These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#201 - 2014-04-29 15:17:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
CCP Greyscale wrote:
As in, total global hours for each activity type?


Yeah, so we can model what sort of costs we can expect post-patch. Whatever it is at this moment is 'good enough' for that sort of modeling.

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

Steijn
Quay Industries
#202 - 2014-04-29 15:18:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Steijn
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Yes, someone with unlimited ISK to throw at a particular system has the ability to cause a huge mess with office slots. We want to take another look at the office slot system at some point, but at the same time the ability to burn huge amounts of cash on economic warfare is not entirely a negative thing.


that just sums up what a lot of people are thinking about these changes, they are mainly an Isk sink and if things become more expensive, thats good as far as you are concerned.

EDIT: just seen your reply to the other question I asked. It might not be part of the design process, but from an outsiders viewpoint, making isk sinks seems to be a primary process in these changes.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#203 - 2014-04-29 15:19:34 UTC
Steijn wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Adaahh Gee wrote:
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?


There's no real "hoping for" here, price rises are a necessary side-effect not a goal in and of themselves. I'd expect low single-digits percentage increase.


but surely you are hoping for an increase in ISK removed from the game via these new taxes/fees/isk sinks? How much? an extra 10%? 15%?


Any ISK sink (up to a certain point, obviously) is a good thing for the economy, but we don't have any specific targets here. The extra sunk ISK is a nice bonus but it's not having any direct influence on the design process.

Gilbaron wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Some general points:


We are totally open to suggestions for what to do with starbases as they relate to industry. In particular, if anyone who does starbase work can spend a few minutes outlining the *simplest* changes they think would be sufficient to keep starbases in a reasonable place for this release, we're very interested in hearing them. Yes, we know "throw it out and start over" would be great, but we're not getting that done between now and the summer release, no matter how much we'd like to.


Increase space in assembly arrays. By a lot.


And make an array that can make the stuff you currently can't make in arrays.


What can't currently be built in arrays that you'd like to be buildable?
Tippia wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We are totally open to suggestions for what to do with starbases as they relate to industry. In particular, if anyone who does starbase work can spend a few minutes outlining the *simplest* changes they think would be sufficient to keep starbases in a reasonable place for this release, we're very interested in hearing them. Yes, we know "throw it out and start over" would be great, but we're not getting that done between now and the summer release, no matter how much we'd like to.

See my previous post.

Use the same method you're using to replace total system slot count with a system cost bonus, only when you use a POS, it counts the number of relevant arrays at that POS to determine the bonus (and completely ignores all system-based bonuses). The exact per-array bonus can be tweaked, or you can be all fancy and give different arrays different bonuses. A “relevant array” would be any array that can perform the kind of S&I job you're about to do.


Counting facilities at a starbase is somewhat computationally expensive right now, as we don't keep track of which structures are associated with each control tower in the DB. The "obvious solution" (ie what you've described, and what's in the original design) requires us to do some legwork to track that properly, which as I alluded to earlier is not particularly conceptually complex but requires a reasonable amount of work that we may or may not have time to do.

Annah Gerber
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#204 - 2014-04-29 15:21:04 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Annah Gerber wrote:

The problems with the PoS'es is that you aren't just looking to add tax to it, we are already running our own "mini spacestation" which has costs tied in to it to begin with, it's already 1b+ a month to fuel a large PoS,

i was just skimming through your post thinking "boy that's a lot of crazy" when this popped out at me

a large pos fuel cost is nowhere near 1b a month you clearly have no idea what you're talking about



To run a large Caldari PoS is 240 mil a week to run it, buying the fuel from Jita.

This is why I always dread using numbers while posting because people are just going to get hung up on that and ignore the rest of the post, so maybe it's not 1b a month, it's 960 mil a month.
Aghira
Systech Astromantics Shipyard Inc.
#205 - 2014-04-29 15:22:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Aghira
PineappIe King wrote:
Worst expansion ever, you really expect me to w*** off over a new industry GUI and some prices changes?

I want to shoot at stuff and make isk and i want NEW CONTENT besides the fixes to broken (POSes) or updates and attribute changes to dated content. You cant just serve me with some half assed expansion. What are all your game designers and coders in reikjavik doing??

Didn't CCP had enough chances yet to learn how important it is to me to release actual new content through expansions? No? Here, have my unsub!

o/


FIFY Roll

Es wird niemals so viel gelogen wie vor der Wahl, während des Krieges und nach der Jagd. (Otto von Bismarck)

english is not my native language.

Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#206 - 2014-04-29 15:25:15 UTC
So the Teams are NPCs and the production costs are calculated system wide. CCP uses a labor metaphor for production costs. Those are all fun and interesting. I will have to spend some time looking at the details closer. I am excited to see the Team Dev Blog since it might have some interesting choices available.

CCP SoniClover wrote:
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that manipulation can't happen, but the fact we're only dealing with small fractions of the actual value means their effects will be minimal for the cost calculation. The biggest risk of exploitation has always been the FW payout system because of the link between ISK values and LPs, which creates dangers. But those are irrelevant for the cost calculation, so we're optimistic (famous last words, I know Big smile).


I know you are feeling reasonably assured about these prices, but I am not. The Goons made CCP their fool last time, and they seem to be warning you again.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#207 - 2014-04-29 15:25:23 UTC
virm pasuul wrote:
Isn't "Fraction of global job hours" based on the last 28 days massively exploitable?

If people clump together to do work they will push up the amount of work done on the previous 28 day moving average.
This means future jobs will take less of a portion by comparison to this 28 day history, and cost much less, more incentive to clump up more? A positive feedback cycle.

Ideally what you are proposing is we ALL ship our stuff to Nonni, establish an utterly massive 28 day history and then all our future jobs pale into insignificance as a portion of that 28 day historical workload. (as long as we maintain/keep the 28 day average high )

Having established a massive 28 day historical baseline, even large jobs will seem tiny by comparison and cost peanuts, possibly even less than currently.

What am I not understanding?




If you're prepared to spend huge amounts of money holding the 28-day price high so you can save money on other jobs, and that actually ends up turning a profit, and you're prepared to take on the massive organization overhead of co-ordinating that... then unless it actually breaks the economy, go nuts.

Similarly with this system, because we can't update prices instantaneously, there's a way of reducing build costs by finding an empty system, everyone going there and starting their jobs all at once so they all benefit from the cheap costs. Again, if you want to organize that sort of event, we're generally in favor - you're working with lots of other people to gain an advantage, good job.

Steijn wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Yes, someone with unlimited ISK to throw at a particular system has the ability to cause a huge mess with office slots. We want to take another look at the office slot system at some point, but at the same time the ability to burn huge amounts of cash on economic warfare is not entirely a negative thing.


that just sums up what a lot of people are thinking about these changes, they are mainly an Isk sink and if things become more expensive, thats good as far as you are concerned.

EDIT: just seen your reply to the other question I asked. It might not be part of the design process, but from an outsiders viewpoint, making isk sinks seems to be a primary process in these changes.


Ok, well let me try and alleviate that concern by again saying no design decision that I've been party to has been changed in any way by considerations involving ISK sinks. The reasoning for why we've gone down this road was laid out at the start of the blog, and that's the truth. It's of course up to you whether you choose to believe me or not :)
Paynus Maiassus
Silvana Innovations
Greater Solitude Commonwealth
#208 - 2014-04-29 15:25:51 UTC
Been reading the last few blogs. All amazing. Very very positive, massive, ballsy changes. Gorgeous interface.

A couple of points. People have been complaining about BPC max-run limitations given that we will be moving to copies. I'll have some more digestion to do on numbers, but it looks at first glance that copying will be a bit more expensive than I had hoped. With this being the case, how about removing the max run limit on copies? Make it so they still must have a max run count, but let the player decide how many that will be, on up to millions of runs. So if a player wants to sit his BPO out of the action for months while it copies a thousand run BPC to some modest job savings, why not?

And on that note, since slots are not bottlenecking things, why not remove the 30-day job limit on research? So if a player wants to drop a few billion ISK to leave his Leviathan BPO cooking for a year, why not? It'll be his decision. I am assuming that a toon will still have a limit of 11-research jobs running. If a player wants to tie one of those up forever on a benefit he will reap years away, why not? (of course I am assuming that if you cancel the ME job you get your BPO back with no progress and your now considerable job cost is just gone.)

More options and flexibility for players to tailor their number of BPCs according to their own "rhythm" which will be dependent on whether they are making ammo or cap ships. No new code necessary. Just hit delete.

That's my only bit of advice or criticism I can think of. Otherwise, I can say that I started playing in 2012 (the post Incarna age of moderate rebalancing expansions) and this expansion (and apparently the next) are the best thing to happen to the game since I have been playing. I've been reading a lot of completely idiotic posts about how CCP will go bankrupt in 3 years and the end of WoD is the beginning of the end of CCP and the personnel changes at CCP are the end of Eve and all that. Well I'm here to say that what the current CCP/CSM lineup are coming up with is just fantastic for the game. The people complaining are eve trillionaires who fund their 50-accounts with PLEX bought in game and haven't contributed a cent to CCP in years. I'm a 3-year player, currently worth a few tens of billions of ISK and make a few billion a month from in-game activities. In addition to my in-game earnings, I pay for my accounts with subscriptions so my ISK goes to growing and expansion rather than playing for free. Further, I usually buy some sort of PLEX pack per month ranging from small to large in order to accelerate my growth in game or to offset industry or combat mistakes. Eve is a significant portion of my social and intellectual life, and I am active and engaged. Basically I am that type of player that is putting bread on the table of CCP employees and putting PLEX on the market so the eve trillionaires can play for free. Not to toot my own horn, but I think I am the kind of player you guys are looking for. I also think there's more guys like me out there. So as far as these veteran poster Eve trillionaires that have all the influence and want to control my game and control what CCP does and do nothing but ***** and whine about change, well, as far as I am concerned, they can leave. Nobody will miss them. Sure we'll be short a few super cap builders. Give me a year and I'll be building super caps. I'll definitely be around.

CCP is doing great. Keep moving us forward.
Berluth Luthian
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#209 - 2014-04-29 15:26:31 UTC
Will taxes be affected by station NPC corp standings? Or would they be a set 10% always?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#210 - 2014-04-29 15:27:06 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Counting facilities at a starbase is somewhat computationally expensive right now, as we don't keep track of which structures are associated with each control tower in the DB. The "obvious solution" (ie what you've described, and what's in the original design) requires us to do some legwork to track that properly, which as I alluded to earlier is not particularly conceptually complex but requires a reasonable amount of work that we may or may not have time to do.

I suppose that it would require a bit of DB alteration (and those are always… fun), but wouldn't that be something that's best handled once during the anchoring/unanchoring/destruction event of a given array, and then stored as an attribute of the POS? If it's computationally intensive but only done the one time the POS is erected, it shouldn't hurt too much.


…but that leaves adding the attribute and altering what data is being fetched for the job installation (but the latter has to be done anyway under the new system).
Cultural Enrichment
Jenkem Puffing Association
#211 - 2014-04-29 15:27:28 UTC
Wouldnt the estimation of the build cost be much more resistant to manipulation if it looked at the input price rather than the output, as the input is very likely to aggregate minerals/PI/moongoo, which are pretty hard to manipulate?
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#212 - 2014-04-29 15:27:41 UTC
Annah Gerber wrote:

To run a large Caldari PoS is 240 mil a week to run it, buying the fuel from Jita.

This is why I always dread using numbers while posting because people are just going to get hung up on that and ignore the rest of the post, so maybe it's not 1b a month, it's 960 mil a month.

caldari large pos burns 40 fuel blocks an hour, caldari fuel blocks cost 18,000 each, for an hourly cost of 720,000

there are 24*7 hours in a week, so the weekly cost is 0.72m*24*7=120m

charters (3.8k, one per hour) are a rounding error amounting to under 3m a month

whoever your fuel supplier is has been hilariously gouging you and i wish to congratulate him

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

Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
#213 - 2014-04-29 15:28:25 UTC
How soon is this going on Sisi?
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#214 - 2014-04-29 15:29:56 UTC
Quote:
What can't currently be built in arrays that you'd like to be buildable?


Arrays ;) and other pos stuff

T2 ships are also in a bad place, mainly because of the increased material cost.
Thead Enco
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#215 - 2014-04-29 15:31:20 UTC
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
Altrue wrote:
I was expecting a bigger incentive to build in null-sec. Maybe I'm wrong, or I have trouble grasping actual numbers, time will tell.


Yeah, you're missing it. Job cost savings will completely outstrip JF fuel costs by a large margin.


This and Fozzie just announced a 50% increase to jump fuel consumption for Jump freighters, carriers, dreads. Should be a good summer
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#216 - 2014-04-29 15:34:17 UTC
I believe NPC corp taxes should be reduced by an amount relative to one's derived standings with the NPC station owner + certain social skills. I feel that it should be possible to reduce the NPC corp tax to 0 with perfect skills and high enough standings. This is how refining works, is it not?

If it can't be done right away because of other priorities, then fine. I understand. But it definitely needs to be implemented.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Doogan Algaert
Athalia Grace Foundation
#217 - 2014-04-29 15:34:36 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Steijn wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Adaahh Gee wrote:
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?


There's no real "hoping for" here, price rises are a necessary side-effect not a goal in and of themselves. I'd expect low single-digits percentage increase.



but surely you are hoping for an increase in ISK removed from the game via these new taxes/fees/isk sinks? How much? an extra 10%? 15%?

Any ISK sink (up to a certain point, obviously) is a good thing for the economy, but we don't have any specific targets here. The extra sunk ISK is a nice bonus but it's not having any direct influence on the design process.



Can you please address the material efficiency skill removal, as just this seems to mean an increase in build costs of 25% for level 5 skill which i haven't seen discussed as of yet.

As it stands now your single digit increase in ship costs seems very far fetched,
i calculate 1.11% minimum increase from blueprint, 5 to 15% increase in costs of research, manufacture, invention and copy prices, and a reduction of resources from reprocessing and refining changes, all added to 25% increased material cost from ME skill?
Paynus Maiassus
Silvana Innovations
Greater Solitude Commonwealth
#218 - 2014-04-29 15:37:24 UTC
Thead Enco wrote:
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
Altrue wrote:
I was expecting a bigger incentive to build in null-sec. Maybe I'm wrong, or I have trouble grasping actual numbers, time will tell.


Yeah, you're missing it. Job cost savings will completely outstrip JF fuel costs by a large margin.


This and Fozzie just announced a 50% increase to jump fuel consumption for Jump freighters, carriers, dreads. Should be a good summer


Missed that announcement. I'll have a look. Thanks.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#219 - 2014-04-29 15:38:19 UTC
Doogan Algaert wrote:

Can you please address the material efficiency skill removal, as just this seems to mean an increase in build costs of 25% for level 5 skill which i haven't seen discussed as of yet.

nope: that "waste" was tacked on if you didn't have the skill

so there was a base price, then it was multiplied by 1.25, then the skills were applied - they're axing the skill AND the x1.25 multiplier so everyone now acts as if they have PEV

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

Anders Madeveda
Usque Ad Mortem
#220 - 2014-04-29 15:38:58 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
I understand the pricing for manufacturing. However, I do not understand the pricing for research: what's the output price? Could you give us some examples of what it would cost to (a)add a level of ME to a bpo (b)Make copies of that bpo or (c) run an invention job?


"The one deviation we're making is that, just for the purposes of pricing jobs, blueprints are assumed to be worth 2% of the value of whatever they build, so research jobs don't end up being outrageously expensive."

Sounds like 2% of build cost per ME/TE level or Invention run