These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

[Crius] Research feedback

First post First post
Author
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2014-06-10 13:31:31 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Ytterbium
Hello citizens of Singularity,

Here is the 100% official feedback thread for research changes that are hitting Singularity today!

There is still ongoing discussion of specifics of blueprint data in the below-linked thread, but otherwise please feed us back here as much as you like! This post will be updated with more clarifications as we discover what people are confused about :)

Blueprint and research changes

Things that are on SiSi now:
- As detailed in this blog:
-- ME and TE are now in the new 1-10 system
-- Blueprints are transitioned to the new numbers (TBC)
-- Wastage is gone
- As detailed most recently in this thread:
-- All blueprint data has been completely overhauled
-- Copy should be 80% of build time
--- Gallente outposts to be revisited
-- Ranks have been assigned based on a reasonably coherent system
-- Manufacture and research times have been adjusted based on ranks
-- Invention times are now half T2 build time plus T1 copy and invent time, for the relevant quantities, so the two roughly line up
-- Invention now removes one run from the input copy
-- Invention now based around +2 ME/+4 TE rather than -2 for each
-- T1 material costs increased by 1/0.9 to compensate for removal of wastage
-- T2 material costs increased by 1.5/0.9 to compensate for invention ME changes; this number is incorrect and will be fixed soon
-- T2 items currently require 2x the T1 item; this is incorrect and will be fixed soon
-- Some special-casing and fuzzing has been done in certain places to make numbers more interesting

{Update}

***SHOWINFO IS NOT ACCURATE***
EMT Holding
EMT Holding Corporation
#2 - 2014-06-10 13:49:11 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

-- Invention now removes one run from the input copy
-- Some special-casing and fuzzing has been done in certain places to make numbers more interesting

For your first point, can I assume that to get a 1 run T2 ship BPC, I now need to use a T1 BPC with 2 runs? Or to get a 9 run T2 BPC, I use a 10 run T1 BPC? If so, what are decryptors for? Is there any point in them?

"Special-casing and fuzzing to make numbers more interesting"
I hope you mean this as a temporary solution and not a permanent one. Industry doesn't run on "interesting numbers". To produce an efficient chain, everything must be known to work out how much it will cost and what materials are required. If these numbers are permanent, I assume they will be in the SDE when it's released? If so, what about the equations surrounding these "fuzzy numbers"?
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#3 - 2014-06-10 13:51:55 UTC
EMT Holding wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

-- Invention now removes one run from the input copy
-- Some special-casing and fuzzing has been done in certain places to make numbers more interesting

For your first point, can I assume that to get a 1 run T2 ship BPC, I now need to use a T1 BPC with 2 runs? Or to get a 9 run T2 BPC, I use a 10 run T1 BPC? If so, what are decryptors for? Is there any point in them?

"Special-casing and fuzzing to make numbers more interesting"
I hope you mean this as a temporary solution and not a permanent one. Industry doesn't run on "interesting numbers". To produce an efficient chain, everything must be known to work out how much it will cost and what materials are required. If these numbers are permanent, I assume they will be in the SDE when it's released? If so, what about the equations surrounding these "fuzzy numbers"?


- No, invention literally just removes exactly one run from the copy during the invention job. All invention jobs now need one run. This is happening as we want to normalize copy time at 80% of build time; we've adjusted invention and build times so that end-to-end copy-invent-build times remain roughly constant.
- We're not fuzzing dynamically, we've just played with some static numbers to create a bit more variety. IIRC the main one is that larger items take slightly longer than you'd otherwise expect to invent, and smaller items take slightly shorter, so larger ones are more invention-bound and smaller ones more build-bound.
Atlanti IV
Galactic Conglomerate
#4 - 2014-06-10 13:56:55 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

-- Copy should be 80% of build time


So, If I conduct TE research, should my copy time therefore decrease as well?
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#5 - 2014-06-10 13:58:02 UTC
Atlanti IV wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

-- Copy should be 80% of build time


So, If I conduct TE research, should my copy time therefore decrease as well?


Nope, that's just the base value, sorry. Skills affect both independently, and TE still only affects build time. It's too much of a rabbithole to have those stats affect research jobs too.
EMT Holding
EMT Holding Corporation
#6 - 2014-06-10 14:07:13 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
EMT Holding wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

-- Invention now removes one run from the input copy
-- Some special-casing and fuzzing has been done in certain places to make numbers more interesting

For your first point, can I assume that to get a 1 run T2 ship BPC, I now need to use a T1 BPC with 2 runs? Or to get a 9 run T2 BPC, I use a 10 run T1 BPC? If so, what are decryptors for? Is there any point in them?

"Special-casing and fuzzing to make numbers more interesting"
I hope you mean this as a temporary solution and not a permanent one. Industry doesn't run on "interesting numbers". To produce an efficient chain, everything must be known to work out how much it will cost and what materials are required. If these numbers are permanent, I assume they will be in the SDE when it's released? If so, what about the equations surrounding these "fuzzy numbers"?


- No, invention literally just removes exactly one run from the copy during the invention job. All invention jobs now need one run. This is happening as we want to normalize copy time at 80% of build time; we've adjusted invention and build times so that end-to-end copy-invent-build times remain roughly constant.
- We're not fuzzing dynamically, we've just played with some static numbers to create a bit more variety. IIRC the main one is that larger items take slightly longer than you'd otherwise expect to invent, and smaller items take slightly shorter, so larger ones are more invention-bound and smaller ones more build-bound.

1. If that works how I'm thinking it does, that sounds good. So if I invent off a 10 run T1 BPC, when the invention finishes, I get the T1 BPC back but with 9 runs? That sounds like an excellent midstep towards being able to do batched invention or an invention job for more than 1 run :D
2. Also good. I can understand the need to slightly bend material requirements for smaller/larger things.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#7 - 2014-06-10 14:10:53 UTC
EMT Holding wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
EMT Holding wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

-- Invention now removes one run from the input copy
-- Some special-casing and fuzzing has been done in certain places to make numbers more interesting

For your first point, can I assume that to get a 1 run T2 ship BPC, I now need to use a T1 BPC with 2 runs? Or to get a 9 run T2 BPC, I use a 10 run T1 BPC? If so, what are decryptors for? Is there any point in them?

"Special-casing and fuzzing to make numbers more interesting"
I hope you mean this as a temporary solution and not a permanent one. Industry doesn't run on "interesting numbers". To produce an efficient chain, everything must be known to work out how much it will cost and what materials are required. If these numbers are permanent, I assume they will be in the SDE when it's released? If so, what about the equations surrounding these "fuzzy numbers"?


- No, invention literally just removes exactly one run from the copy during the invention job. All invention jobs now need one run. This is happening as we want to normalize copy time at 80% of build time; we've adjusted invention and build times so that end-to-end copy-invent-build times remain roughly constant.
- We're not fuzzing dynamically, we've just played with some static numbers to create a bit more variety. IIRC the main one is that larger items take slightly longer than you'd otherwise expect to invent, and smaller items take slightly shorter, so larger ones are more invention-bound and smaller ones more build-bound.

1. If that works how I'm thinking it does, that sounds good. So if I invent off a 10 run T1 BPC, when the invention finishes, I get the T1 BPC back but with 9 runs? That sounds like an excellent midstep towards being able to do batched invention or an invention job for more than 1 run :D
2. Also good. I can understand the need to slightly bend material requirements for smaller/larger things.


Correct on both.
Rusty Waynne
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#8 - 2014-06-10 14:27:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Rusty Waynne
edit: nvm
Anathema Device
State War Academy
Caldari State
#9 - 2014-06-10 14:27:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Anathema Device
Attempted to undock my main character in a covert ops ship after a clone jump and the client crashed under Window 8.1 Loged back into main character and now sitting in ship in space. Problem seems to be confined to initial undocking process as once I've undocked once it appears to be.

Swapped to an alt to start a research job and that has failed to install the job as the cost is invalid Error.INVALID_COST ()
Job duration is 2:38 but Cost is 0 while using Hadonoo III Moon 9 which has research facilities.
A BPO (PE 0, ME 10) does get a time and cost for research so it appears only an unresearched BPO fails to research.

And still think the conversion of researched BPOs is bad, just plain wrong. Looks like we are stuck with this dumb conversion.

Swapped to what I thought was a converted fully researched BPO (PE 20, ME 10, waste 0.9%) and it is giving a time and cost to research. Job is now running. Maybe I have a very fundamental misunderstanding of this new process.

I need raw materials to start manufacturing jobs but client crashes every time I undock. Take that back, only crashes on initial undock then appears to be ok. Now I can get materials for invention and manufacture.
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#10 - 2014-06-10 14:52:32 UTC
Does that mean that, exempting decryptor effects, it is no longer possible to get multi-run T2 BPCs from invention? Currently (Kronos) max-run T1 module BPCs yield 10-run T2 BPCs. If invention only yields 1-run T2 BPCs then there will be *many* more invention jobs in Crius. Am I misunderstanding something?

MDD
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#11 - 2014-06-10 15:01:43 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
Does that mean that, exempting decryptor effects, it is no longer possible to get multi-run T2 BPCs from invention? Currently (Kronos) max-run T1 module BPCs yield 10-run T2 BPCs. If invention only yields 1-run T2 BPCs then there will be *many* more invention jobs in Crius. Am I misunderstanding something?

MDD


All invention jobs will spit out a max-run blueprint. Sorry, should've mentioned that, lots of plates spinning today :)
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#12 - 2014-06-10 15:02:45 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
CCP Greyscale wrote:
MailDeadDrop wrote:
Does that mean that, exempting decryptor effects, it is no longer possible to get multi-run T2 BPCs from invention? Currently (Kronos) max-run T1 module BPCs yield 10-run T2 BPCs. If invention only yields 1-run T2 BPCs then there will be *many* more invention jobs in Crius. Am I misunderstanding something?

MDD


All invention jobs will spit out a max-run blueprint. Sorry, should've mentioned that, lots of plates spinning today :)

Whew! Yes, that makes things better. Thanks!

Edit: Of course that means decryptor overhaul is even more pressing! Lol

MDD
Jimmy Jizzball
Barroom Heroes
#13 - 2014-06-10 15:17:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Jimmy Jizzball
Ok, this could also fit in the Manufacturing section. But it would be really awesome if the system would either remember which division I selected for the input materials and which division I used for the output, or use the division where my BPCs/BPOs I use lie in by default.

As of now I have my BPCs I want to invent in division three and I always need to switch the location of the input materials from division one to division three.

And some questions regarding inventions:

I used to invent 400 max run BPCs so far for my T2 module production. Do the changes mean I just need to invent BPCs worth 400 runs to get the same results I had before? And, will the datacores get cheaper since it seems that inventions use more now or did I just miss something here?
Anathema Device
State War Academy
Caldari State
#14 - 2014-06-10 15:23:08 UTC
Can't resize width of Industry panel but can change height. Problem seeing 'End Date' field.
Currently have a job running ~21 days, 8K isk, Outcome RESEARCHED BLUEPRINT +0%. Industry interface should not have started this job.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#15 - 2014-06-10 15:47:05 UTC
Questions to do with UI are definitely better off in the Manufacturing thread, I'll ask Ytterbium to rename that one.

Jimmy Jizzball wrote:
I used to invent 400 max run BPCs so far for my T2 module production. Do the changes mean I just need to invent BPCs worth 400 runs to get the same results I had before? And, will the datacores get cheaper since it seems that inventions use more now or did I just miss something here?


I don't follow exactly what you're asking here WRT 400, sorry.

Datacore numbers are broken, I'll fix them in a bit.

Anathema Device wrote:
Can't resize width of Industry panel but can change height. Problem seeing 'End Date' field.
Currently have a job running ~21 days, 8K isk, Outcome RESEARCHED BLUEPRINT +0%. Industry interface should not have started this job.


I'll look into why that job has started.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#16 - 2014-06-10 15:53:31 UTC
Ok, jobs already at level 10 starting is a known issue, will be fixed :)
Jimmy Jizzball
Barroom Heroes
#17 - 2014-06-10 16:08:20 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Questions to do with UI are definitely better off in the Manufacturing thread, I'll ask Ytterbium to rename that one.

Jimmy Jizzball wrote:
I used to invent 400 max run BPCs so far for my T2 module production. Do the changes mean I just need to invent BPCs worth 400 runs to get the same results I had before? And, will the datacores get cheaper since it seems that inventions use more now or did I just miss something here?


I don't follow exactly what you're asking here WRT 400, sorry.


Allright, I'll try to explain it :-)

So far, whenever I wanted to start a new batch of production I copied BPOs until I had 400 BPCs with 300 runs each. I'm inventing them and at the end I'll get somewhere between 160 and 180 T2 BPCs with 10 runs each. And this is where my question starts. At the top you wrote that invention runs now remove a run from the input copy. So, if I use one character with 10 slots for my inventions now, I would just need 10 BPCs with 40 runs each to end up with 160 to 180 T2 BPCs with 10 runs in the end like before?
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2014-06-10 16:17:28 UTC
Jimmy Jizzball wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Questions to do with UI are definitely better off in the Manufacturing thread, I'll ask Ytterbium to rename that one.

Jimmy Jizzball wrote:
I used to invent 400 max run BPCs so far for my T2 module production. Do the changes mean I just need to invent BPCs worth 400 runs to get the same results I had before? And, will the datacores get cheaper since it seems that inventions use more now or did I just miss something here?


I don't follow exactly what you're asking here WRT 400, sorry.


Allright, I'll try to explain it :-)

So far, whenever I wanted to start a new batch of production I copied BPOs until I had 400 BPCs with 300 runs each. I'm inventing them and at the end I'll get somewhere between 160 and 180 T2 BPCs with 10 runs each. And this is where my question starts. At the top you wrote that invention runs now remove a run from the input copy. So, if I use one character with 10 slots for my inventions now, I would just need 10 BPCs with 40 runs each to end up with 160 to 180 T2 BPCs with 10 runs in the end like before?


The cries you are hearing are coming from all the BPC copy alt slaves being quietly escorted towards biomassing.

(Yes, that's what they are planning)
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#19 - 2014-06-10 16:25:15 UTC
Jimmy Jizzball wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Questions to do with UI are definitely better off in the Manufacturing thread, I'll ask Ytterbium to rename that one.

Jimmy Jizzball wrote:
I used to invent 400 max run BPCs so far for my T2 module production. Do the changes mean I just need to invent BPCs worth 400 runs to get the same results I had before? And, will the datacores get cheaper since it seems that inventions use more now or did I just miss something here?


I don't follow exactly what you're asking here WRT 400, sorry.


Allright, I'll try to explain it :-)

So far, whenever I wanted to start a new batch of production I copied BPOs until I had 400 BPCs with 300 runs each. I'm inventing them and at the end I'll get somewhere between 160 and 180 T2 BPCs with 10 runs each. And this is where my question starts. At the top you wrote that invention runs now remove a run from the input copy. So, if I use one character with 10 slots for my inventions now, I would just need 10 BPCs with 40 runs each to end up with 160 to 180 T2 BPCs with 10 runs in the end like before?


Yup. For modules, copy time is way down now that you only need one run per. Invention time is generally way up though, IIRC, so consider cross-training your copy alts into invention :)
Axe Coldon
#20 - 2014-06-10 17:03:11 UTC
IF you are increasing the ME +2 of base invented bpc's and are increasing the materials to compensate for less waste, will you be converting existing t2 bpc's on July22.

And if you increase the materials of existing t2 bpc.s will you alter the ME to match..though I wonder if I am asking a dumb question and it doesn't matter if the end result is the same.

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

123Next pageLast page