These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Blueprint data adjustments thread

First post First post
Author
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2014-05-19 16:55:31 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Hi everyone,

Following on from the discussion in the devblog thread here, I've decided it's probably time to create a proper thread to discuss revisions to blueprint data, rather than continuing it at the tail end of a 60+ page thread.


Here is the situation:
- What we are talking about is any "static" blueprint data, eg times and materials for different job types, plus the max runs attribute
- We are already going to have to change every blueprint in the game, and to this end have tools set up so that any systemic change to existing numbers takes a couple of minutes to implement, provided it's doing math based on other attributes that are in the same data or otherwise easily available
- We do have our fingers in the industry code right now, so small changes to eg formulas are on the table if we can justify them; larger sweeping changes are *not* on the table
- We are erring on the side of maintaining the current balance for things that are not on our list of goals (below), but we are happy with any reasonable balance disruptions in pursuit of those goals
- We are erring on the side of preserving the status quo in invention over preserving the status quo for T2 BPOs; note that, as previous point, we are not specifically targeting T2 BPOs in any particular way
- We are expecting to mechanically rework invention following the Crius release, so we do not want to create wasted work by making too many changes to it for Crius
- Simple things that make industry better are very much in our ballpark!

Specific goals we are currently pursuing:
- We would like to make copy times consistently lower than build times, so building from copies is the optimal play (dovetails with our starbase changes, for example)
- We are rebasing invention TE/ME values to all be positive or 0 at all times, removing negative ME/TE from invention outputs, as this solves a number of issues with removing extra materials
- We would generally like all blueprint data to follow a coherent pattern; we're still discussing how far we would like to take this
- For at least non-invention blueprints, we are reviewing max run numbers to alleviate issues in certain areas eg cap construction, nanite paste
- We need to deal with the interaction between the first point on this list, Gallente Outpost copy-time bonuses and T2 BPOs
- Removal of waste necessitates an increase in all manufacturing costs
- Removal of negative TE/ME probably requires an increase in T2 build costs to balance out component demand before and after

Specific changes I am looking at making right now:
- Copy time to 80% of build time base; TE and skills mean it works out slightly faster copying than building
- Setting rank to equal size*metalevel; rank is defined in this devblog, and I will explain "size" below
- Possibly changing build times to be a function of rank; otherwise modules and charges (among other things) may need to break the copy/build paradigm to avoid a big nerf
- I'm considering changing invention times so that build time is generally twice copy+invention, to maintain balance across character manufacture and research slots; this also has the advantage of giving invention time a clear driving force
- As above, normalizing max run count on things that aren't invented from to make them less tedious to build from in some cases


So, with all that said... discuss, and also suggest! We're looking for two things in this thread: discussion of things proposed in this post, and also suggestions for other things we could do to improve the overall blueprint dataset or elements thereof. If there's something in the way the numbers relate to each other, either generally or for specific products, that's always bothered you, please explain it in this thread and we'll look at changing it :)

Things we would prioritize if we were making suggestions in this thread, in descending priority:
- Explain what the problem is, and why. This is the most important thing for us as developers: to understand what you're trying to solve
- Explain a simple, clear solution - preferably one that doesn't require code changes :)
- Give specific examples and/or numbers!


Thanks,
-Greyscale



SIZE:
1 - frigate/destroyer modules (power draw between 2 and 34)
2 - cruiser/battlecruiser modules (power draw between 35 and 299) and all "unsized" modules (power draw below 2)
3 - battleship modules (power draw between 300 and 4999)
4 - capital modules (power draw above 5000)
20 - frigates
30 - destroyers
40 - cruisers
50 - battlecruisers
60 - battleships
200 - most capitals
400 - supercarriers
600 - titans

Still working out how this will apply to eg structures, it shouldn't be hard, it just needs the math doing :)
Aluka 7th
#2 - 2014-05-19 17:04:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Aluka 7th
If I understood correctly, all T2 items/ships that are manufactured mainly from BPO will have their price tag increased from increase in base material requirements? Ballpark +20-30% increase to compensate to invention buff.

What about RIGS, where do they fall? 1-4 size?
Apelacja
Sad Najwyzszy
#3 - 2014-05-19 17:08:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Apelacja
ranks look valid for me.

Still i have some doubts about decryptors and invention jobs for JF/BS size hulls. There is totally no use of 1 run decryptors if the difference is going to be so small. ( eg 1-2%).


sry edited bad read
ShesAForumAlt
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2014-05-19 17:09:08 UTC  |  Edited by: ShesAForumAlt
Edit: NVM, I derped and read it wrong. Carry on.

This is totally my main. 

Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
#5 - 2014-05-19 17:11:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Money Makin Mitch
Just flat-out remove the T2 BPOs or seed them on market. Compensate owners with a bunch of copies. They've had more than enough time and opportunity to capitalize off their originals already. Further compensation is not needed as the values of T2 BPOs are due to the Greater Fool theory in action.

The greater fool theory states that the price of an object is determined not by its intrinsic value, but rather by irrational beliefs and expectations of market participants. A price can be justified by a rational buyer under the belief that another party is willing to pay an even higher price.Or one may rationally have the expectation that the item can be resold to a "greater fool" later.

Simply put, some people might lose isk because they speculated on the prints gaining in value without end - that is their own fault and such greed should not be rewarded.
Aluka 7th
#6 - 2014-05-19 17:11:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Aluka 7th
ShesAForumAlt wrote:
First things first:

CCP Greyscale wrote:

- I'm considering changing invention times so that build time is generally twice copy+invention, to maintain balance across character manufacture and research slots; this also has the advantage of giving invention time a clear driving force


Guessing you mean invention time would be twice copy + build? IE Invention = 2*Copy + Build, not Invention = 2*Copy + Invention?


IMHO I think he ment T2 BPC build time = 2*( T1 BPO copy time + T1 BPO invention time). T2 take longer to build then T1 version of same thing.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#7 - 2014-05-19 17:19:21 UTC
Aluka 7th wrote:
ShesAForumAlt wrote:
First things first:

CCP Greyscale wrote:

- I'm considering changing invention times so that build time is generally twice copy+invention, to maintain balance across character manufacture and research slots; this also has the advantage of giving invention time a clear driving force


Guessing you mean invention time would be twice copy + build? IE Invention = 2*Copy + Build, not Invention = 2*Copy + Invention?


IMHO I think he ment T2 BPC build time = T1 BPO copy time + T1 BPO invention time. T2 take longer to build then T1 version of same thing.


Yes, except 2x copy+invention to roughly account for invention failure rate :)

Also, please can we avoid talking about future changes to T2 BPOs in this thread; if you want to talk about that stuff *somewhere* take it to this blog feedback thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=340181

This thread is *just* about changing blueprint data, thanks :)
Aluka 7th
#8 - 2014-05-19 17:23:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Aluka 7th
No prob. Static data on these BPOs is wrong:

Capital Processor Overclocking Unit I Blueprint
Capital Drone Control Range Augmentor I Blueprint
Capital Drone Durability Enhancer I Blueprint
Capital Drone Mining Augmentor I Blueprint
Capital Drone Repair Augmentor I Blueprint
Capital Drone Scope Chip I Blueprint
Capital Drone Speed Augmentor I Blueprint
Capital Sentry Damage Augmentor I Blueprint
Capital Stasis Drone Augmentor I Blueprint

They have research/manufacture time of Large rig BPO and copy time between Small and Medium rig BPO.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#9 - 2014-05-19 17:24:58 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
- Copy time to 80% of build time base; TE and skills mean it works out slightly faster copying than building

I like the idea of making copy time 80% of base build time, as that makes a lot of sense in regards to copying from BPOs to manufacture.
CCP Greyscale wrote:
- I'm considering changing invention times so that build time is generally twice copy+invention, to maintain balance across character manufacture and research slots; this also has the advantage of giving invention time a clear driving force

This is where I disagree as I already mentioned in the previous thread. My proposal would be to split items into various (pre-existing) categories, and then work out ratios for them rather than putting a ratio on everything.

Having certain items which are still limited by manufacturing time would be good as that would help new inventors get into the market. I am working out under your new proposal that invention time would be the limiting factor for all BPO's (correct me if I am wrong).

Stuff like ammo for instance could be manufacture limited, as this has a dual benefit of meaning science skills are not as important in outcomes, due to the fact that invention process is only a small part of the overall chain.

Stuff like ships could be heavily invention limited, which means success in an invention job becomes that much more important, and getting skills to V would really matter.

Some items could be pretty balanced, for instance turret modules, with a roughly 1:1 ratio between invention and manufacturing.

Also, have you considered the fact that if the job has a 50% success rate, then this is already doubling the ratio of invention slots needed due to the fact that half will fail.

Also just a side note, I would love to see decryptors play a very important role in allowing us to manipulate the properties of invented BPCs in the future, although that is probably outside the scope of these changes, but something that could be bared in mind.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#10 - 2014-05-19 17:31:06 UTC
Aluka 7th wrote:
No prob. Static data on these BPOs is wrong:

Capital Processor Overclocking Unit I Blueprint
Capital Drone Control Range Augmentor I Blueprint
Capital Drone Durability Enhancer I Blueprint
Capital Drone Mining Augmentor I Blueprint
Capital Drone Repair Augmentor I Blueprint
Capital Drone Scope Chip I Blueprint
Capital Drone Speed Augmentor I Blueprint
Capital Sentry Damage Augmentor I Blueprint
Capital Stasis Drone Augmentor I Blueprint

They have research/manufacture time of Large rig BPO and copy time between Small and Medium rig BPO.


This I can easily fix, thank you :)

Medalyn Isis wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
- I'm considering changing invention times so that build time is generally twice copy+invention, to maintain balance across character manufacture and research slots; this also has the advantage of giving invention time a clear driving force

This is where I disagree as I already mentioned in the previous thread. My proposal would be to split items into various (pre-existing) categories, and then work out ratios for them rather than putting a ratio on everything.

Having certain items which are still limited by manufacturing time would be good as that would help new inventors get into the market. I am working out under your new proposal that invention time would be the limiting factor for all BPO's (correct me if I am wrong).

Stuff like ammo for instance could be manufacture limited, as this has a dual benefit of meaning science skills are not as important in outcomes, due to the fact that invention process is only a small part of the overall chain.

Stuff like ships could be heavily invention limited, which means success in an invention job becomes that much more important, and getting skills to V would really matter.

Some items could be pretty balanced, for instance turret modules, with a roughly 1:1 ratio between invention and manufacturing.

Also, have you considered the fact that if the job has a 50% success rate, then this is already doubling the ratio of invention slots needed due to the fact that half will fail.

Also just a side note, I would love to see decryptors play a very important role in allowing us to manipulate the properties of invented BPCs in the future, although that is probably outside the scope of these changes, but something that could be bared in mind.


Yeah OK, I see the logic here, and I like it. Plus it's nice and clean from an implementational perspective. Once I get the broad strokes pinned down I'll revisit and try and work this in. And yeah, I'm factoring in 50% as a base rate, that's why it's build = 2x invention+copy :)

Decryptors in future - stay tuned!
ShesAForumAlt
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2014-05-19 17:31:38 UTC
On to actual content -
If copy time is roughly the same as build time, that means it'll take roughly twice as long to build from copies as building from the original. That seems to me that goes against the whole industry focused on building from copies concept. Is this because of the crazy good copy time modifiers?

You say that you want to make rank equal to size times meta level - first, I assume all T1 mods are assigned meta 1 instead of meta 0 currently, correct? OR its actually meta +1. Second, that seems like a nice way to fix it if build times are a function of rank so that T2 Build time is 5 times longer than T1. I like the idea of T2 things having a fixed relationship vs the base item. Its odd when say ammo (scorch L for example) is ~60 times as long of a build time from the T1 version vs say a T2 frigate which takes only about 5 or 6 times as long (Purifier vs Inquisitor). Having that relationship be fixed would be great, and I like just a flat multiplier better than looking at both copy and invention times.

This is totally my main. 

Odoya
Aeon Abraxas
#12 - 2014-05-19 17:32:54 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Specific changes I am looking at making right now:
- Copy time to 80% of build time base; TE and skills mean it works out slightly faster copying than building

- I'm considering changing invention times so that build time is generally twice copy+invention, to maintain balance across character manufacture and research slots; this also has the advantage of giving invention time a clear driving force





A thought on "driving force". (It's hard to give more specific feedback with the detail / desc provided). For T2 frigates, the low success rate and requirement to use consumables (datacores) makes the invention process quite deliberate in the sense it is a decision with consequences. Copying doesn't use consumables, invention uses up datacores.

If there is a chance that a T2 invention job for frigates will go up beyond the 12.5 hour (my POS time) run time, it'd be nice to have additional consideration such as an increased success rate (% increase from about .36) go up to reflect the sunk opportunity cost and sunk resources cost and to address the fact that copy slots compete for invention slot opportunities. If tying invention in some ratio to copy times means more copy slot time is required, without an increase in invention success rates, the invention success rate will become worse as a bottleneck.

If the invention success rates went up dramatically, tying the time / duration might have less of an impact
Gamer4liff
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2014-05-19 17:33:39 UTC
I don't really have much to add, except that I don't think T2 BPOs should get any benefit at all in Gal outposts, just straight up preclude them from getting any bonus there. I can't really see too many people producing a meaningful amount of T2 in Amarr outposts either, but you might want to consider whether they get that bonus or not either.

T2 BPOs should still get POS production/copy bonuses because of that added risk though of course.

On the whole I think you're on the right path with making all copy times shorter than build times. I don't envy you in your task to do this in a way that preserves the good parts of the status quo. Best of luck!

A comprehensive proposal for balancing T2 Production: here

Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger
Northern Coalition.
#14 - 2014-05-19 17:42:56 UTC
Be careful with the size*metalevel thing, especially if want to allow us to manufacture our own meta 2-4 modules (fozzies balancing presentation)

If the meta level no longer means quality but specialisation instead, you are up to some significant price differences based on this

How about something with tech level instead?
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger
Northern Coalition.
#15 - 2014-05-19 17:45:51 UTC
Oh, and if gallente outposts are such a problem, just remove the bonus for the time being, nobody uses it anyway
Kale Freeman
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2014-05-19 17:55:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Kale Freeman
For items which are invented from maxrun copies your copy time is going to be very high.

In general for a small item you need to make 2x (max_runs/10 copies + 1 invent) per item built.
For big items you need 2x (1 copy + 1 invent) per item built.


NOTE: The reason you need to make small items from maxrun copies is so that you end up with decent sized build jobs. If you make single run copies, and then invent them, you get single run builds. You queue up 10 build jobs on your manufacturer and only get 10 items. Your manufacturing queues sit idle 20 hours out of every 24 because the build jobs only took 4 hours.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#17 - 2014-05-19 17:55:33 UTC
Odoya wrote:
If the invention success rates went up dramatically, tying the time / duration might have less of an impact

It doesn't really matter from an inventors perspective. If inventing stuff gets harder, that just means less supply and prices increase. As long as there isn't a drastic change, then I'm not concerned personally. T2 BPO holders may get a slight buff, but they are already getting a heavy nerf as a result of getting rid of negative me and pe levels.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#18 - 2014-05-19 18:02:14 UTC
ShesAForumAlt wrote:
On to actual content - That seems to me that goes against the whole industry focused on building from copies concept. Is this because of the crazy good copy time modifiers?

The whole industry focused on building from copies only makes sense when building from high value BPOs. There is no reason why it should apply to invention as well. As you say, the advanced mobile lab will massively reduce the copy times, plus it is so easy to simply train up another copy alt if you are finding copying your bottleneck. I definitely do not see copying as becoming the bottleneck, even for items where max run copies are needed.
Hashi Lebwohl
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#19 - 2014-05-19 18:02:28 UTC
I do not see the comprehension that module blueprints and ship blueprints are very different.

Modules

For module blueprints most of the non-minerals are extra materials - a change put through a few nerfs ago to bring build costs for bpo and bpc's closer together - researching a module bpo only save some minerals.

Your changes will have a small reduction in the cost of most modules - unless you fix the build cost back up...at which stage you have to wonder why bother?

Ships

For ship blueprints the only extra materials are the ship itself and the RAM. So the effect of your ME changes will be a large fall in the material costs of invented ships - probably your intention - but your extra-material justification is just a fig leaf.



Agoma Akira
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2014-05-19 18:09:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Agoma Akira
please please please just finaly add blueprint specs to the inventory, specs being, ME/PE(TE) and runs remaining. and/or allow blueprints being linked to chat from the S&I display.

Now why does one want this,:
Case Bp user: allows him to quickly pick a print from inventory to move over to a pos or different station to build, research, copy or invent.

Case Bp seller: after a while some people (yes including me) have build up a nice supply of prints, wich are researched to various levels to supply builders with a print in there price range (high»low quality)

Now to sell those prints he/she will want to link a certain print to chat and sell to a buyer to avoid public contracts and having the actual talk and haggle with people as part of the game experiance taking time to do so and being compensated by not having fees.

Public contract fees example: capital prints wich on average are 1B+ start @ 9-10m fee +10m deposit and are limited to regional acceptance

thank you for your attention

:)
123Next pageLast page