These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1021 - 2014-05-16 18:49:54 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Seith Kali wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Another thing to think about - if we mess with the invention math so we can kick max run counts up without breaking a bunch of things (including making sure we scale job time correctly against output runs), does the potentially large increase in practical invention throughput risk breaking the market? If you could put in 24 hours' worth of invention in one go, are we going to see a destructive glut of T2 BPC supply?


Depends if you care about the current margins. Yeah modules will get worse margins than now but many are greater than 50% purely down to the effort involved. If you ask me there's a trick we are missing here.What if invention speed was tied to run counts somewhat?

Greater run counts = longer invention speed and vice versa. Give options for players to chase rapid churn through high effort and allow low effort to work too.

I'd do some maths for you but it is lovely outside. Maybe Monday.


Yeah, I think we would have to do that. Probably if we went down this road we would define invention time per-run.


It will give you some interesting new variables when you come to do the datacore rebalance in the autumn too Big smile

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1022 - 2014-05-16 18:57:00 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Querns wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm updating my big-ass spreadsheet to link T1 and T2 typeIDs so I can run the math on making copy time 80% of build time in all cases and then setting invention time to "(build time / 2) - copy time"; while I'm working on it, does anyone think this is going to make their head explode?

Another thing to think about - if we mess with the invention math so we can kick max run counts up without breaking a bunch of things (including making sure we scale job time correctly against output runs), does the potentially large increase in practical invention throughput risk breaking the market? If you could put in 24 hours' worth of invention in one go, are we going to see a destructive glut of T2 BPC supply?

Don't forget to exclude T2 BPOs from this copy time adjustment. :)


I'm going to come around to T2 BPO copy issues eventually :) We'd like T2 BPOs to be copying ideally, but not if it's only viable for balance reasons in a gallente outpost.

Actually, thinking on this, there is a KISS solution here -- make the copy bonus from pos and outposts simply not apply to T2 BPOs.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1023 - 2014-05-16 18:59:12 UTC
Querns wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Querns wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm updating my big-ass spreadsheet to link T1 and T2 typeIDs so I can run the math on making copy time 80% of build time in all cases and then setting invention time to "(build time / 2) - copy time"; while I'm working on it, does anyone think this is going to make their head explode?

Another thing to think about - if we mess with the invention math so we can kick max run counts up without breaking a bunch of things (including making sure we scale job time correctly against output runs), does the potentially large increase in practical invention throughput risk breaking the market? If you could put in 24 hours' worth of invention in one go, are we going to see a destructive glut of T2 BPC supply?

Don't forget to exclude T2 BPOs from this copy time adjustment. :)


I'm going to come around to T2 BPO copy issues eventually :) We'd like T2 BPOs to be copying ideally, but not if it's only viable for balance reasons in a gallente outpost.

Actually, thinking on this, there is a KISS solution here -- make the copy bonus from pos and outposts simply not apply to T2 BPOs.


That is a thing I am considering :)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1024 - 2014-05-16 19:03:31 UTC
Or make T2 BPos only copyable in a POS (eg: require an advanced lab for T2 BPO copy jobs)

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1025 - 2014-05-16 19:04:04 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Or make T2 BPos only copyable in a POS (eg: require an advanced lab for T2 BPO copy jobs)


Winner

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1026 - 2014-05-16 19:04:09 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Or make T2 BPos only copyable in a POS (eg: require an advanced lab for T2 BPO copy jobs)

That would be hilarious. Ship it!

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1027 - 2014-05-16 19:23:42 UTC
If that were done, it would be "death to all T2 BPOs", and the biggest research POS hunt ever...

Could focus that a bit by adding "POS Scanner" that allows figuring out what's cooking in the labs before proceeding with the dismantling operation. Lol
Meroa Buelle
Someone Else's Problem
#1028 - 2014-05-16 19:26:22 UTC
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We are currently of a mind to shift invented BPCs so they have positive (or at worst 0) ME and TE figures. This a) prevents the removal of extra materials giving invention an extra-hard kick, and in particular b) prevents every invented T2 item from requiring two of the relevant T1 items (due to always rounding up materials). This will probably put all invented BPCs in the 1-5% ME/2-10% TE range, with decryptors adjusted to match. 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. (This obviously also serves to close the gap somewhat between invention and T2 BPOs; this is not a goal here but it's an acceptable side-effect.)


At the moment

BPO = limited numbers of production at an advantage of material cost

BPC = unlimited numbers of production at a disadvantage of material cost

Proposed

BPC = unlimited numbers of production at a slight to null disadvantage of material cost

BPO = ???

There is a interaction between the two in the current environment - an advantage matching a disadvantage. Your proposal plus improvements to other parts of invention (removal of clickfest) will make tech 2 production simply a slightly more complicated version of tech 1 production. Margins will erode and the perverse effect will probably be a less vibrant market as most people move to manufacturing for their group's consumption, like tech 1 is now.


edit:

Modules and ships are different - ME currently has little effect on modules material requirement but has a large effect on ship material requirement. Perhaps as a compromise you have your change affect only module BPC's.



Someone correct me if i'm wrong about this but


currently T2 BPO's have unlimited runs with an advantage to material cost due to being able to research them with BPC'S having a crappy limited run per invention with a disadvantage to material cost
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1029 - 2014-05-16 19:33:54 UTC
T2 BPO's need to die a painful death

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
ShesAForumAlt
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#1030 - 2014-05-16 19:34:51 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm updating my big-ass spreadsheet to link T1 and T2 typeIDs so I can run the math on making copy time 80% of build time in all cases and then setting invention time to "(build time / 2) - copy time"; while I'm working on it, does anyone think this is going to make their head explode?


So I must be derping. I'm seeing from this that:

Copy Time = 0.8*Build Time
Build from Copy Time = 1.8 Build Time (1 Build Time + 0.8 Build Time)

Invention Time = 0.5 * Build time - 0.8 Build Time = - 0.3 Build Time?

Unless its supposed to mean:

Copy Time = 0.8 * Build Time * (1/Max Runs)
Build From Copy Time = (1 + 0.8*(1/Max Runs)) * Build Time

Invention Time = 0.5 Build Time - (0.8 * Build Time * 1/Max Runs) = (0.5 - 0.8 * 1/Max Runs) * Build Time

Someone mind correcting my derp here?

This is totally my main. 
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1031 - 2014-05-16 19:40:09 UTC
Meroa Buelle wrote:
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We are currently of a mind to shift invented BPCs so they have positive (or at worst 0) ME and TE figures. This a) prevents the removal of extra materials giving invention an extra-hard kick, and in particular b) prevents every invented T2 item from requiring two of the relevant T1 items (due to always rounding up materials). This will probably put all invented BPCs in the 1-5% ME/2-10% TE range, with decryptors adjusted to match. 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. (This obviously also serves to close the gap somewhat between invention and T2 BPOs; this is not a goal here but it's an acceptable side-effect.)


At the moment

BPO = limited numbers of production at an advantage of material cost

BPC = unlimited numbers of production at a disadvantage of material cost

Proposed

BPC = unlimited numbers of production at a slight to null disadvantage of material cost

BPO = ???

There is a interaction between the two in the current environment - an advantage matching a disadvantage. Your proposal plus improvements to other parts of invention (removal of clickfest) will make tech 2 production simply a slightly more complicated version of tech 1 production. Margins will erode and the perverse effect will probably be a less vibrant market as most people move to manufacturing for their group's consumption, like tech 1 is now.


edit:

Modules and ships are different - ME currently has little effect on modules material requirement but has a large effect on ship material requirement. Perhaps as a compromise you have your change affect only module BPC's.



Someone correct me if i'm wrong about this but


currently T2 BPO's have unlimited runs with an advantage to material cost due to being able to research them with BPC'S having a crappy limited run per invention with a disadvantage to material cost


Invention costs will always remain the big advantage T2 BPOs have.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Sigras
Conglomo
#1032 - 2014-05-16 19:45:57 UTC
Rollaz wrote:
@ CCP Your blueprint changes will ruin my net worth. (sorry it's hard for me to focus on how anyone else in the game is going to be affected when the personal effect for my play style is getting crushed)

You win.

Mom always said "get screwed once, shame on them, get screwed twice shame on you". You got me with the broken PI parts, but that really was my own greed to blame, you got me with 5 skilled and trained R&D alts. I obviously didn't learn my lesson, cause here I am 3 years later with hundreds of bpo's over 100ME.

You won! Next time there is an opportunity, I won't open new accounts, and buy chars to "do the next thing", I won't buy plex for those accounts, no more dual training queues and I won't put RL money into the game for corp/alliance projects anymore, cause the risk of having CCP take it all away down the road... well isn't a risk, it's inevitable.

I'm not leaving the game... it's fun to play and fun to be here with my spaceship friends, but as far as leaving my mark on the Eve Universe or being the biggest or best at something here... well, it's just too risky to put RL investments into your game anymore.

I've made my position known, I've offered suggestions, but apparently my posts aren't "spreadsheety" enough to influence a response from the dev's. And obviously too full of emotion to be clearly understood.

So, no worries, don't bother adjusting on my behalf, I surrender to the coming changes, whatever they may be, I'll just liquidate all my crap, sell my industrial chars and plex my pvp chars for the next 5 years. (gotta hurry up and do that before plex's get nerfed next)

You win. You won't get any more RL money from me....

Just one question... so is this path of "increase consumption everywhere" REALLY a win for CCP? It doesn't look like it from my perspective, but I guess we'll all see how it plays out for ya.


(anyone want to make a wager if a dev will actually comment on this) I happen to have quite a bit of extra isk available to throw around now.

As I posted earlier in this thread, ME 100 BPOs are worth about 10-15% more than ME 0 you can purchase from the NPCs so CCP is nerfing your net worth a maximum of 15% assuming that your BPOs now sell at NPC price, so probably more like 5% ...

For example right now there's a megathron BPO ME 30 selling for 2.2 billion, and a ME 100 BPO selling for 2.5 billion.
Another example would be the dominix BPO ME 25 selling for 1.7 billion, ME 70 selling for 1.9 billion.

If you paid too much extra for these "super researched" BPOs you got ripped off; even after the change I dont expect the prices to drop too much on these BPOs because to produce another one it would require 180 days worth of POS fuel + team labor cost meaning at around 700 million ISK markup for a perfect battleship BPO which is about where it is right now
BogWopit
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#1033 - 2014-05-16 20:10:55 UTC
Maybe a silly idea, but a token I would accept to compensate for the wasted research time.....

Calculate the total wasted time across all owned bpo's, translate that into fuel blocks to run a pos for the same amount of time, make this amount of fuel blocks redeemable at login with a choice of which type of blocks to take.

Hey looks at that, the star base fuel change to single blocks has been useful for something!

B.
Hashi Lebwohl
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#1034 - 2014-05-16 20:13:36 UTC
Meroa Buelle wrote:
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We are currently of a mind to shift invented BPCs so they have positive (or at worst 0) ME and TE figures. This a) prevents the removal of extra materials giving invention an extra-hard kick, and in particular b) prevents every invented T2 item from requiring two of the relevant T1 items (due to always rounding up materials). This will probably put all invented BPCs in the 1-5% ME/2-10% TE range, with decryptors adjusted to match. 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. (This obviously also serves to close the gap somewhat between invention and T2 BPOs; this is not a goal here but it's an acceptable side-effect.)


At the moment

BPO = limited numbers of production at an advantage of material cost

BPC = unlimited numbers of production at a disadvantage of material cost

Proposed

BPC = unlimited numbers of production at a slight to null disadvantage of material cost

BPO = ???

There is a interaction between the two in the current environment - an advantage matching a disadvantage. Your proposal plus improvements to other parts of invention (removal of clickfest) will make tech 2 production simply a slightly more complicated version of tech 1 production. Margins will erode and the perverse effect will probably be a less vibrant market as most people move to manufacturing for their group's consumption, like tech 1 is now.


edit:

Modules and ships are different - ME currently has little effect on modules material requirement but has a large effect on ship material requirement. Perhaps as a compromise you have your change affect only module BPC's.



Someone correct me if i'm wrong about this but


currently T2 BPO's have unlimited runs with an advantage to material cost due to being able to research them with BPC'S having a crappy limited run per invention with a disadvantage to material cost


Example

A wolf BPO you can make 24 per week in high sec station. You cannot make more even if you want to.

How many wolves can you make using invention in a week?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1035 - 2014-05-16 20:15:20 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
T2 BPO's need to die a painful death


Restricting copying to POS labs would strongly promote that goal, no?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1036 - 2014-05-16 20:17:10 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
T2 BPO's need to die a painful death


Restricting copying to POS labs would strongly promote that goal, no?


yes.. would be a long drawn out death though... i prefer a quicker death than that

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Valterra Craven
#1037 - 2014-05-16 20:24:54 UTC
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:


Example

A wolf BPO you can make 24 per week in high sec station. You cannot make more even if you want to.

How many wolves can you make using invention in a week?




Irrelevant. Invention has a floor build price. T2 BPOs can undercut that by a significant margin. This means you always have a market for your product and you always get the first sales. T2 BPOs should die.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1038 - 2014-05-16 20:29:51 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
T2 BPO's need to die a painful death


Restricting copying to POS labs would strongly promote that goal, no?


yes.. would be a long drawn out death though... i prefer a quicker death than that


I greatly prefer a series of dramatic and entertaining deaths to a fiat decision from CCP to just take some sand out of the box.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Valterra Craven
#1039 - 2014-05-16 20:34:19 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
T2 BPO's need to die a painful death


Restricting copying to POS labs would strongly promote that goal, no?


They should also be restricted to building only from POS as well....
Apelacja
Sad Najwyzszy
#1040 - 2014-05-16 20:35:38 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
T2 BPO's need to die a painful death


Restricting copying to POS labs would strongly promote that goal, no?


They should also be restricted to building only from POS as well....



loled.. That would create new profession in eve T2 BPO hunting