These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

So, was everyone too busy whining about datacores to notice this colossal invention buff?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
clixor
Celluloid Gurus
#21 - 2012-05-29 08:27:41 UTC
Zifrian wrote:
Lutz Major wrote:
Bye bye, nice and complex game play ...

Welcome, mass-gaming suitable easy rules!

Sad

How is it any less complex? If anything, it finally fixed an inconsistency that should have been corrected long ago and the effect will be minimal. I'm actually surprised someone at CCP actually took the time to look at it.


For T2 producers (especially focussing on T2 ships) ofcourse this 'fix' is a godsend. But really i didn't see anything particuliary wrong with the former situation. In the end it was a rational choice players had; do i invest in multiple BPO's? And is the isk for copying worth the +1 run on the T2 BPC?

By removing the choice per definition the system is less complex without judging if the particular change is good or bad.
Haulie Berry
#22 - 2012-05-29 13:26:21 UTC
Lutz Major wrote:
Bye bye, nice and complex game play ...

Welcome, mass-gaming suitable easy rules!

Sad



Always wondered if anyone would be a big enough ******* to gripe about a basic arithmetic fix. Turns out I shouldn't have.
Tadeo Musashy
Doomheim
#23 - 2012-05-30 07:01:58 UTC
Haulie Berry wrote:
Lutz Major wrote:
Bye bye, nice and complex game play ...

Welcome, mass-gaming suitable easy rules!

Sad



Always wondered if anyone would be a big enough ******* to gripe about a basic arithmetic fix. Turns out I shouldn't have.


welcome into the "fair" word of everybody has his own agenda...

most likely some ppl who had a nice bussines selling maxruns copies took a nice litle hit from this "fix" - depending on their T1BPOs library they found they have some sunken iskies therefore they have a legit reason to whinne about this "fix"...
its just another example of my "changes on the run" is bad theory... errr... ofc we can put it your way: "its a nice buff to invention mechanics" and i would have to agree with that (especially when i wont need to pay or copy maxruns to have better runs outputed t2 copies)... but what about ppl who may find their bussines sliced or ruined after this "fix" altho they made the "bussines plan" considering the rules inplace?

pls note i'm not whinning nor criticizing this particular "fix" (and neither any other past, current or future changes)... i'm just pointing again on the unfairness of "changes on the run" without compensations!

care about having POLLs available in forum threads? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=115634&find=unread
Haulie Berry
#24 - 2012-05-30 14:30:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulie Berry
And, like you, they will not be compensated - nor do they deserve to be. Thing is, the first rule is that the rules are going to change. In fact, that the rules change every six months or so is considered to be a fairly major marketing point of the game. Every player is aware of this and has already explicitly agreed (more than once, most likely) to play under those terms, which makes crying about it when the rules do change both infantile and nonsensical.

It's right there in the EULA:

Quote:
E. New Releases of the Software

You are not entitled to receive any new releases of the Software, or any expansion packs, updates, upgrades or similar products under the EULA, but CCP may, in its sole discretion, offer any or all of the foregoing to you. CCP may update, upgrade or otherwise enhance the Software at any time, in its sole discretion, without obligation to you.
Tadeo Musashy
Doomheim
#25 - 2012-05-30 23:53:16 UTC
Haulie Berry wrote:
And, like you, they will not be compensated - nor do they deserve to be. Thing is, the first rule is that the rules are going to change. In fact, that the rules change every six months or so is considered to be a fairly major marketing point of the game. Every player is aware of this and has already explicitly agreed (more than once, most likely) to play under those terms, which makes crying about it when the rules do change both infantile and nonsensical.

It's right there in the EULA:

Quote:
E. New Releases of the Software

You are not entitled to receive any new releases of the Software, or any expansion packs, updates, upgrades or similar products under the EULA, but CCP may, in its sole discretion, offer any or all of the foregoing to you. CCP may update, upgrade or otherwise enhance the Software at any time, in its sole discretion, without obligation to you.


the above chunk from EULA is reffing to the software - but ofc, if you find it suitable you could quote it for your odd purpose of promising me i wont be compensated.... all that like i'd be after some stuff from your inventory or some of your SPs...

in the same time CCP Ytterbium have here a way more adequate, fair and tolerant oppinion - i'm quoting below:

"... While we do acknowledge that initial the initial period to train up for high-level research agents take times, effort and money, we are not particularly fond of the passive datacore income in general. Indeed, once the initial requirements are met, this is not so much of an active profession and more of a passive collection of items, which we want to look at.
......

While our current intention is to turn datacore gathering into more of an active profession than it currently is, we will be following feedback closely to make sure players that invested time into Research corporations are not abandoned, most likely by making further changes to them in the next release...."

i wonder if you really cant see i'm right - or its just some sort of "forum attitude"...

care about having POLLs available in forum threads? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=115634&find=unread
Haulie Berry
#26 - 2012-05-30 23:58:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulie Berry
Quote:
the above chunk from EULA is reffing to the software - but ofc, if you find it suitable you could quote it for your odd purpose of promising me i wont be compensated.... all that like i'd be after some stuff from your inventory or some of your SPs...


Read it again.

Quote:
E. New Releases of the Software

You are not entitled to receive any new releases of the Software, or any expansion packs, updates, upgrades or similar products under the EULA, but CCP may, in its sole discretion, offer any or all of the foregoing to you. CCP may update, upgrade or otherwise enhance the Software at any time, in its sole discretion, without obligation to you.


"The Software" in this context refers to the game itself, as well as all of its component parts, including mechanics, rules, UI, etc.


Quote:
While our current intention is to turn datacore gathering into more of an active profession than it currently is, we will be following feedback closely to make sure players that invested time into Research corporations are not abandoned, most likely by making further changes to them in the next release...."


...and? That doesn't sound like you're getting compensated to me. Sounds like, at best, they will simply make it marginally more competitive with FW - but make no mistake, it's never going to be what it was.
Tadeo Musashy
Doomheim
#27 - 2012-05-31 00:25:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Tadeo Musashy
Haulie Berry wrote:

...and? That doesn't sound like you're getting compensated to me. Sounds like, at best, they will simply make it marginally more competitive with FW - but make no mistake, it's never going to be what it was.


who said anything about "things should roll back the way they were"?
i have no problem to agree (most of) the changes indeed improve the gameplay / gameexperience... that is overall but also for me...
ONE MORE TIME: what i'm really after is for them to admit "changes on the run are unfair but necesary" and to make it officialy by offering some shty formal 1 free skillpoint as welldeserved compensation for players that got affected in the proccess...

no harm ment but is my english THAT bad?

care about having POLLs available in forum threads? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=115634&find=unread
Tugarin Zmey
AZK UBER ALLES
#28 - 2012-06-14 09:19:36 UTC
So, looks like this formula isn't correct now?
CCP, would you please post a right one?
Zifrian
The Frog Pond
Ribbit.
#29 - 2012-06-17 11:48:24 UTC
Tugarin Zmey wrote:
So, looks like this formula isn't correct now?
CCP, would you please post a right one?

This is what I've been using and it seems to work.

InventedRuns = Math.Min(Math.Ceiling((Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_BPC_MaxRuns) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 10) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy)

Main difference is I've removed the round down part from the formula.

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder
Tugarin Zmey
AZK UBER ALLES
#30 - 2012-07-02 14:04:52 UTC
Zifrian wrote:


InventedRuns = Math.Min(Math.Ceiling((Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_BPC_MaxRuns) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 10) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy)

Main difference is I've removed the round down part from the formula.


Did you mean Math.Max instead of Math.Ceiling?
Fynen
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2012-07-04 03:34:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Fynen
Tugarin Zmey wrote:
Zifrian wrote:


InventedRuns = Math.Min(Math.Ceiling((Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_BPC_MaxRuns) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 10) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy)

Main difference is I've removed the round down part from the formula.


Did you mean Math.Max instead of Math.Ceiling?


Math.Max would require two parameters, of which the higher one gets choosen. Math.Ceiling only uses one parameter...
Previous page12