These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev Blog: Researching, the Future: Stupidity

First post First post
Author
Dr Grant
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2014-05-01 07:23:08 UTC
Shoogie wrote:
I don't understand why they are doing this. It seems like change for change's sake.

Both the current and future systems had diminishing returns for research.
Currently, each ME level takes the same time to research, but you get less benefit for each successive level. In the future, you will get the same benefit for each level of research, but each successive level will take more time than the previous.

The benefit of the previous system is that you had the option to get another level of research if you were not building. You could say, "I'm going to take a month off building Obelisks. Hmm, should I throw my BPO into copy to get a BPC to sell, or should I put it in ME research and get one more ME level?"

In the future it is going to be, "Whew, luckily I had an ME5 Obelisk blueprint so the patch changed it to ME 9%. But I'm going to take a month off building them. Maybe I could get another ME level and make it perfect? Ah nevermind. The quote says that will take over 4 years. I guess I'll make copies."

Then there is going to be the poor guy who has an ME3 Obelisk blueprint today. When the patch hits, he will be given an ME 7% blueprint. If he wants to research his blueprint to match the first guy, it will take him 2 years, 21 weeks. Very, very, very few people will do that. So congratulations player A. You now have practically a permanent advantage over everyone else.

So you say the difference between ME 7% and ME 9% is trivial? Is it? 2% of a 1.4 Billion isk ship is 28M isk per unit extra profit. Permanently. How do blueprint ME levels interact with ME increasing POS Assembly arrays and ME increasing teams and ME increasing whatever else they add to the game?

It is similar to T2 BPOs in that they are going to make more special items which can (practically)never be made again, and confer their owners with a permanent competitive advantage over everyone who started the game too late to get one.

Was the old system really difficult to understand? Did it break when they set slots to be unlimited? Why bother with these blueprint conversions and research changes? Was anybody hurt when Tau researched his battleship to ME 200?


This. The system of diminishing returns with incremental research was just perfect. The original designer of the system obviously put much thought into it. The new proposed system is just worse in every aspect and doesn't provide any benefit beyond the lower entry barrier for the mentally challenged.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#42 - 2014-05-01 09:56:03 UTC
If anything I'm concerned that the entire package of changes ends up being too challenging for players to deal with. The math is all deliberately simple because there are a *lot* of moving parts going in different directions at the same time. We've simplified as much as possible round the edges (eg blueprint research) to try and balance out the changes to the core of the system: what do I build, and where, and when?

Of course, if we're wrong, and everything collapses back into steady-state solutions, adding complexity is the easiest thing in game design :)
Ream Lolstar
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#43 - 2014-05-01 11:11:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ream Lolstar
CCP Greyscale wrote:
If anything I'm concerned that the entire package of changes ends up being too challenging for players to deal with. The math is all deliberately simple because there are a *lot* of moving parts going in different directions at the same time. We've simplified as much as possible round the edges (eg blueprint research) to try and balance out the changes to the core of the system: what do I build, and where, and when?

Of course, if we're wrong, and everything collapses back into steady-state solutions, adding complexity is the easiest thing in game design :)


Im sorry Grayscale, but I aggree with the person that created this topic, if you keep simplifying stuff, everybody will do industry and it wont be profitable anymore, I'm an industrial engineer irl and Im a null sec vet (BOB, Raiden, PL, then CFC yay!) in eve who do industry to afford my pvp and it was only profitable for the entry barrier it supossed, ppl now do anoms, they do incursions and they get more isk for a dumb and repetitive chore, plz dont oversimplify things or the industry will die, or if you do, at least nerf the isk generation in this game aka incursions.

The reprocessing changes are great, so are the manufacturing and ui changes, but i dont agree with the me and te changes.

The job scaling cost is ok and the teams are "meh" i thought it will be a way to unite industrial chars, for example making 2 chars doing jobs at the same time so time will be halved or something like that.

What industry really needs is a way to create contracts where someone moves the stuff to a location and then put a contract, then when the industrial accepts it, he does the jobs and the owner gets the output, that of course for a price

In that way, the industrial who has the skills will not need to have a massive amount of capital to start doing industry, he will just get money to do the jobs.
Busje Komt Zo
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#44 - 2014-05-01 11:56:58 UTC
Ream Lolstar wrote:
Im sorry Grayscale, but I aggree with the person that created this topic, if you keep simplifying stuff, everybody will do industry and it wont be profitable anymore, I'm an industrial engineer irl and Im a null sec vet (BOB, Raiden, PL, then CFC yay!) in eve who do industry to afford my pvp and it was only profitable for the entry barrier it supossed, ppl now do anoms, they do incursions and they get more isk for a dumb and repetitive chore, plz dont oversimplify things or the industry will die, or if you do, at least nerf the isk generation in this game aka incursions.

That's elitist talk in my opinion. Locking people out due to complexity would be bad game design. Having said that, I don't think the old (current) system is all that complicated, although some improvements could definitely be made, especially in terms of UI.

You are also kind of contradicting yourself: if everyone started doing industry and it would become unprofitable... then why would everybody keep doing industry? I'm sure it is still going to be something where people with the best (in-game) skills and Eve economics knowledge will make the most profit.

My concern with the current changes is that I feel the changes in cost-price calculations add so many variables that it won't be easy to figure out if an item is profitable to make ore not (at least not from the game interface). I also fear the "Teams" feature adds complexity that could make these calculations even harder, to the point where most industrialist simply won't bother with them at all.
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
#45 - 2014-05-01 13:24:25 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
If anything I'm concerned that the entire package of changes ends up being too challenging for players to deal with. The math is all deliberately simple because there are a *lot* of moving parts going in different directions at the same time. We've simplified as much as possible round the edges (eg blueprint research) to try and balance out the changes to the core of the system: what do I build, and where, and when?

Of course, if we're wrong, and everything collapses back into steady-state solutions, adding complexity is the easiest thing in game design :)


Sorry, but I think you have miscalculated two things.

1) The current ME formula is not that hard for the type of people who play this game. 0.1/(1+ME). For ME levels above 10, this can be approximated to 1/(10*ME). So I can look at an ME 20 blueprint and immediately think it is approximately 1/200 worse than "perfect" so 0.5%. Then I look at the ME 50 blueprint and see 1/500 = 0.2%. Difference is 0.3% material savings from buying the expensive BPC over the less expensive BPC.

And if someone wants to buy the expensive BPC without thinking, why should EVE hold their hand?

2) The mental block players will have when they try to get a quote for one more level of a high rank blueprint. This game is 12 years old. We pay for it by the month. There is an expansion approximately every 6 months which can change the meta of the game. When someone goes to the new Industry UI screen and sees a quote which tells them they will need 4 years to get one more level on their freighter blueprint, they are going to say, "This is stupid!"
Kirluin
#46 - 2014-05-01 13:34:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirluin
I think the new system is definitely going in the right direction as far as complexity. The current system suffers from the same problem most of Eve gameplay has: it's non-discoverable from within the game itself and has complications added only for complexity's sake. That kind of complexity doesn't make it "hardcore," that's just opaque/bad design.

Kind of like the old Microsoft certification exams. Back in the day their MCSE cert exams were pretty easy as they covered some networking basics and computer setup. then Microsoft decided to increase the value of having the cert by making the tests harder around the Windows 2000 timeframe.

Except that they made the tests "harder" by making the wording of the questions more difficult to understand, with double or triple negatives and convoluted examples designed to mislead. i.e. "If the checkbox isn't not unchecked, whereas before it was, what is the result of re-unchecking it and leaving it enabled?" They didn't make the actual content harder. That is an example of Bad Complexity.

That being said, I think they will have to work on the details of this change. 2 or 4 years of research to get to the next level is effectively removing those levels from the game, except for those grandfathered in. I would recommend that CCP take as a benchmark the longest possible skill to train to level 5 (racial titan V?) and make that the cap of max ME/TE research time required.

In any case I hope CCP continues the trend to bring more information into the game interface, make things self-discoverable and easy to learn/hard to master. +1 approve.
Daerrol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2014-05-01 15:10:06 UTC
as a novice industrialist I intend to mine minerals for free then because of mostly UI changes build stuff with them AND YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REPROCCESS IT FOR ISK!!Pirate THERE ARE OVER 9000 OF US IDIOTS AND WE ARE ALL UNDERSELLING ITEMS.
Moonlit Raid
Doomheim
#48 - 2014-05-01 18:51:12 UTC
Busje Komt Zo wrote:
Ream Lolstar wrote:
Im sorry Grayscale, but I aggree with the person that created this topic, if you keep simplifying stuff, everybody will do industry and it wont be profitable anymore, I'm an industrial engineer irl and Im a null sec vet (BOB, Raiden, PL, then CFC yay!) in eve who do industry to afford my pvp and it was only profitable for the entry barrier it supossed, ppl now do anoms, they do incursions and they get more isk for a dumb and repetitive chore, plz dont oversimplify things or the industry will die, or if you do, at least nerf the isk generation in this game aka incursions.

That's elitist talk in my opinion. Locking people out due to complexity would be bad game design. Having said that, I don't think the old (current) system is all that complicated, although some improvements could definitely be made, especially in terms of UI.

You are also kind of contradicting yourself: if everyone started doing industry and it would become unprofitable... then why would everybody keep doing industry? I'm sure it is still going to be something where people with the best (in-game) skills and Eve economics knowledge will make the most profit.

My concern with the current changes is that I feel the changes in cost-price calculations add so many variables that it won't be easy to figure out if an item is profitable to make ore not (at least not from the game interface). I also fear the "Teams" feature adds complexity that could make these calculations even harder, to the point where most industrialist simply won't bother with them at all.

Locking people out due to complexity is not elitist, locking people out because it's expensive is. Having a friend donate billions to get you started gives you genuine advantage but being in a situation where two people have to learn the exact same (albeit complicated) thing means they are both in an equal position.

If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.

Please Note: Any advice given comes with the caveat that nothing will be suitable for every situation.

Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#49 - 2014-05-01 20:48:51 UTC
Shoogie wrote:
[quote=CCP Greyscale]
2) The mental block players will have when they try to get a quote for one more level of a high rank blueprint. This game is 12 years old. We pay for it by the month. There is an expansion approximately every 6 months which can change the meta of the game. When someone goes to the new Industry UI screen and sees a quote which tells them they will need 4 years to get one more level on their freighter blueprint, they are going to say, "This is stupid!"



And if the same player realise that in current system he would have to run 1 day (for example) research job for that rorqual 2 000 times to get another reduction this is not stupid? (numbers are made up just to show point - i know that some blueprints after the change will take longer and some shorter than before to get them to perfect)
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
#50 - 2014-05-01 23:03:33 UTC
Max Kolonko wrote:
Shoogie wrote:
[quote=CCP Greyscale]
2) The mental block players will have when they try to get a quote for one more level of a high rank blueprint. This game is 12 years old. We pay for it by the month. There is an expansion approximately every 6 months which can change the meta of the game. When someone goes to the new Industry UI screen and sees a quote which tells them they will need 4 years to get one more level on their freighter blueprint, they are going to say, "This is stupid!"



And if the same player realise that in current system he would have to run 1 day (for example) research job for that rorqual 2 000 times to get another reduction this is not stupid? (numbers are made up just to show point - i know that some blueprints after the change will take longer and some shorter than before to get them to perfect)


No. It is not stupid, because here are the non-made-up numbers.

Today, a Rorqual takes 33 days to research one ME level or one PE level in a POS. It takes approximately 45 days to research one level in an NPC station, plus the length of the queue in the station before you can start.

So if you have a Rorqual blueprint, you know exactly how long your blueprint will be out of commission if you research it. That length of time is on the order of one month in a POS or two months in an NPC station. If you can manufacture a Rorqual every 10 days, the opportunity cost for this research job is the profit you could potentially make on between 3 and 6 Rorquals depending on the facility you choose.

There are also plenty of tools which tell you exactly what the bill of materials will be for your Rorqual blueprint after the research. (I wish that information was available in game. It sounds like it will be in the new UI.) So when you plug in your blueprint and see, "Oh, if I do this, then I will only save one Capital Construction Parts per build, worth about seven million isk." So then a reasonable person would not research the blueprint and choose something else to do. But at least they have a choice.

In the future, if you want to get your Rorqual to "perfect" the quote is going to say OVER FOUR YEARS. The opportunity cost for researching it that level is astronomically higher. There are going to be 8 expansions to the game between installing it and delivering it. Perhaps one of those expansions will introduce something to completely change the meta game for Rorquals--like the POS compression array for example.

Even more extreme are the titan blueprints. To get from ME 9% to perfect, the quote is going to say 16 years. That research level will actually save costs on building from that blueprint. However, what will the meta game for titans look like 16 years from now?

TL:DR
Changing research times to be so absurdly long means that they have effectively taken away a choice from players. Taking choices away from players is bad, even if most other players think it was the wrong choice.
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
#51 - 2014-05-01 23:25:31 UTC
I apologize, but the non-made-up numbers I entered above are slightly wrong. I assumed the Rorqual was a rank 854 blueprint like carriers and dreads. Instead it is a rank 1024. The results are the same.

Research time today is 40 days in a POS or 53 days in an NPC station.
Build time at PE1 is 13 days in an NPC station or 10 days in a POS.
So your opportunity cost is the potential profit on between 4 and 5 rorquals

Future research time I did not calculate out, but it should be over FIVE years. This is of course assuming an NPC station. Are you going to keep the same POS fueled in the same location with a capital blueprint in it for 5 years?
Khan'nikki
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#52 - 2014-05-02 01:26:50 UTC
My main gripe with Industry / Science is how jobs cannot be spread out over multiple lines. Let us say you could as a project manager take that mega Research Job with 2 Years time on it and divide it among fifteen players with average skills. Now we're talking!

The same if you need to build 1000 Frigates. If the job could be 'broadcast' from a central point collaboration among aligned stations and authorized players is all that is needed.

If the main reason for corporations is to increase cooperation this is an excellent way to do so. The ME/PE and so forth is stat tightening and really does not change gameplay - it is an iteration. Naturally current stakeholders are looking for ways to jimmy an advantage and maintain hegemony (read Huge-Money).

Perhaps cooperation would require some of those database items that never seem to get used or datacores.

Altering where, how and the number of participants that can perform research and industry project can be done is worthwhile.

The incentives of where to build and research should not be only based solely on isk price. In time this should be complemented with where and how mats are acquired.

Thanks!



Felicity Love
Doomheim
#53 - 2014-05-02 02:03:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Felicity Love
Moar stupid people tinkering with stuff they think will make them ISK.... I luv it.

... lights another cigar, smiles the evil smile of Capitalism and watches the ISK tab blink like mad...

Roll

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )

Alex Rosen
Abscondita in Stellis
#54 - 2014-05-02 02:39:02 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
If anything I'm concerned that the entire package of changes ends up being too challenging for players to deal with. The math is all deliberately simple because there are a *lot* of moving parts going in different directions at the same time. We've simplified as much as possible round the edges (eg blueprint research) to try and balance out the changes to the core of the system: what do I build, and where, and when?

Of course, if we're wrong, and everything collapses back into steady-state solutions, adding complexity is the easiest thing in game design :)



I´m sorry but right now you only need to deal with a horrible IU, logistics and (optionally) horrible POS mechanics, after summer every industrial will have to deal with: worse logistics as your sistem gets full, variable taxes, dealing with people that doesn´t like/respect/want us (0.0 and their Napoleons), teams, new ME/TE mechanics, and the same horrible POS IU and code...

How is all this simple for a new player.
Victoria Sin
Doomheim
#55 - 2014-05-02 11:29:55 UTC
Ream Lolstar wrote:

What industry really needs is a way to create contracts where someone moves the stuff to a location and then put a contract, then when the industrial accepts it, he does the jobs and the owner gets the output, that of course for a price


Yes, fantastic idea. But apparently it needs changes to role system and so on. Well what I don't understand is why CCP aren't making those changes *before* rolling out new industry stuff. I mean it's kind-of silly because once those changes are in, you would have to go back and change industry *again* to implement them.
Jack Mayhem
Kaer Industries
#56 - 2014-05-02 12:12:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Mayhem
I agree with Shoogie on all accounts. This is badly thought idea regarding long-term BPOs.

It also removes choice and makes ALL BPOs the same. Before when entering new area of production, there was some excitement, check the BPOs on chruker website, decide what will be optimal, decide how I will spend my time between researching and building, etc. Now: every single battleship and below BPOs will be perfect ME10, capitals ME 7 (except old ones of course). So much for complex game. Even setting up PI will take more effort.

I have built all things except supercaps, will see how new system works out and if it's too dumbed down, no reason to play the game anymore.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#57 - 2014-05-02 12:39:32 UTC
Jack Mayhem wrote:
I agree with Shoogie on all accounts. This is badly thought idea regarding long-term BPOs.

It also removes choice and makes ALL BPOs the same. Before when entering new area of production, there was some excitement, check the BPOs on chruker website, decide what will be optimal, decide how I will spend my time between researching and building, etc. Now: every single battleship and below BPOs will be perfect ME10, capitals ME 7 (except old ones of course). So much for complex game. Even setting up PI will take more effort.

I have built all things except supercaps, will see how new system works out and if it's too dumbed down, no reason to play the game anymore.

you still have to optimize research v building, literally the only part that required independent thought instead of just consulting outside calculators that did everything for you because the system as implemented was too obtuse to calculate without them

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#58 - 2014-05-02 12:42:04 UTC
Alex Rosen wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
If anything I'm concerned that the entire package of changes ends up being too challenging for players to deal with. The math is all deliberately simple because there are a *lot* of moving parts going in different directions at the same time. We've simplified as much as possible round the edges (eg blueprint research) to try and balance out the changes to the core of the system: what do I build, and where, and when?

Of course, if we're wrong, and everything collapses back into steady-state solutions, adding complexity is the easiest thing in game design :)



I´m sorry but right now you only need to deal with a horrible IU, logistics and (optionally) horrible POS mechanics, after summer every industrial will have to deal with: worse logistics as your sistem gets full, variable taxes, dealing with people that doesn´t like/respect/want us (0.0 and their Napoleons), teams, new ME/TE mechanics, and the same horrible POS IU and code...

How is all this simple for a new player.


Oh please, not this NullSec-hates-us stuff again. I don't know what you people do wrong, my industrialist-alt is on amiable terms with people from Null. I even got a seriously discounted blueprint over my NullSec-channels recently. And with the changes some people will even start up more industry in Null.

Also I think you wrote UI wrong. It's User Interface, not Interface User. Just a head's up.
chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#59 - 2014-05-02 18:04:12 UTC
ME/TE is a nice change.

The existing system is annoying and the UI is misleading to new player or possibly even vets that dont have indy experience.

Take ME for example, you want to purchase a BPO for a fuel block and you see 1 with an ME of 40 and 1 with an ME of 100. Which is better? I'd rather know at a glance that they're the same than to consult a 3rd party site or build a spreadsheet.

The current system also gives indy vets an unfair advantage as the research time on some BPOs is, for all intents and purposes, practically indefinite. Eve already has had difficulty in dealing with faulty assumptions by new players that they will never be able to be as good as the vets.

Im also sensing a much easier way to find and compare bpcs being sold stemming from this change.

+1 CCP
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
#60 - 2014-05-02 20:25:21 UTC
chaosgrimm wrote:
ME/TE is a nice change.

The existing system is annoying and the UI is misleading to new player or possibly even vets that dont have indy experience.

Take ME for example, you want to purchase a BPO for a fuel block and you see 1 with an ME of 40 and 1 with an ME of 100. Which is better? I'd rather know at a glance that they're the same than to consult a 3rd party site or build a spreadsheet.

The current system also gives indy vets an unfair advantage as the research time on some BPOs is, for all intents and purposes, practically indefinite. Eve already has had difficulty in dealing with faulty assumptions by new players that they will never be able to be as good as the vets.

Im also sensing a much easier way to find and compare bpcs being sold stemming from this change.

+1 CCP


NO, NO, NO!

The current system is fair. My entire objection to the new system is that it locks in the advantage that the vets already have and makes it so new players will never be able to compete! The advantage is similar to T2 BPOs, but to a lesser degree.

Before I proceed, I want to say that I respect the null sec power blocks. You fought for what you have. You deserve to benefit from it. But when somebody comes to try to take your space from you, they should have access to the same tools you have.

Look at a titan blueprint. There are probably a few ME5 titan blueprints out there. There are certainly a few ME4 blueprints out there, and quite a few at ME3. On patch day, everyone with an ME5 blueprint automagically gets an ME 9% blueprint. Everyone with an ME4 blueprint gets handed an ME 8% blueprint. Everyone with an ME3 blueprint gets an ME 7% blueprint.

So in the future some upstart wants to challenge the null sec status quo. They buy a blueprint and research it for 8 months before starting to build. Assuming Metallurgy 5, they will end up with an ME 6% blueprint. The existing blueprints needed to be researched too, so this is fair so far.

However, when they try to get level 7% to match the existing blueprints, they are going to get a quote that says this job is going to take an additional 10 months, 25 days. If they are silly enough to do this, they will see that level 8% takes an additional 2 years and 48 days. If they are silly enough to do that, level 9% will take an additional 5 years 25 days. If they are silly enough to do that, level 10% will take an additional 12 years 14 days.

Of course, nobody will ever research any of those levels. No new blueprint will ever be researched past 6%. All of the current blueprints will be locked at 1%, 2%, or 3% better than the new guys will ever attain.


Besides, if your objection to the current system is the math, the new UI fixes it for you. You can get a quote for a job for blueprints you don't even own. So plug in a blueprint. Adjust the ME level. Compare the bills of materials. Think about if the difference is worth the time and cost to research. It was a shame this information was previously not available in game, but that has been taken care of!