These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Veinnail
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#541 - 2014-08-10 15:05:26 UTC
all of the various t2 ship trees follow a certain conformity of material needs.
meaning all four of each t2 variant uses the same component list.

The exception i've noticed is the command ships, eos and astarte deviate from this pattern.

the following links are side by side comparison of the two tiers of command ships.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/108852864/Commands.JPG

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/108852864/Commands2.JPG

was this intentional?

FYI: crossposted to Crius issues thread as well.
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
#542 - 2014-08-11 13:12:01 UTC
Kukihara Akachi wrote:
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".


This has bugged me especially, I had a perfect Moros BPO, that literally could not get any better, and now I need to spend over 250 days to get it back into the same position it was in before.

Whilst I understand the overal conversion rules, outright gimping every single existing blueprint and demanding people spend almost a year simply to put it back in the same position is very crappy and unfair.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#543 - 2014-09-01 15:31:17 UTC
Veinnail wrote:
all of the various t2 ship trees follow a certain conformity of material needs.
meaning all four of each t2 variant uses the same component list.

The exception i've noticed is the command ships, eos and astarte deviate from this pattern.

the following links are side by side comparison of the two tiers of command ships.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/108852864/Commands.JPG

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/108852864/Commands2.JPG

was this intentional?

FYI: crossposted to Crius issues thread as well.


Eos and Astarte are backwards because the Eos was the fleet command but also the drone boat, so it got the Myrm hull, whereas for the other races the old fleet commands kept their original hull. It's odd but I'm not sure unifying it justifies the disruption it'd cause.