These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#321 - 2014-04-28 22:17:24 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

Which would mean I could put out 1.6 BPC's a day instead of building 1 ship per day... and still make less profit (by far) than building and selling the ship myself.

Except you could build 1.6 ships a day. Really, Grrr Goons might be a thing, but when it comes to exploiting a mechanic for all it's worth, don't try and tell the goons they don't know what they are doing.

Fair point. However that still won't make a significant dent in the demand for those ships. Invention still provides the vast majority of the stock on the market, and would continue to do so.


This takes the impacted markets from a handful of under utilized cases and turns it into a sizeable portion of the T2 market. I am sure CCP can run a query to see how many are impacted by a doubling of BPO output. Its a very safe bet its more than was impacted by 6.25% though. 60% is pretty laughable after all.

Our hope is they nerf outposts in some way or nerf copy time on T2 bpos, or rather not unnerf them.

There are already too many items which are unviable to invent due to T2 BPOs imo.

We agree. That's why it's so critical to not allow the proposed changes to T2 BPOs come to pass. Affording a 0.4 multiplier to copy time to a T2 BPO whose copy time is already slightly under production time will slaughter a large number of currently viable invention markets.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#322 - 2014-04-28 22:18:12 UTC
Querns wrote:
Medalyn Isis wrote:
Querns wrote:
Leveraging a 60%+ increase to the profitability of a T2 BPO due to lowering the copy time is going to drive an immense amount of invention to unfeasibility. This cannot be allowed to be brought to Tranquility in its current state.

My recommendation is to "bake in" the T3 Gallente Outpost bonus to copying speed into the T2 BPO, such that if you copy at a T3 Gallente Outpost, you receive copies at the same rate that the currently proposed math suggests they arrive (the math that does not take T3 Gallente Outposts into consideration.)

That is a terrible hatchet job of an idea.

I think some complete overhaul of base requirements to copy a T2 BPO is needed.

How so? If CCP's idea is to make copying a T2 BPO slightly more effective than building on it, compensating for the T3 Gallente Station that every single T2 BPO will land in makes sense. Failing to do this causes the T2 BPO to be able to generate more than twice as many runs per time period than before.

Hmm, I think T2 BPO holders will probably rage if this happened. Now I thought about it though I agree with you.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#323 - 2014-04-28 22:19:24 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

Which would mean I could put out 1.6 BPC's a day instead of building 1 ship per day... and still make less profit (by far) than building and selling the ship myself.

Except you could build 1.6 ships a day. Really, Grrr Goons might be a thing, but when it comes to exploiting a mechanic for all it's worth, don't try and tell the goons they don't know what they are doing.

Fair point. However that still won't make a significant dent in the demand for those ships. Invention still provides the vast majority of the stock on the market, and would continue to do so.



Just ran the (max skill) numbers on a Pilgrim.

If you're buying all the components at jita sell prices, the only way to make a profit is with a Process decryptor. And then you make around 75k isk/hr.

(flipping everything except datacores and decryptors over to buy orders improves it to around 270k, but they're not uncommon items. sell orders are the better way to judge it)

This suggests that the quantity from T2 BPOs is not inconsequential. (back in March 2012, only 22% of pilgrims came from invention.

Looking at the market history, the numbers moving haven't significantly changed.

http://eve-marketdata.com/price_check.php?step=Show&type_id=11965&region_id=&solarsystem_id=&type=historytext

With a 60% increase in output, BPO owners can close this market to inventors, if they so choose.

(extra materials have a minimal effect on this one.)

I"m sorry, where did you get the figure that only 22% of Pilgrims came from invention?

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#324 - 2014-04-28 22:19:30 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
Aryth wrote:
After some internal debate we want to point out something. It isn't 6.25%. It will be more like 60%. I doubt CCP wants T2 BPO production to more than double. So barring some other changes we haven't seen yet this is what will occur.

Well, that let the cat out of the bag.

it turns out there's no high-quality t2 module bpos for sale


He isn't kidding. We spent hours looking at T2 bpos today.

Same here.

I was thinking it was too good to be true anyway. Outpost changes were bound to come along and scupper it all.


I figured this was some outpost gimmick. CCP is modifying outposts, but we don't know if they saw this issue yet.

What I find interesting is a lack of defensiveness about how this is a proper payment for the chance that all of a sudden all of their BPOs would be locked away.

Obviously CCP will need to address this as well.
Plug in Baby
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#325 - 2014-04-28 22:21:06 UTC
Am I correct in thinking the slot years spent on getting a capital BPO collection researched will now translate to savings of around 6%?

This seems pretty incredible.



How about if you are going to completely change the system you give us back all the research time and let us chose where it is spent? Much alike getting unallocated SP?

This is not a forum alt, this is a forum main.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#326 - 2014-04-28 22:21:52 UTC
There is also no other BPO in the game that is no longer available for players to acquire, so T2 BPO's already are in a special position relative to all other BPO's. Hence why they require special treatment.

You can harp on about 'How I can make more with a well set up invention chain' but that is due to utilising all your build lines. If you have sufficient BPO's to utilise all your build lines you are not making more with invention, you are making more with BPO's.
Blake Armitage
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#327 - 2014-04-28 22:22:24 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

Which would mean I could put out 1.6 BPC's a day instead of building 1 ship per day... and still make less profit (by far) than building and selling the ship myself.

Except you could build 1.6 ships a day. Really, Grrr Goons might be a thing, but when it comes to exploiting a mechanic for all it's worth, don't try and tell the goons they don't know what they are doing.

Fair point. However that still won't make a significant dent in the demand for those ships. Invention still provides the vast majority of the stock on the market, and would continue to do so.



Just ran the (max skill) numbers on a Pilgrim.

If you're buying all the components at jita sell prices, the only way to make a profit is with a Process decryptor. And then you make around 75k isk/hr.

(flipping everything except datacores and decryptors over to buy orders improves it to around 270k, but they're not uncommon items. sell orders are the better way to judge it)

This suggests that the quantity from T2 BPOs is not inconsequential. (back in March 2012, only 22% of pilgrims came from invention.

Looking at the market history, the numbers moving haven't significantly changed.

http://eve-marketdata.com/price_check.php?step=Show&type_id=11965&region_id=&solarsystem_id=&type=historytext

With a 60% increase in output, BPO owners can close this market to inventors, if they so choose.

(extra materials have a minimal effect on this one.)

I"m sorry, where did you get the figure that only 22% of Pilgrims came from invention?


From CCP Diagoras Twitter before he left per http://k162space.com/2012/07/17/percentage-of-items-from-invention-vs-tech-2-bpo/
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#328 - 2014-04-28 22:23:37 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

Which would mean I could put out 1.6 BPC's a day instead of building 1 ship per day... and still make less profit (by far) than building and selling the ship myself.

Except you could build 1.6 ships a day. Really, Grrr Goons might be a thing, but when it comes to exploiting a mechanic for all it's worth, don't try and tell the goons they don't know what they are doing.

Fair point. However that still won't make a significant dent in the demand for those ships. Invention still provides the vast majority of the stock on the market, and would continue to do so.


This takes the impacted markets from a handful of under utilized cases and turns it into a sizeable portion of the T2 market. I am sure CCP can run a query to see how many are impacted by a doubling of BPO output. Its a very safe bet its more than was impacted by 6.25% though. 60% is pretty laughable after all.

Our hope is they nerf outposts in some way or nerf copy time on T2 bpos, or rather not unnerf them.

I can live with that.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#329 - 2014-04-28 22:24:32 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

I"m sorry, where did you get the figure that only 22% of Pilgrims came from invention?

A while back CCP released some figures showing how much some markets were using T2 BPO's.
Quite a few of the T2 ship markets were nearly all T2 BPO production with almost no invention (And the invention count included people who build for themselves using 'free' minerals and don't take opportunity cost into account for profit)
I don't have a direct reference but I do know that the figures showed there are actually a significant number of T2 BPO's out there that have a real impact on the market.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#330 - 2014-04-28 22:26:18 UTC
While I'm definitely on record in a number of places calling for the removal of T2 BPOs, I would gladly concede that this is probably not the right time to have that particular discussion. (I would, however, absolutely want to have it during the Invention changes coming in the summer expansion's fat point releases.) I think the best course of action here is to try to return T2 BPOs to the status quo, as to avoid rocking this particular boat until its time.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#331 - 2014-04-28 22:28:02 UTC
OK, back from where I was away at, let's reply to some posts yo.

Yuki Kasumi wrote:
I'm trying to determine comparable levels of research before and after patch and came up with the following, is this correct?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AdDnVTuqXiEqcZF7nb0JXt_dXRYE6lMaJ6Fcnp1qLQU/edit#gid=0


No, we're rounding generously :) In Excel it'd be Floor() rather than Round(), IDK exactly if that works in google docs.


ergherhdfgh wrote:
So you say it won't cost any more to produce from "Perfect" BPOs but somehow we add in 11% more build mats and then take them out again with the new ME. What happened to the old "waste" from unresearched BPOs? I find this confusing could you explain it better?

Currently BPOs have a 10% wastage factor on most items. If you add 11% on top of that and then remove 10% I fail to see how that is not going to get about 10% more expensive to build.


See, this is the reason we want to simplify the system! Let me try and explain how it is currently.

Right now on TQ, we have base build cost, which is "perfect ME" cost. This is the amount you get back when you reprocess something (pre-nerf).

Then you have ME waste. This is 10% added on top of the base build cost, which is then subtracted again by ME on the blueprint.

Then you have what I'll call "skill waste", which is another 25% (right? I'd go check but I have many tabs open already and it doesn't change the rest of the math) added on top of that. When you've trained the ME skill to 5 (which you've done if you're building competitively), this zeroes out and you can ignore it.

So, we have base amount, and then we add waste, and then we subtract it again with ME.


In the new system, we have a base build cost, and we reduce it with the ME %.

Because we're no longer adding the waste in on top of build cost and then subtracting it again, in order to stop everything just getting 10% cheaper, we need to increase the base build cost to compensate.

Because we want ME to go to 10%, and we want "perfect ME" blueprints in the new system to give the same build cost as a "perfect ME" blueprint in the current system, we need to have the new base cost * 0.9 to be equal to the old base build cost, and to get that we have to divide it by 0.9, which comes to 11.1111111111111111111111111111111111111111%.

Yes it's complicated, that's why we're trying to simplify it!


handige harrie wrote:
I don't get why CCP solves te whole T2 BPO issue by either reintroducing a system in which people get it, or remove them form the system. Now is the best chance to do something.

The blueprints with the Low Max run BPC stuff are mostly in the Ammo category; Scripts and ammo itself. The hardest hit by far is indeed the Nanite Repair Paste blueprint, with a max bpc production time of 5 Minutes * 5 runs per BPC, making production from BPCs (which is what CCP wants) impossible. It also has no Tech 2 counterpart, so increasing the max runs on bpc's on both Scripts (don't have any invention coupled on them either) and the Repair Paste BPO shouldn't lead to issues.


I will try and remember to look at these in the morning.

Kadl wrote:

It is good that you are expressing your reasoning on these points. Certain aspects matter to you more or less then they matter to me or others here, so your explanation will help people at the very least see those values.

I am not sure you are explaining yourself on situation one, where there are many inventors, sufficiently. I am happy to grant you a market size which changes based on prices. The amount of change possible is based on the profits from T2 invention. Obviously in this case T2 BPO holders will maximize their production thus increasing it by 6.25%. That added production is added to the market, reducing prices. The reduced prices may lead to some T2 inventors to leave, or everyone could stay. So some inventors leave, some stay, prices are reduced. If the prices stay the same then we can estimate that inventors will lose market share of 6.25% x T2 BPO owners current market share. A simple summary is that T2 inventors will be effected with smaller profits, lost sales, or a combination of the two.

My preference is for not improving T2 BPO production rates. I realize that you may choose something different, but I encourage you to embrace an age of increasing invention at the cost of the old wealthy powers.

Edit: I see that you are taking another look at the T2 BPOs and situation one. Thank you.


Yeah, that does seem reasonable. I'm swinging more towards not buffing T2 BPOs at all (and that's before the outpost upgrade issues that we'll get to in a minute!). I'll talk to the rest of the design team in the morning and see where our collective head is at.

ergherhdfgh wrote:
Weaselior wrote:

1.11(repeating)*.9=1

so you wind up back at the "old base cost" (currently the zero-waste cost)


That does not explain what happened to the original 10%.

We had a 10% wasteage factor and every level of ME halved that so 50% of the 10% for ME 1 75% of the 10% for ME 2 etc...

We are removing the old ME values and adding in this new +11% - 10% thingy

I can make a lot of assumptions here but the wording they chose is very confusing. It sounds like they are removing that 10% so if something required 100 units of trit with 0 ME it would now require 90 and muliplying that 90 by 1.11 repeating to get back to 100 or 99.99... but it makes no sense why you would remove something just to add it in again just to remove it again. I mean why not just say you are converting how ME is figured instead of adding and removing stuff twice?

Please clarify.


So currently, something that requires 100 units of trit at 0 ME actually requires 90.90r units of trit, which we then multiply by 1.1 to get 100, and then divide by 1 + (ME efficiency gain) to get back down to 90.90r units at perfect ME.

Or, tl;dr,...
Dibble Dabble
Capital Assets Inc
#332 - 2014-04-28 22:28:56 UTC
I only have a matter of weeks before most of my accounts expire.

I and several friends have spent years building up a considerable portfolio of BPO's for manufacture but mainly for T2 invention and Capital Production and copy. I guess the assets are worth in excess of 400 billion. Its a lot for a small group of players but we have earned our bones in low sec, null sec and the hell known as Jita. For most alliances I guess 400bil is petty cash but we have not scammed, RMT'd, ganked or stolen a single ISK of it.

The empire ganking has made life more difficult in moving materials for production and fuel and products for sale but we adapted with minimal losses. We have adapted to many of the changes to both the game but also the behaviour of players, the attitude of CCP and the GM's who must have the worst logs known in the memory of man cos they never seem to show anything.

However the proposed changes to the game mean that empire industry will no longer be attractive and despite offers from a number of larger alliance based corps to move back to null sec we have taken the decision to call it a day. When we play eve we want a challenge but we sure as hell don't want a full time job. Our POS's operating 100+ labs will be a nice target, our ships moving BPO's searching for a suitable lab or factory will also make a nice target.

All of us work for a living and we don't see the point in having another job in our limited spare time. Between us 15 accounts have been cancelled leaving only 3 active. We have taken down 4 empire POS with just one left on our final capital copy runs.

We had hoped to open up one of the corps to newer players who could have used our BPO's (locked down of course) to try their hand at industry but this will no longer be practical.

To the dev who came up with the industry abomination your an damn fool and I really wish CCP would choose dev's who actually understand the practicalities of what they are f***ing with rather than the code junkies who want to screw with **** they don't understand.

I am sure Eve will become a worse place with these changes but with the continuing drop in the player bases I guess they had to nerf empire just a little more to encourage more "emergent" gameplay.

My main will hang around for a while and maybe we are wrong and the changes will be good for eve and industry. But for now we will not be spending 40 billion of ISK a month on fuel, minerals, moon goo and plex.


LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#333 - 2014-04-28 22:29:12 UTC
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:
I think it's time for Tech 2 BPOs to be deactivated and turned into collectors' items.



I disagree. I think it is time that invention be fixed to allow the invention of BPOs, from M0-M5.

Let players invent T2 BPOs, with hubreds of millions to hundreds of billions ot ISK investment (depending on the rank of the BP). Convert rat drops to salvage, require salvage as input to M1-M4 manufacturing.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#334 - 2014-04-28 22:32:37 UTC
Quote:
I"m sorry, where did you get the figure that only 22% of Pilgrims came from invention?


Quote:
From CCP Diagoras Twitter before he left per http://k162space.com/2012/07/17/percentage-of-items-from-invention-vs-tech-2-bpo/

Good reference I hadn't seen that.
The 2/3's of the list that are dominated by invention don't support the "T2 BPO's are destroying the market" argument very well though. Smile

Many of the items where the percentage of BPO production is higher are items that are of limited popularity, and I wouldn't be surprised if they represented items where a larger than average number of the BPOs were awarded.

I'd also like to see those numbers on Pilgrim now that they are in better shape than 2 years ago, as demand is up for them now... thus encouraging Invention and affecting those percentages. Slow selling items, you must admit, are much more likely to have a large percentage of their stock created from BPO's.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#335 - 2014-04-28 22:33:19 UTC
I'm curious as to whether or not any of these changes will provide incentive to build most T1 modules, other than as a component needed to build T2 modules.

If not, then I don't see how these changes will help noob industrialists, since they can't really compete in the T2 market, which is still too convoluted for a one-month old player (unless someone is kind enough to give them a T2 BPO), nor in the T1 ship market, where the margins are too slim for new players with limited resources to compete against us older players with much larger resources.

So, even with these changes, noob industrialists will still be pretty much limited to building T1 ammo and rigs, right?
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#336 - 2014-04-28 22:34:46 UTC
Myxx wrote:
OK, upon running through EVERYTHING once again, it does actually work out at ME10 as Weasle pointed out.

You said a lot for very little reason beyond simplifying the maths and here I went chasing ghosts for a little bit so thats my bad.

What in the actual ****, greyscale?

But... just note that you really only had to change copy times and could've left it as it was. The change you made was totally and completely pointless.


I think we can at least both agree that this is entirely my fault, right?

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, 0 represent a 40%, 30%, 20%, & 10% increase in material wastes.

I assume the new levels will be ME 0 represents 111% of current, with ME -1 an additional 10%, likewise ME -4 an additional 40%?

1.11111 * 1.4 = 1.55555, so ME -4 will have an additional 5% waste on top of current production quantities.


Overall, 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?


Yup, there is a little bit of additional rounding waste in the negative MEs. I had this in the blog for a while, but I took it out because it was fiddly to explain and I figured someone would figure it out pretty quickly in the comments anyway. So, you get a small prize of nonspecific nature for being the first (that I've noticed!) to flag this up.

Some ME improvements may be available in various locations, not big ones but there are a few holes needing plugging. Next blog should have more info.

Steve Ronuken wrote:
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)


What exactly do you want, formula-wise? There's nothing particularly secret here, I just want to be sure I'm delivering the right info.

Freelancer117 wrote:
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


Nope, not especially. What are the impacts on COSMOS stuff, from your perspective? You're the first person I've spoken to who actually does that stuff :)

Steve Ronuken wrote:
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.


Yup, it'll get a rename.

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.


I kind of agree, but it's not something we felt we had the design bandwidth to tackle in this release. It's definitely on our radar at least, though.

[quote=Matthew]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...
Plug in Baby
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#337 - 2014-04-28 22:38:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Plug in Baby
Weaselior wrote:
the dropoff in value of ME after 20 was so severe that only fools researched anything besides capital component bpos over that, fools should not be rewarded for their foolishness


So what about those capital producers?

For doing the sensible thing we are now going to be rewarded with ME 100 compontent BPOs suddenly worth no more than a very basic BPO. Great.

The double whammy is our well optimized ME 2-6 capital hull BPOs will suddenly get a load of extra waste.


Sounds like this change didn't even consider some BPO types, I'd have liked to see some proper examples.


If not please give us all our research time in a pool to spend on patch day so the people who made the sensible decision in the past can make a new educated decision on where to spend it.

This is not a forum alt, this is a forum main.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#338 - 2014-04-28 22:41:11 UTC
Plug in Baby wrote:

If not give us all our research time in a pool to spend on patch day so the people who made the sensible decision in the past can make a new educated decision on where to spend it.

This is not a particularly smart idea. This will let you bootstrap an insane number of new blueprints to perfect status without having to do anything but scoop up unnecessarily high level BPOs.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#339 - 2014-04-28 22:41:45 UTC
XerXes SX wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Lena Lazair wrote:
Quote:
This would mean that ME/TE 1 become ME 5%/TE 10%, ME/TE 5-9 become ME 9%/TE 18%, and anything over ME/TE 10 currently move to ME 10%/TE 20%.


So if I have a blueprint with ME 4 that is currently perfect under the existing system, it will now require days/weeks to re-perfect it? That seems really odd.

What I expected to see is that the perfect ME/TE for any given blueprint be calculated, and then blueprints transitioned to the new system based on a ratio between their current number and the perfect number. E.g. if I have a blueprint at ME 4, and a perfect ME would be 5, then I'm at 0.8 and should get an ME 8% (or TE 16%) on the new blueprint.

Obviously you won't be able to go with a 100% perfect value as the upper end for a lot of things, since many blueprints have ridiculous upper-ends on that scale, but some reasonable margin would probably make most people happy (e.g. 95% or 98% being the "perfect" ME used to scale the top end of the ratio).


If it's perfect currently, it'll be perfect after the change without further research. ME4 currently gives you an 8% waste reduction, so it'll be converted to ME 8% in the new system. If it was effectively perfect at ME4 before, it'll be effectively perfect at ME 8% after.

Am I explaining this clearly enough?


No - so what will happen if I invent further to ME 10%, no more changes?
Since there is no more waste ME 0% is base so very ME level means less material consumption, so there must be a different between 8% and 10%.


In most cases, yes. In the case of blueprints that are "perfect" at sub-10 ME values currently, no, because they use items in such small numbers that a 1% reduction in build cost doesn't actually reduce anything, because we're rounding to the nearest whole unit.

GeeBee wrote:
I disagree with the upwards scaling wall of the level progression.

In the current system ME/PE 10 can be obtained rather easily, in the proposed system it will take a long time.

The following numbers are using no modifiers on these research time to ME 10
Frigate 13D 21H 20m After 102.24 Days
Cruiser 27D 18H 40m After 204.48 Days
BS/BC 41D 16H After 306.72 Days
Carriers/Dreads 1.62Y After 11.94 Years
Supercarriers 3.25Y After 23.89 Years
Titans 6.49Y After 47.81 Years

Take into account these numbers are using no skills or pos to show base values, its possible someone could have bought a titan BPO and researched it in a pos for 3.5 years and gotten it to ME 10. The proposed new scaling system not only rewards players who invested heavily in the old system but punishes any new players trying to get into production.

Primarily the level scaling on levels 6-10, Rather than continued exponential increases it would be better to plateau out with minor increases per level, which is what we get now.

Since ME 1 currently is Now Level 5 then the research time from level 1 to level 5 should be roughly equal to the total research time of ME 1 which i think has been achieved, but the research times Level 10 is a nightmare, you're trading diminishing returns in material saved for soul crushing time wasting, which i believe is just bad policy, at least try to keep the soul crushing time wasting to what it is now rather than punish everyone that hasn't done something yet.


ME 10 in the old system is not equivalent to ME 10% in the new system, though. In the old system, ME 10 leaves you with 0.91% waste, in the new system it leaves you with 0% waste. And yes, 0.91% is not a large amount, but it's pretty close to 1%, and if you're happy with 1% waste you only need to research to ME 9% in the new system.

Steve Ronuken wrote:
Quick question:

How long will it take to create 20 max run copies of an Expanded Cargohold I?

Right now, it's about 100 hours.

To fully manufacture that, (at PL 0), that's around 800 hours to manufacture.

I assume you're not going to screw the the numbers to increase the copy time here? As that would destroy invention.


We're not attempting to increase copy times anywhere, I'll double-check my working in the morning and see if it's aligned with that goal still.

Obil Que wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
Odd question, but does this mean that researched BPCs, now having defined levels, could be sold directly on the market since there are only a static number of ME/TE combinations for each BPC?


Unfortunately no, we aren't quite at that point yet. We'd have to have a separate DB type for every combination of ME and TE research, which proliferates our blueprint count rather badly (ie 100x more blueprints).


What's a few million database rows between friends?

The current contract system is so square peg/round hole as to be a decent impediment to more wide-spread usage.

If you're looking to get more players involved in industry and wanting BPCs to be a larger part of the equation, having a "Blueprint Market" kind of interface for BPC sales would be a huge benefit. Whether integrated into the existing market or something entirely new, it would benefit everyone from buyers to sellers. The contract arena could still be used for "BPC packs" or other constructs where it makes sense but for selling stacks of BPCs it gets my vote.


We agree, contracts are not optimal, we need a better, unified market system for this sort of thing. It won't happen this summer, though :)

[quote=Althalus Stenory]There are some "shadows" in this devblog I think..

You say you will remove waste in blueprints... but which waste ? Since you are speaking about reprocessing change I can only think it's Extra Materials ? But you are saying after "we're removing the current system of taking "perfect build" requirements" so you speak about the material...
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#340 - 2014-04-28 22:42:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Plug in Baby wrote:

So what about those capital producers?

For doing the sensible thing we are now going to be rewarded with ME 100 compontent BPOs suddenly worth no more than a very basic BPO. Great.

The double whammy is our well optimized ME 2-6 capital hull BPOs will suddenly get a load of extra waste.

for the first, you get a bpo that is actually perfect and to the extent you overresearched, well, that was a thing that you did that didn't make much sense but maybe you did it during a downtime, either way who cares everyone has near-perfect cap component bpos

the well-optimized capital hull bpos you should get shoved in research asap to get a few extra high ME points on there, that would cost you much more under the new system, and you'll have an advantage over people researching from the beginning

(i am a capital producer, you see)

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