These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bear Templar
iMine Industries
#41 - 2017-03-22 16:04:02 UTC
Querns wrote:
Bear Templar wrote:
Yeah it was strange, the edit wasn't there as i was typing my reply but was as I posted it. What?


Yeah, and it missed my addition at the bottom, even though I did the strikethrough and added the extra bit in the same edit. Strange.

Thanks for the effort, though! Always happy to be corrected when I'm objectively wrong.


It wasn't there when i was typing, only after I'd posted. I then edited and removed your last line.

But anyway, glad you found what you were looking for.

If a fish weighs 1 Kilogram plus half its own weight, how much does it weigh? (It's not 1.5kg btw)

Bear Templar
iMine Industries
#42 - 2017-03-22 16:07:11 UTC
ArmyOfMe wrote:

...
Also, even tho making this an active thing, it will make life in low sec even harder, as most large alliances in low sec doesnt have industrialists in their ranks.
...


Isn't this a good thing though? I'm not a low-sec industrialist myself but i get a feeling from the forums that low-sec (in general) could do with a boost.

If a fish weighs 1 Kilogram plus half its own weight, how much does it weigh? (It's not 1.5kg btw)

Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#43 - 2017-03-22 16:13:31 UTC
If this comes out without a way to set alliance level ratting taxes i'm going to throw a shitfit.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#44 - 2017-03-22 16:14:09 UTC
Okay, fourth question. Hope I'm not detracting from all of the Chicken Little stuff going on ITT.

Regarding:

Quote:

Once the chunk of moon rock has completed its journey into space, the Refinery can use its drill module to detonate the chunk into a minable asteroid field. The exact time of the detonation is controlled by the owners of the Refinery within limits. If the chunk is left unattended long enough it will disintegrate into the asteroid field on its own.


Will the detonation require a player to initiate it, or can it be scheduled?

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

Igzorn Buelle
#45 - 2017-03-22 16:14:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Igzorn Buelle
CCP Phantom wrote:
A set of new Upwell Structures is in the works: Behold the Upwell Refineries!

Refineries will be the premiere structure for resource collection and processing. They have bonuses to reprocessing and the exclusive ability to fit moon mining and reaction service modules.This will give us completely new gameplay for moon mining and reactions, as well as linking into future resource collection gameplay.

Check out the exciting details in this blog Introducing Upwell Refineries


Great to hear but waht does it bring for Highsec exept some boni on reprocessing?
i mean its clear that moonmining will be more of a "low" and "wh" thing ,but why should i build one.. lets say in a 0.5 system when it does not bring a "new" element to gameplay. were's the sales pitch?
Angry Arnst
W.O.R.M-S.W.A.R.M
#46 - 2017-03-22 16:14:39 UTC
This all fine and dandy but as found with cits it cost in my opinion more keep running then tower ever did and for a lot less isk.

Be nice if CCP make a chart showing every cit platform and mods used for them and costs per mod fuel wise as a guide also
Gaius Clabbacus
NED-Clan
Goonswarm Federation
#47 - 2017-03-22 16:15:30 UTC
Ordering massive amounts of popcorn right now. This is going to be a blast.
SIEGE RED
The Darwin Foundation
#48 - 2017-03-22 16:20:13 UTC
Bear Templar wrote:
ArmyOfMe wrote:

...
Also, even tho making this an active thing, it will make life in low sec even harder, as most large alliances in low sec doesnt have industrialists in their ranks.
...


Isn't this a good thing though? I'm not a low-sec industrialist myself but i get a feeling from the forums that low-sec (in general) could do with a boost.


Double-edged sword. Yes, good for activity indexes. Are the effects on experience of gameplay reflected by that? Depends a lot on whether you are a larger organisation, or a small groups. Complexity goes up, dependancies are introduced, the ballgame changes. But specialisation has its limits, and so do dependancies, as such people always follow established herd behaviour.

We'll have to see how CCP flesh it out, but it feels very subject to n+1 min/max mentality. It's not like any argument in relation to changes based on similar concepts as here have had any tangible effect as intended for groupthink or group behaviour.

I'm not convinced on the socio-economics basically, based on what we currently know and on established track records.
Gogela
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#49 - 2017-03-22 16:24:10 UTC
Are Mobile Siphon Units going away?

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
#50 - 2017-03-22 16:24:50 UTC
This is a bit of a wild idea, but it's a thought that would throw a bone to lowsec.

What if the quality of these moon belts were inversely proportional to the security status of the system compared to what we have now (where the lower the truesec, the better the asteroid belts, rats, moons, etc)? Higher truesec would have better moon belts, meaning that lowsec would be the go-to for harvesting moon minerals.

Nullsec moons would still provide these moon belts, but the size and quality of the rocks would be reduced as you get deeper into the truesec (meaning the best nullsec areas would generally be the ones nearest the borders, which are also the ones most likely to be easily targeted).

This would also make nullsec sov with poor truesec a better place to call home, in addition to throwing a bone to lowsec.



A lore-related bit behind this is that a part of the reason that highsec is highsec is because that's where the best resources / minerals are at (with the empires holding exclusive rights on the "good" ore there, and our scanners being prevented from even seeing it in the belts), and it's where the empires are most willing to defend (beyond simply having a manpower-related reason). From 0.5 through 1.0, the resources are good enough that the empires are willing to put forth a significant amount of effort to defend them. 0.1 through 0.4 are still empire, but aren't good enough for the empires to put effort into their own mining operations, thus opening it to Capsuleers.

Outside of wormholes (which can't do moon mining), nullsec already has the best asteroid belts, anoms, rats, gas, etc. Inverting the usual truesec impact on moon minerals might be something interesting.
Liira Savlin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2017-03-22 16:26:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Liira Savlin
So here are some thoughts i have from what i've read so far:

  • Active gameplay is all well and good, but i do think these should be released with drilling platforms. If you assume drilling platforms provide the ability to passively extract resources, you could set the gameplay for these to work in tandem with drilling structures, but they would have less yield than actively mining them. Snuff and a few others here have raised some very important points about how this hurts lowsec groups that rely on passive moon goo income.

  • If you're going to force active gameplay, you're going to HAVE to fully open up w-space and hisec to moon mining with these structures if you don't want to see the t2 economy to violently crash and burn. I'd bet my left toe that MOST of the people (if not upwards of 90%) rely on moon mining to be passive, and would prefer to keep it that way to suppliment their most decidedly non-pve activities. Many of these people, especially non-fw lowsec groups, would sooner go to null or w-space than be forced to mine or do PVE activities to suppliment their income. The idea of any of them running mining operations in lowsec, let alone the meat grinder of FW space, is one of the grossest misunderstandings of player behavior since Incarna. It will NOT end well for anyone involved.

  • [*] If this is going to come to pass as-advertised, then let me make a little suggestion: Add d-scan immunity to the porpoise and the skiff. Giving lowsec and nullsec mining operations some decent counterplay is going to be essential if you're putting the burden of AN ENTIRE SECTION OF THE ECONOMY into active gameplay with a fat load of risk involved, where it was passive before. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of player behavior in regards to how the t2 economy works with moon goo.
    Lunarstorm95
    Godless Horizon.
    Trigger Happy.
    #52 - 2017-03-22 16:29:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Lunarstorm95
    RIP alliance srp for small-medium size alliances (not like free ships did anything in the way of content anyways, right guys?)

    Also RIP t2 in general... incoming rebirth of t3 meta

    I'm curious how alliances even with only 4-5 systems that have 4-6 moons each are expected to mine all that , good luck getting a bunch of pvpers to get in a mining fleet once or twice a week.

    Maybe reduce overall amount of moons but making per moon income much higher? Or give it ability to be passive but higher yield when active?

    “You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.” ― Robert A. Heinlein "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." ― Confucius 

    Querns
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #53 - 2017-03-22 16:30:23 UTC
    Liira Savlin wrote:
    So here are some thoughts i have from what i've read so far:

  • Active gameplay is all well and good, but i do think these should be released with drilling platforms. If you assume drilling platforms provide the ability to passively extract resources, you could set the gameplay for these to work in tandem with drilling structures, but they would have less yield than actively mining them. Snuff and a few others here have raised some very important points about how this hurts lowsec groups that rely on passive moon goo income.

  • If you're going to force active gameplay, you're going to HAVE to open up w-space and hisec to moon mining with these structures if you don't want to see the t2 economy to violently crash and burn. I'd bet my left toe that MOST of the people (if not upwards of 90%) rely on moon mining to be passive, and would prefer to keep it that way to suppliment their most decidedly non-pve activities. Many of these people, especially non-fw lowsec groups, would sooner go to null or w-space than be forced to mine or do PVE activities to suppliment their income. The idea of any of them running mining operations in lowsec, let alone the meat grinder of FW space, is one of the grossest misunderstandings of player behavior since Incarna. It will NOT end well for anyone involved.

  • If this is going to come to pass as-advertised, then let me make a little suggestion: Add d-scan immunity to the porpoise and the skiff. Giving lowsec and nullsec mining operations some decent counterplay is going to be essential if you're putting the burden of AN ENTIRE SECTION OF THE ECONOMY into active gameplay with a fat load of risk involved, where it was passive before. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of player behavior in regards to how the t2 economy works with moon goo.

  • You may not have noticed, but disrupting the passive mining of moongoo and changing the way that part of the economy works is deliberate and intended. They're not going to try to preserve much, if anything of the status quo.

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

    Rainus Max
    Fusion Enterprises Ltd
    Reckless Contingency.
    #54 - 2017-03-22 16:31:08 UTC
    Please for the love of god dont keep the current distribution of moon goo - there are areas of space that are so lacking and the weird distribution of certain elements is daft.

    I'd suggest starting from scratch:

    Give each moon a bit of everything but so that everyone has the ability to get the high end goo that currently is so heavily controlled by the big alliances.

    Not saying massive screw up the ballancing but say if a belt gives you 1,000,000 units of goo once refined you get:

    Atmospheric Gases x 200,000
    Evaporate Deposits x 200,000
    Hydrocarbons x 200,000
    Silicates x 200,000
    Cobalt x 25,000
    Scandium x 25,000
    Titanium x 25,000
    Tungsten x 25,000
    Cadmium x 15,000
    Vandium x 15,000
    Platinum x 15,000
    Chromium x 15,000
    Caesium x 7,500
    Technetium x 7,500
    Hafnium x 7,500
    Mercury x 7,500
    Promethium x 2,500
    Dysprosium x 2,500
    Neodymium x 2,500
    Thulium x 2,500

    you can then play with individual moons so a current Dyspro moon could give 25,000 per belt.

    its a rough idea I grant you but please dont leave goo like it is now
    Milla Goodpussy
    Garoun Investment Bank
    #55 - 2017-03-22 16:32:23 UTC
    this will cause massive impact on t2 production, which will then make faction ships the meta (which they already are) so are you guys going to fix/rebalance t2 ships as a whole.. since its pretty obvious their price is about to go way up.

    i cant believe you guys came up with this "dead space" like mini-game for mining.. its kinda cool, but then again.. really?? in eve?? so umm.. what happens when you have a cloaky camper now watching moon chunks going directly into a structure which he then can easily just call in his hot dropping boys to blow up.. just cause that moon just provded him free total intel???


    will the sov holders receive any notification of the deployment of these structures as well as notifications its under attack?

    you still haven't undated DED notifications properly when it comes to deployment of structures for SOV HOLDERS!..


    c'mon fozzie.. did you write this down
    Liira Savlin
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #56 - 2017-03-22 16:33:06 UTC
    Querns wrote:
    Liira Savlin wrote:
    So here are some thoughts i have from what i've read so far:

  • Active gameplay is all well and good, but i do think these should be released with drilling platforms. If you assume drilling platforms provide the ability to passively extract resources, you could set the gameplay for these to work in tandem with drilling structures, but they would have less yield than actively mining them. Snuff and a few others here have raised some very important points about how this hurts lowsec groups that rely on passive moon goo income.

  • If you're going to force active gameplay, you're going to HAVE to open up w-space and hisec to moon mining with these structures if you don't want to see the t2 economy to violently crash and burn. I'd bet my left toe that MOST of the people (if not upwards of 90%) rely on moon mining to be passive, and would prefer to keep it that way to suppliment their most decidedly non-pve activities. Many of these people, especially non-fw lowsec groups, would sooner go to null or w-space than be forced to mine or do PVE activities to suppliment their income. The idea of any of them running mining operations in lowsec, let alone the meat grinder of FW space, is one of the grossest misunderstandings of player behavior since Incarna. It will NOT end well for anyone involved.

  • If this is going to come to pass as-advertised, then let me make a little suggestion: Add d-scan immunity to the porpoise and the skiff. Giving lowsec and nullsec mining operations some decent counterplay is going to be essential if you're putting the burden of AN ENTIRE SECTION OF THE ECONOMY into active gameplay with a fat load of risk involved, where it was passive before. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of player behavior in regards to how the t2 economy works with moon goo.

  • You may not have noticed, but disrupting the passive mining of moongoo and changing the way that part of the economy works is deliberate and intended. They're not going to try to preserve much, if anything of the status quo.

    That's my point. The stability of moongoo up until now is what has helped make the t2 economy viable. If they do this without any support to passive moon mining or mining counterplay, the majority of the lowsec moon mining is going to get abandoned.
    SIEGE RED
    The Darwin Foundation
    #57 - 2017-03-22 16:33:28 UTC
    Liira Savlin wrote:
    So here are some thoughts i have from what i've read so far:

  • Active gameplay is all well and good, but i do think these should be released with drilling platforms. If you assume drilling platforms provide the ability to passively extract resources, you could set the gameplay for these to work in tandem with drilling structures, but they would have less yield than actively mining them. Snuff and a few others here have raised some very important points about how this hurts lowsec groups that rely on passive moon goo income.

  • Something to consider yes. None of that however offsets required organisational adaptation - things change in EVE, it's the only constant.


    Liira Savlin wrote:

  • If you're going to force active gameplay, you're going to HAVE to open up w-space and hisec to moon mining with these structures if you don't want to see the t2 economy to violently crash and burn. I'd bet my left toe that MOST of the people (if not upwards of 90%) rely on moon mining to be passive, and would prefer to keep it that way to suppliment their most decidedly non-pve activities. Many of these people, especially non-fw lowsec groups, would sooner go to null or w-space than be forced to mine or do PVE activities to suppliment their income. The idea of any of them running mining operations in lowsec, let alone the meat grinder of FW space, is one of the grossest misunderstandings of player behavior since Incarna. It will NOT end well for anyone involved.

  • Why? Things crashing and burning is not only good for gameplay, it's good for underlying economics - and there's never been any situation where such a thing had any tangible impact on player abilities. I remember cap recharger II's at 40m a pop with towers burning. And the show was still on the road. If anything, **** was more alive. If one can say such a strange thing about biological waste.


    Liira Savlin wrote:

  • If this is going to come to pass as-advertised, then let me make a little suggestion: Add d-scan immunity to the porpoise and the skiff. Giving lowsec and nullsec mining operations some decent counterplay is going to be essential if you're putting the burden of AN ENTIRE SECTION OF THE ECONOMY into active gameplay with a fat load of risk involved, where it was passive before. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of player behavior in regards to how the t2 economy works with moon goo.

  • Our BPO's welcome that suggestion, but I'd kinda like to see the Noctis pick up a little love here. Small, specialised, room for younger characters, less n+1 counter paths, more room for small scale pew pew, etc.

    Also, it's not "an entire section of the economy". It's just human behaviour. It can still be passive, just pay/seduce/let/make/force others to do it for you, if needs be. Economics of scale following group behaviour still applies. And specialisation remains king.
    CupKate
    Burning Skull Syndicate
    #58 - 2017-03-22 16:33:53 UTC
    tl/dr:
    1) move moon belts further from the mining structure to increase risk to the miners of this valuable material
    2) NO LOGGING by the structure. If you're getting robbed,you figure it out. Don't let the game do it for you.
    3) Allow more than 1 structure per moon, spread out the drilling/belt material across all anchored drilling structures so that the total net is still the same. negotiate or blow the competition up if you want a monopoly on the moon. There shouldn't be an advantage for just being the first group to anchor a structure on the prime moons during the first few hours after the expansion.



    personal opinion for the good of the game, I think there needs to be more risk, and less corporation/alliance tracking of who mines and what gets mined.

    Explain #1)
    put the new moon ore field further from the structure, so the structure guns can't cover it. still close enough on grid to see, but the miners should be at some risk without a structure there to protect them. this is the most valuable material to mine, make it risky to do so.


    Explain #2)
    don't introduce those logging tools, that sounds like someone's idea who wants to retain some control over what comes out of the moon. This is still too close to the existing protected moon mechanic. If a non-corp or enemy ninja miner want to run an op to steal your crap, get your crap organized and have eyes around your system to prevent it. Don't let the structure log what is going on around it and give you that intel for free with no effort. If you're getting robbed, figure it out yourself!

    You're blasting huge chunks of moon material into space, what does the structure owner get control over what happens to it? Get further away from "Owning" a moon.


    Explain #3)
    ALSO,
    let there be more than one moon drilling rig/structure per moon. With each additional structure the size of the mined belts becomes smaller,such that the net total material is the same but spread across all the mining structures. If you want a monopoly on your moon, blow the other guys up, or negotiate some terms. One structure per moon is too restrictive and too much like the current broken mechanic.
    SIEGE RED
    The Darwin Foundation
    #59 - 2017-03-22 16:35:38 UTC
    Querns wrote:


    You may not have noticed, but disrupting the passive mining of moongoo and changing the way that part of the economy works is deliberate and intended. They're not going to try to preserve much, if anything of the status quo.


    Actually, that depends on where you focus on. Lowsec will see changes, null not so much. The only real thing to upset status quo would be depletion mechanisms. The intent is clearly visible yes, but it's not going to upset much. Never has thusfar.
    Querns
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #60 - 2017-03-22 16:38:36 UTC
    Liira Savlin wrote:
    That's my point. The stability of moongoo up until now is what has helped make the t2 economy viable. If they do this without any support to passive moon mining or mining counterplay, the majority of the lowsec moon mining is going to get abandoned.


    The current alliances who rely on passive moongoo mining will have difficulty and need to adapt, yes. This is a good thing; all "iceberg" organizations should die, preferably while on fire and screaming.

    We at Goonswarm Federation, noted dead lowsec alliance, have adapted. Why haven't you and yours?

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