These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#381 - 2014-06-08 16:10:07 UTC
It's just about releasing a complete product that is interlocking and interdependent. There is nothing Jesus about asking for the equivalent of a car that has both an engine and brakes. If you release engine and car in stages you are going to see Jesus in person.
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#382 - 2014-06-08 16:24:39 UTC
Theng Hofses wrote:
It's just about releasing a complete product that is interlocking and interdependent. There is nothing Jesus about asking for the equivalent of a car that has both an engine and brakes. If you release engine and car in stages you are going to see Jesus in person.


There is nothing remotely that dramatic in these changes. They already delayed it a month due to the handful of edge cases and that is more than sufficient. Edge cases fixed, balance preserved.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#383 - 2014-06-08 16:41:26 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Theng Hofses wrote:
It's just about releasing a complete product that is interlocking and interdependent. There is nothing Jesus about asking for the equivalent of a car that has both an engine and brakes. If you release engine and car in stages you are going to see Jesus in person.


There is nothing remotely that dramatic in these changes. They already delayed it a month due to the handful of edge cases and that is more than sufficient. Edge cases fixed, balance preserved.


I really hope you are right, I really do, cause that would be better for us and the game

I have just had the football pulled out from in front of me too many time by CCP to be very optimistic
Arronicus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#384 - 2014-06-08 17:06:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Arronicus
Ereshgikal wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Concrete suggestion.

Module baseline materials post Crius = 145% of present baseline.

- This reflects that most modules are produced without decryptors (153%) but a significant minority use Symmetry.


T2 Frigates and Destroyers baseline materials post Crius = 135% of present

- This reflects the widespread use of Symmetry decryptors on these.


T2 cruisers and BCs baseline materials post Crius =125% of present

These are usually invented with Accelerant or Process, sometimes Parity or Symmetry in unusual market conditions.


T2 battleships and larger baseline materials post Crius = 120% of present

These are always invented with Process.


A good suggestion. However, unless you have access to data you probably shouldn't have access to to you can not know which decryptor is used for each product category. Sure, you can always state "it is the logical choice!" but given how illogical players are and how unoptimized a lot of industrialists (that I know of at least) are I fear that only CCP can know the answer to the question "which decryptor is most commonly used per product category".


This is so very true; presuming everyone always invents t2 battleships and larger with process decryptors makes you look like a fool. Check contracts sometime. Talk to smaller end inventors. I've seen a lot of JF, Blops, etc BPCs up for sale that used different decryptors, and have tried to talk people out of using inefficient ones. Sure, process may be the most efficient, but they aren't always used to invent BS and larger.
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#385 - 2014-06-08 17:26:24 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
Ereshgikal wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Concrete suggestion.

Module baseline materials post Crius = 145% of present baseline.

- This reflects that most modules are produced without decryptors (153%) but a significant minority use Symmetry.


T2 Frigates and Destroyers baseline materials post Crius = 135% of present

- This reflects the widespread use of Symmetry decryptors on these.


T2 cruisers and BCs baseline materials post Crius =125% of present

These are usually invented with Accelerant or Process, sometimes Parity or Symmetry in unusual market conditions.


T2 battleships and larger baseline materials post Crius = 120% of present

These are always invented with Process.


A good suggestion. However, unless you have access to data you probably shouldn't have access to to you can not know which decryptor is used for each product category. Sure, you can always state "it is the logical choice!" but given how illogical players are and how unoptimized a lot of industrialists (that I know of at least) are I fear that only CCP can know the answer to the question "which decryptor is most commonly used per product category".


This is so very true; presuming everyone always invents t2 battleships and larger with process decryptors makes you look like a fool. Check contracts sometime. Talk to smaller end inventors. I've seen a lot of JF, Blops, etc BPCs up for sale that used different decryptors, and have tried to talk people out of using inefficient ones. Sure, process may be the most efficient, but they aren't always used to invent BS and larger.



No reason to base game design on stupidity though. Base it on what works, and let stupid do what stupid does. Never let yourself be fooled into thinking you have seen the biggest idiot because there is always tomorrow.
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#386 - 2014-06-08 17:32:49 UTC
Qoi wrote:
Oh, and please make sure that extra materials only get the normal 1/0.9 modifier Blink


Are there actually any inventables that use significant amounts of extra materials? If so, this is actually a very significant point I'm surprised no one's noticed yet. If not, I'm okay with making jobs take up a couple of extra R.A.M. for the sake of consistency.

And while I'm at it, just to make sure,
Greyscale, you already know this, but just as a reminder: the Tech column in the invBlueprintTypes table is a bit misleading. A significant number of blueprints are marked as Tech 2, but are not actually inventables; they're basically just T1 blueprints. T2 components are an example off the top of my head.
Naturally, those blueprints should not get the same material requirements change as actual T2 inventables.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#387 - 2014-06-08 17:38:51 UTC
The content of this release is pretty much locked down right now, and while we appreciate and understand the concerns we are optimistic about the rollout plan and not expecting to change it at this time. If you're unhappy with this response, your best recourse is probably to talk to your local CSM members directly!
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#388 - 2014-06-08 17:40:23 UTC
probag Bear wrote:
Qoi wrote:
Oh, and please make sure that extra materials only get the normal 1/0.9 modifier Blink


Are there actually any inventables that use significant amounts of extra materials? If so, this is actually a very significant point I'm surprised no one's noticed yet. If not, I'm okay with making jobs take up a couple of extra R.A.M. for the sake of consistency.

And while I'm at it, just to make sure,
Greyscale, you already know this, but just as a reminder: the Tech column in the invBlueprintTypes table is a bit misleading. A significant number of blueprints are marked as Tech 2, but are not actually inventables; they're basically just T1 blueprints. T2 components are an example off the top of my head.
Naturally, those blueprints should not get the same material requirements change as actual T2 inventables.


Will double-check this on Monday, there are various conflicting sets of data to do with what is and isn't T2, and I think the metric the spreadsheet is using is accurate.
Danny Centauri
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#389 - 2014-06-08 21:20:44 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Haven't dug into the numbers too much like I plan to yet (model comparing overall gamewide usage before & after the patch including ability to revise based on expected change in decryptor usage, anyone? Depends on if I can setup the spreadsheet in a reasonable amount of time tomorrow) so I don't want to comment on the numbers too much, but...

Danny Centauri wrote:
as moon mining is a completely passive income source.


When moons are such that we don't need a team of fifty people constantly refueling POS, emptying the silos, and clearing (often multiple times a day) siphons off of them, that they inject isk straight into the corp wallet instead of the value being realized by selling the materials to people who turn around and run even more POS, it'll be completely passive income. Until then, the most valuable of them is worth at best what one ishtar ratting two hours a day can make (and the guy maintaining the POS is undoubtedly more active than the ratter, too), and the "completely passive" argument is a dead horse flogged by the jealous or ignorant.


Besides, consider this: Demand for moon goo is separated from the actual moongoo by intermediate reactions, then advanced reactions, then Tech II component construction, and then the actual Tech II build times itself. For that reason, the moon markets shift in response to changing demand very slowly, and Alchemy - which regulates prices - makes upward changes even slower. With a full invention overhaul on the horizon after Crius, things probably won't have room to move very far before that shakes things up again anyway.


Having seen one crazy Russian in my former alliance manage 120 POS I both agree and disagree whilst it takes commitment to manage a large moon mining operation it's still pretty passive. The fact that less than half a percent of your alliance are involved in your biggest income source seems a bit out of balance.

Anyway lets not get caught up in the moon mining mechanics discussion more important is the impact of the actual change. Personally I think this change should be geared towards T2 material consumption remaining stable to try and keep prices the same.

EVE Manufacturing Guide - Simple guides to manufacturing in EVE for both beginners and more experienced players.

mynnna
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#390 - 2014-06-08 22:17:08 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Danny Centauri wrote:


Having seen one crazy Russian in my former alliance manage 120 POS I both agree and disagree whilst it takes commitment to manage a large moon mining operation it's still pretty passive. The fact that less than half a percent of your alliance are involved in your biggest income source seems a bit out of balance.


It's not out of balance at all if you break the income down to a per-person metric, and even less so if we want to count the entirety of the alliance (as what enables the holding of those moons in the first place) rather than just the logistics team.

Danny Centauri wrote:
Anyway lets not get caught up in the moon mining mechanics discussion more important is the impact of the actual change. Personally I think this change should be geared towards T2 material consumption remaining stable to try and keep prices the same.


Your concession of defeat is noted. Blink To the point you're trying to make - no, just no. As has been explained, CCP could try to tune the system to keep consumption stable. Doing so requires making assumptions about how players react to the changes, how players then react to the changes those changes prompt (a preferred decryptor becoming popular enough as to price itself out of usefulness, for example), and so forth. If they get it wrong, everything gets ****ed up. Frankly, I'd rather see them overshoot and increase consumption, than undershoot and decrease it. Decreasing it drops Tech II build prices and thus drops the value of building it in the first place, while overshooting it not only does the opposite but has its effects moderated by Alchemy.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#391 - 2014-06-09 01:07:29 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hey, I'm not upset with anyone - I meant literally what I said, which was that when Theng says "this is what I was worried about", I was not clear what the "this" was referring to. If it's about dealing with some invention issues as part of a follow-on package of changes to invention, then I totally understand the skepticism. Normally I wouldn't even be suggesting that we're waiting for later patches in public, but I'm sufficiently confident of these ones happening that I'm making an exception in this caes. I totally take the point that planning for a follow-up is risky, but the counterpoint in my mind is that the changes that were shelved were only being considered because they *were* a band-aid that would be ripped off shortly anyway. Normalizing to 24h with the current queuing mechanics is not a good long-term fix, in our eyes, so if we plan on the assumption that there is no follow-up, we still wouldn't be implementing that change :)

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Concrete suggestion.

Module baseline materials post Crius = 145% of present baseline.

- This reflects that most modules are produced without decryptors (153%) but a significant minority use Symmetry.


T2 Frigates and Destroyers baseline materials post Crius = 135% of present

- This reflects the widespread use of Symmetry decryptors on these.


T2 cruisers and BCs baseline materials post Crius =125% of present

These are usually invented with Accelerant or Process, sometimes Parity or Symmetry in unusual market conditions.


T2 battleships and larger baseline materials post Crius = 120% of present

These are always invented with Process.


I'll have another look at the math here next week. This looks like it lines up very nicely with current numbers, but it's not totally clear yet that we do want to match them exactly. The current balance is to a large degree arbitrary, and if it weren't for the fact that we had done some very specific balance changes to moon minerals to deal with bottlenecks that we don't want to revisit, I wouldn't be attempting to get any closer than ballpark numbers anyway, because trying to tune to match arbitrary legacy balance is generally a poor use of time. If it looks like these changes will significantly impact moon mineral values then we'll probably do some more tuning, but if we'd just be changing everything in the same ratios with no impact on economic balance beyond the price of ships, that's probably not something that merits fine-tuning simply to match existing numbers. If there's a cost-balance problem with T2 ships then that would be much more sensibly addressed by a targeted balance pass on those costs; simply preserving the status quo has no value if the status quo itself has no specific value.

Again, I'm happy to be argued around on this sort of thing :)



The reason I suggest you try to keep somewhat close to in line with the current numbers is that if you do not, it will cause a sharp divergence between market costs and build costs for some items.

For example, if effective Ishtar build costs (assuming a sensible decryptor, which is Process or Accelerant) go from 180m to 230m after Crius, this will cause a period where Ishtars are no longer profitable to produce at all, as existing stockpiles produced at 180m will still exist.

Now this isn't much of an issue for a ship as widely used as the Ishtar - stockpiles will run out quickly. Where it is a much bigger issue is on less frequently destroyed ships, such as the Damnation, the Sin, the Broadsword, or the Lachesis - the market on these ships may not recover for 12 months or more.

Concrete example: The Brutix has not recovered from the increase in build cost back in tiericide. It is *still* under production cost due to existing stockpiles that were built prior to the material cost increase.


I believe one of Crius's goals is to get more people into production, to get more people producing weapons of war. If it gets these people to try production once, lose a lot of ISK, then quit it, it has failed.

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

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#392 - 2014-06-09 01:11:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
Oh and to clarify my post about decryptor use on page 19: I was talking about thought-out, for profit production. Of course clueless people use wrong decryptors all the time, but using loss-causing decryptors drives people out of production pretty fast unless they (or the people they are building for) are willing to overpay due to local logistical factors.

Production of command ships and larger using profitable but suboptimal decryptors isn't possible (IIRC), producing HACs with profitable, suboptimal decryptors is but I do not believe it's particularly widespread. People invested enough in production to build larger T2 ships usually have done research, even if their research is a little out of date.

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

Valterra Craven
#393 - 2014-06-09 02:45:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
mynnna wrote:

As has been explained, CCP could try to tune the system to keep consumption stable. Doing so requires making assumptions about how players react to the changes, how players then react to the changes those changes prompt (a preferred decryptor becoming popular enough as to price itself out of usefulness, for example), and so forth. If they get it wrong, everything gets ****ed up. Frankly, I'd rather see them overshoot and increase consumption, than undershoot and decrease it. Decreasing it drops Tech II build prices and thus drops the value of building it in the first place, while overshooting it not only does the opposite but has its effects moderated by Alchemy.


Here's where I disagree with you. While alchemy does mitigate things somewhat, it only mitigates price to the extent that prices are stable given certain margins. It basically means you have a much harder time to monopolize or control one or more specific resource types. Given the amount of inflation Eve is already suffering, increasing build costs through material changes is already a very bad idea. This is on top of the already massive cost changes coming with install costs. So while the cost for just about everything is going up, the income levels stay the same and that is bad. I'd guess purchasing power decreases by 15-30% easily after a few months of these changes.

Also, tuning to keep material costs the same as before doesn't require them to make ANY assumptions. Players react to changes all the time without them taking any build costs into consideration. Its not as if the huge buff Ishtars got last summer made them adjust the material prices to keep those things stable now did it? I don't think CCP makes changes to balance based on how the player market will react to them.

But it shouldn't surprise me that any Allaince in null would want those changes... more money for you after all... where is dinsdale when you need him :P
Ereshgikal
Wharf Crusaders
#394 - 2014-06-09 04:45:20 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
I'd guess purchasing power decreases by 15-30% easily after a few months of these changes.


This is a speculative answer of mine, but I don't think this aspect is that relevant in EVE. Few people spend all their ISK when buying stuff. Most seem to save them in their mattresses/wallets and just amass them. Of the players I've known well enough to talk wallet size with, only one or two lived hand to mouth. Those people would be the ones that could be said to have a "purchasing power" low enough that it is worth taking into account.

However, you do have a point in that newbros and newsis' will have to grind that little bit extra to afford that shiny toy.

But again, it is pure speculation and only CCP have the means and the data to see if it really is a factor to consider.
Valterra Craven
#395 - 2014-06-09 05:58:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Ereshgikal wrote:

But again, it is pure speculation and only CCP have the means and the data to see if it really is a factor to consider.


Well only speculation in that I'm guessing by how much prices will increase, but with all of the changes together, prices WILL increase. Install costs, teams, etc all will drive costs up. Less minerals from reprocing will have a slight to moderate affect. Making the material cost of of t2 production higher will increase cost. Making things take longer will increase cost. I'm guessing the refine changes will also remove an amount of minerals from the market that now have to be compressed as ore instead. Likely a marginal increase in cost, but again add all of these together... and well I arrive at my 15-30% guesstimate.
Jattila Vrek
Green Visstick High
#396 - 2014-06-09 10:31:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Jattila Vrek
Since you're going to make ME and PE on invented bpcs =>0, I have a small suggestion: please make it so I can repackage and stack bpcs and bpos. Repackaging would make them ME 0 and PE 0, multiple runs would turn into multiple bpcs. And then add the bpcs to the market so we can trade them on the market. I'm tired of browsing through contracts all the time.
Qoi
Exert Force
#397 - 2014-06-09 11:01:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Qoi
CCP Greyscale wrote:
If it looks like these changes will significantly impact moon mineral values then we'll probably do some more tuning, but if we'd just be changing everything in the same ratios with no impact on economic balance beyond the price of ships, that's probably not something that merits fine-tuning simply to match existing numbers.


I ran some quick numbers on the consumption of moon minerals by different product categories using the market volumes for all T2 items from eve-central.com.

http://bp.kiwi.frubar.net/T2ConsumptionOld.pdf

This is not an exact metric since items traded != items produced, but it does look like applying a flat material modifier to all T2 Blueprints will have a significant impact on moon mineral consumption. The suggestion by Sabriz Adoudel looks like a much safer alternative.

http://eve-industry.org

Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#398 - 2014-06-09 12:14:06 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
and well I arrive at my 15-30% guesstimate.


Buy, buy, buy!!!

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 

Jon Lucien
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#399 - 2014-06-09 12:16:55 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Ereshgikal wrote:

But again, it is pure speculation and only CCP have the means and the data to see if it really is a factor to consider.


Well only speculation in that I'm guessing by how much prices will increase, but with all of the changes together, prices WILL increase. Install costs, teams, etc all will drive costs up. Less minerals from reprocing will have a slight to moderate affect. Making the material cost of of t2 production higher will increase cost. Making things take longer will increase cost. I'm guessing the refine changes will also remove an amount of minerals from the market that now have to be compressed as ore instead. Likely a marginal increase in cost, but again add all of these together... and well I arrive at my 15-30% guesstimate.



Your fearmongering is really a pleasure to read. If we add up all of your assumptions we basically come up with a really bad assumption. Also you seem to equate the status quo with what is "correct".

Also there is no inflation in eve. You must have missed that hour-long talk at fanfest.
mynnna
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#400 - 2014-06-09 12:58:03 UTC
Qoi wrote:
This is not an exact metric since items traded != items produced, but it does look like applying a flat material modifier to all T2 Blueprints will have a significant impact on moon mineral consumption. The suggestion by Sabriz Adoudel looks like a much safer alternative.


His so-called "safer alternative" is all well and very good, except for the fact that even in the hysterically unlikely case where he's absolutely right about decryptor usage in every scenario and it stays exactly the same after the patch, it drops consumption by 3-5% in each of his proposed categories - not keeps it the same.

And then we can get into what happens if he's wrong and Attainment becomes a popular decryptor - that drops consumption by previously decryptorless items by 8%, Symmetry items by 15%, cruisers and BCs (Accelerant items) by 22% and Process items by 26%. Or there's the rise of the Augmentation decryptor, where those numbers are 13.5%, 20%, 26.5% and 30%, respectively.

For someone interested in "keeping moongoo consumption the same" that seems like an awfully large hole, and I can't really believe it's something he'd just miss on accident. Makes you wonder...

The originally proposed ~50% from current base (actually x1.5/.9 as originally laid out, which is +52.8% from current base) accounts for this to a degree, because it leaves decryptorless things right where they are, moves Symmetry and Accelerant items up by +6% and +13%, respectively, but anything that swaps to Attainment either drops by 1% or increases by 2% at most, while anything swapping to Augmentation drops by 4-7%. That is, I'd say, a pretty solid counterbalance and does a far better job of "minimizing impact on mineral consumption" than you're giving it credit for, especially seeing as the three categories there (no decryptor, symmetry and augmentation) constitute the large majority of the goo usage.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal