These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: The Price of Change

First post First post
Author
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#701 - 2014-05-21 03:30:18 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Added to this, we wanted to get rid of slots for a variety of reasons (importantly that they scale badly with population and act as a hard limit which distorts decision-making),
MailDeadDrop wrote:
Since hard limits are bad, can we *please* visit the corporate office hard limit of 24 per station?
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We'd like to revisit office slots in the future, yes.

(DarthVaderVoice) I find your lack of commitment . . . disturbing. (/DarthVaderVoice)
Seriously, your response is so noncommittal it borders on flippant. X I don't get the impression that you have considered what removing remote research ability is going to do to offices at the limited number of stations with lab facilities.

Either hard slot limits are bad or they aren't. You seem to have come down rather soundly on the "hard slot limits are bad" side of the debate. So say office slot limits are bad and just get rid of them. If getting rid of them is not practical at this time, then dial up the limit to some point that they are very unlikely to be encountered, like 1,000 per station. Seriously, how hard is it to make CCP Foozie change one more number?

MDD
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#702 - 2014-05-25 20:58:42 UTC
CCP .....


Stop. Stop what you're doing right now. You don't have decent solid plans for Kronos and it's going to blow up in your faces.

Like many of us, we know the game has it good areas and bad ones. You're not even applying a decent break/fix plan for this.

You don't know how to fix POS'es, or corp roles, and now you're screwing over the industry guys trying to find a way to fix corp roles and POS'es?



What kind of hillbilly, backwoods, thought process is this?



Find a group of players that PLAY this game and would like to help you fix it. I'm willing to do that, and you won't have to fly me to Iceland to help either!
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#703 - 2014-05-25 21:12:16 UTC
Balder Verdandi wrote:
CCP .....


Stop. Stop what you're doing right now. You don't have decent solid plans for Kronos and it's going to blow up in your faces.

Like many of us, we know the game has it good areas and bad ones. You're not even applying a decent break/fix plan for this.

You don't know how to fix POS'es, or corp roles, and now you're screwing over the industry guys trying to find a way to fix corp roles and POS'es?



What kind of hillbilly, backwoods, thought process is this?



Find a group of players that PLAY this game and would like to help you fix it. I'm willing to do that, and you won't have to fly me to Iceland to help either!



You should probably have noted, these changes aren't in Kronos. They've been shifted to Crius.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
#704 - 2014-05-25 23:07:31 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Added to this, we wanted to get rid of slots for a variety of reasons (importantly that they scale badly with population and act as a hard limit which distorts decision-making),
MailDeadDrop wrote:
Since hard limits are bad, can we *please* visit the corporate office hard limit of 24 per station?
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We'd like to revisit office slots in the future, yes.

(DarthVaderVoice) I find your lack of commitment . . . disturbing. (/DarthVaderVoice)
Seriously, your response is so noncommittal it borders on flippant. X I don't get the impression that you have considered what removing remote research ability is going to do to offices at the limited number of stations with lab facilities.

Either hard slot limits are bad or they aren't. You seem to have come down rather soundly on the "hard slot limits are bad" side of the debate. So say office slot limits are bad and just get rid of them. If getting rid of them is not practical at this time, then dial up the limit to some point that they are very unlikely to be encountered, like 1,000 per station. Seriously, how hard is it to make CCP Foozie change one more number?

MDD


I wouldn't read so much into the brevity, just take it at face value that he agrees they need to be looked at but can't say when at this point. Let's get what's on the table now onto TQ and then take more bites at the other pieces of the apple.
Ronny Hugo
Cyno Inc. Reactions
Goonswarm Federation
#705 - 2014-05-26 09:23:40 UTC
Will we be able to get a second expansion on this, where players can transport workers from areas where they are in low demand, to areas where they are in high demand?
Valterra Craven
#706 - 2014-05-28 18:08:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Noting this here...

CCP Greyscale wrote:

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? :)



And thus brings me to my post:

I'm wondering why the fee structure to install jobs is based off the market price of an item instead of the build cost of an item. In other words, wouldn't it be simpler to base the build fee based off the base build cost of the item?

In other words, figure out the base build cost of the item based on current market prices for the inputs that are required.

Aka amount of trit times 5.5isk or whatever it is at the time, etc. and once you do all the math to get a base build cost in terms of isk, use that to determine how much the install job would be. While I understand you guys want the build costs to be high for the push pull mechanic, I'm still really concerned about the grave affects these new prices are going to have on the already rampant inflation we face today.

I know you've stated that you aren't really worried about infinite feedback loops in terms of item price affecting build price, but I don't know that you guys have really done a great job of explaining why you aren't worried about it.

I would think my idea would be less prone to market manipulation just based off the sheer volume of the goods involved in mineral/ comp trade. I would also think it would be less prone to an items price being artificially high due to speculation from future/possible changes due to patches. (AKA Ishtar receiving that buff in the t2 rebalance and then their price skyrocketing). I know that prices don't stay high for what some people would say is long term (aka past 6 month) period, but I would think that these price spikes would last sufficiently long to affect the build fee calculations in rather negative way. But on the other hand if you base it on the build cost of the comps, while these are still subject to price spikes, they tend to last far shorter than the item you are creating does. (Look at how short the trit spike lasted after that major cap battle)
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#707 - 2014-05-29 19:13:23 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Noting this here...

CCP Greyscale wrote:

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? :)



And thus brings me to my post:

I'm wondering why the fee structure to install jobs is based off the market price of an item instead of the build cost of an item. In other words, wouldn't it be simpler to base the build fee based off the base build cost of the item?

In other words, figure out the base build cost of the item based on current market prices for the inputs that are required.

Aka amount of trit times 5.5isk or whatever it is at the time, etc. and once you do all the math to get a base build cost in terms of isk, use that to determine how much the install job would be. While I understand you guys want the build costs to be high for the push pull mechanic, I'm still really concerned about the grave affects these new prices are going to have on the already rampant inflation we face today.

I know you've stated that you aren't really worried about infinite feedback loops in terms of item price affecting build price, but I don't know that you guys have really done a great job of explaining why you aren't worried about it.

I would think my idea would be less prone to market manipulation just based off the sheer volume of the goods involved in mineral/ comp trade. I would also think it would be less prone to an items price being artificially high due to speculation from future/possible changes due to patches. (AKA Ishtar receiving that buff in the t2 rebalance and then their price skyrocketing). I know that prices don't stay high for what some people would say is long term (aka past 6 month) period, but I would think that these price spikes would last sufficiently long to affect the build fee calculations in rather negative way. But on the other hand if you base it on the build cost of the comps, while these are still subject to price spikes, they tend to last far shorter than the item you are creating does. (Look at how short the trit spike lasted after that major cap battle)


Probably the biggest problem with trying to base build costs off component prices is that some items are built with components that move in very low volumes, making them more susceptible to manipulation. They're not a huge deal, given that such components are low-volume because the thing they're building is also low-volume and thus manipulating it is unlikely to be particularly profitable, but the risk is still there.

We're not super-committed to basing off product price, it's just a little more transparent and solves a few issues like the above. We're not expecting this to result in a "death spiral" because a) assuming costs are passed on to consumers as-is, the increases quickly tail off into irrelevance, and b) it's can't go into a death-spiral because hugely increased prices would kill demand and bring things back under control. In order for prices to continue to rise, people would need to continue to pay ever-higher prices, which they won't do.

If it becomes problematic we're open to changing it, but we don't expect any trouble in this area.
mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#708 - 2014-05-29 21:10:11 UTC
Provided it's the estimated value being used, keep in mind:


  • The cost for a job is calculated based on a 28 day rolling average linking to gamewide build volume of everything. This will tend to minimize the effect of any given item coming in or out of demand.
  • Estimated value itself is calculated back over three months worth of market transaction volume gamewide. This will definitely have a flattening effect. To significantly move it takes a continued and significant price change (or one massive set of massively overpriced transactions, but they fixed it to filter those out...)
  • It's been awhile since I monitored it carefully but estimated value never did seem to change more than about once a week, maybe even longer, so daily price fluctuations usually will get lost in the noise as the moving average is moving one week worth of data in and out at a time. For a death spiral to happen it's require everyone in eve paying higher enough prices that they don't compete themselves back down. Which leads to...
  • Costs are going to be low once people start spreading out, even in highsec. Nearly 38% of highsec (currently) would have near zero cost, another 10% would have no more than 1%, and another 15% above that, no more than 2%.


Taking all this into account, a death spiral is unlikely. What probably happens instead is margins open up a little bit due to the diversity in cost, and people compete within that larger margin, with increased competition for those higher prices serving as a check on things getting out of hand.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Valterra Craven
#709 - 2014-05-29 21:20:29 UTC
I understand where you are both coming from, but I still have concerns on player behavior on this mechanic. This is likely a very poor example since its the only one of its kind, but Plex prices continue to increase at an alarming rate and people still pay those prices. While I agree with all of the above points, I just want to make sure that its something that is watched very very closely after this hits. Remember demand can be a measure of more than just market forces... if prices get too high on items and demand drops some of that could be due to a decreasing player base.
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#710 - 2014-05-29 21:38:14 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
You should probably have noted, these changes aren't in Kronos. They've been shifted to Crius.



Doesn't matter what release its going to be in, its a bad idea overall.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#711 - 2014-05-29 22:00:26 UTC
some ship hulls introduced years ago still have a estimated cost of 0. I don't trust CCP with keeping those things up2date :P

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Hirogenale
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#712 - 2014-05-29 22:28:55 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Noting this here...

CCP Greyscale wrote:

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? :)



And thus brings me to my post:

I'm wondering why the fee structure to install jobs is based off the market price of an item instead of the build cost of an item. In other words, wouldn't it be simpler to base the build fee based off the base build cost of the item?

In other words, figure out the base build cost of the item based on current market prices for the inputs that are required.

Aka amount of trit times 5.5isk or whatever it is at the time, etc. and once you do all the math to get a base build cost in terms of isk, use that to determine how much the install job would be. While I understand you guys want the build costs to be high for the push pull mechanic, I'm still really concerned about the grave affects these new prices are going to have on the already rampant inflation we face today.

I know you've stated that you aren't really worried about infinite feedback loops in terms of item price affecting build price, but I don't know that you guys have really done a great job of explaining why you aren't worried about it.

I would think my idea would be less prone to market manipulation just based off the sheer volume of the goods involved in mineral/ comp trade. I would also think it would be less prone to an items price being artificially high due to speculation from future/possible changes due to patches. (AKA Ishtar receiving that buff in the t2 rebalance and then their price skyrocketing). I know that prices don't stay high for what some people would say is long term (aka past 6 month) period, but I would think that these price spikes would last sufficiently long to affect the build fee calculations in rather negative way. But on the other hand if you base it on the build cost of the comps, while these are still subject to price spikes, they tend to last far shorter than the item you are creating does. (Look at how short the trit spike lasted after that major cap battle)


Probably the biggest problem with trying to base build costs off component prices is that some items are built with components that move in very low volumes, making them more susceptible to manipulation. They're not a huge deal, given that such components are low-volume because the thing they're building is also low-volume and thus manipulating it is unlikely to be particularly profitable, but the risk is still there.

We're not super-committed to basing off product price, it's just a little more transparent and solves a few issues like the above. We're not expecting this to result in a "death spiral" because a) assuming costs are passed on to consumers as-is, the increases quickly tail off into irrelevance, and b) it's can't go into a death-spiral because hugely increased prices would kill demand and bring things back under control. In order for prices to continue to rise, people would need to continue to pay ever-higher prices, which they won't do.

If it becomes problematic we're open to changing it, but we don't expect any trouble in this area.


Since the product is low volume too its theoretically at least as likely to get manipulated as the materials its produced from.

+ since the individial Materials usually make up only a part of the total Materials needed and its a lot harder to manipulate all Materials, it should reduce the risk of Manipulation. (and if manipualtion happens it effects get dampened)
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#713 - 2014-05-29 23:06:45 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Noting this here...

CCP Greyscale wrote:

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? :)



And thus brings me to my post:

I'm wondering why the fee structure to install jobs is based off the market price of an item instead of the build cost of an item. In other words, wouldn't it be simpler to base the build fee based off the base build cost of the item?

In other words, figure out the base build cost of the item based on current market prices for the inputs that are required.

Aka amount of trit times 5.5isk or whatever it is at the time, etc. and once you do all the math to get a base build cost in terms of isk, use that to determine how much the install job would be. While I understand you guys want the build costs to be high for the push pull mechanic, I'm still really concerned about the grave affects these new prices are going to have on the already rampant inflation we face today.

I know you've stated that you aren't really worried about infinite feedback loops in terms of item price affecting build price, but I don't know that you guys have really done a great job of explaining why you aren't worried about it.

I would think my idea would be less prone to market manipulation just based off the sheer volume of the goods involved in mineral/ comp trade. I would also think it would be less prone to an items price being artificially high due to speculation from future/possible changes due to patches. (AKA Ishtar receiving that buff in the t2 rebalance and then their price skyrocketing). I know that prices don't stay high for what some people would say is long term (aka past 6 month) period, but I would think that these price spikes would last sufficiently long to affect the build fee calculations in rather negative way. But on the other hand if you base it on the build cost of the comps, while these are still subject to price spikes, they tend to last far shorter than the item you are creating does. (Look at how short the trit spike lasted after that major cap battle)


Probably the biggest problem with trying to base build costs off component prices is that some items are built with components that move in very low volumes, making them more susceptible to manipulation. They're not a huge deal, given that such components are low-volume because the thing they're building is also low-volume and thus manipulating it is unlikely to be particularly profitable, but the risk is still there.

We're not super-committed to basing off product price, it's just a little more transparent and solves a few issues like the above. We're not expecting this to result in a "death spiral" because a) assuming costs are passed on to consumers as-is, the increases quickly tail off into irrelevance, and b) it's can't go into a death-spiral because hugely increased prices would kill demand and bring things back under control. In order for prices to continue to rise, people would need to continue to pay ever-higher prices, which they won't do.

If it becomes problematic we're open to changing it, but we don't expect any trouble in this area.




One overhead to doing it this way is that items where the vast majority of the value of the item is in the blueprint copy will go up significantly.

Example: Vindicator. The BPC is not far under a billion on the market; the material cost close to 150m.

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

Odoya
Aeon Abraxas
#714 - 2014-05-29 23:06:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Odoya
Hirogenale wrote:

Since the product is low volume too its theoretically at least as likely to get manipulated as the materials its produced from.

+ since the individial Materials usually make up only a part of the total Materials needed and its a lot harder to manipulate all Materials, it should reduce the risk of Manipulation. (and if manipualtion happens it effects get dampened)



Also, this approach with the addition of metamaterials, arguably, did not work. Now the metamaterial costs comprise 70+ % of some some T2 component costs. These changes have the impression of fixing broken things with more broken things. Changing a broken system that has achieved some degree of homeostasis by introducing new breaks isn't really a fix.

p.s. a lot of the upcoming changes *do* look to be promising
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries
Orion Consortium
#715 - 2014-05-30 02:06:22 UTC
Would manipulating the price of an item to increase the manufacturing fee be considered an exploit?
Darin Vanar
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#716 - 2014-05-30 05:24:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Darin Vanar
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Noting this here...

CCP Greyscale wrote:

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? :)



And thus brings me to my post:

I'm wondering why the fee structure to install jobs is based off the market price of an item instead of the build cost of an item. In other words, wouldn't it be simpler to base the build fee based off the base build cost of the item?

In other words, figure out the base build cost of the item based on current market prices for the inputs that are required.

Aka amount of trit times 5.5isk or whatever it is at the time, etc. and once you do all the math to get a base build cost in terms of isk, use that to determine how much the install job would be. While I understand you guys want the build costs to be high for the push pull mechanic, I'm still really concerned about the grave affects these new prices are going to have on the already rampant inflation we face today.

I know you've stated that you aren't really worried about infinite feedback loops in terms of item price affecting build price, but I don't know that you guys have really done a great job of explaining why you aren't worried about it.

I would think my idea would be less prone to market manipulation just based off the sheer volume of the goods involved in mineral/ comp trade. I would also think it would be less prone to an items price being artificially high due to speculation from future/possible changes due to patches. (AKA Ishtar receiving that buff in the t2 rebalance and then their price skyrocketing). I know that prices don't stay high for what some people would say is long term (aka past 6 month) period, but I would think that these price spikes would last sufficiently long to affect the build fee calculations in rather negative way. But on the other hand if you base it on the build cost of the comps, while these are still subject to price spikes, they tend to last far shorter than the item you are creating does. (Look at how short the trit spike lasted after that major cap battle)


Probably the biggest problem with trying to base build costs off component prices is that some items are built with components that move in very low volumes, making them more susceptible to manipulation. They're not a huge deal, given that such components are low-volume because the thing they're building is also low-volume and thus manipulating it is unlikely to be particularly profitable, but the risk is still there.

We're not super-committed to basing off product price, it's just a little more transparent and solves a few issues like the above. We're not expecting this to result in a "death spiral" because a) assuming costs are passed on to consumers as-is, the increases quickly tail off into irrelevance, and b) it's can't go into a death-spiral because hugely increased prices would kill demand and bring things back under control. In order for prices to continue to rise, people would need to continue to pay ever-higher prices, which they won't do.

If it becomes problematic we're open to changing it, but we don't expect any trouble in this area.


Part of the problem with your install costs being based off of total price of the item, is that it is not a realistically simulated formula. If you build a Ford today, and it sells for 100k currently, do you pay 10% of that to your workers before making it? Are they shareholders in your company? If they participated in building the Ford, why should they take cuts based on wholesale value of the item? That makes no sense.

In a simulation, you are expected to treat your formulas with some relativity. For example, you wouldn't juke up the physics values in EvE used in the combat simulation with some arbitrary values just because you are going for flashier effects.

So there is no reason, not to use a proper base formula for install costs. Let me give you some ideas of what I mean.

A real formula would look something like this,

(Difficulty in making item) x (time to make the item) x (scale of the item)

Finally, to incorporate your landscape, you would then add facilities bonuses into the mix, for representing efficiency, or lack thereof, and lastly location, location, location. Use your system wide "busy" factor to indicate that worker production is being overused here, so producing an item in this location currently will be more expensive. But base that off of the actual simulated cost of building the item, (which is not simulated anywhere in your industry overhaul) - not the final value of the item.

As I said, your workers and station load should have no bearing on how much you intend to sell that item for, your workers are not shareholders in your corporation. They are not entitled to a base cut of the sale value.

If you are not deadset, please at least try to simulate a proper calculation, not just trying to come up with one at the drop of a hat - 'sure it might cause a death spiral, but we don't have much time to work out a proper formula, and we're so confident that it won't cause one, that hey we might actually get away with it'.

It doesn't exactly encourage confidence from your readers either, hearing statements like that - yeah, hey, a death spiral, we've thought of that, but we really don't think that will happen, people will have to be utterly stupid to continually pay higher and higher and higher prices for something. Right? Surely they won't do that.

Uh-huh, they will. When they need something, they will pay a higher item tax, especially when the nearest item available is not cheaper by much.
mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#717 - 2014-05-30 06:41:23 UTC
Molic Blackbird wrote:
Would manipulating the price of an item to increase the manufacturing fee be considered an exploit?


I'll leave answering whether it's an exploit or not to CCP, and just give an example of process instead.

Assume 1,000 units of Item sell for one million isk each, every day. Over three months, that's 90,000 Item for 90b isk total, and since Item always sells for the same price, the estimated value is one million isk.

You want to make it cost more to build these, so you start selling an additional one thousand units of Item to yourself each day, for 1.1m each. Over the course of three months, you'll raise the estimated value to 1.05 million isk, though with skills at 5 and standings to bring your broker fee to 0.2%, you'll wind up spending about 1.09b isk in taxes and fees. If you want really crazy change, something like 100%, then you're looking at more like 11k units per day for 11m isk each, which would run you a cool 125.2b isk in fees.



There's a reason why doing this with faction warfare only worked by picking an item that almost literally never got bought.



The question here, of course, is how you actually realize any profit from doing this. I suppose you could raise the price to build, expect the market price to follow, and then leverage a significantly cheaper system to increase your profit, but, well... to continue the above example, imagine the item costs 900k in materials to build, you pay 1% to build it, everyone else pays 5%. Counting everything, you make 90k profit, everyone else makes 50k.

Then you go and do the above manipulation, and successfully raise the value to 1.05 million isk. Everyone else's build cost goes up by 2500 isk, which they pass on to the consumer. Your costs only go up 500 isk, however, and so your profit rises by 2k while everyone else's remains flat... and after selling a mere 550,000 units or so, you recoup the ~1.09b isk you spent on the manipulation in the first place.


If your goal is not to make money, but rather to grief people, there are more efficient ways.


Basically what I'm saying here is that I hope CCP says "yeah sure have fun", because watching someone try will be hilarious.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Odoya
Aeon Abraxas
#718 - 2014-05-30 07:00:04 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Then you go and do the above manipulation, and successfully raise the value to 1.05 million isk. Everyone else's build cost goes up by 2500 isk, which they pass on to the consumer. Your costs only go up 500 isk, however, and so your profit rises by 2k while everyone else's remains flat... and after selling a mere 550,000 units or so, you recoup the ~1.09b isk you spent on the manipulation in the first place.


If your goal is not to make money, but rather to grief people, there are more efficient ways.


Basically what I'm saying here is that I hope CCP says "yeah sure have fun", because watching someone try will be hilarious.


CCP will realize the profit because this is a game mechanic move that favors the purchase of PLEX. Think of the additional cost as a ship component like R.A.M. Starship TECH because the additional cost (isk) is destroyed, ie, removed from game play. Whereas other increases in final purchase cost usually also reflect an increase in the value of the components of the items that constitute the product, this increase is merely inflationary. In the short term, CCP is the winner because isk is devalued. But, long term, the genius of having PLEX to offset the appeal and hyperinflation effect of OOG gold farmers may be negated. NASH index dynamics aside (most expesnive producer sets the market price), this mechanic becomes a disincentive to produce items. This disincentive plus hyperinflation becomes an incentive to drive players to use illegitimate isk sellers.
Sigras
Conglomo
#719 - 2014-05-30 09:35:33 UTC
Darin Vanar wrote:
Part of the problem with your install costs being based off of total price of the item, is that it is not a realistically simulated formula. If you build a Ford today, and it sells for 100k currently, do you pay 10% of that to your workers before making it? Are they shareholders in your company? If they participated in building the Ford, why should they take cuts based on wholesale value of the item? That makes no sense.

In a simulation, you are expected to treat your formulas with some relativity. For example, you wouldn't juke up the physics values in EvE used in the combat simulation with some arbitrary values just because you are going for flashier effects.

So there is no reason, not to use a proper base formula for install costs. Let me give you some ideas of what I mean.

A real formula would look something like this,

(Difficulty in making item) x (time to make the item) x (scale of the item)

The problem with this is it would require CCP to go through and add a "difficulty" to every item unless you're talking about the BPO rank in which case you have one variable controlling two unrelated things making balance difficult.

Also im not sure what you mean by "scale of the item"

The point is that this algorithm would have to be checked more than santa's list or you could get some really weird interactions which would drastically effect the cost of certain items.

It may make less sense from a RP perspective to scale manufacturing cost on output cost, but it is far safer from a game design standpoint.
Darin Vanar
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#720 - 2014-05-30 10:15:08 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Darin Vanar wrote:
Part of the problem with your install costs being based off of total price of the item, is that it is not a realistically simulated formula. If you build a Ford today, and it sells for 100k currently, do you pay 10% of that to your workers before making it? Are they shareholders in your company? If they participated in building the Ford, why should they take cuts based on wholesale value of the item? That makes no sense.

In a simulation, you are expected to treat your formulas with some relativity. For example, you wouldn't juke up the physics values in EvE used in the combat simulation with some arbitrary values just because you are going for flashier effects.

So there is no reason, not to use a proper base formula for install costs. Let me give you some ideas of what I mean.

A real formula would look something like this,

(Difficulty in making item) x (time to make the item) x (scale of the item)

The problem with this is it would require CCP to go through and add a "difficulty" to every item unless you're talking about the BPO rank in which case you have one variable controlling two unrelated things making balance difficult.

Also im not sure what you mean by "scale of the item"

The point is that this algorithm would have to be checked more than santa's list or you could get some really weird interactions which would drastically effect the cost of certain items.

It may make less sense from a RP perspective to scale manufacturing cost on output cost, but it is far safer from a game design standpoint.


Some of that data is already there - what I mean, is things like when you browse Isis, you have hull sizes, medium and large. Things like that could account for scale and not having to create separate considerations for things like ammo.

Difficulty in making the item could be as simple as T1 - T2 - T3, or the meta equivalent.

Scale of the item represents how much space you need to rent in the facility in order to assemble the item. For example, you would need to rent out a very large space to accommodate building anything with a large hull. Medium modules would be something in the standard range, and small would give you a discount.

It's like when you build a ship, you need to first build the hull, and you have to keep in mind that its volume will never change, so you need to rent a much larger space to assemble that, than say, an ammo production line. That's what I mean about scale of the item, and how it would relate into the landscape and the "busy" factor of the systems.

All that stuff they already (kind of) have, for most items, at least ships and modules and could be extrapolated for any items that don't fit any particular part in those chains - but that is work they already had to do - if you watched the keynote, the industry revamp had them create production chains for everything in the game to make sure they got it right. This is stuff they could have done along the side with creating this industry landscape, if they started out from a proper formula in the first place.

It doesn't have to be complex, but it does need to be consistent across all industry items affected by this revamp. The formula I suggested is pretty simple in design, and you really wouldn't have to take it much further than that.

Ammo, for example, would draw most of its cost reduction from something like a 0.05 cost multiplier per unit.
I think that would make more sense.

Things like that, it just saddens me that they didn't try to create a basic, underlying formula to creating this cost mechanic and instead went for the easy route of, let's just take the estimated value of the item, and hope it doesn't blow up in our faces kind of thing. EvE is a simulation, and none of this is work that the player has to do, so why not present this idea to the user? Show them there is something else happening behind the scenes, give them an insight to the inner workings of the EvE universe without demanding their input or attention, just knowing it is there and most of all, functioning correctly in a simulation of the EvE world itself.

Later on, you could get a concrete idea for the cost of building an item on your own, taking into account - am I building a small or large item, and is this a difficult item to make (meta, tier). You could then, much more easily figure out how "busy" you can afford your system to be because you are already working from some concrete information before choosing a location.

All the stuff in Isis when you mouse over ships, that could have meant something - given a value in production - by giving it an associated cost.

Otherwise, taking an arbitrary, changing value like 440k for a Venture, hack that into pieces, and scale it to the "busy" factor of the system, is just fluff. It doesn't mean anything in that simulation context, and it leaves me asking 'where's the beef'.

Where is the robust factor in this system. This is something that is meant to go for years and years, and they are launching it without a "ceiling" from "estimations" and guesses that it cannot be exploited because of what they have witnessed in FW. That is just not going to end well. Has FW even been tested against major shocks like we can have in EvE? Fleets and systems can be decimated overnight.

They are planning for everything in the game to be destructible - this is from the game designer lead, yet they are running the industry revamp without a "ceiling", no baseline to work from whatsoever. "Trust the killmail system, it hasn't failed us yet!" I'm sorry, but I don't trust that and I foresee disaster.

They needed to implement a much more robust system underlining this -huge- industry revamp. It's such an important part of the game. If it does go into a death spiral, it might be all but impossible to stop, and that is because it was not built from a good design foundation.