These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Blueprint data adjustments thread

First post First post
Author
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#141 - 2014-05-28 00:32:18 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:


the decryptor market is getting completely changed


Some of us have already acted upon this information.



I must say, the module invention and production times are being shaken up more than I thought they would be. Interesting.

I will most certainly be acting upon some of this information as soon as I can log on.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#142 - 2014-05-28 01:02:16 UTC  |  Edited by: probag Bear
Since I'm throwing out .csv's, have a comparison of the time-to-create / throughput of T2 inventables, without decryptor effects, POS effects, or other modifiers.
Looks like roughly half of the items will be "losers" and half "winners". I'll look at it more carefully tomorrow.

And just a quickie: there may be a legitimate error in the new data. Reverse Engineering can currently spit out T3 hull BPCs with 20 runs. Their max runs in the data though is getting changed to 1. The game might not like that.


Edit: That is time per item (or batch in the case of ammo). As in, it's the time to get 1 ship through all the steps and all the way to the end, and 10% of the time to get 10 modules through all the steps and all the way to the end.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#143 - 2014-05-28 01:02:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
A few more thoughts on the impact of increased time to market.

This will have a huge impact on increasing price spikes in the early days of alliance wars. During week 1 of the Fountain War I recognised that Goonswarm demand meant that Oneiros prices had soared, and I started vomiting them out as quickly as my available capital allowed (I was capital limited, not production line or science line limited).

At the time Oneiros build price was about 120m and the pre-war price had been about 135m, but Mynnna's minions bought enough to make the price soar.

I clearly wasn't the only person that made this shift, and after ~4 days (which was my time-to-market) the Oneiros price stopped rising and stabilized at an extremely profitable 190-195m. Over a few weeks, this slowly declined as more people got into the market, and the production cost went up as people started charging more for Photon Microprocessors.

Had time-to-market been 8 days instead of 4, the equilibrium reached may have been different, and definitely less stable.



Edit: Scrap the conclusion. Looks like I had some numbers wrong and the Oneiros may be quicker to get to market, not slower.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#144 - 2014-05-28 01:05:00 UTC
probag Bear wrote:
Since I'm throwing out .csv's, have a comparison of the time-to-create / throughput of T2 inventables, without decryptor effects, POS effects, or other modifiers.
Looks like roughly half of the items will be "losers" and half "winners". I'll look at it more carefully tomorrow.

And just a quickie: there may be a legitimate error in the new data. Reverse Engineering can currently spit out T3 hull BPCs with 20 runs. Their max runs in the data though is getting changed to 1. The game might not like that.



Could you generate that again, but assume a Symmetry decryptor is always used? It's much more realistic as Symmetry is so underpriced that using it increases ISK per hour on almost every profitable T2 invention job.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Sales Alt negrodamus
Sanctuary of Shadows
Snuffed Out
#145 - 2014-05-28 01:16:00 UTC
Oh man, 90 day base invent time for a JF.

Definitely watching this space.

Greyscale - when can we expect to get this on sisi? A lot of us are simply tinkering with spreadsheets right now and holding back opinions until we can see this in action.
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
#146 - 2014-05-28 01:20:56 UTC
Sales Alt negrodamus wrote:
Oh man, 90 day base invent time for a JF.

Definitely watching this space.

Greyscale - when can we expect to get this on sisi? A lot of us are simply tinkering with spreadsheets right now and holding back opinions until we can see this in action.

They want it as soon as possible but it depends how long they want to use Sisi to test fixes after the patch. I think it will be by the end of next week for sure.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#147 - 2014-05-28 01:31:51 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
probag Bear wrote:
Since I'm throwing out .csv's, have a comparison of the time-to-create / throughput of T2 inventables, without decryptor effects, POS effects, or other modifiers.
Looks like roughly half of the items will be "losers" and half "winners". I'll look at it more carefully tomorrow.

And just a quickie: there may be a legitimate error in the new data. Reverse Engineering can currently spit out T3 hull BPCs with 20 runs. Their max runs in the data though is getting changed to 1. The game might not like that.



Could you generate that again, but assume a Symmetry decryptor is always used? It's much more realistic as Symmetry is so underpriced that using it increases ISK per hour on almost every profitable T2 invention job.


I considered including decryptor effects, but decided against it, as we still have no idea what they'll be changing to.

If I do include decryptor effects, I also have the option of easily optimizing for profit/hr and having the data use the optimal decryptor for each item (while Symmetry is very popular, it's still not the optimal decryptor to use for most items). That, of course, would create another problem: decryptor prices aren't going to stay the same post-Crius, and which decryptor is optimal does heavily depend on their price.

If I have enough time, I actually have the proper code scaffolding to go in, get volume/day data for decryptors, T2 items, everything, assume that decryptor effects are staying the same but just scaling up from -4/-4 base to 0/0 base, and come up with a proper estimate of how decryptor demand would change. Probably not going to happen though. It'd easily be several paragraphs of code, whereas everything else I've done in this thread has been just copy-pasted pre-existing code with trivial changes.

That said, I'm not doing anything more today, as I'm already half-asleep. Tomorrow I'll actually look at that data I had my scripts spit out, and hopefully be able to make some sense of it. I might even decide to involve decryptors somewhere; suggestions are appreciated.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#148 - 2014-05-28 01:41:22 UTC
Perhaps consider Symmetry on modules other than battleship guns and all T2 frigates, Parity on battleship guns and destroyers, Accelerant on T2 cruisers/BC, and Process on T2 battleships and larger.

It may not be optimal, but it's a pretty good estimate of optimal with current decryptor prices. Obviously decryptor prices will change, this is why I have been stockpiling certain ones.

Assume that each point of ME becomes 1% less materials (not that you care about that here) and each point of PE 2% less build time. It's not so much that we are after perfect accuracy, just a good baseline estimate.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Angella Mitchell
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#149 - 2014-05-28 02:12:33 UTC
Is it me or Fuel Block manufacturing time is now 3x longer ? from 5 min to 15 min.
Dealth Striker
Perkone
Caldari State
#150 - 2014-05-28 03:21:18 UTC
Hi
Are the BPCs created prior to release of the industry changes going to convert?

Thank you in advance
Striker Out!!
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#151 - 2014-05-28 03:36:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Gilbaron
alright, i can't sleep and decided to take another look at this: Time for more assumptions that may, or may not be wrong. read everything with a big grain of salt.

I have tweaked some values so that i end up with the actual invention time that will be relevant ingame (that means taking all inventiontimes from greyscales .csv and halving them. nobody will do serious invention in a station if you can double your output in a POS.

i end up with some values that i actually really like and a lot more that i don't like. let's just go through a bunch of them.

i tooked at the value purely based on one thing. play sessions. players tend to be online at the same time every day. that is usually in the evening between 18.00 and 00.00 local time for up to 4 hours. it is much more likely that someone skips a day than it is that he or she can log in at a different time.

i therefore assume that a multiple of 24 minus X, or anything under 4 hours is actually a good number for invention jobs. everything else most likely means some kind of wasted slot time. my OCD hates wasted slot time.

so far, i have completely ignored the whole manufacturing - invention balancing thing. this post is purely about invention times and optimisation of slot usage.

lets dive into the numbers:

Weapons

6 hrs for small weapons. whelp.
13hrs 30 minutes for medium weapons and most medslot modules. that's just bad. it feels wrong that modules that are so important are made under such bad conditions.
22 hours invention time for large weapons. that is actually a great number.
12 days for capital modules. is that for a 10 run or a 1 run copy ?

Ammo
19 hours for small ammunition. fine. BUT: a MASSIVE difference to the status quo. good to know ;)
2 hrs for mining crystals. why the difference to small ammo ? forgot them ?
1 days, 13 hours for medium ammo. seriously ?
2 days, 8 hours for large ammo. whelp.

Rigs
12 hrs for small rigs. just as bad as medium modules.
24 hrs for medium rigs. oh dear
37 hrs for large rigs. okay-ish. you loose a bit of sciency slot time, but i really like long timers ;)
50 hrs for capital rigs. oh dear.

Ships
4 hrs for frigages. get that to ~20 hours.
9 hrs for destroyers. bad. get that to 40 hours
9 hrs for cruisers and industrials. whelp. should be longer than destroyers, get it to 60 hours or so.
12 hrs for Battlecruisers. seriously ? 5 days would be appropriate
13 hrs for battleships. seriously ? should be much (!!) longer. i would suggest getting that up to a week, maybe 10 days. i would prefer a week, mostly because ~building a bunch of marauders/blops sounds like a funny project for a weekend

Drones
2 hrs for small drones. okay
4 hrs for medium drones. not that cool, but okay-ish
6 hrs for large drones. whelp

I very much (!!) appreciate your move towards significantly increased job length. everybody hates the clickfest and this should really help with some people carpal tunnel syndrome. good job

however, the actual numbers you guys ended up with are often quite meh-ish or just horribly bad.. it's really hard to optimize slot utilisation with those values.

That by itself is not a bad thing. it just doesn't feel right. I even see that there may be some game-design reasons for non-optimal timers. (longer play sessions, multiple daily logins, ...)

however, profit in manufacturing should come from making the correct decisions to the following questions

1. what should i build ?
2. where should i build it ?
3. how should i build it ?

But not based on logging in at work or staying up longer because of a video game.

Therefore i have two suggestions:

1. move back to the drawing board with rank selection. choose a finer scale and work from there. if i understood the concept of ranks correctly it's something that we won't actually see ingame, it will just work in the background, therefore a weird rank won't confuse anyone who looks at blueprint data ingame.

how about multiplying the rank scale and all current ranks by the factor 10 ?

From there, you can move things along the rank scale a bit to end up with ~nicer invention times~ without disrupting the general idea that everything is based on one single value.

If i understood your formulas correct (and sadly, i'm very much not a math genius) this won't break things as long as you just divide everything by 10 at the end.

2. split invention into things that are done within one play session (that means invention times of ~3 hours) and things that are done in multiple session (that means invention times of ~20, ~44, ~68, ... hours)

From there on, work with decryptors and meta items to make sure that enough ~stuff is supplied. if you feel like some special rules are necessary in order to keep the market alive until you can do some real improvements, go ahead (it may be necessary to increase the runs on module or ammo T2 BPCs for some time)

I will (hopefully) post something similar about manufacturing tomorrow and some more things about decryptors and meta items in the invention process later this week.
Aluka 7th
#152 - 2014-05-28 03:43:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Aluka 7th
Considering that max run on BPC copied from T2 BPO will be1, it is safe to say that copy time can be similar to manufacturing time. Invention can get multiple multi-run BPCs but little worse ME (few % in new system) & keep it capability of mass production, while BPO can create only one run copies and loose benefits of multiple runs in new system thus only way to benefit from T2 BPO is actually to manufacture from it directly which again benefits from amarr factory outpost 0.65x production time bonus, teams and multiple run ME reduction same like it could from gallente outpost. Even today when copy time is just little longer then manufacturing time IMHO I didn't see T2 BPCs being created in gallente outpost in any substantial number or if any on contracts. so copy time = 3x manufacturing time is Roll

Copy time should be 0.8x manuf. time and see what happens then in worst case readjust it in next patch.
Invention usually done in POS with all bonuses gets one copy 1-run or multiple run copy with decryptor in 12 hours and when we factor invention chance you will get more runs per single line from invention then by coping T2 BPO in same time even if we reduce copy time to 1x manuf. time not to mention you can run 10 lines per person with invention.



Invention is high volume & lossy while originals are low volume and lossless.
Invention is lower start investment better profit but more clicking, T2 BPO is high investment, better margin per line, less total profit but less clicking.
Balance. Well benefit is little on the side of invention.
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#153 - 2014-05-28 04:36:15 UTC
Aluka 7th wrote:
Considering that max run on BPC copied from T2 BPO will be1, it is safe to say that copy time can be similar to manufacturing time. Invention can get multiple multi-run BPCs but little worse ME (few % in new system) & keep it capability of mass production, while BPO can create only one run copies and loose benefits of multiple runs in new system thus only way to benefit from T2 BPO is actually to manufacture from it directly which again benefits from amarr factory outpost 0.65x production time bonus, teams and multiple run ME reduction same like it could from gallente outpost. Even today when copy time is just little longer then manufacturing time IMHO I didn't see T2 BPCs being created in gallente outpost in any substantial number or if any on contracts. so copy time = 3x manufacturing time is Roll

Copy time should be 0.8x manuf. time and see what happens then in worst case readjust it in next patch.
Invention usually done in POS with all bonuses gets one copy 1-run or multiple run copy with decryptor in 12 hours and when we factor invention chance you will get more runs per single line from invention then by coping T2 BPO in same time not to mention you can run 10 lines per person with invention.



Invention is high volume & lossy while originals are low volume and lossless.
Invention is lower start investment better profit but more clicking, T2 BPO is high investment, better margin per line, less total profit but less clicking.
Balance. Well benefit is little on the side of invention.


T2 BPO are going the way of the Titan - slowly nerfing them and buffing everything around them, until they are pretty much useless.
Aluka 7th
#154 - 2014-05-28 04:47:44 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Aluka 7th wrote:
Considering that max run on BPC copied from T2 BPO will be1, it is safe to say that copy time can be similar to manufacturing time. Invention can get multiple multi-run BPCs but little worse ME (few % in new system) & keep it capability of mass production, while BPO can create only one run copies and loose benefits of multiple runs in new system thus only way to benefit from T2 BPO is actually to manufacture from it directly which again benefits from amarr factory outpost 0.65x production time bonus, teams and multiple run ME reduction same like it could from gallente outpost. Even today when copy time is just little longer then manufacturing time IMHO I didn't see T2 BPCs being created in gallente outpost in any substantial number or if any on contracts. so copy time = 3x manufacturing time is Roll

Copy time should be 0.8x manuf. time and see what happens then in worst case readjust it in next patch.
Invention usually done in POS with all bonuses gets one copy 1-run or multiple run copy with decryptor in 12 hours and when we factor invention chance you will get more runs per single line from invention then by coping T2 BPO in same time not to mention you can run 10 lines per person with invention.



Invention is high volume & lossy while originals are low volume and lossless.
Invention is lower start investment better profit but more clicking, T2 BPO is high investment, better margin per line, less total profit but less clicking.
Balance. Well benefit is little on the side of invention.


T2 BPO are going the way of the Titan - slowly nerfing them and buffing everything around them, until they are pretty much useless.


At the end of the day I really don't understand why. There are so many more profitable ways of making money (passive - moon goo and active - incursions,WH) and for those activities you need very low investment comparing to T2 BPO.
T2 BPO is already more of a strategic resource for alliance that keep manufacturing people sane enough to keep playing this game (because of less clicking). And keeps T2 stuff somewhat cheaper. People whine about T2 BPO for JFs through forum although they don't exist so haters gonna hate, always. So like I said, I'm puzzled and just want to give realistic view from personal experience as manufacturer for 9 years now.
Marcus Iunius Brutus
Hoborg Labs
#155 - 2014-05-28 05:58:57 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Anything that's not a ship spits out a 10-run copy on success.


Does that include rigs?
At the moment invention produces 1-run BPCs.
mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#156 - 2014-05-28 06:01:32 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
e: Messed numbers up, see below.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#157 - 2014-05-28 09:20:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve Ronuken
Just to make sure I'm not crazy with how I price things, and determine if something is worth making:

(I'm bad, because I normally ignore the time to copy the blueprint, and actually /do/ the invention. I don't ignore the cost of invention.)

I take all the material costs (including an average invention material cost) and subtract that from the sale price. I then divide that by the number of hours needed to make the thing. If the total build time is below 24 hours, I normalize the time to 24 hours (As I'm generally logging in once per day.)

If that doesn't beat (in general) 100,000 isk per hour, it's not worth making.


So, for an Expanded Cargohold II (it's a go-to example for me.) current material cost is around 148,000 at jita sell prices (the only real way to price things, except possibly components.) The invention cost is around 75,000 per unit.

Current sell price is around 510,000.

This leaves a profit of around 287,000 per unit. As I can only make 10 per day, per slot, I multiply the profit by 10, then divide it by 24 to get the isk/hr which is around 120,000 isk/hr.

If the build time went up by a factor of four, the price would have to go up by around 200,000 for it to remain a viable product for me to make.

For the odd days I can make two batches, it becomes less viable.


Summary:
Increasing build times will directly impact on module pricing, as serious manufacturers don't look at profit on a percentage basis, but instead on an isk/hr level, with a baseline of what isk/hr they'll accept as viable.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#158 - 2014-05-28 09:43:41 UTC
Suggestion: To adjust the TTM, adjust the output from a blueprint run to being multiple units. (and adjust the inputs accordingly)

This (as the system currently stands) would mean you could only refine modules if you had multiples of them, which is a probably undesired side effect, but that may not be a concern with how you're changing refining.


Ideally build time per unit shouldn't change significantly, as that has serious knock on effects on the market, which needs separate consideration. Increasing T2 build time, for example, will reduce demand for moon-goo, and increase price per module. (reducing the viable isk/hr won't encourage more people to make it.)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#159 - 2014-05-28 12:45:58 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Revising earlier post, since I was using a wrong number: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZcEnJQDAYqMARdp8bpMdIz4Ai6c4xeBmk8NDQMI5IqY/edit#gid=0 Assumptions remain the same, listed on the sheet. Only mistakes at this point, I hope, should be places where I applied the wrong decryptor by changing formulas en masse.

Goes without saying that different decryptor choices will significantly change the outcome...

Steve Ronuken wrote:
Suggestion: To adjust the TTM, adjust the output from a blueprint run to being multiple units. (and adjust the inputs accordingly)

This (as the system currently stands) would mean you could only refine modules if you had multiples of them, which is a probably undesired side effect, but that may not be a concern with how you're changing refining.


Ideally build time per unit shouldn't change significantly, as that has serious knock on effects on the market, which needs separate consideration. Increasing T2 build time, for example, will reduce demand for moon-goo, and increase price per module. (reducing the viable isk/hr won't encourage more people to make it.)

This isn't a bad idea. It's not quite as easy as going, "okay that build time is for a 10 run job (for modules)" because then you just wind up lowering module build times by 50-70% given the current numbers, but it wouldn't take much more fiddling than that to get a favorable change.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#160 - 2014-05-28 15:00:57 UTC
OK, so then.

To restate/clarify from earlier: the CSV as posted above is regarded the first "functionally sane" draft. It's not expected to be balanced, and I have basically this entire week put aside to adjust the numbers. It's being shared now because I want smart people who understand the details of (specific bits of) the economy (that's you lot) to look at it as early as possible, so we can solve as many problems as possible while it's still just a spreadsheet. Making sweeping changes is a) easy and b) planned for, so please pitch suggestions :)

We will of course be adjusting further based on SiSi feedback - this is just an attempt to get things into the best state possible before that happens, so right now we are in the market for ballpark fixes rather than fine-tuned solutions.


Secondly, I want to take a second to outline the basic economic model I'm applying to a lot of this stuff. In simple terms, it treats the activities of each individual player as a black box, and just concerns itself with wealth transfer. For a given end product, there's a market for that product expressable as an amount of ISK, and that amount of ISK is split between everyone involved in the production chain such that they get the minimum amount of ISK per hour they find acceptable.

Thus, while the market for a product remains of constant size, prices for that product (and all its sub-products) will always settle at levels which make producing them profitable.

This does not mean that the *amount* of that product being built will be the same, nor that the same number of people will be profitably building it - just that (if people are rational, which obviously has its own problems as an assumption) the market will adjust such that it can be build profitably.

Things that break this model are a) a need to achieve a certain amount of market supply for balance reasons (ie we want interceptors to be commonly used), b) intermediate products used by multiple end products with strongly different demands (such as T2 components, although if you treat "T2 invention" as a single market the problem goes away in this case), and c) changes in per-product pricing having a substantial change on the total money being spent on that product.


In the case of invention and these blueprint numbers, it's that third point that I am most concerned about; while a moderate increase in end-to-end production times should allow more producers into the market (a good thing), if the supply changes too much there is a high risk of demand changing in unpredictable ways too. My intuition is that an increase of 20-40% in build times is healthy, but above 50% is probably risky. I'm very open to discussion on these numbers though :)



OK, on to specific things:

Jump freighters are probably getting hit way too hard, because they're getting the 10x T2 rank multiplier and the 25x capital build time multiplier at the same time. While the numbers in the sheet are amusing, they're also probably overkill, and I will revisit these this afternoon.

The suggestion to try and normalize job lengths around play sessions (4-6 hours or 20-24 hours) is a very good one, and exactly the sort of "next steps" balancing I was hoping to get out of this discussion. I'm going to go away and see if there's an easy way to make that stuff line up. (I don't want to get into what are effectively decimal ranks if I can help it purely because I'm concerned about the mess of multiplying 105 by non-integer amounts for the purposes of research times, but we can always fudge this if needed.)

Rigs will be pushed back to 1 run per copy, good catch.

T2 build/invention times in general obviously need another look. This should (hopefully) be relatively easy to massage as the invention data on T1 blueprints is almost entirely driven by the T2 blueprint stats (ie build time), so we can futz with the rank of T2 without causing much trouble. I'm trying to avoid the portion-size stuff but that's a reasonable fallback if there isn't a better solution.

T2 copy ratio of 3x is almost certainly way too high, I agree - I'm leaving it there for now because I want to keep it in a "safe" place until I can properly look at it. It may be that the way we deal with the Gallente outpost is just to nerf its copy speed bonus a bit :)


Anything else relating to the data that I've missed? I see there are a few questions about non-blueprint-data stuff in this thread; I'm making a note to recheck the blog feedback threads tomorrow afternoon, so please post any questions/concerns you have about things that aren't the CSV I posted earlier in those threads, make it clear in the first sentence that you're reposting there because I've asked you to, and I'll prioritize answering those questions tomorrow if they aren't terrible. Deal? :)