardec or whatever.

But as you said. Wee will see what happens after the release..

Mr. Tibbers on twitter: @Mr_Tibbers

Mr. Tibbers Blog: www.eve-versum.de

Black Pedro
Mine.
#733 - 2016-10-25 11:58:04 UTC
Tiberius Zol wrote:
Maybe the definition of invulnerable here is a bit ...odd.

In your example...every ship is invulnerable by your definition. Because you can store your ship in a NPC station in case of a wardec or whatever.

But as you said. Wee will see what happens after the release..
A ship is never invulnerable when in space. It can always be ganked.

A POS protected by CONCORD is invulnerable. There is no way to explode it under the current mechanics. You can make someone remove it true, but the structure itself is invulnerable.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#734 - 2016-10-25 12:14:50 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Tiberius Zol wrote:
Maybe the definition of invulnerable here is a bit ...odd.

In your example...every ship is invulnerable by your definition. Because you can store your ship in a NPC station in case of a wardec or whatever.

But as you said. Wee will see what happens after the release..
A ship is never invulnerable when in space. It can always be ganked.

A POS protected by CONCORD is invulnerable. There is no way to explode it under the current mechanics. You can make someone remove it true, but the structure itself is invulnerable.

Do you ever read what you have typed before hitting POST?

You should try it, you might not post false, misleading, incorrect, uninformed information so often.
And for pities sake, please stop posting about stuff you don't understand.. Serious Industrialists don't build one item at a time, even those building capitals and components have multiple jobs in at a time and they can take weeks.

Any pos can be attacked without Concord intervention, you just have to use game mechanics. I've been involved in blowing up many pos's in highsec. In the meta war, forcing someone to pull down their pos due to war, is a win - They lose isk for every day they are not producing, so yes the structure is invulnerable while not in space but the owners lose (usually much more than the pos is worth)

NB; The amount of ships "ganked" in highsec, is not as high as you might think.. Gankers for the most part aren't much more than a nuisance..

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.
#735 - 2016-10-25 12:56:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Any pos can be attacked without Concord intervention, you just have to use game mechanics. I've been involved in blowing up many pos's in highsec. In the meta war, forcing someone to pull down their pos due to war, is a win - They lose isk for every day they are not producing, so yes the structure is invulnerable while not in space but the owners lose (usually much more than the pos is worth)
It cannot. It can be made to move (which is the only thing that saves the current mechanic from being completely broken), but if the defender doesn't want to lose the POS they have 24h to take down the structure before CONCORD protection goes away and you can shoot it. This is a demonstrably factual statement about the current mechanics that I am amazed you are arguing with me over. You can benefit from in-space industrial assets with no risk of losing them today and this needs to be, and is being, addressed.

I find it amusing that people are trying to argue that current POSes are already at significant risk while simultaneously declaring the new ECs are too risky when they will be even safer mechanically than POSes with extra reinforcement timers and straight-out invulnerability most of the time to attack. If your structures are already at risk in highsec today, why is the fact the ECs will also be at risk an issue?

Forget it, you don't need to respond, the answer is transparently clear. Change is coming whether you like it or not and no one, not even CCP, knows how it will all pan out. I'm just going to enjoy CCP shaking up the snow-globe and go along for the ride.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#736 - 2016-10-25 13:58:04 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Any pos can be attacked without Concord intervention, you just have to use game mechanics. I've been involved in blowing up many pos's in highsec. In the meta war, forcing someone to pull down their pos due to war, is a win - They lose isk for every day they are not producing, so yes the structure is invulnerable while not in space but the owners lose (usually much more than the pos is worth)
It cannot. It can be made to move (which is the only thing that saves the current mechanic from being completely broken), but if the defender doesn't want to lose the POS they have 24h to take down the structure before CONCORD protection goes away and you can shoot it. This is a demonstrably factual statement about the current mechanics that I am amazed you are arguing with me over. You can benefit from in-space industrial assets with no risk of losing them today and this needs to be, and is being, addressed.

I find it amusing that people are trying to argue that current POSes are already at significant risk while simultaneously declaring the new ECs are too risky when they will be even safer mechanically than POSes with extra reinforcement timers and straight-out invulnerability most of the time to attack. If your structures are already at risk in highsec today, why is the fact the ECs will also be at risk an issue?

Forget it, you don't need to respond, the answer is transparently clear. Change is coming whether you like it or not and no one, not even CCP, knows how it will all pan out. I'm just going to enjoy CCP shaking up the snow-globe and go along for the ride.

I'm not sure if English is a second language, hence you lack of understanding the simple statements I made or if your just seriously thick and can't see the grass for the trees

I suppose an individual would need to spend some time actually playing the game and using available mechanics, instead of spending all their time posting inaccurate drivel on the forums.

I'm sorry but your the only one arguing here and very badly at that. As I said PLEASE stop posting about things you simply don't understand. Oh and read what i wrote, then try responding to that and not with the same falsehoods you have been posting.

Not everyone thinks about "blowing something up" as a victory - The meta game in eve is far more complicated than you seem to understand.

On EC's - Two major issues with them. First is the amount of time required to defend them (no-one wants eve to be a second job, they have to pay to go to). Second, is the running costs. CCP is wrong in believing industrialists will "team up" and set up community EC's, therefore creating competition for themselves. There may or may not end up being public EC's at some time in the future but the costs to use them (charged by the owner/s) + npc costs will likely make them very rare and only moderately used - meaning cost to use them will be higher due to lack of paying customers.

EC's will be attacked and disabled or destroyed by the same groups who do so now. These are primarily griefer groups who's only aim is to disrupt the game play of others. This isn't going to change, at least not in empire space, as industrialists are not going to risk their own structures by wardeccing someone else's (that would just be stupidity). Sure they may hire mercs to do their dirty work but again, this cuts severely into profit margins, so unless the "competition" that owns the EC next door is a real threat to their income - They won't bother messing with it.

Your biggest problem here is, you have read the short story CCP made up and believe it without question. You don't actually know how industrialists play the game, you don't have an opinion of your own, you certainly don't understand the intricacies of highsec game play (aside possibly from your short lived efforts as a ganker, which in all this, doesn't count for squat)

Now this may seem to you to be insulting but all I am trying to convey is - Don't just blindly believe what CCP says, ask those who actually play as industrialists to get relevant information, talk to people who have pos's in highsec, etc (aside from my 2 lowsec pos's, I aslo have 2 in empire space and have over the years experienced very different game play to what you describe as "how it is") - Then you can formulate an informed opinion. Once you have a thought out informed opinion, post here with what you've found and if it in some way contradicts or is contradicted by what others are saying, you can then argue a point (an informed point). Right now you are trying to argue based on "this is how it is" without actually knowing "how it is"...

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.
#737 - 2016-10-25 15:37:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Your biggest problem here is, you have read the short story CCP made up and believe it without question. You don't actually know how industrialists play the game, you don't have an opinion of your own, you certainly don't understand the intricacies of highsec game play (aside possibly from your short lived efforts as a ganker, which in all this, doesn't count for squat)
Wow, so you are falling back on that CCP doesn't "understand" their own game and they should just put you in charge of implementing new industrial structures. You are asserting that only you are smart enough to understand the intricacies of highsec industry?

Ok. Good luck with that line of argument. I am not sure if you are purposely conniving to stack the game in your favour or are just all-in on your own hubris and believe what you are saying, but in either case you are not going to have any success. CCP is not going to be convinced they should change their game so that it conforms with your "expert" opinion. In fact, the last thing they should do is listen to any of your self-interested ramblings about how their sandbox game should work.

Highsec industrial POSes are overpowered and CCP is taking the opportunity of these new structures to nudge industry back into line. You can keep whining that they don't advantage you enough now, or how annoyed you are now that you actually have to defend them, but it ain't gonna make a lick of difference. You, like everyone else, are going to have to deal with the new mechanic.

I wouldn't worry though. Someone with your high level of expertise in industrial game play will have no problem in adapting to the coming changes. You clearly understand the game better than even CCP so will have no trouble in thriving in the Brave New World of Engineering Complexes that is fast approaching.
Bussan
Kabukicho
#738 - 2016-10-26 00:52:11 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

But it is largely not true. The run times for the vast majority of items can be kept to a day or less - even building a battleship only takes a few hours. Aside from long research jobs, the majority of industry can be done in shortish chunks where only pocket change, if anything is at risk.


And do you really think that any medium-up industrialist would build those BS one by one?
and keep all their lines on one day base?
Out of curiosity, what kind of industry do you do, Pedro? And where?
I appreciate when people wanna discuss, but keeping posting like you know everything, and then saying stuff like that... I mean, I know how ganking works, the general mechanics and so on, so I can generally discuss about it, but I wouldn't keep arguing with gankers in a threat deeply connected with ganking only.

Black Pedro wrote:

It's silly to let industrialists benefit from an invulnerable structure. If they are going to be invulnerable, then let them be invulnerable without the hassle of all that pointless micromanaging. If they want to take a risk for more reward, then let's enable them to do that to.


Ok, so let's put it this way:
- Indy is all about make stuff and sell stuff.
- A corp wardecs me.
- I can choose to:
1. risk my assets, keep the pos on, production on, and defend it if needed (and loose everything, if I loose)
2. don't risk them, take pos down, and don't get any profit for at least one week.

To me, it looks like I have a choice, and I get some good reward if I decide to risk.

With the new system:
- A corp wardecs me.
- My choices are:
1. get my stuff away immediately, don't get any profit and loose the structure
2. try to defend it, get some more time of production and loose the structure

To me, it looks like the choices are quite similar... just with the new system I cannot save the structure.
Unless I can defend it... but at the present status, in a POS I could have some chances, in an EC I have a lot less.
And with a POS, the risk/reward is bigger than with ECs.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#739 - 2016-10-26 02:19:17 UTC
How it works with POSes:

  • get wardec
  • pull down POS
  • jump corp
  • put up POS


No break in production other than cancelling current jobs :D

How it works with EC:


  1. Spam public EC to raise system indexes
  2. CCP changes NPC stations so they are always more expensive than system index
  3. wardecs come, ECs are blown up, but you already earned replacement value
  4. Deploy private EC in back woods hisec to reap rewards



Remembering that everyone else is playing by the same rules with no POSes and either EC or NPC labs to work with.
Yatolilaboboolia Yatolila
Salty Frogs
#740 - 2016-10-26 05:22:46 UTC
Can the smallest engineering complex build a keepstar?