These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#921 - 2014-05-14 06:00:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Seith Kali
Megumi Miura wrote:

6. If BPO compensation is given then compensate the right thing. Compensate the cost advantage (e.g. 0.00258%) they would loose not the time (e.g. 2+ weeks) they thought it was worth.


Agreed. Any 'compensation' shouldn't give them more of an advantage that years of selfishly clogging up research lines did. Rather it should just be some dismally irrelevant plumage bonus that they wouldn't recognise as such anyway. Have their BPOs produce shiny BPCs like Pokemon cards or some such crap. 'Best on the market' indeed...

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 

Alexander McKeon
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#922 - 2014-05-14 06:50:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexander McKeon
Megumi Miura wrote:
6. If BPO compensation is given then compensate the right thing. Compensate the cost advantage (e.g. 0.00258%) they would loose not the time (e.g. 2+ weeks) they thought it was worth.
Comparing ME 10 to ME 50, it's a .706% savings. If you're building an Abaddon, that works out to ~1.5m ISK / hull at current mineral prices. Plenty of folks build battleships by the dozens. If you're making 20 hulls per day, a 25m / day cost advantage over your competition is worth spending extra research time. Stop pulling numbers from the æther, get your spreadsheets out and look at how much isk a .7% cost advantage translates to when the true scale of production is taken into account, and you'll understand why many, many BPOs in this game are researched past ME 10.
Sigras
Conglomo
#923 - 2014-05-14 08:04:24 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Greyscale says "minor tweaks rather than tossing FUBAR ideas".

My response: "Glad I'm already unsubbed. Saves the effort of logging in all my accounts and unsubbing them all."


Sit back with the popcorn and watch the disaster unfold, playing EVE Offline while cloaky camped in and waiting for game time I stupidly paid for to run out.

Half my accounts go inactive in 2 days, with the rest following 60 days later.

CCP, it was nice to know ya.

ok, now that you've unsubbed all your accounts I have 2 questions:

1. can i have your stuff?
2. can you please STFU so we can have a constructive discussion instead of the LHA Tarawa whine hour?
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#924 - 2014-05-14 09:52:17 UTC
Sigras wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Greyscale says "minor tweaks rather than tossing FUBAR ideas".

My response: "Glad I'm already unsubbed. Saves the effort of logging in all my accounts and unsubbing them all."


Sit back with the popcorn and watch the disaster unfold, playing EVE Offline while cloaky camped in and waiting for game time I stupidly paid for to run out.

Half my accounts go inactive in 2 days, with the rest following 60 days later.

CCP, it was nice to know ya.

ok, now that you've unsubbed all your accounts I have 2 questions:

1. can i have your stuff?
2. can you please STFU so we can have a constructive discussion instead of the LHA Tarawa whine hour?



hehe dont you just love people who whine about every little change and immediatly unsub their accounts
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#925 - 2014-05-14 10:17:34 UTC
Alexander McKeon wrote:
Megumi Miura wrote:
6. If BPO compensation is given then compensate the right thing. Compensate the cost advantage (e.g. 0.00258%) they would loose not the time (e.g. 2+ weeks) they thought it was worth.
Comparing ME 10 to ME 50, it's a .706% savings. If you're building an Abaddon, that works out to ~1.5m ISK / hull at current mineral prices. Plenty of folks build battleships by the dozens. If you're making 20 hulls per day, a 25m / day cost advantage over your competition is worth spending extra research time. Stop pulling numbers from the æther, get your spreadsheets out and look at how much isk a .7% cost advantage translates to when the true scale of production is taken into account, and you'll understand why many, many BPOs in this game are researched past ME 10.


50 is ludicrously over researched and 10 is currently under-researched. No one is going to be building battleships with ME10, so it is a crap comparison. Try a sensible value like comparing current ME 14 and 50.

Then remember that everyone with an ME 14 BPO will have a perfect one in the new system. Picking current ME 10 as the rounding value really doesn't impact current blueprint collections, it is just as good of a number to pick as any.

Even if CCP went for ME14 as the rounding base, the only people it would affect are those researching now for the round up as every other BPO being produced with is going to be at or above optimal. It really doesn't matter if it is 10 or 14 for those people, there is plenty of time to get 14 on any sub-capital and capitals are all perfect long before 14 anyway.

It really is just semantics. No one is hurt by this except the people that thought an ME50 battleship bpo is worth more than an ME15 one. Anyone know knows better will have an ME 15 one and doesn't care.

The fact we even need to discuss this is just building the case for what an excellent set of changes these are.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 

Darin Vanar
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#926 - 2014-05-14 11:04:31 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Darin Vanar wrote:
Sigras wrote:

You would have a point if the game required your character to actively research the BPO, but it's just something you can passively do in the background while your character does other stuff.

See when you're sent to jail, youre required to actively be in jail for that time, it isnt just something you can do in the background as you go out and work your job and live your life.

You know what does work passively in the background while you live your life? Investment funds ... gee, its almost as though researching BPOs is an investment.


Yeah, that would work out all well and fine, if I was planning my retirement. :P

And you would be locking out your science lines, so in effect you may not be in jail, but your character is technically locked from whatever skill slots you assigned to that research for a very long time.

I would like to play the game more actively, not wait to play it, when I'm say, 80.

In real life, you can have an unlimited amount of investment funds, so it's a little unfair to apply that to one character in a game, that only has several skill slots. And those skill slots were designed to be used a little more pro-actively, than what they are proposing now. Unless they want to get rid of those slots all-together too? Wouldn't that be a new wrinkle.

Even if you could, I don't know why you would. I pay to play this game, not have it passively play in the background for me.

Exaggerated figures and all. I think you get the overall gist of my problems with this new system.

Oh I agree it is a problem; just not to the scale that you think it is... That said, I have called for a move to a 100 level system from a 10 level one several times for that reason.

I just disagree with you use of hyperbole as an adequate description of the situation.


Fair enough, we all have a different way of expressing ourselves.
Banko Mato
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#927 - 2014-05-14 11:36:15 UTC
Zalmun wrote:
Will the changes affect existing T2 BPCs (as in adjust their TE/ME to the new standard), or only new T2 BPCs invented after the changes go live?


Quoted to emphasize importance of this question. This definitely needs a prompt decision and even more prompt publication of said decision. I'm pretty sure there are many others like me with giant buffers of T2 BPCs that are in danger of becoming obsolete in case ME/TE adjustments won't get performed retroactive to already invented BPCs.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#928 - 2014-05-14 11:42:29 UTC
Banko Mato wrote:
Zalmun wrote:
Will the changes affect existing T2 BPCs (as in adjust their TE/ME to the new standard), or only new T2 BPCs invented after the changes go live?


Quoted to emphasize importance of this question. This definitely needs a prompt decision and even more prompt publication of said decision. I'm pretty sure there are many others like me with giant buffers of T2 BPCs that are in danger of becoming obsolete in case ME/TE adjustments won't get performed retroactive to already invented BPCs.


It'll be done retroactively.
Kithran
#929 - 2014-05-14 11:50:37 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Banko Mato wrote:
Zalmun wrote:
Will the changes affect existing T2 BPCs (as in adjust their TE/ME to the new standard), or only new T2 BPCs invented after the changes go live?


Quoted to emphasize importance of this question. This definitely needs a prompt decision and even more prompt publication of said decision. I'm pretty sure there are many others like me with giant buffers of T2 BPCs that are in danger of becoming obsolete in case ME/TE adjustments won't get performed retroactive to already invented BPCs.


It'll be done retroactively.


Given the proposed changes to invention bpcs has any thought been given to improving the ME/PE of of the 2 run bpcs found through exploration - at the moment these are better than you can manage via invention. If invention bpcs are improved that will lower the value of these exploration drops.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#930 - 2014-05-14 11:51:21 UTC
Kithran wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Banko Mato wrote:
Zalmun wrote:
Will the changes affect existing T2 BPCs (as in adjust their TE/ME to the new standard), or only new T2 BPCs invented after the changes go live?


Quoted to emphasize importance of this question. This definitely needs a prompt decision and even more prompt publication of said decision. I'm pretty sure there are many others like me with giant buffers of T2 BPCs that are in danger of becoming obsolete in case ME/TE adjustments won't get performed retroactive to already invented BPCs.


It'll be done retroactively.


Given the proposed changes to invention bpcs has any thought been given to improving the ME/PE of of the 2 run bpcs found through exploration - at the moment these are better than you can manage via invention. If invention bpcs are improved that will lower the value of these exploration drops.


Not yet, but we'll think about it at least.
Banko Mato
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#931 - 2014-05-14 12:04:23 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Kithran wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Banko Mato wrote:
Zalmun wrote:
Will the changes affect existing T2 BPCs (as in adjust their TE/ME to the new standard), or only new T2 BPCs invented after the changes go live?


Quoted to emphasize importance of this question. This definitely needs a prompt decision and even more prompt publication of said decision. I'm pretty sure there are many others like me with giant buffers of T2 BPCs that are in danger of becoming obsolete in case ME/TE adjustments won't get performed retroactive to already invented BPCs.


It'll be done retroactively.


Given the proposed changes to invention bpcs has any thought been given to improving the ME/PE of of the 2 run bpcs found through exploration - at the moment these are better than you can manage via invention. If invention bpcs are improved that will lower the value of these exploration drops.


Not yet, but we'll think about it at least.


Perfect, thank you very much for the fast reply and the in my opinion correct decision Smile

And regarding exploration BPCs, I'd suggest you simply apply whatever increase of ME/TE you plan for invented BPCs. So for example if invention yields a -4/-4 per default now and gets upped to 0/0, then a current 0/0 exploration BPC will convert to a +4/+4 one. Tweak numbers according to actual conversion rules, but the solution might be already sufficient. The number of exploration T2 BPCs is imho small enough to not create a big disturbance in case the "buff" might go a bit overboard (would really like an official hint on the rough ratio of exploration BPCs to their invention counterparts).
ORLICZ
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#932 - 2014-05-14 13:17:58 UTC
then ccp need to cut amount harvested moon goo to compensate lower demand for moon goo in t2 bluprints ex -10% :)

we dont want useless moons like gases etc
Banko Mato
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#933 - 2014-05-14 13:26:29 UTC
ORLICZ wrote:
then ccp need to cut amount harvested moon goo to compensate lower demand for moon goo in t2 bluprints ex -10% :)

we dont want useless moons like gases etc


Lower demand? It was stated that material numbers might need adjustments so they stay roughly the same with current effective values. Therefore I doubt the few rare cases of material decrease are enough to justify a broad moon goo volume nerf.
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#934 - 2014-05-14 13:29:10 UTC
ORLICZ wrote:
then ccp need to cut amount harvested moon goo to compensate lower demand for moon goo in t2 bluprints ex -10% :)

we dont want useless moons like gases etc

Go re-read Greyscale's post:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We may adjust T2 build costs upwards across the board to put the net T2 resource usage roughly where it is currently, so we don't end up nerfing the demand for T2 components.


MDD
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#935 - 2014-05-14 15:06:04 UTC
Seriously, I can't be the only one concerned about "design by last minute hack" can I?

Once upon a time we were told, if BPO is perfect now, it will be perfect after. Then it was pointed out how the rounding doesn't work that way. The complexity of waste was never in figuring out the waste in a BPO, and if it were, there were plenty of ways to handle that. The complexity came in applying that percentage to the items needed to identify inflections in the rounding point.

So, they decided to hack a change to calculate the waste at run level. But that created the possibility of real oddities, such as needing fractions of a rifter to make a wolf.

So they hacked in a "round up", but that screws over small runs, like single runs of capitals. AND didn't really fix the issue for large runs.

So now a new hack to make sure you need at least 1 of everything.

BUT, moving the extra materials, and rounding up, creates another oddity for invented BPCs needing 2 rifters to make a wolf. So, let's just change invention to produce ME = 0 instead of ME -40.


Nothing good ever comes from software that was not thought threw, and designed by last minute hack.


A 6 week delay in shipping this, SHOULD have been time to take a huge step back and reevaluate what is being gained vs. what is being destroyed.


It should not be used for 6 more weeks of hacking in more not-thought-through, last minute changes.

How many more things are going to be broken in order to try to save these ill-conceived, not-thought-threw designs?
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#936 - 2014-05-14 15:07:38 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
ORLICZ wrote:
then ccp need to cut amount harvested moon goo to compensate lower demand for moon goo in t2 bluprints ex -10% :)

we dont want useless moons like gases etc

Go re-read Greyscale's post:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We may adjust T2 build costs upwards across the board to put the net T2 resource usage roughly where it is currently, so we don't end up nerfing the demand for T2 components.


MDD



Hack, hack, thrash, thrash.

More not-thought-threw changes in an attempt to cover up the not-thought-threw design.

Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#937 - 2014-05-14 15:17:59 UTC
I think you should run your copy and paste ranting threw a spell checker.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 

Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#938 - 2014-05-14 15:31:48 UTC
Seith Kali wrote:
I think you should run your copy and paste ranting threw a spell checker.

it locks lake the problem wares the spell checker
Quintessen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#939 - 2014-05-14 15:52:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Quintessen
@CCP Greyscale:

Any consideration to allowing partially researched blueprints, upon cancellation, to maintain that research so that if I have to move my operation before I've finished my 6 months or 1 year of research, I can keep some of that progress? Basically just like skills...
Zalmun
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#940 - 2014-05-14 17:35:12 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:


Hack, hack, thrash, thrash.

More not-thought-threw changes in an attempt to cover up the not-thought-threw design.



I thought you threw your subscription out the window. If you already quit, why do you care?

Oh right, because you're acting like a petulant child.