These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: EVE Industry - All you want to know

First post First post First post
Author
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#201 - 2014-07-20 22:52:31 UTC
seriously though this patch is pretty sweet

425mms were nerfed, all hail satan, and the replacement was put in in a way that doesn't completely screw over miners

blueprint plumage was taken out back and stomped and replaced with a reasonable system that doesn't require you to go to chruker for every god damn blueprint to figure out how much to research it (an action which is not mastery but drudgery)

the old, busted 100% refine mechanic was gutted and replaced with a mechanic that allows for meaningful facility usage, rewards training specialty skills, and is immune to reprocessing effing up the whole thing by guaranteeing you get back what you put in

the addition of a multitude of variables to industry lets everyone (yes, everyone, not just Goonswarm Federation) find a niche and outcompete their competition if they use just a little bit of brains

standings were removed for highsec pos, all hail my sweet, merciful satan

it is like a cornucopia of splendor and all you fools are standing against the wall bemoaning the entire effin thing without actually trying to get your heads in the game
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#202 - 2014-07-20 22:54:54 UTC
but yeah i guess see your point, people playing the game should have to research a blueprint to 1975 before they are allowed to compete, man, that 2 pyerite savings
El Zylcho
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#203 - 2014-07-20 23:11:55 UTC  |  Edited by: El Zylcho
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

I have been one sub for quite some time now, but fired up training on a second char.
That second char training, though it is for a PvP char, will be lapsing in 15 days.
That is one more plex / subscription that CCP loses.

But I am sure that some null sec cartel member will easily fill that void with a new account or 2nd char training.
In fact, I am sure that the null sec cartels will easily fill all the voids created with the exodus of high sec players.


One interesting aspect is that (probably) WH PVP corps will be able to target null sec production hubs much easier for PVP assaults. Given that active production systems can be discerned by these API changes:

/industry/systems/ (cache: 1 hour)
vnd.ccp.eve.IndustrySystemCollection-v1
Lists the cost index for installing industry jobs per type of activity. This does not include wormhole space.

and the /industry/teams values, it seems likely while some folks will be busy war decc'ing high sec small cooperative efforts off the grid (yes, please every get into the same cattle car to save on team fees), WH folks have the ability to exploit access to production systems by following the API entries above? Knowing the cost to install a job by job type and what a team costs by specialty type seems like freebie intel?

And, I'd chalk this up as a flaw in the " % of systems hours / global hours" attempt to tax production. The algorithm would have been better focused on the mechanics of selling and point of manufacture vs point of sale deltas. This part of the whole approach will always yield feedback that makes the obfuscation elements of the game less realistic, aka, free intel.
Neil Peert
Doomheim
#204 - 2014-07-20 23:46:02 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Pixi Potts wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
My little and irrelevant thought, which shall have zero impact nor consideration by anyone.


In my opinion, EvE became a great game because of a certain number of factors.

Since the beginning of the "streamlining", EvE started losing some of its spice.

Ok, changing missiles names and so on was a "flavour thing" but hey, a game is made by a blend of flavours, isn't it?

Then an endless amount of dumbifications, including exploration, inventory, "round pizzas" targets but not only.
Then they removed "superfluous" (yet cool) features like the epic EvE animated log in screens and music, to replace them with a fat nothing. Because it's cheaper!

And now industry, somehow "made simpler" but with math and look up tables 3 times as complicate as it was before...

... and yet once again EvE gets streamlined and violated in its awsome, former gusto.



Hey, I do code refactoring since years as well, but that does not mean scrapping functionality and flavour!


Why, CCP, are you violating the last bastion of evolved gaming? To farm some F2Pers?

Also, what was wrong at letting people invest in research? There are PVPers and missioneers spending years into tweaking their stats to get that 1% more DPS or tank, yet industrialists have to feel good to be streamlined into some forgettable funny-pass time?

Also, I still recall the heavy outcry when CCP changed an handful skills (in example when they split BCs and other ships uniform skills into racial ones). And CCP listened and made the smoothest transition. Yet who invested in research or bought an highly researched BPO is not even worth 5 minutes-of-a-solution?


I am sorry, I find this expansion against EvE original flavour and it's just another push to turn EvE in something tasteless and dumb.


Some in past pages said: "it's a good thing if a MMO loses their loyal elder playerbase".

I have played most MMOs and even some MUDs since before 2000. Not once, not a single MMO that lost its "hard core veterans" went ahead too long before it tanked. Because those are the loyal playerbase, EvE took 10 years to build it and now CCP is beating them down expansion after expansion.


When we had the full game, inclusive of proper, awesome log in screen, awesome expansions like Apochrypha and so on I was honored to pay (no PLEX) 12 subs. Honored to invest and sponsor the one, different game that did not bend down to the lowest common donominator.
Then the $1000 jeans and gold ammo attempt and later, dumbification came.
Now I am down to 1 sub.

Let's see how much you CCP can denaturalize your game before I get rid of that one as well.


your right,

I think ccp are more for the nullsec based alliances,
Year after year ,not too sure where ccp are going with the updates at all, nurf one side make the other side better, mmos need a good player base and the dev need to work more with it player base and to update the player of the updates, even a few videos from the dev would be nice showing the game updates from each dev.
most other mmos do video updates from each dev showing you the updates, they even do live feeds about the updates,
Players had to grind there standing up to place a pos up, now ccp let you put a pos up with no standing.
Players trained there rigs skills so they could use T2 rigs, so ccp go let you use them with no skills,
Players trained Material Efficiency (-5% material requirements per level) ccp gone and changed it to Advanced Industry (-1% time per level).

Players wasted many months to many years on researching there BPOS, now ccp go and set them all to 10,

((THINGS WE AREN'T DOING
After *considerable* discussion, both internally and on the forums, we have decided that we are not going to award any additional compensation for blueprints currently researched past ME/PE 10. There are a lot of things feeding into this decision, including the strong precedent it sets, the fact that no functional value is lost, and the work involved in a one-time compensation deal that could be spent on polishing up the features we're shipping. We understand that some people will be unhappy about this, and we empathize with that, but we have to weigh everyone's interests equally and we believe in this case that the best thing for the game as a whole is to convert blueprints to the new system as previously described but not make any additional changes in this area.))

Teams is other bad idea, all the nullsec alliances will win them every time, so you will just see them most of them in nullsec.




I particularly love the bold-faced lie CCP told re: capital Blueprints and "no functional value lost".
Guess they have not bothered to get on Sisi and actually see the waste on manufacturing capitals now, compared to the waste today on TQ.

Go ahead CCP, go onto Sisi and look at the waste of my ME 6 Moros BPO, my ME 3 Archon and Thanato BPO's, and then compare them to the waste with the BPO's they have been morphed into on Sisi.

Go ahead, then come back and tell me how that "no functional value was lost."


very good point,
found this part of the dev blog interesting.

Additionally, the old Material Efficiency skill has been renamed to Advanced Industry, and gives a build time reduction of 1% per level. We are not totally happy with the reduction in skill value that’s happened here, and we are committing to revisiting this skill post-Crius to evaluate how to meet our overall goals here in a less dramatic fashion.





MissPrissy
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#205 - 2014-07-21 00:24:16 UTC
Acks wrote:
MissPrissy wrote:
Could someone clear this up for me please?

Is there or isn't there a stacking benefit for POS structures, like labs, assembly arrays etc.? It seems there is contradictory info out there from CCP. Last I heard they couldn't squeeze in the stacking benefit in this patch so it's been dropped "to be looked at later". If that’s the case then there is no longer any point to having a HS POS larger than a small as you would only need 1 of each structure type or am I missing something?



They were going to do the POS module stacking thing. They decided it was not a good solution for this release so it is out for now. It may be revisited in upcoming releases.

As to Large vs Small. War decs and defense are still a factor. If you put industrial mods on a small you will not be having much of a defense. And a small is an easy target even when defended.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
We had intended to implement a bonus for having multiple similar facilities of the same type at a given starbase. This was in fact implemented in a draft state, but there was no easy way to make it both user-friendly and well-performing (it was only updating once an hour), and given the relatively limited upsides it provided, we elected to cut it and focus the time that would've been spent bringing it up to an acceptable standard on polishing the rest of the release instead.


Link for truthiness:
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/eve-industry-all-you-want-to-know/

Go down to the "Things we AREN'T doing" section, second paragraph.



Thanks for that. I knew I had seen it somewhere. Yes I realize that defense is still important but it just means that we will have a massive oversupply of labs, assembly arrays, etc for sale for years to come so we won't even be able to get some cash back for them. And I feel really sorry for the Indy dudes building them. Sell price will be way below actual build price so that's another bunch of items not worth manufacturing anymore....
Tripple Cripple
Doomheim
#206 - 2014-07-21 01:49:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tripple Cripple
Orca should be size 100. Its not a proper capital ship like the others. It can be in high sec and doesn't have a jump drive. Feels so wrong that it take the same amount of time to build as the Rorqual.

Save Orca!
BRooDJeRo
Royal Dutch Secret Service
#207 - 2014-07-21 02:27:03 UTC  |  Edited by: BRooDJeRo
So the hard Euro's and time i have spend to keep accounts going for high level blueprint enhancing beyond ME10 have been a waste since 2003.

I'm not sure if you really want to do this CCP when you want to keep me as a customer on any of your products. I understand the difficulties you're facing with this migration, however i'm not the one that wants to push in a new system.

At this moment i kind of hope i missed the final memo and if not then i would reconsider the position of the person in charge of this at CCP. Many vets if not all of them are totally eyeballing you on this one.

A new system is fine and gives something new to explore. I also understand that there's a line to be drawn. When some company cuts me on a deal in real life then they need to come up with something really nice to compensate any twisted feelings or it's no deal or end of deal.
I'm very sorry that i'm vocal like this. This doesn't happen allot. It's kind of the same when you bought a car and after a while the brand takes your tires and rims off and just says "sorry, have fun scraping the street with joy with your brand new set of rims without tires" while you never really needed a new set of rims in the first place. In this case the brand should grand you a very nice set of new tires at least to keep you happy so you stay as a customer and don't label the brand for theft.

I'm curious what you will come up with to keep me around and what my real value is in your eyes. I'm not even speaking of trouble in relationships and jobs that is caused by playing EvE hahaha. I'm talking about true commitment here.

Also keep in mind that real law exist about theft of digital items, but i don't even want to look into this one to be honest. That's too much negativity for me. Not everything can be solved with a mathematical equation. It's that same thing going on between science and religion. It's about feelings my brother.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#208 - 2014-07-21 05:43:16 UTC
I've removed some off topic posts. Please keep it on topic and civil. Thanks!

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

HarlyQ
harlyq syrokos investment station
Goonswarm Federation
#209 - 2014-07-21 05:53:05 UTC
I have been playing eve since 2009. I see this change doing wonderful things for this game. You will see whole fleets of hulks 256 strong with 5 rorquals. I look forward to the team's that CCP is implementing those teams will make building in null so profitable that high-sec miners will have to move to low-sec or join a null alliance.

CCP thank you for this wonderful expansion that you bring us.
Aineko Macx
#210 - 2014-07-21 06:02:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Aineko Macx
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
Aineko Macx wrote:
Too bad CCP missed a chance to reduce complexity by making all ore variants compress to one single type and just vary either required input amount of ore or output quantity to differentiate.


That isn't complexity - it's diversity my friend. Oversimplification is the enemy.

There is no gameplay to be gained from it other than industry needing more calculations. And let's not forget that one of the main arguments for this industry revamp is reducing complexity (yeah, I know Roll).
Guttripper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#211 - 2014-07-21 06:45:26 UTC
HarlyQ wrote:
I have been playing eve since 2009. I see this change doing wonderful things for this game. You will see whole fleets of hulks 256 strong with 5 rorquals. I look forward to the team's that CCP is implementing those teams will make building in null so profitable that high-sec miners will have to move to low-sec or join a null alliance.

CCP thank you for this wonderful expansion that you bring us.

So if a bunch of high sec players decide to call it a day and leave the game instead of the dream you have of them moving into low sec or renter space, does that mean you fine Goons will be playing with yourselves then...?
HarlyQ
harlyq syrokos investment station
Goonswarm Federation
#212 - 2014-07-21 07:07:36 UTC
I play with myself all the time I have many alts that I enjoy playing on and mining. I love this patch it fixs the compression problem with ores and 425mms. The UI for industry is finally getting a makeover the teams will make the industry much more competitive. If you quit over this patch contact me I might want to buy your eve character.
Pheusia
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#213 - 2014-07-21 07:58:11 UTC
HarlyQ wrote:
I play with myself all the time


Go on...
Sir HyperChrist
Persnickety Pilots
#214 - 2014-07-21 11:09:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Sir HyperChrist
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Walked to work in the rain to answer a bunch of questions :P
*snip*

Most of these changes did not specifically consider T2 BPOs either way from a balance perspective, we're mainly focused on balancing invention properly. As to transparency, see the blueprint stats thread I linked earlier, that's where the discussion is occurring.



I looked into that link a few days ago, and if it's the same one, it looked a month old and quite dead, and it skipped in T2 BPO's as the ranks weren't yet publicised back then. I kept track of all the devblogs around and after fanfest, and the ranks were only mentioned as a "system" without any numbers for specific bpo's and categories. I always assumed buildtimes wouldn't change substantially from the current situation. (max +/- 20%)

Besides admitting you haven't looked at T2 BPO's from a balance perspective, you havn't answered my main question: are you gonna look at finetuning those ranks to make them match the current stats more, not being off by a factor of up to 4?

edit:
you replied to it a post later:
Quote:
With these changes, most things are pretty much consistent and coherent. We're very keen to avoid messing with it to make everything arbitrary again in order to match up with the current arbitrary balance. We know we're changing things, we're not convinced that those changes are necessarily bad over the medium term.


You balanced build times to match invention times, filling slots on a character with research and manufacturing similarly. This balance has no basis: as you noticed somewhere else, it's only the slowest step in the production chain that limits the throughput. Making buildtimes shorter, won't change invention output. you could just change the 300 seconds base buildtime to 75 (complete compensation for the factor 4, without editing the rank of a category), and invention as a total would remain balanced as it is now.

Also: How can you explain that a T2 frig has the same rank as a supercarrier? You added a *4 multiplier for supercarriers, you can add a *0.25 multiplier for T2 frigs too, to the same effect.

more than one way to fix buildtimes, without changing the "arbitrary" balance of invention.

my 2 cents....
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#215 - 2014-07-21 11:36:22 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
El Zylcho wrote:
Regarding costs used to calculate the system activity index, where the cost of inputs is used to determine the index, e.g., manufacturing, are the costs take from the specific system, constellation or Jita pricing? And, are the costs buy or sell or a median or ??? Are input costs averaged from the previous month or based on current, "real time" prices?

If the input costs are based on local system values for inputs, what if such inputs do not exist?

It also sounds like there will be an API call which can report the % that a given system has of overall global production hours. Is this so? And, it seems like a bit of self-defeating detail - i.e., can it show which system has cap production going on and so forth?

I know some of this was addressed in early posts but I cannot find the threads now.


- It's a managed number based on universe-wide market activity.
- It is possible to get a limited amount of intel through this system, yes. We're broadly comfortable with this outcome.

Aineko Macx wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Rank data is fairly trivially reverse-engineerable from ME/TE research times, and it should also be authored as an attribute on all blueprints.

As there are a few exceptions there's no clean way to reverse rank from the research times. I now found the new dgmAttributeType id=1955, however the description is confusing: "This is a bookkeeping attribute for blueprints, which will hopefully be deprecated by the end of 2014". Why would you remove that?

Another question: You are keeping the invTypeMaterials table so reprocessing values can be calculated for items which have no Blueprint data like ores, yes?

CCP Greyscale wrote:
Aineko Macx wrote:
Too bad CCP missed a chance to reduce complexity by making all ore variants compress to one single type and just vary either required input amount of ore or output quantity to differentiate.

I was talking with Ytterbium about this yesterday, it's a thing we are considering.

Please do it, it will remove unneeded complexity from the decision which compressed ores to acquire.


ME and TE research *shouldn't* have any exceptions, that I can remember off the top of my head. That's the shortest formula in my datasheet, it's just rank*105.

That attribute is hopefully going to be removed once all blueprint-related data move fully into our new xml-based data, at which point rank will likely be stored in that new data. For now we wanted to have an in-data record of the rank number, so we created an attribute to store it in the meantime.

Type materials will exist for the foreseeable future, as they will still be the authoritative source for refining outputs. Manufacturing inputs will not be bound to these numbers, so we have the opportunity to change build and refine numbers independently if we want to.

Mistah Ewedynao wrote:
Also why have T2 Frigs got the same rank as Supercarriers and T2 Destroyers the same as Titans? Really?

Damn good question that legitimizes some of Dinsdales conspiracy stuff.

Greyscale, I'll ask it....Are you a Goon???


Because the numbers happened to line up that way in order to keep T1 and capital build and research times in the right areas, and because the amount of T2 BPO research expected to happen at this point is sufficiently low that it's not really relevant. I honestly don't see what the conspiracy theory is here.


Further, regarding conspiracy theories generally:

1) We have better and more interesting things to do with our time than trying to secretly influence which group of our customers have the upper hand in our game. Really.
2) We are all more interested in being able to eg pay our rent (a thing which is important to us) than we are in trying to force large numbers of our customers to quit for whatever tinfoil made-up ideological reason you're thinking of (a thing which is not remotely interesting or important to us). Really.

I know this isn't likely to change anyone's mind, but there's really not more that can be said.

Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


I particularly love the bold-faced lie CCP told re: capital Blueprints and "no functional value lost".
Guess they have not bothered to get on Sisi and actually see the waste on manufacturing capitals now, compared to the waste today on TQ.

Go ahead CCP, go onto Sisi and look at the waste of my ME 6 Moros BPO, my ME 3 Archon and Thanato BPO's, and then compare them to the waste with the BPO's they have been morphed into on Sisi.

Go ahead, then come back and tell me how that "no functional value was lost."


That was because of a bug in the migration script, which we fixed thanks to your input. Thank you!

Sir HyperChrist wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Walked to work in the rain to answer a bunch of questions :P
*snip*

Most of these changes did not specifically consider T2 BPOs either way from a balance perspective, we're mainly focused on balancing invention properly. As to transparency, see the blueprint stats thread I linked earlier, that's where the discussion is occurring.



I looked into that link a few days ago, and if it's the same one, it looked a month old and quite dead, and it skipped in T2 BPO's as the ranks weren't yet publicised back then. I kept track of all the devblogs around and after fanfest, and the ranks were only mentioned as a "system" without any numbers for specific bpo's and categories. I always assumed buildtimes wouldn't change substantially from the current situation. (max +/- 20%)

Besides admitting you haven't looked at T2 BPO's from a balance perspective, you havn't answered my main question: are you gonna look at finetuning those ranks to make them match the current stats more, not being off by a factor of up to 4?

thanks


Here specifically is the post containing all the (I believe final) rank data:...
ChYph3r
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#216 - 2014-07-21 11:38:33 UTC
Pheusia wrote:
HarlyQ wrote:
I play with myself all the time


Go on...



its not exactly the greatest sight, you will have to hit the "unsee" button. just a warning.

Want to find all the podcasts around EVE Online visit http://evepodcasts.com @chyph3r  on Twitter

Rothana Haldane
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#217 - 2014-07-21 13:37:20 UTC
ChYph3r wrote:
Pheusia wrote:
HarlyQ wrote:
I play with myself all the time


Go on...



its not exactly the greatest sight, you will have to hit the "unsee" button. just a warning.


Just don't do it in coms like you did last time, was a bit distracting.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#218 - 2014-07-21 13:53:37 UTC
El Zylcho wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

I have been one sub for quite some time now, but fired up training on a second char.
That second char training, though it is for a PvP char, will be lapsing in 15 days.
That is one more plex / subscription that CCP loses.

But I am sure that some null sec cartel member will easily fill that void with a new account or 2nd char training.
In fact, I am sure that the null sec cartels will easily fill all the voids created with the exodus of high sec players.


One interesting aspect is that (probably) WH PVP corps will be able to target null sec production hubs much easier for PVP assaults. Given that active production systems can be discerned by these API changes:

/industry/systems/ (cache: 1 hour)
vnd.ccp.eve.IndustrySystemCollection-v1
Lists the cost index for installing industry jobs per type of activity. This does not include wormhole space.

and the /industry/teams values, it seems likely while some folks will be busy war decc'ing high sec small cooperative efforts off the grid (yes, please every get into the same cattle car to save on team fees), WH folks have the ability to exploit access to production systems by following the API entries above? Knowing the cost to install a job by job type and what a team costs by specialty type seems like freebie intel?

And, I'd chalk this up as a flaw in the " % of systems hours / global hours" attempt to tax production. The algorithm would have been better focused on the mechanics of selling and point of manufacture vs point of sale deltas. This part of the whole approach will always yield feedback that makes the obfuscation elements of the game less realistic, aka, free intel.


Yes, I don't doubt that wormhole crews will be dropping in to say "hi" to some null sec and low sec indy POS's. Only problem with that is that they can only harass, not actually take down a POS. No chance any organized entity will allow a wormhole to stay up in their k-space, especially if it was used as a staging point in an attack.
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#219 - 2014-07-21 14:10:49 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

Yes, I don't doubt that wormhole crews will be dropping in to say "hi" to some null sec and low sec indy POS's. Only problem with that is that they can only harass, not actually take down a POS. No chance any organized entity will allow a wormhole to stay up in their k-space, especially if it was used as a staging point in an attack.

don't see a problem with that, though i am gratified you are now looking out for us in nullsec
Rick Silva
Doomheim
#220 - 2014-07-21 14:21:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Rick Silva
I'll keep my opinions to myself.