These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Blueprint data adjustments thread

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#401 - 2014-06-09 13:26:53 UTC  |  Edited by: probag Bear
You've got your numbers slightly wrong mynna.

Pre-patch, decryptor-less invention (-4 ME) gives you a 1.5x multiplier. Post-patch, decryptor-less invention (+2 ME) would give you a 0.98x multiplier from the new base which is 1/0.9 of the old one. So decryptor-less invention after the patch would have (1/0.9)*(0.98/1.5) ~= 72.6% of the old requirements, which needs a factor of ~1.378 to balance out. The proposed factor of 1.5 pushes decryptorless invention up by 8.88%.

With a 1.5x factor, material requirements modifiers are {0.98,1.03,1.09,1.15,1.23,1.32} (spanning the invention ME range, with Augmentation 0.98, decryptor-less at 1.09, and such). A 1.375x factor turns that to {0.9,0.95,1.00,1.06,1.13,1.21}. Which is still "bad", sure, just a different flavor of it.
Qoi
Exert Force
#402 - 2014-06-09 13:48:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Qoi
Someone commented that eve-central is wildly inaccurate, i used the CREST market history now and did the numbers again.

http://bp.kiwi.frubar.net/T2Consumption.pdf

I'm more concerned here that a flat modifier will have wildly different impacts on different categories, changing the balance among the high-end moon minerals themselves.

mynnna wrote:

His so-called "safer alternative" is all well and very good, except for the fact that even in the hysterically unlikely case where he's absolutely right about decryptor usage in every scenario and it stays exactly the same after the patch, it drops consumption by 3-5% in each of his proposed categories - not keeps it the same.

Yes, the numbers are too low, i completely agree. The changes should be between ~55% and ~25%. Probably from 50% to 30%. But I agree with the general idea.

mynna wrote:

And then we can get into what happens if he's wrong and Attainment becomes a popular decryptor - that drops consumption by previously decryptorless items by 8%, Symmetry items by 15%, cruisers and BCs (Accelerant items) by 22% and Process items by 26%. Or there's the rise of the Augmentation decryptor, where those numbers are 13.5%, 20%, 26.5% and 30%, respectively.

After Crius, using a Process Decryptor (+3 ME) will only reduce the material usage by 3%, so these numbers are completely wrong.


mynna wrote:

The originally proposed ~50% from current base (actually x1.5/.9 as originally laid out, which is +52.8% from current base) accounts for this to a degree, because it leaves decryptorless things right where they are, moves Symmetry and Accelerant items up by +6% and +13%, respectively, but anything that swaps to Attainment either drops by 1% or increases by 2% at most, while anything swapping to Augmentation drops by 4-7%. That is, I'd say, a pretty solid counterbalance and does a far better job of "minimizing impact on mineral consumption" than you're giving it credit for, especially seeing as the three categories there (no decryptor, symmetry and augmentation) constitute the large majority of the goo usage.

I agree that a flat 1.5 modifier* is a pretty good solution. But applying it to items like jump freighters (where everyone is using process now) would increase their material costs by more than 20%, even if you still use Process after Crius. That is a significant change. Also for Fermionic Condensates demand. (But I'm not an expert on moon mining, someone else will have to say if that is dangerous or not.)

(* Of course the actual modifier is not 1.5/0.9, but 1.3776/0.9 because of the ME changes)

http://eve-industry.org
Aluka 7th
#403 - 2014-06-09 14:54:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Aluka 7th
Did anyone notice much bigger issue which kicks all this out of ballpark area. T2 ship build times were increased substantially (BPO/BPC/invented BPC) which alone would decrease material demand of T2 production.

Example - Curse
Current build time with TE 0 (+25% time penalty but no bonuses and skills) is 120.000 sec
And in proposed draft (blueprints_public_draft_4.csv) is 240.000 sec

Example - Vengeance
Current build time with TE 0 - 40.000 sec
Proposed in draft - 120.000 sec

Example - Ark
Current build time with TE 0 - 1.920.000 sec
Proposed in draft - 3.600.000 sec
Ereshgikal
Wharf Crusaders
#404 - 2014-06-09 15:29:22 UTC
Aluka 7th wrote:
Did anyone notice much bigger issue which kicks all this out of ballpark area. T2 ship build times were increased substantially (BPO/BPC/invented BPC) which alone would decrease material demand of T2 production.

Example - Curse
Current base build time (TE 0, no bonuses and skills) is 120.000 sec
And in proposed draft (blueprints_public_draft_4.csv) is 240.000 sec

Example - Vengeance
Current base build time - 40.000 sec
Proposed in draft - 120.000 sec

Example - Ark
Current base build time - 1.840.000 sec
Proposed in draft - 3.600.000 sec



It will introduce an initial lag in getting production up to the same level, yes. But if the end-user demand stays the same there will be supply trying to meet the demand; and so after that initial delay when the TTM is lengthened it will be "back to todays numbers".

It will require more active "slots" to meet this demand, but this has the benefit of opening the market to more players (unless every industrial player just adds production skills to their R&D alts).
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#405 - 2014-06-09 15:32:02 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

Given the amount of inflation Eve is already suffering

minimal inflation that is not worth discussing, as confirmed over and over again by ccp's economist? that amount of inflation?
Valterra Craven
#406 - 2014-06-09 15:47:37 UTC
Jon Lucien wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Ereshgikal wrote:

But again, it is pure speculation and only CCP have the means and the data to see if it really is a factor to consider.


Well only speculation in that I'm guessing by how much prices will increase, but with all of the changes together, prices WILL increase. Install costs, teams, etc all will drive costs up. Less minerals from reprocing will have a slight to moderate affect. Making the material cost of of t2 production higher will increase cost. Making things take longer will increase cost. I'm guessing the refine changes will also remove an amount of minerals from the market that now have to be compressed as ore instead. Likely a marginal increase in cost, but again add all of these together... and well I arrive at my 15-30% guesstimate.



Your fearmongering is really a pleasure to read. If we add up all of your assumptions we basically come up with a really bad assumption. Also you seem to equate the status quo with what is "correct".

Also there is no inflation in eve. You must have missed that hour-long talk at fanfest.



Fearmongering? That's rich coming from a goon. It is a fact that with all of these industrial changes prices will increase goods. Or do simple facts elude you?

When job install costs go from 10k per job to millions per job, finished goods prices increase.
When you remove supply from the market and demand stays the same or increases prices increase.

Also, you seem to equate nothing.
Jon Lucien
Goosefleet
Gooseflock Featheration
#407 - 2014-06-09 16:01:28 UTC
And the rather huge material reductions from facilities and teams more than makes up for that. Also, why do you assume that because rat drop reprocessing is getting reduced that those materials won't come from somewhere else?
Aluka 7th
#408 - 2014-06-09 16:02:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Aluka 7th
Ereshgikal wrote:
Aluka 7th wrote:
Did anyone notice much bigger issue which kicks all this out of ballpark area. T2 ship build times were increased substantially (BPO/BPC/invented BPC) which alone would decrease material demand of T2 production.

Example - Curse
Current build time with TE 0 (+25% time penalty but no bonuses and skills) is 120.000 sec
And in proposed draft (blueprints_public_draft_4.csv) is 240.000 sec

Example - Vengeance
Current build time with TE 0 - 40.000 sec
Proposed in draft (new TE 0) - 120.000 sec

Example - Ark
Current build time with TE 0 - 1.920.000 sec
Proposed in draft - 3.600.000 sec



It will introduce an initial lag in getting production up to the same level, yes. But if the end-user demand stays the same there will be supply trying to meet the demand; and so after that initial delay when the TTM is lengthened it will be "back to todays numbers".

It will require more active "slots" to meet this demand, but this has the benefit of opening the market to more players (unless every industrial player just adds production skills to their R&D alts).


Lag?
Moons spew same ("fixed") amount of moon goo per day.
When Greyscale just copied build time of PE(TE) -4 BPC to be new base time (which in theory would be fine) he overlooked the fact that in reality invented ship BPC have PE0 to -2 (mostly -1) and this move just reduced moon goo demand globally by roughly 15%. On top of that, converting invented BPCs from ME -4 to ME ~0% reduced moon goo demand by another 30%.

Only counter to all that (which CCP introduced) is increase in base mat requirement of about +50%.

So roughly with all 3 elements in place and considering all those nice pdf's from fellow pilots where is shown that most demand for moon goo is in ship production we could conclude that overall demand for materials will fall about 10% if new build times stay as proposed even with proposed increase in base materials. So using "on paper" doubling or even tripling (assault frig) manufacturing time reduced moon material demand by quite much.

Solution - instead of increasing ship production time by 100 or 200% (shown in blueprints_public_draft_4.csv), it should be increased by 2/3 aka 66.6% and keep proposed 50% material increase
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#409 - 2014-06-09 17:00:05 UTC
Aluka 7th wrote:
...converting invented BPCs from ME -4 to 0 reduced moon goo demand by another ~30%.


This is incorrect. Current ME-4 T2 BPCs will be converted to ME+2. This allows for ME-6 BPCs, which will convert to ME0.

Aluke 7th wrote:
Only counter to all that is increase in base mat requirement of about +50%.


Which he has already stated will happen.

You should probably take the time to actually read through the thread. I understand that at 20+ pages it will take a few minutes. But it is worth your time.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Aluka 7th
#410 - 2014-06-09 17:06:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Aluka 7th
Soldarius wrote:
Aluka 7th wrote:
...converting invented BPCs from ME -4 to 0 reduced moon goo demand by another ~30%.


This is incorrect. Current ME-4 T2 BPCs will be converted to ME+2. This allows for ME-6 BPCs, which will convert to ME0.

Aluke 7th wrote:
Only counter to all that is increase in base mat requirement of about +50%.


Which he has already stated will happen.

You should probably take the time to actually read through the thread. I understand that at 20+ pages it will take a few minutes. But it is worth your time.



If you understood my post you would see that I am aware of already planned for implementation +50% to material usage.
I propose reducing build time from +100%/+200% (that is also proposed by CCP in addition to material increase) to +66% or +75% manufacturing time from current TQ manuf. time ON TOP of those +50% material increase that is "planed for implementation"
Aluka 7th
#411 - 2014-06-09 17:27:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Aluka 7th
Explanation of above math.

Lets say that BPC with ME0/TE0 currently on TQ requires 11000 materials every 1250 min.

1.NOW
Mostly used BPC for T2 ship is ME -1 & TE -1 which translates to 12000 materials every 1500 min.
=8materials/min

2. Crius hits
Now we make new base (ME 0% TE 0%) which becomes 11111 materials and new time is doubled to 2500 min (last .csv file).
Then we add 1.5x (+50% proposed material increase) which becomes 16666 materials every 2500 min.
Now we convert -1/-1BPC to ME5% TE10% and we have 15833 materials every 2250 min.
=7materias/minute

So when we apply all proposed changes and consider all facts, moon goo material demand which is driven by T2 ship building will drop by ~12%. Solution is, in addition to +50% material requirement which must stay, to reduce production time increase from doubling (+100% in CCPs last .csv file) to "just" increase of 2/3 (+66%) or at least 3/4 (+75%) to keep in ballpark area of current moon goo demand. OFC if we want to do that.

So for example NEW Curse base build time should be 200.000 or 210.000 seconds instead 240.000 sec that CCP Greyscale proposed in Crius. It is 120.000 now on TQ.
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#412 - 2014-06-09 17:43:45 UTC
Any chance y'all can put out a Dev Blog with all this info? It's all quite a bit to follow/catch up on.
Ereshgikal
Wharf Crusaders
#413 - 2014-06-09 20:28:12 UTC
Aluka 7th wrote:
Explanation of above math.

Lets say that BPC with ME0/TE0 requires 11000 materials every 1250 min.

1.NOW
Mostly used BPC for T2 ship is ME -1 & TE -1 which translates to 12000 materials every 1500 min.
=8materials/min

2. Crius hits
Now we make new base (ME 0% TE 0%) which becomes 111111 materials and new time is doubled to 2500 min (last .csv file).
Then we add 1.5x (+50% proposed material increase) which becomes 16666 materials every 2500 min.
Now we convert -1/-1BPC to ME5% TE10% and we have 15833 materials every 2250 min.
=7materias/minute

So when we apply all proposed changes and consider all facts, mon goo material demand which is driven by T2 ship building will drop by ~12%. Solution is, in addition to +50% material requirement which must stay, to reduce production time increase from doubling (+100% in CCPs last .csv file) to "just" increase of 2/3 (+66%) or at least 3/4 (+75%) to keep in ballpark area of current moon goo demand. OFC if we want to do that.

So for example NEW Curse base build time should be 200.000 or 210.000 seconds instead 240.000 sec that CCP Greyscale proposed in Crius. It is 120.000 now on TQ.


Since I was not too clear in my other reply to you I will try to be a bit more specific this time. :)

Even if the time per unit to produce will go up, the demand stays the same (given the prices stay the same). What you should be looking at number of ships produced per day per slot. This number will go down, so in order to keep up with the demand the number of slots used will go up. If input material stayed the same per unit, then a doubling of time to build would mean a doubling of build slots used to consume the same amount of material (and output the same amount of ships per day). Doubling of build time will mean that a doubling of concurrent jobs have to be done to meet the same demand as pre-Crius.

But, since the input material is increasing for almost all ships larger than frigates (assuming either 37.5.% or 50% change) the net effect will be that the amount of material consumed will go up. Moon goo demand is not dependent of time to build once the initial lag effect have passed.

What I meant by "initial lag" was that the jobs started directly after the patch will take longer to finish, while the output of the jobs started before the patch will be done much quicker. This leaves a small gap in time when products will not be able to be delivered (ignoring stockpiles). The length of this gap depends on how many more characters that gets into production (or if existing producers ramp up their own "slot" usage).
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#414 - 2014-06-09 20:36:17 UTC  |  Edited by: probag Bear
Edited out. I ought to learn to resist the temptation of shitposting.
Jon Lucien
Goosefleet
Gooseflock Featheration
#415 - 2014-06-09 20:39:19 UTC
Ereshgikal is correct on this, that demand is not dependent on how long it takes to build something. Also, there's a very high likelihood that many more characters will be involved in building things. The bar to get into production is dropping, the interface is being cleaned up, and slot limitations are going away. I've personally more than tripled the number of slots I have to build my stuff. And while my production expansion is anecdotal, I know I'm not the only one increasing production ability.
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#416 - 2014-06-09 21:07:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Seith Kali
Effort is the only real barrier for invention. I used to invent, but now I just cannot bring myself to install jobs through the sheer tedium of it. I've said countless times in these threads that all these hypothetical production quantity numbers people seem intent on spouting around like a drunkard pissing are utterly insubstantial when you consider the effect a nicer UI is going to have.


If we really can invent in batches or even in one or two clicks that is going to make a bigger difference to net production quantities per real-player than flapping about with build times ever will.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#417 - 2014-06-09 21:52:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenneth Feld
Seith Kali wrote:
Effort is the only real barrier for invention. I used to invent, but now I just cannot bring myself to install jobs through the sheer tedium of it. I've said countless times in these threads that all these hypothetical production quantity numbers people seem intent on spouting around like a drunkard pissing are utterly insubstantial when you consider the effect a nicer UI is going to have.


If we really can invent in batches or even in one or two clicks that is going to make a bigger difference to net production quantities per real-player than flapping about with build times ever will.



That is the best thing i have ever heard a goon say

I gave up invention a while ago, I have close to 30,000 bpc ready to invent, but couldn't bring myself to carpal tunnel, so i quit

I have already sourced more decrypt ors and data cores, just waiting on the patch

Luckily i didn't sell my large quantity of science alts
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#418 - 2014-06-09 21:53:23 UTC
Aluka 7th wrote:
Explanation of above math.

Lets say that BPC with ME0/TE0 requires 11000 materials every 1250 min.

1.NOW
Mostly used BPC for T2 ship is ME -1 & TE -1 which translates to 12000 materials every 1500 min.
=8materials/min

2. Crius hits
Now we make new base (ME 0% TE 0%) which becomes 111111 materials and new time is doubled to 2500 min (last .csv file).
Then we add 1.5x (+50% proposed material increase) which becomes 16666 materials every 2500 min.
Now we convert -1/-1BPC to ME5% TE10% and we have 15833 materials every 2250 min.
=7materias/minute

So when we apply all proposed changes and consider all facts, mon goo material demand which is driven by T2 ship building will drop by ~12%. Solution is, in addition to +50% material requirement which must stay, to reduce production time increase from doubling (+100% in CCPs last .csv file) to "just" increase of 2/3 (+66%) or at least 3/4 (+75%) to keep in ballpark area of current moon goo demand. OFC if we want to do that.

So for example NEW Curse base build time should be 200.000 or 210.000 seconds instead 240.000 sec that CCP Greyscale proposed in Crius. It is 120.000 now on TQ.


Nice job editing your post after the fact. Fortunately, Eve-O forums preserves the original post in subsequent quotes, as well as the last time edited. But on to more important matters.

For reference:

http://wiki.eve-id.net/Equations

If the above formulas are not accurate, ignore everything below. I know where the dumpster is.

I would love to use a simplified formula as Aluka did; 1250 final build time and 11000 materials required. But the problem with this is that with the material usage formula changing, we can't really do that. It isn't the final materials amount or build time changing (at least not directly), its the base amounts and time. This is important when comparing current and post-change demand.

Current:
Assuming Production Efficiency 5, every level of negative ME multiplies the BP waste. So ME-1 is 20% waste. This leaves us with 11000*1.2 = 13200, not 12000.

Something that requires 1250 seconds at PE0 will require 1750 at PE-1. Assuming you have Industry 5 this means that the base BP build time would be 1562.5 minutes. Remember this number for later. So currently a -1/-1 BP would come out to 13200units/1250min, exactly 10.56 units per minute.

Post Crius: Take old base of 11000 * 1.5 (base material modifier) / .9 (adding in waste) to find the new ME0 base of 18333. Now invent a BPC using the same decryptor. It should come out as ME+5%/TE+10%.from that. That comes out to 17416 units, an appx 31.9% increase.

Now, that would be a lot of extra materials, except we're doubling the base production time. The new base production time (see above) for your example item should be 1562.5*2=3125 minutes, not 2500. Now multiply that by the Industry skill time reduction of 4%x5=20%, and the TE reduction of 10%. This comes out to 2250 minutes. 17416 units / 2250 minutes = 7.74 units per minute.

7.74 / 10.56 = appx 26.7% reduction in demand over time. So either a 50% increase in mats is too low, or a doubling of time is too high.

Out of curiosity, I did the calculations again based on a 70% increase in materials to simulate the proper base of a current ME-6 BPC. Why we're basing on ME-4 (+50%) BPCs I don't know. But the new base at +70% came out to 20777/2250=9.234 units/minute, which is much closer to current demand.

Then I repeated the process again with a 2x materials multiplier. The result was 10.86units/minute. Then I did it again at 1.9x and got 10.32units/minute. At this point, one could pick a number between 1.9 and 2x to get a fair approximation of current demand for T2 production materials.

Or we could reduce the 2x base time multiplier.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#419 - 2014-06-09 23:23:24 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Qoi wrote:
This is not an exact metric since items traded != items produced, but it does look like applying a flat material modifier to all T2 Blueprints will have a significant impact on moon mineral consumption. The suggestion by Sabriz Adoudel looks like a much safer alternative.


His so-called "safer alternative" is all well and very good, except for the fact that even in the hysterically unlikely case where he's absolutely right about decryptor usage in every scenario and it stays exactly the same after the patch, it drops consumption by 3-5% in each of his proposed categories - not keeps it the same.

And then we can get into what happens if he's wrong and Attainment becomes a popular decryptor - that drops consumption by previously decryptorless items by 8%, Symmetry items by 15%, cruisers and BCs (Accelerant items) by 22% and Process items by 26%. Or there's the rise of the Augmentation decryptor, where those numbers are 13.5%, 20%, 26.5% and 30%, respectively.

For someone interested in "keeping moongoo consumption the same" that seems like an awfully large hole, and I can't really believe it's something he'd just miss on accident. Makes you wonder...

The originally proposed ~50% from current base (actually x1.5/.9 as originally laid out, which is +52.8% from current base) accounts for this to a degree, because it leaves decryptorless things right where they are, moves Symmetry and Accelerant items up by +6% and +13%, respectively, but anything that swaps to Attainment either drops by 1% or increases by 2% at most, while anything swapping to Augmentation drops by 4-7%. That is, I'd say, a pretty solid counterbalance and does a far better job of "minimizing impact on mineral consumption" than you're giving it credit for, especially seeing as the three categories there (no decryptor, symmetry and augmentation) constitute the large majority of the goo usage.



I intended my numbers as a starting point, not as a final product.

The status quo will result in a massive decrease in the amount of people doing production, for the following reasons:

- There is significant overproduction in the EVE economy (2.3 Q produced last year, 0.8 Q destroyed), meaning massive stockpiles of many or most produceable items exist. There's likely about 10 Q of 'stuff' in the economy, counting only player-produced items that are not limited edition.
- These items will sell at reasonably close to current price for the medium term, unless the items in question are destroyed en masse. View the Brutix example - the Brutix is not an unpopular ship, either. It's flown a lot by rookies, it's just not getting used in fleet engagements and thus not destroyed much.
- Unprofitable production (and suboptimal but profitable production) occurs, but the people that do largescale production do not do unprofitable production except for localised supply emergencies or the occasional mistake. I am assuming that 20% of producers produce 80% of the manufactured goods in EVE, and that those people seldom get it wrong.

Any widespread increase in actual material costs will result in less people being involved in production post-Crius than are involved now.



As for the comments on Attainment - if previously decryptorless invention switches to Attainment, this increases material use (slightly) further. This appears to me to be unlikely, however, as I do not believe the drop rate of Attainment is high enough to sustain much use of the decryptor. (This comes only from market considerations, not from experience as an explorer; but I looked into buying up Attainment and did not see enough stock on the market universe wide to consider it).

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Jon Lucien
Goosefleet
Gooseflock Featheration
#420 - 2014-06-10 00:03:25 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I am assuming that 20% of producers produce 80% of the manufactured goods in EVE, and that those people seldom get it wrong.



The assumptions people make sometimes astound me. I, too, can pull numbers out of my backside. Look, Statistics!