These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Chani El'zrya
Beyond Frontier
Pandemic Horde
#101 - 2016-10-10 18:53:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Chani El'zrya
Hi,

As a solo and casual industrialist in high sec, i conclude that i'm pushed back to NPC station.

With my current POS set-up i was able to unanchor everything before a wardec kicks in.
I could lose some jobs in the process which was a good risk/rewards ratio.
This is impossible now.
So 700 M +rigs+module cost for the medium becomes way too expensive since i won't be able to defend it with unanchoring delay of 7 days. The investment will pop if any enemy corporation wants it (4 BCs shooting 30 min seems enough (see below posts)).
Including fuel cost (roughly 700M a month) it seems also not interesting for a single guy.

Risk becomes too high, rewards are too low.
I think all solo colleagues will come to the same conclusion.

One question to CCP dev, is it intended to remove solo industrialist from the game?
Or is there something i'm missing?
I'm sure you guys runs all the numbers, so what was the thinking process behind it ?
I'd like to read another dev blog explaining what do you want to do with solo indus.
The current Dev blog when stating for medium ECs:
"This medium sized engineering facility provides an inexpensive way for corporations to build their own base of industrial activities."
is clearly misleading.
As it stands POS remains better for a solo.

Some solutions:

1) is it possible to allow T3 production in NPC station ?
2) Is it possible to remove indexes so at least we can use crowded public engineering complexes (which will be well guarded by big alliance)?
3) is it possible to unanchor medium EC as fast as POS ?
4) create a small size EC able to be unanchored like POS, but not too shabby plz.

Well 3) and 4) do no remove the issue of fuel cost.
So NPC stations still remain more competitive.
Tribal Trogdor
Better Off Red
Unspoken Alliance.
#102 - 2016-10-10 18:53:34 UTC
I enjoy the people talking about how a small group can't afford these.

I'll be putting up a large...by myself.

700 mil for a medium. So if you have even 2 people its 350 mil a piece. Approx a decently fit HIC. If your small group cant raise 700 mil in the month before these come out, you should be ashamed to call yourself industrialists.

As far a fuel cost, even if you're using 50-60 blocks an hour, tax the people using it to pay for it. If there aren't enough people doing jobs to make it worth it, don't put up your own, and instead use one somebody else has made public, because clearly you are not industry focused enough to worry.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#103 - 2016-10-10 18:53:47 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Jawen Serce wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Jawen Serce wrote:
Still nothing about SMALL sizes of those strctures ?


Why would there be anything about SMALL sizes of those structures? They're not happening.

It's not like they just haven't gotten around to making a dev blog about it just yet - they're not a thing. They're not a planned thing. They've never been a planned thing. They've never said anything to suggest that will ever be a planned thing.

Small structures are mobile depots and MTUs and the like.

Did i ever say in my post that there were any planned thing about small sizes of those structures ?
I'm poiting out a fact :
POSs will at the end, disapear, and with this disappearance, a whole part of the players will not be able to plant their tent anywhere they want in the game. To do that, they will need to have a huge amount of ISK (minimum 5b -ish ISK) and social relations to defend it properly.

Clearly not a thing anymore for little group of players or a solo player, unless they/he got the ISK and relations.


You're sort of arbitrarily increasing the investment by almost a full order of magnitude. They're certainly more than a small POS, but no, the minimum is no where near "5b-ish".

There's always going to be an affordability barrier where an organization is just TOO small and TOO casual for a structure to be viable. That's not necessarily a horrible thing.

Bear in mind that the POS model essentially meant that you must have your own structure to take advantage of one. You couldn't feasibly just go use someone else's equipment assembly array to run a few jobs. That's not the case under the new structure model, and it will likely be the case for a lot of tiny organizations that other-people's-structures are the best option for them.

It seems pretty obvious that a shift away from, "This-here is my manufacturing POS where my one-man alt-corp can optimally build anything/everything conceivable," is an intended consequence of this.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#104 - 2016-10-10 18:55:13 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Not one word about reactions. Not a single word. No moon mining reactions. No hybrid polymer reactions. No booster reactions.

NOTHING.

I am disappoint.



Uh, we've known for more than a year that reactions weren't coming with these structures.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#105 - 2016-10-10 18:56:34 UTC
The large one must allow Rorqual docking.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2016-10-10 19:04:56 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
A big part of the game of manufacturing revolves around working towards maximum efficiency. Max efficiency reduces cost and maximises profit.

This is not something that people worry about when fitting rigs to ships. People are happy to accept a trade off.

Yet here, 3 rig slots each structure and 400 calibration, yet all t2 rigs require 150 calibration.

This is really saying, you can only maximise efficiency on 2 things, and not quite on another.

What's the thinking behind this restriction? Why not let us work to maximise what we can in 1 structure, rather than not be possible?

It seems like yet another gimp of industrial gameplay for no real reason. The more I look at this devblog, the worse it looks for small groups and solo play.
You're reasoning for ships is a bit off. People fit ships around function realizing that doing it all means not doing any one thing exceptionally well. You pick a task or somewhat narrow series of tasks and spec out for that. That IS fitting for efficiency, and needing to give up flexibility for it rather than have both without issue.

And it looks like that's the point here to some extent.
Arronicus
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#107 - 2016-10-10 19:12:40 UTC
Whoever on CCP thought it was a good idea to implement the structure showing when a a super is in build seriously needs to have their employment with the company reconsidered. Like many others, I am a big fan of there being proportional risk to reward, things like having rorquals in teh belt mining, ganglinks being on grid, level 5 mission runners not being unprobe-able, etc, but this is just stupid.
Spies are everywhere, people fly through every system. Under the current meta, you protect your super builds through two ways

1: secrecy. The SSAAs do not have any visual indicator that something is being built, so as long as corp leadership keeps tight lips, no one should know when something is actually in build

2: diversions: by deploying 15+ SSAA decoy pos's, it becomes a guessing game for attackers, not only making it much more annoying to blow up the real one, but making it far more time consuming, providing batphones much more time to get the bats in

Additionally, SSAAs do not show up in local. I'm not advocating for this, but paired with the visual for a titan being built, it makes things FAR, far riskier

The fact that this must have been brought up with the CSM, and didn't draw enough criticism to yield change concerns me. This is a change making it so only a select few super alliances will actually be able to build supers, without paying hefty fees to protection alliances.
lesba
Diaboliq TUTOR
#108 - 2016-10-10 19:14:11 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
[quote=Shae Tadaruwa]A big part of the game of manufacturing revolves around working towards maximum efficiency. Max efficiency reduces cost and maximises profit.

This is not something that people worry about when fitting rigs to ships. People are happy to accept a trade off.

Yet here, 3 rig slots each structure and 400 calibration, yet all t2 rigs require 150 calibration.

This is really saying, you can only maximise efficiency on 2 things, and not quite on another.

What's the thinking behind this restriction? Why not let us work to maximise what we can in 1 structure, rather than not be possible?

It seems like yet another gimp of industrial gameplay for no real reason. The more I look at this devblog, the worse it looks for small groups and solo play.



YEah solo players will got hard times ;/ especialy for a defens of those structures ;/
verry sad .
Crashtec
Ice Fire Warriors
#109 - 2016-10-10 19:15:06 UTC
So by the look of it lowsec will lose it's building advantage in cap production? getting rid of the thukker component assembly without a good counter part in rig bonus thats sad
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#110 - 2016-10-10 19:18:13 UTC
CCP.
Please stop with the giving greater bonuses to null. This only made sense when Null was doing a greater investment to reward that larger investment however now you are expecting High Sec to pay the same isk for an inferior product.
It's already harder to defend in High Sec because the structures have vastly weaker defensive options with the sub cap missiles being incredibly weak compared to a POS.

Especially after your blogs changing industry stating that ME bonuses from skills were bad, this smacks of a 180 turn to give advantages to an area of space simply because of sec status, irregardless of investment into the structure.

Other than that issue a good looking set of structures, but please, make reward based on investment, these structures sit in space at risk, can't be pulled down to avoid a wardec like a POS could, and cost the same in any area of space.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#111 - 2016-10-10 19:19:00 UTC
Querns wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
Not one word about reactions. Not a single word. No moon mining reactions. No hybrid polymer reactions. No booster reactions.

NOTHING.

I am disappoint.



Uh, we've known for more than a year that reactions weren't coming with these structures.


I was under the impression that these were going to be one group of structures. Apparently I have not been paying close enough attention. Still, this doesn't mean something couldn't have been said.

Also, WTB rig material lists.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

DarkFlackPL
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#112 - 2016-10-10 19:19:13 UTC
Crashtec wrote:
So by the look of it lowsec will lose it's building advantage in cap production? getting rid of the thukker component assembly without a good counter part in rig bonus thats sad


and when many POS's will be gone then t2 materials will grown in prise .... so economics wil die again ????

Cyno McLongNeck
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#113 - 2016-10-10 19:21:46 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
Whoever on CCP thought it was a good idea to implement the structure showing when a a super is in build seriously needs to have their employment with the company reconsidered. Like many others, I am a big fan of there being proportional risk to reward, things like having rorquals in teh belt mining, ganglinks being on grid, level 5 mission runners not being unprobe-able, etc, but this is just stupid.
Spies are everywhere, people fly through every system. Under the current meta, you protect your super builds through two ways

1: secrecy. The SSAAs do not have any visual indicator that something is being built, so as long as corp leadership keeps tight lips, no one should know when something is actually in build

2: diversions: by deploying 15+ SSAA decoy pos's, it becomes a guessing game for attackers, not only making it much more annoying to blow up the real one, but making it far more time consuming, providing batphones much more time to get the bats in

Additionally, SSAAs do not show up in local. I'm not advocating for this, but paired with the visual for a titan being built, it makes things FAR, far riskier

The fact that this must have been brought up with the CSM, and didn't draw enough criticism to yield change concerns me. This is a change making it so only a select few super alliances will actually be able to build supers, without paying hefty fees to protection alliances.


So...what you are saying is that you want to build the most powerful ships in the game in complete safety?
RainReaper
Bras-Tek Industries
Nefatari Union
#114 - 2016-10-10 19:24:10 UTC
I will say this. We NEED these new structures on the test server as soon as possible.
We need to test them so we can see how well balanced everything is and such.
Cause as it stands right now I can place a single Large POS in any part of space and use that WAY more effectively
for nowhere near the same cost of an Engineering complex.
As a industrial I just REALLY WANT this to work and not suck
I mean, when it costs 45 blocks an hour and I cant even refine my god damn ore in the structure where I build things id say something is wrong.
Justine Musk
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation
#115 - 2016-10-10 19:24:40 UTC
Chani El'zrya wrote:
Hi,

As a solo and casual industrialist in high sec, i conclude that i'm pushed back to NPC station.

With my current POS set-up i was able to unanchor everything before a war deck kicks in.
I could lose some job in the process which was a good risk/rewards ratio.
This is impossible now.
So 700 M +rigs+module cost for the medium becomes way too expensive since i won't be able to defend it.
The investment will pop if any enemy corporation wants it.

Risk becomes too high, rewards is too low.
I think all solo colleagues will come to the same conclusion.

One question to CCP dev, is it intended to remove solo industrialist from the game?
Or is there something i'm missing?

Some solutions:

1) is it possible to allow T3 production in NPC station ?
2) Is it possible to remove indexes so at least i can use public engineering complexes (which will be well guarded by big alliance)?
3) is it possible to unanchor medium complexes as fast as POS ?

Otherwise i'm screwed.
I will probably farm incursion and extract my alt if they are no sustainable solution for solo indus.


I 100% agree with you, I'm also thinking to do my industry jobs either in a station with proper standing or to do it in an astraus.

Citadel are at least a massive grind that need to be justified by some reason, but a medium complex can be soloed by a single person in a Combat Battlecruiser in 30 minutes (i think)
ripper1 Tivianne
Time Resolves All Modern Problems
Requiem Eternal
#116 - 2016-10-10 19:25:30 UTC
These change's will be a game killer for most that don't have the isk to fund all these extra structure's...And not to mention all the extra
structure's in space LOL TwistedEvilShocked
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#117 - 2016-10-10 19:25:30 UTC
Sexy Cakes wrote:
I'm sure what I'm about to type has been stated multiple times through out the process of this structure rework in EVE.

The Medium Engineering Complex will require 9 hours of vulnerability weekly, with 18 hours and 36 hours for the Large and XL Engineering Complexes respectively

... is a stupid mechanic. Give them an extra timer for reinforce or destruction but making something in space invulnerable for all but 9/18/36 hours a week is lame. The most common argument is 'this is the way it worked before technically' and while I agree to some extent with POS's and outposts being easy to change when the timers came out, think of it from a hostile FC standpoint... I want to make a name for myself in my new alliance by going out and reinforcing stuff, picking fights, poking beehives, flying spaceships. With a POS or outpost I can go do that, it's floating in space and I can shoot it to provoke a response. You've made all these structures literally invulnerable for all but a tiny window. It's a giant **** mechanic in a game that used be HTFU or GTFO.

I agree.
POS [in]vulnerability mechanics works excellent.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#118 - 2016-10-10 19:27:09 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
A big part of the game of manufacturing revolves around working towards maximum efficiency. Max efficiency reduces cost and maximises profit.

This is not something that people worry about when fitting rigs to ships. People are happy to accept a trade off.

Yet here, 3 rig slots each structure and 400 calibration, yet all t2 rigs require 150 calibration.

This is really saying, you can only maximise efficiency on 2 things, and not quite on another.

What's the thinking behind this restriction? Why not let us work to maximise what we can in 1 structure, rather than not be possible?

It seems like yet another gimp of industrial gameplay for no real reason. The more I look at this devblog, the worse it looks for small groups and solo play.
You're reasoning for ships is a bit off. People fit ships around function realizing that doing it all means not doing any one thing exceptionally well. You pick a task or somewhat narrow series of tasks and spec out for that. That IS fitting for efficiency, and needing to give up flexibility for it rather than have both without issue.

And it looks like that's the point here to some extent.

Rigs don't specialise the task on a ship. The ship hull and its bonuses do. Rigs just add slightly greater efficiency in some area based on fitting. They aren't designed on a ship, to be the efficiency.

Here, in relation to manufacturing rigs are the total customisation for the efficiency, which is a huge part of the industrial game, but is gimped here.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Ishido Attaka
Purity of the Iron Cold
#119 - 2016-10-10 19:28:03 UTC
So... Can I install Standup Invention Lab I module into Astrahus?
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
#120 - 2016-10-10 19:32:01 UTC
Soldarius wrote:

I was under the impression that these were going to be one group of structures. Apparently I have not been paying close enough attention. Still, this doesn't mean something couldn't have been said.

Also, WTB rig material lists.

Something was said. Back in March, 2015. See part D, Drilling Platforms.