Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Please confirm, is this just for the material discounts from facilities, or does this take effect for ME rounding too?

It makes a big difference when you're building, say, 50+ small rigs per batch whether 10% ME reduces things from, say, 3*100 to 300 or reduces things from 3*100 to 270.

Correction - IT MAKES HUGE DIFFRENCE IF IT IS ROUND OR ROUNDUP

example:

BPO, ME 6%, basic material requirments (before modyfiers) 10 x tritanium

1. ROUNDUP()
2 jobs 1 run = 2 x ROUNDUP(10*1*,94)=20
1 job 2 run = 1 x ROUNDUP(10*2*,94)=19
So we save 1 unit of tritanium by running 2 run job instead of 2 jobs with 1 run each


2. ROUND()
2 jobs 1 run = 2 x ROUND(10*1*,94)=18
1 job 2 run = 1 x ROUND(10*2*,94)=19 !!!!!!!
So WE LOOSE 1 unit of tritanium by running 2 run job instead of 2 jobs with 1 run each

So round is misleading, we will be doing a CEIL() aka rounding up. If you need 14.1 after all the runs and material efficiency is multiplied out then it will be 15.

Why not throw all the manufacturers a bone and floor() materials?
Ofc plus at the same time ensuring that they cannot go below 1

Yes but Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs require BPOs to do anything. You won't be able to tell if they are copying a BPO, but you will know if they are researching a BPO.

Figure out the old waste % and then round down, subtract from 10.
ME 1 = 5% waste = 5% reduction
ME2 = 3.33% waste = 3% round = 7% reduction
ME3 = 2.5% waste = 2% round = 8% reduction
ME4 = 2% = 8% reduction
ME5-ME8 = 1% round = 9% reduction
ME9 = 1% = 9% reduction
ME10 = .09% waste = 0% round down = 10% reduction.
Better then ME10 = 10% reduction.

I do T2 module invention and manufacture. Isn't this a buff to T2 BPOs? I don't think this will make a significant difference to my manufacturing due to insufficient runs. Or have I miscalculated?

That is a particularly malevolent interpretation and projection. I'm mad about aspects of this, too, but let's treat the Dev's as if they're human and not minions of Satan.

Edit: although I have heard that tap water in Iceland is rather sulphurous...

MDD

This is true, however:

1. Invention requires copies, so it's reasonable to assume that an inventor is copying BPOs to fund his own invention.
2. 3/4 of the research jobs require a BPO meaning there is no way to split the activities up that doesnt guarantee BPOs are in one or the other.

This sounds unfortunate for the T2 inventor, since all T2 blueprints require 1 of the T1 thing to manufacture. Since we're starting -40% in the hole and no decryptor gets us positive, we'll need more T1 going in than T2 coming out, which is a bit silly. For small T2 items, the new calculations can double the current manufacturing cost.

For example, the ever-popular Acolyte II currently requires the following to build (base):

1x Acolyte I
1x Laser Focusing Crystals
1x Guidance Systems
1x Robotics
1x Morphite (2 at ME -4)

After the change in Kronos, I imagine these numbers will remain the same.

[1, 10] runs, at -40% ME (POS or not doesn't matter), will look something like this:

[2, 14]x Acolyte I (10 x 1.00 x 1.40 x 0.98 = 13.72, goes to 14)
[2, 14]x Laser Focusing Crystals
[2, 14]x Guidance Systems
[2, 14]x Robotics
[2, 14]x Morphite


Low-run BPCs in general get hammered by the CEIL change, those with small material input even moreso. T2 light drones get hit with a roughly 40% cost increase across the board, which is admittedly the worst-case scenario.

For small material quantities, there's a rough break-even point at 8 runs in a POS where you get 37.5% waste (11 for 8 runs) of the theoretical 37.2% minimum waste. Of course, that leaves you with 2 remaining runs at 50% waste (3 for 2 runs), which gets you back to 14 for 10 runs, or 40% waste. Without a POS, 5 and 10 runs are the most efficient.

I made a chart to more clearly illustrate things