These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev blog: Researching, the Future

First post First post First post
Author
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#201 - 2014-04-28 19:06:34 UTC
Eregorn81 wrote:
An API, or at least a data dump, giving information on all blueprints would be wonderful for all us analysts out there (PRE patch); that way there may be less of a production drop from everyone's supply lines being suddenly changed...

And by API I mean like the one for Fuzzwork (plug in itemID, ML and PL and get out all the information you want). Example, the drake:
https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/blueprints/xml2/24698/0/0/0/1


We will release a special SDE for industry before the release containing the new blueprint data.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#202 - 2014-04-28 19:08:01 UTC
I'm liking the complexity change.

I'm not so keen on the copy time buff for T2 BPOs. Especially in conjunction with the extra materials change. The two together could skew things more than either apart.

Now, the requests:

Can we, the third party, and serious industry community please get, long before a live release:

An updated SDE
The formulas in use (as algorithms, not just text)


That way, all the tools we have aren't immediately invalidated on release. As so we can play with the numbers, to see if anything nasty falls out of them.




(Oh, and rename the ME skill please. Multiple meaning for the ME acronym is bad complexity)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#203 - 2014-04-28 19:08:50 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Eregorn81 wrote:
An API, or at least a data dump, giving information on all blueprints would be wonderful for all us analysts out there (PRE patch); that way there may be less of a production drop from everyone's supply lines being suddenly changed...

And by API I mean like the one for Fuzzwork (plug in itemID, ML and PL and get out all the information you want). Example, the drake:
https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/blueprints/xml2/24698/0/0/0/1


We will release a special SDE for industry before the release containing the new blueprint data.


You had to post this, just as I was writing my mail asking for it, didn't you? :grump: Blink

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#204 - 2014-04-28 19:09:22 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:

(Oh, and rename the ME skill please. Multiple meaning for the ME acronym is bad complexity)

It's getting altered:

Quote:
The Material Efficiency skill will be repurposed, stay tuned for more information on that in a future blog.


Presumably it will have a new name that describes its new role.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#205 - 2014-04-28 19:11:15 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


Quote:
Negative ME and TE levels work pretty much as you'd expect in this sort of system, being converted into direct percentage values. TE -4 will thus now be shown as TE -100%, and all the various decryptors (and related code) will be updated to match.


As an inventor, I'm curious how you will handle the negative ME levels.

Currently, at ME -4, and a 10% Waste Factor, there is a 50% material waste.
Likewise, ME -3, -2, -1, represent a 40%, 30%, & 20% increase in material wastes.

Are you planning to maintain these levels?


Also, I suspect that most T2 modules will see a 30% increase in prices with the changes so far.

For example, a Light Neutron cannon II will now require an extra robotics and 3 extra particle accelerators. That's an extra 120k isk in materials to the current production cost of ~600k isk. Add in the increased "line costs", and the net result is a fairly hefty 20-30% increase in the production prices of most T2 modules.

Are POS arrays, lowsec stations, and nullsec outposts perhaps going to have "ME Benefits" that make producing in those "riskier" locations?



very interested in this myself.

(POS have a -5% material adjustment?)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#206 - 2014-04-28 19:11:17 UTC
Has CCP taken the changes into account, that apply to a small part of the community that specializes in COSMOS bpc's for a carreer path in New Eden ? Cool

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

Conventia Underking
Underking Family
Khimi Harar
#207 - 2014-04-28 19:11:26 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Kadl wrote:
A time credit could really salve some wounds here. Something which lets you do double time research. If you make the credit an object then, it could be an option placed on the ME and TE research screens. It seems that you already need to build optional inputs for other research related jobs like invention. You would just add that optional input to your newly developed ME and TE research screens. It would also give you a potential reward in the future.


Thanks for the feedback :)


This gave me the idea of having items which reduce research time being trade-able, which would allow people to research these items and sell them on the market to people who want to buy a bpo and research it, but rather not spend the time. Sort of like buying a researched bpo but without the person needing to know up front what direction the demand for researched bpo's will go in the future. Obviously, there should be a penalty for this, so you pay for the flexibility.

In my opinion, that turns the credit idea from a one off that might not be worth implementing into a completely new feature with interesting future gameplay involved.

For God; Salvation is Imperative, but not at the cost of our Humanity!

The Vitoc Problem - Conventia Underking

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#208 - 2014-04-28 19:12:20 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:

(Oh, and rename the ME skill please. Multiple meaning for the ME acronym is bad complexity)

It's getting altered:

Quote:
The Material Efficiency skill will be repurposed, stay tuned for more information on that in a future blog.


Presumably it will have a new name that describes its new role.

Saw that Big smile

Just wanted to be on the record. Doesn't hurt to type, slight hurt if it's missed.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Acid Kanshi
AIFAM
#209 - 2014-04-28 19:12:31 UTC
Hurr durr yes indeed, do want those formulas and rounding rules to calculate all the percentages of ME/TE etc.

EVE-Cost is a manufacturing tool for EVE players. http://www.eve-cost.eu

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#210 - 2014-04-28 19:14:45 UTC
Aryth wrote:
ElectronHerd Askulf wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
What I'm getting from the whole T2 BPO copy issue is that with a copy time 6.25% faster compared to that of its production time, people are worried that T2 BPOs will suddenly become better than invention for making T2 stuff. But after looking at the actual numbers (thx to Querns), I think these fears are totally unfounded.


Personally, I think there are a few large, low-volume items (i.e. unpopular ships) where the 6.25% _might_ make a difference (barring the issue with scarcity of items required for copies).

Modules, guns, drones, I don't think it'll make much of a difference. Prices might move a bit, but invention profit margins are good enough to absorb it.

The sky isn't falling, but now I'll never get rid of these goddamn claw prints.


We agree on that. We don't feel there are that many items it makes a huge difference but they do exist. More importantly its a buff to all T2 BPOs out there which should be done with caution and open eyes. I am not advocating for a nerf or a buff but a wash.

I like having "rares" (aka UO) but we probably shouldn't buff their output either.


I can't believe I am agreeing with a goon. I may have to question everything I hold dear in life.
But yeah, if CCP is not planning on wiping out the entire T2 BPO issue, (which should be dealt with as a completely separate issue), then T2 BPO holders should neither be penalized nor rewarded with these changes.
Intentional Concord Bringer
Evil Rotten Bastards
#211 - 2014-04-28 19:15:19 UTC
After reading, re-reading and then re-reading the dev blog, then reading all the comments... I think I understand these changes and largely agree with much of what others have already noted. I do, however, wish to add data points and recommendations to be considered.

First, I've been playing Eve since beta. My oldest current toon is from 2005. In the 10 years I've been playing, I've amassed a startlingly large collection of BPOs of which the vast majority of them are researched to the point of ridiculousness. There have been several good reasons for doing this. Despite diminishing returns, the ME curve did allow for increased profits for, say, a 100ME researched frigate blueprint vs. a 10ME researched blueprint. Not a ton, but the collection taken as a whole multiplied by how often I make stuff adds up to a lot of extra ISK per year. PE (now TE, finally lol) allowed me to manufacture them more quickly than my competitors with lower PE. And finally, BPCs with higher ME/PE sell for more and sell more readily than those with lower ME/PE values.

All of these combined to make investing large amounts of time into research and copying worthwhile. As someone who has spent 9+ years of his life maximizing the potential of his BPO collection, changing the system to only require ten levels to reach maximum production efficiency is a bit of a butthurt... I won't lie. This effectively means that one of my central gameplay joys is now almost entirely moot. Given the state of my BPOs I fully expect 99% of them will still be perfect ME/TE after the change, but I loose a substantial competitive advantage in the market post change, since now every Tom, **** and Harry player can reach perfection much more quickly than it took for me and anyone who already has at least 10ME invested in the vast majority of prints will generally seem to end up with a perfect print, post change.

I agree that the time (and isk) investment in building that collection and researching it as it is should be compensated in some way. I like both the idea of a) being given RU's much in the same way SP are given when skills are removed - this covers the time aspect pretty well and would allow me to further improve my collection as new prints are added to the game, and the idea of b) marking the BPO's with their old ME/PE levels, giving them collectors value which covers the isk invested aspect pretty well too. So, I vote for both as a good compromise to compensate for both time and isk investment. Granted, 'collectible' prints might not be a lucrative market now or ever, but it leaves the door open to at least add some additional value to those blueprints vs any purchased and researched after the change. It also leaves the dark side of New Eden alone where nefarious sellers can still convince the unsuspecting players with more ISK than brains that it's a better print than another, etc. even though it is not at that point.

I'd also like to cast some doubt on the T2 production changes. I also concur that anyone who was either lucky enough to get one in the lottery (which I didn't - full disclosure) or rich enough to buy one from someone desperate enough to sell one (which I ain't, lol) already have significant advantages over invention. Any changes to T2 BPOs should, therefore, be considered more internally before making the change. If it were up to me, I'd leave them alone and give the advantage to the inventors - as it was meant to be before the folly of introducing T2 BPOs to the game in such a limited way, which it only took about a year IIRC for CCP to figure out was a bad move and we've all had to live with it since. So, I'd consider giving the BPO owner no advantage while rewarding the BPC inventor some additional advantage over the BPO. Right now, invention isn't really that rewarding in and of itself. There's a lot of time and isk investment on the part of the inventor and a high failure rate despite maxed skills and decryptors, so the advantage should go to the inventor, not the BPO owner in this case, I feel. That's my 2 cents on that.

Having made all those points, I must contend that this is a good overall change to research for the future of the game. Industry hasn't been iterated on in a loooooong time, aside from introducing PI, new BPOs to research and toys to build. This change, coupled with the other changes I've read about so far, are a welcome change to the industry ecosystem of New Eden and despite being directly adversely affected by the changes, I agree it is something that has to be done.

Now... about those modular POSs we've been asking for since 2006... (sorry, had to be done).

Thanks CCP Greyscale - I appreciate the dev blog post, the responses given in the comments and all the hard work you guys are doing to iterate on the industry side of the game.

As an aside... you know what else I'd really like to see happen in summer 2014? Open up the stations, let us build the bars and strip joints and supply the beef and water, the spirits and tobacco consumables they need. Let us populate them with civilians, tourists, janitors and the like. Let us in dangit... I'm tired of looking at myself in the mirror and I want to have yet another avenue for manufacturing, research and PI. The original plan for that was awesome sauce for us indy types... too bad CCP fux0r3d it all up with NEX. :(

Posted with a trashy forum alt.
Adellle Nadair
Nuclear Midnight
#212 - 2014-04-28 19:18:14 UTC
The reduction of ME to a 10 rank system overly simplifies a complex system, that is complex for a very good reason. Eve is a complicated and complex game, the ME system as it currently exists is easily understandable as a system of diminishing returns. Changing this system to a 10 rank system causes a lot more issues than it solves and it reduces player choice.

The amount of time invested to bring a ME to perfect isn't actually changing. The difference is that now to research up a single level will take a lot longer. This means that research slots and character research/invent/copy slots will be filled for longer periods of time. This reduces player choice.

Currently I can choose to research 3 or 4 ME on a BS blueprint, knowing that it will only improve my bpo very slightly. But that gradually, over time, I can improve it, choosing to research other bpos as I need to or want to depending on what is happening in game or how my short term goals are changing. With the changes this amount of choice will be impossible. There is no way to partially research the long research jobs.

The ME system currently isn't broken. Industry in eve is complex, and should be complex because eve itself is complex. The ME system is complex because it allows for players to choose how much they want to invest. More over it allows them to invest partially and get a result (if even a very small result) for their investment. But, most importantly, it is an easy to understand system. The proposed changes create a system that looks simpler but actually just reduces player choices without adding any benefit to the game.

I suggest that you immediately scrap this change to ME. Instead, create a better UI on blueprints to show reduction on return for investment. You could add a section that shows what perfect ME would be and how long it would take to attain that. This would give the clarity of information you are trying to attain. Please do not make this change, reducing player choices and reducing the variety that eve needs.
Nalha Saldana
The Vomit Comets
#213 - 2014-04-28 19:18:37 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
My understanding of the T2 market is that individual items tend to be either completely BPO-dominated or largely invention dominated. In principle I totally recognize that increased supply of cheaper goods can have an impact, but in practice there are (as I understand it) very few cases where this *actually* matters.


This is dangerous and no safe for future developments, you should make stable changes that makes sense in the long run. I would rather see a something big, like dropping the bomb and removing t2 BPOs to make industry more fun for more people.
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#214 - 2014-04-28 19:22:10 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
My understanding of the T2 market is that individual items tend to be either completely BPO-dominated or largely invention dominated. In principle I totally recognize that increased supply of cheaper goods can have an impact, but in practice there are (as I understand it) very few cases where this *actually* matters.


This is dangerous and no safe for future developments, you should make stable changes that makes sense in the long run. I would rather see a something big, like dropping the bomb and removing t2 BPOs to make industry more fun for more people.


Fun != Profitable.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 

Matthew
BloodStar Technologies
#215 - 2014-04-28 19:23:04 UTC
Copying Times Part 2

Having looked into the numbers in more detail, I'm not sure the figures on copying times in the Dev Blog stack up at all. If anyone can see anything I've done wrong in the below, please do point it out!

The dev blog states that T1 blueprints take 20x longer to copy than to build, and T2 blueprints take 100x longer. These are the figures you get if you take the ratio of the researchCopyTime and productionTime columns from the invBlueprintTypes table in the static data dump.

However, this ignores the fact that these numbers relate to completely different things. The productionTime column gives the time taken to manufacture 1 run of the item. The researchCopyTime column gives the time taken to copy a blueprint that contains half the number of runs given by maxProductionLimit.

So what this is actually saying for most Tech 1 modules is "It takes 20x as long to produce a 150-run copy as it does to manufacture 1 run". The actual impact varies item-by-item due to the differing max-runs.

If you calculate the times run-for-fun, for most T1 modules, drones, ammo etc, it is already significantly faster to make a copy compared to manufacturing. The exceptions seem to be T1 ships (33% - 4x longer to copy), T2 (around 2-4x longer to copy), starbase structures (8x longer to copy). Capital stuff seems to go to about 20x longer to copy.

If the proposal is to set researchCopyTime=productionTime, then this would be a massive buff to copying, but one that would be somewhat unevenly applied, as its impact on the actual run-for-run timings would be significantly distorted by the variation in max-runs.

If the poposal is to set the run-for-run times to be equal, then this will be a massive nerf to all T1 except ships, with huge impacts on invention.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#216 - 2014-04-28 19:24:08 UTC
ok, read through both new blogs...exhausting! From a relatively new player to invention etc these changes will make it less daunting for newer players to S&I to make headway. Be interesting to see how this pans out but POS will still be important for copying/researching/inventing I think.

On a side note you have no idea how hard I had to resist reformatting Querns SQL query :D
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#217 - 2014-04-28 19:38:02 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Yes you may need to do some flying around.

So basically you move the clickfest from the industry ui to the overview ui Lol.

Remove standings and insurance.

Abla Tive
#218 - 2014-04-28 19:44:35 UTC
I am not fully familiar with POS's, but I seem to recall that you could copy faster on a POS than on a station.

This speed up was non trivial as I recall.

For a T2 BPO owner, would it now make sense to run a POS to make copies
(albeit at the cost of daily log ins to make sure that you have not been dec'd)

Would this impact the market?
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#219 - 2014-04-28 19:48:04 UTC
Jackie Fisher wrote:
So if I have a cap ship BPO I'll be able to make c. 3 times as many copies from it as I do now in a similar time frame? If so a massive crash in higher end BPCs coming.


Yup. I made that comment earlier.
That nice little cottage industry of selling high quality capital ship and component BPC's just got wiped out, unless demand for capital ships triples overnight.

I made a few hundred million every month creating 3 different cap ship BPC's, as well as a bunch of 5 run cap component BPC's.

That just got ruined.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#220 - 2014-04-28 19:50:28 UTC
Abla Tive wrote:
I am not fully familiar with POS's, but I seem to recall that you could copy faster on a POS than on a station.

This speed up was non trivial as I recall.

For a T2 BPO owner, would it now make sense to run a POS to make copies
(albeit at the cost of daily log ins to make sure that you have not been dec'd)

Would this impact the market?



0.75 multiplier. for regular labs So 33% faster.
0.65 for advanced labs (which have 3 slots, rather than 1) 53% faster)

And we have a further 5% modifier coming (if I remember a devpost correctly)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter