These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Teams and Revamp of Industry in EVE Online

First post First post First post
Author
Barzai Mekhar
True Confusion
#141 - 2014-07-11 07:12:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Barzai Mekhar
Gilbaron wrote:
where did you get the 9% for the upgraded amarr outpost from ?

i thought it was 5%

3 x 1% from the plant or factory upgrade

2 x 1% from the other one


You're correct, badly worded/outdated source that didn't properly distinguish between improvements and upgrade levels. Again, it would have helped if a devblog had been dedicated to showing the maximum effects of the new system instead of some average calculation. Based on the eveinfo information the effectsize is indeed caped at 5%, changing the total math to come out at 23% advantage, which I consider still significant enough to justify testing its effect on its own without throwing additional new mechanisms into the system (especially since the new rapid release cycle seems suited to such an incremental rollout).
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#142 - 2014-07-11 08:37:55 UTC
your math is weird.

amarr outpost: 5% material reduction
non-npc station: no NPC tax (which is not 10% of the product price, but a 10% increased job cost. that is much less than it sounds like)


you should go and read this again:


http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/the-price-of-change/
Barzai Mekhar
True Confusion
#143 - 2014-07-11 09:47:03 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
your math is weird.

amarr outpost: 5% material reduction
non-npc station: no NPC tax (which is not 10% of the product price, but a 10% increased job cost. that is much less than it sounds like)


you should go and read this again:


http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/the-price-of-change/


The job base cost is based on the value of the item produced, with jobcost = itemvalue* sqrt(fraction of global job hours) thing. This is modified by a crapload of things; stations in the system, quality of the stations, number of stations, FW status. Now, two factors are relevant:

Basecost: How will the basecost differ between highsec where everyone has access to all factories vs. nullsec where factory access can be controled?
This depends on how the distribution of working hours will stabilize. In the snapshot, the basecost in a "semi-active" highsec system was 5%, while the worst nullsec system started at 4%. Further statistical data is rare; however, I'd expect the average nullsec basecost to end up anywhere between 50% and 10% of the highsec basecost. Assume 50% and the math pans out friendlier than in my initial example, assume 10% and it ends up worse.

Modifiers: By how much can the base cost be reduced by multipliers, including the mentioned NPC tax?
Building in an amarr factory outpost brings the same jobcost reduction as building in the "best of the best" highsec system Nonni, (.5 times costmultiplier for the amarr outpost, .48 (nonni) + 1.1 (npc tax) = .52). The salespitch example ends up with a 0.825 multiplier (.75 system * 1.1 NPC tax).

Summing effects up
Summing nullsec effects and comparing to the "average example", nullsec pays between 30% and 6% of the highsec job costs. The highsec costs for the salespitch example ends up at 3.8% of the itemvalue (7.6mio for a 200mio abadon). For the sake of the argument I'll stick with that, though I'd expect that value to end up closer to 5% due to the resulting new metagame. Nullsec can save between 70% and 94% of that, resulting in a cost difference of 2.5%-3.5% of the itemvalue.

Approximate itemvalue = (1+profit%) * mat value and for items with a profitmargin of 20%-50% you end up with additional costs of 3-5% mat value. This cost difference scales with the profit margin of the items produced.

The most important thing in this new system is how the basecost distribution ends up; that on its own is something I'd see like to see in action without the various other changes thrown in. I really doubt anyone, including CCP knows how the meta will in up in that regard, so adding even more new stuff (e.g. Teams) on top of that seems unreasonably risky to me.
El Zylcho
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#144 - 2014-07-11 10:16:19 UTC  |  Edited by: El Zylcho
Barzai Mekhar wrote:

The most important thing in this new system is how the basecost distribution ends up; that on its own is something I'd see like to see in action without the various other changes thrown in. I really doubt anyone, including CCP knows how the meta will in up in that regard, so adding even more new stuff (e.g. Teams) on top of that seems unreasonably risky to me.


Thanks for your work up on this. I agree, the introduction of everything at once is discouraging. I think given the nature of what this is, i.e., change not necessarily feature enhancement, a mode of burnout ensues, especially if you need to redo hours of analytical tools (spreadsheets).

And for anyone who has not heard me wail about NASH, these things will pass along to the larger player population but my question now is, is this an increase in the difference between what null and high sec producers see now? i.e., will null producers get richer on T2 post 7/22 because they'll enjoy the higher cost of goods (per NASH) as set by high sec producers? While high sec producers may exit due to the inability to be competitive, if the idea behind NASH applies, sell prices will go up and the nature of the inequalities will become more extreme. This would seem subvert the intent to offset advantages enjoyed by T2 BPO owners.

Intriguingly, the "it's not because of China" model is still applied (as described) on a relative % of global hours basis, so the model cannot correct for a slowdown in overall production hours which is ironic if the slowdown is related to imposition of the inflationary math of the model itself. I'd say the stronger play is to simply go with the UI changes. Let us fall in love with the UI. Some producers will never get a chance to fall in love with it!

p.s. Scrap the % model and go with a sales volume in system and surcharge based on system of sale of item vs its system of manufacture. This would push shoppers and sellers out of busy hubs and create many smaller local markets. As a 'routing' protocol its much more self contained - a fractal vs a pancake.
George Wizardry
Asian P0RN
#145 - 2014-07-11 17:18:13 UTC
Let alone the problems caused by the added complexity of this 'update' the only other thing this will cause is more PvP wars.

Players will leave and stop paying money because CCP is killing the PvE side of things. Yes you will say this is PvE enhancement but it only benefits the PvP players. Everyone is so confused by the upcoming changes that while trying to work it out their POS will be destroyed before they have any chance of making ISK.


Within the EVE universe I have no interest or desire to kill other players, real life is a different story......

Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#146 - 2014-07-11 18:14:30 UTC
Yeah, because of all the fun you can have while killing a pos in highsec for a few hundred million in bpos.


This is how to adapt your pos:

Offline unnecessary arrays and Labs, online hardeners, jammers and guns.
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#147 - 2014-07-11 18:40:37 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
Yeah, because of all the fun you can have while killing a pos in highsec for a few hundred million in bpos.


This is how to adapt your pos:

Offline unnecessary arrays and Labs, online hardeners, jammers and guns.


Yes but unless I missed the part where infinite pos's were going to be accommodated in a single system then the spots are going to be at a premium in a manufacturing system. I think the profit for the merc will come from the person who pays them to clear a spot rather than from the contents of the pos.
Theo Sotken
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#148 - 2014-07-11 19:39:09 UTC
Barzai Mekhar wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
your math is weird.

amarr outpost: 5% material reduction
non-npc station: no NPC tax (which is not 10% of the product price, but a 10% increased job cost. that is much less than it sounds like)


you should go and read this again:


http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/the-price-of-change/


The job base cost is based on the value of the item produced, with jobcost = itemvalue* sqrt(fraction of global job hours) thing. This is modified by a crapload of things; stations in the system, quality of the stations, number of stations, FW status. Now, two factors are relevant:

Basecost: How will the basecost differ between highsec where everyone has access to all factories vs. nullsec where factory access can be controled?
This depends on how the distribution of working hours will stabilize. In the snapshot, the basecost in a "semi-active" highsec system was 5%, while the worst nullsec system started at 4%. Further statistical data is rare; however, I'd expect the average nullsec basecost to end up anywhere between 50% and 10% of the highsec basecost. Assume 50% and the math pans out friendlier than in my initial example, assume 10% and it ends up worse.

Modifiers: By how much can the base cost be reduced by multipliers, including the mentioned NPC tax?
Building in an amarr factory outpost brings the same jobcost reduction as building in the "best of the best" highsec system Nonni, (.5 times costmultiplier for the amarr outpost, .48 (nonni) + 1.1 (npc tax) = .52). The salespitch example ends up with a 0.825 multiplier (.75 system * 1.1 NPC tax).

Summing effects up
Summing nullsec effects and comparing to the "average example", nullsec pays between 30% and 6% of the highsec job costs. The highsec costs for the salespitch example ends up at 3.8% of the itemvalue (7.6mio for a 200mio abadon). For the sake of the argument I'll stick with that, though I'd expect that value to end up closer to 5% due to the resulting new metagame. Nullsec can save between 70% and 94% of that, resulting in a cost difference of 2.5%-3.5% of the itemvalue.

Approximate itemvalue = (1+profit%) * mat value and for items with a profitmargin of 20%-50% you end up with additional costs of 3-5% mat value. This cost difference scales with the profit margin of the items produced.

The most important thing in this new system is how the basecost distribution ends up; that on its own is something I'd see like to see in action without the various other changes thrown in. I really doubt anyone, including CCP knows how the meta will in up in that regard, so adding even more new stuff (e.g. Teams) on top of that seems unreasonably risky to me.


You seem to be forgetting about the refining advantage of null sec = more 'free' minerals
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#149 - 2014-07-11 20:40:47 UTC
Pap Uhotih wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
Yeah, because of all the fun you can have while killing a pos in highsec for a few hundred million in bpos.


This is how to adapt your pos:

Offline unnecessary arrays and Labs, online hardeners, jammers and guns.


Yes but unless I missed the part where infinite pos's were going to be accommodated in a single system then the spots are going to be at a premium in a manufacturing system. I think the profit for the merc will come from the person who pays them to clear a spot rather than from the contents of the pos.



'manufacturing system'

You do know there are significant benefits to not clustering?

Push/pull is the paradigm. Reasons to come together (mostly teams). Reasons to stay apart.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#150 - 2014-07-11 20:54:09 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Pap Uhotih wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
Yeah, because of all the fun you can have while killing a pos in highsec for a few hundred million in bpos.


This is how to adapt your pos:

Offline unnecessary arrays and Labs, online hardeners, jammers and guns.


Yes but unless I missed the part where infinite pos's were going to be accommodated in a single system then the spots are going to be at a premium in a manufacturing system. I think the profit for the merc will come from the person who pays them to clear a spot rather than from the contents of the pos.



'manufacturing system'

You do know there are significant benefits to not clustering?

Push/pull is the paradigm. Reasons to come together (mostly teams). Reasons to stay apart.

So you seriously think these moons will not be targeted by wardecs because people will be spread out?

If a lot of space is required (high demand) to maintain profitability, then it stands to reason that given a finite amount of moons (limited supply) more conflict would arise as a result of the added value attributed to any given moon for manufacturing / research purposes.

Of course these moons are going to be targeted by wardecs. Wardecs are already trivially expensive to maintain. The cornucopia of wealth available through POS warfare will revolutionize the notion of High-Sec conflict. The golden age of the Mercenary may finally be upon us.

Not that this is a bad thing in a game advertised, as Eve is, as an always-PVP universe where conflict is actually desirable.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#151 - 2014-07-11 21:47:03 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Pap Uhotih wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
Yeah, because of all the fun you can have while killing a pos in highsec for a few hundred million in bpos.


This is how to adapt your pos:

Offline unnecessary arrays and Labs, online hardeners, jammers and guns.


Yes but unless I missed the part where infinite pos's were going to be accommodated in a single system then the spots are going to be at a premium in a manufacturing system. I think the profit for the merc will come from the person who pays them to clear a spot rather than from the contents of the pos.



'manufacturing system'

You do know there are significant benefits to not clustering?

Push/pull is the paradigm. Reasons to come together (mostly teams). Reasons to stay apart.


You are also aware that people will not pull up stakes every month chasing lowest cost areas. They will simply quit.

BTW, I am on Sisi right now. Grabbed a Talos blueprint.
Found one system , a low sec system in fact, where the slot cost was 61 MILLION, for a single Talos build. Found another low sec system, where the cost to do the same thing was 51 THOUSAND, a difference of about 1100 times.

If this formula is anywhere close to what gets dumped on TQ in 11 days, industry, will be in utter chaos. And that is NOT a good thing, regardless of what the propagandists say. People will see these massive advantages and will be moving all over the place, for about 4-6 weeks. Then when they realize how futile it is to chase, since everyone else sees the same thing, and they can't stand getting ganked anymore since the griefers see the same hotspots, they will quit.

Oh, and BTW, I was in PVH8-0 yesterday for the mass test. The index there has already jumped hard. If it can move that fast in 24 hours, systems will be good for about a week, then too expensive. As I said, high sec industrialists will quickly get demotivated to chase and avoid ganks, and quit.

This entire concept for industry is incredibly stupid.
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#152 - 2014-07-11 22:05:03 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

You are also aware that people will not pull up stakes every month chasing lowest cost areas. They will simply quit.

it costs like 10m isk to pay highsec freighter slaves to do it for you while you sleep
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#153 - 2014-07-11 22:09:59 UTC
also have you perhaps considered, in between the voices in your head muttering about rmt cartels, that on sisi that installed jobs is wildly different from how it is on tranq (the only people doing it are doing it to test things and not very many of them usually) so your lunatic ramblings about how indexes perform on sisi is utterly unrelated to reality
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#154 - 2014-07-11 22:22:25 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
H

The only substantial downside to this is that it makes it much easier to weaponize an industry tower, so we are considering upping lab/array fitting costs substantially in a later release. We likely will not do this in Crius itself as people will need time to reconfigure their setups.

...

Thanks for all your feedback,
-Greyscale

Um....to counter the "more weaponized industry tower" point.

Bastion.

Pure HS deathstars even are not immune to a group of Marauders now. Why make it even easier for them?
Stragak
#155 - 2014-07-11 23:01:34 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

Update on multiple-structure bonuses for starbases.

We've just had another discussion about this system as-implemented, and based on your feedback, the technical challenges involved in implementing it in a fully user-friendly way, and the somewhat limited upsides of the feature, we've decided to cut it from Crius.

Having multiple starbase structures of the same type at a starbase will no longer grant you any bonus above those inherent in the structure itself

The only substantial downside to this is that it makes it much easier to weaponize an industry tower, so we are considering upping lab/array fitting costs substantially in a later release. We likely will not do this in Crius itself as people will need time to reconfigure their setups.

We are looking into what we can do to mitigate the expected glut of labs resulting from this change; more info as we work through this process :)

Thanks for all your feedback,
-Greyscale


1. Can we get survey results from the feedback for multiple POS strutures?
2. Substantial downside of weaponized industry. Are POS guns getting buffed soon?
3. You can feed me with bacon for my extra labs but a survey is better.

I read on other sources that a common issue is mainly null sec alliances post on forums on the feedback loop. Maybe we can break that barrier down with hard numbers by doing surveys on log in. Gives everyone a say and backs you guys up with cold hard numbers of 'this why we are releasing it like this', just saying.

Maybe I am off my rocker though it is Friday night.

"Oh look, the cat is sitting in the litter box and pooping over the side again" every time we go through these "rough patches". In good humor, and slight annoyance, Boiglio   https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238130&p=82

Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#156 - 2014-07-11 23:40:33 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Pap Uhotih wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
Yeah, because of all the fun you can have while killing a pos in highsec for a few hundred million in bpos.


This is how to adapt your pos:

Offline unnecessary arrays and Labs, online hardeners, jammers and guns.


Yes but unless I missed the part where infinite pos's were going to be accommodated in a single system then the spots are going to be at a premium in a manufacturing system. I think the profit for the merc will come from the person who pays them to clear a spot rather than from the contents of the pos.



'manufacturing system'

You do know there are significant benefits to not clustering?

Push/pull is the paradigm. Reasons to come together (mostly teams). Reasons to stay apart.


I do have a better name than that for it than that and coincidently half of it is the word cluster, it is the other half that I am unable to mention.
I think 'Reasons not to bother at all.' should also be in your post for the sake of completeness.

Taking a stab in the dark is the paradigm, no one has the faintest idea what is or is not going to happen. I admit if you had managed to get polymorphism in there as well I would have felt a distinct tingling in my groin but push/pull paradigm just isn't sufficient.
In high sec the pull seems dubious at best, it seems too excessively risky for anyone doing industry on a small or medium scale to be counted in that in any other place than a project meeting that smells far too much like sweat, coffee and pain. The push is out of industry and then probably Eve entirely due to the breach of trust which will certainly count as a good reason to stay apart. Perhaps, since it is the only thing left, this is the coming together part.
Geezelbub
Barely Illegal
#157 - 2014-07-12 14:00:12 UTC
I started seriously getting into industry about 4 years ago, did pretty well over the years.

Am giving up next month.

Chasing teams, unknown variable costs, POS wars, many months of grinding for standings wasted....AGAIN

It's a game. It's supposed to be FUN.

What's FUN about this industry revamp nightmare??? Seriously
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#158 - 2014-07-12 16:57:02 UTC
Bear in mind:

Build costs on SiSi are not really valid.

Build costs are a result of a function of how many minutes of build happen in a system, against how many happen overall.

On Sisi, that second number is /tiny/, so anything you do is likely to be a major fraction of them.

On TQ, it's not going to be like that. 2.5 billion minutes over the course of 28 days.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#159 - 2014-07-12 17:02:11 UTC
Themepark carebears are crying. Good.

The Tears Must Flow

Barzai Mekhar
True Confusion
#160 - 2014-07-12 17:41:04 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Bear in mind:

Build costs on SiSi are not really valid.

Build costs are a result of a function of how many minutes of build happen in a system, against how many happen overall.

On Sisi, that second number is /tiny/, so anything you do is likely to be a major fraction of them.

On TQ, it's not going to be like that. 2.5 billion minutes over the course of 28 days.


And the fact that testing of the new system is done in an environment that is not even remotely similar to the actual game world makes us more confident in its stability because...?