These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Building better Worlds

First post First post First post
Author
The Initiative.
#1681 - 2014-04-24 18:59:57 UTC
The last few pages of this thread have been quite educational, I must say.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Minmatar Republic
#1682 - 2014-04-24 19:34:27 UTC
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Weaselior wrote:

when it comes to manufacturing however demand is essentially irrelevant most of the time: demand will affect supply and that plays out when demand suddenly changes (forcing lower supply or higher supply and creating dramatic margin shifts until it moves) but in the absence of sudden demand shifts the market will have settled to a small profit and the price is dictated by cost


Correct. Manufacturing is the middle man that passes the supply/demand pricing mechanism from end user to input supplier. Supply/demand effect sale price of the finished good, and that same supply/demand pushed the price right through manufacturing, to the manufacturing input.


Wrong.

No demand. No price.

No supply. No price.

Heck no demand or no supply, then no market and no price.

Thus, to say demand is irrelevant is just a erudite as saying supply is irrelevant.



You keep confusing "price" with "manufacturing profit".

Manufacturing profit = sale price of manufactured output - purchase price of manufacturing input.


Supply and demand set price of BOTH the finished goods AND the input.

Manufacturing is the tiny middle ground, squeezes by supply/demand set prices on both sides. That tiny middle ground is the tiny markup,. the profit from manufacturing.


There are two main cases to consider.

1) No bottlenecks to manufacture (m0 ships). Demand for ship changes, tiny change in price, profits adjust up or down, people make more or less to return prices to the point just above cost.

2) Bottleneck to manufacturing (faction ships). Demand for ships change, demand for the BPC to build them changes, both price of ship and BPC adjust. The tiny space between output and input costs remains the same.


Either way, the profit from manufacturing remains the tine space between the market forces effecting both its input and output costs.

IF that space started to grow, more people would manufacture and shrink it back down. If the space started to shrink, people would stop manufacturing and the gap would return.
Minmatar Republic
#1683 - 2014-04-24 19:56:40 UTC
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:
[
As for passing along costs...here, let me explain how I was doing invention:

Like you I had spread sheets.
Like you I had all sorts of data in there, various prices for all of my inputs, and so forth.
I also had an expected price variable in there that I'd sell the finished product at.

Now if my costs went up, but the prices on the market did not I faced essentially 2 choices:

1. Sell at the existing prices and take less profit (losses were rare thankfully).
2. Wait and see if the cost increase showed up in the prices.

The problem with 2 is a bit more subtle in that by holding my stock to see if the price moves in my favor I have isk tied up that I couldn't put back into invention.



What you are talking about is not profit or loss from manufacturing, but rather from market moves.

At the time you decided to put the job into invention, your profit from invention was set. Now, perhaps it was unrealizable profit, because the market moved before you got a chance to sell, and you took a market loss. Two totally different things, and you REALLY should look at them differently.

In null, one station has perfect refine, and lots of people mine there. PvPers rally out of a different system 10 jumps away, and theyre are actually open manufacturing slots there.

I buy my minerals sub market in the mining hub, That is market profit.
I move the minerals to where the slots are, where minerals are worth more. That is transportation profit.
I manufacture. Tiny manufacturing profit.
I manipulate the markets in the PvP rally hub by ensuring the PvPers have to pay top dollar when they need something fast. That is marketing profit again.

If I happen to pick up an expensive BPC from a rat drop, that is PVE profit.
If I build from that BPC and sell for high price, the entire sale price is not profit. Only the tiny markup between input (including the BPC) price and sale price (not including my market manipultion profits of getting the PvPers to pay above going rate).
TSOE Consortium
#1684 - 2014-04-24 19:58:01 UTC
@CCP: What's going to be the new m3 of the compressed ore blocks?

CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty.

CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP

#1685 - 2014-04-24 22:03:32 UTC
#1686 - 2014-04-24 22:09:44 UTC
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:
Another aspect keep in mind is that currently slots have a hard limit once they are full they are full you have to wait. This limits the amount of production at any given time. Now by removing that hard limit and essentially giving stations and infinite number of slots but with a sliding cost scale that is It removes a hard constraint on production. Given that supply currently can be severely limited due to the limitations on slots it stands to reason that prices currently may be higher than they would be with an infinite slot model using a sliding scale cost adder.

To see the effect I am talking about draw a downward sloping demand curve then draw an upward sloping supply curve that at a certain point goes vertical. Now move the demand curve so that is intersecting on the vertical part of the supply curve any further increases in supply will result simply an higher prices no additional production. In this case adding infinite slots even with an increasing cost factor could very well result in lower prices than the current situation.

Of course this assumes that the number of slots are all being fully and totally utilized everywhere and also to the extent that this is not true then this scenario is not a factor. However, in that case it also means that having a sliding cost scale to an infinite slot model will have little impact on final prices.



imo with they way the slot cost appears to be implemented major industrialist will now have to think real hard about how much supply they really wish to produce, as they may be sitting on supply for much longer periods of time due to the refining changes. right now if someone overproduces they just refine back to minerals and produce something else. Post patch I doubt massive oversupply will be dealt with so easily without a serious gut blow to their bottom line.
#1687 - 2014-04-24 22:20:33 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.


4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.


26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.



Thread reopened.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

ST Mahan
#1688 - 2014-04-24 23:49:10 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The last few pages of this thread have been quite educational, I must say.


I think there are more than a few of us patiently waiting the next few blog posts before getting too vested in a final judgment and giving our stuffs away. Big smile

#1689 - 2014-04-25 01:21:49 UTC
Flay Nardieu wrote:

Another thing completely overlooked is in starter systems it is nigh impossible to complete the S&I career mission involving manufactering in bonus isk period (or at all) due to bloat of jobs in those systems*, sure it will open slots now but at the density of use in those systems it would break a new player's wallet.

Quote:
Expect costs ranging from 0% to 14% of the base item being produced for the most extreme case.


14% of 0 is still 0.
#1690 - 2014-04-25 02:14:05 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
Flay Nardieu wrote:

Another thing completely overlooked is in starter systems it is nigh impossible to complete the S&I career mission involving manufactering in bonus isk period (or at all) due to bloat of jobs in those systems*, sure it will open slots now but at the density of use in those systems it would break a new player's wallet.

Quote:
Expect costs ranging from 0% to 14% of the base item being produced for the most extreme case.


14% of 0 is still 0.


Two of the missions do tell you to make legitimate things. One has you build ammo, the other has you build a frigate (a navitas in the gallente iirc, but you get one for free for during the exploration arc, so easy to bypass that one.)
#1691 - 2014-04-25 07:37:28 UTC
im easy with the changes but omfg the new UI looks like a 5 year old did a drawing and ccp made that the UI
#1692 - 2014-04-25 08:00:32 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
Gospadin wrote:
What is your plan for T2 BPOs?

T2 BPO's should be removed from the game. It would make the game simpler and easier to balance - all T2 stuff will come from T2 BPCs and invention. No more endless and tedious arguments about how a change here or there to invention will screw over either the T2 BPC inventors or the T2 BPO owners.

And, I should think that the same argument that many players have against "reimbursement for the standings grind" should really apply here:

The owners of T2 BPO's have enjoyed the benefits and profit for years. They have been long since fully compensated for their investment.

However, to help reduce the sting, I don't mind suggesting to convert each T2 BPO to a number of limited run BPCs (say, 100 copies or so).

Do people suggesting T2 BPOs be removed even realize what they're suggesting? It's not some kind of a privilege system that only old players are allowed to use. They're an item like any other which has been traded and changed hands many times since they were seeded to the game. Quit your whining and be happy there is an invention system. T2 BPOs aren't all that what people make them out to be.

lol... this is always the same defence made by T2 BPO owners... over and over again. But, only a small handful of the T2 BPOs which were seeded by the lottery have ever been made publicly available for trade over the years; most of them remain a perk of the original owners and/or their friends.

And, if the T2 BPO's "aren't all that what people make them out to be", then why always the objection to removing them from the game?

Accept that you have already received full value for the use of T2 BPOs over the years, and accept that certain old features should be removed, when long past their time of productively contributing to the game. And, please stop your whining. You should be grateful that you have been able to milk this feature for so many years.


Lol, I never,owned a T2 BPO. Im just surprised people are complaining about their existence. Ive been doing T2 ptoduction via inventions for years and Ive never had an issue. Funny enough items without a T2 BPO are usually less ptofitable. I remember the days before invention, when a T2 pvp fit was insanely expensive, like a faction fit today. If you think theyre so great why dont you buy them?

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!

#1693 - 2014-04-25 08:12:24 UTC
A slightly divergent to topic discussion but related item.

Since changes are going to be made to BP removing extra materials it might be a good idea to address BPOs that have unusually low Max runs.

One example would be the Nanite Repair Paste Blueprint it is classified as a charge however it max run limit is 5 and each run producing 10 units. I'm quite sure there are others, likely not more than 20 at most, but that one just happened to jump out at me.

Back to the main aspects of the discussion. A clarification of the POS "tax" since towers with arrays and outpost stations both fall under the same acronym (Player Owned Structure/Starbase) which technically e POCO is as well, obviously a POCO doesn't have research or manufactering lines so definately not related to question but pointed out the ambaguity of the acronym.

a. If a player owned station where to go into some sort of "overdrive" to handle higher density of jobs an added automatic surcharge makes sense especially since it would put more demands on line (much like overheating modules)

b. In the case of arrays and mobile labs I see no point in making capacity scalable other than using more arrays or labs

In either instance a "TAX" is not appropriate, in the particulars A is in player owned territory and any surcharge for exceeding capacity should be reflected in by the indication anything exceeding capacity would use more resources and require significantly more maintence and preferably an optional feature. In the instance of B capacity shouldn't be dynamic apart from adding more within the limits of what CPU and Powergrid is available to draw from. A tax applied to the production based on the demand density in a system could only be perceived as a subsidy to some 3rd (NPC) party.

Also in a more refined and detailed reiteration of my position of removing standing requirements from high-sec:

Towers and arrays in high-sec with the given productions they can do and the fact that they are only legal targets in the case of war the only time that a large risk of production loss is valid is in the production of batches or individual items taking a long run time and cost expensive resources to be cancelled and unanchored. Cancelling jobs and unanchoring labs is down right trial, especially when operations use a mitigating strategy of doing research a couple levels at a time or whatever can be accomplished in a 3 to 7day window.

Individuals and groups will only defend territory or assets if they have a vested interest to do so, case and point the change to POCO's corporations and alliances will and do defend those since they are static assets, the only other parallels I see are those who can not replace a tower in high-sec via standing or those in low who find a marginally decent moon to mine.

I shall attempt to refine and reiterate these positions until they are understood or are debunked as misconception on my part
Amarr Empire
#1694 - 2014-04-25 11:05:59 UTC
I make T2 drones in POS and T2 frigs in stations in HighSec from invented BPCs. The primary reason for me using stations production slots is the Base material mulitpler: 1.1 on advanced Small Ship Assembly Arrays. With 10% added materials/costs it becomes very difficult to make profit from building those T2 frigs, especially with ME= -4 T2 BPCs (I'm not using decryptors lab work on the process is the bottleneck and making full run copies would only make it worse)

Will this penalty for making T2 ships at advanced assembly arrays be dropped?
C C P Alliance
#1695 - 2014-04-25 12:08:09 UTC
Update!


  • All R.A.M. and R.Db. volume has been reduced from 4m3 to 0.04m3 to accommodate for their new required numbers.
  • All Starbase Assembly arrays now have a 5% material reduction cost for all manufacturing jobs - except for the Capital Ship Array.
  • All Starbase Mobile Laboratories have a further 5% time reduction for all research jobs - except for Reverse Engineering Laboratory.
  • Blueprints that use the remote starbase feature before summer hits, but that are delivered after the summer release will automatically be moved back at the original station (not the starbase) location. This is a one-time only move to make sure current jobs are not screwed by the changes.

  • Example:

  • BobTheClever installs Megathron Blueprint in Dodixie NPC station and use his corporation Starbase to research ME on it right now. Estimated delivery date is after the summer release. When he delivers the research ME job, the researched Megathorn blueprint will delivered back at the NPC station.
Pandemic Horde
#1696 - 2014-04-25 12:17:23 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Update!


  • All R.A.M. and R.Db. volume has been reduced from 4m3 to 0.04m3 to accommodate for their new required numbers.
  • All Starbase Assembly arrays now have a 5% material reduction cost for all manufacturing jobs - except for the Capital Ship Array.
  • All Starbase Mobile Laboratories have a further 5% time reduction for all research jobs - except for Reverse Engineering Laboratory.
  • Blueprints that use the remote starbase feature before summer hits, but that are delivered after the summer release will automatically be moved back at the original station (not the starbase) location. This is a one-time only move to make sure current jobs are not screwed by the changes.

  • Example:

  • BobTheClever installs Megathron Blueprint in Dodixie NPC station and use his corporation Starbase to research ME on it right now. Estimated delivery date is after the summer release. When he delivers the research ME job, the researched Megathorn blueprint will delivered back at the NPC station.

Does the reduction in material cost apply to Advanced arrays which currently have a penalty?

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1697 - 2014-04-25 12:19:35 UTC
5% material reduction.

Gah. That's a /major/ change.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Korthan Doshu
#1698 - 2014-04-25 12:21:39 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
5% material reduction.

Gah. That's a /major/ change.


And this is why I decided to go ahead and build my POS after the last dev blog came out. :P
Goonswarm Federation
#1699 - 2014-04-25 12:26:21 UTC
So this has likely been asked earlier in this thread, but:

Are the moon POSes getting the infinite slot treatment?
Will there be NPC costs to using them?
Will the stats on the modules be adjusted for fitting?
Will there be new bonuses if so?
Am I going to need the same relative logistics or will there be a new element to this aspect?

Minmatar Republic
#1700 - 2014-04-25 12:50:39 UTC
Flay Nardieu wrote:

a. If a player owned station where to go into some sort of "overdrive" to handle higher density of jobs an added automatic surcharge makes sense especially since it would put more demands on line (much like overheating modules)

b. In the case of arrays and mobile labs I see no point in making capacity scalable other than using more arrays or labs

In either instance a "TAX" is not appropriate, in the particulars A is in player owned territory and any surcharge for exceeding capacity should be reflected in by the indication anything exceeding capacity would use more resources and require significantly more maintence and preferably an optional feature. In the instance of B capacity shouldn't be dynamic apart from adding more within the limits of what CPU and Powergrid is available to draw from. A tax applied to the production based on the demand density in a system could only be perceived as a subsidy to some 3rd (NPC) party.


So, is your concern the word "tax"? I think CCP is calling it "cost".

The point, seems to me, is to create ISK drains.

CCP has been removing ISK drains from the by making more things player buildable rather than only coming from NPCs. POS fuel, POS structures, nanite repair paste.

They need to bring back ISK drains.

It seems they are choosing to do it by having it imbedded into the cost of all player produced items.
Forum Jump