These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: EVE Industry - All you want to know

First post First post First post
Author
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#221 - 2014-07-21 14:36:06 UTC
I realized another point worth mentioning regarding the devaluation of the POS. 2% ME reduction is going to do absolutely nothing for production of many T2 modules. Now that T2 mods use components instead of minerals, at 10 runs a lot of the modules will use less than 50 individual items. This means the reduction is less than 1 unit per 10 runs, in other words 0.

I don't get the criticism of the ME/PE changes. We (my corp) like most other veteran industrialists will be losing out years worth of research on countless BPOs, but don't you guys genuinely think that the new research system will be an improvement, more intuitive and just better for the game overall?

Yes, we're sacrificing a lot of time, effort and ISK, but if we're sacrificing it for a better system, I'm willing to take that hit. I have no problems losing out on my advantage as long as I think it will be beneficial to the health of the game. When they screw it up and give us a worse replacement, that's when I get pissed off. Like in the case of the stupid friggen tooltips in the starmap that not a single dev dared to comment on across three threads that I posted on.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!

Pearl Canopus
#222 - 2014-07-21 14:41:32 UTC
Do their exist any plans to implement any influence for corp standing on the production tax now or in future?
Suede
Ashfell Celestial Academy
#223 - 2014-07-21 14:47:05 UTC
BRooDJeRo wrote:
So the hard Euro's and time i have spend to keep accounts going for high level blueprint enhancing beyond ME10 have been a waste since 2003.

I'm not sure if you really want to do this CCP when you want to keep me as a customer on any of your products. I understand the difficulties you're facing with this migration, however i'm not the one that wants to push in a new system.

At this moment i kind of hope i missed the final memo and if not then i would reconsider the position of the person in charge of this at CCP. Many vets if not all of them are totally eyeballing you on this one.

A new system is fine and gives something new to explore. I also understand that there's a line to be drawn. When some company cuts me on a deal in real life then they need to come up with something really nice to compensate any twisted feelings or it's no deal or end of deal.
I'm very sorry that i'm vocal like this. This doesn't happen allot. It's kind of the same when you bought a car and after a while the brand takes your tires and rims off and just says "sorry, have fun scraping the street with joy with your brand new set of rims without tires" while you never really needed a new set of rims in the first place. In this case the brand should grand you a very nice set of new tires at least to keep you happy so you stay as a customer and don't label the brand for theft.

I'm curious what you will come up with to keep me around and what my real value is in your eyes. I'm not even speaking of trouble in relationships and jobs that is caused by playing EvE hahaha. I'm talking about true commitment here.

Also keep in mind that real law exist about theft of digital items, but i don't even want to look into this one to be honest. That's too much negativity for me. Not everything can be solved with a mathematical equation. It's that same thing going on between science and religion. It's about feelings my brother.



[/quote]

very good point,
found this part of the dev blog interesting.
Additionally, the old Material Efficiency skill has been renamed to Advanced Industry, and gives a build time reduction of 1% per level. We are not totally happy with the reduction in skill value that’s happened here, and we are committing to revisiting this skill post-Crius to evaluate how to meet our overall goals here in a less dramatic fashion.

i also saw that in the dev blog, which said
We are not totally happy with the reduction in skill value that’s happened here, and we are committing to revisiting this skill post-Crius to evaluate how to meet our overall goals here in a less dramatic fashion.

Find it so silly for the devs to change something which they know there not happy with.
like fixing a car when you know it not broken,

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#224 - 2014-07-21 14:47:17 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


I particularly love the bold-faced lie CCP told re: capital Blueprints and "no functional value lost".
Guess they have not bothered to get on Sisi and actually see the waste on manufacturing capitals now, compared to the waste today on TQ.

Go ahead CCP, go onto Sisi and look at the waste of my ME 6 Moros BPO, my ME 3 Archon and Thanato BPO's, and then compare them to the waste with the BPO's they have been morphed into on Sisi.

Go ahead, then come back and tell me how that "no functional value was lost."


That was because of a bug in the migration script, which we fixed thanks to your input. Thank you!



Ummm..., once again no.

I am on Singularity, right now, less than 24 hours before this mess goes live.
I have my Archon BPO in my hand. It is sitting as an 8% / 10% BPO.
(BTW, I grabbed a 0% / 0% BPO to see if my facts below are out of whack. The 0/0 BPO has higher component costs than my researched BPO, therefore I know I am solid ground factually.)

I insert it in the UI.

I am not going to go line by line for the individual capital components, but I now need 136 Capital Components to build a single Archon. Currently on TQ I need 127.

If I go hardcore, and intend on building 3 Archon's, the Singularity UI, right now, now states 392 Capital Components, or a little less than 131 per ship.

In my books, 136 , or even 131, is more than 127.

You said that no functional value would be lost.
Either you can't do math, your transition scripts are still borked, or you lied.
Take your pick.
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#225 - 2014-07-21 14:51:21 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


I particularly love the bold-faced lie CCP told re: capital Blueprints and "no functional value lost".
Guess they have not bothered to get on Sisi and actually see the waste on manufacturing capitals now, compared to the waste today on TQ.

Go ahead CCP, go onto Sisi and look at the waste of my ME 6 Moros BPO, my ME 3 Archon and Thanato BPO's, and then compare them to the waste with the BPO's they have been morphed into on Sisi.

Go ahead, then come back and tell me how that "no functional value was lost."


That was because of a bug in the migration script, which we fixed thanks to your input. Thank you!



Ummm..., once again no.

I am on Singularity, right now, less than 24 hours before this mess goes live.
I have my Archon BPO in my hand. It is sitting as an 8% / 10% BPO.
(BTW, I grabbed a 0% / 0% BPO to see if my facts below are out of whack. The 0/0 BPO has higher component costs than my researched BPO, therefore I know I am solid ground factually.)

I insert it in the UI.

I am not going to go line by line for the individual capital components, but I now need 136 Capital Components to build a single Archon. Currently on TQ I need 127.

If I go hardcore, and intend on building 3 Archon's, the Singularity UI, right now, now states 392 Capital Components, or a little less than 131 per ship.

In my books, 136 , or even 131, is more than 127.

You said that no functional value would be lost.
Either you can't do math, your transition scripts are still borked, or you lied.
Take your pick.


This probably because the Material Efficiency skill is gone and they did not compensate the 25% loss from that skill. It's still as competitive as before and thus functional value is not lost. Unless I'm misunderstanding the term functional value.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!

Suede
Ashfell Celestial Academy
#226 - 2014-07-21 15:00:50 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


I particularly love the bold-faced lie CCP told re: capital Blueprints and "no functional value lost".
Guess they have not bothered to get on Sisi and actually see the waste on manufacturing capitals now, compared to the waste today on TQ.

Go ahead CCP, go onto Sisi and look at the waste of my ME 6 Moros BPO, my ME 3 Archon and Thanato BPO's, and then compare them to the waste with the BPO's they have been morphed into on Sisi.

Go ahead, then come back and tell me how that "no functional value was lost."


That was because of a bug in the migration script, which we fixed thanks to your input. Thank you!



Ummm..., once again no.

I am on Singularity, right now, less than 24 hours before this mess goes live.
I have my Archon BPO in my hand. It is sitting as an 8% / 10% BPO.
(BTW, I grabbed a 0% / 0% BPO to see if my facts below are out of whack. The 0/0 BPO has higher component costs than my researched BPO, therefore I know I am solid ground factually.)

I insert it in the UI.

I am not going to go line by line for the individual capital components, but I now need 136 Capital Components to build a single Archon. Currently on TQ I need 127.

If I go hardcore, and intend on building 3 Archon's, the Singularity UI, right now, now states 392 Capital Components, or a little less than 131 per ship.

In my books, 136 , or even 131, is more than 127.

You said that no functional value would be lost.
Either you can't do math, your transition scripts are still borked, or you lied.
Take your pick.


and the index costs,

now i come to think of the bpo on this new system all have higher waste then the old system,
so not only wasting many years to make it good, after patch getting a worse one back with waste of 0.9, which was 0.0 before


Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#227 - 2014-07-21 15:05:08 UTC
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


I particularly love the bold-faced lie CCP told re: capital Blueprints and "no functional value lost".
Guess they have not bothered to get on Sisi and actually see the waste on manufacturing capitals now, compared to the waste today on TQ.

Go ahead CCP, go onto Sisi and look at the waste of my ME 6 Moros BPO, my ME 3 Archon and Thanato BPO's, and then compare them to the waste with the BPO's they have been morphed into on Sisi.

Go ahead, then come back and tell me how that "no functional value was lost."


That was because of a bug in the migration script, which we fixed thanks to your input. Thank you!



Ummm..., once again no.

I am on Singularity, right now, less than 24 hours before this mess goes live.
I have my Archon BPO in my hand. It is sitting as an 8% / 10% BPO.
(BTW, I grabbed a 0% / 0% BPO to see if my facts below are out of whack. The 0/0 BPO has higher component costs than my researched BPO, therefore I know I am solid ground factually.)

I insert it in the UI.

I am not going to go line by line for the individual capital components, but I now need 136 Capital Components to build a single Archon. Currently on TQ I need 127.

If I go hardcore, and intend on building 3 Archon's, the Singularity UI, right now, now states 392 Capital Components, or a little less than 131 per ship.

In my books, 136 , or even 131, is more than 127.

You said that no functional value would be lost.
Either you can't do math, your transition scripts are still borked, or you lied.
Take your pick.


This probably because the Material Efficiency skill is gone and they did not compensate the 25% loss from that skill. It's still as competitive as before and thus functional value is not lost. Unless I'm misunderstanding the term functional value.


Umm......When I compete against someone with a perfect 10 % BPO, my wastage is still much much higher relative to what they get. On TQ right now, the difference was 0.8% (one capital component). That is a functional loss.
Scarlet Bear
Anger of the Darkness
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
#228 - 2014-07-21 15:10:40 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


I particularly love the bold-faced lie CCP told re: capital Blueprints and "no functional value lost".
Guess they have not bothered to get on Sisi and actually see the waste on manufacturing capitals now, compared to the waste today on TQ.

Go ahead CCP, go onto Sisi and look at the waste of my ME 6 Moros BPO, my ME 3 Archon and Thanato BPO's, and then compare them to the waste with the BPO's they have been morphed into on Sisi.

Go ahead, then come back and tell me how that "no functional value was lost."


That was because of a bug in the migration script, which we fixed thanks to your input. Thank you!



Ummm..., once again no.

I am on Singularity, right now, less than 24 hours before this mess goes live.
I have my Archon BPO in my hand. It is sitting as an 8% / 10% BPO.
(BTW, I grabbed a 0% / 0% BPO to see if my facts below are out of whack. The 0/0 BPO has higher component costs than my researched BPO, therefore I know I am solid ground factually.)

I insert it in the UI.

I am not going to go line by line for the individual capital components, but I now need 136 Capital Components to build a single Archon. Currently on TQ I need 127.

If I go hardcore, and intend on building 3 Archon's, the Singularity UI, right now, now states 392 Capital Components, or a little less than 131 per ship.

In my books, 136 , or even 131, is more than 127.

You said that no functional value would be lost.
Either you can't do math, your transition scripts are still borked, or you lied.
Take your pick.


the part of the dev blog which was not nice to read was

THINGS WE AREN'T DOING
After *considerable* discussion, both internally and on the forums, we have decided that we are not going to award any additional compensation for blueprints currently researched past ME/PE 10. There are 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.

Which to me as upset a lot of players over this change to bpo as people have wasted many months to many years
ccp should have just left them, or even given refunds to people at least as they have wasted years in researching there BPOs,
to me the bpo feel killed off, which is sad as put many hrs in to them,

even a sorry letter from ccp to the player bases over the bpo would be nice,
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#229 - 2014-07-21 15:14:25 UTC
Scarlet Bear wrote:

THINGS WE AREN'T DOING
After *considerable* discussion, both internally and on the forums, we have decided that we are not going to award any additional compensation for blueprints currently researched past ME/PE 10. There are 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.

Which to me as upset a lot of players over this change to bpo as people have wasted many months to many years
ccp should have just left them, or even given refunds to people at least as they have wasted years in researching there BPOs,
to me the bpo feel killed off, which is sad as put many hrs in to them,

even a sorry letter from ccp to the player bases over the bpo would be nice,


They kinda did say sorry and at least explained themselves rather than just saying nope, we're not doing it.

"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."

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!

Mistah Ewedynao
Ice Axe Psycho Killers
#230 - 2014-07-21 15:46:28 UTC
Niko Lorenzio wrote:


They kinda did say sorry and at least explained themselves rather than just saying nope, we're not doing it.

"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."



IF they were in interested in equality some guy who just spent a couple of weeks getting a slew of BPO's to ME 10 would NOT be as well off ME wise as a guy who spent weeks or months getting his BPO's to that level.

Again...In my case

1. MONTHS of time wasted on now irrelevant research

2. MONTHS of grinding for standings wasted

3. NPC Team spew Roll

I am glad all this loss to you makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside though.

After all my wasted time training probing skills for the exploration fiasco, Industrial skills,research skills and standings grind for this latest nightmare, it just makes me feel stupid for putting up with it.

Nerf Goons

Nuke em from orbit....it's the only way to be sure.

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#231 - 2014-07-21 15:46:40 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


I particularly love the bold-faced lie CCP told re: capital Blueprints and "no functional value lost".
Guess they have not bothered to get on Sisi and actually see the waste on manufacturing capitals now, compared to the waste today on TQ.

Go ahead CCP, go onto Sisi and look at the waste of my ME 6 Moros BPO, my ME 3 Archon and Thanato BPO's, and then compare them to the waste with the BPO's they have been morphed into on Sisi.

Go ahead, then come back and tell me how that "no functional value was lost."


That was because of a bug in the migration script, which we fixed thanks to your input. Thank you!



Ummm..., once again no.

I am on Singularity, right now, less than 24 hours before this mess goes live.
I have my Archon BPO in my hand. It is sitting as an 8% / 10% BPO.
(BTW, I grabbed a 0% / 0% BPO to see if my facts below are out of whack. The 0/0 BPO has higher component costs than my researched BPO, therefore I know I am solid ground factually.)

I insert it in the UI.

I am not going to go line by line for the individual capital components, but I now need 136 Capital Components to build a single Archon. Currently on TQ I need 127.

If I go hardcore, and intend on building 3 Archon's, the Singularity UI, right now, now states 392 Capital Components, or a little less than 131 per ship.

In my books, 136 , or even 131, is more than 127.

You said that no functional value would be lost.
Either you can't do math, your transition scripts are still borked, or you lied.
Take your pick.


That's just down to a mismatch in terminology, I think. When I say "functional loss" I'm talking about the percentage bonus the research provides, which for an ME3 BPO has gone up in the translation to ME-8%. The counterside here is - I think, and without spending a whole lot of time doing the math to verify this because I've got other things I need to be working on right now too - that because of the way the build costs have moved around (in particular, the gap between 0 and 10 has shifted slightly, which is probably the source of this anomaly) the unit-count boundaries for certain low-unit materials on some blueprints have shifted. Probably - again, I don't want to context-switch and spend half an hour figuring this out exactly, I'm hip-deep in spreadsheet formulae right now. Bottom line from my perspective is that your blueprint was giving a 7.5% material reduction before and it's giving an 8% material reduction now, which is the goal we were trying to achieve. If that's not what you were hoping to get, I can only apologize.
Guttripper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#232 - 2014-07-21 16:01:00 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Further, regarding conspiracy theories generally:

1) We have better and more interesting things to do with our time than trying to secretly influence which group of our customers have the upper hand in our game. Really.
2) We are all more interested in being able to eg pay our rent (a thing which is important to us) than we are in trying to force large numbers of our customers to quit for whatever tinfoil made-up ideological reason you're thinking of (a thing which is not remotely interesting or important to us). Really.

I know this isn't likely to change anyone's mind, but there's really not more that can be said.

Not to go off tangent here, but my two cents on this quote.

1) Unless I was mistaken, with this up-coming patch, wasn't (some of) the early number crunching involved with the formulas given advice, help, and / or suggestions by particular members of the CSM that are involved in, as Dinsdale states, the null sec cartel?

2) Whereas CCP would not want their customers to quit, wasn't an old, "infamous" saying of the same cartel stated to be, "to ruin your game", a.k.a. anyone not involved with them? What a subtle way of going that route - having CCP being the fall guy.

*queues X-Files theme music.

I was about to post, then I noticed another something else - "... whatever tinfoil made-up ideological reason you're thinking of (a thing which is not remotely interesting or important to us)". To me, this sounds parallel to another CCP quote that I'll paraphrase from memory, "Let's see what they (the customers) do instead of what they say." While you may feel you CCP know the game better than the players, could it be possible that you could be wrong, especially when many, including you CCP Greyscale, have admitted to not even playing?

Point is, when players get passionate enough to stay involved with a game, to work outside the game for betterment and edges inside a game, and then you CCP come along with this flippant attitude of "a thing which is not remotely interesting or important to us", please don't come crying to the player base if by chance enough players both loudly and quietly leave the game because you CCP might just have been wrong, again.

You folks are not infallible - history has proven that.

Just my thoughts.
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#233 - 2014-07-21 16:02:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Dav Varan
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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 *1, the fact that no functional value is lost *2, and the work involved in a one-time compensation deal *3 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 *4, 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 *5.



1. It sets no precedent, the concept of compensation for things taken was established when you created a mechanism to return skill points.

2. Wrong, A lot of value is lost don't hide behind analysing build values only.

Most High Bpos are copy to sell, a highly competitive market where getting an edge means spending money on me/pe research.
Returns are small and the cost of research would take many years to claw back.

That cost will now not be recuperated because of the removal of value from the prints over and above competitors.
Also BPO prices on the market were highly dependentant on research levels.

You are wiping trillions of isk of value off bp's game wide.



3. What work ?
Take a couple of days to work out a compensation equation for removed me/pe levels ?

compensation = ( me - 10 ) * research time * compesation rate.

weight that tiny amount of effort against the 10's maybe 100's of man years put in by players working the Copy to sell industry who are going to see there long term investments destroyed in seconds.

4. BS I think you create forum post to give us somewhere where we can be totally fing ignored while we vent our spleens.

5. I think whats good for the game industry wise is players having the confidence that there not just wasting there isk & time taking part in it.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#234 - 2014-07-21 16:12:18 UTC
Guttripper wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Further, regarding conspiracy theories generally:

1) We have better and more interesting things to do with our time than trying to secretly influence which group of our customers have the upper hand in our game. Really.
2) We are all more interested in being able to eg pay our rent (a thing which is important to us) than we are in trying to force large numbers of our customers to quit for whatever tinfoil made-up ideological reason you're thinking of (a thing which is not remotely interesting or important to us). Really.

I know this isn't likely to change anyone's mind, but there's really not more that can be said.

Not to go off tangent here, but my two cents on this quote.

1) Unless I was mistaken, with this up-coming patch, wasn't (some of) the early number crunching involved with the formulas given advice, help, and / or suggestions by particular members of the CSM that are involved in, as Dinsdale states, the null sec cartel?

2) Whereas CCP would not want their customers to quit, wasn't an old, "infamous" saying of the same cartel stated to be, "to ruin your game", a.k.a. anyone not involved with them? What a subtle way of going that route - having CCP being the fall guy.

*queues X-Files theme music.

I was about to post, then I noticed another something else - "... whatever tinfoil made-up ideological reason you're thinking of (a thing which is not remotely interesting or important to us)". To me, this sounds parallel to another CCP quote that I'll paraphrase from memory, "Let's see what they (the customers) do instead of what they say." While you may feel you CCP know the game better than the players, could it be possible that you could be wrong, especially when many, including you CCP Greyscale, have admitted to not even playing?

Point is, when players get passionate enough to stay involved with a game, to work outside the game for betterment and edges inside a game, and then you CCP come along with this flippant attitude of "a thing which is not remotely interesting or important to us", please don't come crying to the player base if by chance enough players both loudly and quietly leave the game because you CCP might just have been wrong, again.

You folks are not infallible - history has proven that.

Just my thoughts.


Yes, various members of the CSM have helped with the numeric analysis and had input into design decisions, including CSM members who belong to various large nullsec organizations. We're fully aware of their affiliations and vested interests, and we view all such input through that lens. There are things that they've said "hey, you should do this" and we've said "yes, that's a good idea" (for example, the Thukker Component Assembly Array for lowsec cap manufacturers), and other things where they've said "hey, you should do this" and we've said "yeah... no, sorry".

As to your second point, the section in parentheses applies to the entire second clause, starting with "than we are in", not just the section you've quoted.

We're aware that we're not infallible, don't worry about that :)
DeODokktor
Dark Templars
The Fonz Presidium
#235 - 2014-07-21 16:18:23 UTC  |  Edited by: DeODokktor
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


I particularly love the bold-faced lie CCP told re: capital Blueprints and "no functional value lost".
Guess they have not bothered to get on Sisi and actually see the waste on manufacturing capitals now, compared to the waste today on TQ.

Go ahead CCP, go onto Sisi and look at the waste of my ME 6 Moros BPO, my ME 3 Archon and Thanato BPO's, and then compare them to the waste with the BPO's they have been morphed into on Sisi.

Go ahead, then come back and tell me how that "no functional value was lost."


That was because of a bug in the migration script, which we fixed thanks to your input. Thank you!



Ummm..., once again no.

I am on Singularity, right now, less than 24 hours before this mess goes live.
I have my Archon BPO in my hand. It is sitting as an 8% / 10% BPO.
(BTW, I grabbed a 0% / 0% BPO to see if my facts below are out of whack. The 0/0 BPO has higher component costs than my researched BPO, therefore I know I am solid ground factually.)

I insert it in the UI.

I am not going to go line by line for the individual capital components, but I now need 136 Capital Components to build a single Archon. Currently on TQ I need 127.

If I go hardcore, and intend on building 3 Archon's, the Singularity UI, right now, now states 392 Capital Components, or a little less than 131 per ship.

In my books, 136 , or even 131, is more than 127.

You said that no functional value would be lost.
Either you can't do math, your transition scripts are still borked, or you lied.
Take your pick.


This probably because the Material Efficiency skill is gone and they did not compensate the 25% loss from that skill. It's still as competitive as before and thus functional value is not lost. Unless I'm misunderstanding the term functional value.



Before your Lack of skill ADDED waste to a print, it didn't make it "Better"...
So skill at V, and then print at perfect = your building at "Base" stats.
Now they moved base.. Round(Oldvalue/0.9), but allowed blueprint research to pull waste (sorry, add savings, same freakin thing!) back to zero..

His ME:3 Archon "TQ" requires 127.
His ME+8 or -8, or 8% savings, or whatever they deem it today/tomorrow shows me using 136 (in my excel document, it could be wrong, but he did say 136)..
At ME+10 he'll drop down to 129 (the extra 2 are due to drone bay increase)

As to his change in build cost, The value doesn't look like it was converted. They have modified it in the DB for some reason, quite a few prints have had adjustments made. The best time to make them is during big patches like this anyhow. If your ticking off the community then why not go full bore.
roundup((round(40/.9))*.9) = 40
So the base has increased from "40" to "45" on the old system, or from "44" to "50" in the new system.

The "Rewards" before were non-linear...
The "Cost" now are non-linear...

CCP hasnt changed the complexity at all, they just moved it away from "Waste" and instead put it on "Time"... So Producers can now do the maths a bit easier, but LAB corps cant.

There are a lot of prints that have had adjustments made. Some are logical, some are just odd. Other smarter people than me will no doubt have a list of things that changed.

Only a few items will have grown by 1 unit. 40 = 40, 41 = 42
40 to 44 just means other adjustments happened.
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#236 - 2014-07-21 16:21:08 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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 *1, the fact that no functional value is lost *2, and the work involved in a one-time compensation deal *3 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 *4, 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 *5.



1. It sets no precedent, the concept of compensation for things taken was established when you created a mechanism to return skill points.

2. Wrong, A lot of value is lost don't hide behind analysing build values only.

Most High Bpos are copy to sell, a highly competitive market where getting an edge means spending money on me/pe research.
Returns are small and the cost of research would take many years to claw back.

That cost will now not be recuperated because of the removal of value from the prints over and above competitors.
Also BPO prices on the market were highly dependentant on research levels.

You are wiping trillions of isk of value off bp's game wide.



3. What work ?
Take a couple of days to work out a compensation equation for removed me/pe levels ?

compensation = ( me - 10 ) * research time * compesation rate.

weight that tiny amount of effort against the 10's maybe 100's of man years put in by players working the Copy to sell industry who are going to see there long term investments destroyed in seconds.

4. BS I think you create forum post to give us somewhere where we can be totally fing ignored while we vent our spleens.

5. I think whats good for the game industry wise is players having the confidence that there not just wasting there isk & time taking part in it.


With current research prices in the Forge region, a years worth of research on a single BPO would cost about 3-25m. While I'd appreciate a compensation of those fees, I don't think it's something that the players here are asking for. Their competitive value is being lost or reduced, yes, but at the same time that competitive value comes from the ignorance of those paying through the nose for over-researched BPCs.
I may be wrong however as I haven't been actively involved in the BPC market.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!

Scarlet Bear
Anger of the Darkness
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
#237 - 2014-07-21 16:31:12 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Guttripper wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Further, regarding conspiracy theories generally:

1) We have better and more interesting things to do with our time than trying to secretly influence which group of our customers have the upper hand in our game. Really.
2) We are all more interested in being able to eg pay our rent (a thing which is important to us) than we are in trying to force large numbers of our customers to quit for whatever tinfoil made-up ideological reason you're thinking of (a thing which is not remotely interesting or important to us). Really.

I know this isn't likely to change anyone's mind, but there's really not more that can be said.

Not to go off tangent here, but my two cents on this quote.

1) Unless I was mistaken, with this up-coming patch, wasn't (some of) the early number crunching involved with the formulas given advice, help, and / or suggestions by particular members of the CSM that are involved in, as Dinsdale states, the null sec cartel?

2) Whereas CCP would not want their customers to quit, wasn't an old, "infamous" saying of the same cartel stated to be, "to ruin your game", a.k.a. anyone not involved with them? What a subtle way of going that route - having CCP being the fall guy.

*queues X-Files theme music.

I was about to post, then I noticed another something else - "... whatever tinfoil made-up ideological reason you're thinking of (a thing which is not remotely interesting or important to us)". To me, this sounds parallel to another CCP quote that I'll paraphrase from memory, "Let's see what they (the customers) do instead of what they say." While you may feel you CCP know the game better than the players, could it be possible that you could be wrong, especially when many, including you CCP Greyscale, have admitted to not even playing?

Point is, when players get passionate enough to stay involved with a game, to work outside the game for betterment and edges inside a game, and then you CCP come along with this flippant attitude of "a thing which is not remotely interesting or important to us", please don't come crying to the player base if by chance enough players both loudly and quietly leave the game because you CCP might just have been wrong, again.

You folks are not infallible - history has proven that.

Just my thoughts.


Yes, various members of the CSM have helped with the numeric analysis and had input into design decisions, including CSM members who belong to various large nullsec organizations. We're fully aware of their affiliations and vested interests, and we view all such input through that lens. There are things that they've said "hey, you should do this" and we've said "yes, that's a good idea" (for example, the Thukker Component Assembly Array for lowsec cap manufacturers), and other things where they've said "hey, you should do this" and we've said "yeah... no, sorry".

As to your second point, the section in parentheses applies to the entire second clause, starting with "than we are in", not just the section you've quoted.

We're aware that we're not infallible, don't worry about that :)


the problem with the CSM team is there all nullsec based, so this update will be epic for them, also the other problem with CSM is there is 2 members are in same alliance,

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#238 - 2014-07-21 16:32:03 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


I particularly love the bold-faced lie CCP told re: capital Blueprints and "no functional value lost".
Guess they have not bothered to get on Sisi and actually see the waste on manufacturing capitals now, compared to the waste today on TQ.

Go ahead CCP, go onto Sisi and look at the waste of my ME 6 Moros BPO, my ME 3 Archon and Thanato BPO's, and then compare them to the waste with the BPO's they have been morphed into on Sisi.

Go ahead, then come back and tell me how that "no functional value was lost."


That was because of a bug in the migration script, which we fixed thanks to your input. Thank you!



Ummm..., once again no.

I am on Singularity, right now, less than 24 hours before this mess goes live.
I have my Archon BPO in my hand. It is sitting as an 8% / 10% BPO.
(BTW, I grabbed a 0% / 0% BPO to see if my facts below are out of whack. The 0/0 BPO has higher component costs than my researched BPO, therefore I know I am solid ground factually.)

I insert it in the UI.

I am not going to go line by line for the individual capital components, but I now need 136 Capital Components to build a single Archon. Currently on TQ I need 127.

If I go hardcore, and intend on building 3 Archon's, the Singularity UI, right now, now states 392 Capital Components, or a little less than 131 per ship.

In my books, 136 , or even 131, is more than 127.

You said that no functional value would be lost.
Either you can't do math, your transition scripts are still borked, or you lied.
Take your pick.


That's just down to a mismatch in terminology, I think. When I say "functional loss" I'm talking about the percentage bonus the research provides, which for an ME3 BPO has gone up in the translation to ME-8%. The counterside here is - I think, and without spending a whole lot of time doing the math to verify this because I've got other things I need to be working on right now too - that because of the way the build costs have moved around (in particular, the gap between 0 and 10 has shifted slightly, which is probably the source of this anomaly) the unit-count boundaries for certain low-unit materials on some blueprints have shifted. Probably - again, I don't want to context-switch and spend half an hour figuring this out exactly, I'm hip-deep in spreadsheet formulae right now. Bottom line from my perspective is that your blueprint was giving a 7.5% material reduction before and it's giving an 8% material reduction now, which is the goal we were trying to achieve. If that's not what you were hoping to get, I can only apologize.


So bottom line, you are saying "Screw you all you Cap manufacturers that used the existing TQ paradigm for years to maximize research time versus rewards, we have completely broken that paradigm, and oh, btw, to achieve anything close to the same wastage you enjoy on Tranquility today , you will have FURTHER research your BPO's for YEARS, given the new hyperbolic time / ME curve".

And if you are hip deep in spreadsheets, mere hours before this travesty goes live, you might have a problem there.
How about doing the sensible thing, like many have pleaded for, and back this thing off until the fall, to allow proper testing on Sisi.
El Zylcho
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#239 - 2014-07-21 16:33:35 UTC  |  Edited by: El Zylcho
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Yes, various members of the CSM have helped with the numeric analysis and had input into design decisions, including CSM members who belong to various large nullsec organizations. We're fully aware of their affiliations and vested interests, and we view all such input through that lens. There are things that they've said "hey, you should do this" and we've said "yes, that's a good idea" (for example, the Thukker Component Assembly Array for lowsec cap manufacturers), and other things where they've said "hey, you should do this" and we've said "yeah... no, sorry".

As to your second point, the section in parentheses applies to the entire second clause, starting with "than we are in", not just the section you've quoted.

We're aware that we're not infallible, don't worry about that :)



I've expressed my gripes and questions throughout these blogs about the upcoming changes. But, more importantly, I think these changes point to a failure in the development process that is unique to CCP in that it involves world-shaping, which is more than just the addition of functionality to an application.

That being said, the concept of User Acceptance Testing, a well-understood idea in the world of software development would have been valuable for a release like this. This is not mere testing to identify bugs. But it implies a process of building consensus that does not exist with CCP and it *should* given the unique nature of the "application". The notion of "meta game" is tossed around on the forums and I'd say an example of this meta that is part of the game itself is the solicitation of input for changes that are so far reaching as this. A developer might roll his/her/it's eyes at the concept of building consensus but CCP business and software developers have the blessing/curse of being victims of CCP's success. A better design phase would have at the very least, neutralized the type of pitchfork and torch response playing out here because CCP could have pointed to a real process to solicit (and set aside) input. The CSM model is not ideal for this kind of activity as can be seen here.

Credible academic research indicates that it is easier to "keep the lights turned on" by keeping existing customers happy versus the additional expense of acquiring new customers. I'm not sure it's fair to lob all this at a developer but that's the point, that inputs into the game for this kind of feedback to build consensus are not evident (or effective). At the very least, I would keep my subscriptions paid if I knew it gave me a stake in shaping my gaming world community.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#240 - 2014-07-21 16:33:41 UTC
Scarlet Bear wrote:
the problem with the CSM team is there all nullsec based, so this update will be epic for them, also the other problem with CSM is there is 2 members are in same alliance,


it's almost like people who are organized do better in politics than those who aren't

it isn't ccp's job to distribute people fairly on the csm, it's the job of every player in the game

if the csm's composition isn't to your liking you only have yourself to blame