These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#561 - 2014-05-01 08:40:34 UTC
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:


I work in the CA energy markets, and that is not the case. It is the least efficient seller needed to clear the market that sets the price. And this is for a good that is highly inelastic (at least in the short run, in the longer run there is more elasticity).

This is also seen in experiments (essentially games...like EVE) where economists try to simulate competitive markets. The result is a Nash equilibrium and again, the least efficient seller necessary to clear the market sets the price.

Those with the most cost effective set up earn economic profits...and it is that potential that invites new entrants to the market, and that it is no longer going to be static will induce people to move around. That latter decision will be factored in as a cost.



This may be true, but this is not what he was arguing, he was arguing that the gain from changing a strategy will be too big, easy and affordable, so that the baseline strategy for the equilibruim changes. There is always a tipping point.

And why would you think mentioning CA energy markets is a good thing? Is like saying "i work at BP, i know something about deep water drilling safety!", which may be true but still not a good tactical move. :)
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#562 - 2014-05-01 09:03:38 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Korthan Doshu wrote:
I think the status quo of step-variable costs favoring only having a small number of industrial characters in each starbase is something that should only be upset if you have a good reason. If you don't, I would consider reintroducing slots in starbases through a back door (until you have a better solution later). Essentially, for every job beyond a certain number at an array, there should be a cost increase that eventually requires you to use another array. In other words, you need a congestion tax for /each array/ that counts the jobs /going right now, at that array/. If you get the formula just right, you can keep the step-variable nature of starbase costs in the production chain and give room for bonusing unique arrays (their congestion costs ramp up less quickly).

This proposal may also have computation benefits. The bonus from having multiple arrays comes from costs internal to each array individually; presumably you can rather easily count the number of jobs already installed at an array /right now/. You don't have to count the arrays at the starbase, average them over time, etc. Further, I think this proposal may be the least earth-shattering change that you can do before a real, thought-out POS revamp comes later.


This is very clever.


Please, god please.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
Sylvanium Orlenard wrote:
Give Labs and Assembly arrays inherent workers. Example : Equipment Assembly Array have 6 Inherent workers. The first 6 jobs (one worker per job) running at the same time will use the basic price and any extra jobs (past number 6) that is running concurrently will use the standard price scalling mechanic as it would apply for any job in the system.

This would effectively give POS owners a price advantage, so maybe the calculation would have to be a discount for the first 6 jobs and then full price. This would effectively give a reason to have more then one module of one type attached to a POS but also keep the unlimited jobs per module option. Having more modules then becomes a ISK vs RISK calculation (should I have more defences online or should I have more assembly arrays online)

I used 6 for the Equip Assembly array because this is the current number of slots this modules gives. Please feel free to change that number to whatever you feel is more appropriate.

If you have an easy, non server intensive way to calculate how many concurrent jobs are running in a single array then this should be somewhat easy to implement. If you don't then this point is moot and forget this suggestion.


This is very clever I like this idea.


Seriously. Please.
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#563 - 2014-05-01 09:07:47 UTC  |  Edited by: probag Bear
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
Insane that the price of the output is taken as a factor in the cost of producing said output. There is no reason to pay more for an activity unless someone else is willing to pay more for the same workforce supply. What the end product is should have no impact at all. The employers are demand, and the workers are supply...and that is it basically.

What it is now, is more like a regulated profit margin, communist style.




They could not use a flat fee. Any cost sufficient to spread out battle ship producers would kill ammo production. The easy way to scale is by the price of the item being produced.


That's pretty wrong. Manufacturing tends to balance itself out mostly around isk/hr (with volume, initial capital required, and active involvement needed being the other major factors).

Example: first battleship I looked up is the Hyperion, and first ammo I looked up is Antimatter XL. Using a half-decent ML 12 / PE 5.

Hyperion - 0.58mil/hr = a profit of 0.28% of item cost per hour = a total profit of 0.70% of item cost per item
Antimatter XL - 0.32mil/hr = a profit of 170% of item cost per hour = a total profit of 7.0% of item cost per item

A flat fee might very conceivably have been a better idea than a percentage-based fee. I don't have full data though, I definitely have not bothered to analyze what data I do have, and I don't know what goals CCP was trying to achieve, so I'm not in a position to judge viability. And either way, what's done is done.

Margins will even back out to isk/hr on the same order of magnitude anyway. Battleship prices might rise far more than ammo prices, but eh, tis CCP's decree.


Updating my own T1 spreadsheet and taking a look, with the metrics (and number of production lines) I'm using, around the time 01:10 2014.05.01, Mjolnir Cruise Missiles were more profitable to manufacture than any other subcapital ship, barring the Raven. In projected flat isk/hr.
And yes, that is after filtering out the inflated buy order with a minimum quantity of 7,000,000.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#564 - 2014-05-01 11:38:57 UTC
Matthew wrote:


CCP Greyscale wrote:

Sylvanium Orlenard wrote:

Suggestion.

Give Labs and Assembly arrays inherent workers. Example : Equipment Assembly Array have 6 Inherent workers. The first 6 jobs (one worker per job) running at the same time will use the basic price and any extra jobs (past number 6) that is running concurrently will use the standard price scalling mechanic as it would apply for any job in the system.

--snip--


This is very clever I like this idea.


I argued against this sort of solution in my original post, due to it embedding the lots-of-small-arrays model of starbases. But the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to think that this is the most workable option.


While this may give people reason to battle for the moons in the systems with lots of stations, I think it fails once we move to a low use system.

IF stations cost break 10%, then I would be looking for a very far out of the way system for a POS where I can get like 1%. That big of a difference is what will be needed to justify paying for POS fuel. Then, further slicing that 1% cost with multiple POS modules becomes moot.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#565 - 2014-05-01 11:51:37 UTC
Kun'ii Zenya wrote:

For example, if Nonni becomes that popular, then it will likely have a multiplier of 15% for manufacturing (assuming 15% is the upper bound on this). Then accounting for the system facilities bonus you are looking at about a 7.5% multiplier for manfacturing. Using the abaddon example, that means you'll pay 15 million isk or so to build that BS.


The formula we have seen does not tell us where the max will happen.

You assume they will max before they apply the station multiplier. I hope they do the max after. So, If nonni becomes the place to do manufacturing, and and ends up with 10% of all manufacturing in the game... 31%. *

Do they max that to 15%, then apply the discount to drop it to 7%?
Do they apply the discount dropping it to about 15%, then apply the max?


You assume the first. I hope for the latter.


* hyperbole for example. I don't think any one system could really account for 10% of all (any one kind) of activity.
Matthew
BloodStar Technologies
#566 - 2014-05-01 12:25:40 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:


While this may give people reason to battle for the moons in the systems with lots of stations, I think it fails once we move to a low use system.

IF stations cost break 10%, then I would be looking for a very far out of the way system for a POS where I can get like 1%. That big of a difference is what will be needed to justify paying for POS fuel. Then, further slicing that 1% cost with multiple POS modules becomes moot.


I agree it's not ideal, but there isn't really much you can do to further bonus the installation cost when it is already scaled right down like that, whatever method of applying the bonus you choose.

But I can't see a better option within the constraints of the current starbase code. Which would leave the benefits of a starbase in that out-of-the-way system being that you don't need multiple arrays in those systems relative to the busy ones (so you can do more in one starbase, or use a smaller tower), and they still have function where the location matters more in your corporations wider strategic goals than the fuel cost.

My proposed transform of this system in a starbase re-write would address this though - the out-of-the-way starbase wouldn't need many, if any, worker modules, so it could stack up on ME/TE modules to a greater extent than the starbase in a crowded system to realise advantage in a different way. The design of starbase facilities then becomes slightly more interesting than just "how many labs can I cram into a caldari tower".

So while it might not be ideal for this expansion, it is better than doing nothing, and offers a pathway to a better endpoint.
Annie Bars
TheQuelaag
#567 - 2014-05-01 13:26:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Annie Bars
Please! Instead of using output price as base for workforce cost, use input material prices!
Otherwise, you killing dynamics, we already heave in industry:
when some goods are short in supply, price goes up, so the incentive for industrials to switch production, but with your new workforce pricing system - price of manufacturing goes up as well!
AND don't forget, searching for items that are high on demand but low in supply - is a fuking hard job! Now, considerably less rewarding.
SO PLEASE use price of input materials as work force cost base!
Cultural Enrichment
Jenkem Puffing Association
#568 - 2014-05-01 13:46:53 UTC
Annie Bars wrote:
Please! Instead of using output price as base for workforce cost, use input material prices!
Otherwise, you killing dynamics, we already heave in industry:
when some goods are short in supply, price goes up, so the incentive for industrials to switch production, but with your new workforce pricing system - price of manufacturing goes up as well!
AND don't forget, searching for items that are high on demand but low in supply - is a fuking hard job! Now, considerably less rewarding.
SO PLEASE use price of input materials as work force cost base!

Not only that, but the total of material prices being the aggregation of multiple, usualy stable in price items, you'd reduce the risk of people gaming the system à la FW.
Sylvanium Orlenard
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#569 - 2014-05-01 15:37:27 UTC
Annie Bars wrote:
Please! Instead of using output price as base for workforce cost, use input material prices!
Otherwise, you killing dynamics, we already heave in industry:
when some goods are short in supply, price goes up, so the incentive for industrials to switch production, but with your new workforce pricing system - price of manufacturing goes up as well!
AND don't forget, searching for items that are high on demand but low in supply - is a fuking hard job! Now, considerably less rewarding.
SO PLEASE use price of input materials as work force cost base!


I agree, but this calculation system would cause problems for research / copy / invent/revers engineering. But I do agree that input material cost would make a better benchmark.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#570 - 2014-05-01 15:43:32 UTC  |  Edited by: LHA Tarawa
If it had been me:

1) Adjust install cost to be based on m3 of inputs. Up the slot usage fee per unit of time, and take a look at all BPs to check build/research/copy times are reasonable based on relative inputs.

2) Change specific slots to an optimal job count. Factory had 50 jobs, now it has 50 concurrent job optimal. When I try to install 51st job, I pay 1/50th overtime costs. 2% above normal usage fees. 75th job, 25/50 = 50% overtime charge. 100th job = 100% overtime. 150th job, 200% extra cost.

So cost = (install cost + time * per time cost) * 1 + max (running jobs - optimal, 0) / optimal.

3) Current code, when yousubmit a job it creates a queue record for when it will complete so it can be made deliverable. Simple enough to add a jobs running = jobs running -1.

4) Staring jobs becomes the gotcha. Count when I request a quote? Count when I submit? I think it would have to be when requesting a quote, with quotes only good for something like 30 seconds. So, I request a quote, running jobs gets incremented and I'm given the price based on that. Queue entry to check in 30 seconds to see if the quote was not accepted.

When I submit, I check that the queue record for my quote exists. If so, delete it. If not, say quote exported and give them a new quote.

I request a new quote within the 30 seconds, the end time of my existing quote is modified to give me another 30 seconds.

5) To keep POS valuable in the face of slot limitation removal, no install and much lower per hour run fees. In station, workers have to move inputs from personal or corp hanger to factory. At POS, you had to put the goods into the array. In a station, you have to pay for the power, computer time, oxygen for the workers, etc. in the fee. At the POS, you pay all that via the fuel blocks.




Done!
Slots are removed. Variable cost for heavy use applied to stations and POS (if you want to overtime your workers). POS still have need for multiple mods of same type. POS have potential cost advantage over station depending on usage. Can't easily manipulate with an online/offline trick. Not based on total universe usage or based on the solar system usage or any of that non-sense.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#571 - 2014-05-01 15:50:13 UTC
Halia Thorak wrote:
I'm a bit confused how Invention will work with this system... will i have to pay 3 times to invent and produce something? one to copy one to invent one to produce? That sounds like as an inverter I'm going to get bent over and ***** sideways. Please someone correct me if I'm understanding this wrong.


Actually.....
4 times.

Pay to copy (T1 item cost produced by the BP you are copying * .02 * system variable costs * runs)
Pay to invent
Pay to build the components needed for T2. (convert the goo into engine bits and armor stuff and electronic things)
Pay to assemble the final ship from the components.
Iorga Eeta
Hekatonkheires Industries
#572 - 2014-05-01 16:17:36 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
Iorga Eeta wrote:
I have to pull out some math books, but I believe an infinite series like this will reach a limit not too far about the initial 10% mark of the base price of x: x + x*.1 + x*(.1)^2+x*(.1 )^3...x*(.1)^n

or better yet:

infinity
∑ X(1/10)^n = 10X/9
n=0

http://symbolab.com/solver/series-calculator


Your equation is incorrect. The best equation for the inflation in price owing to the constant 10% feedback would be the formula for compound interest. For any given item the "interest" will be compounded each time a job is installed, so you will get compounding at a frequency determined by the average build time for that item.


First, let's assume that the new job creation cost is passed directly to the consumer in the price with no markups. (Which is a big assumption).

Compounding interest would mean a consistent 10% charge at each iteration of the price change. Both scenarios start with something having a base sale price of 1000 and the first iteration adds 10% to the cost, so you end up with the new base sale price of 1100.

Compound interest means that the next iteration would use 1100 as it's new base, and you'd quickly succumb to the power of compound interest.

That's not the case here. The 1000 base sale price stays the same for each iteration. But the next wave would take 1100 as the new "sale" price, multiply it by .1 to determine the new job cost. This new cost is then added to the base of 1000 not of 1100. So iteration two would be 1000+(1100*.1) = 1110, iteration three would be 1000+(1110*.1) = 1111, and so on. You quickly get to the point where the change in costs become insignificant.
Iorga Eeta
Hekatonkheires Industries
#573 - 2014-05-01 16:26:59 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:


I... didn't understand any of that...


Basically we discussing if the cost changes result in the prices of all manufactured goods in Eve are spiraling off into infinity or not.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#574 - 2014-05-01 17:01:04 UTC
Iorga Eeta wrote:
The 1000 base sale price stays the same for each iteration. But the next wave would take 1100 as the new "sale" price, multiply it by .1 to determine the new job cost. This new cost is then added to the base of 1000 not of 1100. So iteration two would be 1000+(1100*.1) = 1110, iteration three would be 1000+(1110*.1) = 1111, and so on. You quickly get to the point where the change in costs become insignificant.


And that assumes 10%. Using the formula, I do not see how we're going to get close to that.

cost of item * sqrt of % of total universe wide work.

A solar system would need 1% of total universal production for the sqrt to be 10%. Then discounts are applied, and the only reason for a single solar system to have 1% of total production would be if there are fat discounts for lots of stations.

OKAY, maybe the solar system where the BIG BOYS build their titans.... maybe. But other than that?


Oh wait... in a station, so that would be 11% then reduced by discounts.


More likely, I suspect production to accept a 5% cost.
So, 1000 materials. 5% fee = 1050
then 1000 materials, 50 fee + 5% of 50 fee = 1052.5
Then 1000 materials 52.50 fee + 5% of 2.5 = 1052.625 (rounding error).
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#575 - 2014-05-01 17:12:43 UTC  |  Edited by: LHA Tarawa
LHA Tarawa wrote:
OKAY, maybe the solar system where the BIG BOYS build their titans.... maybe. But other than that?


Which MAY just be the most revealing bit of info in the data dump! Oh look.. this one system in null suddenly has 2% of total universal production. Maybe we should stop by and see if they have component assembly and cap ship assembly arrays anchored.



LOL.... if CCP doesn't get "some kinda discount" for multiple facilities, ALL the components for a titan could be being built in a single component assembly array, concurrently.

No more seeing a gazillion arrays anchored and thinking... hmmm... what are they building here?

Heck. Why one titan? Why not 200 titans being built in one component assembly array and one cap ship array. *


I really have to wonder how well this was really thought through.


* hyperbole. I know noone would put 200 titans in a single construction array. Just pointing out the ludicrousness of the new "no slot" design.
Halia Thorak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#576 - 2014-05-01 17:41:29 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Halia Thorak wrote:
I'm a bit confused how Invention will work with this system... will i have to pay 3 times to invent and produce something? one to copy one to invent one to produce? That sounds like as an inverter I'm going to get bent over and ***** sideways. Please someone correct me if I'm understanding this wrong.


Actually.....
4 times.

Pay to copy (T1 item cost produced by the BP you are copying * .02 * system variable costs * runs)
Pay to invent (no bloody idea how they're pricing theis one but lets assume the normal)
Pay to build the components needed for T2. (convert the goo into engine bits and armor stuff and electronic things)
Pay to assemble the final ship from the components.



Assuming the copy will run off of the price of the T1 variant, We can also assume that the invention job will run off of the T2 Variant.

So lets take a Damage Control II (easy numbers to make a point)

10000 for Damage Control I
700,000 for Damage Control II

Copy : (9800 * .02) * 1.1 * 300 * 20 = 63,360 (ONE Max run BPC ready for invention)
Invent : 700,000 * .2 * 1.1 = 154,000 (Per BPC invention try...)

lets assume a VERY generous 50% success rate

each run of -4 -4 will cost you = 434,720

That's a pretty gigantic loss considering BPO owners wont have to shell out a cent of that, lets face it they will be sitting in Jita 4-4 producing even easier them before.

CCP I think its about time you give us your calculations please. My math can't possibly be right, because you've just hit invention profitability with a giant nerf bat.

Any extra cost on Invention over BPO owners just means you're printing more isk for them and making prices to up... if anything you should be looking at narrowing the gap not making it larger.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#577 - 2014-05-01 17:57:15 UTC  |  Edited by: LHA Tarawa
Halia Thorak wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Halia Thorak wrote:
I'm a bit confused how Invention will work with this system... will i have to pay 3 times to invent and produce something? one to copy one to invent one to produce? That sounds like as an inverter I'm going to get bent over and ***** sideways. Please someone correct me if I'm understanding this wrong.


Actually.....
4 times.

Pay to copy (T1 item cost produced by the BP you are copying * .02 * system variable costs * runs)
Pay to invent (no bloody idea how they're pricing theis one but lets assume the normal)
Pay to build the components needed for T2. (convert the goo into engine bits and armor stuff and electronic things)
Pay to assemble the final ship from the components.



Assuming the copy will run off of the price of the T1 variant, We can also assume that the invention job will run off of the T2 Variant.

So lets take a Damage Control II (easy numbers to make a point)

10000 for Damage Control I
700,000 for Damage Control II

Copy : (9800 * .02) * 1.1 * 300 * 20 = 63,360 (ONE Max run BPC ready for invention)
Invent : 700,000 * .2 * 1.1 = 154,000 (Per BPC invention try...)

lets assume a VERY generous 50% success rate

each run of -4 -4 will cost you = 434,720

That's a pretty gigantic loss considering BPO owners wont have to shell out a cent of that, lets face it they will be sitting in Jita 4-4 producing even easier them before.

CCP I think its about time you give us your calculations please. My math can't possibly be right, because you've just hit invention profitability with a giant nerf bat.

Any extra cost on Invention over BPO owners just means you're printing more isk for them and making prices to up... if anything you should be looking at narrowing the gap not making it larger.


You miss the system usage adjustment.

Cost of copy is not 2% of output. That is the value of the item being produced. That then needs to be multiplied by the system cost from usage.


So, if a system's usage rate results in 5% cost,then the cost of copy, invent is:

Cost of item produced by BP * .02 * .05



In your math, what is the 20?

BUT, even if your numbers were correct (and they are not.. probably 20x too high) 435K, is for 300 run BPC. Call it 1500 per on an item worth 700K. 0.2% (without adjusting for system usage).

Adjust it to 5% system usage adjustment, and it is more like .01%.

EDIT: OPPS. FORGOT OUTPUT BPC HAS FEWER RUNS THAN INPUT... MY BAD.

ignore the %s.. but you still need to adjust cost for system usage cost.
Arana Mirelin
Te'Rava Industries
#578 - 2014-05-01 18:00:40 UTC
Halia Thorak wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Halia Thorak wrote:
I'm a bit confused how Invention will work with this system... will i have to pay 3 times to invent and produce something? one to copy one to invent one to produce? That sounds like as an inverter I'm going to get bent over and ***** sideways. Please someone correct me if I'm understanding this wrong.


Actually.....
4 times.

Pay to copy (T1 item cost produced by the BP you are copying * .02 * system variable costs * runs)
Pay to invent (no bloody idea how they're pricing theis one but lets assume the normal)
Pay to build the components needed for T2. (convert the goo into engine bits and armor stuff and electronic things)
Pay to assemble the final ship from the components.



Assuming the copy will run off of the price of the T1 variant, We can also assume that the invention job will run off of the T2 Variant.

So lets take a Damage Control II (easy numbers to make a point)

10000 for Damage Control I
700,000 for Damage Control II

Copy : (9800 * .02) * 1.1 * 300 * 20 = 63,360 (ONE Max run BPC ready for invention)
Invent : 700,000 * .2 * 1.1 = 154,000 (Per BPC invention try...)

lets assume a VERY generous 50% success rate

each run of -4 -4 will cost you = 434,720

That's a pretty gigantic loss considering BPO owners wont have to shell out a cent of that, lets face it they will be sitting in Jita 4-4 producing even easier them before.

CCP I think its about time you give us your calculations please. My math can't possibly be right, because you've just hit invention profitability with a giant nerf bat.

Any extra cost on Invention over BPO owners just means you're printing more isk for them and making prices to up... if anything you should be looking at narrowing the gap not making it larger.


That is the cost for one bpc, which is for 10 runs. I haven't invented damage controls in a while, but for other invention runs, 43k is noticeable but there is still sufficient profit.
Quintessen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#579 - 2014-05-01 18:02:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Quintessen
Halia Thorak wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Halia Thorak wrote:
I'm a bit confused how Invention will work with this system... will i have to pay 3 times to invent and produce something? one to copy one to invent one to produce? That sounds like as an inverter I'm going to get bent over and ***** sideways. Please someone correct me if I'm understanding this wrong.


Actually.....
4 times.

Pay to copy (T1 item cost produced by the BP you are copying * .02 * system variable costs * runs)
Pay to invent (no bloody idea how they're pricing theis one but lets assume the normal)
Pay to build the components needed for T2. (convert the goo into engine bits and armor stuff and electronic things)
Pay to assemble the final ship from the components.



Assuming the copy will run off of the price of the T1 variant, We can also assume that the invention job will run off of the T2 Variant.

So lets take a Damage Control II (easy numbers to make a point)

10000 for Damage Control I
700,000 for Damage Control II

Copy : (9800 * .02) * 1.1 * 300 * 20 = 63,360 (ONE Max run BPC ready for invention)
Invent : 700,000 * .2 * 1.1 = 154,000 (Per BPC invention try...)

lets assume a VERY generous 50% success rate

each run of -4 -4 will cost you = 434,720

That's a pretty gigantic loss considering BPO owners wont have to shell out a cent of that, lets face it they will be sitting in Jita 4-4 producing even easier them before.

CCP I think its about time you give us your calculations please. My math can't possibly be right, because you've just hit invention profitability with a giant nerf bat.

Any extra cost on Invention over BPO owners just means you're printing more isk for them and making prices to up... if anything you should be looking at narrowing the gap not making it larger.


Yeah, your numbers are way off. Almost worst-case, you're in a station with 15% of all total work.

Copy: (10k * .02) * 300 * 0.387 * 0.98 (for basic station) = 22,760 ISK
Invent: (700k * .02) * 0.387 * 0.98 = 5,310 ISK

Remote case: 1% of all work being done in system

Copy: (10k * .02) * 300 * 0.1 * 0.98 (for basic station) = 588 ISK
Invent: (700k * .02) * 0.1 * 0.98 = 1,372 ISK

That said, I'm still looking for confirmation that the 300-run copy is 300 times as expensive as the 1-run copy.
Halia Thorak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#580 - 2014-05-01 18:09:26 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Halia Thorak wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Halia Thorak wrote:
I'm a bit confused how Invention will work with this system... will i have to pay 3 times to invent and produce something? one to copy one to invent one to produce? That sounds like as an inverter I'm going to get bent over and ***** sideways. Please someone correct me if I'm understanding this wrong.


Actually.....
4 times.

Pay to copy (T1 item cost produced by the BP you are copying * .02 * system variable costs * runs)
Pay to invent (no bloody idea how they're pricing theis one but lets assume the normal)
Pay to build the components needed for T2. (convert the goo into engine bits and armor stuff and electronic things)
Pay to assemble the final ship from the components.



Assuming the copy will run off of the price of the T1 variant, We can also assume that the invention job will run off of the T2 Variant.

So lets take a Damage Control II (easy numbers to make a point)

10000 for Damage Control I
700,000 for Damage Control II

Copy : (9800 * .02) * 1.1 * 300 * 20 = 63,360 (ONE Max run BPC ready for invention)
Invent : 700,000 * .2 * 1.1 = 154,000 (Per BPC invention try...)

lets assume a VERY generous 50% success rate

each run of -4 -4 will cost you = 434,720

That's a pretty gigantic loss considering BPO owners wont have to shell out a cent of that, lets face it they will be sitting in Jita 4-4 producing even easier them before.

CCP I think its about time you give us your calculations please. My math can't possibly be right, because you've just hit invention profitability with a giant nerf bat.

Any extra cost on Invention over BPO owners just means you're printing more isk for them and making prices to up... if anything you should be looking at narrowing the gap not making it larger.


You miss the system usage adjustment.

Cost of copy is not 2% of output. That is the value of the item being produced. That then needs to be multiplied by the system cost from usage.


So, if a system's usage rate results in 5% cost,then the cost of copy, invent is:

Cost of item produced by BP * .02 * .05



In your math, what is the 20?

BUT, even if your numbers were correct (and they are not.. probably 20x too high) 435K, is for 300 run BPC. Call it 1500 per on an item worth 700K. 0.2% (without adjusting for system usage).

Adjust it to 5% system usage adjustment, and it is more like .01%.


20% was a misstype it was actually already removed from the final number just not from the equation.

My understanding is its the ((Item cost *.02) *system variable * the "NPC" tax) * the number of copies.

You're also assumuing no NPC tax in your calculations in which cause we would have to use posfuel per hour which is more expensive. Rather then us coming up with numbers I'd like to see CCP give us some. The have plenty for everything else but invention.