These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1001 - 2014-05-15 23:08:46 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:

A big corp, with 1000 industrial players, with 3 accounts each, 3 toons each, 9 jobs each = 81,000 concurrent jobs, all with instant start. And with unlimited lines, hypothetically, all 81K concurrent jobs could be running from a single small POS, in a system with no station services, that has been loaded up with all the best teams.

could you point to:

1) any 1000 man industrial alliances
2) any 1000 man industrial alliances who have every character on each of their three accounts per player producing at every hour of the day for an entire month
3) any 1000 man industrial alliances doing (2) who are not cruising for an EULA brusing within a very short time
4) what unholy fees you'd get from 81k concurrent jobs in one system with absolutely no industrial stations reducing costs
5) the way this alliance would get its things to that pos and back over and over without someone noticing and wardeccing the small pos a 1000 man alliance crammed 81k build jobs into and had an endless stream of freighters going to and fro from

thanks in advance
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1002 - 2014-05-15 23:14:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Retar Aveymone
for your convinence I have found this: http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/all/memberCount

which one of:

1) goonswarm federation
2) northern associates
3) brave collective

is the alliance (i have given you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you meant alliance and not corp, because no corp outside an alliance has even a thousand characters, see http://evewho.com/ ) with nine thousand individual characters all producing at every minute of every day of an entire month

please note that those are literally the only three alliances in the game that qualify and if brave has so much as eight characters who don't install industry jobs or if northern associates has so much as thirty-six that don't install industry jobs, they don't qualify
Elysiana Karasniz
Kazari Holdings
#1003 - 2014-05-16 00:18:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Elysiana Karasniz
These invention changes sound both risky and unnecessary. From this thread it seems like the proposal is to introduce massive changes into the T2 market (over and above what was already planned) in order to partially address an issue caused by another proposal to make the rounding happen on a per-batch basis rather than per-run. Completely changing the fundamentals of invention just because of the issues caused by rounding-per-batch, then changing the material cost of T2 across the board to try to compensate for the issues caused by invention changes, no word on what decryptors will do now and extra work in now having to retroactively overhaul existing T2 BPCs... Shocked

It's an ever increasing pile of quick bodges and fudges with an ever growing list of Rumsfeldian known unknowns and unknown unknowns and for what? How is this a better approach (or even just easier) than rounding-per-run?

Rounding-per-run does have it's own issues, but they're not issues I'm actually convinced would have much of an effect, certainly nothing approaching the same magnitude of scale and risk. Sure, low cost items will definitely receive less benefit when rounding per run due to the smaller amounts of material involved, but generally those items are the ones that you need to build in bulk to make money with anyway. So the bonus of a POS array is already a big draw, especially as now you could do it all in a small tower. Per-batch rounding extra bonus would be nice on top for sure but the risk seems enormous compared to the gain. (Also, given other comments by CCP Greyscale about limiting items to at least 1 material use per run, the gain is actually smaller than previously thought anyway.)

There's also something to be said that those low cost items are usually those built by newer industrialists, or those looking to build for personal use/convenience, ammo and drones especially. Neither of those groups will have maximising bonuses too far up their list anyway, either due to lack of means or interest. In the case of the former, you could argue it's a good thing, as it keeps some form of viable entry-level industry more easily accessible - though I don't know if that argument holds up. (Though did any industrialist start without building ammo and drones first? Big smile )





Anyway, I actually had a question as well: is there any news on changing the max-run-per-copy stats on BPCs?
Some of the max-run stats on BPOs are all over the place so could do with being looked at in light of removing remote POS manufacturing, especially given the build times on some of the items.

Example 1: T2 components range from a couple of minutes to a few seconds in build time, but all have 1000 max-run stats for copies, which makes some of them take only a few hours to build from a BPC at a POS in total. On a risk front these are probably ok, as the BPOs are not expensive, but the max-run stat does seem weird and inconsistent, even within the same class of product.

2: a Tornado BPO. Costs about 650m, so seems more expensive than is worth risking in a POS, however a Tornado BPC max-run is only 15 - which in a POS translates to about 30 hours. That's a pretty awkward number given the amount of material (hauling) involved and the margin available.

3: Battleships are even worse, having only 10 max-run on copies, having even more hauling involved and officially falling into the devblogs "we expect these are far to expensive for people to put into a POS" category:
"CCP Greyscale" wrote:
We are aware of the significance of this change and do not expect very expensive blueprints (Battleship and above) to be risked in such a manner, but we do feel it to be a good trade-off for smaller blueprints.


4: T1 Capital components are the worst I've seen on a quick scan through - capital armor plates have a max-run BPC stat of 5, which is enough armour plates to build precisely bugger all. They also take about as long to build as a tornado (a little longer), yet you get a third less per copy at most. The BPOs also cost 1-1.6b each.
This one is particularly bad as it means the proposed new low-sec capital component array will be either exceptionally annoying to run or a giant target...

The obvious problem with looking at BPC run numbers is that some things (mods, ammo) use BPC max-run for invention outcomes - so increasing the run number will have an impact there.

As an alternative to changing BPC max-run numbers, how about allowing (player) manufacturing slots to be queued up, with some shortish time cap on the what you can queue up in advance?
Similar to the skill queue, but a few days or up to a week so you can queue up a series of short jobs in each of your manufacturing lines. Provided the materials/BPCs/etc are present and correct when the job is scheduled to start, it'll kick off, if not it either moves onto the next one or stops until you sort it out. Makes it easier for people to work with, has some consistency with other mechanics in EVE (the skill queue) and as a side effect encourages people to have more stuff at risk in a POS, which seems like a good idea. Smile
Aluka 7th
#1004 - 2014-05-16 04:27:15 UTC
Why is it problem if for 10 redeemers you need 12 geddons?
Using imperfect blueprint it is expected your engineers make mistakes on putting redeemers together and botch the job on few of them thus extra geddons become scrap metal. Like real life project.
Sigras
Conglomo
#1005 - 2014-05-16 05:36:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
Elysiana Karasniz wrote:
These invention changes sound both risky and unnecessary. From this thread it seems like the proposal is to introduce massive changes into the T2 market (over and above what was already planned) in order to partially address an issue caused by another proposal to make the rounding happen on a per-batch basis rather than per-run. Completely changing the fundamentals of invention just because of the issues caused by rounding-per-batch, then changing the material cost of T2 across the board to try to compensate for the issues caused by invention changes, no word on what decryptors will do now and extra work in now having to retroactively overhaul existing T2 BPCs... Shocked

It's more than just a rounding issue though. All invention returns a negative ME BPC YMMV depending on decryptors.

right now it's just ((0.1 * |-ME|) + 1.1) * BaseMaterialCost

So if perfect is 100 units
ME 0 BPC = 110 units
ME -4 BPC = 150 units

I assume afterward it will be calculated the same way except without the base waste. ((0.1 * |-ME|) + 1) * BaseMaterialCost

The problem with this is that the base cost has been raised meaning that negative BPCs get charged extra.

If perfect is 100 units
ME 0 BPC = 110 units
ME -4 BPC = 154 units (((0.1 * |-4|) + 1) * 110 = (0.4 + 1) * 110 = 1.4 * 110 = 154

This means that the price of every invention job would go up because of the way base mats and negative ME are calculated.
Elysiana Karasniz wrote:
Rounding-per-run does have it's own issues, but they're not issues I'm actually convinced would have much of an effect, certainly nothing approaching the same magnitude of scale and risk. Sure, low cost items will definitely receive less benefit when rounding per run due to the smaller amounts of material involved, but generally those items are the ones that you need to build in bulk to make money with anyway. So the bonus of a POS array is already a big draw, especially as now you could do it all in a small tower. Per-batch rounding extra bonus would be nice on top for sure but the risk seems enormous compared to the gain. (Also, given other comments by CCP Greyscale about limiting items to at least 1 material use per run, the gain is actually smaller than previously thought anyway.)

The problem again comes with T2, this time manufacturing; most T2 modules use very small numbers of very expensive things to be built. Take the 10mn afterburner II for example.

5 antimatter reactor units
10 ion thrusters
4 plasma thrusters
These three items make up over 80% of the value of the AB, and none of them would benefit from a 2% bonus, or even a 6% bonus.

The per job discount will also be a small buff to the augmentation decrpytor which it sorely needs as it is almost never used currently.
Rollaz
AirHogs
Hogs Collective
#1006 - 2014-05-16 08:52:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Rollaz
@ CCP Your blueprint changes will ruin my net worth. (sorry it's hard for me to focus on how anyone else in the game is going to be affected when the personal effect for my play style is getting crushed)

You win.

Mom always said "get screwed once, shame on them, get screwed twice shame on you". You got me with the broken PI parts, but that really was my own greed to blame, you got me with 5 skilled and trained R&D alts. I obviously didn't learn my lesson, cause here I am 3 years later with hundreds of bpo's over 100ME.

You won! Next time there is an opportunity, I won't open new accounts, and buy chars to "do the next thing", I won't buy plex for those accounts, no more dual training queues and I won't put RL money into the game for corp/alliance projects anymore, cause the risk of having CCP take it all away down the road... well isn't a risk, it's inevitable.

I'm not leaving the game... it's fun to play and fun to be here with my spaceship friends, but as far as leaving my mark on the Eve Universe or being the biggest or best at something here... well, it's just too risky to put RL investments into your game anymore.

I've made my position known, I've offered suggestions, but apparently my posts aren't "spreadsheety" enough to influence a response from the dev's. And obviously too full of emotion to be clearly understood.

So, no worries, don't bother adjusting on my behalf, I surrender to the coming changes, whatever they may be, I'll just liquidate all my crap, sell my industrial chars and plex my pvp chars for the next 5 years. (gotta hurry up and do that before plex's get nerfed next)

You win. You won't get any more RL money from me....

Just one question... so is this path of "increase consumption everywhere" REALLY a win for CCP? It doesn't look like it from my perspective, but I guess we'll all see how it plays out for ya.


(anyone want to make a wager if a dev will actually comment on this) I happen to have quite a bit of extra isk available to throw around now.

HAVE FUN - MAKE ISK - NO DRAMA No Api's   -   No Wars   -   No Awoxing   -   No Kidding! Hogs is OPEN for recruiting!  Join our in-game channel "Airhogs"
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1007 - 2014-05-16 11:31:09 UTC
Throwaway Sam Atild wrote:
I've reformatted my question to hopefully qualify as a Great Big smile, or potentially average-good X post. I'm not exactly certain what level of post is required to merit a response. Roll

I would still like to see the issues arising from changing copy time on invention to be addressed or clarified. According to the Dev Blog the intent was to reduce copy times by putting them on par with build times. The reality is that in many cases copy times are being increased greatly. Many T1 modules, (E.G. drone damage amps, damage control units, warp disruptors) are seeing an 8x fold increase in copy time.

This 8x fold increase has a significant affect on the invention process for many T2 modules. The bottleneck is moved from building to copying, and the total time from the first copy to the finished product is increased ~5x fold.

Without a reduction in max-run copies for this broad category of blueprints (those with large increases to copy time) to make up for this change, or other adjustment, the invention process will become severely dependent on copy time.

Currently if I want to build 10 T2 Focused Medium Pulse Lasers the process looks like this:

600 minutes copy time (2x max run copies which require 1 min/copy x 300x max run) -> 300 minutes invention time (2x invention attempts) -> 1060 minutes production time (off of 10x T2 BPC)

So on a single character this balances sort of well, with 900 minutes lab time and 1060 minutes manufacture time. In this manner an organized person can string their production together in a decently balanced manner.

If, as the post says, copy time is put on par with the T1 build time for medium pulse lasers, it will change from 1 min to 8 min per copy which means:

4800 minutes copy time -> 300 min invention time -> 1060 min build time

This does not balance well, as the character now spends 5100 minutes copying and 1060 minutes building.

The bottleneck point moves from manufacturing (.73 days) to science (3.54 days). This results in the ~5x fold increase I alluded to. I'm not an economist or anything, but this potentially reduces the amount of these goods made significantly, and seeing as how they're probably important to the market (A lot of fits use DC II's) I think that this issue needs to be acknowledged.

Now supposing that the DEV intent is to, in fact, increase the time it takes for inventors to build things 5x fold, then this isn't a great way to do it, and here's why: Players can train a bunch of alts to gang up on the copying step. However this adds more clicking and character switching to the already frustrating invention process.

Also if any of the other experienced folk in this channel have some insight here I'm missing, I would love to hear it.


Ah, an actual example. That makes this super easy, thanks :)

Focused Medium Pulse currently has a base copy time of 12000 in the DB, which means 24000 base, times 0.75 for max skills is 18000 seconds, which is five hours for a max-run copy, so 60 seconds per run. Build time base is 600 seconds. Ok yeah, that'd be a huge nerf, I'll find a fix for that. Thanks :) I'm gonna go look at the relationships here for all modules and see if I can do something clean or if I just need to use Clothildis' solution and special-case each blueprint.

[quote=Elysiana Karasniz]These invention changes sound both risky and unnecessary. From this thread it seems like the proposal is to introduce massive changes into the T2 market (over and above what was already planned) in order to partially address an issue caused by another proposal to make the rounding happen on a per-batch basis rather than per-run. Completely changing the fundamentals of invention just because of the issues caused by rounding-per-batch, then changing the material cost of T2 across the board to try to compensate for the issues caused by invention changes, no word on what decryptors will do now and extra work in now having to retroactively overhaul existing T2 BPCs... Shocked

It's an ever increasing pile of quick bodges and fudges with an ever growing list of Rumsfeldian known unknowns and unknown unknowns and for what? How is this a better approach (or even just easier) than rounding-per-run?

Rounding-per-run does have it's own issues, but they're not issues I'm actually convinced would have much of an effect, certainly nothing approaching the same magnitude of scale and risk. Sure, low cost items will definitely receive less benefit when rounding per run due to the smaller amounts of material involved, but generally those items are the ones that you need to build in bulk to make money with anyway. So the bonus of a POS array is already a big draw, especially as now you could do it all in a small tower. Per-batch rounding extra bonus would be nice on top for sure but the risk seems enormous compared to the gain. (Also, given other comments by CCP Greyscale about limiting items to at least 1 material use per run, the gain is actually smaller than previously thought anyway.)

There's also something to be said that those low cost items are usually those built by newer industrialists, or those looking to build for personal use/convenience, ammo and drones especially. Neither of those groups will have maximising bonuses too far up their list anyway, either due to lack of means or interest. In the case of the former, you could argue it's a good thing, as it keeps some form of viable entry-level industry more easily accessible - though I don't know if that argument holds up. (Though did any industrialist start without building ammo and drones first? Big smile )





Anyway, I actually had a question as well: is there any news on changing the max-run-per-copy stats on BPCs?
Some of the max-run stats on BPOs are all over the place so could do with being looked at in light of removing remote POS manufacturing, especially given the build times on some of...
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1008 - 2014-05-16 11:39:56 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Max run per copy: I'm slowly working through my big-ass spreadsheet of blueprint data, and max runs are one of the things on my to-revise list. We need to be a bit careful with the impact on invention, but for uninventable items I'm planning on being generous with this variable :) I've copy-pasted your post into notepad so I have a reference for particular things to look at; I'm also planning on checking nanite paste specifically based on earlier posts.


To make a long story short: boost max run on ship bpo copies to allow anyone to put in at least several day's worth of builds in a pos (probably a week), don't boost it on modules, and boost it on components and other things that have no t2 item that is invented from their bpcs.

Ship bpos are expensive and ships are expensive: that's the sort of thing people will want to use in a pos for the mineral reduction and will want to be able to install longer jobs for. They will not want to risk those bpos, however. Increased copy runs is fine because it's only in very rare cases that you'd use a max run bpc in an invention job - you only get one extra run at considerable increase in copying time. When you want extra runs you reach for a decryptor.

Modules: with extremely rare exceptions (capital/supercapital modules) module bpos are dirt-cheap. The primary use of bpcs will be invention, and here you need max-run bpcs to get 10-run invented bpcs. Decryptors are generally not cost-effective here and you have to use max-runs to get reasonable amounts of t2 runs. There is little risk of people wanting to build modules in a tower, but being unwilling to risk their 1m bpo, so there's no need to expand copy runs to allow pos building off bpcs.

For things like capital components, nanite paste, t2 components: there is no use for these bpcs in invention, so you can go hog-wild in increasing their max copy runs with absolutely no downside. You can pick a "maximum bpc job length" and set max copies equal to whatever lets you install that long a job.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1009 - 2014-05-16 11:49:25 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Max run per copy: I'm slowly working through my big-ass spreadsheet of blueprint data, and max runs are one of the things on my to-revise list. We need to be a bit careful with the impact on invention, but for uninventable items I'm planning on being generous with this variable :) I've copy-pasted your post into notepad so I have a reference for particular things to look at; I'm also planning on checking nanite paste specifically based on earlier posts.


To make a long story short: boost max run on ship bpo copies to allow anyone to put in at least several day's worth of builds in a pos (probably a week), don't boost it on modules, and boost it on components and other things that have no t2 item that is invented from their bpcs.

Ship bpos are expensive and ships are expensive: that's the sort of thing people will want to use in a pos for the mineral reduction and will want to be able to install longer jobs for. They will not want to risk those bpos, however. Increased copy runs is fine because it's only in very rare cases that you'd use a max run bpc in an invention job - you only get one extra run at considerable increase in copying time. When you want extra runs you reach for a decryptor.

Modules: with extremely rare exceptions (capital/supercapital modules) module bpos are dirt-cheap. The primary use of bpcs will be invention, and here you need max-run bpcs to get 10-run invented bpcs. Decryptors are generally not cost-effective here and you have to use max-runs to get reasonable amounts of t2 runs. There is little risk of people wanting to build modules in a tower, but being unwilling to risk their 1m bpo, so there's no need to expand copy runs to allow pos building off bpcs.

For things like capital components, nanite paste, t2 components: there is no use for these bpcs in invention, so you can go hog-wild in increasing their max copy runs with absolutely no downside. You can pick a "maximum bpc job length" and set max copies equal to whatever lets you install that long a job.



Excellent, thank you :)
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1010 - 2014-05-16 11:57:25 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Max run per copy: I'm slowly working through my big-ass spreadsheet of blueprint data, and max runs are one of the things on my to-revise list. We need to be a bit careful with the impact on invention, but for uninventable items I'm planning on being generous with this variable :) I've copy-pasted your post into notepad so I have a reference for particular things to look at; I'm also planning on checking nanite paste specifically based on earlier posts.


To make a long story short: boost max run on ship bpo copies to allow anyone to put in at least several day's worth of builds in a pos (probably a week), don't boost it on modules, and boost it on components and other things that have no t2 item that is invented from their bpcs.

Ship bpos are expensive and ships are expensive: that's the sort of thing people will want to use in a pos for the mineral reduction and will want to be able to install longer jobs for. They will not want to risk those bpos, however. Increased copy runs is fine because it's only in very rare cases that you'd use a max run bpc in an invention job - you only get one extra run at considerable increase in copying time. When you want extra runs you reach for a decryptor.

Modules: with extremely rare exceptions (capital/supercapital modules) module bpos are dirt-cheap. The primary use of bpcs will be invention, and here you need max-run bpcs to get 10-run invented bpcs. Decryptors are generally not cost-effective here and you have to use max-runs to get reasonable amounts of t2 runs. There is little risk of people wanting to build modules in a tower, but being unwilling to risk their 1m bpo, so there's no need to expand copy runs to allow pos building off bpcs.

For things like capital components, nanite paste, t2 components: there is no use for these bpcs in invention, so you can go hog-wild in increasing their max copy runs with absolutely no downside. You can pick a "maximum bpc job length" and set max copies equal to whatever lets you install that long a job.



Excellent, thank you :)



Just to note, if you want someone to talk to about invention, hit me up on skype. It's how I make the majority of my ISK.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4523871#post4523871 noted the possible issue with changing copy times Blink

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#1011 - 2014-05-16 12:06:35 UTC
Elysiana Karasniz wrote:
[...]however a Tornado BPC max-run is only 15 - which in a POS translates to about 30 hours. [...]


The thing that immediately struck me as weird with your argument there, is how you complain about the fact that you can not sufficiently fill your build queue with those 15 ships you're building.

The point of critique one would EXPECT, is that it only takes 30 hours to build 15 freaking battlecruisers!

(Admittedly that would be hell to fix, since any announcement would simply lead to stockpiling pre patch. However, it makes me wonder who came up with those insane numbers in the first place.)
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#1012 - 2014-05-16 13:22:45 UTC
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
Elysiana Karasniz wrote:
[...]however a Tornado BPC max-run is only 15 - which in a POS translates to about 30 hours. [...]


The thing that immediately struck me as weird with your argument there, is how you complain about the fact that you can not sufficiently fill your build queue with those 15 ships you're building.

The point of critique one would EXPECT, is that it only takes 30 hours to build 15 freaking battlecruisers!

(Admittedly that would be hell to fix, since any announcement would simply lead to stockpiling pre patch. However, it makes me wonder who came up with those insane numbers in the first place.)


Super-low tech 1 production times are a totally different issue. They are, however, the primary reason that tech 2 manufacture is more suited to low skilled players than tech 1 (despite being more complicated). The skillpoint and investible capital requirements for T1 are higher.

I can profitably build Kronoses. I do not have the capital to profitably build Megathrons.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Danny Centauri
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1013 - 2014-05-16 14:34:29 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Max run per copy: I'm slowly working through my big-ass spreadsheet of blueprint data, and max runs are one of the things on my to-revise list. We need to be a bit careful with the impact on invention, but for uninventable items I'm planning on being generous with this variable :) I've copy-pasted your post into notepad so I have a reference for particular things to look at; I'm also planning on checking nanite paste specifically based on earlier posts.


To make a long story short: boost max run on ship bpo copies to allow anyone to put in at least several day's worth of builds in a pos (probably a week), don't boost it on modules, and boost it on components and other things that have no t2 item that is invented from their bpcs.

Ship bpos are expensive and ships are expensive: that's the sort of thing people will want to use in a pos for the mineral reduction and will want to be able to install longer jobs for. They will not want to risk those bpos, however. Increased copy runs is fine because it's only in very rare cases that you'd use a max run bpc in an invention job - you only get one extra run at considerable increase in copying time. When you want extra runs you reach for a decryptor.

Modules: with extremely rare exceptions (capital/supercapital modules) module bpos are dirt-cheap. The primary use of bpcs will be invention, and here you need max-run bpcs to get 10-run invented bpcs. Decryptors are generally not cost-effective here and you have to use max-runs to get reasonable amounts of t2 runs. There is little risk of people wanting to build modules in a tower, but being unwilling to risk their 1m bpo, so there's no need to expand copy runs to allow pos building off bpcs.

For things like capital components, nanite paste, t2 components: there is no use for these bpcs in invention, so you can go hog-wild in increasing their max copy runs with absolutely no downside. You can pick a "maximum bpc job length" and set max copies equal to whatever lets you install that long a job.



Excellent, thank you :)


Agree completely but would also be nice to see current max run BPCs be future max run BPCs too. Many of us have literally hundreds of max run BPCs for invention which would magically become worthless for invention when Crius goes live.

If changing max runs need to be careful to convert old runs to new as otherwise Crius hit we all have to wait whilst new copy jobs run and then run invention jobs effectively causing this annoying period where T2 invention manufacturing grinds to a standstill.

EVE Manufacturing Guide - Simple guides to manufacturing in EVE for both beginners and more experienced players.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1014 - 2014-05-16 18:22:29 UTC
I'm updating my big-ass spreadsheet to link T1 and T2 typeIDs so I can run the math on making copy time 80% of build time in all cases and then setting invention time to "(build time / 2) - copy time"; while I'm working on it, does anyone think this is going to make their head explode?

Another thing to think about - if we mess with the invention math so we can kick max run counts up without breaking a bunch of things (including making sure we scale job time correctly against output runs), does the potentially large increase in practical invention throughput risk breaking the market? If you could put in 24 hours' worth of invention in one go, are we going to see a destructive glut of T2 BPC supply?
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1015 - 2014-05-16 18:25:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Jarnis McPieksu
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm updating my big-ass spreadsheet to link T1 and T2 typeIDs so I can run the math on making copy time 80% of build time in all cases and then setting invention time to "(build time / 2) - copy time"; while I'm working on it, does anyone think this is going to make their head explode?

Another thing to think about - if we mess with the invention math so we can kick max run counts up without breaking a bunch of things (including making sure we scale job time correctly against output runs), does the potentially large increase in practical invention throughput risk breaking the market? If you could put in 24 hours' worth of invention in one go, are we going to see a destructive glut of T2 BPC supply?


Wouldn't that supply be self-regulated by prices of Datacores?

Cost of inventing would shoot up if the volume of invention jobs goes up a lot.

BRB buying datacores...

Edit: Unless of course you mean same amount of datacores for a larger invention run (far more licensed runs in each T2 BPC)...? Shocked
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1016 - 2014-05-16 18:27:18 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm updating my big-ass spreadsheet to link T1 and T2 typeIDs so I can run the math on making copy time 80% of build time in all cases and then setting invention time to "(build time / 2) - copy time"; while I'm working on it, does anyone think this is going to make their head explode?

Another thing to think about - if we mess with the invention math so we can kick max run counts up without breaking a bunch of things (including making sure we scale job time correctly against output runs), does the potentially large increase in practical invention throughput risk breaking the market? If you could put in 24 hours' worth of invention in one go, are we going to see a destructive glut of T2 BPC supply?

Don't forget to exclude T2 BPOs from this copy time adjustment. :)

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Misigigo
Arms Of The Black
#1017 - 2014-05-16 18:36:11 UTC
The main thing I am concerned about with these changes is the increase in time required to create well-researched BPO's. For example, it currently takes about 40 days for a no-skill character to research a battleship BPO to ME10, which is being regarded as "perfect", and anyone who has a battleship BPO at ME10 before the change will be granted a perfect BPO after the change. After the change it will take the same character over 10 months to research a battleship BPO to the same level - 7.36 times longer. In other words, new players and players new to research will be at a severe disadvantage.

Another example: it currently takes a no-skill character just under a year to research a dreadnought BPO to ME6, which is perfect. After the change it will take the same character over 12 years to get a perfect BPO. This means players who researched their BPO's before the change get to hold onto elite BPO's which can no longer be matched, putting new scientists at a massive disadvantage.

Is anything going to be done to address this problem? I see three possible solutions. One way is to reduce the new times for each level of research by a factor of at least 7.36. This doesn't account for cases like dreadnoughts which are currently perfect at research levels lower than ME10, but still pretty much sorts the problem out. Another way is to change the way you plan to convert old BP's to new ones. Instead of converting them to their nearest equivalent by percentage waste, convert them by the time taken to research them to their old ME levels. This way is the fairest because it means new and old players have been working on the same system all along, but will upset established players who may now have more waste on their BPO's than they had previously. The best method would probably be a carefully balanced combination of those two, i.e. reduce the time needed to research each level under the new system AND convert old BP's to new BP's by time instead of by waste. Using the right numbers it would be possible to have the waste on the majority of new BPO's the same before and after the change without putting new players at a such a huge disadvantage.

I also have a question. Will each level of research under the new system have to be done in a single go, or can research be "paused" on a BPO, to move it or do some copying, and continued later on? The latter would be MUCH better and more in-line with how skills work.
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1018 - 2014-05-16 18:38:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Seith Kali
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Another thing to think about - if we mess with the invention math so we can kick max run counts up without breaking a bunch of things (including making sure we scale job time correctly against output runs), does the potentially large increase in practical invention throughput risk breaking the market? If you could put in 24 hours' worth of invention in one go, are we going to see a destructive glut of T2 BPC supply?


Depends if you care about the current margins. Yeah modules will get worse margins than now but many are greater than 50% purely down to the effort involved. If you ask me there's a trick we are missing here.What if invention speed was tied to run counts somewhat?

Greater run counts = longer invention speed and vice versa. Give options for players to chase rapid churn through high effort and allow low effort to work too.

I'd do some maths for you but it is lovely outside. Maybe Monday.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1019 - 2014-05-16 18:39:16 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm updating my big-ass spreadsheet to link T1 and T2 typeIDs so I can run the math on making copy time 80% of build time in all cases and then setting invention time to "(build time / 2) - copy time"; while I'm working on it, does anyone think this is going to make their head explode?

Another thing to think about - if we mess with the invention math so we can kick max run counts up without breaking a bunch of things (including making sure we scale job time correctly against output runs), does the potentially large increase in practical invention throughput risk breaking the market? If you could put in 24 hours' worth of invention in one go, are we going to see a destructive glut of T2 BPC supply?


Yes, and No. Yes, it will impact the market. It is going to drive the huge margins for invention down. But no it won't break the market and will be self regulating. Addressing queueing of jobs during the invention process is the single biggest thing you can do to increase the number of people doing it.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1020 - 2014-05-16 18:47:07 UTC
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm updating my big-ass spreadsheet to link T1 and T2 typeIDs so I can run the math on making copy time 80% of build time in all cases and then setting invention time to "(build time / 2) - copy time"; while I'm working on it, does anyone think this is going to make their head explode?

Another thing to think about - if we mess with the invention math so we can kick max run counts up without breaking a bunch of things (including making sure we scale job time correctly against output runs), does the potentially large increase in practical invention throughput risk breaking the market? If you could put in 24 hours' worth of invention in one go, are we going to see a destructive glut of T2 BPC supply?


Wouldn't that supply be self-regulated by prices of Datacores?

Cost of inventing would shoot up if the volume of invention jobs goes up a lot.

BRB buying datacores...

Edit: Unless of course you mean same amount of datacores for a larger invention run (far more licensed runs in each T2 BPC)...? Shocked


Yeah, good point. Possibly. I think we'd want to scale all inputs based on output length so we don't end up making decryptors/metas super-efficient on long jobs, and that'd probably go for datacores too. Nothing decided, speculate at your own risk :)

Querns wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm updating my big-ass spreadsheet to link T1 and T2 typeIDs so I can run the math on making copy time 80% of build time in all cases and then setting invention time to "(build time / 2) - copy time"; while I'm working on it, does anyone think this is going to make their head explode?

Another thing to think about - if we mess with the invention math so we can kick max run counts up without breaking a bunch of things (including making sure we scale job time correctly against output runs), does the potentially large increase in practical invention throughput risk breaking the market? If you could put in 24 hours' worth of invention in one go, are we going to see a destructive glut of T2 BPC supply?

Don't forget to exclude T2 BPOs from this copy time adjustment. :)


I'm going to come around to T2 BPO copy issues eventually :) We'd like T2 BPOs to be copying ideally, but not if it's only viable for balance reasons in a gallente outpost.

Seith Kali wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Another thing to think about - if we mess with the invention math so we can kick max run counts up without breaking a bunch of things (including making sure we scale job time correctly against output runs), does the potentially large increase in practical invention throughput risk breaking the market? If you could put in 24 hours' worth of invention in one go, are we going to see a destructive glut of T2 BPC supply?


Depends if you care about the current margins. Yeah modules will get worse margins than now but many are greater than 50% purely down to the effort involved. If you ask me there's a trick we are missing here.What if invention speed was tied to run counts somewhat?

Greater run counts = longer invention speed and vice versa. Give options for players to chase rapid churn through high effort and allow low effort to work too.

I'd do some maths for you but it is lovely outside. Maybe Monday.


Yeah, I think we would have to do that. Probably if we went down this road we would define invention time per-run.

Aryth wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm updating my big-ass spreadsheet to link T1 and T2 typeIDs so I can run the math on making copy time 80% of build time in all cases and then setting invention time to "(build time / 2) - copy time"; while I'm working on it, does anyone think this is going to make their head explode?

Another thing to think about - if we mess with the invention math so we can kick max run counts up without breaking a bunch of things (including making sure we scale job time correctly against output runs), does the potentially large increase in practical invention throughput risk breaking the market? If you could put in 24 hours' worth of invention in one go, are we going to see a destructive glut of T2 BPC supply?


Yes, and No. Yes, it will impact the market. It is going to drive the huge margins for invention down. But no it won't break the market and will be self regulating. Addressing queueing of jobs during the invention process is the single biggest thing you can do to increase the number of people doing it.



Thanks for the feedback.