These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Introducing Upwell Refineries

First post First post First post
Author
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
Together We Solo
#521 - 2017-03-28 02:33:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Manssell
From the Dev Blog "These service modules will enable reactions as a new type of industry, using the same interface as manufacturing and research."

So since they are moving over to the industry interface, will any NPC stations located in low/0.0 offer reaction services now? Or will this be the only industry area you will have to purchase a structure to get into?
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
#522 - 2017-03-28 03:26:51 UTC
Citika wrote:
The new moon mining mechanic will be huge. The biggest impact this will have is removing AFK, top-level income from alliances and coalitions and replacing it with active, character-based income. This can only be a good thing overall, but the implementation needs to be small enough that an entire fleet doesn't need to be formed to wipe a moon belt, but also big enough that one person (or a small gang) can't wipe the belt within a few hours.


The raw materials by themselves are next to worthless. Since when has any miner ever been able to dictate the price/worth of their time and effort? Without Refining or Reaction - which is through an asset owned by a corp or a "one-man alt" corp (i.e. the Alliance). It remains top level, because the value is controlled there. The end product will be still be managed by select persons, instead of individuals. 50 miners are not flying into Jita, just a single freighter can do that.

Mining remains significantly an AFK activity. Unless the pilot is micro-managing the ore transfer from the smaller ore-hold of a Covetor or Hulk. Of course, CCP could always disable auto-cycle on strips. That would end the AFK menace so many fear.
DK52BS
Balkan Kings
Goonswarm Federation
#523 - 2017-03-28 08:40:50 UTC  |  Edited by: DK52BS
John McCreedy wrote:
My initial thoughts on these proposed changes are that it penalizes small, specialised corporations and alliances whilst simultaneously making a lot easier for the larger alliances with support networks, either rental alliances or diversified memberships. More money going to the select few which exacerbates the problems in Eve.

My corporation has a modest moon mining operation. It pays the bills and limited SRP for our members. We are not rich to begin with and, being specialised as PvP, make less per month than your average incursion runner makes in a day. Similarly, our Alliance isn't big. like us it's specialized along PvP lines. We don't have copious amounts of Titans, our R64s pay for a modest SRP programme to help everyone enjoy doing what they do.

We now need to diversify and find miners. Miners aren't going to mine for nothing so our already modest income is going to take a significant hit. It means we become less attractive for players than larger alliances whose income will barely be affected with this proposed change. If lots of small, independent alliances go under and all Eve is left with is large power blocs, then the game stagnates which not only does that undermine what the new sov attempted to achieve but how is it possibly going to be healthy for the game.

I understand what you're trying to achieve here and I'm fully onboard with having more people in space, it's what the game's desperately needed for years now, but that has to be balanced against the harm you're going to do to those who don't want to be part of major power blocs. You need to find some way to shift the balance of income so it's spread out more evenly across a more diverse player base rather than trying to force square pegs into round holes.


Actually this change is going to make your life and your master's (The-Culture) life a bit more difficult. All the moons in Fountain are currently owned by The-Culture and every time we reinforce a POS they pretty much blob us on the defense timer. There is no way a small group of 30-40 active fleet members to take a POS from big alliances. The current systems is in favor of the "big and numerous" providing lots of ISK from remote locations for minimum effort even when they are inactive or offline. The changes introduced by CCP will bring balance to moon harvesting. Having active players mining moons 10-15 times every two weeks or perhaps every day (depending on your setup) is a lot of content and a lot of opportunities for ambushing and guerrilla warfare.

in regards of SRP programs... there are hundreds of ways in Eve to earn ISK and establish a suitable SRP. We don't have any r64s and I must say that our SRP is very generous and it is working very well.
ll Kuray ll
Assisted Homicide
#524 - 2017-03-28 10:19:18 UTC
I've seen some nice spins on trying to justify this idea the biggest being the removal of top-level income for alliances. My response to that is you're doing a good job at trying to frame it in your favor but it isn't with me and I can see right through it.

1. No matter what part of level you play Eve at you can always create top level afk income.
I've seen alliances adopt a fee base income,
I've seen alliance adopt ratting and mining ops where there is a certain quota of isk to generate and give to the alliance.
I've seen alliance leaders rent out systems to corps
I've seen alliance leaders rent out particular constellations
I've seen alliances adopt a "pay us to keep you safe" model
I've seen alliances own the good moons
I've not seen many alliances cap moons that don't have materials to mine and done reactions

So really your argument about removing top level afk alliance income is fraud as there are other ways in which alliances generate their income.

Once you remove the sugar of the cool piece of rock that has been cut away from the moon, this is nothing but a mining operation that once again could be turned into AFK top level alliance income. Only this time more lemmings are required to be involved in meeting mind numbing mining quota's because apparently this will generate "more content"....

Get bent.


Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#525 - 2017-03-28 10:49:02 UTC
DK52BS wrote:
in regards of SRP programs... there hundreds of ways in Eve to earn ISK and establish a suitable SRP. We don't have any r64s and I must say that our SRP is very generous and it is working very well.


Preach it, brother. It's one thing for me to yell loudly at clouds about how to fund SRP programs, but quite another seeing another group actually getting it.

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

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#526 - 2017-03-28 10:50:31 UTC
ll Kuray ll wrote:
I've seen some nice spins on trying to justify this idea the biggest being the removal of top-level income for alliances. My response to that is you're doing a good job at trying to frame it in your favor but it isn't with me and I can see right through it.

1. No matter what part of level you play Eve at you can always create top level afk income.
I've seen alliances adopt a fee base income,
I've seen alliance adopt ratting and mining ops where there is a certain quota of isk to generate and give to the alliance.
I've seen alliance leaders rent out systems to corps
I've seen alliance leaders rent out particular constellations
I've seen alliances adopt a "pay us to keep you safe" model
I've seen alliances own the good moons
I've not seen many alliances cap moons that don't have materials to mine and done reactions

So really your argument about removing top level afk alliance income is fraud as there are other ways in which alliances generate their income.

Once you remove the sugar of the cool piece of rock that has been cut away from the moon, this is nothing but a mining operation that once again could be turned into AFK top level alliance income. Only this time more lemmings are required to be involved in meeting mind numbing mining quota's because apparently this will generate "more content"....

Get bent.




This isn't what "top-down income" means.

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

SIEGE RED
The Darwin Foundation
#527 - 2017-03-28 11:17:01 UTC
Querns wrote:
ll Kuray ll wrote:
I've seen some nice spins on trying to justify this idea the biggest being the removal of top-level income for alliances. My response to that is you're doing a good job at trying to frame it in your favor but it isn't with me and I can see right through it.

1. No matter what part of level you play Eve at you can always create top level afk income.
I've seen alliances adopt a fee base income,
I've seen alliance adopt ratting and mining ops where there is a certain quota of isk to generate and give to the alliance.
I've seen alliance leaders rent out systems to corps
I've seen alliance leaders rent out particular constellations
I've seen alliances adopt a "pay us to keep you safe" model
I've seen alliances own the good moons
I've not seen many alliances cap moons that don't have materials to mine and done reactions

So really your argument about removing top level afk alliance income is fraud as there are other ways in which alliances generate their income.

Once you remove the sugar of the cool piece of rock that has been cut away from the moon, this is nothing but a mining operation that once again could be turned into AFK top level alliance income. Only this time more lemmings are required to be involved in meeting mind numbing mining quota's because apparently this will generate "more content"....

Get bent.




This isn't what "top-down income" means.


And yet it does not invalidate the observations. Nor the underlying reality.

But he can rest assured, CCP isn't dumb, they know the game by now. Nobody recognises the #narratives as valid arguments. Which is fine, that's an entirely different arena being played for - the focus of all this is not only entirely different, it's focused on completely different things.

Aves Asio
#528 - 2017-03-28 11:32:33 UTC
SIEGE RED wrote:
CCP isn't dumb, they know the game by now.


LOL
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#529 - 2017-03-28 11:37:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Querns
SIEGE RED wrote:
Querns wrote:
ll Kuray ll wrote:
I've seen some nice spins on trying to justify this idea the biggest being the removal of top-level income for alliances. My response to that is you're doing a good job at trying to frame it in your favor but it isn't with me and I can see right through it.

1. No matter what part of level you play Eve at you can always create top level afk income.
I've seen alliances adopt a fee base income,
I've seen alliance adopt ratting and mining ops where there is a certain quota of isk to generate and give to the alliance.
I've seen alliance leaders rent out systems to corps
I've seen alliance leaders rent out particular constellations
I've seen alliances adopt a "pay us to keep you safe" model
I've seen alliances own the good moons
I've not seen many alliances cap moons that don't have materials to mine and done reactions

So really your argument about removing top level afk alliance income is fraud as there are other ways in which alliances generate their income.

Once you remove the sugar of the cool piece of rock that has been cut away from the moon, this is nothing but a mining operation that once again could be turned into AFK top level alliance income. Only this time more lemmings are required to be involved in meeting mind numbing mining quota's because apparently this will generate "more content"....

Get bent.




This isn't what "top-down income" means.


And yet it does not invalidate the observations. Nor the underlying reality.

But he can rest assured, CCP isn't dumb, they know the game by now. Nobody recognises the #narratives as valid arguments. Which is fine, that's an entirely different arena being played for - the focus of all this is not only entirely different, it's focused on completely different things.



It does. He's trying to twist "top-down income" into "all alliance income." No one is arguing against the removal of alliance income, least of all me.

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

Doc J
Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time
Solyaris Chtonium
#530 - 2017-03-28 11:40:57 UTC
Querns wrote:
ll Kuray ll wrote:
I've seen some nice spins on trying to justify this idea the biggest being the removal of top-level income for alliances. My response to that is you're doing a good job at trying to frame it in your favor but it isn't with me and I can see right through it.

1. No matter what part of level you play Eve at you can always create top level afk income.
I've seen alliances adopt a fee base income,
I've seen alliance adopt ratting and mining ops where there is a certain quota of isk to generate and give to the alliance.
I've seen alliance leaders rent out systems to corps
I've seen alliance leaders rent out particular constellations
I've seen alliances adopt a "pay us to keep you safe" model
I've seen alliances own the good moons
I've not seen many alliances cap moons that don't have materials to mine and done reactions

So really your argument about removing top level afk alliance income is fraud as there are other ways in which alliances generate their income.

Once you remove the sugar of the cool piece of rock that has been cut away from the moon, this is nothing but a mining operation that once again could be turned into AFK top level alliance income. Only this time more lemmings are required to be involved in meeting mind numbing mining quota's because apparently this will generate "more content"....

Get bent.




This isn't what "top-down income" means.


First time I've seen the thread but caught my eye on this, what does top-down income mean?
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#531 - 2017-03-28 12:09:28 UTC
Doc J wrote:
Querns wrote:
This isn't what "top-down income" means.


First time I've seen the thread but caught my eye on this, what does top-down income mean?


"Top-down" income refers to an alliance funding source that is collected solely by actors at the top of an organization, then is dispersed downwards onto line members. (Assuming it doesn't get embezzled.) Moongoo is the archetype of top-down income, as it's handled by the alliance's logistics dudes and line members aren't involved at all.

This is in contrast to "bottom-up" income, where line members perform the money-making activity, and the alliance takes a small slice, usually through taxes. Ratting is the archetype of bottom-up income.

In this instance, CCP is shifting moongoo from top-down to bottom-up income.

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

Doc J
Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time
Solyaris Chtonium
#532 - 2017-03-28 13:59:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Doc J
Querns wrote:
Doc J wrote:
Querns wrote:
This isn't what "top-down income" means.


First time I've seen the thread but caught my eye on this, what does top-down income mean?


"Top-down" income refers to an alliance funding source that is collected solely by actors at the top of an organization, then is dispersed downwards onto line members. (Assuming it doesn't get embezzled.) Moongoo is the archetype of top-down income, as it's handled by the alliance's logistics dudes and line members aren't involved at all.

This is in contrast to "bottom-up" income, where line members perform the money-making activity, and the alliance takes a small slice, usually through taxes. Ratting is the archetype of bottom-up income.

In this instance, CCP is shifting moongoo from top-down to bottom-up income.


Understood in my opinion T2 is dead, Low sec pvp alliances and corps will die, the situation of alliances holding moons will continue to exist (the only saving grace is the ability for multiple drilling rigs to be anchored on a moon) and I think stagnation will continue.

Top-down income vs bottom up income isn't really that much of a big issue. Top-down income occurs because line members allow it to. And they probably allow it to because they buy into the why of the alliance and its leadership. Usually this is in the form of content and SRP initiatives.

Currently:
Cap moon -> Fuel pos -> wait x days -> empty silos -> fuel pos -> wait x days -> empty pos

New system
Cap moon -> fuel rig -> wait x days -> mine rocks -> fuel rig -> wait x days -> mine rocks

Seems like someone has forgotten people have lives to live.

Being able to continue to collect resources when you are not signed in used to be one of the lures of playing the game. Notice I said resource collection and no mention of passive vs active. The act of resource collection is passive but the actions required in moving resources to markets is very much an active dangerous task. Needless to say I still don't think the issue is moon mining. This gameplay created combat and diverse situations requiring diplomacy. If this really is to be the new way materials are collected for t2 production I think there are better forms of entertainment in other MMORGP's. It's hard to see what exaclty Fozzie's visions is for Eve.

That's my 2 cents, i dislike the direction of drilling rigs. I would have preferred Fozzie come up with ways in which people can disrupt supply for example Siphon modules were a great idea, the problem with them is they don't disrupt enough supply to really hurt someone. They needed to be able to steel larger amounts of materials.

I predict plenty of AFK cloakies and alliance spai's gaining intel on when rocks are mineable incase players have spare time to actually create content that keeps the economy flowing. And i see people saying **** this I can get just as much entertainment from an alpha clone.

The only idea that really resonated with me was to make moons "run out". Meaning scanning moons becomes a profession and alliances are constantly moving structures around. I guess the coding required to do such a thing was too much for CCP. This looked, by far, the answer most players were looking for.

Alternatively/additionally another solution to creating impacting "top-down" income generation, as you call it, is to seed more moons that can be mined. Increase supply and makes the cash cows less of a cash cow whilst also protecting the lure of passive resource collection.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#533 - 2017-03-28 16:06:26 UTC  |  Edited by: March rabbit
Doc J wrote:


Seems like someone has forgotten people have lives to live.


Following this no ISK making activity should exist at all. Ships and stuff should be provided by the game to each player.

Players have lives!

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#534 - 2017-03-28 16:15:33 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
....................

Players have lives!


Indeed they do - which is why we need games that are worth playing...

EVE is just about the only one that is.

For that reason, there will be players that have to limit themselves to what they, personally and alone sometimes, can achieve.

Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#535 - 2017-03-28 17:27:58 UTC
Querns wrote:
DK52BS wrote:
in regards of SRP programs... there hundreds of ways in Eve to earn ISK and establish a suitable SRP. We don't have any r64s and I must say that our SRP is very generous and it is working very well.


Preach it, brother. It's one thing for me to yell loudly at clouds about how to fund SRP programs, but quite another seeing another group actually getting it.

Banging your head against rocks does not necessarily make the rocks smarter
Jake Chely
Star Nation
Evictus.
#536 - 2017-03-28 18:05:08 UTC
Hi.

Not sure the question was asked : Do you plan on introducing a Scrapmetal rig ?
Some nullsec outposts can have a pretty good bonus to item reprocessing.
There is no way to have such a bonus in Citadels for the moment.
SIEGE RED
The Darwin Foundation
#537 - 2017-03-28 19:31:12 UTC
Querns wrote:
Doc J wrote:
Querns wrote:
This isn't what "top-down income" means.


First time I've seen the thread but caught my eye on this, what does top-down income mean?


"Top-down" income refers to an alliance funding source that is collected solely by actors at the top of an organization, then is dispersed downwards onto line members. (Assuming it doesn't get embezzled.) Moongoo is the archetype of top-down income, as it's handled by the alliance's logistics dudes and line members aren't involved at all.

This is in contrast to "bottom-up" income, where line members perform the money-making activity, and the alliance takes a small slice, usually through taxes. Ratting is the archetype of bottom-up income.

In this instance, CCP is shifting moongoo from top-down to bottom-up income.


Actually, no. It's the top of a chain or network hub. Not actors at the top of an organisation. There could be overlap, there could be control, rules, regulations, mechanisms - whatever. But they are not by default the same. Keep in mind that chains as well as networks are their own actors in human organisational models and structures.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#538 - 2017-03-28 20:12:57 UTC
SIEGE RED wrote:
Querns wrote:
Doc J wrote:
Querns wrote:
This isn't what "top-down income" means.


First time I've seen the thread but caught my eye on this, what does top-down income mean?


"Top-down" income refers to an alliance funding source that is collected solely by actors at the top of an organization, then is dispersed downwards onto line members. (Assuming it doesn't get embezzled.) Moongoo is the archetype of top-down income, as it's handled by the alliance's logistics dudes and line members aren't involved at all.

This is in contrast to "bottom-up" income, where line members perform the money-making activity, and the alliance takes a small slice, usually through taxes. Ratting is the archetype of bottom-up income.

In this instance, CCP is shifting moongoo from top-down to bottom-up income.


Actually, no. It's the top of a chain or network hub. Not actors at the top of an organisation. There could be overlap, there could be control, rules, regulations, mechanisms - whatever. But they are not by default the same. Keep in mind that chains as well as networks are their own actors in human organisational models and structures.


This pseudointellectual garbage has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

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

RavenGalactic
Korvinus
#539 - 2017-03-29 05:27:45 UTC
Hola Devaritos,

Will the distribution of moon materials stay the same per moon?

I don't believe that changing the composition of moons will benefit the game. I want to see the distribution of moon goo stay the same. Here's why:

1. Change the harvesting techniques, not what can be harvested.
- Any change in the structure of what moon materials are where, will significantly disrupt the market as a whole. The only reason that certain moon materials and their products are more profitable is based on accessibility, how common they are, and what can be produced with them. Many profitable moons are in low-use systems, which would make these systems more contentious for corps and alliances to battle it out for the resources. It will give the low-use systems another source for content. So change the game-play, not the composition.

2. Make the harvesting structures more vulnerable.
- Shaking up the ability of large organizations to harvest moon goo over the long-term is the key to providing content, NOT making making more goo accessible to individual players and corps. Giving small organizations access to small amounts of expensive goo disrupts the supply and demand of the game. A lot of players and organizations with a little goo makes getting the end products necessary for production of ships and so on much harder.

3. Don't change for the sake of change.
- Balances of power over resources make the game. We need hard to get goo for the reason that it's hard to get. Making goo "equally" accessible will take away another avenue for players and organizations to be capitalistic. The goal of EVE isn't to make ISK, it's to make ALOT of ISK. If there is one less avenue to get far ahead of your peers, there will be one less reason to play. Being better than the next guy/gal is a STRONG part of this game.

"Space, Liberty, and the Pursuit of ISK"

So PLEASE leave the distribution of moon materials per moon in place. EVE isn't a democracy, it's war and hell and Conan the Barbarian.

Out.

RG
Ghost Blackman
Doomheim
#540 - 2017-03-29 10:04:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Ghost Blackman
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Glad to be able to get this ball rolling and start bringing the community into the early process of developing these structures. We're releasing these blogs now so that we can focus Fanfest on listening to you folks. We also look forward to hearing from you all in this thread.

Here's the first set of Q&A after the early feedback and discussion:

Q: What will happen to Siphons in the new system?
A: We currently plan to phase out siphons since they don't really fit with the new system (there will be much more direct ways to steal moongoo). Siphons were a solid attempt at achieving a worthy goal, but for a number of reasons that particular implementation was doomed to extremely niche status. We think that overall direct spaceship interaction will be a more fun way of engaging in guerilla attacks against moon mining infrastructure.

Q: Will Rorquals be able to dock in the large refinery?
A: Yes. The medium refineries will have the same docking restrictions as Astrahus and Raitarus, while the large will allow those ships plus the Rorqual thanks to dedicated Rorqual docking facilities. Non-Rorqual capitals will not be able to dock in the large refinery however.

Q: What types of ships will be able to mine the new ore spawned by moon mining events?
A: The new ores won't require special ships to mine. They'll be minable with the normal ore mining ships that are available today.

Q: Will the new moon ore require new types of mining lasers and drones to mine?
A: Our current plan is to use the same mining lasers, strip miners and mining drones that currently mine the existing types of ore. We are interested in hearing what the community thinks about this however, and are keeping our options open.

Q: Can this new moon mining mechanic be expanded to include highsec and wormhole space?
A: As we mentioned in the blog we think this general mechanic has potential in other areas of space, but we're not currently planning on opening up collection of T2 moon materials into areas beyond lowsec and nullsec. We've run the number and we don't think diluting the sources of T2 materials across more areas of space would be beneficial to the feature.
However in future iterations we would be very interested in investigating expanding this same "scheduled mining event" gameplay to all areas of space using different resources. These might take the form of new resources or allowing the collection of existing resources such as normal minerals or T3 gasses.
For the first release we need to keep a reasonable scope so any expansion of that kind would need to come later if it comes. That also means that if we expand this gameplay to other resources in other areas we'll be able to integrate the lessons learned from the first release.

Q: Will starbases (POS) be removed when this feature is released?
A: No, the removal of starbases will be a gradual process and even with the release of refineries there will still be major starbase functions that are not yet replicated by new structures (cyno beacons, cyno jammers and jump bridges). We will have some news on the next steps towards the starbase phase out soon.


MY PLAYER IDEAS FOR GUIDE CHANGES.


Just change the role of the Siphons Units to be allowed in normal belts and suck the rock up in small mounts. Anyone should be allow to take from it. But if they do in empire can be flag for can stealing.


Comet mining should take place in the game too. You may ask what is this or how should it work? Well I can only point to how. Comet Path Finding


Risk Vs. Reward.

So you warp and make safe and that's the easy part.
Setting up the medium refinery into path of the comets.'
Capital size Tractor Beams will pull the comet and pull it closer.
Once this comet get close the refinery will shoot it's weapons to break off parts of the comet.
Leaving behind belts to mine from. As the comet will break away parts and keep going. Enjoy.

OR

So you warp and make safe and that's the easy part.
Setting up the medium refinery into path of the comets.'
Capital size Tractor Beams will slow the comet and pull it closer.
Once this comet get close the refinery will shoot it's weapons to break the comet.
Leaving behind belts to mine from. Enjoy.


Comet fishing :)