Science & Industry

If I recollect, in the previous thread Greyscale mentioned that base material cost would be increased for all T2 BPOs and BPCs to leave the materials required to build at around the same levels for invented T2 BPCs.

Just wondering on this point though, what is the level of ME which you are intending to set as equivalent to the current -4 ME Greyscale? You mentioned decryptors would possible be able to push ME to +5, so would ME 0 be the equivalent in terms of materials as a current ME -4 BPC?

Got my head around these change in their entirety now, and as an overall package I would say it looks very good. The ranks look spot on. When you say size*meta level, this would only apply to T2 items (meta 5), and base T1 items (meta 0), so not quite understanding that equation there. But from the table you listed that looks right.

Dealing with the max run copies issue, I would imagine just bump that up or lower it until everything is roughly 80% of build time.

The only issue I have is with making bland landscape when it comes to invention by basing every single BPC as having a single optimal ratio that encompasses all. But I think I have repeated that to ad nauseam now. :)

Looking forward to getting information on how decryptors will work ,and how you are intending to deal with adding the extra materials to T2 items to compensate for getting rid of - ME, (and I guess also adding build time to compensate for getting rid of - PE?).

I assume by this you mean reducing the build time on these, as an alternative to increasing copy times? If we are going to do this across the board, then we can set a baseline using a Size 1, Tech 1 frigate module:

150mm railgun I blueprint (frigate size) current has production time of 600s, copy time per run of 80s. If we adjust the build time downwards to maintain the desired 80% copy time ratio, then this would give a new production time of 100s, so we are now manufacturing frigate modules significantly faster than before.

If we then step up to the battleship-sized 425mm railgun, this again currently has 600s production time and 80s copy time. So if we wanted to keep the copy time ratio, we would also reduce the production time on this to 100s. But that doesn't respect the scaling by rank, so we would multiply this up by 3 to give 300s production time and 240s copy time, so you've halved production time but increased copy time by 3x.

Scaling it up further, we take an Abaddon, current production time 18000s, copy time per run of 72000s. If we keep the size scaling of production time already established, the Abaddon would come out with a new production time of 6000s, 1/3 of it's current value. Copy time would then reduce to 4800s.

If we use the Abaddon as the baseline instead, we would massively increase build time to 90000s to make the copying ratio work, which would scale build times on the 425mm railgun to 4500s and the 150mm railgun to 1500s. Copy times on those two would then be 3600s and 1200s respectively.


Of course, there are varied options in between, where we adjust both the production time and copy time. I like the idea of making all the blueprint timings all nice and neat and internally consistent, but as far as I can see, however we cut it, we are going to end up with some items having some properties that are quite drastically different to their current values. I think the key to whether this is going to work will be which items take that hit, in what direction, and just how big the hit is.




Might want to re-zero this size scale, otherwise you are presumably going to end up with lots of things of size <1, such as ammo, drones, T2 components etc, which currently have manufacturing times significantly less than a T1 frigate module.




Just want to echo concerns already in the thread about how this will interact with module Tiericide. Something that will presumably have to be factored into the wider invention re-work as well.

However, if we go with the stats we have and say that Tech 2 is Meta 5, and we've scaled Tech 1 as per my example above, then manufacturing time for 150mm railgun II becomes 500s (down from 7000s), with the corresponding copy time then 400s (down from 5600s). That's a pretty drastic reduction.

Looking at this more widely, this would mean that any T2 item where the T2:T1 production time ratio is <5:1 would get a production time increase, while anything >5:1 would get a decrease. The former would be siege modules, small T2 ammo, jump freighters, a few odd modules, mining links and T2 frigates. At the other end of the scale is large T2 ammo, larger modules and some T2 rigs. The ratios range from 1:1 all the way to 100:1, so again there would be some quite drastic changes if this was to be flattened out to 5:1 across the board.

Note that the above ratios are based on the ratio of the T1 and T2 productionTime values, adjusted for the portionSize attributes of the two productTypeIDs to give a ratio of time per unit of product. If you don't do this, you end up with ratios up around 266:1 for ammo, due to the much larger portion size of the T2 ammo compared to T1.



Let Tech 1 production time = X
Tech 2 production time = 5X
(on the basis that the T2 item will always be the same "size" as the T1 item, just at Meta 5). This then implies:
Tech 1 copy time = 0.8X
Tech 2 copy time = 4X

Let Invention time = Y
Use T2 BPC build time = 2 * T1 BPO copy time + T1 BPO invention time

Gives 5X = 1.6X + Y
Therefore, Y = 3.4X


The vast majority of invented items currently have an invention time significantly higher than 3.4 times their T1 manufacturing time - the majority are currently at 15x. So, all other things being equal, this would lead to significant reductions in invention times.

Of course, the downside is that it relies on establishing the 5:1 scaling of production times between Tech 1 and Tech 2, and the copy time scaling, with the significant changes covered above. However, once you start to move away from these ratios, it starts looking significantly less neat. While other combinations will work, you are limited to the T2:T1 production time ratio always needing to be appreciably larger than twice the T1 Copy:Build ratio to avoid skewed invention times.

What are your plans with invented T2 bpc when considering the production time. So far this is the most time consuming part and could double the T2 output from invention(ignoring changes to copy/invention).

For example: a 10run Scorch L at -4/-4 takes over 2weeks to build. With no negative values, lets say 0, that would drop to half the time if runtimes stay unchanged.

Can I draw your attention to the Prototype Cloaking Device BPO? Copies much like a T2 BPO (massive time, needs RDbs), but is T1. This seems to be a bit of an oddball. Will it remain so, or be put into line with other T1 stuff?

Firstly, these proposed changes will drastically change the decryptor market. By closing the gap in production cost between 'good' ME results and 'bad' ME results, throughput (invention probability x modified max runs) will become the only important statistic on most decryptors. Currently, the difference between build price on a no decryptor invented BPC and a Process decryptor BPC is 25%; after these changes it will be 3-6% depending upon how you do it. Factor in invention chance, and the Process decryptor will only just be worth using on Marauders after this change, whereas presently it is used on HACs and anything larger.

Personal interest statement on this feedback: given that I am sitting on hundreds, maybe thousands of Symmetry decryptors (and low double figures of the much more expensive and soon to be nearly worthless Process decryptors), I can live with this :). Doesn't mean I think it's a good change, but it will definitely make me billions.


Secondly, there are four things that can be limiting with the present tech 2 production system - player tolerance for clicks, copy slot time, invention slot time and production time. The second and third overlap as they Examples of each:

- Warrior II is limited by click tolerance
- Most battleship modules are limited by copy slot time; in addition, for most inventors that do not have access to a POS, this becomes limiting for many more things.
- Rigs and ships are limited by invention slot time
- Ammo is limited by production time
- In addition, all sorts of production may be limited by available capital (for example, I cannot run nine Marauder builds at once).

I would recommend you continue this system. The less knowledgeable inventor will continue mass inventing one or two items they are familiar with and will just accept that they always have (for example) too many production lines; the more knowledgeable will game the system and do some from each category, trying to maximize all four resources, and the most knowledgeable will treat the whole system as an optimization problem and try to solve it for maximized ISK, rather than maximized resource usage.


Concrete suggestions:

- Increase the multiplier for larger module (BS/capital) copy and invention time significantly, and decrease the multiplier for small modules, so that those with science slot hours to spare have the option to focus on larger modules, and those for whom science slot hours are limited can focus on smaller ones.

- Sample times of what I'd like to see for public station slots, max skills:

Copying:
Light Neutron Blaster I, 20 copies, 300 runs: 30 hours (presently 100)
Heavy Neutron Blaster I, 20/300: 120 hours (presently 100)
Neutron Blaster Cannon I, 20/300: 300 hours (presently 100)

Invention:
LNB II: 60 minutes (presently 150)
HNB II: 240 minutes (presently 150)
NBC II: 600 minutes (presently 150)

Production time:
For consistency I assume no decryptors anywhere here, although for obvious reasons anyone actually building Neutron Blaster Cannon II would use at least a cheap Symmetry decryptor and I believe they are optimal on Heavy Neutron Blaster II too.
LNB II (no decryptor, 10 runs): 20 hours (currently about 22.2)
HNB II: 40 hours (currently I think these are about 45)
NBC II: 60 hours (currently about 67)

In short, science times would go up in a 1:4:10:X ratio from frig:cruiser:BS:capital modules, with production times 1:2:3:X. (I'm leaving capital modules out; someone that knows more about them than me is more qualified to make suggestions there).


A side benefit is that this would provide science jobs that work well for people that log on twice a day. Presently someone looking to optimize the % of time their science slots are in use that can log on twice a day is somewhat limited to rigs, as most invention jobs are either short module jobs (2.5 hours or less) or long ship jobs (25 hours or more).



Personal interest statement: I and my in-game associates are very, very large net user of Light Neutron Blaster II and would benefit from less science slot hours being required to produce these, so I do stand to personally gain from this proposal.

And while we're pointing out inconsistencies in blueprints stats:

All T2 non-armor rigs have the following manufacture requirements:

• Small rigs - Level 1 of parent rigging skill
• Medium rigs - Level 1 of parent rigging skill
• Large rigs - Level 1 of parent rigging skill
• Capital rigs - Level 4 of parent rigging skill

T2 armor rigs are the only ones that follow a different pattern of manufacture requirements:

• Small rigs - Level 1 of parent rigging skill
• Medium rigs - Level 2 of parent rigging skill
• Large rigs - Level 3 of parent rigging skill
• Capital rigs - Level 4 of parent rigging skill

That would be a very needed change.
But!
Are you ready to reduce the time for Cynosural Field Generator by 60 times or increase the time for Abaddon by 60 times? Because at the moment, they have the same build time, and their ranks are 60 times apart. As for me, I'd like to see build times to be increased considerably, that would give a niche to work in for many players, not only 1% of dedicated industrialist.

Thank you on the first two points!

Would you consider making the copy & invention process one clickable event for invention? So account for the copy time but allow it to be a combined copy & invention event so additional intervention and clickiness isn't required? Skills can still impact the bottom line in terms of material and time, but this is also a chance to allow (say a checkbox to combine both activities) a savings in busy work. A uniform underlying logic can be achieved and positive player experience can improve. There can be also be sufficient incentives to make this a significant act (no cancelling jobs, loss of materials, additional expense to setup the job, skills needed, etc...).

Skills are a different problem that'll be tackled at a later date.