EVE General Discussion

EDIT: An additional source of confusion has been found. In EvE, 'Wastage Factor 10%" implies that 10% of the process goes to waste whereas in real life usually 'Wastage Factor 10%" implies that 10% of the inputs go to waste. The confusion is compounded by the fact that EvE only displays the wastage factor and the inputs.

2ND EDIT: Please do not give me an explanation of the manufacturing mechanics. The entire point of the first half of this post to lay down the mechanics and prove that I have correct formulae.

I recently began manufacturing in earnest and have tried to find and understand the essential formulae and mechanics of manufacturing. My intuitive understanding of the production efficiency skill and wastage factor proved to be wrong when formulated and tested, so I looked to other players. This only resulted in more confusion, later shown to be due to inaccuracies in the information provided by players. SO, to save other rookies some trouble, and maybe to convince CCP to clean up their in-game English, I have documented the major sources of confusion and provided possible fixes.

FIRST though, I must show that there are indeed inaccuracies, and to do that we must start with THE FORMULA. This is the fundamental formula for the material cost of an item, ignoring EvE rounding:

(Base Quantity) + ((.1/(1+ML)) * Base Quantity) + ((.25-(.05*Prod Eff lvl)) * Base Quantity) = Bill of Materials
You'll recognize (.1/(1+ML)) expressed as a % is the 'Wastage Factor' listed on each blueprint.

To easily verify this is true we can check the Gallente Shuttle blueprint over at chruker. This page lists the materials requirements for an unresearched blueprint with varying prod eff ranks. We see that an unresearched shuttle blueprint that has a base material cost of 2500 tritanium requires

2500+(.1*2500)+(.00*2500) = 2500+250+000 = 2750 trit with prod eff 5
2500+(.1*2500)+(.10*2500) = 2500+250+250 = 3000 trit with prod eff 3
2500+(.1*2500)+(.25*2500) = 2500+250+625 = 3375 trit with Prod eff 0

Now that we know THE FORMULA is correct, lets take a look at the sources of my and other player's misunderstandings. I believe there are two:
1) The words 'waste' and 'factor' are not used in real life the same way they are used in the EvE term 'wastage factor'.
2) The in-game description of the production efficiency skill is false.

Let us examine them one at a time.

1) The words 'waste' and 'factor' are not used in real life the same way they are used in the EvE term 'wastage factor'.

In real life we use waste to describe a part of a whole. If a farmer says '10% of the 100 acres of corn I put into this machine go to waste' we assume the farmer ends up with 100*0.9 = 90 acres of corn in the machine. If 90 acres of core = 1 corn silo, the farmer's blueprint might very well read
Produces Corn Silo I [1]
Wastage Factor 10%
Corn 100
but THIS IS NOT HOW EVE WORKS!
Assuming he has Prod Eff 5, The formula for the farmer is
(Base Qty) = Bill of Mats*(1-Wastage factor). Recall from above though that the formula for EvE wastage factor is actually
(Base Qty)+(Wastage Factor*Base Qty) = Bill of Mats
and those two formulae are not equal. Thus the daily use of waste does not match the in-game use.

'Factor' suffers a similar problem. Those who use a factor in their work or daily life usually multiply a given number by a factor or factors to arrive at final number. In EvE, however, you must multiply the given number by the factor AND add the given number. (Base qty) + (wastage factor*base qty). Again it is not intuitive.

To fix these issues I recommend eliminating the display of "Wastage Factor (.1/(1+ML)) %" in the game and replacing it with "Material Factor (1+(.1/(1+ML)))". An unresearched blueprint would has a Material Factor of 1.1, a 1 ML blueprint would have a material factor of 1.05, and so forth. This does not result in a different THE FORMULA as we can rearrange to arrive at
(1+(.1/(1+ML)))*(Base qty) + ((.25-(.05*Prod Eff lvl)) * Base Quantity) = Bill of Materials = TRUE BY CHRUKER

See how displaying "Material Factor 1.10" leads to a better understanding of the mechanic than "Wastage Factor 10%" does? We're not wasting 10% of the whole and then completing a run, we're wasting 10% of the whole, replacing it, then completing a run, which is the same as multiplying by 1.1!

2) The in-game description of the production efficiency skill is false.

Production Efficiency reads "Skill at efficiently using factories. 5% reduction per skill level to the material requirements needed for production."

Gallente Shuttle at Prod Eff 0 = 3375 trit
Gallente Shuttle at Prod Eff 1 = 3250 trit
3250/3375 = .962 repeating forever or ~4% reduction, not 5%.

Removing the 250 minerals added on due to 0 ML, we get
3000/3125 = .960, exactly 4% reduction, not 5%.


So what's going on here? Was CCP high when they wrote the skill description for prod efficiency? Recall THE FORMULA, specifically the Prod Eff part, ((.25-(.05*Prod Eff lvl)) * Base Quantity). In words, this part of the formula means "increase the base quantity by 25%, but subtract 5 percentage points (not percent!) from that increase for each rank of production efficiency." I think someone at CCP, being in Bjorkland where the President's English is not their mother tongue, said "HeYyY DeRe 1 rank prod eff means 5 percent... REDUCTION IN MATS JA?"

Here are two descriptions that could be used for Production Efficiency and are actually true:
"PE reduces the initial materials requirements for production by 4% per level. This does not take into account additional materials due to blueprint requirements."
"PE reduces the additional materials required due to capsuleer inefficiency by 20% per level."

Thanks for reading!

+1 like, hopefully the thread picks up some steam.

How does this maths impact my usage of IPH though?

Hmm. Your counter explanation is almost impossible to understand, whereas the OPs is lovely and clear.

OP wins I'm afraid.

Watch some of the early development vids.

They were a small team with a huge task and I think they did pretty well considering its just a game and doesn't have to reflect RL mechanics everywhere.

Of course, that doesn't mean your general idea is wrong and this doesn't deserve a refactoring. They just haven't gotten to it yet, and many would say there are other more important things to be done first. (Not to say they are right or wrong)

It can be imagined either way. In my example, the 10% waste could happen before the farmer puts in his corn or it could happen after he puts it in the machine. Either way the problem stems from implications of "when" something is "happening".

See, my intuition about Blueprint waste says "this blueprint continuously destroys 10% of all trit put into it ". Again, this is not how EvE works. If this were the case, then If I had a an unresearched BPO for module X that requires 100 trit, I would insert 100 trit, it wastes 10% so I need another 10 trit, but the blueprint wastes 10% of all trit put into it so I need another 1 or 2 trit depending on rounding, which is 111 or 112 trit on the bill of mats. This is the same as my farmer example.

But the way EvE Actually works with blueprint waste is "This blueprint will destroy 10% of the the planned costs of a run, so we're gonna need those in addition" which is 110 on the bill of mats. This is the same as your carpentry example.

One is happening in the present, one is happening in the future. This is why displaying "Wastage Factor 10%" is misleading.

I built an afterburner once.


I want that part of my life back.

1. We look at a ME 0 shuttle BPO. it says it needs 3375 Tritanium (me) / 2750 Tritanium (perfect).
2. The PE skill says "5% reduction in your waste per level" (paraphrased).
3. There's a "hidden" number that only the computer knows about.
4. there's a two-part formula that the game uses to figure out Bill of Materials.


The formula:

Bill of Materials = Base + ( ( ( 0.1 / (1 + ME) ) * Base) + ( ( 0.25 - ( 0.5 * PE ) ) * Base )

Plugging in the numbers we know right now makes for a really really long proof. So we're going to cheat, and use the published "Base" number for a shuttle of 2,500 ... and plug everything in.

BoM = 2,500 + ( ( ( 0.1 / (1 + 0 ) * 2500) + ( ( 0.25 - ( 0.5 * 0 ) ) * 2500 )

BoM = 2,500 + ( ( 0.1 * 2500 ) + ( 0.25 * 2500 )

BoM = 2500 + 250 + 675

BoM = 3375.

Changing one or the other (BPO ME level or Player PE skill) will not have the FULL effect because the waste is not individually calculated, unless the other half of the ME or PE waste addition is zero -- this can really only be done with PE.

Let's assume we have PE 5 then.

BoM = ( ( 0.1 * 2500 + ( 0 * 2500 ) ) + 2500
BoM = 2500 + 250 = 2750.

The reason the OP's corn example is wrong is because he's using two different "waste" calculations. He's "mining" a corn field of 100 acres, and then has 10% "refining waste" and is trying to use that to say the BPO waste factors are backwards.


To correct it:

OP is a farmer with 100 acres of corn.
1 acre of corn will nominally yield 161 bushels of corn when refined (real world data borrowed from here, "US" column, 2009, floored).

when "refining" corn from the fields, he has a 10% loss ---> (161 * 100) * 0.9 = 14490 bushels.

his "blueprint" to fill a corn silo is actually the refining math and not the manufacturing math. The manufacturing math would be like taking those 14490 bushels of corn and wanting to make tortillas out of them.

Corn Tortilla BPO
ME = 0 (10% waste)
PE = 5 (because it's a machine and it doesn't make mistakes like burning them, tearing the dough, etc)
Produces = 1,000 Tortillas
Bill of Materials = 100 bushels of corn (base)

Now, assuming all the bushels of corn are perfect and useable, the Tortilla plant can make 144 runs of tortillas (144,000).

However, their process in inefficient (ME 0). They're using big rollers to cut round shapes out of a rectangular sheet of dough.

They have it set up like this -->

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(wrap around the whole drum, say 10 total rows, of 10 cutters each)

The 100 bushels of corn makes a dough ribbon that takes the cutter-roller 9.5 revolutions to go. This means they make 990 full tortillas, 5 half tortillas, and the rectangular sheet with a bunch of holes in it. Since they can't package the half tortillas and the matrix, it's just waste, leaving them with 990 tortillas.

They figure out that by adding 10% more corn (total of 110 bushels), they can get the roller to get around 10 times exactly, with the only waste being the matrix.

Now, maybe some dude comes along, and says "hey, this drum is a bad design ... let's do it a different way" and he makes a drum like this (now their BPO is ME1):

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0
0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-

It's a little wider to accomodate the alternating rows being offset half a tortilla left or right, but since they're able to be packed tighter together, they get 11 rows in there (110 tortillas per revolution).

now, since they're adding 10 tortillas/revolution, they're making too many tortillas. And they figure out that they can halve the waste allocation, and now only need to use 105 bushels of corn.


(Obviously I'm fudging numbers here, because I really don't feel like doing the full maths to work back a "correct" yield that would necessitate a 5% or 10% increase of the base input of 100 bushels of corn to make 1,000 tortillas)


edit -- I guess this is no better, and I see that it's been explained more concisely by people as I was in the process of typing this.

No, like I said you can imagine it either way. Imagine that he puts 100 corn into the machine and it's the machine that wastes the 10%. You can imagine the farmer says "I harvested 100 acres of corn and put 100 into this machine because it wastes 10% and needs an end result of 90"

Either way, in this case 10% blueprint waste implies that, disregarding Prod Eff skill:
the base value is 90% of the bill of mats

Whereas the game actually functions:
110% of the base value is the bill of mats OR mathematically rearranged
the base value is 90.9% of the bill of mats.

Your confusion about my example stems from the fact that some people see 'Wastage factor 10%' and they think "This blueprint wastes 10% of the inputs" (not how the game works) whereas others see it and they think "This blueprint wastes 10% of the process" (how the game works).

English is hard for CCP at times. They really do mean "each level of this skill will subtract 0.05 from your waste"

Just look at the PE half of the wastage math and you see it:

(0.25 - (0.05 * PE))

0.25 = the base character waste
0.05 = 5%
PE = your PE Level

so .... 5% per level reduction (yes, bad wording from CCP; yes Steve is right).




That works for refining things. 333 units of Veld nominally yield 1,000 units of Trit. If you have 10% waste here, 333 Veld = 900 Trit. However, that does not negate the fact that the "Base Number" of Veldspar to make 1,000 trit is "333" (or, for that matter, the base amount of Tritanium you need for a Shuttle is 2,500).


Let's say you want 9,000 Trit and you have this 10% waste still.

1. You would agree with me that you need to then input enough material to make 10 refines, or 3330 Veld.
2. You would also agree with me that someone without this 10% waste only needs 9 refines, or 2997 Veld.
3. Therefore, in order to get the same result, person 1 has to put 11% (10 - 9 = 1; 1/9 = 0.11111) more input to get the same output.

Here's a Psuedo BPO for it:
Makes -> 9,000 Tritanium
ME -> 0
Waste -> 11.1%
Bill of Materials --> Veldspar * 3,330

This is exactly how BPOs work, but they hide the "Base amount of material you need to make this" from you, and only display the "this is everything you need to make one shuttle" (or 100 rounds of ammo, or whatever).

edit -- seplling