These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#481 - 2014-06-27 19:19:37 UTC
Rionan Nafee wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
you no longer need maxrun BPCs for invention, each invention only consumes a single run from the bpc

you should be able to switch to BPOs without any issues, they are cheap, need little research and, come crius, have a bunch of advantages

We dont need the BPCs for invention but for regular mass production.

Why we should buy and research additional 9 BPOs for each ammunition type because CCP changes the attributes for no reason at all? In particular the research in the POS needs additional money.

A few time ago CCP said that the copy time would be shorter because it will no longer be possible to remote procudtion at POS so you can use BPCs instead of BPOs to lower the risk of destroying. Why now this massive change in the complete other direction?



Ammo BPOs requiring a minimal investment of 5m to be useful. "MASSIVE CHANGE"...
Pic'n dor
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#482 - 2014-06-28 02:22:48 UTC
Did some manufacturing time were changed ?

I can see some really big change in manufacturing time with some BP...

ex : Rapid Light Missile Launcher I
1 run on TQ : 6min24sec
1 run on Sisi : 19min12sec
100 run on Sisi : rounded 1d8h > 19min20sec (no multiple run effect)

+300%


COUCOU TOUCHE TOUCHE
Jin d'SaanGo
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#483 - 2014-06-29 08:59:16 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
...
Rank selection:
- Mods are 3/6/9 for S/M/L, 6 for all "unsized" mods, 40 for capital mods, and 10x larger for T2
...


I'm not sure if it's worth having a look at since I don't know if there are still any blueprints around: there are not just "small", "medium", "large" and "xl" modules, there is also the tiny group of "micro" modules (for example Micro Capacitor Booster I).
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#484 - 2014-06-29 09:43:04 UTC
Jin d'SaanGo wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
...
Rank selection:
- Mods are 3/6/9 for S/M/L, 6 for all "unsized" mods, 40 for capital mods, and 10x larger for T2
...


I'm not sure if it's worth having a look at since I don't know if there are still any blueprints around: there are not just "small", "medium", "large" and "xl" modules, there is also the tiny group of "micro" modules (for example Micro Capacitor Booster I).



The blueprints do not exist anymore, no.
Altessa Post
Midnight special super sexy
#485 - 2014-06-29 16:15:51 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Altessa Post wrote:
How reliable are the SiSi numbers?

Comparing some blueprints between SiSI and TQ showed some unexpected changes and an increase in cost.

One ( I did not check more) BC and one BS were about 10% more expensive on SiSi.
One Marauder was 23% more expensive.
One carrier was around 10% more expensive.
One JF was 28% more expensive to build.

Intentional?

I actually never like when prices increase. Believe it or not, noobies still start with empty pockets. Increasing prices with every second release feels a bit unfair.

Building a marauder suddenly required additional minerals. Why?
The JF needed new capital parts...


- Showinfo is inaccurate, you need to check the industry window for actual values.
- Some T2 things have the build cost for the T1 prerequisite rolled into their costs currently, this is a bug.


I send a marauder BPC into the machinery and yes it was 16% more expensive. Especially the job cost of 26 mio surprised me. I know that you have many numbers to juggle. Yet, I think increasing prices from release to release is not a good thing.

Additionally, the manufacturing window does not look good.
Could you please sort materials in alphabetical order. That you group materials is ok, but then why having a kind of random order inside a group... Plus, nothing against icons but these things have a name and not everybody recognizes ingredients by their look. Here, you increase complexity for beginners. Rounding numbers feels also not so good because in the end, I need the real numbers.


On the internet, you can be whatever you want to be. It is amazing that so many people chose to be stupid.
Altessa Post
Midnight special super sexy
#486 - 2014-06-29 18:27:11 UTC
On the positive side, let me also mention that I really like how you visualize the workflow involved in production. This looks good and will probably help to win more pilots over to production.

On the internet, you can be whatever you want to be. It is amazing that so many people chose to be stupid.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#487 - 2014-06-30 10:26:22 UTC
Pic'n dor wrote:
Did some manufacturing time were changed ?

I can see some really big change in manufacturing time with some BP...

ex : Rapid Light Missile Launcher I
1 run on TQ : 6min24sec
1 run on Sisi : 19min12sec
100 run on Sisi : rounded 1d8h > 19min20sec (no multiple run effect)

+300%




Yup, some times probably changed. This is all part of getting things into a unified system rather than being ad-hoc.

Jin d'SaanGo wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
...
Rank selection:
- Mods are 3/6/9 for S/M/L, 6 for all "unsized" mods, 40 for capital mods, and 10x larger for T2
...


I'm not sure if it's worth having a look at since I don't know if there are still any blueprints around: there are not just "small", "medium", "large" and "xl" modules, there is also the tiny group of "micro" modules (for example Micro Capacitor Booster I).


As Loraine said, I don't believe the blueprints are in circulation. Generally they're all treated as smalls, with the exception of some of the shield mods which are ranked as medium. (The math I'm doing is to scale off power grid usage, and treat items with a power draw of less than 2 as "unsized" and therefore medium-sized; most micro stuff is low-power-use, but the shield stuff is all PG1 so it's tripping the "unsized" check.)

Altessa Post wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Altessa Post wrote:
How reliable are the SiSi numbers?

Comparing some blueprints between SiSI and TQ showed some unexpected changes and an increase in cost.

One ( I did not check more) BC and one BS were about 10% more expensive on SiSi.
One Marauder was 23% more expensive.
One carrier was around 10% more expensive.
One JF was 28% more expensive to build.

Intentional?

I actually never like when prices increase. Believe it or not, noobies still start with empty pockets. Increasing prices with every second release feels a bit unfair.

Building a marauder suddenly required additional minerals. Why?
The JF needed new capital parts...


- Showinfo is inaccurate, you need to check the industry window for actual values.
- Some T2 things have the build cost for the T1 prerequisite rolled into their costs currently, this is a bug.


I send a marauder BPC into the machinery and yes it was 16% more expensive. Especially the job cost of 26 mio surprised me. I know that you have many numbers to juggle. Yet, I think increasing prices from release to release is not a good thing.

Additionally, the manufacturing window does not look good.
Could you please sort materials in alphabetical order. That you group materials is ok, but then why having a kind of random order inside a group... Plus, nothing against icons but these things have a name and not everybody recognizes ingredients by their look. Here, you increase complexity for beginners. Rounding numbers feels also not so good because in the end, I need the real numbers.




This is because of a bug with the "recycled" db flag. This sort of stuff really belongs in the SiSi feedback threads :)
Maruk Ihnati
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#488 - 2014-06-30 12:37:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Maruk Ihnati
Are materials required on Invented items on SiSi accurate?

I invented and manufactured just to be sure it's not a display bug. It used the amount of materials stated in the show info. I hope it's not final.

And just to make it clear, it is a 100% increase.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#489 - 2014-06-30 13:42:53 UTC
Maruk Ihnati wrote:
Are materials required on Invented items on SiSi accurate?

I invented and manufactured just to be sure it's not a display bug. It used the amount of materials stated in the show info. I hope it's not final.

And just to make it clear, it is a 100% increase.


Depends which items. If they're requiring T1 parts, no, that's a bug I'm fixing. Otherwise, again, depends what it is :)
Maruk Ihnati
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#490 - 2014-06-30 14:07:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Maruk Ihnati
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Maruk Ihnati wrote:
Are materials required on Invented items on SiSi accurate?

I invented and manufactured just to be sure it's not a display bug. It used the amount of materials stated in the show info. I hope it's not final.

And just to make it clear, it is a 100% increase.


Depends which items. If they're requiring T1 parts, no, that's a bug I'm fixing. Otherwise, again, depends what it is :)


It dose not require t1 parts.

I sent you a mail. This is not something to give more details about it it's intentional.
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
#491 - 2014-06-30 14:10:06 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
we'd prefer more rather than fewer markets to be priced by invention rather than BPOs.


If you want more inventors on the playing field then why are you lowering the manufacturing times of the BPO's?

Numbers:

Currently on TQ it takes me 131 minutes to manufacture one 400mm armor plate and 32 minutes to manufacture one thermic plating. After the Crius changes they both will take me 25 minutes to manufacture one module.

Doesn't make sense. Then again those two modules are really not hot sellers so perhaps it just doesn't matter.

Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene.
Ealon Musque
Capital Chaps
#492 - 2014-06-30 14:48:07 UTC
@CCP Greyscale: Did you see my post about Capital Ship BPOs above?
Robert71
Finanzamt Hannover-Mitte
#493 - 2014-06-30 16:15:44 UTC
Quote:
- We are erring on the side of preserving the status quo in invention over preserving the status quo for T2 BPOs; note that, as previous point, we are not specifically targeting T2 BPOs in any particular way
- Removal of negative TE/ME probably requires an increase in T2 build costs to balance out component demand before and after


... that means: A T2-BPC will manufacture with the same Cost with ML-0 like ME-4 before
... but that means: A T2-BPO will manufacture with the same bad costs like an BPC
... but you say: "...are not specifically targeting T2 BPOs in any particular way"

20% more waste is not targeting T2 BPO's ? very interresting. Maybe I must be I a Viking to understand this statement.

---

Another "Improvement": Currently every time I don't produce I research my Cap-BPO's. But now the test-server tells me:
Archon ML-9 => ML-10 297 Days
.... so currently anytime I got a perfect BPO but after this patch I'll never get a ME-10 because I really don't like to block the BPO for about one year.
Ealon Musque
Capital Chaps
#494 - 2014-06-30 16:25:40 UTC
Robert71 wrote:
*snip*

Another "Improvement": Currently every time I don't produce I research my Cap-BPO's. But now the test-server tells me:
Archon ML-9 => ML-10 297 Days
.... so currently anytime I got a perfect BPO but after this patch I'll never get a ME-10 because I really don't like to block the BPO for about one year.


This would not be so bad if the difference between ME9 and ME10 was to go from 99.75% to 100% efficiency. But as I showed above, the difference is in fact more than 5%! So you have to research it - but wait, it takes a year. Why bother anymore?
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
#495 - 2014-06-30 17:22:06 UTC
CCP Greyscale, after reading this thread most of my questions here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4759660#post4759660 are answered.

But I still would like to get back to the issue of exact numbers. Currently it takes 2 days and 6 hours to manufacture a batch of 100000 ammo, any size. After Crius hits TQ the times for medium and large ammo will be drastically longer. 4 days 12 hours and 6 days 18 hours respectively. What is the logic behind such a large difference in manufacturing times between various sizes of ammo?

Also the absolute time of making 100000 L size ammo is almost a week. Does that really make sense to you? I mean 100000 units of ammo can easily be consumed by one person in a shorter time than that.

Note. For me the 100000 units is the basic size for a manufacturing batch, I use it about 95% of the time.

Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#496 - 2014-06-30 18:14:23 UTC
Ealon Musque wrote:
Loraine Gess wrote:
Ealon Musque wrote:

Is your point that one can get around the "chunkiness" issue by running batches of multiple Archons (in this case) in one production run?



Unless you think it would be less clunky by having all the components be multiples of 3, with smaller numbers overall.


I am sorry, I must be really bad, because I don't even understand whether you are agreeing with me, disagreeing with me or making an alternative proposal.

I thought I'd clarify my example - maybe that will help us along:

Archon Bill of Materials:
Capital Drone Bay......................... 44
Capital Armor Plates.................... 11
Capital Capacitor Battery............. 11
Capital Power Generator............. 11
Capital Jump Drive....................... 11
Capital Ship Maintenance Bay.... 11
Capital Corporate Hangar Bay.....11
all other components....................<10

First of all, note that any items that occur on the Bill of Materials with less than 10 units will be unaffected even by ME10 (unless running batches let's you recover partial gains - but the batch size of Archon BPCs is 1).

Second, the only item on the entire Bill of Materials that is affected before ME10 are the Capital Drone Bays. So you save one of those when reaching ME3, another at ME5 and another at ME7. This is the only effect you get from ME research at all before reacing ME10, At ME10, however, you get enormous savings, because you save one of each of Drone Bay, Armor Plates, Capacitor Battery, Power Generator, Jump Drive, Maintenance Bay and Hangar Bay.

So, to summarize, ME0-9 saves you a total of 3 Drone Bays (the cheapest components), whereas ME10 alone saves 7 different components. This is the "chunkiness effect".


Yup, there is some weirdness in this sort of thing, and there's not really a good obvious solution if we want to keep per-job rounding (which we generally do). I'll try and make time to have another look at this later.

Robert71 wrote:
Quote:
- We are erring on the side of preserving the status quo in invention over preserving the status quo for T2 BPOs; note that, as previous point, we are not specifically targeting T2 BPOs in any particular way
- Removal of negative TE/ME probably requires an increase in T2 build costs to balance out component demand before and after


... that means: A T2-BPC will manufacture with the same Cost with ML-0 like ME-4 before
... but that means: A T2-BPO will manufacture with the same bad costs like an BPC
... but you say: "...are not specifically targeting T2 BPOs in any particular way"

20% more waste is not targeting T2 BPO's ? very interresting. Maybe I must be I a Viking to understand this statement.

---

Another "Improvement": Currently every time I don't produce I research my Cap-BPO's. But now the test-server tells me:
Archon ML-9 => ML-10 297 Days
.... so currently anytime I got a perfect BPO but after this patch I'll never get a ME-10 because I really don't like to block the BPO for about one year.


Not specifically targeting T2 BPOs, yes. They're obviously affected, but they're not a factor in the decision-making process.

Yes, there's no partial research in the current implementation. Whether it's worth going to 10 is a decision that's up to you.

Sable Moran wrote:
CCP Greyscale, after reading this thread most of my questions here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4759660#post4759660 are answered.

But I still would like to get back to the issue of exact numbers. Currently it takes 2 days and 6 hours to manufacture a batch of 100000 ammo, any size. After Crius hits TQ the times for medium and large ammo will be drastically longer. 4 days 12 hours and 6 days 18 hours respectively. What is the logic behind such a large difference in manufacturing times between various sizes of ammo?

Also the absolute time of making 100000 L size ammo is almost a week. Does that really make sense to you? I mean 100000 units of ammo can easily be consumed by one person in a shorter time than that.

Note. For me the 100000 units is the basic size for a manufacturing batch, I use it about 95% of the time.


So firstly, it's worth noting that there are various new ways to reduce build times. That said, yes, your output of ammo per-character is going to go down. We don't feel particularly strongly about this either way, particularly as there's now no slot limitation, and while it reduces the ability for a relatively small number of people to supply the entire market, it also reduces the ability for a relatively small number of people to supply the entire market :)
Luci Lu
Combined Industries Institute
#497 - 2014-06-30 18:45:37 UTC
Quote:
Yup, there is some weirdness in this sort of thing, and there's not really a good obvious solution if we want to keep per-job rounding (which we generally do). I'll try and make time to have another look at this later.



why not as usual multiply the number with some 10-100 and and change bpos/size accordingly?
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#498 - 2014-06-30 19:12:01 UTC
Luci Lu wrote:
Quote:
Yup, there is some weirdness in this sort of thing, and there's not really a good obvious solution if we want to keep per-job rounding (which we generally do). I'll try and make time to have another look at this later.



why not as usual multiply the number with some 10-100 and and change bpos/size accordingly?



Pretty much this, although it creates some additional... funsies Roll

Not sure I'm a fan of the longer downtimes as we wait for the batch script to convert another billion stacks of stuff into other stuff, but I guess I'd live.

Taking the current "10" multiple and making it a "100" multiple solves uh, just about every issue I can imagine. Even the ones that aren't issues but people think they are. As I said, though, it creates issues involving the volume of capital parts... which is currently in a sensible, workable state.
Luci Lu
Combined Industries Institute
#499 - 2014-06-30 19:28:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Luci Lu
well if you run the batch script you can reduce the size of the components accordingly.


but i somehow doubt that anything will happen and ccp likes to **** me over with way higher building costs :)

but then the line from the research devblog is a lie for caps

Quote:
Our current line of thinking is to do the math such that no currently researched blueprint gets any worse in terms of the bonus it provides (weird anomalies like fuel blocks getting a general TE nerf notwithstanding).
Hashi Lebwohl
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#500 - 2014-06-30 22:58:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Hashi Lebwohl
I've been of SISI tonight. These are my observations:

1. I was going to suggest that the total cost of a production would good to display – then I found it in the pop-up on the spanner adjacent to the bpo. So instead I would suggest that this figure is made a permanent displayed figure so that you can immediately see in isk terms the changes to cost as different facilities/options are selected. Further this figure should be colour coded (red – green would be my preference but I can imagine the colour blind issues) in comparison to the average sales value of that item with a pop-up that displays the profit percentage.

CCP Seagull wrote:

If you have been fascinated by the market and industry aspects of EVE Online but not tried this area of EVE yet, Crius is the time to jump in!


2. I do not know if CCP Seagull really believes this, or has not been briefed properly. For anyone starting in Empire the obvious place to commence manufacturing would be in a station. With the 25% ME and TE bonuses from POS that would horribly wrong – one of the reasons for the first suggestion is that at least there would be something red, maybe flashing, indicating that, in the majority of cases, the product they were about to make would be more expensive than for sale on the market.

The advantages of a POS over an Empire station is completely broken. In Empire, at least, you appear to be swapping the limited resource of manufacturing/research slots for the limited resource of moon occupancy. From my perspective this is almost as bad as the perma-slot hogging that happened when Eve first started.

CCP Greyscale wrote:

We are erring on the side of preserving the status quo in invention over preserving the status quo for T2 BPOs; note that, as previous point, we are not specifically targeting T2 BPOs in any particular way


3. You are not kidding me. I do not think there is a good solution to T2 ship manufacturing in Empire post patch from a bpo.

The changes to production times for T2 ships - tripling the base time so that, for instance a wolf bpo makes 8 ships per week post patch compared to current 24 really hurts - In a POS you can get this to 10 if you are prepared to risk the bpo. Copying in a station and you are back to 8 1 run bpc's per week. The manufacturing costs in a station, at the 25% penalty, makes the result unprofitable but, as the ships are limited in number cannot justify the POS costs.

So either the Bpo moves to an Outpost / POS in 0.0 or it gathers dust – I rather think that is your intention.

4. Please tell me that the POS “you need to get with 3000m to access” is a bug and this “feature” is not returning.