These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New dev blog: Factional Warfare overhaul

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#361 - 2012-05-18 18:45:42 UTC
Cearain wrote:
...Also are they going to fix the plexing bug before inferno launches? Or are the minmatar going to be able to roll into inferno with a huge advantage that was due in part to exploits?

Advantage, yes .. exploits, no. Shoddy mechanics and balance is what it is, pretty sure that were the shoe on the other foot "we" (still not I, for I am 'honest') would milk flaws for all it was worth. If you see someone intentionally using a bug (ie. exploit) then report them .. it is unfortunately all we can do. Personally gave up ages ago when repeat offenders kept flying around even after I provided visual proof within seconds of transgression.
If they manage to keep on schedule and complete Inferno roll-out in 4 months then we "may" have a level playing field for christmas .. albeit one where we will be striking out from high-sec Big smile
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#362 - 2012-05-18 19:00:18 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Cearain wrote:
...Also are they going to fix the plexing bug before inferno launches? Or are the minmatar going to be able to roll into inferno with a huge advantage that was due in part to exploits?

Advantage, yes .. exploits, no. Shoddy mechanics and balance is what it is, pretty sure that were the shoe on the other foot "we" (still not I, for I am 'honest') would milk flaws for all it was worth. If you see someone intentionally using a bug (ie. exploit) then report them .. it is unfortunately all we can do. Personally gave up ages ago when repeat offenders kept flying around even after I provided visual proof within seconds of transgression.
If they manage to keep on schedule and complete Inferno roll-out in 4 months then we "may" have a level playing field for christmas .. albeit one where we will be striking out from high-sec Big smile



I'm not sure I follow you. After inferno it will be much harder to flip a system than it is now. Not only will we not be able to dock there but it will take 5xs as long. The bugs help the side holding more systems before the rules are changed with inferno. Regardless of which side I was on I would want some opportunity for both sides to fight for occupancy before the systems are basically set in stone by the inferno mechanics.

CCP still has not fixed well known bugs, that have been acknowledged for months. These bugs break the core mechanic of faction war from which all these consequences come..
This is why its really hard to take ccp serious when they claim they are not just throwing this expansion out to let it sit abandonned. Please ccp start with the game breaking bugs.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#363 - 2012-05-18 21:47:25 UTC
Segana Tulanari wrote:
So, waht can we expect after this patch?

  1. Where can we buy the datacores? Only at FW LP stores? Or at RD-agent bases as it was before too? How do I pay with my research points at the FW LP store? Have I to exchange RP into LP? How?

  2. What the blog writer wanna tell us with the table (Faction, RP Points, kind of datacores)? Is there a simple way to give a table a name (what the table shows us?)? Is the table for FW LP oder R&D or what ever?

  3. What happens with the RP during the patch for 50 and 150 RP/datacores? Will they transformed to the new prices (double the 50 RPs and divide the 150 RP by 1,5) by the patch? Or do I have to get the 50 RP datacores before the patch to be fine?


It was unusual for CCP, that a dev blog leaves so simple questions unanswered. You can it better ;)

regards,
Sega


All of these questions have been answered.

1. Datacores will still be available from RD agents as before. However, the price is doubling, IIRC. You do not pay with research points at the FW LP store. You cannot exchange RP into LP. You earn FW LP by doing FW.

2. The table is for FW LP. I don't understand the rest of this question.

3. Your RP remain as they are after the patch, so you're better off getting the datacores before the patch.

I don't even do FW or RD agents, but I still knew the answers to all your questions off the top of my head. You can it better ;)
Segana Tulanari
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#364 - 2012-05-19 07:59:43 UTC
Aebe Amraen wrote:
I don't understand the rest of this question.

Simple ;) Give a table a name. Most people studied informatics, physics... know this. Writing concepts is a part of education (in Germany it is) on universities. And I do not think, that CCP employed hobby developers.
And if these blogs are a kind of concept, they should leave no answers. Also migrations scenarios (old RP into new RP situation) should be a part of.

regards....
Vanessa Vansen
Vandeo
#365 - 2012-05-19 16:53:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanessa Vansen
Quote:
A change mentioned during Fanfest concerns datacores and research agents in general. While we do acknowledge that initial the initial period to train up for high-level research agents take times, effort and money, we are not particularly fond of the passive datacore income in general. Indeed, once the initial requirements are met, this is not so much of an active profession and more of a passive collection of items, which we want to look at.


Well, T2 BPOs are the same ... once the initial requirements are met, it's passive ... but I don't read anythting about changing that -> When are you going to remove T2 BPOs? They are passive as well if you compare it with invention.

Quote:
As such, we are removing all field multipliers on research fields, while unifying RP amount to claim one datacore to 100. While this actually double amount of RPs to claim a datacore, we also are introducing a small 10,000 ISK fee per datacore to ensure there is a small cost tied to their retrieval.


Good idea, keep it simple!

Quote:
We also are introducing datacores to the Factional Warfare LP stores, spilt into each individual faction so there is no market overlap. They are tied to the War Zone control effect on LP store prices, that means offers will dramatically change depending on which side is winning.


Wait ... why? What's the in game explanation? How could or why would the R&D corps let that happen?

Edit:
Research Project Management vs. FW LP store?
Rank 8 skill vs. you may have as many as you like and CCP does not want to talk about a reimbursement
Davion Falcon
Those Once Loyal
#366 - 2012-05-19 21:23:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Davion Falcon
Caesar Rae wrote:
SigmaPi wrote:
Hormus wrote:
Datacores is the main source of price difference between T2 BPO and T2 BPC manufactured items.
If datacores get more expensive, ppl that manufacture with invention will have to increase prices - but those with T2 BPO's are not affected.
So, the shamefull gap between T2 BPO owners and the rest manufacturers will get bigger.
Bad move, CCP.


That's a load of bull. The #1 price point is from the negative ME - that translates to a huge amount of waste on bpcs. The datacores are almost negligable in all cases to the price of the final product. I know - I do invention as my primary income.




If T2 BPO's operate the same way as T1 BPO's (unfortunately I have never seen one) then the first person is correct.

T2 BPO's do not have the issues with datacore costs or negative ME and PE from invention and thus any cost changes to datacores will make thier products cheaper to market.


T2 BPOs are limited by production time, just like T2 BPCs. If demand outstrips the supply of the number of T2 BPOs working 24/7, then there's room for invention which can far outstrip a single T2 BPOs ability to produce modules/ships.

If a T2 BPO holder can produce a 100m product at 20m in manufacturing costs for 80m profit a day, and an inventor can produce 10 100m products at 50m in manufacturing costs for 500m profit per day, assuming there's enough demand, who comes out ahead?

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise. Never forgotten, never forgiven.
Vanessa Vansen
Vandeo
#367 - 2012-05-19 21:40:28 UTC
Davion Falcon wrote:
Caesar Rae wrote:
SigmaPi wrote:
Hormus wrote:
Datacores is the main source of price difference between T2 BPO and T2 BPC manufactured items.
If datacores get more expensive, ppl that manufacture with invention will have to increase prices - but those with T2 BPO's are not affected.
So, the shamefull gap between T2 BPO owners and the rest manufacturers will get bigger.
Bad move, CCP.


That's a load of bull. The #1 price point is from the negative ME - that translates to a huge amount of waste on bpcs. The datacores are almost negligable in all cases to the price of the final product. I know - I do invention as my primary income.




If T2 BPO's operate the same way as T1 BPO's (unfortunately I have never seen one) then the first person is correct.

T2 BPO's do not have the issues with datacore costs or negative ME and PE from invention and thus any cost changes to datacores will make thier products cheaper to market.


T2 BPOs are limited by production time, just like T2 BPCs. If demand outstrips the supply of the number of T2 BPOs working 24/7, then there's room for invention which can far outstrip a single T2 BPOs ability to produce modules/ships.

It might be right that T2 BPOs are not able to cover the whole supply, but they will get more passive income, since they don't have to invent anything. Since those inventing will have to adjust their price due to higher costs.

In short, CCP is reducing the income of one source of passive income by raising the income of another source of passive income.

I use to call T2 BPOs passive income, since that's what they are if you compare they steps to get from 0 to the T2 product.
T2 BPO - buy the material, build the stuff, done
Invention - Acquire a BPC & invention material, invent (eventually repeat those steps), buy the material, build the stuff, done
Davion Falcon
Those Once Loyal
#368 - 2012-05-19 21:47:25 UTC
Vanessa Vansen wrote:
Davion Falcon wrote:
Caesar Rae wrote:
SigmaPi wrote:
Hormus wrote:
Datacores is the main source of price difference between T2 BPO and T2 BPC manufactured items.
If datacores get more expensive, ppl that manufacture with invention will have to increase prices - but those with T2 BPO's are not affected.
So, the shamefull gap between T2 BPO owners and the rest manufacturers will get bigger.
Bad move, CCP.


That's a load of bull. The #1 price point is from the negative ME - that translates to a huge amount of waste on bpcs. The datacores are almost negligable in all cases to the price of the final product. I know - I do invention as my primary income.




If T2 BPO's operate the same way as T1 BPO's (unfortunately I have never seen one) then the first person is correct.

T2 BPO's do not have the issues with datacore costs or negative ME and PE from invention and thus any cost changes to datacores will make thier products cheaper to market.


T2 BPOs are limited by production time, just like T2 BPCs. If demand outstrips the supply of the number of T2 BPOs working 24/7, then there's room for invention which can far outstrip a single T2 BPOs ability to produce modules/ships.

It might be right that T2 BPOs are not able to cover the whole supply, but they will get more passive income, since they don't have to invent anything. Since those inventing will have to adjust their price due to higher costs.

In short, CCP is reducing the income of one source of passive income by raising the income of another source of passive income.

I use to call T2 BPOs passive income, since that's what they are if you compare they steps to get from 0 to the T2 product.
T2 BPO - buy the material, build the stuff, done
Invention - Acquire a BPC & invention material, invent (eventually repeat those steps), buy the material, build the stuff, done


Passive income with a terrible, terrible return on investment. The ROI for a T2 BPO is what, 3-5 years assuming 24/7 operations? Even selling the BPO and investing in capital BPO copying (even more passive since all you'd have to do is reset jobs once a month) would produce far better return on capital AND higher income/month.

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise. Never forgotten, never forgiven.
Mutnin
SQUIDS.
#369 - 2012-05-20 00:45:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Mutnin
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Quick update:


  • Mechanical Engineering datacore offer have been added to all FW LP stores
  • Graviton Physics datacore offer has been moved from the Amarr to the Caldari FW LP store
  • Hydromagnetic Physics offer has been moved from Caldari to the Minmatar FW LP store


After listening to player feedback, main reason for such change was to keep a relatively balanced reward output for each faction, as Mechanical Engineering datacores are highly sought-after in their current form.


Perhaps you should listen to the player feedback about Docking.. You guys might produce a bit of extra interest in FW for a few months (6 if we are lucky) Then it's gonna be nothing more than a few hardcores here & there and farming alts.

FW was already in pitiful shape due to being ignored as long as it's been ignored but seriously the whole sov mechanics are going to drive most people away. Effectively the fight is being won right now pre-patch. Once the patch comes the lines are drawn and it's pretty much over.

FW has always sorted it's self out when one side had advantage over other given enough time.. However these changes pretty much cement the side in best position prior to this update and will never allow the other side to come back. We can not fight for systems in plexes if we can't reship. It's that simple.

If these changes had gone into effect when Caldari held all of Gallente system, Gals would never have come back like they have to day. If these changes happened when I 1st foined FW on the Minmatar side Amarr would have owned every Minmatar station and Minmatar would be basing in Rens.

The station lock out for the most part is counterproductive to plexing mechanics and FW will just be turned to farmville for ISk hoarders because the lock out produce a situation where it's such a disadvantage with-in the plexing Sov system that there will be no way for the losing side to come back.

It's rather ironic that all this time FW has been ignored it never died off, but soon as CCP decided to start working on it.. they will likely be putting the nails in it's coffin.

In all honestly, the only reason I'm even staying around as CEO of a corp with 50+ guys in FW, is because we have put a lot of effort into building a corp with-in FW on one of the under-dogs sides. Looking at these changes I can only hope they aren't as bad as I'm expecting them to be, but in all honestly I really think they will be just as bad as I expect.
Vanessa Vansen
Vandeo
#370 - 2012-05-20 06:36:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanessa Vansen
Davion Falcon wrote:
...

Passive income with a terrible, terrible return on investment. The ROI for a T2 BPO is what, 3-5 years assuming 24/7 operations? Even selling the BPO and investing in capital BPO copying (even more passive since all you'd have to do is reset jobs once a month) would produce far better return on capital AND higher income/month.


True about the return on investment but is that interesting to you?
I would say that you invest in a T2 BPO since the profit is good and you don't know what else you should do with your big pile of isk. From that point of view, you get a good interest rate on a pretty secure investment, after all you can sell the BPO again if you don't like it anymore.

There are two ways of producing some of the T2 products:
The "passive" one via T2 BPOs without invention and higher profits.
The "active" one with invention and lower profits.

As said active/passive due to the fact that both ways end up in building a T2 product.
In addition, you don't know if that T2 item was made via T2 BPO or via invention.

For copying there is no 2nd way to get a BPC.
Either there exists a T1 BPO or it's a faction/plex drop
The only exception is the customs office (which is a crap way, but CCP does not care)
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#371 - 2012-05-20 08:05:39 UTC
Vanessa Vansen wrote:
Wait ... why? What's the in game explanation? How could or why would the R&D corps let that happen?

CCP stopped caring about such things a long time ago .. the fact that they have zero writers (chronicles being written by anyone with idea/time) on their roster speaks volumes. Eve is now a pure grind-fest MMO like all the themepark/hybrids on the market with no official support for the RPG element.

Why are you and others so concerned about the datacore change? Datacores are a minute part of the total cost of invention, the much larger 'cost' comes from the -ME of output .. especially when it comes to ship hulls. Datacores would have to increase in price by an unreasonable amount to create a noticeable T2 market tremor .. and the change will have been rolled back or watered down long before that happens.
Jalmari Huitsikko
Avanto
Hole Control
#372 - 2012-05-20 10:20:12 UTC
production of general type items like datacores should not be tied to faction warfare, while i agree passively producing them is kind of dumb idea.

you have to realize while roleplayers and other silly people may connect your race, items and ships in one bunch that does not really work like that. production of any type of racial ship cannot be depending on who is winning in faction warfare even for sllightest.

participating in this kind of roleplaying activity should be 100% voluntary we should not be forced to join and support faction warfare, even in theory.

people doing faction warfare defend their demands by claiming that it is only way to do pvp outside blob warfare which is not true. on contrary majority of them seem to lack willpower and skill to try anything seriously but make up some silly demands of rewards, which is ridiculous considering faction warfare pve activity currently produces pretty nice money with low risk. (yes i've been there done that)

i agree that faction warfare pvp should have rewards to make people feel like they achieve something but do not drag other people in it.

thank you.
Vanessa Vansen
Vandeo
#373 - 2012-05-20 12:23:32 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Vanessa Vansen wrote:
Wait ... why? What's the in game explanation? How could or why would the R&D corps let that happen?

CCP stopped caring about such things a long time ago .. the fact that they have zero writers (chronicles being written by anyone with idea/time) on their roster speaks volumes. Eve is now a pure grind-fest MMO like all the themepark/hybrids on the market with no official support for the RPG element.

Why are you and others so concerned about the datacore change? Datacores are a minute part of the total cost of invention, the much larger 'cost' comes from the -ME of output .. especially when it comes to ship hulls. Datacores would have to increase in price by an unreasonable amount to create a noticeable T2 market tremor .. and the change will have been rolled back or watered down long before that happens.


I wouldn't mind as much as I do if there were no T2 BPOs.
Then it would affect each and everyone.

Like this it only worsens the profit of those who already have less profit, while T2 BPO owners will make more profit.
It might just be a small part of the profit but you have to stand up and say "NO" to changes that get implemented only because CCP likes it that way.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#374 - 2012-05-20 13:58:06 UTC
Vanessa Vansen wrote:
I wouldn't mind as much as I do if there were no T2 BPOs.
Then it would affect each and everyone.

Like this it only worsens the profit of those who already have less profit, while T2 BPO owners will make more profit.
It might just be a small part of the profit but you have to stand up and say "NO" to changes that get implemented only because CCP likes it that way.

As I said, invention profits are restricted by the poor quality output which means far greater material costs for the end products.
BPO's have a lower profit margin than invention if you do the rational thing and count the pennies per hour spent rather than per run .. the fact that one can only ever build from that one print (copy time = build time) severely hampers the overall profits.
There is a reason why most BPO holders are also heavily invested in the invention part of things, higher quantity and insulated from market fluctuations due to diversity/ability to change gears.

If you are really concerned about invention lacking the competitive edge against BPO's, then support the various efforts to have CCP add a post-processing step to invention .. one where the ME/PE of the individual BPC can be improved by investing that most precious commodity: Time (and a smattering of ISK).
Try to run the numbers and see just how insane the difference is if the BPC's could be taken to a measly ME0 .. that is where the cash cow is pastured Big smile

In Short: You are barking up the wrong tree and/or using the wrong thread. It is better to bring the debate about BPO vs. Invention up in the industry thread which will arrive Soon™ (ref: CSM summit topics).
Vanessa Vansen
Vandeo
#375 - 2012-05-20 16:56:48 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Vanessa Vansen wrote:
I wouldn't mind as much as I do if there were no T2 BPOs.
Then it would affect each and everyone.

Like this it only worsens the profit of those who already have less profit, while T2 BPO owners will make more profit.
It might just be a small part of the profit but you have to stand up and say "NO" to changes that get implemented only because CCP likes it that way.

As I said, invention profits are restricted by the poor quality output which means far greater material costs for the end products.
BPO's have a lower profit margin than invention if you do the rational thing and count the pennies per hour spent rather than per run .. the fact that one can only ever build from that one print (copy time = build time) severely hampers the overall profits.
There is a reason why most BPO holders are also heavily invested in the invention part of things, higher quantity and insulated from market fluctuations due to diversity/ability to change gears.

If you are really concerned about invention lacking the competitive edge against BPO's, then support the various efforts to have CCP add a post-processing step to invention .. one where the ME/PE of the individual BPC can be improved by investing that most precious commodity: Time (and a smattering of ISK).
Try to run the numbers and see just how insane the difference is if the BPC's could be taken to a measly ME0 .. that is where the cash cow is pastured Big smile

In Short: You are barking up the wrong tree and/or using the wrong thread. It is better to bring the debate about BPO vs. Invention up in the industry thread which will arrive Soon™ (ref: CSM summit topics).


Well, I don't have a T2 BPO but I assume they do work as do T1 BPOs.
For T1 BPOs (at least for those I had a look at) making a single copy take two or three times as long as manufacturing, however I didn't compare that with the time to build the final (T2) product.
So, I think there are a lot of numbers around and we could make our point.

My point, T2 BPOs have an unfair advantage over invention, changing datacores will increase it, if only a bit. Hence, I rant about T2 BPOs and the change in datacores. As mentioned, I might be wrong, since I don't own a T2 BPO.
Davion Falcon
Those Once Loyal
#376 - 2012-05-20 19:43:25 UTC
Vanessa Vansen wrote:
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Vanessa Vansen wrote:
I wouldn't mind as much as I do if there were no T2 BPOs.
Then it would affect each and everyone.

Like this it only worsens the profit of those who already have less profit, while T2 BPO owners will make more profit.
It might just be a small part of the profit but you have to stand up and say "NO" to changes that get implemented only because CCP likes it that way.

As I said, invention profits are restricted by the poor quality output which means far greater material costs for the end products.
BPO's have a lower profit margin than invention if you do the rational thing and count the pennies per hour spent rather than per run .. the fact that one can only ever build from that one print (copy time = build time) severely hampers the overall profits.
There is a reason why most BPO holders are also heavily invested in the invention part of things, higher quantity and insulated from market fluctuations due to diversity/ability to change gears.

If you are really concerned about invention lacking the competitive edge against BPO's, then support the various efforts to have CCP add a post-processing step to invention .. one where the ME/PE of the individual BPC can be improved by investing that most precious commodity: Time (and a smattering of ISK).
Try to run the numbers and see just how insane the difference is if the BPC's could be taken to a measly ME0 .. that is where the cash cow is pastured Big smile

In Short: You are barking up the wrong tree and/or using the wrong thread. It is better to bring the debate about BPO vs. Invention up in the industry thread which will arrive Soon™ (ref: CSM summit topics).


Well, I don't have a T2 BPO but I assume they do work as do T1 BPOs.
For T1 BPOs (at least for those I had a look at) making a single copy take two or three times as long as manufacturing, however I didn't compare that with the time to build the final (T2) product.
So, I think there are a lot of numbers around and we could make our point.

My point, T2 BPOs have an unfair advantage over invention, changing datacores will increase it, if only a bit. Hence, I rant about T2 BPOs and the change in datacores. As mentioned, I might be wrong, since I don't own a T2 BPO.


Leveling the accusation "it's unfair!" in Eve is silliness at best, foolish stupidity at worst.

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise. Never forgotten, never forgiven.
Vanessa Vansen
Vandeo
#377 - 2012-05-21 16:11:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanessa Vansen
Davion Falcon wrote:
Vanessa Vansen wrote:
...

My point, T2 BPOs have an unfair advantage over invention, changing datacores will increase it, if only a bit. Hence, I rant about T2 BPOs and the change in datacores. As mentioned, I might be wrong, since I don't own a T2 BPO.


Leveling the accusation "it's unfair!" in Eve is silliness at best, foolish stupidity at worst.


I claim both for myself Big smile but I just had to shout it out although in space nobody hears you scream (see patch notes)
Mutnin
SQUIDS.
#378 - 2012-05-21 21:18:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Mutnin
It's nice to see that the biggest topic about the changes to FW are people talking about data core that are likely just current farm alts now.. Meaning the soon to be only interest in FW will be from farm alts in 6 months time or less..

The fights themselves over the space and ISK has already been made pre-patch day.. Any changes from now will likely because everyone gets bored and leaves.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#379 - 2012-05-21 21:55:15 UTC
Mutnin wrote:
It's nice to see that the biggest topic about the changes to FW are people talking about data core that are likely just current farm alts now.. Meaning the soon to be only interest in FW will be from farm alts in 6 months time or less..

The fights themselves over the space and ISK has already been made pre-patch day.. Any changes from now will likely because everyone gets bored and leaves.



Faction will not be empty any more than null sec will be empty.

It's just that faction war will not have the casual small gang pvp appeal that we hoped ccp would build on. Instead they scrapped that entirely, and turned it into a stepping stone to null sec.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Mutnin
SQUIDS.
#380 - 2012-05-21 22:42:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mutnin
Cearain wrote:
Mutnin wrote:
It's nice to see that the biggest topic about the changes to FW are people talking about data core that are likely just current farm alts now.. Meaning the soon to be only interest in FW will be from farm alts in 6 months time or less..

The fights themselves over the space and ISK has already been made pre-patch day.. Any changes from now will likely because everyone gets bored and leaves.



Faction will not be empty any more than null sec will be empty.

It's just that faction war will not have the casual small gang pvp appeal that we hoped ccp would build on. Instead they scrapped that entirely, and turned it into a stepping stone to null sec.


FW space is a lot more active than most of null sec. Saying it will not be anymore empty than null is not saying it will be very active. Lol

FW will essentially be dead for what it was in the past and what it turns into now, will just be the luck of the draw.

My guess is the the new people attracted that end up on the currently out gunned sides will not last very long and will quit to do something else. There are going to be very few people that will be attracted to joining the side that always gets blobbed out and makes crappy ISK returns for their time spent.