These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: The Price of Change

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#101 - 2014-04-29 13:33:27 UTC
Rapscallion Jones wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Uncle Shrimpa wrote:


OK, I think we are getting wrapped up in what is a tax - that being said, the station tax won't be applied, but the cost or building tax will be applied


so by tax u mean install cost? not tax


Somantics people, stop fixing on them and read his intent. Where is the offset for the cost of running a POS? Taxes aren't going to come close to the +500mil cost of operating a POS.

It is not just semantics when they are calling people out for failed reading comprehension when clearly failing at it themselves. And as GreyScale stated in his post above, taxes and installation costs are two distinct aspects of the total cost.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#102 - 2014-04-29 13:34:28 UTC
Typical agile development.

Don't have time to do it right, so let's just slap something together.

If you wanted to kill high sec, all you needed to do was add the 10%. No need to go to all this work to just to add an additional 2-5%,


Are you prepared to add more high sec ice and PI as prices of POS fuel skyrocket?
penifSMASH
ElitistOps
Deepwater Hooligans
#103 - 2014-04-29 13:35:05 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Currently outpost owners have the ability to restrict some or all of the slots to ensure they're open for corp projects. Obviously, with no slots, that's going away, but is it being replaced by anything to "gate" who can use the factory? Can use be limited to specific corps or the like (within the alliance), or is it purely standings-based like the other things you can restrict at a station? (e.g. so you can prevent the cost from rising too high)


^^ This. Was actually about to just post asking a similar question.

On a similar note, some kind of variable tax rate based on the corp/alliance that would use the station for industry purposes. The simple solution would be to just make it dependent on alliance standings, but station configuration settings are so archaic and rigid you don't actually have much flexibility. For example, if the corp that owned the station wanted to set tax rates based on standings it would have to uncheck the "use alliance standings" box and manually set different standings to each individual corp that can dock there. Not to mention that if you wanted to set different tax rates at different stations you would have to rely on a system that is not dependent on standings at all.
Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
#104 - 2014-04-29 13:35:19 UTC
IMO, the only people that will really suffer from all these "improvements" are players that do not any research or production but buy products in the market, since all your research/production costs will be covered in the sales.

As a result : new players will have to pay even more to get basic stuffs and making production will be "harder" (in cost terms) for those player who want to try it.

To be honest, as someone who create ship / modules, I don't really care on how much i'll pay, since it's the final buyer that'll cover everything I paid and as long I get some margin (the more the better), I'm happy with it.
The only disadvantage from this change is that we'll have to have more isks at the beginning to be able to pay bpo -> research -> production + components, before we sell the final product.


About POS
In the current mechanics announced, we will have, if I understood well :
- 10% shield to the npc taxe
- some better bonus in assembly / labs

But, do you have any numbers to provide us for :
- mobile lab / adv mobile lab / Hyasyoda research/copy bonus ?
- assembly bonus ?
- an estimation on "how much" we can gain from having a POS and using it, with the risk it generate, instead of doing stuff in station ?


Another question :
How do you calculate the "base price" of an item ? (not only by saying the same way in killmail :p) so we can estimate the price before trying in game (for excels / sheet or 3rd party programs warriors) (I'm sorry if you indicated it in another devblog, but I didn't find it ..)


A little piece of troll (well, not only in reality):
I "love" that workforce... "everywhere in space, even wormhole"... one day we will be charged for operating ship using "work force" that help the pilot using the ship. Lol(oh god, tell me I didn't gave a bad idea to ccp...)
And what about amarr, using slaves and not work force ? Why would they pay workforce when they have slaves ?
And what about minmatars, can't do the jobs theirselfs, as they are used to work on their rusted ships Roll

EsiPy - Python 2.7 / 3.3+ Swagger Client based on pyswagger for ESI
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#105 - 2014-04-29 13:37:33 UTC
Qorinn Eselle wrote:
The economic logic behind the installation cost calculation eludes me. Making the installation cost for a manufacturing job correlate directly to the sell price of the completed item in a given region doesn't make much sense.

The cost to manufacture an individual BMW has nothing to do with the final sticker price at the dealership, let alone an average of sticker prices in a particular region over a given time. If anything, there might be pressure on the sell price created by rising manufacturing costs, but not the other way around.

I would love to hear Dr EyjoG’s perspective on this.

I’m glad to hear that you’re “aware of the risk of price manipulation,” and that you’re “confident this system is robust in this regard.” It would be nice to get more details on how you plan to combat this, because it is inevitable that “someone” will try. Smile


It's not per-region, it's a global ballpark price value. What it does for us is it gives a pretty safe way for more expensive things to generally cost more to build than less expensive things, which seemed like a pretty reasonable outcome.

We're not going to go into details on exactly how we're dealing with manipulation issues; the reason we're pretty confident is that we already use this system to price FW LP payouts and we've not seen a repeat of the price manipulation issues that system previously had since we put the new system in place. If there was manipulation to be done, we assume it would already be happening in FW.

Rivr Luzade wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'll see what can be done about the standings.

I believe industry implants should still work, yes.


Does this mean that currently faction standings play no role whatsoever?

And you believe or do you know? Only believing would be pretty ... weak, if I may say so.


Currently, no, but we're not finished implementing it yet!

"Believe" because I didn't implement it and the guy who did wasn't at his desk when I posted. I've just asked him and yes, implants are taken into account.
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
#106 - 2014-04-29 13:39:06 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Typical agile development.

Don't have time to do it right, so let's just slap something together.

If you wanted to kill high sec, all you needed to do was add the 10%. No need to go to all this work to just to add an additional 2-5%,


Are you prepared to add more high sec ice and PI as prices of POS fuel skyrocket?


This probably won't be necessary, there's going to be little incentive to run a high sec POS after this goes live, it will be cost prohibitive as it stands now. Most POSes in high sec are research POSes, and as Greyscale had pointed out they don't really have a plan for research POS modules.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#107 - 2014-04-29 13:39:12 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:

Are you prepared to add more high sec ice and PI as prices of POS fuel skyrocket?


i hope not

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#108 - 2014-04-29 13:40:16 UTC
Qorinn Eselle wrote:
The economic logic behind the installation cost calculation eludes me. Making the installation cost for a manufacturing job correlate directly to the sell price of the completed item in a given region doesn't make much sense.

The cost to manufacture an individual BMW has nothing to do with the final sticker price at the dealership, let alone an average of sticker prices in a particular region over a given time. If anything, there might be pressure on the sell price created by rising manufacturing costs, but not the other way around.

I would love to hear Dr EyjoG’s perspective on this.

I’m glad to hear that you’re “aware of the risk of price manipulation,” and that you’re “confident this system is robust in this regard.” It would be nice to get more details on how you plan to combat this, because it is inevitable that “someone” will try. Smile

I somewhat agree with you here. This is a crude method for working out the cost. Surely it would be more logical for the cost to be based upon the amount of m3 of materials being used in the process. That would make logical sense, and would also roughly correlate to more expensive items being more expensive to manufacture.

It would also have the added bonus of being immune from price manipulation. I don't like the idea of fluctuating costs depending on the going market rate for the finished product, it will not be enjoyable to calculate that.

Also it reeks of opportunism by the greedy NPC corporations. :)
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#109 - 2014-04-29 13:43:06 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Plug in Baby wrote:
Quote:
For each previously slot-improving manufacturing-related Outpost Improvement, you'll get a 1% bonus to ME instead (we can do that now).


This is will only affect non perfect blueprints right? Nothing will be going past perfect right?


If not....


We don't have major concerns in going beyond "perfect" ME any more, provided we don't end up giving more than 50% discount and taking it below the reprocessing cap. So, yes, you can get "super-perfect" production with this system.

Weaselior wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Market costs are all done using the system that is used for killmail pricing (and thus used for FW LP payouts), which should have reasonable values for most things already. Some newer items aren't being properly calculated on TQ right now, but we're fixing that.

From what I recall of that system it relies on market prices, just with protections against manipulation that were added when some group of rapscallions abused the old one.

It's going to break for the sort of items I mentioned (nobody sells or buys capital components or t2 capital components except in extremely rare cases at random prices) and supercaps cannot be on the market at all, so there's no market data for them and never can be. This is a problem pretty much for all production intermediates: is there any solution that's being considered or are those going to get highly variable costs?


I don't believe this is a problem in practice. It should be noted that we don't desperately care whether the numbers are "accurate", so long as they're a) the right order of magnitude and b) not easy to manipulate up and down by large amounts. So long as they stay consistent, everyone building that product has the same base cost so there's a level playing field.

Medalyn Isis wrote:
Qorinn Eselle wrote:
The economic logic behind the installation cost calculation eludes me. Making the installation cost for a manufacturing job correlate directly to the sell price of the completed item in a given region doesn't make much sense.

The cost to manufacture an individual BMW has nothing to do with the final sticker price at the dealership, let alone an average of sticker prices in a particular region over a given time. If anything, there might be pressure on the sell price created by rising manufacturing costs, but not the other way around.

I would love to hear Dr EyjoG’s perspective on this.

I’m glad to hear that you’re “aware of the risk of price manipulation,” and that you’re “confident this system is robust in this regard.” It would be nice to get more details on how you plan to combat this, because it is inevitable that “someone” will try. Smile

I somewhat agree with you here. This is a crude method for working out the cost. Surely it would be more logical for the cost to be based upon the amount of m3 of materials being used in the process. That would make logical sense, and would also roughly correlate to more expensive items being more expensive to manufacture.

It would also have the added bonus of being immune from price manipulation. I don't like the idea of fluctuating costs depending on the going market rate for the finished product, it will not be enjoyable to calculate that.

Also it reeks of opportunism by the greedy NPC corporations. :)


We were originally looking at a volume-based system, but IIRC we decided there were too many weird relationships for it to really make sense.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#110 - 2014-04-29 13:45:06 UTC
As a followup to the problem with a fully upgraded amarr station that costs 60-80b (and remember this has no refine advantage over a highsec pos, maxes out at 52% since all other upgrade slots are taken) being only as good as a small highsec pos that costs 100-300m: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4526547

Transport costs are going up 50% (at least), which throws a serious wrench into a lot of the chance for nullsec to compete: imported minerals just got more expensive, importing non-local moon materials likewise, making it make even more sense to import the smaller finished products instead of the raw materials. With no cost advantage over a highsec pos sitting one jump from jita, there's nothing you can do to make up those transport costs.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#111 - 2014-04-29 13:46:29 UTC
Peter Powers wrote:
So, it is on purpose that specific systems will be a lot better for building stuff than others?

That will raise office prices in those system by a lot, and people who already have setup in those systems by now will have an advantage over people who would want to get in there. How will that be compensated?



I think it is moot. The 10% cost will crush the stations, and the multiplier of the system for stations does not bring that down.

This means that all high sec manufacturing will be at POS. And because the blueprints have to be in the POS and can't be locked down, it is all going to be done by a corp-of-1 with his 6 or 8 alts.

Corporation based industry will now be limited to just mining. Industry will be alt corps.


They have removed unnecessary clicking to set up jobs, and replaced it with a log-on, log-off fest switching between alts to deliver and start jobs.

Not to mention the click-fest of creating a new corp, moving all the toons, taking down and then setting back up the POS, every time there is a war dec.

NOTHING is going to have enough of a mark up that the 10% NPC facility fee will make it profitable.
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#112 - 2014-04-29 13:46:51 UTC
I don't understand any of this but I am excited!

Invalid signature format
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2014-04-29 13:47:21 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:
[quote=Qorinn Eselle]The economic logic behind the installation cost calculation eludes me. Making the installation cost for a manufacturing job correlate directly to the sell price of the completed item in a given region doesn't make much sense.

...


Perhaps it would be better to use the cost of raw materials based on a perfect BPC and the average cost of the goods at the nearest trade hub for this calculation? Then at least it is based on the amount of raw goods required and the cost of those goods This would also tie the availability of goods locally into the cost calculation too I think.
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#114 - 2014-04-29 13:47:23 UTC
Well, I've read it three times now...

I realize CCP would like the player population to "spread out", and specifically to encourage people to move to Null.

Oh, look... conveniently, the Null Sec rental slums are already waiting.

Obviously the parable of the "Carrot on the stick" doesn't translate all that well... the "carrot" has to be sweet and juicy... not rotten and fuzzy with mold.

Just saying, "good luck with that".









"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#115 - 2014-04-29 13:47:55 UTC
So the quick and dirty version:

- T2 BPOs get buffed, T2 BPCs get a nerf due to the way slot pricing works
- POS owners get the shaft
- Null sec production will be as useless as it is now, but more expensive
- CCP doesn't want to fix the POS codebase because it is too much work
- Standings? CCP forgot about them while designing this

Baddest poster ever
Adaahh Gee
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#116 - 2014-04-29 13:49:47 UTC
For the non-industrial folk, as a rough percentage figure.

What increase in ship prices are CCP hoping to achieve for general high sec trade hub prices?
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#117 - 2014-04-29 13:56:14 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Medalyn Isis wrote:
[
I somewhat agree with you here. This is a crude method for working out the cost. Surely it would be more logical for the cost to be based upon the amount of m3 of materials being used in the process. That would make logical sense, and would also roughly correlate to more expensive items being more expensive to manufacture.

It would also have the added bonus of being immune from price manipulation. I don't like the idea of fluctuating costs depending on the going market rate for the finished product, it will not be enjoyable to calculate that.

Also it reeks of opportunism by the greedy NPC corporations. :)


We were originally looking at a volume-based system, but IIRC we decided there were too many weird relationships for it to really make sense.

For me the big issue with making it variable system based upon some obscure formula which we will never have access to based upon market prices, is that it will be impossible to accurately calculate the cost of production as there will be too many variables specific to each manufacturing job.

I can live with the price fluctuating depending on system activity and teams as mentioned in the blog, but adding another variable in to the mix, for which we will never have the formula, will make it very difficult to predict results. So for that reason I am personally not keen on tying it to market prices.
adriaans
Ankaa.
Nair Al-Zaurak
#118 - 2014-04-29 13:56:35 UTC  |  Edited by: adriaans
Though of another thing, shouldn't low sec and NPC 0.0 get tax discounts (the 10% tax bit, not the work force as many seem to confuse) due to much less 'security' provided by the factions?

and one more, as work fees etc are based on price of final product, as prices rise to offset this cost won't the price of production keep rising and just keep going up?

----True oldschool solo pvp'er---- My latest vid: Insanity IV
DEFANDER
CSV - Like in politics - rules apply differently
#119 - 2014-04-29 13:56:50 UTC
Steijn wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor. The "good" solution is reasonably straightforward, it just requires a chunk of work and adds a fair bit of risk.


with the greatest respect, that kind of attitude with regards to POS owners, stinks.



CCP Greyscale,


1. What will happen to the "extra" labs and manufacturing plants in the POS's a lot of us have ?
Would there be a use for them or will we get some sort of compensation ?

2. At the moment, apart from the POS fuel needed for the tower, there are no further costs to fill the tower with operational labs or construction platforms.
Am i to understand there there will now be a cost to build or research something in my OWN tower ?
Sturmwolke
#120 - 2014-04-29 13:58:57 UTC
This wasn't an easy read. Numbers and terms are thrown without Appendices/reference as to where they come from. Multiple terms used for the same thing, keeping the confusion high.
Was this deliberately done to obfuscate/discombobulate the delivery or just a fail on the author part?

- Breaking the full formula and presenting them in parts.
- "Installation cost"/"Job cost" would have been more accurate and explicit over "Run cost". The latter is fine until you run into "Multi-run discount".
- Research costs referenced by one a liner. Really???!111 The entire premise is manufacturing centric.
- Pricing modifier headers should have indicated WIP for those modifiers still in discussion or undisclosed atm.
- Derivation of "system facilities" modifier description is confusing. "...and the system's various multipliers are all multiplied together and then multiplied with the price". Which suggests a modifier based on the number of stations and what type of station per system, wasn't worded clearly. How was the Nonni figure derived? Where's the Appendix?
- "Multirun discount" description turned into an essay instead of just saying 0.99^buildtime. It isn't immediately clear if it will use base build time or modified build time. The Abaddon example used base build time.

Wrg to the mockup on the jobcost, please add sorting options into it - ascending/descending cost modifier.

Finally, where's the summary of this all?
Use Nonni as a working reference. Per formula, it tentatively looks like there's a glass cap for overall system capacity for all the combined manufacturing and research jobs possible.
The missing key is the team costs.