These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#1161 - 2014-07-15 12:37:26 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Danastar wrote:
Danastar wrote:
Hello Guys,

I apologize for not being able to follow the discussion closely and read all the comments. If my question is already answered I ask for excuse one more time.

In the early stage of the research dev blogs, there was an idea for compensation of some sort for the ones that own highly researched BPOs. Is there final conclusion for that, is there going to be some sort of compensation and if yes, how is it going to be processed.

Thank You.

--Danastar


no one?
c'mon guys, devs, little lost green alines... :)


After a *lot* of discussion, we came to the conclusion that, for a number of reasons, we are not going to be enacting any form of compensation. There's a lot of things feeding into this decision, including the strong precedent it sets, the fact that no functional value is lost, and the work involved in a one-time compensation deal that could be spent on polishing up the features we're shipping. We understand that some people will be unhappy about this, and we empathize with that, but we have to weigh everyone's interests equally and we believe in this case that the best thing for the game as a whole is to convert blueprints to the new system as previously described but not make any additional changes in this area.


Good. Eve is a Game of Adaption and evolution. Players need to stop crying for compensation and just adapt to the changes of the game. I am losing out on these changes to, but I also know with the isk I have.. I will not be rocking under a desk holding my knees and drooling due to a shock to the wallet.
Shahai Shintaro
Caldari Manufacturing and Design
#1162 - 2014-07-15 15:35:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Shahai Shintaro
Chris Winter wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
1) In the example you're giving at least, I'm happy with the outcomes you describe. The new 9% blueprints are functionally perfect (ie further research will not improve returns in any practical scenario). The "change" is that now Orcas are slightly more expensive, which isn't a major concern :)

I'm sorry, but what?

How is this not a major concern? It's just like when extra materials were added to a bunch of ships. It's not going to be cost-effective to produce these things for a while...

It was stated that the devs didn't want blueprints to get worse as a result of these changes, and now you're saying it's not a concern when they do get worse?


I second this. I can't speak for orcas, but carriers have a major concern. Take the archon for example. Currently perfect occurs at me8. This converts to me9 in the new system. In the new system me9 saves you 4 drone bays. Me10 saves you 6 other bays. If you assume all components cost are equal then 60% of the savings come in the last 1%. This means your once prefect bpo is now far from perfect and only 40% as effective. This is a major concern.

This stems from the change to round up. I see two possible solutions. 1) Exempt caps from round up and still use round as caps are never done in batches. 2) Multiply the required number of components by 10 or 100 and then divide the size and required materials for each component by the same factor.
Apelacja
Sad Najwyzszy
#1163 - 2014-07-15 18:44:00 UTC
Shahai Shintaro wrote:


This stems from the change to round up. I see two possible solutions. 1) Exempt caps from round up and still use round as caps are never done in batches. 2) Multiply the required number of components by 10 or 100 and then divide the size and required materials for each component by the same factor.



1) not true
2) can be a way to solve it
3) it`s is a problem
Shahai Shintaro
Caldari Manufacturing and Design
#1164 - 2014-07-15 19:06:09 UTC
Apelacja wrote:
Shahai Shintaro wrote:


This stems from the change to round up. I see two possible solutions. 1) Exempt caps from round up and still use round as caps are never done in batches. 2) Multiply the required number of components by 10 or 100 and then divide the size and required materials for each component by the same factor.



1) not true
2) can be a way to solve it
3) it`s is a problem

I'm not understanding your response:

1). What is not true? It is my understanding that new me is not effecting cap blueprints that much because of the low volume of components on a cap bp coupled with the me calc now rounding up. It is also my understanding that the always round up was added so that bulk manufacturing would reduce required materials. Caps are seldom, if ever built in bulk. What part of this is not true.

2). Are you agreeing that both of my suggestions are a way to solve the problem?

3). Are you agreeing that it is a problem?
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#1165 - 2014-07-15 19:33:30 UTC
Shahai Shintaro wrote:
Exempt caps from round up and still use round as caps are never done in batches

yes they are
Shahai Shintaro
Caldari Manufacturing and Design
#1166 - 2014-07-15 20:07:15 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Shahai Shintaro wrote:
Exempt caps from round up and still use round as caps are never done in batches

yes they are

My apologies, I should have stated seldom. Even in batches, they at best being done in batches of 3 due to the 30 day cap.

Even in batches of three, there is still a significant percentage of the bonus contained in the last 1% (22% for a 3 batch, 30% for a 2 batch. For what used to be a perfect blueprint this is not trivial.
Apelacja
Sad Najwyzszy
#1167 - 2014-07-15 20:33:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Apelacja
Shahai Shintaro wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Shahai Shintaro wrote:
Exempt caps from round up and still use round as caps are never done in batches

yes they are

My apologies, I should have stated seldom. Even in batches, they at best being done in batches of 3 due to the 30 day cap.

Even in batches of three, there is still a significant percentage of the bonus contained in the last 1% (22% for a 3 batch, 30% for a 2 batch. For what used to be a perfect blueprint this is not trivial.



Yea that`s why to overcome it u will need a team 1 % me or an outpost. And when it is about archon it`s not worth to haul them from null so somehow it is a problem.
I have written u answers in a short form quite obvious anyway.

One tip from my side - make calculations with teams to u will quickly notice that caps will be built only with them.

BTW u make archons in batches of 3, still according to my spreadsheet there is a significant difference. But the same is with dreadsbelive me.

batch of 3 for archon 2 for dreads, numbers are representing cost ( even if it has no sense for u in iskies this is a cost, just look at precentage difference):
................ me 9 me 10 me 11
archon - 124,75 122,5 121,75
naglfar - 235,6 231,3 229,6
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1168 - 2014-07-16 17:55:55 UTC
Apelacja wrote:
Shahai Shintaro wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Shahai Shintaro wrote:
Exempt caps from round up and still use round as caps are never done in batches

yes they are

My apologies, I should have stated seldom. Even in batches, they at best being done in batches of 3 due to the 30 day cap.

Even in batches of three, there is still a significant percentage of the bonus contained in the last 1% (22% for a 3 batch, 30% for a 2 batch. For what used to be a perfect blueprint this is not trivial.



Yea that`s why to overcome it u will need a team 1 % me or an outpost. And when it is about archon it`s not worth to haul them from null so somehow it is a problem.
I have written u answers in a short form quite obvious anyway.

One tip from my side - make calculations with teams to u will quickly notice that caps will be built only with them.

BTW u make archons in batches of 3, still according to my spreadsheet there is a significant difference. But the same is with dreadsbelive me.

batch of 3 for archon 2 for dreads, numbers are representing cost ( even if it has no sense for u in iskies this is a cost, just look at precentage difference):
................ me 9 me 10 me 11
archon - 124,75 122,5 121,75
naglfar - 235,6 231,3 229,6


So anyone who built one-offs of capitals is now completely excluded from efficient cap mfg, or anyone who does not have access to an outpost, or does not want to bid for a capital mfg team......

No biggie, that is only a big chunk of the capital manufacturers in the entire game that got the finger from CCP and the null sec cartels.
DeODokktor
Dark Templars
The Fonz Presidium
#1169 - 2014-07-20 02:46:30 UTC
Elysiana Karasniz wrote:

Could you put together an updated version of this: http://k162space.com/2012/07/17/percentage-of-items-from-invention-vs-tech-2-bpo/ along with any other relevant information so we know what the status quo actually is?

There's an awful lot of unfounded hysteria on the forums over T2 BPOs but that's because they're forums. It would be good to have some actual evidence to define the "status quo" before doing anything else.

My initial suspicion is that a lot of the terror over BPOs arises from quite a few products being on the market for sub-invention prices. However this may well have nothing to do with T2 BPOs - many t1 products are on the market for sub-build costs as well. Assuming everyone is rational and works strictly to the cost numbers is unfortunately a silly thing to assume. For an example of this, check Armageddon build cost against the average market price for the last year.

Not to say T2 BPOs *don't* have a big effect on some products, merely that we need some actual evidence either way.


I would love to see the stats too..
The chart on that page is slightly wrong on a couple of mods, I know the majority of Cloak bpos exited the game years ago.. (guy was selling isk on ebay using scratchcards that had code verification lol)...

Prior to invention CCP gave out bucketloads of t2 bpos to "devalue" the markets as a whole. This patch is a huge.. HUGE nerf to many tech2 bpo holders, I cant help but think that it was fully intentional.

I would like to know
a) how many of each bpo is on a active account.
b) how many of each bpo is in the game (active+inactive accounts), but exclude frozen accounts (permabans).
c) how much (as a %) of global supply is done by bpo holders.

Most of my stuff I sell way above the cost mark, sometimes double or triple what others are selling for. BPO -vs- Invention... If I had to use invention would I switch from high sell orders to 1isking in jita?... I doubt it..

A couple of previous mfgring nerfs hit t2 hard.
Invention killed the t2 market (yay says the players!).
CCP Killed passive datacore harvesting, but allowed players to "spawn" datacores (they gave out ban warnings) using the FW system. This drove invention like crazy.

Now with tech2 bpos getting pulled closer to invention build cost, but t2 bpo build time going down (on high end stuff), throw in the POS nerf (no remote install), and now unlimited copy&production slots. Well... Invention shouldnt have any trouble keeping up with t2 bpo.

But they wont publish stats.
Some would be bad, some would be great, but perhaps it would remove all of the hate that goes with t2 bpos.

I know a guy who sold his business and ended up making about £10m out of it, Now its worth about £100m. He should make the other company give it back to him.. Well, if he plays eve and doesnt own a T2 Bpo then he does think that way...
Apelacja
Sad Najwyzszy
#1170 - 2014-07-20 13:32:10 UTC
i own few t2 bpos and i dont see a problem. They were overpriced and have had an monopoly in some areas. And it was bad frome conomical side of view.

T2 bpos still will give an adentage - less clicking and no invention cost.

However if u think about t2 production u somehow have to move to null - reduced cost on everythings ( from job starting cost to me). Personally i see it wrong but i will adopt. However for many ppl who periodically make production it is a wrong direction patch.
ChataJohn
#1171 - 2014-07-21 15:51:18 UTC
"After a *lot* of discussion, we came to the conclusion that, for a number of reasons, we are not going to be enacting any form of compensation. There's a lot of things feeding into this decision, including the strong precedent it sets, the fact that no functional value is lost, and the work involved in a one-time compensation deal that could be spent on polishing up the features we're shipping. We understand that some people will be unhappy about this, and we empathize with that, but we have to weigh everyone's interests equally and we believe in this case that the best thing for the game as a whole is to convert blueprints to the new system as previously described but not make any additional changes in this area."

Apparently some of the discussion wasn't listened to.

Let me see - and the precedent it sets is "Player commits time effort and massive resources to improve something under game rules - so let's just screw them over?"

The Functional value IS affected; since before the changes it saved us quite a bit in time and materials - but of course afterwards since it's all crushed down - naturally no functional value is lost cuz we just erased it all - HA HA! Cheap shot guys, really cheap shot.

At least you could have given us dup BPO copies in multiples up to what we are losing so we could sell them off.

Oh, my God - you'd have to do more work - how about thinking about it more before you set deadlines for update?

Everyone's interests - lets see - you are majorly trashing years of BPO improvements - sorry that's not affecting everyone - just the Industrialists. Delaying an update? No one would cry if the update is decent and fair.

Disgusted. Truly disgusted.
Apelacja
Sad Najwyzszy
#1172 - 2014-07-21 16:40:47 UTC
nah u make a mistake...

every patch hurt somebody....
when CCP nerfed titans i lost on titans BPOs

When they introduce new invetnion cost i lost on freighters bpo and t2 bpos.....and i`m forced to move to null. only drawbacks for me.


When there issomething being changed it usualy affect only small population of ppl in eve. Personally i would rather expect stability from a healthy market wihtout goverment ( in that case CCP) interventions. From the other side in general ppl want changes - and they get them.
CCP want to make money not a perfect world. Their right as the owners too anyway.