Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

Arga wrote:

If I set the quantity of items to be produced, to 100, is it like it currently is now, and the material for all 100 units is consumed, and all 100 units finish at the same time 9 or 10 days later (or 70 days later for heavymechs)?

Materials will be consumed during the cycles as needed, and the produced items will also appear in your storage as soon as a cycle is finished. It's as if we have only kept the "cycles" parameter and expanded it. Well, it is, literally smile

Arga wrote:

Then CT degradation is applied after the run? So if it was 590, I could make 100 units at 590, but after the run, the CT may have been reduced from 150 down to 60?

CTs will degrade after every item made, not at the end of the batch. This is how it's been with the quantity parameter, where you were basically wasting CT efficiency if you didn't make 10 per cycle. This is what we will remove. So CTs will degrade the same over time, regardless whether you do 5 cycles of one or one cycle of 5.

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

I like most of the new changes. Still worried for casual indy players that just want to pvp and others that just have a 2 hr window to play and this all scanning for ore thing may be a little too much.

Maybe we should make harvesting for casual playing types more similar to mining more abundant and with a higher regeneration rate roughly found at the same location. Consequently more plant materials required for making items.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

Change of that kind (industry 2.0) that detrimentally affect older account to reduce the gap between them and new accounts, have 2 bad effects:

  -the vets feel scammed. They bought an extension level with a described effect, often very expensive, but now the described effect doesnt apply anymore. Saying "but your an industrial anyway, so no need for refund" totally exclude the fact that this game permit you to cross train whatever you want. The 30k EP spent in expert mass prod efficiency, that will give you at best 0,5% less material need for prod, would be very more useful to make a basinc prototyper or RE toon. Dont forget we are coming to the 800k EP mark for the oldest accounts, and this amount is the limit were cross training is better cause speccing is almost at max....

  -player wont trust anymore the "invariability" of said extension described effects. Why would i trust that my adv ballistic will forever add me 3% more dmg? This imo weakens the confidence players have in their build and therefor in the game continuity, reducing dedication of said players. And dedication is the beating heart of a sandbox.




All in all the signals i receive from those changes are: 

  -you paid from the beginning one or multiple accounts (seniority aspect), knowing very well that this would give you an advantage over newer players, more than actual online time (more than in fixed skillcap games or lvl character style games), but now we will reduce this advantage to something marginal because we feel like its frightening the new players.  New players retention come with fun, not with less gap between them and vets. WoW didnt improved players retention by letting lvl 30 characters beat lv 50 (its a complete different gameplay i know, its just for the rethoric)

  -game rules are subject to changes, like the game would be in beta. You take decisions about your character(s) that could be very well discarded by gamedesign changes. Without a way to change your decisions afterward.


Now for the ridiculous metaphor:

"Dont be sad you bought a ferrari FF 360k dollars man, because of the new engine limitation laws. You still go 5 kmph faster than a fiat wagon, and i know how you like speed!"

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

Wouldn't we always want to do 10 cycles of 1 then, all things equal, as it would give us immediate access to modules and bots as they completed; instead of having to wait say 7 days for a cycle of 10 heavy mechs?

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

Arga wrote:

Wouldn't we always want to do 10 cycles of 1 then, all things equal, as it would give us immediate access to modules and bots as they completed; instead of having to wait say 7 days for a cycle of 10 heavy mechs?

"and the produced items will also appear in your storage as soon as a cycle is finished"

read: as soon as ONE item is finished (or a batch in case of ammos)

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

Arga wrote:

Wouldn't we always want to do 10 cycles of 1 then, all things equal, as it would give us immediate access to modules and bots as they completed; instead of having to wait say 7 days for a cycle of 10 heavy mechs?

Yes I guess it would. Is that an issue?

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

Celebro wrote:

Maybe we should make harvesting for casual playing types more similar to mining more abundant and with a higher regeneration rate roughly found at the same location. Consequently more plant materials required for making items.

Making resources require less U overall, will help all gathering professions, and make it much more friendly for new players that may not have access to a second hauling account.

It will also help 'offset' the scanning issue for ore, if say a riveler MK II could hold 1M units of titan, it could be self-reliant for a 'casul' 60 minute mining op, instead of needing logistic support.

The resulting decrease in cargo space, would also make hauling resources between stations more cost effective.

Lastly, is the strategic movement of materials, where large corps can have now 50,000 U of ore to transport, which is overwhelming even for a fleet of Scarb MK IIs, where 5,000 U for the same would be managable.

Or, provide a strategic hauler for transport, with a 10k U capacity.

33 (edited by Celebro 2012-04-26 19:59:19)

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

^^To complement Arga's post, miner bots could have a separate cargo space that can only be filled with ores.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

DEV Zoom wrote:
Arga wrote:

Wouldn't we always want to do 10 cycles of 1 then, all things equal, as it would give us immediate access to modules and bots as they completed; instead of having to wait say 7 days for a cycle of 10 heavy mechs?

"and the produced items will also appear in your storage as soon as a cycle is finished"

read: as soon as ONE item is finished (or a batch in case of ammos)

OK, maybe I'm being dense here, because if true this is a fantatsicly good change.

As long as there's no additional penalty, which before was CT % reduction for short runs, there's no reason anymore to make large runs.

Run sizes will be based on completion times, for the most part, or on available material.

Ohhhh.

Actually, another hit for vet producers. Previously, it was difficult for a new producer to get enough material for a run of 10 hmechs (and with CT production costs, making 1 or 2 for sale wouldn't be profitable). But that advantage will also be gone, since the smaller producer can just make 1, vastly increasing the competition on the market for high end bots. It won't really drive down the price though, since most of the cost of a hmech is determined by the cost of Epitron.

But, back to runs;

If I log on about the same time everyday, I'll set the runs to complete in a 24/25 hour range. For instance, I wouldn't run 8 modules to complete in 30 hours, because they'd just sit in my inventory until the next day, but if I adjust it to 6 modules that completes in 23 hours, then I can log in and put them on the market or put them in corp storage for immediate use.

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

How come that most of the whine about the 'less ores for same time' comes from beta/gamma corps who will also benefit the most from the better efficiency that high end factories give? Really you have no idea how that will balance out.

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

Cobalt wrote:

Change of that kind (industry 2.0) that detrimentally affect older account to reduce the gap between them and new accounts, have 2 bad effects:

  -the vets feel scammed. They bought an extension level with a described effect, often very expensive, but now the described effect doesnt apply anymore. Saying "but your an industrial anyway, so no need for refund" totally exclude the fact that this game permit you to cross train whatever you want. The 30k EP spent in expert mass prod efficiency, that will give you at best 0,5% less material need for prod, would be very more useful to make a basinc prototyper or RE toon. Dont forget we are coming to the 800k EP mark for the oldest accounts, and this amount is the limit were cross training is better cause speccing is almost at max....

  -player wont trust anymore the "invariability" of said extension described effects. Why would i trust that my adv ballistic will forever add me 3% more dmg? This imo weakens the confidence players have in their build and therefor in the game continuity, reducing dedication of said players. And dedication is the beating heart of a sandbox.




All in all the signals i receive from those changes are: 

  -you paid from the beginning one or multiple accounts (seniority aspect), knowing very well that this would give you an advantage over newer players, more than actual online time (more than in fixed skillcap games or lvl character style games), but now we will reduce this advantage to something marginal because we feel like its frightening the new players.  New players retention come with fun, not with less gap between them and vets. WoW didnt improved players retention by letting lvl 30 characters beat lv 50 (its a complete different gameplay i know, its just for the rethoric)

  -game rules are subject to changes, like the game would be in beta. You take decisions about your character(s) that could be very well discarded by gamedesign changes. Without a way to change your decisions afterward.


Now for the ridiculous metaphor:

"Dont be sad you bought a ferrari FF 360k dollars man, because of the new engine limitation laws. You still go 5 kmph faster than a fiat wagon, and i know how you like speed!"


I still would like my alt producer to be as efficient as possible, not much of an issue for me, giving out the option of returned EP would still be a plus.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

Lucius Marcellus wrote:

How come that most of the whine about the 'less ores for same time' comes from beta/gamma corps who will also benefit the most from the better efficiency that high end factories give? Really you have no idea how that will balance out.

Actually, as I pointed out, its not really going to effect beta/gamma mining much at all. But, even with access to beta/gamma, its likely a significant amount of mining/production is still going to be taking place on alpha; this is more true with gamma, with full loot on destruction of the main terminal.

38 (edited by Celebro 2012-04-26 20:21:48)

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

Lucius Marcellus wrote:

How come that most of the whine about the 'less ores for same time' comes from beta/gamma corps who will also benefit the most from the better efficiency that high end factories give? Really you have no idea how that will balance out.


True, though some beta players just mine and sell for NIC or trade and don't really take advantage of OP facilities.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

Something I didn't pickup on the first pass;

CT combination will only be available for gamma PBS with the proper structure installed.

While this could open up a market for buying used CT's, its important to note that alpha producers aren't going to have direct access to this facility, nor will they have access to combine decoders; meaning that gamma producers will be able probably default to lvl 8 decoders as min for CT creation, combine in thier old CT's, for a significant advantage over alpha producers.

This is markedly true for MK II CT's.

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

Arga wrote:

As long as there's no additional penalty, which before was CT % reduction for short runs, there's no reason anymore to make large runs.

The only reason to make large runs is convenience and automation.

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

DEV Zoom wrote:
Arga wrote:

As long as there's no additional penalty, which before was CT % reduction for short runs, there's no reason anymore to make large runs.

The only reason to make large runs is convenience and automation.

Of all the changes, this is likely to have the largest impact (non-PBS that is); not necessarily for good or bad, just a big impact for a little change.

42 (edited by Lucius Marcellus 2012-04-26 20:33:06)

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

What's the actual advantage in terms of efficiency for gamma now though?

~15-20% refine from facility + ~5% refine from full relation bonus + Factory gain (assuming 5-15% gain on average seems conservative) + CT merge facility (might add 2-3% on overall efficiency as a conservative estimate) = ~27-43% less materials needed

So basically, let's make new alpha producers be able to compete very closely to veteran alpha producers, but let's make sure gamma producer get a huge advantage over everyone. Not sure how that will drive new players?

At the moment the difference in efficiency is quite high, but bearable, with these changes being a large alpha producer is not really viable. I feel you guys really, really don't want people to produce on alpha.

43 (edited by Arjha Shanoo 2012-04-26 20:36:57)

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

for ep-reset questions: production ok if its not necessary, but what about the specialised mining and harvesting extensions? will we have a chance to reset those since the factional mineral distribution at islands will change greatly?

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

Lucius Marcellus wrote:

What's the actual advantage in terms of efficiency for gamma now though?

~15-20% refine from facility + ~5% refine from full relation bonus + Factory gain (assuming 5-15% gain on average seems conservative) + CT merge facility (might add 2-3% on overall efficiency as a conservative estimate) = ~27-43% less materials needed

So basically, let's make new alpha producers be able to compete very closely to veteran alpha producers, but let's make sure gamma producer get a huge advantage over everyone. Not sure how that will drive new players?

At the moment the difference in efficiency is quite high, but bearable, with these changes being a large alpha producer is not really viable. I feel you guys really, really don't want people to produce on alpha.

Agreed. And if you don't want vet players producing on alpha, the lack of items for sale new players constantly complain about would be made even worse, don't expect alpha hubs with cheap prices any time soon.

RIP PERPETUUM

45 (edited by Annihilator 2012-04-26 20:47:25)

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

lucius - as far as i understand the point system:

someone on a gama factory with a base efficiency of 200 - he can use the same CT forever without a marginal loss of efficiency over a brand new one, especially combined with the high extension bonus he has.

i wonder if there is a kind of mechanic that makes CTs break at low quality so someone on Gamma would still have a reason to make new ones. (on the contrary, vet production extensions could lower the risk).


I want more details on the minerals per tile - this change seems to make AoE mining laser effects possible now...

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

Arjha Shanoo wrote:

for ep-reset questions: production ok if its not necessary, but what about the specialised mining and harvesting extensions? will we have a chance to reset those since the factional mineral distribution at islands will change greatly?

We're still discussing this.

47 (edited by Lucius Marcellus 2012-04-26 20:57:27)

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

Annihilator wrote:

someone on a gama factory with a base efficiency of 200 - he can use the same CT forever without a marginal loss of efficiency over a brand new one, especially combined with the high extension bonus he has.

So what? That will still greatly lowers the average cost of production.

If you really don't think it matters, then there's no point in even introducing it...

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

Also, will there be any system for the black green tiles in fields to slowly decay?
Because all those small black green tiles around the edges of fields are going to be a huge pita to mine.

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

Shaedys wrote:

Also, will there be any system for the black green tiles in fields to slowly decay?
Because all those small black green tiles around the edges of fields are going to be a huge pita to mine.

The mineral fields in the new system will have much more "contour", there won't be any black green tiles (unless left by players). Quantity will still be gradually lower towards the outlines (well actually it will be a bunch of blobs, but still), but the smallest tile will also have much more minerals than a few cycles' worth.

Re: New devblog: Industry, remixed

I think the changes are good, but i think a ep reset will be required because its a big change to industry, not a minor tweak.