EVE Information Portal

this is so obviously untrue the only appropriate response would get my post eaten by ISD

u wot m8

I, un-ironically, had no idea how it worked until it was going away. I can't be the only one.

So, up to this point, we've been focused on how the changes will effect newer players, with 4-5x as long to get a BPO to sub 1% waste.

Well..... I hope it didn't slip past anyone, but if I understand correctly, the hacks they "tossed in" over the last couple days in an attempt to make this less complex, just increased the time it takes to get a carrier BPO to "pretty good" from 3 months to 5 years.


OLD:
The round used to happen at the run level, and round closest.

Chimera, base needs are (4, 5, 10, 5, 10, 37, 10, 4, 4, 4, 10, 10, 10) . With no research, the 5s become 6 and the 10s become 11, while the 37 becomes 41 so (4, 6, 11, 6, 11, 41, 11, 4, 4, 4, 11, 11, 11). Total extra was 13. % extra was 13/ 123 = 10.57%.

However, under the old, spend 3 months researching to ME 2 and those dropped to (4,5,10,5,10,38,10,4,4,4,10,10, 10). That is one wasted cap drone bay. So waste is 1/123 or 0.8%.

To get rid of that last 1 wasted drone bay would require ME=7 which was another 10.5 months. Few would bother unless you planned on making copies to sell. Then, the extra research didn't make the BPO sell for much higher price, but it did make it sell faster, meaning you could sell more, meaning more total profit.


NEW:
Round happens after full job calculation, and ALWAYS ROUNDS UP!

At deploy time, the base become the old waste numbers: (4, 6, 11, 6, 11, 41, 11, 4, 4, 4, 11, 11, 11).

ME 2 was 7.5% reduction in waste, which is no longer possible under the new "whole %" so let's go with the low end... 7% reduction.... which will take 19000 seconds * 854 = 188 day base (6 months), but let's say you can still cut 30% off that for skills and POS mod and get it down to 4.5 months.

Now your base numbers are multiplied by .93, then rounded up to get: (4, 6, 11, 6, 11, 39, 11, 4, 4, 4, 11, 11, 11). A whopping reduction of 2 drone bays. 2 / 136 = A change fro 1.5% reduction from the base 136 items needed from a 7% researched BPO.

(AS I said, the complexity has always been in applying the %s to the items needed and determining the rounding inflection points. And their last minute hack to apply at the job level and then round up, simply moves the complexity to manufacturing job start instead of research).

NOW, if I happen to be a mega corp that can crank out carriers in batches, and happen to run 3 chimera in a job, I can get 3 for (12, 17, 31,12,31, 115, 31, 12, 12, 12, 31, 31, 31) which is 378 items from a base 408 = 7.3% reduction.

See, ALL the complexity (always was, is and STILL WILL BE) of applying the % reductions to the items needed and finding the inflection point in the rounding is still there. All this change, breaking STUFF to remove complexity, didn't actually remove any of the complexity. All it did was move the complexity from BPO ME research to manufacturing job start.


Now, back to my main point: To get my chimera "pretty good", if I'm a small corp that runs billion ISK ships one at a time, I need to get those 11s back to the old base of 10 and the 6s back to 5. I'm half in luck. 11 * .91 is 10.01, which is still going to round to 11, but IF I take the BPO to perfect 10% reduction 11 * .9 = 9.9 which will round to 10. I'm only "half in luck" because 6*.9 = 5,4, which is still going to round to 6.

So, instead of 3 months to get to 0,8% waste, I have to go to -10%, which will be 256K second * 854 which is 7 years BASE time, and then if you can reduce that 30% for skills and POS mods is "only" 4 years 10 months. And for that almost 5 years, you're getting (4, 6, 10, 6,10,37,10,4,4,4,10,10,10). (136-125) / 136 = 8% reduction.


The complexity was NEVER in waste = .1/(1+ME). The complexity is, was, and STILL WILL BE from applying the % to the items needed and finding the inflection points in the rounding!



So, again we:
1) Screw over players that spent a lot of time on research because people that spent way less get to catch up in the big conversion.
2) Screw over newer players with WAY longer research times.
3) Remove the ability to research to between whole % waste.
4) Do not remove any of the actual complexity, which has always come from applying the % to the items needed and identifying inflection points in the rounding, we simply move the complexity to manufacturing job start optimal runs.

They didn't understand the problem (complexity was in applying % to items needed and finding inflection point in the round, not in the old formula waste = .1 / (1+ME)).

So, they attacked the wrong thing (waste formula instead of round). In doing so, they broke a lot of stuff (can't research between whole %) which had big implications ( The big round up; the jump from 9% to 10% has always been huge, but in the past it was unnecessar becuase I could do partial %s, but since I won't be able to do partial %s, it iwill be more important to get to perfect).

When it was pointed out that the complexity is in the round not the formula so they dodn't actualy remove any complexity, they slapped in a fix to apply the round at the job level and round up, which simply moved the complexity to manufacturing, AND broke a bunch more stuff, like having to run billion ISK ships in batches.

FAIL!

FAIL on so many levels!


Stop hacking. Stop breaking stuff!!!!!!

Start over.

unsuprisingly, no matter how many times LHA points out that fire is wet and water burns, ccp does not take his advice

let us ponder why that is

If there is a flaw in someone data or logic, critics attack those flaws.

When the critics are unable to find a flaw in the argument, they turn to logical fallacy, such as this obvious use of the logical fallacy known as Strawman.

If A, then B.
If not A, then C.
C.

i've torpedoed you arguments over and over (sadly ISD felt my obvious scorn was over the line so they've been hidden). that was, in fact, the post right above the one you're replying to

i seperately wrote to mock the "boy it is so clear fire is wet, why isn't ccp listening to me :argh:" comments you keep making

there's a reason you do nothing but repeat the same argument over and over again: its a bad one and can't respond to criticism so you can only hope to win through repetition

I am forced to wonder what the goons are gaining from this obviously flawed re-design of research that is making them so dismissive of its obvious flaws (oh, it broke capital construction, rmoves the ability to partial % research, screws people over, and moves complexity to manufacturing from research.... no problem because .1/(1+ME) is hard.).

Unless they have a ton of ME 10 BPOs that are jumping to perfect, I don't understand their defense of these messed up changes.

it's not flawed and every one of your arguments is utter garbage and we enjoy dunking them

everything you cite as a problem is trumped up nonsense: as someone who actually understands industry I know when you're selecting edge cases that are irrelevant vs. relevant issues that come up and you are picking edge cases and in many cases lying about them

you are not smart enough to realize how bad your arguments are, so you just repeat them ad nauseum and complain that people do not understand your genius. i do not say this to flame you, i say this because it explains your posting and why it convinces nobody: anyone sensible would know that trying to support your arguments on the internet by claiming you have a 140 iq and are frequently the smartest person in the room is a sure sign you're neither of those things. a smart person's arguments and posts demonstrate their intelligence beyond dispute: someone backed into asserting baldly they are actually smart clearly has posted so poorly they have no other option

capital ship construction is fine, despite your repeated lies that it is not. the math may be a little more involved because you have to care about breakpoints but capital ship construction is high-skill high-capital construction and I am fine with it having good complexity. it is certainly not representative of standard industry

to the extent that people are screwed over because they have increased research time compared to grandfathered bpos, that is a problem with the scaling as I have noted repeatedly (and you have repeatedly ignored, because you don't actually care about this issue). anyone with grandfathered bpos is getting a better bpo in return and i have no patience for the argument that they should get a nicer one than someone else because the UI lied to people before. nobody's getting screwed there, they're merely not profiting

the complexity in manufacturing is good complexity - where you must weigh options and make the best choice given the situation. the complexity being removed in research is bad complexity: where you must struggle with a deceptive and crappy UI to figure out what it means but there is only one right answer (so you just go to the out of game tool that gives it to you)

you couldn't do research between 10% and 5% before. this is a trumped-up nonsense whine that is just that you don't like the change. the atomization is much, much better. the scaling has issues that I've pointed out before, but that's issues of scaling not of atomization

all of these dumb arguments you're making have been bashed into the ground already and I've given you all these answers before. you have not been able to rebut them: you just ignore the fact they've been demolished and keep spamming your bad, discredited idea and hope that people will get tired and stop rebutting it