These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Combining Invention BPCS with identical me/te

Author
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#1 - 2016-10-29 12:23:42 UTC  |  Edited by: PopeUrban
Situation:

Your industrial element does a lot of invention. You do multiple day crafting runs of t1s and other materials before using the t2 BPCs to craft your final T2 products. Because your research outpaces your input/output stream of physical goods (because you want to overproduce invention BPCs to safeguard against RNG failure ******* with your assembly line) you end up with a hangar full of identical 10 run BPCs that don't stack, can't be locked down, and take up pages and pages and pages.

Solution:

Allow players a dragdrop/rightclick "Combine Identical" to simply smash BPCs with the same me/te values in to a single BPC.

So, two 10 run 2/4 BPC, combine, now you have a single 20 run 2/4 BPC. Drag a third on on to it, now you have a 30 run. rightclick it in hangar "combine all identical" now you have a 300 run BPC and don't have to scroll until the heat death of the ******* universe to get to the rest of your hangar or make separate cans just to organize massive stacks of invention BPCs.

This wouldnt advantage/disadvantage anyone as its usually less efficient to run a single 200 run job than it is to run multiple 10 run jobs over and over. It would however make industrial hangar management a lot less annoying and save me a shitload of wear and tear on my scroll wheel.

Because, you know, if I know my production setup runs 15 ques of tech 2 production... I can just smash all that **** down in to exactly 15 BPCs.

Now that you have the ability to create massive run count BPCs, it may actually be worth the voting time to secure and lock them down, allowing a single locked BPC to have runs appended to it with the new function after being locked.

It would also be pretty dope if we could just add runs remaining and me/te numbers to the BPC icons with little numbers in the upper left/ lower left corners in blue and red numbers respectively so we don't have to info a hangar full of ******* blueprints to find the one with 5 runs left in a sea of ones with 10 runs left.

Discuss.
Cristl
#2 - 2016-10-29 13:22:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Cristl
Nothing to discuss. The database code says "no".

Now, here's the weather.

Edit: My reply reads a bit snarky, and that wasn't my intent. I'd be all for your suggestion, but apparently it can't happen.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#3 - 2016-10-29 13:28:40 UTC
Stacking BPC has issues with number of runs left, because they could be different.

While you wait for CCP to solve this may I suggest the use of cargo containers in you hanger areas and then extensive use of inventory filtering.
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#4 - 2016-10-29 15:20:28 UTC
Cristl wrote:
Nothing to discuss. The database code says "no".

Now, here's the weather.

Edit: My reply reads a bit snarky, and that wasn't my intent. I'd be all for your suggestion, but apparently it can't happen.


"legacy code" was also the reason we would apperantly never get important updates to the POS, or why the old ME system was fo granular/annoying. Yet at some point accessibility and a better overall user experience won out. The excuse "CCP can't" isn't something even CCP is willing to accept any more. The past several patches have been HUGE facelifts and alterations to the code base.

Not only that, "runs remaining" is a pretty simple integer to track. Even within the existing structure that's a malleable number, so it's not so much of a data issue within the existing structure of runs remaining at the very least, which is a three digit value.

Donnachadh wrote:
Stacking BPC has issues with number of runs left, because they could be different.

While you wait for CCP to solve this may I suggest the use of cargo containers in you hanger areas and then extensive use of inventory filtering.


Not talking about stacking BPCs. I'm talking about combining the runs remaining on identical ones. You're not stacking three 10 run 2/4s. You're deleting two of them and adding 20 runs to the third, functionally.

So, say you have three identical BPCs, one has 15 runs, one has 7 runs, one has three.

Drag the 3 run BPC on top of the 15 run BPC, confimation will ask "are you sure you want to combine these blueprints? this operation can not be reversed" you click yes, the 3 run BPC is gone, the 15 run BPC is now an 18 run BPC. You're simply adding to runs remaining rather than subtracting runs remaining (which the game already does)
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#5 - 2016-10-29 16:13:25 UTC
Cristl wrote:
Nothing to discuss. The database code says "no".

Now, here's the weather.

Edit: My reply reads a bit snarky, and that wasn't my intent. I'd be all for your suggestion, but apparently it can't happen.



It could be done, just not as a stack.

As a new type of lab job that allows combining two (or more?) BPCs with identical ME/TE into one object with more runs, though, that would be totally doable.

Not sure I love the idea, but it doesn't have the technical problems of actual stacking.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
#6 - 2016-10-29 18:49:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Gadget Helmsdottir
Cristl wrote:

Edit: My reply reads a bit snarky, and that wasn't my intent.


ShockedQuestionShocked


Yes it was!

It was good snark, too.

No need to be ashamed.


--Gadget

Work smarter, not harder. --Scrooge McDuck, an eminent old-Earth economist

Given an hour to save New Eden, how would respected scientist, Albertus Eisenstein compose his thoughts? "Fifty-five minutes to define the problem; save the galaxy in five."

PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#7 - 2016-10-29 22:01:16 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Cristl wrote:
Nothing to discuss. The database code says "no".

Now, here's the weather.

Edit: My reply reads a bit snarky, and that wasn't my intent. I'd be all for your suggestion, but apparently it can't happen.



It could be done, just not as a stack.

As a new type of lab job that allows combining two (or more?) BPCs with identical ME/TE into one object with more runs, though, that would be totally doable.

Not sure I love the idea, but it doesn't have the technical problems of actual stacking.



Curious what you find problematic about the idea in concept.

Is there some sort of economic or balance impact you see that I don't? Far as I can tell its just a QoL change.
Violet Hurst
Fedaya Recon
#8 - 2016-10-30 06:34:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Violet Hurst
PopeUrban wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Cristl wrote:
Nothing to discuss. The database code says "no".

Now, here's the weather.

Edit: My reply reads a bit snarky, and that wasn't my intent. I'd be all for your suggestion, but apparently it can't happen.



It could be done, just not as a stack.

As a new type of lab job that allows combining two (or more?) BPCs with identical ME/TE into one object with more runs, though, that would be totally doable.

Not sure I love the idea, but it doesn't have the technical problems of actual stacking.



Curious what you find problematic about the idea in concept.

Is there some sort of economic or balance impact you see that I don't? Far as I can tell its just a QoL change.


I think he means the implementation could be done in a less invasive way when done as a job instead of changing how stacks work.

When it comes to economic impacts there is balance via tedium. E.g. I'm making nice profits with certain low isk, short production time T2 modules atm, since apparently nobody wants to be bothered to set their production queues every 4 hours. Also it would weaken the position of augmentation decryptors for small and medium T2 rig production.
Please note that I'm not opposed to the idea, I just wanted to point out that it does have an economic impact.
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#9 - 2016-10-30 07:08:55 UTC
Violet Hurst wrote:
PopeUrban wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Cristl wrote:
Nothing to discuss. The database code says "no".

Now, here's the weather.

Edit: My reply reads a bit snarky, and that wasn't my intent. I'd be all for your suggestion, but apparently it can't happen.



It could be done, just not as a stack.

As a new type of lab job that allows combining two (or more?) BPCs with identical ME/TE into one object with more runs, though, that would be totally doable.

Not sure I love the idea, but it doesn't have the technical problems of actual stacking.



Curious what you find problematic about the idea in concept.

Is there some sort of economic or balance impact you see that I don't? Far as I can tell its just a QoL change.


I think he means the implementation could be done in a less invasive way when done as a job instead of changing how stacks work.

When it comes to economic impacts there is balance via tedium. E.g. I'm making nice profits with certain low isk, short production time T2 modules atm, since apparently nobody wants to be bothered to set their production queues every 4 hours. Also it would make augmentation decryptors less mandatory for small and medium T2 rig production.
Please note that I'm not opposed to the idea, I just wanted to point out that it does have an economic impact.


I'm not convinced that people would be willing to give up a research slot just to smash two BPCs together. They're not getting a whole hell of a lot out of it, and the people most likely to need such a feature (people inventing t2 BPCS) hold those research lines at a high premium because they're constantly running through multi-day RNG jobs. The opportunity cost of leaving a line open just to combine BPCs seems like too high a price to pay when you factor in copying and inventing.

You'd be losing production efficiency for something that doesn't actually increase your production efficiency, and if used improperly can actually be used to accidentally decrease it in stead (by over-combining BPCs)

Note that I'm not suggesting the ability to SPLIT a BPC because that would actually have a huge economic impact. More BPCs means more simultaneous production lines after all. Less BPCs at higher run counts just means less hangar interface taken up by duplicates.

I'm also unclear on how this would in any way effect the need or lack therof for decryptors, since decryptors are consumed in the invention stage, when the BPCs are being created, not per job cycle time when they are being built. Am I misinformed about producing said rigs?

As for balance via tedium, I'm not sure how valuable that is as a general concept. Sounds suspiciously like cost-based balance for supers which was a notoriously bad idea. That's why the faction fortizar has that crazy hard universe limit. because it doesn't presume rarity. It enforces it directly. The idea of balancing around expected player behavior rather than possible player behavior is a balancing lever that doesn't usually work very well.
Violet Hurst
Fedaya Recon
#10 - 2016-10-30 07:59:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Violet Hurst
Preface: Forum ate my original reply. Sad

@science slot usage: I think we're talking more about 3 second "jobs" here than about real ones. What people mean in this regard is that the actual coding would be easier to do than altering the way items behave.

@decryptor usage: By now augmentation decryptors don't actually lower your invention cost in many cases, but are used purely for the convenience of not having to deal with lots of 1-run BPCs.

@balance via tedium: It's not the most elegant concept and should probably not be used if other avenues are open. However just the fact that Eve's largest alliance prides itself with measuring activities in ISK/effort instead of ISK/hour hints on it not being completely ineffective.



EDIT: Oh and let's not forget people paying Blizzard so they don't have to play their game (Maxlevel chars).
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#11 - 2016-10-30 08:22:54 UTC  |  Edited by: PopeUrban
@slots - no I get that, what I'm saying is that in most/all T2 production schemes, research slots are most commonly reserved and constantly running multi-day jobs. Now one could argue "well, just do the combines before starting the next job" and that would certainly work well for a single player, the whole things gets a bit messy when you have an operation (as I do) that comprises multiple people logging in at different times doing different parts of the production chain.

I'm not even sure how you'de implement it as a job though. you'd either have to adjust the jobs interface to add a combine button, or, hilariously, add a blueprint... to combine blueprints in to other blueprints. Seems like a largely UI-less system (text dialogues and rightclick menu) would be the most direct route.

@decryptors - That's an overall problem with decryptors that could be its own topic. Decryptors kinda fell off, which in turn impacted exploration a bit, but this does in fact replace decryptors for that use, yeah. I think decryptors could use some functional overhauling but its sort of beyond the scope of this. That said the purpose of decryptors, at least in theory, is massaging invention RNG to increase profitability. Impacting their use as a QOL enhancer while replacing them with a better QOL enhancer seems OK to me I guess. Provided we make them great again at the same time (again, its own topic)

@tedium - Well yeah, but super balance via cost wasn't completely ineffective either. Point is its not future-proof, and sits around begging to be broken and replaced with something else the moment someone decides to break it. As a guy that has had to re-re-re-re-re-engineer software myself, I'm not sure "it has visible potential for failure, but it hasn't failed yet" is how I, personally, would sign off on a system.

@blizzard - That's more a patch on the fundamentally flawed nature of trying to balance a progression based system that is designed around consumption and abandonment of content and rationalize it with the need to bring in new players. EVE doesn't really share that design problem. All of EVE's content is either designed to be sustainable, or if designed to be consumed, designed to be consumed efficiently without the neew ofr large groups of other players around to enable that consumption.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#12 - 2016-10-30 14:18:55 UTC
PopeUrban wrote:
Not talking about stacking BPCs. I'm talking about combining the runs remaining on identical ones. You're not stacking three 10 run 2/4s. You're deleting two of them and adding 20 runs to the third, functionally.

If the clutter of BPC is such a problem for you why do you create them with only 10 runs, why not 100, or 1,000 or 10,000 instead?
My guess is that there is a 10 run limit on that BPC, given that your idea does not simply combine them, it must at some point stack them as well.

Yes, yes I know then CCP can change the max number of runs and perhaps they should, but that gets us back to my comments WHILE you wait for CCP to take care of this cargo containers and filters are at least a partial answer to your problem.

I still wonder if this is such an issue for you why do you have all of these BPC laying around with just a few runs left on them?
Why not do all 10 runs at once and be done with it?
Or you could bundle them and sell them on contract.
Or you know since the cost to make them is rather minimal you could simply trash them and be done with it.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#13 - 2016-10-30 15:14:48 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
PopeUrban wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Cristl wrote:
Nothing to discuss. The database code says "no".

Now, here's the weather.

Edit: My reply reads a bit snarky, and that wasn't my intent. I'd be all for your suggestion, but apparently it can't happen.



It could be done, just not as a stack.

As a new type of lab job that allows combining two (or more?) BPCs with identical ME/TE into one object with more runs, though, that would be totally doable.

Not sure I love the idea, but it doesn't have the technical problems of actual stacking.



Curious what you find problematic about the idea in concept.

Is there some sort of economic or balance impact you see that I don't? Far as I can tell its just a QoL change.


It would allow some ME benefits that are not currently possible on items only available as single or very low run BPCs. Admittedly, it is probably not a huge net impact.

I can think of a few items I'll take a look at when I get back to a proper computer.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#14 - 2016-10-30 15:35:52 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Donnachadh wrote:
PopeUrban wrote:
Not talking about stacking BPCs. I'm talking about combining the runs remaining on identical ones. You're not stacking three 10 run 2/4s. You're deleting two of them and adding 20 runs to the third, functionally.

If the clutter of BPC is such a problem for you why do you create them with only 10 runs, why not 100, or 1,000 or 10,000 instead?
My guess is that there is a 10 run limit on that BPC, given that your idea does not simply combine them, it must at some point stack them as well.

Yes, yes I know then CCP can change the max number of runs and perhaps they should, but that gets us back to my comments WHILE you wait for CCP to take care of this cargo containers and filters are at least a partial answer to your problem.

I still wonder if this is such an issue for you why do you have all of these BPC laying around with just a few runs left on them?
Why not do all 10 runs at once and be done with it?
Or you could bundle them and sell them on contract.
Or you know since the cost to make them is rather minimal you could simply trash them and be done with it.




He's clearly talking about invention output, and the number of runs has nothing to do with the max the BPC can actually have.

I plug in hundreds of invention runs at a time and the sheer volume of bpcs I possess is not something the industry window's hamsters can handle gracefully. Your "solutions" are useless, as I don't much fancy pissing away time and money.

You should spend less time opining on subjects about which you know nothing.

There are some side effects, chiefly, far more passive T2 production, and some edge cases with items that don't currently benefit from ME due to volumes too low to reduce on a single run. I have concerns about both, but BPC management really is quite obnoxious.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#15 - 2016-10-30 16:56:02 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

He's clearly talking about invention output, and the number of runs has nothing to do with the max the BPC can actually have.

I plug in hundreds of invention runs at a time and the sheer volume of bpcs I possess is not something the industry window's hamsters can handle gracefully. Your "solutions" are useless, as I don't much fancy pissing away time and money.

You should spend less time opining on subjects about which you know nothing.

There are some side effects, chiefly, far more passive T2 production, and some edge cases with items that don't currently benefit from ME due to volumes too low to reduce on a single run. I have concerns about both, but BPC management really is quite obnoxious.


The biggest use case I could think of is light drones. Those things are so ******* annoying to build in invention batches that I could see a real benefit there. For right now I just don't bother.
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#16 - 2016-10-31 04:14:17 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
PopeUrban wrote:
Not talking about stacking BPCs. I'm talking about combining the runs remaining on identical ones. You're not stacking three 10 run 2/4s. You're deleting two of them and adding 20 runs to the third, functionally.

If the clutter of BPC is such a problem for you why do you create them with only 10 runs, why not 100, or 1,000 or 10,000 instead?
My guess is that there is a 10 run limit on that BPC, given that your idea does not simply combine them, it must at some point stack them as well.

Yes, yes I know then CCP can change the max number of runs and perhaps they should, but that gets us back to my comments WHILE you wait for CCP to take care of this cargo containers and filters are at least a partial answer to your problem.

I still wonder if this is such an issue for you why do you have all of these BPC laying around with just a few runs left on them?
Why not do all 10 runs at once and be done with it?
Or you could bundle them and sell them on contract.
Or you know since the cost to make them is rather minimal you could simply trash them and be done with it.


Number of runs per BPC depends on the specific item you're inventing. You can not simply 'create a BPC with more runs'

It does in fact simply combine them. You know, when you're doing 20 invention runs in a job, it spits out 12 10 run BPCs that are exactly the same. Now multiply that by 5. Now imagine you have a hangar full of pages and pages of of 10 run BPCs.

Because you don't get to choose how many runs are on the BPCs when you do invention because of the RNG balance of the invention process. They're hard limited at very low run counts usually. So when you're producing tech 2 stuff at scale there is no way to avoid outputting massive hangar pages worth of low run count BPCs.

Which is fine. The idea here is simply a way to take those BPCs, which you're already created, and turn that hangar page of 50 BPCs in to 5 BPCS... or one BPC.

I don't even understand what you're talking about with stacking. A stack of items is, literally, a stack. A BPC with more runs on it is a single item. The idea here being "take the results of invention jobs and smash them together in to higher run count BPCs"

Obviously you can put them in containers. The point here is that hey, maybe we can make it so you don't have to because inventing five different items could be cleanly output so you have five BPCs in the hangar in stead of fifty. Once you can actively add runs to a BPC in this manner it would actually make sense to be able to lock down BPCs in corp hangars as well, since you can tack runs on to the locked BPC through that combination and have the same kind of blueprint security you have for BPOS.
Mordachai
Eternal Darkness.
Initiative Mercenaries
#17 - 2016-10-31 07:54:57 UTC
I must say i agree to this simply because needing to put the bpc's into containers simply because they are over 1k of each type is annoying.
then having to have 2 or more cans for a certain type of bpc's that are EXACTELY identical.

A new indy job to combine bpc's or something sounds like a good idea.

2 years ago or so when i was at my hight of bpc production i had over 100k bpc's and it was a nightmare to maintain a good archive structure for all the bpc's.

p.s. +1 for OP post
Do Little
Bluenose Trading
#18 - 2016-10-31 08:06:54 UTC
Merging T2 BPC's would grant a de facto ME and TE bonus. ME2 TE4 is pretty useless for a 10 run BPC but get 100 runs and it makes a worthwhile difference.

For stacking, the database would need an entry for every possible combination of ME, TE and runs for every blueprint - not practical.
Mordachai
Eternal Darkness.
Initiative Mercenaries
#19 - 2016-10-31 09:01:04 UTC
Do Little wrote:
Merging T2 BPC's would grant a de facto ME and TE bonus. ME2 TE4 is pretty useless for a 10 run BPC but get 100 runs and it makes a worthwhile difference.

For stacking, the database would need an entry for every possible combination of ME, TE and runs for every blueprint - not practical.


That is possible with the current BPO's so we should be able to do it with those that exist t2 bpo's of ?
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#20 - 2016-10-31 09:21:48 UTC  |  Edited by: PopeUrban
Do Little wrote:
Merging T2 BPC's would grant a de facto ME and TE bonus. ME2 TE4 is pretty useless for a 10 run BPC but get 100 runs and it makes a worthwhile difference.

For stacking, the database would need an entry for every possible combination of ME, TE and runs for every blueprint - not practical.



Second time this has come up.

My thinking here is whether or not the ME/TE of invetion BPCs being useless in many cases is intentional on CCP's part, or if its just a quirk of math/rounding error.

Keep in mind the base 2/4 on invention is pretty much standard.

So, either it buffs some BPCs and fixes what's basically an unintentional rounding error, or somehow CCP decided to leave useless ME/TE on blueprints that they could have easily set to 0/0 in stead?

Basically the blueprints we're talking about here are points where the base cost of the item is so low that the ME/TE bonus ends up being less than one.

So yeah, it's worth thinking about, but CCP would need to clear up if those values being worthless is intended, or just an unavoidable byproduct of using stock ME/TE for all invention BPCs.

Also, yeah, stacking (IDK why people keep bringing it up) wouldn't work well for a variety of reasons. No real way around that. Nobody here is asking for blueprint stacking, just a way to have invention, specifically, create less interface clutter.
123Next page