EVE Information Portal

Multi-run discount:

Simplified math is:

Per run cost = (base run cost)*EXP(-0.01*(Hours production after first))

So at 25 runs a TE 10 per run cost is 10% greater than a TE 0?

Suggesting changing the simple math to:

Per run cost = (base run cost)*EXP(-0.01*(Runs -1))

Or I would suggest not researching TE.
TE 10 will ruin your profit margin.

It seems that CCP want to make T2 bpc more readily available thus are implementing changes. I understand that the T2 bpo are held by only a few older players in comparison to total players within Eve. Now this brings the question how many T2 bpo are actually left in circulation and what variety?

The people to gain from these changes will be the owners of the originals So are we changing a system so dramatically for the few?. I see at no point will I have enough invented T2 bpc to want to sell any on the markets.

The invention process requires items that are not easily aquired other than paying large prices for the data cores decryptors. If we do turn to market to buy the items demand will soon push the prices up thus making a T2 copy will be stupid amounts of isk. We also need to cover the failures and loss of this isk.

If you want more T2 bpc on market then make the invention mats as common as ore.

I generally resent it when I set out to make achievements required to better my position within the game itself as in grinding standings to place a pos and lower tax etc to have it belittled and the benefits removed.

As for suggestions as to a pos I still think standings in high sec should apply make unlimited slots in stations but give the pos a dedicated role or 2 maybe we can invent our reasearched bpo into a T2 bpo at pos only, making it possible but not easy to get success. If standings is an issue then change the standings for a corp so they don't need as high to place pos more members less standing required to a point.

By removing pos from the game as well as the sideline economy being ice mining and pi fuel sales building of pos modules to sell and placeing no incentives back in place so the very few will produce more T2 to sell is not a wise move in my books.

The above may well work and prices will drop from oversupply thus no reasons for invention anymore another area people will loose income from data cores decryptors due to an ease on demand.

If the changes have desired effect then a new player will be all but equal to my several years of indy skills.Granted I can research more R&D agents maybe fly a bigger ship mine a little more but my bpo library is worth less and time spent on it , as well as lost isk on fuel to research them is a nice kick in the teeth.

Like all I will either find a way to adapt but pvp for this account is not a reality and may be one less account to worry paying for.

As a trade off since bpo are npc controlled prices make these cost more making attaining a library more expensive that way those of us who have will not be loosing so much with the changes. If you need to take from those who invest in industry at least give us some area we can have an awww factor.

The above is from my perspective of the game the areas I have concentrated my efforts and directed my isk as a solo indy toon running a pos. It took a long time and many months of effort to be in a position to do this. I did not invest isk into a plex for account as there was not enough after buying bpo and fuel. But free up my expenses and plexing account becomes easy. less income for ccp.

As a side note to my previous post I do have an area I am confused in. There were changes implemented with how ice belts spawn. This was to create a hole in high sec namely only 80% of ice needs met to fuel a pos .

This from one view point may be a model designed to push people into low and null sec but at the end of the day to get some of us there requires more incentive than making things cost more.

I would argue that the ice changes was a way to force corps down to individual players to invest more time or isk into resources needed to maintain an operation and this initself should have an effect on how many did or did not plex their accounts.

Granted some will say I am grabbing at straws but why change the way ice spawns then remove the largest needability for it?.

As a business giving a game away for free is non proffitable and a hard way to stay in business so CCP does need to protect its bottom line so we can go on enjoying all this game has to offer.

To date I have not found a game so comprehensive as eve nor enjoyable that has been so free of costs.Most games you need to buy gold and not that much for your dollars to pay fixed prices that are payed to and controlled by the game makers.
While here you can buy the isk with your dollars and give them to me or maybe one of your mates.

It would be refreshing if there are concerns from CCP about loss of income vs inflation etc to be open and discuss ways we can all achieve a state of happiness.

The test from the update will be felt by those like me who collect mats be it salvaging scanning or buying cheap on the market to build a decent inventory so we can invent reverse engineer or build our inventions etc.

I may not have plexed my accounts but on this account alone my theoretical asset base if sold at top dollar is around 80B

Either way top dollar or not I can sell and pay for a few plex's to cover pilots licence and this is not the way I should be thinking in regards to upcomming changes.

I understand that but currently I am paying cash to them if I start to plex the plex is on the market already so ccp will loose my subscription component.

1. that idea is actually providing a discount from the way it is now for the first 9-10 jobs in each array
2. you mean other than not paying for the station tax?
3. you mean other than the 30-50% research speed increase?

Essentially, for every job beyond a certain number at an array, there should be a cost increase that eventually requires you to use another array. In other words, you need a congestion tax for /each array/ that counts the jobs /going right now, at that array/. If you get the formula just right, you can keep the step-variable nature of starbase costs in the production chain and give room for bonusing unique arrays (their congestion costs ramp up less quickly).

TLDR: Starbases will be justified mainly by assembly arrays; assembly arrays will be justified in part by NPC station tax savings and ME depending on the item; the biggest reason for using assembly arrays will be time savings.

Y'know, I too proposed earlier a bonus to lab arrays that would reintroduce slots through a backdoor (I proposed a supercongestion tax). But looking at the big picture, there's just no reason to use a science array from the first position. You'd have to run billions upon billions upon billions of ISK a month in blueprints through a lab array to make the cost savings break even. It's just never going to get there. Time breaks and convenience are the only things that are going to make us put up MLs/AMLs in the future. Given that this is the case, things that force players to set up multiple AMLs/MLs are very questionable and should be done with the utmost care. That is all.

3. Yes, concurrent research jobs is a bottleneck right now BECAUSE SLOTS. People move into a tower because of this bottleneck at all BECAUSE SLOTS. There will be no slots anymore. Not at the POS; not at the stations. That means that you can move into the station. Yes, in the case of ship invention the time savings can make it still worth it. That's why I said earlier in my post about the economics of new towers that T2 ships would be different. However, many many inventors do modules. These time savings don't matter with modules unless the person has an incredibly demanding workflow. Further, there are pressures that will keep an important part of ship invention in stations: risk of having the BPOs in space. Yes, you might be okay neckbearding it up 24/7 in case of a wardec. Many people will not be okay with that risk. You are the 1%: doing T2 ship invention and willing to take the risk of BPO in POS post-Kronos. I am not talking about the 1%. For the other 99%, introducing backdoor slots will screw lab arrays and hurt POS economics.