These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Researching, the Future

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#781 - 2014-05-09 21:16:35 UTC
ElectronHerd Askulf wrote:

Now that I've written up some code for the new world, I've run into this as well. This rounding waste in the case of a Jaguar adds up to somewhere around 700,000 isk for a build from components. Given the profit from that build would be about 2 million, that's significant.


The key thing you are missing is that the cost changes for everybody. If jaguars build cost changes, the price of jaguars changes. This isn't a problem.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#782 - 2014-05-09 21:18:02 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
another blatantly obvious isue missed by LHA: waste no longer exists


If we're being overly semantic, the correct statement would be "waste WILL NO LONGER exists" because when i log into ever right now, it most certainly does still exist.

However, I would not bother to create a point simply about semantics as they tend to not further conversations.


As for you point, my argument has always been to NOT go forward with the research changes. Therefore, in that case, waste will still exist, and can be calculated as waste = 10% / waste_divider, where waste_divider = old ME + 1.

Now... in the post I made comparing current to new and show how they've screwed to pooch on capital construciton, I did correcltly apply semantics and use the "reduction" terminology.


So, in summary, when talking about not imposing the disaster of a new system, and offering alterantives, I use the term waste since that is correct if not imposing the disaster of a new system. When discussing the tragedy of a new system, I do use the what will be the new term, reduction.
Darin Vanar
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#783 - 2014-05-09 21:21:48 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
that has exactly 7 states: if it's ME0, ME1, ME2, ME3, ME4, ME5-9, ME10+


I rest my case.

I think you know enough to mis-represent my post, that the issue with "once the scripts run" is not in the difficulty of running said scripts but in what those scripts will actually do.

Incoming massive amounts of perfect BPOs that will take 5x as long to research for anyone new to get up to the level these DB scripts will generate.

The only ones defending this are the ones who stand to benefit. "Cui bono?"
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#784 - 2014-05-09 21:21:59 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:

As for you point, my argument has always been to NOT go forward with the research changes. Therefore, in that case, waste will still exist, and can be calculated as waste = 10% / waste_divider, where waste_divider = old ME + 1.

and that's garbage considering that there are actual material reduction things in place now, so you've made a system where instead of being able to add up the mineral reductions easily then making your hard choices based on tradeoffs, you're forced to wrestle with the UI about what things mean

that's crap and makes the entire system needlessly complicated just for the sake of not having you need to update spreadsheets

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#785 - 2014-05-09 21:23:07 UTC
ElectronHerd Askulf wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Yup, there is a little bit of additional rounding waste in the negative MEs. I had this in the blog for a while, but I took it out because it was fiddly to explain and I figured someone would figure it out pretty quickly in the comments anyway. So, you get a small prize of nonspecific nature for being the first (that I've noticed!) to flag this up.


Additionally, turning the crank on a naive implementation of this stuff leads me to the improbable situation of requiring 2 rifters to build 1 jaguar. This is based on Nullarbor's comments regarding having a 'ceil' prior to multiplication by number of runs in a job (to support the 2% material reduction in POS modules effecting low-input blueprints). Will there be still be inputs that will be treated differently, or am I missing additional rounding somewhere? I'll throw in a 'floor' for now, but I'd really like to know I'm putting it in the right place before I start making decisions about this.


Clearly CCP is hacking and thrashing in he days before this is due to show up on the test server, so they have no clue all the implications of the changes they are making.

I find it no more silly that a jaguar will need 2 rifters than a run of 1 carrier needs 6 engines, but 3 carriers need 16( 2 need 5 and the 3rd in the same rum needs 6).
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#786 - 2014-05-09 21:23:41 UTC
Darin Vanar wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
that has exactly 7 states: if it's ME0, ME1, ME2, ME3, ME4, ME5-9, ME10+


I rest my case.

I think you know enough to mis-represent my post, that the issue with "once the scripts run" is not in the difficulty of running said scripts but in what those scripts will actually do.

Incoming massive amounts of perfect BPOs that will take 5x as long to research for anyone new to get up to the level these DB scripts will generate.

The only ones defending this are the ones who stand to benefit. "Cui bono?"

counselor you rest your case when you think you've won not when you've just lost

your dumb complaint was " If you run DB scripts in the current state, you are going to create a disaster."

you want to ***** and whine about changes you don't like you do that rather than imply they're going to **** up the db

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#787 - 2014-05-09 21:29:54 UTC
ElectronHerd Askulf wrote:

Additionally, turning the crank on a naive implementation of this stuff leads me to the improbable situation of requiring 2 rifters to build 1 jaguar. This is based on Nullarbor's comments regarding having a 'ceil' prior to multiplication by number of runs in a job (to support the 2% material reduction in POS modules effecting low-input blueprints). Will there be still be inputs that will be treated differently, or am I missing additional rounding somewhere? I'll throw in a 'floor' for now, but I'd really like to know I'm putting it in the right place before I start making decisions about this.

almost assuredly the base t1 item for a t2 item is hardcoded to be one and only one, no matter anything else, but that's it

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Darin Vanar
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#788 - 2014-05-09 21:31:23 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Darin Vanar wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
that has exactly 7 states: if it's ME0, ME1, ME2, ME3, ME4, ME5-9, ME10+


I rest my case.

I think you know enough to mis-represent my post, that the issue with "once the scripts run" is not in the difficulty of running said scripts but in what those scripts will actually do.

Incoming massive amounts of perfect BPOs that will take 5x as long to research for anyone new to get up to the level these DB scripts will generate.

The only ones defending this are the ones who stand to benefit. "Cui bono?"

counselor you rest your case when you think you've won not when you've just lost

your dumb complaint was " If you run DB scripts in the current state, you are going to create a disaster."

you want to ***** and whine about changes you don't like you do that rather than imply they're going to **** up the db


I never implied that.

I guess that's why we have forums, to clarify our comments over and over while stating nothing new.
Quintessen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#789 - 2014-05-09 21:33:38 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:

They can still keep parts of the June release. For example, refine changes. Damage to T2 inputs. Move extra items to base. No remote research. The new UI. Infinite slots, solar system wide usage cost scaling. Compression arrays. New ships, changes to ships (including barges/exhumers). Changes to copy times.


Point made. There would still be thing they could include. Though I would imagine the UI would have to at least be partially rewritten. It's designed to take all these new systems into account and changing the research system at this late date would force them to rush it out.

LHA Tarawa wrote:

The only things I've asked for are
1) Change to cost scaling to base it on the concurrent jobs in a facility rather than solar system level usage over the last 28 days. The can go forward with the current horrid design on cost scaling, and fix it post June.


Your position is not something I personally agree with, but this isn't the thread for that, so I'll let it go without further comment.

LHA Tarawa wrote:

2) Revisit the research changes, and do this NOW, because this one can not simply be rolled back after. Once they do the big round up, that can't be undone.


So, in summary.... DO NOT ship the research changes. Ship everything else. Post June, revisit the manufacturing cost scaling to be facility based on how many jobs are running right now instead of how many have run in the solar system over the last 4 weeks and make MUCH smaller changes (if any) to research.


With regard to the big round up, I'm for it. I don't think it will break the game. And the 4-5x time change is independent of the round up, though the round up makes it that much worse. If the 4-5x research time issue were reduced to say 1x or 1.5x then I'd be happy. The round up is a one-time boost to current subscribers. It affects people with more blueprints more than those with less. The more BPOs you have, the more improvement you'll see independent of others. And people will not see much benefit for blueprints researched under 1% waste. You can call this screwing people over, but CCP never guaranteed that hyper-efficient BPOs would be a viable strategy forever any more than any other particular module or ship would be a viable strategy forever.

People complained or cheered when the Drake was nerfed back in line with everything else. Whether or not you complained or cheered probably depended on how heavily invested you were into Drake piloting. But nerfing the Drake was the right thing to do. And, yes, Drake pilots were screwed over by that measure.

I see this as basically a re-balance of blueprints with blueprints under ME 10 getting the biggest buff and blueprints over 10 getting a slight to significant nerf. And I imagine CCP sees it the same way. Just like the Drake pilots, this feels like people with blueprints over ME 10 are getting screwed -- and they are. And, at least to me, it's also good for the game.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#790 - 2014-05-09 21:41:34 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:

As for you point, my argument has always been to NOT go forward with the research changes. Therefore, in that case, waste will still exist, and can be calculated as waste = 10% / waste_divider, where waste_divider = old ME + 1.

and that's garbage considering that there are actual material reduction things in place now, so you've made a system where instead of being able to add up the mineral reductions easily then making your hard choices based on tradeoffs, you're forced to wrestle with the UI about what things mean

that's crap and makes the entire system needlessly complicated just for the sake of not having you need to update spreadsheets


And we're back to a simple difference of opinion.

All the material adjustments they are making in this release seem highly ill advised to me.

From the ME adjustments at POS and outpost instead of lines (infinite lines not scaling to activity at THAT facility is another huge mistake, in my opinion) to the teams thing that will just make the rich ever richer and crush young, small corporations there is so much in this release that I hate.

But of all in this release that is horrid, by far, the worst, in my opinion are the changes to research whole % research, moving the research round from run to job, and the ciel applied to that round.


As compared to all the bad things in this release, I see very little to make me excited for it. Increased hulk yield, perfect refine at towers, compression array, ummmmm... ummmm......
ElectronHerd Askulf
Aridia Logistical Misdirection
#791 - 2014-05-09 21:51:06 UTC
Seith Kali wrote:
ElectronHerd Askulf wrote:

Now that I've written up some code for the new world, I've run into this as well. This rounding waste in the case of a Jaguar adds up to somewhere around 700,000 isk for a build from components. Given the profit from that build would be about 2 million, that's significant.


The key thing you are missing is that the cost changes for everybody. If jaguars build cost changes, the price of jaguars changes. This isn't a problem.


Sure, long term. Personally I'd prefer the market be a little more stable in the change-over, but that's because I'm not positioned to take advantage of the change. Also, it's anther case where corner cases (huginn et. al.) will be more dominated by BPO holders than they are now. Most of what I build regularly will settle out at a higher cost in the long run.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#792 - 2014-05-09 21:52:04 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:

And we're back to a simple difference of opinion.

All the material adjustments they are making in this release seem highly ill advised to me.

the "opinion" that fire is hot and burns and the "opinion" that fire is wet and cold are not differing opinions

your opinions are consistently based on obviously incorrect assumptions, views of reality that bear no relationship to actual reality, and studiously ignoring people pointing that out

that's not a difference of opinion. that's you being wrong.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#793 - 2014-05-09 21:57:43 UTC
LHA's entire problem with this patch is, because he is struggling with his SQL homework, he assumes greyscale finds it as challenging as he does.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 
ElectronHerd Askulf
Aridia Logistical Misdirection
#794 - 2014-05-09 21:58:23 UTC  |  Edited by: ElectronHerd Askulf
Weaselior wrote:
ElectronHerd Askulf wrote:

Additionally, turning the crank on a naive implementation of this stuff leads me to the improbable situation of requiring 2 rifters to build 1 jaguar. This is based on Nullarbor's comments regarding having a 'ceil' prior to multiplication by number of runs in a job (to support the 2% material reduction in POS modules effecting low-input blueprints). Will there be still be inputs that will be treated differently, or am I missing additional rounding somewhere? I'll throw in a 'floor' for now, but I'd really like to know I'm putting it in the right place before I start making decisions about this.

almost assuredly the base t1 item for a t2 item is hardcoded to be one and only one, no matter anything else, but that's it


Actually, another peak at the database revealed a 'recycle' column that appears to be a flag indicating this behavior, maybe.

Edit - a refresher through the eve-dev wiki would have explained all of that and more for me.

I'd still like to have a specifics around rounding behavior, though.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#795 - 2014-05-09 21:58:26 UTC
Quintessen wrote:

People complained or cheered when the Drake was nerfed back in line with everything else. Whether or not you complained or cheered probably depended on how heavily invested you were into Drake piloting. But nerfing the Drake was the right thing to do. And, yes, Drake pilots were screwed over by that measure.


The drake is a totally different issue. An inordinate number of people chose the drake because it was clearly better than other options. Cane lost a high slot (and got it back as a faction version). My minmatar ships got hit by the tracking enhancer nerf to falloff. Citadel missiles are getting a speed buff so they can actually hit a moving ship. Drones are getting reworked in hopes of making more options viable.

There is no option here that needs to be nerfed or buffed to make other options viable. There is only research option.

This comes down to:
1) Was waste = 10% * 1 / (1+ME) where ME is 0+ so complicated that it needed to be reworked into whole %s of waste?
2) Would other options, such as "waste = 10% / waste divider", where waste divider is old ME +1 been sufficient change?
3) If there is any less complexity from the 1%-10% reduction, is that reduced complexity worth the other hacks that are being implimented becuase of it, such as the ciel on reductions.



I wish I really understood what the goal was here. It seems like, perhaps, all this is to help really large corps, especially ones that had enough lead time to get a lot of BPOs to ME 10.
Darin Vanar
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#796 - 2014-05-09 22:02:53 UTC
Quintessen wrote:

With regard to the big round up, I'm for it. I don't think it will break the game. And the 4-5x time change is independent of the round up, though the round up makes it that much worse. If the 4-5x research time issue were reduced to say 1x or 1.5x then I'd be happy.


And herein we have the problem. I agree with you on the last statement, but I don't think CCP agrees. From the tone they adopted in the dev blog, aka 'good luck maxing that out', to just the changes in general, I think those 4-5x times are going to take a lot of negative feedback for them to change or even remotely make them similar to the old (current) research times. They are clearly intentional.

It's not rational, but there it is.

I think it is intended to pacify the portion of the userbase affected by the roundup negatively. Those with over researched prints, by giving them a permanent advantage. Sort of like T2 BPOs. Of course, those impacted, see themselves relative to the players who will be put into the 10% bracket with much lesser research times, so they are unhappy.

Only those with "well researched prints", enough to make the "perfect roundup" are happy.

In the long run, this revamp to research especially is going to drive newer players away from the game. If they cannot compete, what's the point of competition.

The Drake changes are a drop in the bucket compared to what they are doing now. I would even say that they even threw away the bucket.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#797 - 2014-05-09 22:03:52 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:

1) Was waste = 10% * 1 / (1+ME) where ME is 0+ so complicated that it needed to be reworked into whole %s of waste?

how much better is a ME100 bpo than a ME 50 BPO

please give me an exact answer without reaching for a calculator

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#798 - 2014-05-09 22:08:15 UTC
well lets see

*pulls out paper, pencil*

now lets set X = ME50 and Y=100

we are looking for better where Y =X*better

so
X = 10% * 1 / (1+50)
Y = 10% * 1/(1+100)

so 10% * 1/(1+100) = 10% * 1 / (1+50)*better

so (1/51)*(10% * 1/(1+100))=10%*better

better= (1/51)*(10% * 1/(1+100))/10%

now i just need to calculate what that does and I have solved the simple intuitive calculation of how much better a ME100 bpo is than an ME50 bpo

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#799 - 2014-05-09 22:09:56 UTC
how could anyone NOT think that was intutive, my gosh

now, under this new system, I pay only 94% of each material, the bpo calls for 10 so that's 9.4 but i have to round that

*goes crosseyed, falls over*

god how could anyone have been expected to deal with that problem

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Darin Vanar
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#800 - 2014-05-09 22:20:51 UTC
Seith Kali wrote:
LHA's entire problem with this patch is, because he is struggling with his SQL homework, he assumes greyscale finds it as challenging as he does.


Math doesn't lie. It cannot be embellished with grandiose statements of importance. This patch is broken on arrival. That's just a fact from even a casual look at the numbers.

LHA dissected the proposed changes brilliantly and illustrated how ridiculous the "new numbers" will be in practice. He did so without personal attacks, slandering anyone, or bringing into question their intellect to even post in this thread. I hope you two are getting ready for the thread lock again.