These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#501 - 2014-07-01 06:16:59 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


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 :)



I see what You did there :)

Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
#502 - 2014-07-01 07:45:52 UTC
Max Kolonko wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


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 :)



I see what You did there :)


Yeah, me too. But I'm a bit worried if CCP is expecting too much. Will people really pick up industry? Even after these changes it still is tedious spreadsheet work with lots of clicking and even more moving parts than before.

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.
Grigori Annunaki
#503 - 2014-07-01 08:10:18 UTC
Noticing that the T2 light drone BPCs have a max run of 1. I'm hoping this is a typo. If not, what's the reasoning behind this change?
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#504 - 2014-07-01 09:58:11 UTC
Can we please keep SiSi feedback in the threads in Test Server Feedback? This thread is (at this point) just about the data in the latest CSV file. Thanks :)

(I ask in no small part because a lot of the questions being asked here have already been answered there multiple times.)
Grigori Annunaki
#505 - 2014-07-01 12:11:02 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Can we please keep SiSi feedback in the threads in Test Server Feedback? This thread is (at this point) just about the data in the latest CSV file. Thanks :)

(I ask in no small part because a lot of the questions being asked here have already been answered there multiple times.)

As of Draft 4, they were listed with a Max Run of 1. If there have been further revisions, I'd love to check them out.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#506 - 2014-07-01 13:17:44 UTC
Grigori Annunaki wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Can we please keep SiSi feedback in the threads in Test Server Feedback? This thread is (at this point) just about the data in the latest CSV file. Thanks :)

(I ask in no small part because a lot of the questions being asked here have already been answered there multiple times.)

As of Draft 4, they were listed with a Max Run of 1. If there have been further revisions, I'd love to check them out.


Oh, ok, sorry :)

...hahahah, ok, yeah, they got caught by an awkward rounding boundary in Excel, I was rounding them to the nearest hundred (ie, 0) and then taking the max of that and 1. Fixed to 10. Thanks :)
Alexander McKeon
Perkone
Caldari State
#507 - 2014-07-01 19:44:50 UTC
Two items that I've noticed:
A) T2 ship production is still largely bottlnecked by the number of armor plates needed, and the copy time & copy cost on those (given the high number) is such that it's still going to be optimum to produce from a set of BPOs. If this is an intended optimization case, all well and good but it seemed worth mentioning.

B) Mobile Warp Disruptors still have had such a large copy time reduction that I'm worried about the market for them crashing given the low volume demand. The long copy time is the only thing that has kept margins on those at all worthwhile, and that's being eliminated now.
Throwaway Sam Atild
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#508 - 2014-07-02 04:49:30 UTC
I’m hoping that if I do a bit more to explain my perspective on T2 Manufacturing it may help folks understand why I think adjusting T2 end-to-end (E2E) build times downward is a bad, bad, rotten idea.

I’m going to list some assumptions I’ve made, as the scope of the game is too large to consider every angle at once. In some of my past posts I think I’ve done a decent job of explaining why I feel the assumptions hold true at a global level, so I won’t hammer at them again. If you’d like me to explain them, I’d be more than happy to.

1. Demand for T2 modules is constant.
2. T2 module buyers are very resistant to fluctuations in price.
3. T2 builders will enter or leave the work-force based on what they earn.

Next is a list of the forces that may contribute to the price the work of building a module. If there was no work required and mats could be converted to goods with a thought, then the price of the goods would be less than or equal to the price of the materials.

1. Build time
In many cases production planning is done around the question of isk/time. Most T2 projects from modules up to battleships net a similar isk/hr value for work. This leads me to believe that build time is the over-riding factor in determining the value of work in most cases.

Build time is analogous to the amount of work available for new eden work-force (the players, not the NPC work-force). Because global demand is constant and build times are static, there is always a set amount of work to go around in the universe. If too many players try to get into production, the amount of goods in circulation rises and market prices drop. This means the pay for work drops globally. If producers quit the game or stop for other reasons, the price rise results in more incentive for others to take their place.

2. Risk
The potential threats to a T2 module producer are mostly negligible. Because the build time on jobs is less than 24 hours for any job you would build in a POS, a producer has time to complete all his jobs before any threat occurs from a high-sec war dec.

While I’m not an expert on the subject, I’m pretty sure most larger projects like jump freighters are built in stations. I believe that’s because the benefits to POS building are so low compared to the risk that it’s a no brainer rather than an interesting decision.

With Crius we see a reduction in build times and an uncertain effect on the benefits of POS production. The combination reduces risk for inventors, but since it was at zero to start with, risk will remain not a part of the production game.

3. Hurdles
These are barriers to production projects that once cleared are not any longer a barrier. In theory this should compartmentalize the work-force, causing the work-force for high-barrier items to be smaller. However, because the isk/hr on almost all modules (I can think of a single exception) up through JF’s is homogenous, it would appear the work-force is saturated at all levels so hurdles do not play a significant role.

a. isk-related
BPO cost and material cost start out as barriers to production. Module BPO’s with a few exceptions are inexpensive however. Material cost can be somewhat significant in certain cases.

b. mechanics related
POS anchoring and slot limitations has been a hurdle to would be producers in the past. These will be going away with Crius. However it doesn’t have any affect on the existing work-force, as they were set to build either way.

c. information related
T2 production requires a certain amount of player knowledge to execute. A smattering of items requires special levels of knowledge to build.

4. Game effort
A certain amount of actual gameplay is required for production, namely buying goods, transporting them and selling them again. This is a good type of effort and affects the cost of goods to some degree.

5. Interface effort
The click-fest. This represents the amount of effort expended wrestling with the games interface. There are actually production projects that break the across the board isk/hr rule (drones) simply because they are such a pain in the ass to install. I also consider logging in every four hours to start a new job a part of this. Game effort is good, interface effort is bad and should be completely removed. Unfortunately Crius is not removing any of this for the inventor.

6. Production cost
These are costs in addition to materials that go into building an item. To simplify things they can be treated as if they were part of the material cost

In the current version this is a fraction of POS fuel, if building from a POS.

In Crius this is going to also include the isk-sink production pay mechanics.

cont...
Throwaway Sam Atild
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#509 - 2014-07-02 04:50:41 UTC
Economics Lesson Over: Decision Time

Now that all that’s out of the way, lets take a look at one of the big changes to Crius that got tacked on after the dev blogs. The E2E time on most things below a cruiser hull is being reduced. In most cases these items had a 24hr E2E, which wasn’t a great situation to start with. Now they’ll be sitting as low as 4-6hrs. As far as I can tell, the only reason for this change is to make modules follow a sort of E2E requirement progression.

There are a host of good reasons to shift E2E downward. However three major bad things may happen, that could instead be major good things.

1. The amount of global work available is being decreased instead of increased. This is going to happen at the same time hurdles to production are removed. The result is going to be over-saturation of the work-force in the short term, which will drive down prices and drive away the potential new producers taking a first look from Crius. In the global picture, this doesn’t really have much effect on the market, it just means less people get to play the production game.

Instead lets pump up the amount of work available and bring in a bunch of new builders. What’s the point of doing an industry revamp if you don’t have players to use it!

2. The amount of risk for POS builders remains at or near zero. Pumping up E2E times, and possibly also buffing POS production benefits could be a brilliant gameplay move. Materials committed to a 72hr E2E or longer would trap those mats in space following a war-dec.

This move seems so in line with the other terrain changes that it seems baffling to not pursue it. Imagine a work team for 10mn afterburners is hired and moved to a system on June 5th. A 10 equipment array pos in that system suddenly becomes a pretty desirable target for a war-dec! Bonus points for CCP if they add a visual effect to the POS to indicate how many lines its got building, and more bonus points if you add the chance of it dropping mats in production when popped.

3. Worsening the click fest. Why? What have inventors done to you that you would want us to log in and install more frequently and click more? What kind of evil God would do that to us?

Reject the dark side and lengthen E2E times. As exciting as writing a bunch of new code for ‘chaining’ invention together might be, this would be a very elegant fix. Even a standard of 44hr E2E would make many people happy, as they would then install invention once a day and manufacturing once every two days.

Thanks for the read, those of you who stuck around.
lissl
Xevera
#510 - 2014-07-02 06:47:42 UTC
The only problem I have ever had with blueprints in all my years is the mineral requirements not being comma separated to make the amounts easy to read at a glance. Me and every Indy guy I know would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see this changed!
Tripple Cripple
Doomheim
#511 - 2014-07-02 10:10:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tripple Cripple
Noticed on Sisi that the build time on the Orca and the Dreads are the same now. About 17 days before skills. That is an increase of 2-3 days for a dread so not a big deal. The Orca that is not a real capital more of an in between BS and Capital gets the same treatment and goes from 7 days build time to 17 days. Is this intentional?

Edit: It should probably be half of the current time. 1500000s ≈ 17d ; 750000s ≈ 8d
sten mattson
Red Sky Morning
The Amarr Militia.
#512 - 2014-07-06 05:05:23 UTC
chages look good for the most part.

one big problem though for those who use BPOs as a corp resource:

as of right now corp theft is not really a problem since the BPO can be locked inside a station and you can still use the bpo for jobs in a POS eg copy - ME/TE - manufacturing.

with the new changes , you will have to first move the BPOs to the pos, and i have no problem with this. But you will also have to move them to the specific facility for the job- i.e you need to put the BPO in the ship assembly to build a ship from the BPO, or the BPO needs to be in the design lab to get copied.

what this means is that these blueprints cant be locked and saved from corp theft with these new changes since they will be needed for different things.

what i propose is that the blueprints still need to be brought to the actual POS, but only need to be in any hangar in the POS to be used for all facilities inside the POS.

i.e: all BPOs are locked inside the corp hangar array, and can be used for copying in the design lab or used for manufacturing in the assembly arrays.

IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!!
Kukihara Akachi
Doomheim
#513 - 2014-07-09 12:57:48 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Ealon Musque wrote:
Loraine Gess wrote:
[quote=Ealon Musque]
Is your point that one can get around the "chunkiness" issue by running batches of multiple Archons (in this case) in one production run?


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
...
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.


Any news on this, as this is really opposite to the whole idea of diminishing returns and steady progress in research? I just checked Moros blueprints, and per level you get the following saving of components:

0->1 = components saved: 0
1->2 = components saved: 0
2->3 = components saved: 0
3->4 = components saved: 6 (65 million saved)
4->5 = components saved: 2 (17 million saved)
5->6 = components saved: 2 (22 million saved)
6->7 = components saved: 3 (34.4 million saved)
7->8 = components saved: 3 (30.1 million saved)
8->9 = components saved: 0
9->10 = components saved: 6 (64.2 million saved)

Firstly, this is screwed because all those ME6 blueprints, that were researched to perfect ME, are no longer perfect ME. What's perfect already should remain perfect after the changes. (In case of Moros, that used to be ME6.)

Secondly, and more importantly, it's screwed because it's completely against what this industry revamp was supposed to do in terms of consistency, intuitiveness, and opaqueness. The original devblog stated that the changes introduce "a fixed number of researchable levels with identical bonuses but increasing research time." (that's direct quote). That's exactly not happening now. The same devblog also talked about making it more intuitive and transparent - quite the opposite here, too! In this case, the changes fail to do what they were supposed to do: to give a "pretty clear system that is easy to wrap your head around, works for pretty much everything".
Alexander McKeon
Perkone
Caldari State
#514 - 2014-07-09 20:24:45 UTC
I just checked the .csv, and the copy time for all R.A.M types is 25% longer than their build time, contrary to the stated plan; is this one of those intended special cases? I can't thing of a good reason for it to be one.
Ealon Musque
Capital Chaps
#515 - 2014-07-10 06:45:49 UTC
Kukihara Akachi wrote:
I just checked Moros blueprints, and per level you get the following saving of components:

0->1 = components saved: 0
1->2 = components saved: 0
2->3 = components saved: 0
3->4 = components saved: 6 (65 million saved)
4->5 = components saved: 2 (17 million saved)
5->6 = components saved: 2 (22 million saved)
6->7 = components saved: 3 (34.4 million saved)
7->8 = components saved: 3 (30.1 million saved)
8->9 = components saved: 0
9->10 = components saved: 6 (64.2 million saved)

Firstly, this is screwed because all those ME6 blueprints, that were researched to perfect ME, are no longer perfect ME. What's perfect already should remain perfect after the changes. (In case of Moros, that used to be ME6.)

Secondly, and more importantly, it's screwed because it's completely against what this industry revamp was supposed to do in terms of consistency, intuitiveness, and opaqueness. The original devblog stated that the changes introduce "a fixed number of researchable levels with identical bonuses but increasing research time." (that's direct quote). That's exactly not happening now. The same devblog also talked about making it more intuitive and transparent - quite the opposite here, too! In this case, the changes fail to do what they were supposed to do: to give a "pretty clear system that is easy to wrap your head around, works for pretty much everything".


Yeah, this is not good. Thanks for following up on my initial post about this. Looking forward to hearing how this will be tackled.
Kukihara Akachi
Doomheim
#516 - 2014-07-10 08:18:09 UTC
Ealon Musque wrote:
Yeah, this is not good. Thanks for following up on my initial post about this. Looking forward to hearing how this will be tackled.


My initial fix to this would be to do the same thing they did to fuel blocks: divide the construction parts size by 1/10 and multiply their number needed by 10.

But there's still the problem that our perfect ME blueprints are no longer perfect. That's definitely not cool.
Andrew Indy
Cleaning Crew
#517 - 2014-07-11 04:29:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrew Indy
I'm personally not a fan of having my Multi Month ME Blueprints converted into 5 minute jobs. I invested the time to get them to crazy levels to get a slight advantage and now any old fool can get up to my level with almost no effort (assuming they have 10 ME before the change).

PS, I wish I had researched my Archon to 10 before I noticed the change :(. On my way to 9ME now and then a 6 million year training to get to 10 to get that 60+ mil cost decrease.
Ealon Musque
Capital Chaps
#518 - 2014-07-12 00:11:20 UTC
Kukihara Akachi wrote:
Ealon Musque wrote:
Yeah, this is not good. Thanks for following up on my initial post about this. Looking forward to hearing how this will be tackled.


My initial fix to this would be to do the same thing they did to fuel blocks: divide the construction parts size by 1/10 and multiply their number needed by 10.


I think I agree. Simplest solution.
Shahai Shintaro
State War Academy
Caldari State
#519 - 2014-07-14 19:06:47 UTC
There any update with this or do we still need to bulk build caps to be back to what we currently have?
Kukihara Akachi
Doomheim
#520 - 2014-07-16 06:16:17 UTC
No, it seems that they'll just do it like this.