These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#881 - 2014-05-13 18:56:17 UTC
Zakarumit CZ wrote:
OopsSorry, missed it.
But then I must ask - whats the benefit? If you will be able to invent better ME but it will cost proportionally more, the cost will remain the same, probably also the profit. Whats the point really? If its really because of the problems CCP Greyscale highlighted, i.e. extra materials and need of 2* t1 item, isnt it overkill? Isnt there really any reasonable way how to bypass those issues without changing all decryptors and materials needed for all items? What?



From an inventor's POV, depending on how decryptors are handled, it's not a major change.

It's a more major change from a T2 BPO perspective, but they should still be perfectly profitable to make (after all, there's no invention cost involved, which is reasonably major) and they can run for longer, which drops the build cost further.


All in all, I'm fairly happy with these changes. I'm still wanting to see actual numbers, but it's good.

(And yay! Sensible numbers in the database, rather than ones where you have to know that the copy time isn't the time to make a single run, and so on.)


I'm still thinking about the costs for making BPCs. Right now, it's fairly negligable, other than time. Increasing that is going to have a knock on effect on T2 invention. (a fairly easy to calculate one, per module.)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Hashi Lebwohl
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#882 - 2014-05-13 18:58:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Hashi Lebwohl
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We are currently of a mind to shift invented BPCs so they have positive (or at worst 0) ME and TE figures. This a) prevents the removal of extra materials giving invention an extra-hard kick, and in particular b) prevents every invented T2 item from requiring two of the relevant T1 items (due to always rounding up materials). This will probably put all invented BPCs in the 1-5% ME/2-10% TE range, with decryptors adjusted to match. We may adjust T2 build costs upwards across the board to put the net T2 resource usage roughly where it is currently, so we don't end up nerfing the demand for T2 components. (This obviously also serves to close the gap somewhat between invention and T2 BPOs; this is not a goal here but it's an acceptable side-effect.)


At the moment

BPO = limited numbers of production at an advantage of material cost

BPC = unlimited numbers of production at a disadvantage of material cost

Proposed

BPC = unlimited numbers of production at a slight to null disadvantage of material cost

BPO = ???

There is a interaction between the two in the current environment - an advantage matching a disadvantage. Your proposal plus improvements to other parts of invention (removal of clickfest) will make tech 2 production simply a slightly more complicated version of tech 1 production. Margins will erode and the perverse effect will probably be a less vibrant market as most people move to manufacturing for their group's consumption, like tech 1 is now.


edit:

Modules and ships are different - ME currently has little effect on modules material requirement but has a large effect on ship material requirement. Perhaps as a compromise you have your change affect only module BPC's.
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#883 - 2014-05-13 19:01:34 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We are currently of a mind to shift invented BPCs so they have positive (or at worst 0) ME and TE figures. This a) prevents the removal of extra materials giving invention an extra-hard kick, and in particular b) prevents every invented T2 item from requiring two of the relevant T1 items (due to always rounding up materials). This will probably put all invented BPCs in the 1-5% ME/2-10% TE range, with decryptors adjusted to match. We may adjust T2 build costs upwards across the board to put the net T2 resource usage roughly where it is currently, so we don't end up nerfing the demand for T2 components. (This obviously also serves to close the gap somewhat between invention and T2 BPOs; this is not a goal here but it's an acceptable side-effect.)


Shocked

Eliminating the base negative ME/TE on invented BPCs is a big change, but it neatly finesses the extra materials nerf. I like it.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
We are going to unify ME and TE per-level research times on all blueprints. Currently it looks like most T2 and capital BPOs have different TE and ME times. We're planning on kicking T2 BPO times up to the higher of the two values, and capital ones down to the lower of the two.
Ok. I don't see obvious problems with that, although T2 BPO holders may :grumble:

CCP Greyscale wrote:
We're probably going to pull the research ranks down significantly on capital ship blueprints, and potentially also on T1 ships TBD.
Have you given thought to making the time formula non-linear so that high-end blueprints have higher (relative to modules or smaller ships) costs but not staggeringly so? Maybe something involving the square-root of the rank?

CCP Greyscale wrote:
We're currently leaning heavily towards calculating ME for the job as a whole, not per-run, probably with a limiter that requires every run always consumes at least one of every material (to prevent 9 apocs -> 10 paladins shenanigans).
So you'd be wrapping the per-material formula with "MAX( f(item), numRuns )"? Seems like an elegant solution. I like.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
This obviously has a knock-on effect on current "perfect ME" blueprints, as the ability to add up all those roundings over multiple runs will create gains that weren't currently possible. This is already going to be the case in many scenarios with the various additional ME bonuses available in Crius, so there's no obvious strong reason not to, but we wanted to run this past people for opinions obviously :)
You may need to look at the effect with T2 BPOs versus the presently *very* limited run T2 BPCs. The bonuses may slightly advantage BPOs over inventors, which I don't think is an effect that you want.

MDD
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#884 - 2014-05-13 19:02:21 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
As mentioned at Fanfest, we're looking very hard at a lowsec-only component assembly array (not for fuel, RAMs etc) that has a reasonable ME bonus, to allow lowsec cap manufacturers to stay ballpark competitive with nullsec builders after the refine changes.
This one is a bit of an off-topic reply: Care to elaborate on why you think it is necessary to special-case "fuel, RAMs, etc."? (I'm just curious.)

MDD
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#885 - 2014-05-13 19:03:15 UTC  |  Edited by: LHA Tarawa
Greyscale says "minor tweaks rather than tossing FUBAR ideas".

My response: "Glad I'm already unsubbed. Saves the effort of logging in all my accounts and unsubbing them all."


Sit back with the popcorn and watch the disaster unfold, playing EVE Offline while cloaky camped in and waiting for game time I stupidly paid for to run out.

Half my accounts go inactive in 2 days, with the rest following 60 days later.

CCP, it was nice to know ya.
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#886 - 2014-05-13 19:09:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenneth Feld
Zakarumit CZ wrote:
OopsSorry, missed it.
But then I must ask - whats the benefit? If you will be able to invent better ME but it will cost proportionally more, the cost will remain the same, probably also the profit. Whats the point really? If its really because of the problems CCP Greyscale highlighted, i.e. extra materials and need of 2* t1 item, isnt it overkill? Isnt there really any reasonable way how to bypass those issues without changing all decryptors and materials needed for all items? What?


The scaleability of neg ME with a 0-10 system is more complicated then under the current system, so keeping all the ME numbers positive is a easy way to reduce complication and making a small change in materials make the change isk nuetral
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
#887 - 2014-05-13 19:11:14 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Greyscale says "minor tweaks rather than tossing FUBAR ideas".

My response: "Glad I'm already unsubbed. Saves the effort of logging in all my accounts and unsubbing them all."


Sit back with the popcorn and watch the disaster unfold, playing EVE Offline while cloaky camped in and waiting for game time I stupidly paid for to run out.

Half my accounts go inactive in 2 days, with the rest following 60 days later.

CCP, it was nice to know ya.



Nobody cares.

I've played 12 yrs. I've had my "precious" nerfed, buffed, nerfed, discontinued, reintroduced, and generally given full on prostate exams with minimal lube by devs from TomB to Rise.

Adapt or stfu
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#888 - 2014-05-13 19:14:54 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Greyscale says "minor tweaks rather than tossing FUBAR ideas".

My response: "Glad I'm already unsubbed. Saves the effort of logging in all my accounts and unsubbing them all."


Sit back with the popcorn and watch the disaster unfold, playing EVE Offline while cloaky camped in and waiting for game time I stupidly paid for to run out.

Half my accounts go inactive in 2 days, with the rest following 60 days later.

CCP, it was nice to know ya.


Yo homes smell ya later

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#889 - 2014-05-13 19:17:25 UTC
Angelina Duvolle wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Greyscale says "minor tweaks rather than tossing FUBAR ideas".

My response: "Glad I'm already unsubbed. Saves the effort of logging in all my accounts and unsubbing them all."


Sit back with the popcorn and watch the disaster unfold, playing EVE Offline while cloaky camped in and waiting for game time I stupidly paid for to run out.

Half my accounts go inactive in 2 days, with the rest following 60 days later.

CCP, it was nice to know ya.



Nobody cares.



Then don't read.

Angelina Duvolle wrote:
[
Adapt or stfu


I'm disinclined to aqueous to your request.

I've paid for my time, and since I'm not playing EVE Online do to cloaky camper, I'm choosing to use the time I've paid for to play EVE Offline.

You LOL at shooting people in the face and finding wasys to exploit rules.. I LOL as Greyscale thrashes and hacks trying to turn FUBAR ideas into something other than FUBAR design.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#890 - 2014-05-13 19:29:25 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
aqueous

The "SAT words" gimmick only works if you actually know how to spell.

We can only hope that of the accounts you repeatedly have claimed to have unsubscribed, the one that your forum posting character is on is in the "2 days remaining" court and not the "60 days" court.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#891 - 2014-05-13 19:31:56 UTC
Zakarumit CZ wrote:
OopsSorry, missed it.
But then I must ask - whats the benefit? If you will be able to invent better ME but it will cost proportionally more, the cost will remain the same, probably also the profit. Whats the point really? If its really because of the problems CCP Greyscale highlighted, i.e. extra materials and need of 2* t1 item, isnt it overkill? Isnt there really any reasonable way how to bypass those issues without changing all decryptors and materials needed for all items? What?



The fix is, it simplifies the math involved. And completely avoids the issue of multiple ships being needed to make T2 ships, if you're inventing them.

Sure, for a frigate that's not a particuarly huge number. But a Marauder?

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Zakarumit CZ
Zakarum Industries
Forgers United
#892 - 2014-05-13 19:38:08 UTC
I have got one major question:
Is CCP considering some form of reimbursement for people with BPOs researched over ME/PE 10 ? There are tons of people and prints which have ME 100 PE 50 and people have spend some noricable time to achieve that, fuelling their POSs and using their skills and research slots. They should receive something in reward when you delete days and months or maybe even years of their work. I think most reasonable thing I heard here was to give them some special material, which can be used as a bonus material when researching, which would allow to research instantly for the same research time you delete on their prints.

And please dont say its waste of time, not worth it, etc. It gave those people advantage over others and it was worth it and there was risk involved when trying to achieve this, as NPC stations slots, especially for ME research, are not available easily. There should be some kind of reward when you take it away from them.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#893 - 2014-05-13 19:40:44 UTC
Querns wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
aqueous

The "SAT words" gimmick only works if you actually know how to spell.

We can only hope that of the accounts you repeatedly have claimed to have unsubscribed, the one that your forum posting character is on is in the "2 days remaining" court and not the "60 days" court.


SAT words? I was trying to steal a line from "Curse of the Black Pearl".
Zakarumit CZ
Zakarum Industries
Forgers United
#894 - 2014-05-13 19:41:15 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Zakarumit CZ wrote:
OopsSorry, missed it.
But then I must ask - whats the benefit? If you will be able to invent better ME but it will cost proportionally more, the cost will remain the same, probably also the profit. Whats the point really? If its really because of the problems CCP Greyscale highlighted, i.e. extra materials and need of 2* t1 item, isnt it overkill? Isnt there really any reasonable way how to bypass those issues without changing all decryptors and materials needed for all items? What?



The fix is, it simplifies the math involved. And completely avoids the issue of multiple ships being needed to make T2 ships, if you're inventing them.

Sure, for a frigate that's not a particuarly huge number. But a Marauder?


...well, I am OK with all math on EVE currently, except some weird physics. But especially manufacturing seems to become a complete mayhem after Crios, with no chance to predict reasonably costs. Hell, we wont even probably know exact formulas how to calculate the single cost modifiers or however its called.
I am not really sure if its a good way to make everything simple - I am pretty sure some people are actually attracted to complex things which can be reasonably predicted if you study deep enough. I think it may be the case of EVE players.
Gamer4liff
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#895 - 2014-05-13 19:43:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Gamer4liff
CCP Greyscale wrote:

We are currently of a mind to shift invented BPCs so they have positive (or at worst 0) ME and TE figures. This a) prevents the removal of extra materials giving invention an extra-hard kick, and in particular b) prevents every invented T2 item from requiring two of the relevant T1 items (due to always rounding up materials). This will probably put all invented BPCs in the 1-5% ME/2-10% TE range, with decryptors adjusted to match. We may adjust T2 build costs upwards across the board to put the net T2 resource usage roughly where it is currently, so we don't end up nerfing the demand for T2 components. (This obviously also serves to close the gap somewhat between invention and T2 BPOs; this is not a goal here but it's an acceptable side-effect.)

This is an interesting gambit, seems like a reasonable boost to put invention more on material parity with BPOs, not sure why that wouldn't be the primary goal, as it seems to accomplish the long-held primary material-related complaints of inventors.

Also I'm glad I'm not the one who has to figure out how much to adjust material levels to avoid punishing the T2 materials markets, yikes, good luck with that.

MailDeadDrop wrote:


CCP Greyscale wrote:
We are going to unify ME and TE per-level research times on all blueprints. Currently it looks like most T2 and capital BPOs have different TE and ME times. We're planning on kicking T2 BPO times up to the higher of the two values, and capital ones down to the lower of the two.
Ok. I don't see obvious problems with that, although T2 BPO holders may :grumble:
MDD

Nah, most T2 BPOs are as researched as they'll ever be so it's not really much of a nerf in that respect. I think most holders will just be happy CCP sees them as still part of the manufacturing framework.

A comprehensive proposal for balancing T2 Production: here
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#896 - 2014-05-13 19:50:23 UTC
Zakarumit CZ wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Zakarumit CZ wrote:
OopsSorry, missed it.
But then I must ask - whats the benefit? If you will be able to invent better ME but it will cost proportionally more, the cost will remain the same, probably also the profit. Whats the point really? If its really because of the problems CCP Greyscale highlighted, i.e. extra materials and need of 2* t1 item, isnt it overkill? Isnt there really any reasonable way how to bypass those issues without changing all decryptors and materials needed for all items? What?



The fix is, it simplifies the math involved. And completely avoids the issue of multiple ships being needed to make T2 ships, if you're inventing them.

Sure, for a frigate that's not a particuarly huge number. But a Marauder?


...well, I am OK with all math on EVE currently, except some weird physics. But especially manufacturing seems to become a complete mayhem after Crios, with no chance to predict reasonably costs. Hell, we wont even probably know exact formulas how to calculate the single cost modifiers or however its called.
I am not really sure if its a good way to make everything simple - I am pretty sure some people are actually attracted to complex things which can be reasonably predicted if you study deep enough. I think it may be the case of EVE players.



Oh believe me. I'm yelling to get all the figures and formulas. Along with the APIs to get the dynamic figures needed.

As they've been saying in the various threads, we should be getting these. (and the delay makes it even more likely)

That's not to say it won't be a complex system. But it shouldn't be complicated.

That's a big point. Eve is a complex game. It's made up of a whole bunch of simple systems, which interact with each other in complex fashions, leading to emergent systems.

But when you break any thing down, it shouldn't be hard to understand. The 'difficulty' is knowing what will happen if you twiddle knob A, and frob switch B.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Zakarumit CZ
Zakarum Industries
Forgers United
#897 - 2014-05-13 19:59:59 UTC
Well, lets hope CCP will balance everything just about right - those are some really serious changes they plan to do and maybe I am even glad they postponed it and take extra time.
I am still eager to see industrial ships rebalance - t2 haulers, freighters, JFs, Orca and Rorqual Smile
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
#898 - 2014-05-13 20:20:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Lors Dornick
Steve Ronuken wrote:

That's a big point. Eve is a complex game. It's made up of a whole bunch of simple systems, which interact with each other in complex fashions, leading to emergent systems.

But when you break any thing down, it shouldn't be hard to understand. The 'difficulty' is knowing what will happen if you twiddle knob A, and frob switch B.

This indeed.

It should never be about knowing how to frob or twiddle.

The difficulty should be in knowing what knob to twiddle and what switch to frob.

Edit:
And when ...

CCP Greyscale: As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor.
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#899 - 2014-05-13 20:28:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Seith Kali
LHA Tarawa wrote:

I've paid for my time, and since I'm not playing EVE Online do to cloaky camper, I'm choosing to use the time I've paid for to play EVE Offline.


I wonder what software company would employ someone to post all day on an 'offline' forum. Please stop drowning out constructive feedback with your white-noise nonsense.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#900 - 2014-05-13 20:42:10 UTC
Seith Kali wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:

I've paid for my time, and since I'm not playing EVE Online do to cloaky camper, I'm choosing to use the time I've paid for to play EVE Offline.


I wonder what software company would employ someone to post all day on an 'offline' forum. Please stop drowning out constructive feedback with your white-noise nonsense.


One that hires a lot of people in India and China, so that I do the bulk of my work between 5AM and 8AM, then 6PM and 10PM.