These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Material Efficiency skill changed to Advanced Industry

First post First post First post
Author
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#281 - 2014-07-18 00:00:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Medalyn Isis
Summer Isle wrote:
Medalyn Isis wrote:
Summer Isle wrote:
The TE bonus only works for those keeping their lines going constantly. In its current form, it amounts to 72 minutes per line, per day.

Taken in isolation, at 1% that equals 72 minutes * 11 (number of lines) = 13.2 hours of time saving per day.

If you bump that up to 3% per level, which is what CCP Greyscale seems to be looking at, then that would equal 3.6 hours saved per day per line. Much much better than a tiny job install reduction. If you are sensible you will stick with the PE bonus which is being offered.

That's only if your lines are going continuously, though. I'm trying to look at things from the other side, as well, as a manufacturer who doesn't have her lines going all the time.

If your lines aren't running back-to-back, the actual value of the skill is greatly diminished, and if your jobs don't last long enough, the actual value of the skill quickly approaches zero.

I understood your point there. What I was trying to illustrate though was that at 3% TE you would be saving 3.6 hours per line per day. So lets say you put in a 12 hour job, that's now been reduced to by almost 2 hours, meaning it takes only ten hours. Then multiply this by every line you have. That is quite a convenient saving even if you aren't looking to optimise your lines.

Lets take something like a battleship, you want ten runs for your corp. That is going to take 50 hours with no TE, taking the skill in isolation, means that your job is finishing 7.5 hours earlier, meaning your corp can jump into those BS and pvp 7.5 hours earlier than if you didn't have the skill.
Erich Shephard
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#282 - 2014-07-18 01:25:02 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.

It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit.

Yup. That's exactly along the lines I was thinking of. It still produces an advantage that reduces the cost of a job over competitors who haven't trained the skill, but it is reduced in power such that it remains to some extent optional. As you say, you can always build in cheaper systems instead of training the skill. This solution would suit me just fine.
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#283 - 2014-07-18 01:52:34 UTC
The original skill was also a pre req to Capital production, which is seemingly very out of place now

Unless this skill turns into something worthwhile, just refund it and get on with life

5% TE is next to worthless

On second thought, just refund it and the pink elephant in the room just goes out the service entrance
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#284 - 2014-07-18 01:59:35 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
2) Getting to L3 is fast. At a skill level of 3 you should be able to make ISK most anywhere. That is, given the profit margin at the major trade hubs, those last two levels should not be a requirement for making ISK. Those last two levels should be an investment for those who wish to specialize.


I liked the rest of your post, but this idea I quoted above is just plain wrong. High skills should never guarantee a profit at anything, especially market activities.
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#285 - 2014-07-18 02:03:45 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th.



Ok, after reading the blue posts, refund aint gonna happen

Maybe if the skill applied to everything:
ME research
TE research
Production
Invention
Copying

5% to each time based modifier for all industry would make it pretty powerful if you do all things with your pilot, but would require tons of SP

"Most" pilots will only use the skill for 1-2 of that list and that would have the skill in a good place as far as strength i think
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#286 - 2014-07-18 02:45:47 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Delay it a shade so it doesn't feel rushed? Good idea CCP

Suggest possible other iterations more in keeping with the orignal skill. Good job players

Continually ask for sp rebates when Greyscale already said (and I quote)

Quote:
- We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors, and time we can reduce for work on things we don't want to do allows us to spend more time on work on things we do want to do; this is an imperfect statement of our position as I'm writing it on the fly to give you an approximate idea of *why* we don't want to do a refund here, but the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.)


No a good idea

Personally I think that if they make the skill relevant AND advanced 8x training then you get your skill prorated by the sp you have spent so far. So yoiu may be skill level 2 after the transfer

It may be a step back but if everybody who trained it gets the same step back then we are fighting mudflation, not causing you to lose. You will still be in the same place relative to everybody else in the marketplace, no?

One complaint a few pages back I REALLY want to get behind. We need a common spot where ALL changes are listed. Not some in dev blogs, some in test feedback, some on the back of envelopes.

m




Hey, it's great that you're stepping up into the proud tradition of the CSM just apologizing for CCP's decision to radically depart from prior, fair practices, it really is, but the rest of the community isn't as bound by your honor code. So here's the situation:

This is the first time that CCP has removed a skill (not nerfed, removed) and openly admitted it would not refund SP because they can't be bothered to put forth the effort. This, in a game where a lot of the most meaningful choices a player can make - the reason many keep subscribing month after month - revolves directly around the trade offs that everyone makes in their skill queue. That's a pretty ******* important aspect to one of the most unique features of EVE.

I was pissed when recent announcements made my decision to train up Scrapmetal Processing largely worthless, but didn't expect a skill point refund, because the skill still existed - it got nerfed. It happens, and because of how the skill queue works in EVE these types of nerfs suck more than in other MMOs, but hey, it happens.

This is the complete removal of a skill. Go ahead, try and deny it.

It's simply because CCP can't be arsed to put forth the effort to perform the traditional refund for removed skills that we are in this dumb situation where the forums are spitballing replacement skill ideas. Why didn't they just invent a bunch of new skills when they replaced the learning skills? Because that's dumb, counter-intuitive, and unfair. What changed between then and now?

That's the question the CSM should be asking, not demanding the player base toe the line. What changed between then and now? Is this what we can expect going forward whenever CCP removes a skill that players deliberately chose to train over any other skill, for very specific reasons?

So, thanks again, but I think people are going to rightly continue to remind CCP that a refund is the right way to handle skill removal.

I am not an alt of Chribba.

Dyscordia
Super Elite Friendship Club
#287 - 2014-07-18 02:56:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Dyscordia
Mike Azariah wrote:


One complaint a few pages back I REALLY want to get behind. We need a common spot where ALL changes are listed. Not some in dev blogs, some in test feedback, some on the back of envelopes.


This times 1000. Thank you.

This is entire thread is an example of knowledge transfer happening way too late. I believe I spent an inordinate amount of time following discussion and changes and did not see this skill point issue until a few days before the release.

If you have a new aggressive 6 week release cycle, you should consider aggressive documentation and knowledge transfer since players have far less time to get a grasp on all the changes that are happening that affect their in-game livelihood or play style.
Malice Redeemer
The Black Crow Bandits
VINDICTIVE
#288 - 2014-07-18 03:20:53 UTC
I won't be happy unless this is is refunded or made in to the must have at 5 to play that it was. I would not have wasted time training it to 5 if it was not.
EvilIsMyName
Exploitation Industrial Group
Gold Star Alliance
#289 - 2014-07-18 03:23:08 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilIsMyName
If the idea is to take a now useful skill and turn it, post-patch, into a useless skill, and to lower the barrier to entry into industry, you'll succeed. Since so many of us will have this, post-patch useless skill trained to level 5, and its obvious a SP refund wont happen, a logical compromise may be to make make level 5 a required skill in order to do any higher level industry. In its current state, Material Eff 5 is required to train Capital Ship construction, so post patch add the requirement to have the new Advanced Industry to lvl 5 to train Industrial, cruiser, frigate, battleship, outpost, & Drug Manufacturing.

You still lower the entry barrier but make the new industrialists suffer the same wasted skill training as us vets to do any T2 or T3 manufacturing.
Culprit Renalard
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#290 - 2014-07-18 03:29:57 UTC
So um - yeah. Still consider myself a new pilot. Wanted to get into Industry. Been training Material Efficiency the last umpteen days cause it sure seemed pretty important. Read the devblog and this thread tonight and finding that a pretty much mandatory skill for an industry pilot is now worthless.

Its not like this was an easy to find change, nor did I get a little pop up on my screen telling me I may want to rethink my training plan as the skill I intended to train was going to be removed from the game.

For a new toon like me, none of the proposed changes would have caused me to train this skill at such an early stage in my career.

I am glad I read about it tonight though. Removed the skill from queue with 8 days left to level 5
Maduin Shi
MAGA Inc
#291 - 2014-07-18 05:09:11 UTC
SP refund please. There's simply no way ME can be "replaced" with another skill that is Rank 3, a "must have" skill to V that imparts real benefits (e.g. not a blank prerequisite skill) and yet presents no barrier to entry for newer players. The market will almost certainly make it into said barrier.
Muninn Ogeko
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#292 - 2014-07-18 06:40:23 UTC
The old Material Efficiency skill was incredibly important to get to 4 and had enough of a benefit at 5 to make it worth taking the extra time to get that level.

What about making this bonus a bit like the Logistics skill, where that last level is still quite important, by providing a 15% discount per level to the production fees. This moves the baseline for established producers to be 25% of the production fees, so you might want to multiply the production fees for everyone by somewhere between 2 and 4 to counter this (assuming you'll want 4, since you want the production fees to be high).

A more moderate solution (which does not make level 5 very attractive) is a 10% per level reduction paired with a doubling of base production fees.

Assuming the 15% / level, a 4x base cost multiplier, and a 10% (multiplied to 40%) fee, you are looking at a production cost of 110% the material costs for someone with level 5, and 140% for someone without the skill. This basically means a 28% cheaper production for someone with level 5, which is close to the benefit provided by the Kronos version.
Gaius Clabbacus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#293 - 2014-07-18 06:42:11 UTC
My preference:
1> Reduce waste (reduction) to 2%/level. This makes the barrier to entry caused by waste for new industrialists comparable to not having fully researched BPOs (and 3d *40 for researching ME 10 on a battlship BPO is also a significant barrier!)
2> Waste only affects minerals and not T2 or PI materials.

I realize timelines may be too short to implement this for Crius. It would be fine if we temporarily get the worthless time reduction until next release.
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#294 - 2014-07-18 07:52:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Chi'Nane T'Kal
Muninn Ogeko wrote:
The old Material Efficiency skill was incredibly important to get to 4 and had enough of a benefit at 5 to make it worth taking the extra time to get that level.

What about making this bonus a bit like the Logistics skill, where that last level is still quite important, by providing a 15% discount per level to the production fees. This moves the baseline for established producers to be 25% of the production fees, so you might want to multiply the production fees for everyone by somewhere between 2 and 4 to counter this (assuming you'll want 4, since you want the production fees to be high).

A more moderate solution (which does not make level 5 very attractive) is a 10% per level reduction paired with a doubling of base production fees.

Assuming the 15% / level, a 4x base cost multiplier, and a 10% (multiplied to 40%) fee, you are looking at a production cost of 110% the material costs for someone with level 5, and 140% for someone without the skill. This basically means a 28% cheaper production for someone with level 5, which is close to the benefit provided by the Kronos version.



Could we please keep in mind that the skill is NOT supposed to be mandatory again?

Something like 5-10%/level should be sufficient incentive to train it to IV. Balancing it for perfect value at V and keeping the 'not mandatory' policy might be aiming too high.


I'm really glad only one of my toons is affected - yet on principle I'd still favor a refund. However, I can emphasize with the reasons given not to do that.
(All the reasons except for the 'too much work for the DB team' one, though, which is hilarious. Given the fact that it's not the first time, that workload should be 1 second to start the refund script.)
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
#295 - 2014-07-18 08:49:21 UTC
Summer Isle wrote:
Medalyn Isis wrote:
Summer Isle wrote:
The TE bonus only works for those keeping their lines going constantly. In its current form, it amounts to 72 minutes per line, per day.

Taken in isolation, at 1% that equals 72 minutes * 11 (number of lines) = 13.2 hours of time saving per day.

If you bump that up to 3% per level, which is what CCP Greyscale seems to be looking at, then that would equal 3.6 hours saved per day per line. Much much better than a tiny job install reduction. If you are sensible you will stick with the PE bonus which is being offered.

That's only if your lines are going continuously, though. I'm trying to look at things from the other side, as well, as a manufacturer who doesn't have her lines going all the time.

If your lines aren't running back-to-back, the actual value of the skill is greatly diminished, and if your jobs don't last long enough, the actual value of the skill quickly approaches zero.



I think you also have to remember that while it may not help everyone massively, the install costs of a job are directly related to the length of time it takes to manufacture. So a time reduction will also give a, smaller, cost reduction, therefore it does apply to everyone.

Medalyn Isis wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
I think that changing the skill to give 2% time reduction of all Industry jobs per level would be most fair - it would be less powerful than original skill, while still not being a worthless train from IV to V.

I would go with this, or 3% if it is possible.


I'd agree with this. 3% time reduction to all industry jobs per level
DeODokktor
Dark Templars
The Fonz Presidium
#296 - 2014-07-18 09:00:17 UTC
At least the skill rank isn't as high as Research Project Management. They didn't touch that skill, but instead killed what it was used for.

I have 18 chars with Prod Eff V, Needless to say that this "new" skill would likely only be trained to level 2 or 3.

I am fairly sure that people are not going to be building Caps in Jita, so the savings from building major parts in major hubs is moot.

The skill was removed, and under the new wastage system then i think that's fine. My guess here is that they don't want to refund because it would just mean way too many free points getting handed out. For those who say "but it is a industry skill, and it still is", meh.... Would you be happy if they changed the navigation skill to give an agility bonus instead of a speed bonus?

(there's 10% waste now too for those of you who say there's now no waste, I mean, THINK about it...)...

The previous skill was not overpowered but it was required for those who specialized in production. Level3 was ample for most people who used it for ammo and perhaps their own drones. Under the new system the skill has no use, I understand that. But re-tasking a skill to do something not even closely related to the first skill is just lame.

As for us leaving it too long to raise the issue with you guys.. Well the last "statement" that was made in a dev blog was that you had not decided what to do... So don't blame the players for waiting to long to tell you we don't like it, blame yourselves for keeping it hidden beyond the point of it being actionable.

I don't know who spent the time dealing with R.A.M. and R.Db conversions (To make sure players like me wouldn't "exploit" it on patch day), but that's the same level of competence that should have been used in designing this skill change.

This is about the 4th major "industry" nerf that has happened since I started playing. I really get the impression you guys dont want it. All of these changes your making only ends up with one major change anyhow, It's a HUGE isk sink. I cant help but think all of the changes (Including the idiotic move over this skill) was just to suck isk out of eve.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#297 - 2014-07-18 09:36:25 UTC
DeODokktor wrote:
The previous skill was not overpowered but it was required for those who specialized in production.

The skill was too powerful. 5% reduction in material requirements per level, and you don't think that was too powerful.

Also you contradict yourself, apparently the skill was only required for those who specialise in production. But then apparently TE is useless except for those that specialise in production...

That voids your entire argument regarding the skill change.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#298 - 2014-07-18 11:25:32 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Delay it a shade so it doesn't feel rushed? Good idea CCP

Suggest possible other iterations more in keeping with the orignal skill. Good job players

Continually ask for sp rebates when Greyscale already said (and I quote)

Quote:
- We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors, and time we can reduce for work on things we don't want to do allows us to spend more time on work on things we do want to do; this is an imperfect statement of our position as I'm writing it on the fly to give you an approximate idea of *why* we don't want to do a refund here, but the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.)


No a good idea

Personally I think that if they make the skill relevant AND advanced 8x training then you get your skill prorated by the sp you have spent so far. So yoiu may be skill level 2 after the transfer

It may be a step back but if everybody who trained it gets the same step back then we are fighting mudflation, not causing you to lose. You will still be in the same place relative to everybody else in the marketplace, no?

One complaint a few pages back I REALLY want to get behind. We need a common spot where ALL changes are listed. Not some in dev blogs, some in test feedback, some on the back of envelopes.

m




- Bumping the rank up without changing accumulated skillpoints is actually probably way easier than removals or wholesale adjustments; the biggest hurdle from a DB-stuff point of view is the skill queue, and in this scenario we would probably just pause the skill, remove it from queues and then make the change.
- Common spot for all changes is the patchnotes; I don't want to talk about exact times because Community is co-ordinating when they're released, but they're a shade under 6000 words and should cover everything.





Some more general things:
- A big part of the reason why we're pushing back on a reimbursement here is that it's a thing that is becoming a habit and we want to push back against it being the default option. There's a lot of things feeding into this, but a major part of it is the model of the value of skill training that considers skills as an ongoing cycle of anticipation and accomplishment, and the way that (for many people, we understand how skill plans work) future training goals more more defined as longer-term skills get close to finishing. By giving people windfalls of skillpoints, we a) suddenly cut short the anticipation, which is expected to also reduce the feeling of accomplishment, and b) break the natural cycle of goal-setting by completing goals unexpectedly early and without the lead-in time to consider and select new ones. We understand that the psychological value that this sets up is not considered relevant by some of our players, but we have to also consider the ones who do derive satisfaction from this sort of system, and skillpoint windfalls can be self-defeating for them. This is a much larger, more extended discussion that there isn't really scope for here, I just want to highlight some of the things we're thinking about to give you a better sense of why we're pushing back on a reimbursement. We do of course recognize that removal and reimbursement works here from a very rational perspective, but not everyone gains value from strictly rational calculation.
- A general percentage reduction to *all* jobs would (perversely) probably actually be less troublesome to push higher; the 1% is somewhat constrained by our desire not to push build times below copy times, so if we did a skill that affected copy and build equally (along with research, which is clearly a pretty valuable bonus for people researching in the new system), we would probably push it up to the 3-5%/level range.
- Adding some new skills with this skill at 5 as a prerequisite is something we could definitely look into; is this something that would make people feel better about having it at 5? They would then likely be "advanced", optional skills targeted at specific niches and very much not required to compete, but we could probably pick a handful such that everyone has at least one they'd want.
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#299 - 2014-07-18 11:50:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
Medalyn Isis wrote:
DeODokktor wrote:
The previous skill was not overpowered but it was required for those who specialized in production.

The skill was too powerful. 5% reduction in material requirements per level, and you don't think that was too powerful.

Also you contradict yourself, apparently the skill was only required for those who specialise in production. But then apparently TE is useless except for those that specialise in production...

That voids your entire argument regarding the skill change.


I think CCP just decided to keep the core purpose of the skill, and just nerfed it. If I'm reading that right, it's a sucky nerf, but understandable, and no SP refund needed.

Misread something, my bad.

I am not an alt of Chribba.

Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
#300 - 2014-07-18 11:55:04 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
- A general percentage reduction to *all* jobs would (perversely) probably actually be less troublesome to push higher; the 1% is somewhat constrained by our desire not to push build times below copy times, so if we did a skill that affected copy and build equally (along with research, which is clearly a pretty valuable bonus for people researching in the new system), we would probably push it up to the 3-5%/level range.


I would be happy with this. We have suggested 3% already, but obviously if you would be prepared to go to 5% per level then that would be great. As was suggested by someone earlier you could make the bonuses incremental so either 1%/2%/3%/4%/5% for 15% bonus or 1%/3%/5%/7%/9% for 25% bonus. I like the idea of the second as then training from level 4 > 5 will grant a 9% bonus, which is quite substantial.

Quote:
- Adding some new skills with this skill at 5 as a prerequisite is something we could definitely look into; is this something that would make people feel better about having it at 5? They would then likely be "advanced", optional skills targeted at specific niches and very much not required to compete, but we could probably pick a handful such that everyone has at least one they'd want.


Obviously it would depend on what the skills would be. Did you have anything in mind, even if it's just an idea?