EVE Information Portal

My ideal (not in the above pseudo code) is to let them pick any amount of time (days, hours, mins). Convert that to seconds and then divide that by "research time" (which remember, would be 1/100th what it currently is). That gives me the added ME. amount. Use that added ME amount to calculate the new waste (may be exactly the same as now) and the time which is added ME * research time.

So, if you have a BP at 900 (1% waste) and perfect is 3000, with a research time of 3600 seconds (an hour), you would be presented with the options:
1) 0% waste, 87 days, 12 hours
2) Pick your own time: ___ days, ___ hours ___ minutes

If they pick option 2, I convert to seconds, divivde by research time then round to nearest whole ME.
I then turn the ME back into a % and research time.


SO, they choose option 2. And enter 15 days, 1 hour, 13 minutes.
(((days*24 + hours)*60)+minutes)*60
(((15*24 + 1)*60)+13)*60 = 1.3 million seconds.
1.3m/3600 = ME added rpunds to 361.
Post research ME will be 1261. (12.61 under old system)
Waste on that will be .79% and actual time is.... 361 * research time, convert seconds back to readable. (15 days, 1 hour... since I happened to pick research time exactly an hour.... norm it won't be excct hour/min, so won't round mice like that)

So, yes, they are able to specify their own amount of time, and reduce waste fractions of a %, even if that has no real change on the actual needed.

Next time, when you come back to research more, you're at 1261 instead of 900.
So your options are:
1) 0% 72 days, 11 hours
2) Pick your own time: ___ days, ___ hours ___ minutes

@LHA Tarawa

ok, i got it, earlier you stated that there could be several radio buttons; i missed the part where they could enter their own amount of time.

The "minimum" implimentation above offers all whole % that are higher than current, upto perfect, EVEN IF, those do not actually effect waste (an item that needs 16 of something has 2 waste, so the only actual effecting % are ME 7 (drops waste from 2/16 = 12.5% to 1/16 = 5.25%) and ME 221 (current method, that is 2.21) which drops waste to 0%.

So, the "better" implimentation is to calcualte my current % waste and current actual waste (of whatever is needed most) as use those as my thresholds to beat. Starting current waste % is a little tricky. If I'm at 9.99 or 12.5, the first I want to consider lower is 9%. However, if I'm exactly at 9%, the waste to beat is 8%. So, I have to max the current with 10(drop the 12.5 to 10), then round up(9.99 become 10 but 9 stays 9)... then subtract 1 (12.5 become 9. 9.99 become 9. 9 becomes 8). This gives me my value to beat...


Better code:
calculate max needed, perfect ME and exit if already perfect, same as above.


CurrentWastePct= max (ceiling (100.0 * round (float(need) * .1 / (1+float(Current ME)/100.0)) / float(need)),10) (center chunk is same as show info)

(save off these numbers I'm trying to beat. I will reset them each time in the loop that I find a new item to add to the radio buttons)
PctWasteTarget=CurrentWastePct-1.0

newME = current ME + 1

while for PctWasteTarget > 0 and newME < perfect
PctWasteTry=100.0 * round (float(need) * .1 / (1+float(ME_try)/100.0)) / float(need)
if PctWasteTry <= WasteTarget
Add radio button round(PctWasteTry, 2decimal) + "% time = " + convert to pretty((ME_try - current ME) * research time) value ME_try
WasteTarget = ceiling(PctWasteTry) - 1.0
end if
newME = newMW + 1
end while

Add radio button "0% time = " + convert to pretty((perfect ME - current ME) * research time) value Perfect ME

Add radio button "Specify your own research time: " value 0.

text boxes for hours. mins, secs

Show window.

If cancel
exit

If custom
calcualte the custom ME and submit.
else
submit the ME selected


So, with my example of needing 16 of something, out current would be 12.5, which gets maxed to 10, and target is 9. We start waling ME until we hit 7, where wacte percent hits 6.25, which is below 9, so that is option 1.... 6.25%. We keep walking MEs until we hit ME 221, which drops us out of the while. The final perfect is added as option 2, along with the custom.

Thanks. I doubt it will happen, because it would take a lot of crow eating... but I think it is SOOOOOOO much better than the proposed design... which should be on test server in a week... which is not enough time to stop the train wreck.

But you still have the complication of taking that % waste and comparing it to items needed to figure out if you really need to do more research or not.

Does 1% really reduce cost at all? Do you really need to go to 0% to be at 0%?

What existing systems us a 10-poiny system? What system does some of the work really not accomplish anything?





Their goals were to simplify. They only got half way there because their whole %s shown won't really be whole %s because of rounding when applied to items needed...

AND to go along with their fail attempt to simplify, they created a major cluster Foxtrot with rounding all ME 10 BPOs to perfect and Foxtroting all new players with 4-5x the research time to get to sub 1% waste (well deserved new player emo-rage inbound!!!!).

They didn't achieve the goal (mine does better because I actually integrate to items needed to show the REAL waste) and they broke stuff. FAIL, FAIL!




No, they don't use point system and track partial. My system is closer to that with points as 100ths of what was a single PE level.



Exactly like I'm proposing!

Agreed...

I don't think Fanfest helped either. While the devs were busy with their cage match, perhaps (Kronos) should have had a higher priority on the list.

While we've been brainstorming and theorycrafting changes to this impending disaster, this is CCP:

From PC Gamer:

"Last night I watched a procession of CCP developers wrestle with undefeated MMA fighter Gunnar Nelson. Unsurprisingly, they didn't win, but it certainly was a spectacle especially when the last guy, who looks like Zangief and towered over Nelson arrived in in the arena from above, suspended in the air by ropes."

Also from PC Gamer, before Fanfest.

"Today, CCP announced the EVE of Destruction event, in which the game s developers will take on Gunnar Gunni Nelson, an Icelandic mixed-martial artist (MMA). On Friday, May 2, 20:00 UTC, Gunni will take on 10 CCP staff members, one at a time, submitting one before moving on to the next. It shouldn't take long.

CCP Community Developer and coach for the CCP team Sveinn Kjarval, promises flailing, half-strength maneuvers from CCP members that will possibly, eventually have a 2% chance at best of causing this human tornado of devastation to pause and laugh just long enough that we get super lucky. "

I bet Shoogie could have taken on the entire CCP team and won. Rollaz too. They don't need Gunni Nelson at this point. They dropped these blogs and left off for Fanfest. If they wanted a cage match, they should stayed to brave the Pandora's box they unleashed on the forums.

Like I said, my money's on Shoogie but I think I could have bested a few CCP team members myself!

Im not trying to be insulting here dude, but your "super researched" BPOs dont actually sell for that much more ISK than a kinda well researched BPO because most people who are into buying BPOs understand that there isnt that much of a difference.

For example right now there's a megathron BPO ME 30 selling for 2.2 billion, and a ME 100 BPO selling for 2.5 billion.
Another example would be the dominix BPO ME 25 selling for 1.7 billion, ME 70 selling for 1.9 billion.

If you paid too much extra for these "super researched" BPOs you got ripped off; even after the change I dont expect the prices to drop too much on these BPOs because to produce another one it would require 180 days worth of POS fuel + team labor cost meaning at around 700 million ISK markup for a perfect battleship BPO which is about where it is right now

TL;DR
unless you have an absolutely MASSIVE collection of BPOs and we're talking in the trillions of ISK value, there is no way you lose 150 billion with this change.

Something I'd like to know is what are the devs' opinions on the current state of BPO trading via contracts, specifically expensive and very highly researched blueprints. This change is certainly going to result in a shrink in that market because of lower perceived value due to smaller numbers and the compression of the scale resulting in BPOs previously perceived as a lot superior and demanding prices multiple times of those with ME 10 becoming equal.

Also has there been any discussion on a research credit refund for BPOs over 10/10? While I would like something like that, I'm wondering if there would be any repercussions because of it, depending on how it was implemented.

Except you are ignoring all those BPOs that need less than 100 of something. For those BPOs, there is still complexity they are dealing with. They are still not showing you the ACTUAL reductions and effects. Making everything a hypothetical 0-10% reduction ignores that some things require less than 100 of something as their max input, so some of those research levels actually have no effect.

This mean players still have the manual step of looking at the BPO to see what they need the most of, then manually figuring out what their actual waste is, and then manually figuring out if researching to a higher level will actually change their actual waste.

Mine appears more complicated, because I'm doing all this extra work for them.

If a BPO uses 4 of something, my design tells them NO WASTE, even at no research. If they try to research, my design tells them they are already perfect. CCP proposed design offers them the 1-10% reduction, even though those actually do nothing.

If they need 5 of something as most, CCP's design offers them a 1-10% reduction, even though, the actual reduction will be 20%, and that 20% all occurs when they research to 1%. My design shows the actual 20%, and if they try to research, it shows them the one option of going to perfect (or in the ideal design, some arbitrary amount of time between current and perfect to allow partial research).

CCP's design still has lots of manual complexity to convert from hypothetical reduction to actual reductions and manual complexity figuring out at what research level the actual reductions are achieved. My design removes all that manual complexity and has the UI show you the actual reductions and points that they occur.





How is theirs more skill like? Mine is more skill like....

Okay. Don't hide the ME behind the UI. Rename it from ME to RP (Research Points). RP happen to be 1/100th the time and effect of the old ME. Boom, mine is totally skill like!

If you need more than 100 of something, then the whole % levels for reductions are 11, 25, 42, 66, 100, 150, 230, 400, 900. Because of rounding issues in waste, if you need less than 100 as your most needed, then these RP points move, and under my design, the UI handles ALL that for you, showing you only the RP point inflection points that actually effect your BPO.

Like skill training, my design preserves partial research between significant levels in the form of RP.

The only thing non-skill like about my design is that if you need more than 100 if stuff, partial research between the significant levels may actually have an impact.




Their removal of credit for partial research between whole %s is going to cause emo-rage no matter what. If they round up, the people that spent more time rage that others get to catch up. If they round down, the people that spent time going beyond ME 10 will rage. If they round closest, rage will occur from both sides.

No matter how they round, newer players will rage that they will have to spend 4-5x as long to get under 1% more cost that the older players.

The only option that removes this rage is to preserve all current time and effect. If the goal was to remove complexity, then just remove that complexity by hiding it behind the UI (and do it in a way that show the REAL waste and the REAL inflection points where the change occurs instead of a hypothetical reduction that may or may not actually have any effect).





Yeah.... which is why people are warning of new player rage for having to spend 4-5x as long to get below 1% waste (9% reduction). You are demonstrating the validity of that rage, which argues against the new system, and for a system such as I propose that preserves the current research times, preserves the current research effects. And mine ACTUALLY does a better job of removing complexity by removing the manual steps of comparing hypothetical change in needs to input amounts to manually figure out your actual extra needs and if additional research will actually remove any need and manually figuring out where those actual changes in material needs occur. All that manual complexity is still in their design.

Actually no, not at the low end.

If you need 5 of something now, with 10% waste, you have 1 waste. That waste goes away at ME 1.

Under the new plan, the 5 becomes 6. The ME1 BPO becomes a 5% reduction research BPO. 95% of 6 is still 5.7, which rounds to 6. The actual reduction from 6 to 5 won't occur until the BPO is researched to a 9% reduction, at which point, the 20% reduction occurs.

(This is the CCP proposed change.... 1-8% research has no effect, then 20% reduction occurs at 9% research level. Tell me again how this 1-8% research is nothing, then 9% reduction is actually 20%, but you have to do all that calculation manually, is less complex than my proposed change where the 20% would be shown, and the UI offers you two options, 1) the point the improvement is achieved and 2) If you think that is too long, manual time entry to get partial credit toward that point!)