These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Blueprint data adjustments thread

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#221 - 2014-05-30 12:04:06 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
If you want ideas for future adjustments to invention, consider adding invention job time as a new decryptor stat.

So inventing a Kronos might take 75 hours baseline (public station) but 100 hours with Symmetry or 25 with Accelerant.


Yup, definitely worth considering.
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#222 - 2014-05-30 12:24:13 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

What would you suggest? I know it's easier just to say :ccp: and then run off, but in this thread we are solving problems :)


I suggest you tone down the SA emoting before Dinsdale realises you are a goon now. There will be an outcry.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#223 - 2014-05-30 12:37:38 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
If you want ideas for future adjustments to invention, consider adding invention job time as a new decryptor stat.


I'd argue that the invention chance, TE, and extra runs stats already cover that pretty thoroughly.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#224 - 2014-05-30 13:11:26 UTC
just a quick thing about JFs:

don't forget that you no longer need to wait ~a very long time for a the freighter copy.
Sales Alt negrodamus
Sanctuary of Shadows
#225 - 2014-05-30 14:48:09 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


JF ranks are more just a stab at where they seem like they "should" be given the existing patterns with T2 and capital ships. I'm open to arguments that they're too high, but I'd be looking for an explanation based in "...and this is why it's bad for the game" rather than "the number is bigger" :)


I think it is more of a "consistency" issue with how things are now, and honestly I hadn't looked at capital production "as a whole" due to how annoying it is to navigate the CSV via spreadsheet.

JF's are their own category, I would argue. They are the only T2 capital ship. There's no reason to borrow patterns from other ships.

I really want to argue "it is super annoying to tie up 6b in materials for that long" but supercap and titan builders have it worse, and I can build the JF in highsec.

Ultimately making the build and invent times significantly longer is bad because it'll simply make JF's that much more expensive due to becoming more annoying to invent and build. That's really it I think.
Danielle Yaken
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#226 - 2014-05-30 15:06:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Danielle Yaken
Any chance you can review the maximum number of runs on cap ship components? The most recent numbers show that cap ship component BPCs are going to have a maximum of 10 runs. While this would be fine in the current "build from BPO" regime, in the new "build from copy" paradigm, this is likely to result in rapid burnout among supercapital manufacturers due to the need to restart dozens of production jobs to construct a single ship from BPCs.

While there are certainly reasonable arguments to be made that increasing the difficulty in acquiring a supercapital is good for the game, this seems like a somewhat arbitrary way to go about it. The increased difficulty arises from making production slots more difficult to manage (i.e., making the manufacturer want to kill themselves due to having to manage multiple quick runtime industry jobs on a daily basis instead of providing a sane way to queue up a single long run of components) rather than from any meaningful gameplay changes (e.g., changes in the logistics in moving large quantities of minerals).
Elysiana Karasniz
Kazari Holdings
#227 - 2014-05-30 17:01:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Elysiana Karasniz
Been a while since I caught up on this thread so apologies if these are already covered - if they are, link me the posts please. Smile

Invention times/throughput - why is invention throughput per slot going down necessarily a bad thing? There are (or were, based on the dev info from several years ago) a few t2 markets dominated by t2 BPOs, so that's an issue if it's still the case, but the majority of invented products were released into a market controlled by invention. If the goal of this expansion is to increase the number of people involved in industry (ie increasing supply) then in order to keep those people there you need to do something to address the supply/demand imbalance they'll cause - increasing invention/build time would help that. (Other options are available, of course.)

T2 BPO copies - I saw a suggestion to make copies form BPOS have a maxrun of 1, which appeared to be taken on board. Is that right? Because it's going to be annoying, especially as the reason seems to be the potential increase in throughput caused by certain nullsec outposts - if those outposts cause a problem, fix the outposts. (Besides, those outposts have needed useful bonuses since they were implemented.)
Keeping T2 BPO copy time similar to build time would avoid the non-outpost related issues, and if building from a T2 BPC (non-invented) at a POS were viable, then research databases (used for t2 BPO copying) would actually have a point again. A small, insignificant point, but more of a point than they have now.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I do indeed own some T2 BPOs, and the total market domination they give me allow my Aurora S BPO to literally print ISK at the rate of ~4m/day, before taxes/transport costs, when I can be bothered to run it. Truely, Jita trembles at my presence. Lol
Unsurprisingly, most of my income via invention and trading, I would just prefer to not have my BPO nerfed even harder.)


/e Cap ship component BPCs definitely need upping. I thought this was going to be looked at before though, while they're 5 maxrun atm, moving to 10 doesn't help matters.
Theng Hofses
State War Academy
Caldari State
#228 - 2014-05-30 18:43:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Theng Hofses
My general philosophy is that you want to help the little guys to effectively compete without hurting mass producers and lower barriers of entry to lower prices.

One suggestion would be to increase the max run number of non-inventable BPCs to 30 or 60 or even 100. The max run number of 10 that is currently proposed is limited and rather low and creates an unnecessary click fest. Ideally, you would like to match the demand of one or multiple carriers with that of the components. If it takes say X days to build a capital ship one should be able to build the necessary components in one to two jobs. For example, if you would want to build a Thanatos (0/0) you need 61 capital drone bays, so the maximum run in order to avoid this being a click fest for components should be 30 or 60. The time to produce the 60 components could also be linked with the production time of a cap, whatever kind it may be. That way things nicely line up, but don't involve a dramatic over-purchasing of capital component BPOs. This has a two fold effect: It keeps the effective barrier of entry to build caps relatively low (today roughly 18b in BPOs) if not reduces it and avoids creating a massive copy fest for super and titan builders. If you don't do that, the temptation of building of capital component BPOs becomes very high. The victims here will be the smaller builders as they cannot effectively defend their POSes, while PL and CFC are the beneficiaries since as long as the B0tlord Accord stands their POSes are near invulnerable.

For invention, I would suggest to keep the effective time to invent one run constant for a ten-run T2 BPC, especially for items with a high consumption velocity. Lets use a T2 Sentry Drone as an example as it invents in 75 minutes, i.e.; 7.5 minutes per run and has to be repeated every 75 minutes. What would be helpful would be the stacking of multiple T1 BPCs into a higher run T2 BPC. You can either do that by allowing batching or by using multiple T1 BPCs as input and one larger T2 BPCs as output. Think of someone having say 10, 20 or more characters doing T2 Sentry Invention at 10 slots each. When you are done with the last character the invention of the first one is just done, so that all you do is invent by rote. There is nothing wrong with tying up the character as it is busy inventing, but it would be nice if the person doing the invention is doing more than just clicking for hours and that's all they do.
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#229 - 2014-05-31 08:48:13 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
mynnna wrote:
Cool - if you're so confident, how about a bet that you're wrong. Ten billion isk? Hundred billion isk? What's your wager?

To be fair, Mynnna, CCP devs have an abominable reputation when it comes to revisiting things. You can't really fault Theng Hofses for taking Greyscale's statement with a metric shitton of salt.

Myself, I say it's 50/50 that invention will get its "final solution" before 2015. A "temporary"solution that is in place for half a year (or more...) isn't "temporary".

MDD
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#230 - 2014-05-31 10:21:55 UTC
Sales Alt negrodamus wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


JF ranks are more just a stab at where they seem like they "should" be given the existing patterns with T2 and capital ships. I'm open to arguments that they're too high, but I'd be looking for an explanation based in "...and this is why it's bad for the game" rather than "the number is bigger" :)


I think it is more of a "consistency" issue with how things are now, and honestly I hadn't looked at capital production "as a whole" due to how annoying it is to navigate the CSV via spreadsheet.

JF's are their own category, I would argue. They are the only T2 capital ship. There's no reason to borrow patterns from other ships.

I really want to argue "it is super annoying to tie up 6b in materials for that long" but supercap and titan builders have it worse, and I can build the JF in highsec.

Ultimately making the build and invent times significantly longer is bad because it'll simply make JF's that much more expensive due to becoming more annoying to invent and build. That's really it I think.



The other side of it is you REALLY aren't going to want to do it in a POS. JF will be a null - only affair lest you want to tie things up for the full term. Naturally, I like anything that brings people to null. (Anyone reading this wanting to build JF post patch, we have an excellent rental program, get in touch! Cool

Super-capitals are special snowflakes because it isn't just about tying up the isk, it is also about making coat-hanger operations a legitimate tactic also. Really long TTM times in those cases has more gameplay to it than just introducing enhanced manipulation potential as is the case with other markets.

In other words, I agree freighters are capitals in name only and really don't categorise well that way.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 
Jehan Athonille
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#231 - 2014-05-31 13:54:03 UTC
Feedback to Greyscale's blueprints_public_draft_3.csv

CCP Greyscale wrote:

My intuition is that an increase of 20-40% in build times is healthy, but above 50% is probably risky. I'm very open to discussion on these numbers though :)


I have compiled a list of how much production time is changing on T2 cruiser sized ships with the draft 3 rank 800. Most of the blueprints build time was increased far more than 50%. +100%, +200% and even +300%.

Google docs: Build Time Changes Cruiser Sized T2 Ships

I would argue that rank 400 would be a better choice. With rank 400 there are still some blueprints with +100% build times, but most of the blueprints have increased build times within 0 to 50%

I have started looking at the frigate sized T2 ships. They have the same trend with +200% and +300% of the original build times. Let me know if you want a similar file with the frigate sized ships.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#232 - 2014-05-31 16:43:14 UTC
The ship market is already over saturated and therefore mostly unprofitable or not very attractive. It could use some decreased supply.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#233 - 2014-05-31 16:49:42 UTC
probag Bear wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
If you want ideas for future adjustments to invention, consider adding invention job time as a new decryptor stat.


I'd argue that the invention chance, TE, and extra runs stats already cover that pretty thoroughly.




Yes and no. For todays decryptors absolutely, but what about tomorrows? The changes to the me/te calculations completely change the decryptor market. Invention chance and additional runs become much more relevant.

There are a lot of interesting options for future decryptors, invention time, output, invention cost(faction datacores that reduce prices when used in the right space) , data core usage, worker team effectivity,...
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#234 - 2014-06-01 20:35:32 UTC
Jehan Athonille wrote:
Feedback to Greyscale's blueprints_public_draft_3.csv

CCP Greyscale wrote:

My intuition is that an increase of 20-40% in build times is healthy, but above 50% is probably risky. I'm very open to discussion on these numbers though :)


I have compiled a list of how much production time is changing on T2 cruiser sized ships with the draft 3 rank 800. Most of the blueprints build time was increased far more than 50%. +100%, +200% and even +300%.

Google docs: Build Time Changes Cruiser Sized T2 Ships

I would argue that rank 400 would be a better choice. With rank 400 there are still some blueprints with +100% build times, but most of the blueprints have increased build times within 0 to 50%

I have started looking at the frigate sized T2 ships. They have the same trend with +200% and +300% of the original build times. Let me know if you want a similar file with the frigate sized ships.


Looking at the increase in build time only is flawed and only relevant for Tech II BPOs. For invention, the number that matters is total time to market, copying, invention, and building. By those standards and factoring in decryptors, skills, etc, you get the following:


  • 12-15% increase in time-to-market for frigate hulls, based on exact class (EAFs and AFs at the low end, Interceptors at the high end, bombers & covops in the middle).
  • 55% increase in TTM for interdictors.
  • Cruiser sized ships (all actual cruisers as well as Transport Ships) range from an 11% decrease to a 5% increase. HACs and DSTs are at 89% of current, hictors at 93%, recon ships at 96%, and logistics & blockade runners at 105%.
  • Exhumers are really weird, with +93% on the Skiff, +78% on the Mackinaw and +55% on the Hulk.
  • Command Ships and Tech II battleships all come in at around 89%.
  • Jump Freighters are +72%

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Jehan Athonille
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#235 - 2014-06-01 22:57:24 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Jehan Athonille wrote:
Feedback to Greyscale's blueprints_public_draft_3.csv

CCP Greyscale wrote:

My intuition is that an increase of 20-40% in build times is healthy, but above 50% is probably risky. I'm very open to discussion on these numbers though :)


I have compiled a list of how much production time is changing on T2 cruiser sized ships with the draft 3 rank 800. Most of the blueprints build time was increased far more than 50%. +100%, +200% and even +300%.

Google docs: Build Time Changes Cruiser Sized T2 Ships

I would argue that rank 400 would be a better choice. With rank 400 there are still some blueprints with +100% build times, but most of the blueprints have increased build times within 0 to 50%

I have started looking at the frigate sized T2 ships. They have the same trend with +200% and +300% of the original build times. Let me know if you want a similar file with the frigate sized ships.


Looking at the increase in build time only is flawed and only relevant for Tech II BPOs. For invention, the number that matters is total time to market, copying, invention, and building. By those standards and factoring in decryptors, skills, etc, you get the following:


  • 12-15% increase in time-to-market for frigate hulls, based on exact class (EAFs and AFs at the low end, Interceptors at the high end, bombers & covops in the middle).
  • 55% increase in TTM for interdictors.
  • Cruiser sized ships (all actual cruisers as well as Transport Ships) range from an 11% decrease to a 5% increase. HACs and DSTs are at 89% of current, hictors at 93%, recon ships at 96%, and logistics & blockade runners at 105%.
  • Exhumers are really weird, with +93% on the Skiff, +78% on the Mackinaw and +55% on the Hulk.
  • Command Ships and Tech II battleships all come in at around 89%.
  • Jump Freighters are +72%


Many of the ships you mention with TTM increase near 100% is in a upward price trend. I am not talking about the recent speculative buying. I am talking about the slow increase that has taken place over the previous months. This does not indicate a saturated market as Gilberon suggested, rather the opposite. Guess what will happen if you cut the supply of these ships in half. I agree that this is a risky maneuver that will hurt the consumers with significant higher prices.
Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES
#236 - 2014-06-02 11:45:55 UTC
Just stumbled over these on the public_draft_3.csv
Quote:

Heretic Blueprint 22452 800
Sabre Blueprint 22456 600
Eris Blueprint 22460 800
Flycatcher Blueprint 22464 800


Any reason for Sabre being on rank 600 while all the others are 800?
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#237 - 2014-06-02 14:34:40 UTC
Sales Alt negrodamus wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


JF ranks are more just a stab at where they seem like they "should" be given the existing patterns with T2 and capital ships. I'm open to arguments that they're too high, but I'd be looking for an explanation based in "...and this is why it's bad for the game" rather than "the number is bigger" :)


I think it is more of a "consistency" issue with how things are now, and honestly I hadn't looked at capital production "as a whole" due to how annoying it is to navigate the CSV via spreadsheet.

JF's are their own category, I would argue. They are the only T2 capital ship. There's no reason to borrow patterns from other ships.

I really want to argue "it is super annoying to tie up 6b in materials for that long" but supercap and titan builders have it worse, and I can build the JF in highsec.

Ultimately making the build and invent times significantly longer is bad because it'll simply make JF's that much more expensive due to becoming more annoying to invent and build. That's really it I think.



Given our relative unhappiness with the state of jump logistics, I'm pretty much on the fence on this issue right now :/

Danielle Yaken wrote:
Any chance you can review the maximum number of runs on cap ship components? The most recent numbers show that cap ship component BPCs are going to have a maximum of 10 runs. While this would be fine in the current "build from BPO" regime, in the new "build from copy" paradigm, this is likely to result in rapid burnout among supercapital manufacturers due to the need to restart dozens of production jobs to construct a single ship from BPCs.

While there are certainly reasonable arguments to be made that increasing the difficulty in acquiring a supercapital is good for the game, this seems like a somewhat arbitrary way to go about it. The increased difficulty arises from making production slots more difficult to manage (i.e., making the manufacturer want to kill themselves due to having to manage multiple quick runtime industry jobs on a daily basis instead of providing a sane way to queue up a single long run of components) rather than from any meaningful gameplay changes (e.g., changes in the logistics in moving large quantities of minerals).


Currently all the run numbers are based on 24 hours' production for T2 or 48 hours' production for T1. How much time seems reasonable to target for cap components?

Elysiana Karasniz wrote:
Been a while since I caught up on this thread so apologies if these are already covered - if they are, link me the posts please. Smile

Invention times/throughput - why is invention throughput per slot going down necessarily a bad thing? There are (or were, based on the dev info from several years ago) a few t2 markets dominated by t2 BPOs, so that's an issue if it's still the case, but the majority of invented products were released into a market controlled by invention. If the goal of this expansion is to increase the number of people involved in industry (ie increasing supply) then in order to keep those people there you need to do something to address the supply/demand imbalance they'll cause - increasing invention/build time would help that. (Other options are available, of course.)

T2 BPO copies - I saw a suggestion to make copies form BPOS have a maxrun of 1, which appeared to be taken on board. Is that right? Because it's going to be annoying, especially as the reason seems to be the potential increase in throughput caused by certain nullsec outposts - if those outposts cause a problem, fix the outposts. (Besides, those outposts have needed useful bonuses since they were implemented.)
Keeping T2 BPO copy time similar to build time would avoid the non-outpost related issues, and if building from a T2 BPC (non-invented) at a POS were viable, then research databases (used for t2 BPO copying) would actually have a point again. A small, insignificant point, but more of a point than they have now.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I do indeed own some T2 BPOs, and the total market domination they give me allow my Aurora S BPO to literally print ISK at the rate of ~4m/day, before taxes/transport costs, when I can be bothered to run it. Truely, Jita trembles at my presence. Lol
Unsurprisingly, most of my income via invention and trading, I would just prefer to not have my BPO nerfed even harder.)


/e Cap ship component BPCs definitely need upping. I thought this was going to be looked at before though, while they're 5 maxrun atm, moving to 10 doesn't help matters.


Down a bit per slot is good, it opens up the market to more producers. Down too much becomes problematic if demand ends up outstripping demand and driving up prices. As we have no idea how many new T2 industrialists we're likely to get with Crius, it's a bit of a guessing game, and may need post-release tweaking :)

Again, maxruns are currently tuned to be x days of build time, which generally ends up being 1 for T2 ships, but higher for modules. The outpost stuff we are going to specifically target once the general data are sound.

MailDeadDrop wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Cool - if you're so confident, how about a bet that you're wrong. Ten billion isk? Hundred billion isk? What's your wager?

To be fair, Mynnna, CCP devs have an abominable reputation when it comes to revisiting things. You can't really fault Theng Hofses for taking Greyscale's statement with a metric shitton of salt.

Myself, I say it's 50/50 that invention will get its "final solution" before 2015. A "temporary"solution that is in place for half a year (or more...) isn't "temporary".

MDD


It's a reasonable point that I'm very much mindful of, but in this case I'm sufficiently confident in the solidity of our plans to make longer-term predictions :)

[quote=Chanina]Just stumbled over these on the public_draft_3.csv
[quote]
Heretic...
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#238 - 2014-06-02 14:45:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Gilbaron
Quote:
Currently all the run numbers are based on 24 hours' production for T2 or 48 hours' production for T1. How much time seems reasonable to target for cap components?


roundup(MaxAmountNeededForCapProduction) or something like that. anything else would be very annoying. Cap Components are a pre-product and should be treated as such.

Edit: And while you are at it, please make sure that you can put the materials needed under the worst circumstances for any kind of max run BPC in the relevant assembly arrays.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#239 - 2014-06-02 14:52:48 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
Quote:
Currently all the run numbers are based on 24 hours' production for T2 or 48 hours' production for T1. How much time seems reasonable to target for cap components?


roundup(MaxAmountNeededForCapProduction) or something like that. anything else would be very annoying. Cap Components are a pre-product and should be treated as such.

Edit: And while you are at it, please make sure that you can put the materials needed under the worst circumstances for any kind of max run BPC in the relevant assembly arrays.


I'm reluctant to base numbers on something so fungible without a really solid justification. If we change cap build costs in future (or add new ones), I'd prefer not to have to mess with component blueprint stats too.
Jehan Athonille
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#240 - 2014-06-02 14:58:38 UTC
Bump for answer on this. Hoping for answer from CCP Greyscale

Jehan Athonille wrote:
Feedback to Greyscale's blueprints_public_draft_3.csv

CCP Greyscale wrote:

My intuition is that an increase of 20-40% in build times is healthy, but above 50% is probably risky. I'm very open to discussion on these numbers though :)


I have compiled a list of how much production time is changing on T2 cruiser sized ships with the draft 3 rank 800. Most of the blueprints build time was increased far more than 50%. +100%, +200% and even +300%.

Google docs: Build Time Changes Cruiser Sized T2 Ships

I would argue that rank 400 would be a better choice. With rank 400 there are still some blueprints with +100% build times, but most of the blueprints have increased build times within 0 to 50%

I have started looking at the frigate sized T2 ships. They have the same trend with +200% and +300% of the original build times. Let me know if you want a similar file with the frigate sized ships.