These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Researching, the Future

First post First post First post
Author
Proton Power
Evolution
Northern Coalition.
#541 - 2014-04-29 21:16:38 UTC
Question, sorry if asked already:

T2 Component BPO's. Currently they need very little research to hit "Perfect". After patch how will that work and what would be optimal now to get them to Perfect after patch?
Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#542 - 2014-04-29 21:22:11 UTC
Proton Power wrote:
Question, sorry if asked already:

T2 Component BPO's. Currently they need very little research to hit "Perfect". After patch how will that work and what would be optimal now to get them to Perfect after patch?


The current plan for Antimater Reactors (small example):
Current Research: ME 1 is perfect
New Research: ME (or renamed equivalent) 1 is perfect

If you only need a little research rounding will make things work nicely for you again.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#543 - 2014-04-29 21:54:50 UTC
When it comes to BPO and especially copies, ME and PE are the differentiators of quality.

Regardless of whether a BPO has no research, some research, is perfect (no material waste), or over-researched, losing the real or apparent quality removes something from game-play.

Worse, if the conversion from old to new M.E./P.E. does not take this into account, literally decades of research effort (time & ISK) will be lost. As well this will greatly devalue the BPO.
Odoya
Aeon Abraxas
#544 - 2014-04-29 21:56:17 UTC
One of the aspects I enjoyed most about T2 production was that it required genuine study. It is one facet of gameplay, in terms of market dynamics, that rewards those who study the market in mathmatical terms. The relationship between T2 product, T2 parts, Moon goos etc is a much more fascinating element of industry than simple T1 production, which has much less room for game play genius.

The T2 process has been what has kept me engaged in Eve. While you won't find me trying to explain this to friends and family, I've spent 100's of hours writing analytical programs around T2 production and even used the output for upper end math course requirements. And, I'm not really a math guy either.

But all of this is to say, math as it pertains T2 market production rewards a playstyle that isn't traditional PVP for those of us who plae compared to others in terms of PVP skills and computer hardware. "Idiot's Guides to T2" production do not really exist because one has to be able to discern the dynamic game play that exists between T2 production cycles and market dynamics. In part, because of the sophisticated math, T2 production isn't subject ot the same flattening effects of game dynamics readily seen in other MMOs because of the math itself (at least in part).

There is an historical basis for this observation because you can trace all the way back to the first MUDs like Richard Bartle's "British Legends" to see that puzzles or other intellectual studies in a game become easy to publish beyond the intent of the game design. We see this with mission reports in Eve and so simplying the math basic is a game spoiler, or risks being a game spoiler. Of course, this is, in part, an argument from some notion of systems justification theory - my hard work and effort to this point loses its competitive edge. It is a loss of game resource, again potentially.

The reason I mention this that other CCP attempts to adjust or balance game play have been mediocre when it comes to balancing T1/ T2 - such as the introduction of additional compoenents to offset the politics of 0.0 moon goos, or these convoluted BPOs that list material requirements in different sections now.

Does this mean the proposed changes will be the same? Maybe not. But the CCP historical track record is dubious, sometimes *great* sometimes mediocre - and what is the commitment to keeping T2 production at the forefront of development goals?

Admittedly obscure, the T2 market place is accessible to those who want to study it and because of this reward for genuine critical thinking, it motivates repeat game play and subscription renewals for at least me.

And, are you really saying you're going to remove remote building from stations into local system POSes? The post seems rather sneaky in that alarming statement. The trade off in game play will be that I spend much more busy time flying around vs figuring out BPO math. Does that make sense? How do you not see that as a game demotivtaor? It's a new form of busy work with no reward. T2 invention has enough busy work as it is.

Consider adding in the ability to batch manage jobs or stack builds better over time, or to see who is hogging up production slots in a station for weeks at a time. Any of those meet the spirit of hyper capitalism.
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#545 - 2014-04-29 22:26:21 UTC
Two comments from a none industrialist.


Maybe you should take the opportunity you have while making all these changes to do a couple things.

One if you wanted for invention instead of Max Run BPC giving the best chances. Why not change it to a 10 run BPC gives the best chance? Seems like that could smooth out some of the edge cases, and future proof it a bit.

Second, maybe you don't want to have something that takes 2.5 ish times as long as the game has existed to research to perfect. Maybe make it 5-10 years for a max titan. Then adjust everything else downwards in relationship to that new max?
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#546 - 2014-04-29 22:32:15 UTC
As far as I know (from the metagame) T2 BPO's take forever to research and it is better to just build of them,

but with the soon to be released new Blueprint research they will be moved to a ten-step system.

At what Rank will CCP put T2 BPO's ?

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#547 - 2014-04-29 22:32:20 UTC
Sir HyperChrist wrote:
The new setup changes this to a 0.75 timefactor on copy speed, after which production time is irrelevant due to parrallel jobs

I lose 1-0.6/0.75 = 0.2 = 20% drones produced per unit time.

Sorry, but you're going to have to explain this a bit more. How can production time be irrelevant to a discussion on units produced per hour?

MDD
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#548 - 2014-04-29 22:54:27 UTC
Odoya wrote:
One of the aspects I enjoyed most about T2 production was that it required genuine study. It is one facet of gameplay, in terms of market dynamics, that rewards those who study the market in mathmatical terms. The relationship between T2 product, T2 parts, Moon goos etc is a much more fascinating element of industry than simple T1 production, which has much less room for game play genius.

The T2 process has been what has kept me engaged in Eve. While you won't find me trying to explain this to friends and family, I've spent 100's of hours writing analytical programs around T2 production and even used the output for upper end math course requirements. And, I'm not really a math guy either.

But all of this is to say, math as it pertains T2 market production rewards a playstyle that isn't traditional PVP for those of us who plae compared to others in terms of PVP skills and computer hardware. "Idiot's Guides to T2" production do not really exist because one has to be able to discern the dynamic game play that exists between T2 production cycles and market dynamics. In part, because of the sophisticated math, T2 production isn't subject ot the same flattening effects of game dynamics readily seen in other MMOs because of the math itself (at least in part).

There is an historical basis for this observation because you can trace all the way back to the first MUDs like Richard Bartle's "British Legends" to see that puzzles or other intellectual studies in a game become easy to publish beyond the intent of the game design. We see this with mission reports in Eve and so simplying the math basic is a game spoiler, or risks being a game spoiler. Of course, this is, in part, an argument from some notion of systems justification theory - my hard work and effort to this point loses its competitive edge. It is a loss of game resource, again potentially.

The reason I mention this that other CCP attempts to adjust or balance game play have been mediocre when it comes to balancing T1/ T2 - such as the introduction of additional compoenents to offset the politics of 0.0 moon goos, or these convoluted BPOs that list material requirements in different sections now.

Does this mean the proposed changes will be the same? Maybe not. But the CCP historical track record is dubious, sometimes *great* sometimes mediocre - and what is the commitment to keeping T2 production at the forefront of development goals?

Admittedly obscure, the T2 market place is accessible to those who want to study it and because of this reward for genuine critical thinking, it motivates repeat game play and subscription renewals for at least me.

And, are you really saying you're going to remove remote building from stations into local system POSes? The post seems rather sneaky in that alarming statement. The trade off in game play will be that I spend much more busy time flying around vs figuring out BPO math. Does that make sense? How do you not see that as a game demotivtaor? It's a new form of busy work with no reward. T2 invention has enough busy work as it is.

Consider adding in the ability to batch manage jobs or stack builds better over time, or to see who is hogging up production slots in a station for weeks at a time. Any of those meet the spirit of hyper capitalism.

I agree. I am hoping that CCP does not touch invention too much, as it is the one area were things are currently working very nicely (not considering the effects of T2 BPOs), with the complexity which is necessary to make you have to use your mind to work out the best production chains. I really hope they will not dumb it down in the next science iteration.
Galmalmin
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#549 - 2014-04-29 23:20:11 UTC
I confess, I only read the first 7 pages of this forum.

My only concern here is in regard to those that have made a business of researching BPO's to sell the BPC's.

Most of us know that someone purchasing a BPC seeing a ME 90 and a ME 91 for the same price will purchase the ME 91. An industry / market exists based on that. Your proposal removes that industry / market without providing a way for those in that industry / market to continue.

This is not a concern I have for me and or my toons (yes, TOONS), nor for those that I am familiar with. I, however, do not wish others to lose out because of a change CCP has decided needs to happen.

CCP, you have been made aware of the situation, if you were not already, and you need to provide a solution that does not disenfranchise those that have been in that industry / market. I, not being completely stupid, do not see an easy fix here.

Have a great day.

Galmalmin
ST Mahan
Doomheim
#550 - 2014-04-29 23:27:44 UTC
So the copy time will be based off of the production time. Is the production time the TE 0 from the BPO or is the copy time scaled to match the TE level of the BPO being copied? The later would be preferable so that the copying of expensive BPO's to make BPC's for use in POS's does not get bogged down by the copy time.



Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#551 - 2014-04-29 23:29:46 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Feedback:

... very long post from me pushing for preservation of research time invested, not preservation of waste%


The concern we have with the constant-time solution is that a lot of people's blueprints will get worse (stats-wise) after the change, which seemed like a bigger source of anger than people losing time but getting better blueprints in the process.

And yeah, I think we may revisit T2 BPO copy times



Lots of things get worse stats wise over time. Just look at the Rubicon 1.3 Omnidirectional nerf for drone boats.

That affected me and made my favorite ship's stats worse. Does not mean that it was not the right change to make for the future of the game. (The Rubicon 1.4 one, however... /vomit)

Better to mildly annoy a few people that are already invested in the game now, than to create a situation where future players feel they can never compete with grandfathered-in blueprints of ships like freighters.

I gave the example of battleships in my post which was a poor decision (as many ME 43+ BS BPOs exist, and so it is plausible for people to research 10% ME BS BPOs in future).

Consider instead the Charon. Run a quick check on how many people own ME 10 or higher Charon BPOs or own ME 9 ones that could be made to ME 10 by patch day. Those represent about 2 years of research.

Now look at the post-change requirements to ever create a new 'perfect' Charon blueprint. It will take something like 7 years of research.

If there's one thing the tech 2 BPO debacle should teach you, it is that irreplaceable items grandfathered in from earlier game rulesets that provide a significant permanent economic advantage are not good for the game economy.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Sigras
Conglomo
#552 - 2014-04-29 23:30:55 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Medalyn Isis wrote:

Greyscale, I have two major issues of concern with these changes.

The first you have already addressed, in regards to the T2 BPC copy time and further proliferation into T2 Invention markets. If anything, my opinion is T2 BPOs need to be nerfed, and certainly not buffed. It is not fun finding out a lot of markets for certain items are simply out of your reach when it comes to efficient T2 manufacturing if you don't have the T2 BPO.

The second thing, this issue with only 10 levels is far to much of a blanket approach. Did you consider increasing the level count to perhaps 100 instead of 10 as mentioned. This would allow for current BPOs to be much more accurately represented in the new system, which seem to be a source of much pain with this current 10 level blanket approach you are taking. And also, researching thing from level 9 to 10 could mean a BPO and research slot is locked up for years. Making this a 100 level system would massively alleviate this and make a lot more sense.


Yes, we did talk about it, and it does result in a nicer mapping from old to new. We'd generally prefer not to, though, as a) it's also preserving some of the complexity of the old system (not by much, granted, but simpler = better all other things being equal), and b) honestly it looks much cleaner in the UI just showing whole numbers. It's still a pretty easy thing to switch back mechanically, so we might revisit before release.

I agree simple == better all other things being equal. The problem is that all other things are not equal.

I talked about earlier how massive a 1% bonus is in industry and how rounding up to the nearest 1% just isnt acceptable. A 100 level system just makes far more sense, and I believe it will ameliorate the hostile attitude toward this change.

giving people up to 0.9% efficiency for free just seems terrible to me as does normalizing everyone who has researched their BPOs to > ME 20

Im also going to state that I believe the old system is far better from a gameplay standpoint as nobody was ever "done" researching their BPO, it could always get just a little bit better (at least > cruiser BPOs)

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#553 - 2014-04-29 23:36:56 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Medalyn Isis wrote:
Greyscale, I have two major issues of concern with these changes.

The first you have already addressed, in regards to the T2 BPC copy time and further proliferation into T2 Invention markets. If anything, my opinion is T2 BPOs need to be nerfed, and certainly not buffed. It is not fun finding out a lot of markets for certain items are simply out of your reach when it comes to efficient T2 manufacturing if you don't have the T2 BPO.

The second thing, this issue with only 10 levels is far to much of a blanket approach. Did you consider increasing the level count to perhaps 100 instead of 10 as mentioned. This would allow for current BPOs to be much more accurately represented in the new system, which seem to be a source of much pain with this current 10 level blanket approach you are taking. And also, researching thing from level 9 to 10 could mean a BPO and research slot is locked up for years. Making this a 100 level system would massively alleviate this and make a lot more sense.


Yes, we did talk about it, and it does result in a nicer mapping from old to new. We'd generally prefer not to, though, as a) it's also preserving some of the complexity of the old system (not by much, granted, but simpler = better all other things being equal), and b) honestly it looks much cleaner in the UI just showing whole numbers. It's still a pretty easy thing to switch back mechanically, so we might revisit before release.

I see what you mean about things looking cleaner in the AI with only ten levels. Although it would still look pretty good if you were to use a percentage type bar giving a visual indication of the ME research, with the hard data in another tab.

Another benefit of using 100 as your figure, is then people will intuitively relate that to percentage of BPO researched. So I think this would actually be possibly more intuitive and better for the UI that ten levels.

The extra complexity is again something which I am very happy with, and like you say, it is only marginally more complex, and much less complex than the current system.

The only issue I can see, which I see was also mentioned above, is how were you thinking about relating the new levels to time to research? If the BPO ME level is switched to 100 levels instead of 10, then presumably we would still want to keep the gradient in times being much quicker initially and much longer for later levels. I think it would definitely work, but would probably need a new formula for working out skill training times instead of imposing the skill level formula which is currently planned.



The formula would just become

'each step takes 2^0.125 times as long as the one before it'

instead of

'each step takes 2^1.25 times as long as the one before it'.

(then renormalized at the end). Could be calculated on an Excel spreadsheet inside 2 mintues.


The drawback to doing that is that the proposed system allows only 121 states for BPOs (122 if you count 'unresearched, packaged' as different to 'unresearched, unpackaged'), making it somewhat plausible to have them on the market (second-hand) in the future. Your proposal allows 10201/10202 states which definitively kills that possibility.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Dukt Tapir
MasterWizards
Dark Taboo
#554 - 2014-04-30 00:50:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Dukt Tapir
I seriously feel shafted with this change. I have years of research invested in specific collections of BPO's that have become quite valuable. Now they will be little more value than someone who has spent much less time in the process of training. My competitive advantage when building certain items is likely to disappear.

I understand a simpler approach, but would indicate that T2 and T3 products are already very complicated to build and likely keep new users from getting involved without dealing with the training of the BPO's.

Seriously, you are breaking mechanisms that have been around and built on for years simply to make the process simpler. How about focusing on a few new features/ships/capabilities and leave the processes we know and base our industry on alone.
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#555 - 2014-04-30 00:56:29 UTC
Dukt Tapir wrote:
I seriously feel shafted with this change. I have years of research invested in specific collections of BPO's that have become quite valuable. Now they will be little more value than someone who has spent much less time in the process of training. My competitive advantage when building certain items is likely to disappear.

I understand a simpler approach, but would indicate that T2 and T3 products are already very complicated to build and likely keep new users from getting involved without dealing with the training of the BPO's.

Seriously, you are breaking mechanisms that have been around and built on for years simply to make the process simpler. How about focusing on a few new features/ships/capabilities and leave the processes we know and base our industry on alone.




Ignoring the fact that future research will take many times longer




EGADS! Someone is going to research a BPO to the same level as you! This patch must die! That has never been possible before!

Ever.
NuoTay
Guerrilla Tactical
#556 - 2014-04-30 01:20:22 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
With Summer 2014 we are introducing major changes to Industry in EVE Online; this includes blueprints and research.


From the blog:

Quote:

We're very aware that some of you will feel that you've lost your previous advantages gained by researching blueprints for a really long time, and this is one of the areas we're preparing to focus the most on in terms of receiving feedback and making adjustments or additions to smooth the transition. Everything is on the table in terms of finding a reasonable solution that meets everyone's legitimate concerns, so please approach the feedback in terms of telling us what you'd like to see rather than simply expressing frustration with the changes as described here. We're not done with this yet!


If ya'all are wiling to provide compensation (of some kind) for manafacturing BPO's that have been researched "for a really long time" then please keep in mind that some of us own Compression BPO's -- that we have spent a fair amount of time researching TE for -- that could use a bit of that same said compensation as well. Right now it sounds like all compression BPO's will simply be sold at "buy prices" regardless of their TE.

Consider about 2.5 days of research per BPO, times 4 BPO's (max slots in a Rorqual), times each and every type of ore and ice (60 BPO's) is about 600 days-worth of research. Even with four research slots going that's 150 days of research.

I'm not asking for a zillion isk/BPO, more asking for recognition of time invested that is TRULY being thrown away (unlike manufacturing BPO's which still retain SOME value).

Please keep it in mind.
PDP11
ExoGen Foundation
New Miner's Union
#557 - 2014-04-30 01:27:14 UTC
I'm happy with the mechanics of the new system. It is the transition arrangements that need polishing.

To perform the blueprint update for a character means all the BPOs they own need to be examined and manipulated in the update process. Therefore on a character by character basis the time spent researching BPOs can be calculated.

For each character:

  1. For each BPO calculate the time required for an unskilled character to have researched the current ME and PE at an NPC station. Add each time to character ME and PE counters. (This can only be an estimate as you don't know the actual time required or if a researched BPO has been bought or traded therefore use worst case times)
  2. Update the BPO's ME and PE values as proposed (or however the update process is tweaked).
  3. Using the characters current skills calculate the time required to research each BPO to its new level.
  4. Subtract each BPO's research time from the character ME and PE counters.
  5. If a final character ME or PE total is negative then set that total to zero. (Should never be negative but just in case don't disadvantage any characters)
  6. Truncate or round each counter to half the age of the character multiplied by research slots based on current skills. (Maximum ME+PE=Age*11 down to ME+PE=Age*1 for unskilled character)
  7. Add ME and PE to universe counters so that CCP credits to players will be known. (If required the universe totals could be used to scale the individual character credits)
  8. Sum each characters ME and PE and provide a research time credit that can only be used by that character, can't be traded or sold. The credit would not be included when transferring a character.
  9. Character can use the time credit like the skills credit system but just for researching BPOs. Alternative compensation mechanism is to have a process to convert the research time credit to a skill point credit that can be expended on skills training.
Simili
Kaira Innovations
#558 - 2014-04-30 01:37:02 UTC
Kadl wrote:
Lilliana Stelles wrote:
No no no no no.

The copy time buff (if I'm reading this correctly) will be absurdly powerful for T2 BPO owners. Powerful enough to the point that invention will be worthless. We're talking about producing 100 copies in the time it previously took to produce one.


I have no love for the T2 BPOs, but some of them were used for direct production. So they were capable of producing 100 items in the time it took to make a BPO copy for a single item. That is not where the benefit is for T2 BPO owners.

The advantage for T2 BPO owners is that with skills maxed you will be able to copy from a blueprint 6.25% faster then produce from the same blueprint. That means that T2 BPO owners are gaining a 6.25% increase in production (if they switch to the copy then produce method).


Heya, if you were building from a t2 BPO in a POS, you will end up with a decrease in production, since you'll get 6% more instead of the nice 75% build time a POS provides. If I get all of this right, for large t2 productions in POS', it will mean a decrease in total amount of units produced per t2 bpo.
Megan DeMonet
Direct Action.
The Lounge Lizards
#559 - 2014-04-30 01:53:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Megan DeMonet
I am pretty sure that for a couple years CCP worked on doing away with tiers in the ships. I guess they just couldn't take it anymore and transferred their beloved system over to blueprints.

" How we're selecting ranks

T1 ammo will be the Rank 1 baseline. These blueprints all currently have a base research time of 6,000 seconds (i.e., 1h 40m). To determine ranks of other blueprints, the current plan is to simply divide their research times by 6,000, maintaining the research ratios currently present. This means T1 modules are generally rank 2, T1 frigates/cruisers/battleships are 20/40/60, and the highest current rank is Titans at 3414 (good luck maxing that out!). This is pretty easy to further adjust, and we may for example want to pull ships up or down a little."

call it what you will, lvl, tier, rank.

"A rose by any other name..." in this case "a pile of S... by any other name."

you say you want people to "start thinking long term". But it seems the ones who have done so are not being rewarded for their "effort" {and yea its effort to work out which BPO to study to help you make more faster}. People work for months and months just to have some clown noob who just started playing be able to match them in a matter of weeks.

I used to look forward to patches that improved the game. Made things better. Now i just want to walk away.....

A Priest, a Rabbi, and an Imam walk into a bar......

Megan DeMonet
Direct Action.
The Lounge Lizards
#560 - 2014-04-30 02:35:46 UTC
Droidyk wrote:
Querns wrote:
Crebba wrote:
First of why change something to make it easier to understand?

Seriously? You're against making things easier to understand?

There's no mastery in going to chruker and looking up optimal ME on a blueprint. It's just unnecessary legwork.


Indeed, there s no need in overthinked and overcomplicated living (thinking). Making things much clearer and more in line with clarity is the right way. One can accomplish much more when thinking clearly without too much noise and when not confused.



the word "overthinked" is why they have to dumb down the game.

bhat ims iz jus ah rednek whos aint gots ko skolin soz wats duz i ko.

A Priest, a Rabbi, and an Imam walk into a bar......