EVE Information Portal

ok, its true that 2M isk savings is unrealistic, but the math is the same and the logic is sound.

Right now you have to decide if the next month is worth the ever decreasing gains you get from additional research.

After the change you have to decide if the extra 1% savings is worth the ever increasing research time.

The calculation is the same therefore it will be just as meaningful a decision after the change as it is right now.

Except it is not, because 1% steps are much too large and the time scaling is much too harsh.

We pay for this game with a monthly subscription. When a system is put in place which involves pushing a button and then walking away for 6 months, or a year, or 5 years, that is bad game design.

When something is put into the game which is never intended to be achieved, such as a "perfect" titan BPO, players feel insulted and turn off.


In the old system, someone could research a capital BPO for 5 months 15 days and get an ME 5 blueprint. At the patch, their blueprints will be converted to ME 9 blueprints. The new players who want to compete will never be able to research their blueprints past ME7 because the scaling is too harsh and the ROI is not there (2 years and 2 months just in research, so perhaps a decade ROI). And when all else is equal: same station, same taxes, same work teams, same raw material prices, same transportation costs, same sell price, same everything: then the person building a 2.5B isk ship with an ME9 blueprint will make 50M isk per unit more profit than someone building from an ME7 blueprint. It will be the same uproar we get about T2 BPOs all over again.


Nobody has yet been able to explain anything about the new system which is better than the old system.

The math is easier and it is more intuitive? No it is not. There was no math before and there still won't be in the future. Your intuition lied to you both before and in the future. Both before and in the future, you must look at the bill of materials or get a build quote to know what you are getting.

It will make it easier for CCP to develop a blueprint exchange system in the future? Maybe. How much easier? Is it the difference between getting one in 6 months and getting one in a year? How much harder is it to use filters to sort by minimum research levels?

What is good about the new system?

Phew.

Oh, I agree, Instead of 10 steps of 1% each it should be 100 steps of 0.1% each

It would still not be great because everyone above level 20 would either get rounded up or get the shaft, but it would at least be something

That and I believe that the switch over should be in time equivalency not ME equivalency. You spent X time, you get X time back, and maybe if it was a 100 level system you could even round up and it wouldnt be such a big deal.

I dunno, that looks like an awful lot of math. Let's just do ME 0 to ME 10. That is much nicer.

It is a lot of math, because it serves two purposes. Let's break them down.


1) Show actual waste rather than hypothetical.
The current, and proposed systems both only show hypothetical waste/reduction. They do not account for the rounding in the manufacturing process. So, if an item needs at most 4 of something (small rig), then it is already perfect. I think a simplified system should show that.

If my hypothetical waste is 10% and it needs 5 of something, then my actual waste is 1, which is 20%, not 10%.

The UI should show the actual, not hypothetical waste, and THAT is half the math (which is behind the scenes and never shown to the users)... which really should be added to current and proposed changes...

My solution looks more complicated then others, because I'm including functionality they are not.


2) Fractional ME.
To the users my suggestion will appear little different than the proposed solution, except that here too I am adding additional functionality.

The proposed changes will allow me to research a BPO to 1% to 10% material reduction, without bothering to tell me if the research will have no actual effect. If I need max 8 of something, meaning 1 waste, unless I go to 3% reduction, the research will have no effect.

Once I hit that 3%, no addition research will have any effect, and neither the current nor proposed solutions offer any hint at that.

So, my solution reduces the options by eliminating all the "no effect" options, and showing which ME level is actually going to result in 0% waste.

So, again, my behind the scenes math that the user never sees is because I am adding functionality not present in the current nor planned changes.

3) Partial research
Here again, I am adding functionality no present in wither the current or planned changes. Users enter days, hours, minutes, and are shown what ACTUAL effect that would have on waste, hiding all the complicated math.


So, all the complication is
1) hidden behind the UI
2) because I'm offering more functionality and simplification in the UI.

And along with this,
1) preserve all the existing time and effect of current research.
2) do not create emo-rage among new players that would have to spend 4-5x as long in research to get sub-1% waste.

You have (kind-a) convinced me.


FAKE out the float change, like we're faking whole % in the UI.

Keep it an int. Multiply it by 100 in the database. ME 12 becomes ME 1200.

9% waste = ME 11
8% waste = ME 25
...
5% waste = ME 100
...
Perfect ME = whatever it used to be * 100.



Research time = research time / 100


Waste = .1 / ( 1 + ME/100). Because of the *.1, it has to already be cast as a float , so do the divide by 100.0 after the cast.




Still make the same UI changes I proposed before. Show actual waste in the show info (waste of max needed/max needed) as float %.

Show and offer only meaningful options in the research window. If 11 (0.11 ME = 9% waste) is enough for perfect, than that should the the only option, and presented as 0% waste!

Allow users to specify time (though would have to round to nearest "new research time", which is old research time / 100)



ALL the benefits of my proposed solution, with none of the complication of converting int to float in all the objects, data layer, transport layer, etc, etc.

Just because CCP states they want "lumpiness" does not mean the proposed changes will achieve or even effectively achieve that goal. There are many other ways to distribute where things are produced *and* sold using more apparent in game logic consistent with the eternal war and hyper capitialistic motiffs. Why not reveal who is producing in a system so one can launch a war against them? Charge import fees based on distance from point of manufacturing, tariffs for racial factors etc... The stated end goal is interesting but they have not made the case that a statistical application to solve a problem that is not evident will achieve a more organic play experience.

you're free to cancel it and reinstall post-patch

i don't see how you could complain you're getting exactly what you expected when you put the thing in research

That ought to work... you essentially end up with a 2 decimal float with this work around...

That said, Im not sure I would limit people to only researching for an amount of time that effects the BP unless you're going to allow them to save their time and resume later which i imagine could be done; just 2 more INTs in the database for each BPO. My reason being that the difference for cap ship BPOs between actually saving capital components could be months/years at higher levels, and you end up with the same problem as you have now.