|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5909
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 20:56:11 -
[1] - Quote
At a POS I can deploy as many weapons as I want, then bring them online as required. If attacked I have the option to turn off industrial modules and online the weaponry & hardeners.
With Engineering Complexes I will basically be forced to either give up industry entirely, or find a large group of people I can pay to defend my structure against attackers. These things are basically loot pi+¦atas. Larger vulnerability windows, fewer defences, lower hitpoints, same DPS caps (and no rep caps, because we just can't repair them ourselves) GǪ it's going to be far easier to destroy an engineering complex than a POS with similar capabilities (remembering I can change a POS from industrial complex to ECM & resistances dickstar in a matter of minutes).
The message I'm receiving loud and clear is, "don't do industry if you're not one of the two largest coalitions in the game."
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5909
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 20:59:45 -
[2] - Quote
Justine Musk wrote:What happen if the person owning the station offline the module or doesn't fuel it? Job cancelled? Job Halted? I'm not concerned about having to interrupt a job due to war, but having the chance that some guy trolls me by offlining the module or decide to unanchor when i've a 2 month me/te research in progress....
Citadels and Engineering Complexes have exactly the same issues as POSes, with the extra caveat that you can't reconfigure them to defend against a wardec (and you certainly can't unanchor them to protect the asset). You have to have a bigger navy to defend an EC than the same size Citadel.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5914
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 21:40:22 -
[3] - Quote
How I would change Engineering Complexes to be a little more flexible:
- Provide more fitting slots than a citadel
- Provide less CPU, PG than a citadel
- Ensure that assembly arrays and labs can be paused at any time without damaging the work in progress
- Allow the station operator to offline and online modules at will
- Add a DPS floor set at 20% of the DPS cap, meaning that if incoming DPS drops too low the repair timer will not pause. No plinking away with a stealth bomber or cloaky recon, keeping the repair timer active while dealing 200 DPS for half a day waiting for your corp mates to wake up and attend the structure bash
- If not a DPS floor, add a repair cap allowing hull, armour, shields to be repaired but limiting incoming repairs to a certain amount of HP/second
- Add a hard repair timer of one hour starting from the end of the vulnerability window so that an attacker can't keep the station vulnerable for up to 24 hours from the vulnerability window by simply shooting the structure with a small fleet until the defender has to go to work/bed
This will at least allow the EC (which is much more valuable than a citadel in terms of strategic worth) to be treated like a POS. We can have it bristling with offensive and defensive systems, along with all those lovely labs and activity lines, and offline the weapons while focussed on industry. Then when under attack we can offline the industry modules and online the weapon systems.
Add a rig or module which will reduce the vulnerability window. Seriously, the structure with the smaller HP has the larger vulnerability window? Why?
Provide meaningful gameplay, encourage structure owners to be active during the structure's vulnerability window.
At the very least it should be possible for the owner of a small EC in hisec to e.g.: online enough hardeners to reduce the incoming DPS from a 12 battleship fleet to the point that the repair timer will start again, while maintaining reps on their own fleet to try and drive off the attackers.
Previous discussion about work to prevent a repair timer being indefinitely prolonged:
That's all I could find, a suggestion that maybe CCP will look at a DPS floor set to a percentage of the structure HP. Please let me know if there has been more discussion that I have simply not seen.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5915
|
Posted - 2016.10.10 22:37:37 -
[4] - Quote
IMHO the differences between sizes of EC should be:
- number of available activity lines
- number of types of activities available
- limits on maximum sizes of ships produced
A small EC should be able to handle 8 activity lines, and perhaps be limited to two activity types and frigate/cruiser ship manufacturing. Then a medium (the current planned smallest EC) could have double the lines, handling up to battleships and orca/freighter and capable of more 4 activity types (e.g.: research, manufacturing, reactions, reverse engineering), then a large capable of capital ships and 8 activity types and 8 times the base activity lines, and an XL capable of supercarriers (and having 16 times the base activity lines, able to handle all activities at once)
Activity lines include:
- ME research
- PE research
- BPO copying
- Invention
- Reverse engineering
- Moon goo reactions
- Drug manufacture
- Assembly/Manufacturing
From memory, a large POS was capable of running a dozen ME/PE/copy labs (but with no defences online).
Modules to attach to ECs to provide the activity lines could work like subsystems on a T3 cruiser, with size restrictions. So there might be four subsystem modules, with small, medium, large, XL variants containing activity lines in the same way that Mobile Labs, Advanced Mobile Labs and Hyasyoda Mobile Lab contain mixtures of lab types.
Thus a Small Lab Module might contain 1 ME lab and 1 PE lab, or copy lab and 1 invention lab. The medium variant would have double the number of labs, and so on to the XL variant with 16 labs (e.g.: 8 ME + 8 PE, or 8 copy and 8 invention). There could be specialist labs (dropped as BPCs, or offered as rewards from NPCs) with different mixes, such as a Hyasyoda XL Lab Module with 16 invention lines.
Differentiating sizes by efficiency is basically telling small industrial groups to quit the game.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5925
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 05:21:47 -
[5] - Quote
Winter Archipelago wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Nonsense about bringing back limited industry lines. Limited industry lines were awful, and going back to them would be as foolish as bringing back Learning Skills.
It worked wonderfully before: want more lines, build more POSes. Expenses scaled to demands, and there was no messing around with nonsense "industry indexes". Industry indexes are going to mess things up for non-NPC industry snce the more industry you do, the more expensive it becomes to do your industry.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5925
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 08:42:04 -
[6] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Didn't the idea change to one of hiring NPCs as labor for production needs? Not sure how that's intended to get around physical production line limits but much like our ships are in lore manned why wouldn't a POS be?
Which isn't to say it was good to include POS production but seemed to be the reasoning.
"Teams" were scrapped because the concept was fundamentally flawed.
Stuff about teams:
The feature lasted most of a year, and at the time many of us congratulated CCP on having the courage to try a new idea and pull it when they realised it was a mistake.
The System Cost Index is less flawed, and somewhat addresses an issue with NPC stations that I would have addressed a slightly different (but equally convoluted) way if I was king. AFAIK it also applies to player-owned infrastructure, so the more industry you do in your new expensive Engineering Complex, the more expensive it will become.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5925
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 09:02:17 -
[7] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:It is broken that a lone player can build almost everything with 100% safety in a single highsec POS. It provides for little player choice, incentive to join forces, and provides little content to those looking to wreck dreams rather than build them.
There is no 100% safety in hisec POSes. The main reasons that industrialists tend to form single-player corporations are that:
- hangar access roles suck
- physical security at a POS sucks
- separation of duties sucks
- permissions management sucks
- allowing public access is hazardous
Only a few of these issues are addressed by structures. Now we have infinite job queues, so there's no need to track individual activity lines, so we can ignore the fact that physical security, separation of duties, permissions and public access are dodgy.
Hangar access still sucks. What we'll see with ECs coming online is the same single-player corporations hosting ECs, with public access to facilities. They might join alliances in order to ensure that defenders can be available, but as far as "wrecking dreams" goes you'll see that hisec wardecs are still mostly about harassment rather than dream wrecking.
POSes were taken down. ECs will be taken down. Nothing will change in that regard.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5925
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 09:49:23 -
[8] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:There is 100% safety in highsec POSes. You get 24h notice of a war and have sufficient time to remove every single bit of your in-space infrastructure to the absolute safety of a station.
While your POS is down you are not running a business. Your business is interrupted. That is not 100% safety.
You need to understand what industry is about before you start claiming that POSes have 100% safety.
Even with EC your valuable assets are 100% safe. The only risk you take is if you're the one that owns the EC and don't have enough pilots around to defend it from a wardec, and do not make enough profit from public access to cover the inevitable losses.
With ECs the public access fees may help make the structure profitable of its own accord, where a POS was never profitable on its own accord.
So even though they're destructible, ECs represent less risk than a POS, assuming you can attract other industrialists to use your installation.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5926
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 11:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Currently, your structures are absolutely, 100%, completely safe.
If I'm wardecced in hisec, I have two options: leave the POS up or pull it down. If I pull it down, my operations are halted.
Sure, qualify your statement by claiming that the POS hardware is "completely safe". All the ships I have in my hangar are also "completely safe". They're also a useless waste of ISK because they're not earning me money.
The reason a hisec POS exists is to make money. I'll be researching BPOs, inventing, or doing some industrial activity that makes it worth fuelling the tower.
Black Pedro wrote:And if you think the ECs represent less risk than the absurdly 100% safe, take everything down and turtle-up possibility we had before, then you are a terrible judge of risk. Before, only potential profits and time were at risk to other players. Now, actual assets can be exploded and you have to put even more assets at risk to try to defend them.
You're not using The RightGäó definition of risk ("The Right Way" being a euphemism for "My Way")
RISK = COST OF LOSS x PROBABILITY OF LOSS
The RISK of pulling a POS down during a wardec is 100% of the income stream I would normally be earning + 100% of the value of the jobs I've had to cancel.
The RISK of having an EC in hisec is 100% of the value of the EC, less income the EC has earned me since its construction by simply existing (assuming I am leasing out activity lines to the general public or at least a bunch of blued alliances). My normal income stream is not modified until the EC is destroyed, at which point I also lose the value of any jobs that were in progress.
The income stream from a POS is only from the items I produce in that POS and ship to market.
The income stream from an EC will be all that, plus the income from leasing out services.
So assuming I can make a profit from leasing out EC services compared to fuelling a POS for my own use the EC will only involve more risk than a POS from the time it is anchored to the time it meets breakeven thanks to service leasing. In a busy system it could even be possible to make a profit from simply having the EC anchored, without using it for industry myself.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5926
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 11:54:27 -
[10] - Quote
Pumhardt wrote:This kills the little guy..
It kills the solo industrialist running their own POS and absorbing all the costs themselves. But CCP is committed to removing POSes anyway.
These EC structures enable the loose coalition of industrialist willing to join forces to fund the ongoing operation of an EC. It should be easier for that coalition to defend (or pay for defence of) that EC. You'll have ISK equivalent to a week's worth of your normal production with which to fund mercenary hire when the hat is passed around :D
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5930
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 21:04:09 -
[11] - Quote
One advantage of ECs for small players is that you can actually start small and increase your production capacity over time. Select a public EC that is useful to you, be prepared to show up during vulnerability windows, and engage in the ages old game of hoping your side shows up with more firepower than the other side.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5931
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 00:05:56 -
[12] - Quote
HaubPlan1 Wads wrote:HI all Our corp has a small Faction POS that runs on 8 Fuels blocks/hour. It does invention, ME, TE, and manufacturing of Teck II modules.
With this new system, 60 blocks/hr will be needed to do the same thing. Is that right?
If so.. it's not helping the small corps with reducing costs.
I would sure like to see an example of a small setup and what it would cost to run per hour.
Thanks
With the new system you can lease your labs out to other capsuleers with no risk to your own jobs or materials. The EC will pay for itself if you can attract enough third party users to your facility. You should be able to reduce the capsuleer fees to zero for yourself and your friends, while still running the EC profitably.
The only way small corps will be punished is if they can not find enough allies to defend the EC during a wardec.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5932
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 01:36:26 -
[13] - Quote
Why are you going to need an XL to match the capacity of a small POS?
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5933
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 05:17:08 -
[14] - Quote
Most of the people I know who are involved in small wormhole corporations have an army of alts in known space to take care of "normal" industry and fuel acquisition. The activities in wormhole space are the this that have to happen in wormhole space: eg. reactions, reverse engineering. Then all the goop is shipped out while they shift new fuel in.
In your case, I would wait and see what comes down the pipeline for those activities. What we have now covers only a portion of the industry space.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5961
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 02:19:17 -
[15] - Quote
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:
- Spam public EC to raise system indexes
- CCP changes NPC stations so they are always more expensive than system index
- wardecs come, ECs are blown up, but you already earned replacement value
- 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.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
|
|
|