These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
HarlyQ
harlyq syrokos investment station
#261 - 2014-07-21 18:26:34 UTC
ChYph3r wrote:
Pheusia wrote:
HarlyQ wrote:
I play with myself all the time


Go on...



its not exactly the greatest sight, you will have to hit the "unsee" button. just a warning.


you can never unsee the stars
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#262 - 2014-07-21 18:32:44 UTC
Pheusia wrote:
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.


Wonderful propaganda.
Only part that is true is that high sec gets wiped out tomorrow.
El Zylcho
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#263 - 2014-07-21 18:34:35 UTC
Pheusia wrote:

But hi-sec privilige ends tomorrow afternoon.


So again, my point is is about building consensus. No case other than your hypothetical one has been made or advanced that a disadvantage exists in numbers. High sec is full of risk, just ask any miner. Why are there no industrial alliances left? There used to be - game changes make high sec a misnomer like "jumbo shrimp".

What was offered up was a discussion about a distribution of population on the China server and a passing remark about a dev wanting industry to be less profitable and another comment about forcing people who favor solo play styles to cooperate. It is *absolutely* the prerogative for the business to make whatever business decisions it wants to make. But this in no way demonstrates a desire to keep a company profitable nor does it prudently pose a question such as "How do we create more opportunities in high sec to distribute player populations, encourage cooperative play styles or match risk to profit"?

Your example is largely irrelevant to the points I was making because I was talking about using a measure, an actual measure to evaluate a feedback and consensus building so developers are not stuck in political discussions AFTER the fact. Yes, CCP has survived the implementation of rule changes in the game. My point is, it can do it better, meaning more profitably. It is in its interest to factor in consensus building understanding various studies that have been done on this very topic.

I did not argue for absolutely no loss of subscriptions but a way to measure it AND even more important to demonstrate to any disinterested third party (say hypothetical investors) that measurable value is delivered by developers who follow a logic based on the principle of being profitable.

Your oversimplification lends weight to my observation that CSMs nor even developers alone can navigate the complexity that Eve is. Soft power in the form of consensus gives development efforts a clear way to ring the bell.
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#264 - 2014-07-21 18:38:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Retar Aveymone
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

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.

nope

while in research, the ME3 will transform into ME8%, then you will get the one additional level you were researching: me9%
while in research, the ME6 will transform into ME9%, then you will get the one additional level you were researching: me10%

i, too, assumed the transfer would happen the way you assumed it would (that the end product transforms once its done), but greyscale's earlier posts (which one would think you read religiously) make it clear the transformation happens as I said above, probably because it's easier from a technical standpoint. once i found that out i had to cancel some research jobs and reinstall because they were suboptimal (i had figured there was no point researching ME on my me5 nag bpos, so i might as well get some TE: now, i'm a few months behind schedule for my glorious ME10% nag bpos)

so you'll get the perfect moros bpo you always dreamed of and none of us dirty nullsec cartels will have a better bpo than you do dinsy
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#265 - 2014-07-21 18:40:31 UTC
like seriously dinsdale, you missed the one change that is to your massive personal benefit, maybe you think things are always terrible because you always miss those changes while looking for the latest way the ~nullsec cabals~ have screwed you
Ruric Thyase
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#266 - 2014-07-21 18:59:31 UTC
Guess I'll put in my two cents. I tried industry and manufacturing, had an alt to grind standings, used to mine, but I was never dedicated to it.

I also went to fanfest this year and had a chance to meet CCP Greyscale. The guy is a lot of fun to talk to and to chat with and I would actually argue that he DOES play EVE. Not in the sense of you and I as players and customers, I am talking in the sense as a dev. On one of his free time projects, he effectively made a bomb that would bump everything in its explosion radius after explaining how all ships are spheres and the bomb would make one giant sphere. He got his inspiration for this from the "Dreadbuchet" tactic that is wildly hilarious. He does also listen to input from players and he does also care about the game.

Look back on all of the threads and dev blogs in the past two months and see how many times CCP has changed their original plans after player feedback. Not every input was heeded, but a lot of work was done refining and reworking the industry changes from their announcement, to tomorrow. Another thing that I think a lot of people are losing sight on is that what gets released tomorrow is not the end of the changes. With their new delivery system of 6 week releases, the devs have a lot more flexibility to respond to pressing issues. For example this Material Efficiency skill people want reimbursed. The 1% I doubt will be the final iteration a year from now. But in the scope of what they are trying to accomplish, 1% will have to suffice for the next 6 weeks.

Their desire to change industry is not simply because the system is old, it was not chosen because "Whose turn is next?" It was chosen because of a longer goal in mind. Industry as even CCP has stated, is the backbone of this game. Literally, without industry there wouldnt be ships to fly, guns to fire, or really much of anything except for trading plex in Jita. By changing industry first, they can progress on this new foundation for other changes.

One of the common topics for nullsec at Fanfest was the plan to make outposts destructable. Another topic involved changing the sov mechanics because of how nullsec has evolved into these power blocs. There was even talk of player-built stargates. All of these changes, which (in my opinion) have much more dynamic consequences to a larger player base (unfound statement, I just think there are more players in null than industrialists) but at the same time all of these changes rest on industry.

I think that CCP does have a larger plan for EVE's second decade and I think they are taking the first steps toward it. Rumor had it in a recent dev post that after the Crius release, a team of devs will be able to address POS code and bring that system to bear. All the while however, you can still expect them to address more of the little things every 6 weeks instead of every 6 months.

As for the heel-digging concerning the introduction of risk into highsec manufacturing, name one other activity in EVE besides trading that is as safe as industry is currently. Theres more risk in missions than there is in industry.

Sorry that you spent the time and (some) effort training high ME on your blue prints, sorry that you feel as though this release is the end of it all. I really do hope you give it a shot or explore some other facet of EVE or at least see how EVE adapts.
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#267 - 2014-07-21 19:03:52 UTC
Ruric Thyase wrote:

I also went to fanfest this year and had a chance to meet CCP Greyscale. The guy is a lot of fun to talk to and to chat with and I would actually argue that he DOES play EVE. Not in the sense of you and I as players and customers, I am talking in the sense as a dev. On one of his free time projects, he effectively made a bomb that would bump everything in its explosion radius after explaining how all ships are spheres and the bomb would make one giant sphere. He got his inspiration for this from the "Dreadbuchet" tactic that is wildly hilarious. He does also listen to input from players and he does also care about the game.

i demand this bomb be put into the next patch this sounds like one of the most fun additions to the game i've heard of in a long time
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#268 - 2014-07-21 19:07:53 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Ruric Thyase wrote:

I also went to fanfest this year and had a chance to meet CCP Greyscale. The guy is a lot of fun to talk to and to chat with and I would actually argue that he DOES play EVE. Not in the sense of you and I as players and customers, I am talking in the sense as a dev. On one of his free time projects, he effectively made a bomb that would bump everything in its explosion radius after explaining how all ships are spheres and the bomb would make one giant sphere. He got his inspiration for this from the "Dreadbuchet" tactic that is wildly hilarious. He does also listen to input from players and he does also care about the game.

i demand this bomb be put into the next patch this sounds like one of the most fun additions to the game i've heard of in a long time

same I wish to bump all those who do not gief misl in an efficient manner such as this
Ruric Thyase
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#269 - 2014-07-21 19:12:04 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Ruric Thyase wrote:

I also went to fanfest this year and had a chance to meet CCP Greyscale. The guy is a lot of fun to talk to and to chat with and I would actually argue that he DOES play EVE. Not in the sense of you and I as players and customers, I am talking in the sense as a dev. On one of his free time projects, he effectively made a bomb that would bump everything in its explosion radius after explaining how all ships are spheres and the bomb would make one giant sphere. He got his inspiration for this from the "Dreadbuchet" tactic that is wildly hilarious. He does also listen to input from players and he does also care about the game.

i demand this bomb be put into the next patch this sounds like one of the most fun additions to the game i've heard of in a long time



He was really animated describing the bomb and using it on his dev test server. Unfortunately something like that would just about break EVE and especially the servers during TiDi.

The topic started about something the size of a Titan getting bumped out of a bubble by a frigate and how the frigate would really just explode (We then theorized about the "A-Wing" kill where a small chance existed of a frigate crashing through the bridge of a titan and dealing massive damage to it) He then went on about spheres and then the bomb
Pheusia
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#270 - 2014-07-21 19:18:18 UTC
El Zylcho wrote:
Pheusia wrote:

But hi-sec privilige ends tomorrow afternoon.


So again, my point is is about building consensus. No case other than your hypothetical one has been made or advanced that a disadvantage exists in numbers. High sec is full of risk, just ask any miner. Why are there no industrial alliances left? There used to be - game changes make high sec a misnomer like "jumbo shrimp".

What was offered up was a discussion about a distribution of population on the China server and a passing remark about a dev wanting industry to be less profitable and another comment about forcing people who favor solo play styles to cooperate. It is *absolutely* the prerogative for the business to make whatever business decisions it wants to make. But this in no way demonstrates a desire to keep a company profitable nor does it prudently pose a question such as "How do we create more opportunities in high sec to distribute player populations, encourage cooperative play styles or match risk to profit"?

Your example is largely irrelevant to the points I was making because I was talking about using a measure, an actual measure to evaluate a feedback and consensus building so developers are not stuck in political discussions AFTER the fact. Yes, CCP has survived the implementation of rule changes in the game. My point is, it can do it better, meaning more profitably. It is in its interest to factor in consensus building understanding various studies that have been done on this very topic.

I did not argue for absolutely no loss of subscriptions but a way to measure it AND even more important to demonstrate to any disinterested third party (say hypothetical investors) that measurable value is delivered by developers who follow a logic based on the principle of being profitable.

Your oversimplification lends weight to my observation that CSMs nor even developers alone can navigate the complexity that Eve is. Soft power in the form of consensus gives development efforts a clear way to ring the bell.


The subject has been discussed for literally years. All the 'consensus' that was going to be developed has been, because priviliged people never relinquish that privilige without a struggle, or at least without a lot of complaining and whining.

I personally weighed a pound of facts against a million tons of hi-sec "consensus" and the facts were what tilted the scale for me: the siutation was gigantically imbalanced. That's being corrected.
Bayonnefrog
Blueprint Mania
#271 - 2014-07-21 19:22:30 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Doug Dannger wrote:
This Dev Blog should be renamed Eve Online: A Eulogy

You're taking a decade of, while not perfect, functioning mechanics and throwing them away just to change it.

There has been a decade of iteration on the current system. There are countless players who've made websites that take an intimidating structure and break it down into easy to swallow chunks. There are calculators for every aspect of manufacturing, and blogs to explain their mechanics. People were proud to call the game spreadsheets online, and it was a point of pride to show friends what you've made, or a nice surprise when friends gave you yet another tool to help you along. Players also gained a sense of accomplishment knowing that after some study, work, and often some mistakes, that you had conquered the beast that was industry in Eve Online.

Does anyone really think that the average industrialist, new or old, will be better off losing all of these out of game features, that will probably never be updated again to the scale we have now in favor of this new system? Do players really thing they can depend on CCP to create these tools? The only thing that needed to be changed was the UI.

Do we have another decade to spend on players to create sites and guides to muddle their way through CCP's perplexing scaling mechanics? Will anyone take the time to update them? Does CCP even have a handle on their own new mechanics? A lot has changed since it was first proposed, most of it because the people who thought of it, did not think the entire thing out. They showed their massive disconnect with their player base when they thought that people wouldn't take the time to online and offline dozens of modules in a POS just to save some isk. When they were confronted with the realization of how far people will go in this game, they decided to scrap the entire idea all together and pass it off on some lame excuse that it was difficult. They changed batch costs, because they couldn't even articulate with any degree of success on how it worked.

Then for me it was the blueprint ME/PE shaft. I've spent months researching blueprints to obscene levels to gain a very small advantage. Just like people spend a month to train skills that give guns 2% better damage, or reduce the sig radius on their interceptor another little bit. This game is based on diminishing returns, and celebrated those who were devoted enough to spend that much extra time to gain a little advantage. The prints weren't that much better, but when it came time to sell your copies in Jita, mine were the ones that sold because I had taken that extra time to make mine stand out among the crowd. Now, someone who's researched their Drake print for a month, ends up with the same print you've spent 6 months or more to research.

That's only the mechanics, the entire roll out of this patch has been insulting. One team wants to raise the barrier to entry, the other seems fundamentally against it. There is no cohesion it seems at the highest levels. The explanations on changes were confusing at best, spread out, and all discussion was lost in a sea of noise on threads where very little was accomplished. To think that the original plan was to put these changes in over a month ago just shows how little serious thought has gone into this change. Then to try and sneak in a ridiculous skill change that anyone with any kind of grasp on their player base would never have attempted just again shows the amount of thought that these changes have received. And then to tell their players, who have long since grown tired of the meme, that it would be looked into “soon”

This attempt to create Hello Kitty Noob Twitch Space Adventure Super Fun Time Online is not only going to alienate a lot of older players, but raise the barrier of entry to newer players as they will suddenly find themselves devoid of the knowledge that was meticulously crafted by devoted players over the last decade. They are also going to be forced to disperse themselves around the galaxy just to get a decent manufacturing price, and then forced to move on once again when the price gets high. A new player will gravitate to a hub to build if simply for the fact they can’t afford a freighter. I hate to draw real life analogy, but Ford isn’t forced to move their plant every month to remain competitive, they’re forced to ship their product to where it can be sold, as industry should be.

I can understand attempting to justify one's job with the ever present threat of constant layoffs over your head, but I fear that your attempt to seem busy has doomed us all.

And no, you cannot have my stuff.

this is an awful lot of words to say "WAHHHH THE STATUS QUO IS CHANGED"

you made awful decisions, congratulations


+1
DeODokktor
Dark Templars
The Fonz Presidium
#272 - 2014-07-21 19:24:17 UTC
Pheusia wrote:

The subject has been discussed for literally years. All the 'consensus' that was going to be developed has been, because priviliged people never relinquish that privilige without a struggle, or at least without a lot of complaining and whining.

I personally weighed a pound of facts against a million tons of hi-sec "consensus" and the facts were what tilted the scale for me: the siutation was gigantically imbalanced. That's being corrected.



High sec production is only done by privileged high sec people :/...

first one for me.
El Zylcho
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#273 - 2014-07-21 19:26:19 UTC  |  Edited by: El Zylcho
Pheusia wrote:

The subject has been discussed for literally years. All the 'consensus' that was going to be developed has been, because priviliged people never relinquish that privilige without a struggle, or at least without a lot of complaining and whining.

I personally weighed a pound of facts against a million tons of hi-sec "consensus" and the facts were what tilted the scale for me: the siutation was gigantically imbalanced. That's being corrected.



Again, no facts, just off-putting Orwellian mention to race and privilege. Unfortunately, in the absence of something objective like data, some of the people who decide NOT to renew subscriptions may do so on the assumption your view is the CCP view. Not having used a measure built on, at least the perception of consensus, you might be taken for the CCP position. There certainly isn't enough to rebut the perception in terms of rationales presented.

Feel free to put up some facts which you measured. But it's a moot point. And, it's unfortunate the really cool stuff that is coming out is subdued in the face of wiping out the gains achieved fairly by existing game logic in terms of money spent and time.

Again, I'd suggest improving the process.
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
#274 - 2014-07-21 19:51:42 UTC
Pheusia wrote:
El Zylcho wrote:
Pheusia wrote:

But hi-sec privilige ends tomorrow afternoon.


So again, my point is is about building consensus. No case other than your hypothetical one has been made or advanced that a disadvantage exists in numbers. High sec is full of risk, just ask any miner. Why are there no industrial alliances left? There used to be - game changes make high sec a misnomer like "jumbo shrimp".

What was offered up was a discussion about a distribution of population on the China server and a passing remark about a dev wanting industry to be less profitable and another comment about forcing people who favor solo play styles to cooperate. It is *absolutely* the prerogative for the business to make whatever business decisions it wants to make. But this in no way demonstrates a desire to keep a company profitable nor does it prudently pose a question such as "How do we create more opportunities in high sec to distribute player populations, encourage cooperative play styles or match risk to profit"?

Your example is largely irrelevant to the points I was making because I was talking about using a measure, an actual measure to evaluate a feedback and consensus building so developers are not stuck in political discussions AFTER the fact. Yes, CCP has survived the implementation of rule changes in the game. My point is, it can do it better, meaning more profitably. It is in its interest to factor in consensus building understanding various studies that have been done on this very topic.

I did not argue for absolutely no loss of subscriptions but a way to measure it AND even more important to demonstrate to any disinterested third party (say hypothetical investors) that measurable value is delivered by developers who follow a logic based on the principle of being profitable.

Your oversimplification lends weight to my observation that CSMs nor even developers alone can navigate the complexity that Eve is. Soft power in the form of consensus gives development efforts a clear way to ring the bell.


The subject has been discussed for literally years. All the 'consensus' that was going to be developed has been, because priviliged people never relinquish that privilige without a struggle, or at least without a lot of complaining and whining.

I personally weighed a pound of facts against a million tons of hi-sec "consensus" and the facts were what tilted the scale for me: the siutation was gigantically imbalanced. That's being corrected.


I do so love the troll posts. I wonder who will be trolling in October when the null sec PVP gods realize that the cost of tech 2 ships is up 20% in comparison to where they are today?
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#275 - 2014-07-21 20:06:04 UTC
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:


I do so love the troll posts. I wonder who will be trolling in October when the null sec PVP gods realize that the cost of tech 2 ships is up 20% in comparison to where they are today?

20% ?

lol

its gonna be more.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
#276 - 2014-07-21 20:17:48 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:


I do so love the troll posts. I wonder who will be trolling in October when the null sec PVP gods realize that the cost of tech 2 ships is up 20% in comparison to where they are today?

20% ?

lol

its gonna be more.


I wonder how it will affect the price of PLEX?
Neil Peert
Doomheim
#277 - 2014-07-21 20:36:19 UTC
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:
Kusum Fawn wrote:
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:


I do so love the troll posts. I wonder who will be trolling in October when the null sec PVP gods realize that the cost of tech 2 ships is up 20% in comparison to where they are today?

20% ?

lol

its gonna be more.


I wonder how it will affect the price of PLEX?


your plex is fine, it could change it to a Wreck,
Pheusia
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#278 - 2014-07-21 21:04:09 UTC
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:
Pheusia wrote:
El Zylcho wrote:
Pheusia wrote:

But hi-sec privilige ends tomorrow afternoon.


So again, my point is is about building consensus. No case other than your hypothetical one has been made or advanced that a disadvantage exists in numbers. High sec is full of risk, just ask any miner. Why are there no industrial alliances left? There used to be - game changes make high sec a misnomer like "jumbo shrimp".

What was offered up was a discussion about a distribution of population on the China server and a passing remark about a dev wanting industry to be less profitable and another comment about forcing people who favor solo play styles to cooperate. It is *absolutely* the prerogative for the business to make whatever business decisions it wants to make. But this in no way demonstrates a desire to keep a company profitable nor does it prudently pose a question such as "How do we create more opportunities in high sec to distribute player populations, encourage cooperative play styles or match risk to profit"?

Your example is largely irrelevant to the points I was making because I was talking about using a measure, an actual measure to evaluate a feedback and consensus building so developers are not stuck in political discussions AFTER the fact. Yes, CCP has survived the implementation of rule changes in the game. My point is, it can do it better, meaning more profitably. It is in its interest to factor in consensus building understanding various studies that have been done on this very topic.

I did not argue for absolutely no loss of subscriptions but a way to measure it AND even more important to demonstrate to any disinterested third party (say hypothetical investors) that measurable value is delivered by developers who follow a logic based on the principle of being profitable.

Your oversimplification lends weight to my observation that CSMs nor even developers alone can navigate the complexity that Eve is. Soft power in the form of consensus gives development efforts a clear way to ring the bell.


The subject has been discussed for literally years. All the 'consensus' that was going to be developed has been, because priviliged people never relinquish that privilige without a struggle, or at least without a lot of complaining and whining.

I personally weighed a pound of facts against a million tons of hi-sec "consensus" and the facts were what tilted the scale for me: the siutation was gigantically imbalanced. That's being corrected.


I do so love the troll posts. I wonder who will be trolling in October when the null sec PVP gods realize that the cost of tech 2 ships is up 20% in comparison to where they are today?


eh, we've survived larger shifts
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#279 - 2014-07-21 21:14:55 UTC
oh no not 20%
Sir HyperChrist
Persnickety Pilots
#280 - 2014-07-21 21:20:33 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Sir HyperChrist wrote:

*snip*
more than one way to fix buildtimes, without changing the "arbitrary" balance of invention.

my 2 cents....


Yes, the bottleneck determines the throughput. The changes there were not to manage throughput, they were to make the numbers more consistent and structured.
*snip*
If you've got a specific reason in mind as to why the build time of T2 frigates actually matters from a wider balance perspective, I'm all ears :)
*snip*
Here specifically is the post containing all the (I believe final) rank data: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4683055#post4683055

We agree that communication of some changes has not been sufficiently clear and we're hoping to improve on this in future.

No, we're not planning to make significant further adjustments to ranks, based on our current understanding of the relationships within the data. We are specifically seeking to avoid replicating old inconsistencies in the new system.


I missed that link, csv-files don't really invite much scrutiny from me, especially when I'm very busy correcting dutch A-level final exams :) June wasn't a month with time to spare.

But then again, would my input have mattered more if i'd have given it back then?
A facro of 0.25 for buildjobs on T2 ships wouldn't add game mechanics that don't yet exist, and it would make th resulting production times more consistent to what they are now.

How it will influence the world "wider balance" as a total after patch noone can predict for sure, and I can't really say much of that too.

Likely it'll generate more market for inventers, and also the margin will rise because of that. But because the ships are cheap compared to other T2 ships, and will require the same amount of attention, inventers won't make the difference completely, so margins will rise too. T2 ships in general will become more expensive, and thus less accessible. If you add the recent ship rebalancing that made the T1 ships quite a bit better compared to T2, this world will be focused on cheaper ships. This will make the world poorer imo.

now it's too late to change anything. Please keep an eye on markets for T2 ships, and remember you just nerfed T2 ship builders 50% on materials and 65-75% on buildtime.

Above all evaluate if this patch really made industry more transparent and easy to access. I'm not sure that it will......