These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#441 - 2014-06-11 19:56:21 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

=ROUND({TQ value}*IF({tech level}=2,1.5,1)/0.9,0)

Material fractions are always rounded up in the manufacturing code.


My apologies in advance. I really dislike directly contradicting a dev. But while the above formula is correct (as far as rounding is concerned), the follow-on statement is most definitely not.

I can confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that material wastage does not always round up. Rigs make excellent examples. Almost all small rigs have 0 material waste even at ME0. But certain ones like Small Ancillary Current Routers do not. Those become perfect at ME1. This would not be true if all materials calculations rounded up.

Small Ancillary Current Router I
ME0 10% waste:

  • Burned Logic Circuits: 10
  • Fried Interface Circuits: 2
  • Tripped Power Circuits: 10


ME1 5% waste (and also perfect):

  • Burned Logic Circuits: 9
  • Fried Interface Circuits: 2
  • Tripped Power Circuits: 9


Clearly, the BPC wastage is rounded to the nearest whole number, and not always up.

Despite all that, thx for the formula. It confirms and answers our calculations and questions.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#442 - 2014-06-11 22:14:46 UTC
Soldarius, you're talking about the Rubicon/Kronos version. The Crius code has several small differences. This is one of them, though to be fair it wasn't mentioned in a dev blog, but rather later on in a dev blog's thread.

Thanks a lot for the clarification Greyscale! I was going to spit out a mountain of .csv's today, but eh, ended up not having the time. Need to write Decryptor Usage Model Mark II, since Mark I's giving estimates with errors that are larger than what I like.
Tsukinosuke
Id Est
RAZOR Alliance
#443 - 2014-06-13 14:03:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsukinosuke
mynnna wrote:
Haven't dug into the numbers too much like I plan to yet (model comparing overall gamewide usage before & after the patch including ability to revise based on expected change in decryptor usage, anyone? Depends on if I can setup the spreadsheet in a reasonable amount of time tomorrow) so I don't want to comment on the numbers too much, but...

Danny Centauri wrote:
as moon mining is a completely passive income source.


When moons are such that we don't need a team of fifty people constantly refueling POS, emptying the silos, and clearing (often multiple times a day) siphons off of them, that they inject isk straight into the corp wallet instead of the value being realized by selling the materials to people who turn around and run even more POS, it'll be completely passive income. Until then, the most valuable of them is worth at best what one ishtar ratting two hours a day can make (and the guy maintaining the POS is undoubtedly more active than the ratter, too), and the "completely passive" argument is a dead horse flogged by the jealous or ignorant.


Besides, consider this: Demand for moon goo is separated from the actual moongoo by intermediate reactions, then advanced reactions, then Tech II component construction, and then the actual Tech II build times itself. For that reason, the moon markets shift in response to changing demand very slowly, and Alchemy - which regulates prices - makes upward changes even slower. With a full invention overhaul on the horizon after Crius, things probably won't have room to move very far before that shakes things up again anyway.


it is passive income, it does not matter you accept or not.. if POS anchored to moon harvester, u would call fuel runs as a requirement for moon mining.. you will get some moongoo even with siphon units around.. etc etc.. if it is not worthy at least an ishtar ratter, dont do it then? so my raw materials become more profitable ^^

it is already broken and even Planets need to regenerate, moons no need.. also moons should get those rarest materials from meteorites that crash into moons, that does mean different minerals may appear time to time and NOT INFINITE..

so as a CSM, better New Eden should be your #1 priority instead of your player related duty...

p.s. mate very high tax fills your corp wallets so respect that worker bees ratting in ishtar for 2 hours every day.

anti-antagonist "not a friend of enemy of antagonist"
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#444 - 2014-06-13 16:29:47 UTC
Tsukinosuke wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Haven't dug into the numbers too much like I plan to yet (model comparing overall gamewide usage before & after the patch including ability to revise based on expected change in decryptor usage, anyone? Depends on if I can setup the spreadsheet in a reasonable amount of time tomorrow) so I don't want to comment on the numbers too much, but...

Danny Centauri wrote:
as moon mining is a completely passive income source.


When moons are such that we don't need a team of fifty people constantly refueling POS, emptying the silos, and clearing (often multiple times a day) siphons off of them, that they inject isk straight into the corp wallet instead of the value being realized by selling the materials to people who turn around and run even more POS, it'll be completely passive income. Until then, the most valuable of them is worth at best what one ishtar ratting two hours a day can make (and the guy maintaining the POS is undoubtedly more active than the ratter, too), and the "completely passive" argument is a dead horse flogged by the jealous or ignorant.


Besides, consider this: Demand for moon goo is separated from the actual moongoo by intermediate reactions, then advanced reactions, then Tech II component construction, and then the actual Tech II build times itself. For that reason, the moon markets shift in response to changing demand very slowly, and Alchemy - which regulates prices - makes upward changes even slower. With a full invention overhaul on the horizon after Crius, things probably won't have room to move very far before that shakes things up again anyway.


it is passive income, it does not matter you accept or not.. if POS anchored to moon harvester, u would call fuel runs as a requirement for moon mining.. you will get some moongoo even with siphon units around.. etc etc.. if it is not worthy at least an ishtar ratter, dont do it then? so my raw materials become more profitable ^^

it is already broken and even Planets need to regenerate, moons no need.. also moons should get those rarest materials from meteorites that crash into moons, that does mean different minerals may appear time to time and NOT INFINITE..

so as a CSM, better New Eden should be your #1 priority instead of your player related duty...

p.s. mate very high tax fills your corp wallets so respect that worker bees ratting in ishtar for 2 hours every day.


I too attempt to explain Null economics to the people who know it better than anyone in EVE. Including CCP.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Ravenclaw2kk
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#445 - 2014-06-14 19:39:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Ravenclaw2kk
What's happening with modules that are currently copy time limited?
There seem to be some huge changes in niche markets like T2 cloaks where currently you can produce 3 max run copies in about 28 days yielding about 15 modules per month through 3 days of invention invention per slot.

Post Crius, you can produce 800 runs every 25 days or 32 runs per day. So shifting the bottleneck away from copy time.

Invention time in Crius is 20hrs giving about 6 runs per day, per slot.

With Manufacture time being 2hrs per run, the new max number of modules per month per slot is around 180 modules which
is a 1200% increase!

Build time of both the T1 Item and T2 Item was nicely balanced with the previous copy time, but it seems this has been reduced from over 2hrs per T1 Item to just under 1 hr.
The Feuror
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#446 - 2014-06-15 15:19:15 UTC
So everyone that builds t3's knows how cost effective reverse engineering subsystems isUgh. Whats the word with RE are we going to be able to pick specific subs, like how we can choose between inventing a sleipnir and a claymore. We could still keep the horrible 12.5% im just tired of filling my haulers with subsystem BPC's that I dont want and selling them in jita for the same price as relics because nobody else wants them (I.e RR proteus sub). And while im ranting we finally going to be able to initially fit the t3 hull and subs or are we still going to have to take them to highsec it doesn't make much sense why we can swap subs but not actually put the subs on the hull right out of the oven.

VVOOF is recruiting able pvpers for WH BLOPS operations
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#447 - 2014-06-16 10:49:33 UTC
Ravenclaw2kk wrote:
What's happening with modules that are currently copy time limited?
There seem to be some huge changes in niche markets like T2 cloaks where currently you can produce 3 max run copies in about 28 days yielding about 15 modules per month through 3 days of invention invention per slot.

Post Crius, you can produce 800 runs every 25 days or 32 runs per day. So shifting the bottleneck away from copy time.

Invention time in Crius is 20hrs giving about 6 runs per day, per slot.

With Manufacture time being 2hrs per run, the new max number of modules per month per slot is around 180 modules which
is a 1200% increase!

Build time of both the T1 Item and T2 Item was nicely balanced with the previous copy time, but it seems this has been reduced from over 2hrs per T1 Item to just under 1 hr.


We're already special-casing cloak ranks, so we could kick them up a bit further if needed. I wasn't aware they were that heavily bottlenecked, but it doesn't sound entirely healthy for the market so I'd prefer not to try and maintain the status quo in that case unless there's a really good reason for it.

The Feuror wrote:
So everyone that builds t3's knows how cost effective reverse engineering subsystems isUgh. Whats the word with RE are we going to be able to pick specific subs, like how we can choose between inventing a sleipnir and a claymore. We could still keep the horrible 12.5% im just tired of filling my haulers with subsystem BPC's that I dont want and selling them in jita for the same price as relics because nobody else wants them (I.e RR proteus sub). And while im ranting we finally going to be able to initially fit the t3 hull and subs or are we still going to have to take them to highsec it doesn't make much sense why we can swap subs but not actually put the subs on the hull right out of the oven.


Reverse engineering is due a more comprehensive revisit post-Crius, watch this space :)
Ravenclaw2kk
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#448 - 2014-06-16 14:09:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Ravenclaw2kk
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Ravenclaw2kk wrote:
What's happening with modules that are currently copy time limited?
There seem to be some huge changes in niche markets like T2 cloaks where currently you can produce 3 max run copies in about 28 days yielding about 15 modules per month through 3 days of invention invention per slot.

Post Crius, you can produce 800 runs every 25 days or 32 runs per day. So shifting the bottleneck away from copy time.

Invention time in Crius is 20hrs giving about 6 runs per day, per slot.

With Manufacture time being 2hrs per run, the new max number of modules per month per slot is around 180 modules which
is a 1200% increase!

Build time of both the T1 Item and T2 Item was nicely balanced with the previous copy time, but it seems this has been reduced from over 2hrs per T1 Item to just under 1 hr.


We're already special-casing cloak ranks, so we could kick them up a bit further if needed. I wasn't aware they were that heavily bottlenecked, but it doesn't sound entirely healthy for the market so I'd prefer not to try and maintain the status quo in that case unless there's a really good reason for it.

The Feuror wrote:
So everyone that builds t3's knows how cost effective reverse engineering subsystems isUgh. Whats the word with RE are we going to be able to pick specific subs, like how we can choose between inventing a sleipnir and a claymore. We could still keep the horrible 12.5% im just tired of filling my haulers with subsystem BPC's that I dont want and selling them in jita for the same price as relics because nobody else wants them (I.e RR proteus sub). And while im ranting we finally going to be able to initially fit the t3 hull and subs or are we still going to have to take them to highsec it doesn't make much sense why we can swap subs but not actually put the subs on the hull right out of the oven.


Reverse engineering is due a more comprehensive revisit post-Crius, watch this space :)


The market on them seems pretty healthy, most people run 1-run copies and invent from those which sets the price at datacore cost + invent time. Working from the new numbers on SiSi, the market on them will tank pretty badly from around 5.8m p/u currently to 3.3m +/- 10%. That's for Covert ops cloaks, but the improved cloaking device II is in a similar situation as they both invent from the same item. I imagine that the improved version will go down to around 2.2m isk p/u, but I haven't run the numbers yet. The last datacore changed introduced a larger supply than previously and prices reduced by around 40% to compensate (or from 14m down to 6m if you count last year's spike)


The current price only high on them due to the copy/invent time being the bottleneck. Removing the bottleneck will significantly reduce input costs.

The only thing likely to hold the price up slightly is the high cost of bpos , which is higher than most cruisers, and high initial investment. But, then more than enough are currently manufacturing the item to cause a pretty severe glut come Crius.

If it's intentional, I have no problem with that and I am already looking at other items to build. and I can finally get rid of my copy alt accounts :)
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#449 - 2014-06-16 14:29:26 UTC
Generally trying to get rid of extreme bottlenecks is intentional, yes. If there's a strong reason for cloaks to have a higher overall end-to-end time we can potentially do that, but I'd rather not push them too much further than they already are as they start to become a weird anomaly at that point.
Ravenclaw2kk
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#450 - 2014-06-16 14:59:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Ravenclaw2kk
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Generally trying to get rid of extreme bottlenecks is intentional, yes. If there's a strong reason for cloaks to have a higher overall end-to-end time we can potentially do that, but I'd rather not push them too much further than they already are as they start to become a weird anomaly at that point.


The BPO cost compared to other modules is an argument, but it's weak I guess. Oh, also Evelopedia say they are "A very specialized piece of technology." The other only reason I can think is they always have been an anomalous item and not to crash the market, but I am biased.

Gameplay wise, the change will significantly reduce the cost of bombers etc, and I'd expect to see a lot more smaller ships with T2 cloaks than you normally would as they will become as cheap as most high-slot mods.

The market will correct eventually, but the increased supply will mean lots of people will lose lots of isk initially. It's just a pity we can't short sell.
Orovana
Infinity Works
#451 - 2014-06-17 11:10:56 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

- We would like to make copy times consistently lower than build times, so building from copies is the optimal play (dovetails with our starbase changes, for example)


First to state that manifacturing is not my main activity in the game and I just do invention of modules as a steady passive income while doing other stuff. That been said I would like an explanation on this point and why do you think this will make ppl use BPCs for T1 manifacturing instead of BPOs.

As it stand at this moment say Warp Disruptor have a base manifacturing time of 600s per unit and copy time of 60s per unit with Science 5. That means that copy is 10% of manifacturing time. That means that if I want to produce max ammout of units from single BPO i better set 10 max run BPCs and manifacture from them while i wait for new batch of BPC the next 50 hours (all this is based on station and such and i am not including all the extra bonuses that you can have). So as we stands with copy / manifacture atm with 1 BPO i can produce as i like have 10. So you want to do copy time 80% of manifacturing time. That only says to me that you are actually nerfing how much a BPO untilized correctly can manifacture per given ammout of time. Not to mention that with this i will need to wait way way longer to get the same ammount of max runs BPC for invention. So how this is not a major nerf to manifacturing? Did i get it wrong in some way?

Do you ment to say that manifacturing from BPC will have inherit bonus of 20% faster manifacturing time? Because this will make sense to me to use BPC to BPOs if ofc you keep the somewhat the same copy times as you do now.

I admit i am not familiar with copy/manifacturing times for big ships and such but for small modules this seems like a massive slow down in production.


P.S. I had not the time to read all the 23 pages of this post and maybe someone already asked this question, if so I am sorry of raising the same issie.

Regards
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#452 - 2014-06-18 10:37:08 UTC
Orovana wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

- We would like to make copy times consistently lower than build times, so building from copies is the optimal play (dovetails with our starbase changes, for example)


First to state that manifacturing is not my main activity in the game and I just do invention of modules as a steady passive income while doing other stuff. That been said I would like an explanation on this point and why do you think this will make ppl use BPCs for T1 manifacturing instead of BPOs.

As it stand at this moment say Warp Disruptor have a base manifacturing time of 600s per unit and copy time of 60s per unit with Science 5. That means that copy is 10% of manifacturing time. That means that if I want to produce max ammout of units from single BPO i better set 10 max run BPCs and manifacture from them while i wait for new batch of BPC the next 50 hours (all this is based on station and such and i am not including all the extra bonuses that you can have). So as we stands with copy / manifacture atm with 1 BPO i can produce as i like have 10. So you want to do copy time 80% of manifacturing time. That only says to me that you are actually nerfing how much a BPO untilized correctly can manifacture per given ammout of time. Not to mention that with this i will need to wait way way longer to get the same ammount of max runs BPC for invention. So how this is not a major nerf to manifacturing? Did i get it wrong in some way?

Do you ment to say that manifacturing from BPC will have inherit bonus of 20% faster manifacturing time? Because this will make sense to me to use BPC to BPOs if ofc you keep the somewhat the same copy times as you do now.

I admit i am not familiar with copy/manifacturing times for big ships and such but for small modules this seems like a massive slow down in production.


P.S. I had not the time to read all the 23 pages of this post and maybe someone already asked this question, if so I am sorry of raising the same issie.

Regards


Basically modules get a lot slower, ships get way faster, and everything uses a unified time. It is a reduction in throughput to module manufacturing but we're reasonably comfortable with it given that everything now uses the same time, meaning you need to learn fewer facts to wrap your head around industry as a whole.
Orovana
Infinity Works
#453 - 2014-06-18 11:32:58 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Basically modules get a lot slower, ships get way faster, and everything uses a unified time. It is a reduction in throughput to module manufacturing but we're reasonably comfortable with it given that everything now uses the same time, meaning you need to learn fewer facts to wrap your head around industry as a whole.


So i get that you want to lower the complexity and stuff you need to wrap your head around to manifacture (not that i see any reason for that if any manufacturing is rather straight forward activity as it is), but my main consern is with invention. Maybe for ships those changes look great i agree with that, but with modules where you need maxed run BPC this increase of copy time will mean that we will require a looooot longer time to get a single copy that we can try inventing on. Are you not worried that this will create massive price change and will totaly break the current state of thing that you so desire not to mess to much with it. Using the same example Warp Disruptor I currently you need 4 days to get 20 max runed BPC, and with the new change you will require say 8 times longer for same result and efectively lowering all module inventors production capacity drasticaly.

As a manifacturer it makes no difference to me to be hones i will say a singe warp disruptor 8 times more expensive and will have the same isk/hour ratio but I dont think that general public will like the sudden increase in module pricess.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#454 - 2014-06-18 11:56:39 UTC
Orovana wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Basically modules get a lot slower, ships get way faster, and everything uses a unified time. It is a reduction in throughput to module manufacturing but we're reasonably comfortable with it given that everything now uses the same time, meaning you need to learn fewer facts to wrap your head around industry as a whole.


So i get that you want to lower the complexity and stuff you need to wrap your head around to manifacture (not that i see any reason for that if any manufacturing is rather straight forward activity as it is), but my main consern is with invention. Maybe for ships those changes look great i agree with that, but with modules where you need maxed run BPC this increase of copy time will mean that we will require a looooot longer time to get a single copy that we can try inventing on. Are you not worried that this will create massive price change and will totaly break the current state of thing that you so desire not to mess to much with it. Using the same example Warp Disruptor I currently you need 4 days to get 20 max runed BPC, and with the new change you will require say 8 times longer for same result and efectively lowering all module inventors production capacity drasticaly.

As a manifacturer it makes no difference to me to be hones i will say a singe warp disruptor 8 times more expensive and will have the same isk/hour ratio but I dont think that general public will like the sudden increase in module pricess.





You no longer need a max run copy to invent, you only need one run and if the BPC has more it will decrement the run count by 1 (as with a build job) rather than consuming it :)
Orovana
Infinity Works
#455 - 2014-06-18 12:45:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Orovana
CCP Greyscale wrote:

You no longer need a max run copy to invent, you only need one run and if the BPC has more it will decrement the run count by 1 (as with a build job) rather than consuming it :)


I am sorry to keep poking the same topic but yet another question is rising.

So with the new system if i have 10run t1 BPC i will be able to invent 10 times from it and get potentualy 6-7 t2 10run BPC before that single t1 BPC runs out. Does this mean that the 100 max run BPC that i currently have will supply my invention for years to come, or will you change those BPC to 1 run BPC? How will you handle this transition?

And on the other hand, because your answer can be interpreted in 2 ways, if 10run t1 BPC produces 9run t2 BPC that mean that 300 run BPC will produce 299 run t2 BPC and as we all know we can make the chance go over 100% with decriptors meaning that the price for invention will drop drasticaly for modules.

Please dumb it down for me with example so i can get it correctly or point me to source where it is explained step by step
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#456 - 2014-06-18 13:14:31 UTC
Orovana wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

You no longer need a max run copy to invent, you only need one run and if the BPC has more it will decrement the run count by 1 (as with a build job) rather than consuming it :)


I am sorry to keep poking the same topic but yet another question is rising.

So with the new system if i have 10run t1 BPC i will be able to invent 10 times from it and get potentualy 6-7 t2 10run BPC before that single t1 BPC runs out. Does this mean that the 100 max run BPC that i currently have will supply my invention for years to come, or will you change those BPC to 1 run BPC? How will you handle this transition?

And on the other hand, because your answer can be interpreted in 2 ways, if 10run t1 BPC produces 9run t2 BPC that mean that 300 run BPC will produce 299 run t2 BPC and as we all know we can make the chance go over 100% with decriptors meaning that the price for invention will drop drasticaly for modules.

Please dumb it down for me with example so i can get it correctly or point me to source where it is explained step by step


I have a 10-run Tracking Computer I BPC. I successfully invent off it. I now have a 9-run Tracking Computer I BPC and a 10-run Tracking Computer II BPC.

I have a 10-run Omen BPC. I successfully invent off it. I now have a 9-run Omen BPC and a 1-run Zealot BPC.

Yes, your old stacked up BPCs will likely last you a while, enjoy :)
Elena Thiesant
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#457 - 2014-06-18 13:37:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Elena Thiesant
Invention chances are unchanged (at present) AFAIK

If you have a 300 run T1 BPC, you can use it for 300 separate invention jobs, each job removes 1 run and has the usual chance of successfully producing a max run T2 BPC.

So if you have a 45% chance of success for a module BPC, then you should, if you use that 300 run T1 module BPC for 300 separate invention jobs, get out around 135 T2 BPCs, each of 10 runs.
Elena Thiesant
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#458 - 2014-06-18 13:39:46 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Yes, your old stacked up BPCs will likely last you a while, enjoy :)


I know what I'm doing the couple weeks before Crius deploys. :-)
Orovana
Infinity Works
#459 - 2014-06-18 14:17:04 UTC
Elena Thiesant wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Yes, your old stacked up BPCs will likely last you a while, enjoy :)


I know what I'm doing the couple weeks before Crius deploys. :-)


Yep now I that this was my last invention job today. Long live module copyng ... well for next 5 weeks at least :)


John Henke
Decompression Services
#460 - 2014-06-18 15:54:47 UTC
I just invented a 75mm Gatling Rail II BPCs. Each of them had 10 runs (in the line max runs per BPC), but only 1 licensed production run remaining. So it is effectively a 1 run TII-BPC, not a 10run TII BPC.