These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#241 - 2014-07-21 16:34:42 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

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".

stick your bpos into research right now (before the patch hits), and your moros bpo will come out perfect

your archon bpo if you stick it in research right now will come out at 9%

basically if you make the heads-up play you wind up ahead but you've got only a few hours to do it
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#242 - 2014-07-21 16:35:29 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

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.

fyi ME10 is not required to build caps

you can build a thing without a perfect blueprint

heck you can use teams and the new LOWSEC ONLY thukker comp array to build caps using an ME9 blueprint that are cheaper than I can build them in nullsec

it's almost like this expansion has ways for people to outcompete entrenched, established industrialists by using their brains
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#243 - 2014-07-21 16:36:26 UTC
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
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.


There no reasonable official announcement of this yet , its not in the dev blg yet afaik.
You have to dig around to post 1145 or something similar to find whats happening with research over 10.

I expect most anoyance will come post patch when those copiers who didnt manage to panic sell there prints will get the shaft.

High research has never been a way to gouge prices for bpc's. people generally go with price first and then research second when prices are close.
Neil Peert
Doomheim
#244 - 2014-07-21 16:39:21 UTC
Mistah Ewedynao wrote:
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.



you missed,

4. 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.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#245 - 2014-07-21 16:42:18 UTC
DeODokktor wrote:
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.


Not sure I grasp all you are saying, but the very best part is calculating how long it takes to get that BPO from 8% to 10%, with the new materials / time curve. And even then, it has more waste than my BPO has today on TQ.

When you factor in the teams that only null sec will bid on, it becomes very complicated to sort out final costs (on Sisi right now the numbers make no sense), but there is no doubt that even with the Thukker assembly array (a beacon for griefers, btw) low sec capital manufacturing is toast.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#246 - 2014-07-21 16:49:35 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
When you factor in the teams that only null sec will bid on

why will only nullsec bid on teams

did you miss the part where teams that don't get used in the first 48 hours of their life go back into the pool

this pretty much kills any plans to bogart teams by any particular person
Laughable Xhosa Girl
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#247 - 2014-07-21 16:49:46 UTC
won't someone think of the pennies we will lose
El Zylcho
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#248 - 2014-07-21 16:50:52 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
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



Every software development decision is a *political" act in the context of these changes. The only real decision a buyer of this service executes is the decision to buy or not buy again. Even if people with less time due to R/L issues could put as much time into the political scene as people who can participate as CSMs, it does not mean there is a CCP/Buyer contract to receive that input.

And, since one dollar has as much value as a dollar of the same type, each dollar is not equally represented. The CSM module should be set aside as a way to build consensus between CCP and its user base. Buyer/Seller is not a democratic process no matter what label we give to feedback mechanism.

An effective way to survey at both a granular and strategic level would be better because it potentially accounts for the equality of the dollar and the value of topic specific information. I saw one survey for these changes and my feedback was not in any ways associated with these other changes, so it's not real input.

This is not impossible to accomplish and it addresses a very real concern with loss of revenue which is one of perception. With no evidence of a fair input process, good luck convincing people who are threatening to NOT spend dollars that special interests are not in play. Too much is being removed that takes away gains achieved by one type of play style that will favor another type of play style.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#249 - 2014-07-21 16:52:33 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

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".

stick your bpos into research right now (before the patch hits), and your moros bpo will come out perfect

your archon bpo if you stick it in research right now will come out at 9%

basically if you make the heads-up play you wind up ahead but you've got only a few hours to do it


You are just so wrong in your math.
And BTW, my 3 capital ship BPO's WERE put into ME research weeks ago, in speculation of what the final transformation will be.

My ME3 Thanatos and Archon BPO's will be upgraded from ME3 to ME4, which will STILL translate to an 8% waste BPO (same transformation for ME3 and Me4), and my Moros will be upgraded from ME6 to ME7 under the existing system, which I believes translates to the same crappy BPO under the new system.

Not only was the ME upgrade a complete waste of time, money, and opportunity cost, the real slap in the face is the BPO will be inferior to before it was upgraded.
Pheusia
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#250 - 2014-07-21 16:53:57 UTC
El Zylcho wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
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



Every software development decision is a *political" act in the context of these changes. The only real decision a buyer of this service executes is the decision to buy or not buy again. Even if people with less time due to R/L issues could put as much time into the political scene as people who can participate as CSMs, it does not mean there is a CCP/Buyer contract to receive that input.

And, since one dollar has as much value as a dollar of the same type, each dollar is not equally represented. The CSM module should be set aside as a way to build consensus between CCP and its user base. Buyer/Seller is not a democratic process no matter what label we give to feedback mechanism.

An effective way to survey at both a granular and strategic level would be better because it potentially accounts for the equality of the dollar and the value of topic specific information. I saw one survey for these changes and my feedback was not in any ways associated with these other changes, so it's not real input.

This is not impossible to accomplish and it addresses a very real concern with loss of revenue which is one of perception. With no evidence of a fair input process, good luck convincing people who are threatening to NOT spend dollars that special interests are not in play. Too much is being removed that takes away gains achieved by one type of play style that will favor another type of play style.


A significant value component of the CSM is that it filters out feedback from the type of person who makes statements like "the problem with the CSM team is there all nullsec based" (and of course the kind of people who take such a provably incorrect statement at face value and then spin verbose polysylabillic screeds on that trvially false hypothesis.)
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#251 - 2014-07-21 16:57:10 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
When you factor in the teams that only null sec will bid on

why will only nullsec bid on teams

did you miss the part where teams that don't get used in the first 48 hours of their life go back into the pool

this pretty much kills any plans to bogart teams by any particular person


Because what low sec capital manufacturer is going to bid on a team?
What low sec player is going to proclaim to all of Eve "Here we are! We are building capitals in this system! Just look for the POS's with the Thukker Assembly Array." ????
Pheusia
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#252 - 2014-07-21 17:00:16 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
When you factor in the teams that only null sec will bid on

why will only nullsec bid on teams

did you miss the part where teams that don't get used in the first 48 hours of their life go back into the pool

this pretty much kills any plans to bogart teams by any particular person


Because what low sec capital manufacturer is going to bid on a team?
What low sec player is going to proclaim to all of Eve "Here we are! We are building capitals in this system! Just look for the POS's with the Thukker Assembly Array." ????


Out of interest, what is your experience with lo-sec capital building?

You realise that's where 0.0 alliances build their caps, right?
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#253 - 2014-07-21 17:03:00 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
When you factor in the teams that only null sec will bid on

why will only nullsec bid on teams

did you miss the part where teams that don't get used in the first 48 hours of their life go back into the pool

this pretty much kills any plans to bogart teams by any particular person


Because what low sec capital manufacturer is going to bid on a team?
What low sec player is going to proclaim to all of Eve "Here we are! We are building capitals in this system! Just look for the POS's with the Thukker Assembly Array." ????

you vastly underestimate the amount of effort it takes to bring down a pos and how uninteresting of a target your thukker array is

take it from someone who has done way more pos work and with way more valuable things (read: r64s) than you
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#254 - 2014-07-21 17:10:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Promiscuous Female
e.g. here is a great way to get people to avoid your tower: http://eve.1019.net/pos/index.php?ct=09&mod=1P0U0U0U0O0V0U0U0U0O0O0O0V0V0V0W0W0W0W0W0V0V0O0O

(I used a regular comp array since that tool isn't updated for crius and the thukker comp array has the same cpu/grid)

324M EHP and 1/4ths of the grid left over for guns

Now consider a moros that does 12,000 DPS at all fives and with T2 siege

You are looking at 7.5 moroshours to bring down that pos or 90 siege cycles

Please find me a killmail that has 45-90 dreads on it in lowsec that wasn't over an r64 moon

e: 1/4th of grid, not 3/4th grid
El Zylcho
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#255 - 2014-07-21 17:10:23 UTC
Pheusia wrote:

A significant value component of the CSM is that it filters out feedback from the type of person who makes statements like "the problem with the CSM team is there all nullsec based" (and of course the kind of people who take such a provably incorrect statement at face value and then spin verbose polysylabillic screeds on that trvially false hypothesis.)


I argue that only way to prove that value is to measure subscription retention rate after a contentious upgrade like this. Effective surveying could do the same thing and remove the perception of bias. In previous quarterly reports issued by CCP, it was shown that subscription rates drop after point releases. If the goal is end-user retention without a disruption in service, I *speculate* that the CSM model is ineffective and suggest your statement is a simple appeal to ethos aka "don't you know who I am?". Whether the CSM is biased or filters or whatever is only part of the problem. The problem is one of perception. Why would a CSM be qualified to make such interventions? They're even less vested in the process than the developer.

Effective surveying that starts far ahead of the actual process of writing code would give a testable User Acceptance Testing criteria for sign off and evidence of representation and the delivery of value.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#256 - 2014-07-21 17:25:02 UTC
ugh the forums keeps translating the & in the link to an & so it is broken

basically put 5 photon scattering hardeners and 6 of all the others along with a single comp array and you get a super hard tower that don't need no man
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#257 - 2014-07-21 17:36:10 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
ugh the forums keeps translating the & in the link to an & so it is broken

basically put 5 photon scattering hardeners and 6 of all the others along with a single comp array and you get a super hard tower that don't need no man


If you copy paste instead of clicking it, it works.

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!
Laughable Xhosa Girl
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#258 - 2014-07-21 17:38:25 UTC
think of this as an opportunity to become a more complete eve player by learning the black art of pos mechanics
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#259 - 2014-07-21 17:43:34 UTC
Pheusia wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
When you factor in the teams that only null sec will bid on

why will only nullsec bid on teams

did you miss the part where teams that don't get used in the first 48 hours of their life go back into the pool

this pretty much kills any plans to bogart teams by any particular person


Because what low sec capital manufacturer is going to bid on a team?
What low sec player is going to proclaim to all of Eve "Here we are! We are building capitals in this system! Just look for the POS's with the Thukker Assembly Array." ????


Out of interest, what is your experience with lo-sec capital building?

You realise that's where 0.0 alliances build their caps, right?


Uh, yeah, I built capitals before, and obviously in low sec.
As for where null sec cartels build their caps, maybe they do.
I have no clue, nor care. Because if someone attacks a null sec cartel POS, hell reigns down on them shortly after.
We all know that is a given, especially with so many bored supercap pilots, who hotdrop ratting ships, let alone a capital fleet attacking a POS.
Pheusia
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#260 - 2014-07-21 18:20:23 UTC
El Zylcho wrote:
Pheusia wrote:

A significant value component of the CSM is that it filters out feedback from the type of person who makes statements like "the problem with the CSM team is there all nullsec based" (and of course the kind of people who take such a provably incorrect statement at face value and then spin verbose polysylabillic screeds on that trvially false hypothesis.)


I argue that only way to prove that value is to measure subscription retention rate after a contentious upgrade like this. Effective surveying could do the same thing and remove the perception of bias. In previous quarterly reports issued by CCP, it was shown that subscription rates drop after point releases. If the goal is end-user retention without a disruption in service, I *speculate* that the CSM model is ineffective and suggest your statement is a simple appeal to ethos aka "don't you know who I am?". Whether the CSM is biased or filters or whatever is only part of the problem. The problem is one of perception. Why would a CSM be qualified to make such interventions? They're even less vested in the process than the developer.

Effective surveying that starts far ahead of the actual process of writing code would give a testable User Acceptance Testing criteria for sign off and evidence of representation and the delivery of value.


Let's imagine a point release where, for example, CCP decide the supercapitals are contributing to the stagnation of nullsec and decide to delete them. For the sake of argument, we'll imagine that they're correct.

The immediate result would be a vast outpouring of butt-hurt from deprived supercap pilots. We could reasonable expect to see subs dip measurably in the short-term as all those alts are sold off or abandonded,

But a year later, subs might be considerably higher as nullsec gets more lively and interesting.

You see thing thing is that I've been around long enough to see numerous significant rebalances, and they all get the same reaction from the players who are privileged by the imbalance. In short: "zomg eve will die because I'll quit if I can't have my unfair advantage". You think people are complaining about Crius? Go check out the forums around 2007 and see what happened when CCP put through the nano-nerf. Hundreds - maybe thousands - of people wrote posts essentially similar to yours. Yet a year later, more PvP than ever before was happening, and with a far wider range of viable ships, fits and doctrines.

I'll break it down for you: industry today is ludicrously tilted towards priviliged Empire, hi-sec in particular. If you don't believe this then you're literally like white people in 30s Mississipi who claimed they genuinely believed that the Negros had "seperate but equal" rights: either you're lying to yourself or you're simply too blinded by your own narrative to see otherwise.

CCP are correcting that imbalance, and many hi-sec people are choosing to play the part of Bull Connor, fighting the tide of the inevitable. Yell all you like. Quit if you want. Maybe you'll even persuade some other people to quit too.

But hi-sec privilige ends tomorrow afternoon.