These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

State of T2 Production?

Author
Cledus Snowman Snow
Doomheim
#21 - 2015-01-08 10:43:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Cledus Snowman Snow
Ok I think I am getting an idea now of some of the real issues here. Thanks all of you. Now with all this going on how will it affect or be effected by the removal of all meta4s most notably the ones better than the T2 of the same class? These T2 mods are not getting buffed and will have no competition for a better dropped non player made mod? New opportunities for more profits or more of the same old problems? Will there be market glut if player made is the only option?
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2015-01-08 12:58:06 UTC
meta rebalancing will do very little for t2 production. the issues are elsewhere

meta production can change things quite a bit, but that really depends on how it's gonna work.
Lady Ayeipsia
BlueWaffe
#23 - 2015-01-08 18:59:33 UTC
Actually, there is an existing example of the meta 4 change already in game. A few years back, the meta 4 armored plates far exceeded the performance of the t2 plates. It was to the point that no one bothered even to make t2 plates. Around the expansion that gave us the armor layering skill, ccp rebalance the plates making t2 plates viable. This is not to say everyone now equip the t2 plates, it's a matter of what you can fit.

Still, initially t2 plate producers made a huge profit as supply had not stabilised with demand. Now prices have stabilized and it is not as profitable. (Very small margin)

Look at the drone damage amp. At first t2 were very profitable, now not so much. So be prepared to be an early adopter and you can make a good profit. If you wait, you will become one of the masses making less.

As for the whole meta change, read the blog please. The variants being eliminated did not cover much. You go from having 3 useful versions plus a few crap ones to 3 useful ones, one that is easier to fit but low value, a storyline version and faction versions. It will have little impact. If new go t1. If a little more space rich or have fitting issues, go meta. If you have skills and no fitting issues, go t2. Use the others in select cases. Really, no change now, just less fluff stuff.

Also, you are forgetting that when metas where removed, the skills involved in invention changed too. Training all to 5 can balance out the loss of meta boosts. It sucks for training, but it is balanced.

As for those complaining, the big cost is still datacores. Help reduce your datacore cost by getting research agents or join faction warfare and buy datacores with lp. Every bit helps.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2015-01-08 20:06:38 UTC
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:


As for those complaining, the big cost is still datacores. Help reduce your datacore cost by getting research agents or join faction warfare and buy datacores with lp. Every bit helps.


the minerals i mine are free !
Ms Forum Alt
Doomheim
#25 - 2015-01-09 00:26:42 UTC
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:

Look at the drone damage amp. At first t2 were very profitable, now not so much. So be prepared to be an early adopter and you can make a good profit. If you wait, you will become one of the masses making less.


Yes, I used to invent and build them 1000 at a time (not constantly as the price fluctuated). It wasn't just the change that crashed the price though, there was also a big war going on which is always good for business.
Lady Ayeipsia
BlueWaffe
#26 - 2015-01-09 17:31:56 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:


As for those complaining, the big cost is still datacores. Help reduce your datacore cost by getting research agents or join faction warfare and buy datacores with lp. Every bit helps.


the minerals i mine are free !


True, you could cherry pick the datacores gained from research agents for max sell profit, then put up buy orders for the cores you do want. In addition, there may be better l.p. items that could sell for a high profit, letting you buy datacores with that profit.

Whatever path you take, the point is to Chase further up your production line to see where you can reduce costs. And yes, it all has to be balanced with how you plan to spend your play time and avoiding the minerals I mine are free issue.
Phil Hinken
Doomheim
#27 - 2015-01-09 19:01:50 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
at least it's easily fixable

build and invention times need to be raised across the board, so people have a harder time flooding the market without even trying to


If that were to be done then all it would achieve would be a raise in prices of items in general. The raise in price will cause the market to balance it out by a raise in demand. Within a month or two, price will go back to the way it is and market flooding would be back to the way it was.

"With the dowhop zig-zag jello pops, kids nowadays bee zop Rudy ha ha ha ziggety zaggity puddin." - Bill Cosby

Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2015-01-09 21:57:06 UTC
how exactly is the market flooding gonna continue if production times have been increased ?
Cledus Snowman Snow
Doomheim
#29 - 2015-01-10 03:09:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Cledus Snowman Snow
"the minerals I mine are free issue." Can someone please explain this catch praise. I am not sure what it implies. TY
Zifrian
The Frog Pond
Ribbit.
#30 - 2015-01-10 03:58:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Zifrian
Cledus Snowman Snow wrote:
"the minerals I mine are free issue." Can someone please explain this catch praise. I am not sure what it implies. TY

If you mine say veldspar for an hour and get 1000 trit, then that trit didn't cost you anything. Therefore, say you build a module with your 1000 trit then when you sell it, that is "free isk". Hence, the minerals I mine are free.

However, Trit has value on the market so really you should look at how much value did I mine for my time? If 1000 trit = 1000 isk and the module you make with 1000 trit = 500 isk on the market, then you would be better off selling the trit on the market instead of building the item and selling it. However, some people think that those minerals they mined are "free" so the 500 isk is the better profit, when in fact it isn't - they spent one hour to lose 500 isk in profit.

For an industry example, if I can build an Anshar and it gets me 500million profit but if it takes me 3 months to do but if I can build an Obelisk in a month and I get 300mill profit, then what is the better thing to build for maximizing profit per unit of time (IPH)?

Basically, maximize your time spent with respect to isk if you want to maximize your profit.

Ultimately though I don't think the MIMAF people ultimately matter. The market adjusts to supply and demand well. If people price items less than they take to build and if demand is high, they get bought quickly and resold for profit or don't affect the price dramatically when bought (since there will be more supply to meet demand). If demand is low they don't sell and no one who is paying attention to what they make will enter that market anyway.

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder

Cledus Snowman Snow
Doomheim
#31 - 2015-01-10 04:46:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Cledus Snowman Snow
Thanks Zifrian. I got it.The minerals aren't free, they cost time.

The real question is, for x amount of time, what gets you the most ISK while having fun.

For some, that's mining, for others, it's mission running. Everything costs time and that is a limited resource that no one can purchase.
Jooma Moloko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2015-01-10 09:38:31 UTC
I used to make alot of ISK in T2 invention. Then my spreadsheets took an arrow to the knee..
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2015-01-10 20:50:01 UTC
Cledus Snowman Snow wrote:
Thanks Zifrian. I got it.The minerals aren't free, they cost time.

The real question is, for x amount of time, what gets you the most ISK while having fun.

For some, that's mining, for others, it's mission running. Everything costs time and that is a limited resource that no one can purchase.


even if you really enjoy mining and manufacturing, that doesn't mean you should sell finished goods at a price that is lower than the mineral value

find an item that is actually profitable to build and build it.
Paynus Maiassus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2015-01-11 11:00:20 UTC
Selaria Unbertable wrote:
EMT Holding wrote:
Since the removal of teams, the possible margins have dropped considerably if you want to be in Caldari space with 10+ builders. Moving further afield should allow for margins of 10-15% on T2 ships assuming you're building the components.

The removal of teams was a huge nerf to the possible profits on T2 ships. I can't comment on the effect it may have on modules but those have always been thin on margin from my research.


Thin, yes. But some were still profitable. The problem is the huge decrease in production time of modules and ammo, resulting in a much larger supply, while the demand has not increased significantly. Drones, rigs and ships were not affected by this, their production time has not changed that drastically.


I just started my first ammo invention jobs since Crius. 30 days for a 90-run torpedo job. The build times might be fast but that stuff sure takes a long time to invent.
Alex Rosen
Abscondita in Stellis
#35 - 2015-01-12 11:40:28 UTC
Besides the new UI, Crius was IMO a completely mistake that has completely f***** all indutry and a lot of the market. I hope we won't have to wait another 10 years to see a new industry overhaul
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#36 - 2015-01-12 16:16:22 UTC
Alex Rosen wrote:
Besides the new UI, Crius was IMO a completely mistake that has completely f***** all indutry and a lot of the market. I hope we won't have to wait another 10 years to see a new industry overhaul

If it's anything like Crius, I'd happily wait another 10 years.

But I would much rather have an industry expansion that actually expands industry rather than removing half of it and breaking the rest.

I suppose it's fortunate that EVE doesn't have any competitors in its marketplace, or the act of sabotaging one of EVE's unique selling points could be seen as a terrible business move. Fortunately nobody else is making space MMOs and we can all sleep easy.
Mino Adria
Convenient Alternative Storage
#37 - 2015-01-13 08:36:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Mino Adria
Cledus Snowman Snow wrote:
Thanks Zifrian. I got it.The minerals aren't free, they cost time.

The real question is, for x amount of time, what gets you the most ISK while having fun.

For some, that's mining, for others, it's mission running. Everything costs time and that is a limited resource that no one can purchase.


As Gilbaron said, the minerals you mine not only have a time cost. They also have an actual ISK value.

As in Zifrians example. If you mine for an hour and gotten 1000 minerals worth 1000 ISK if you sell it on the market, your profit is 1000ISK/h.

If you then decide to build something with that 1000 minerals that only sells for 500 ISK you have not only lost 500 ISK, you also reduced your profit per hour to 500 ISK/h.

Bottom line, only build stuff that is profitable to build. No matter if you mine or buy the minerals. Because if you build unprofitable items you would be better off to just sell the minerals directly onto the market.

Always use the market price (max buy/min sell) as the value of your minerals. View manufacturing as a way to turn the hour of mining into a bigger profit by spending an extra 5min setting up a profitable manufacturing job.
Mino Adria
Convenient Alternative Storage
#38 - 2015-01-13 08:43:31 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
Alex Rosen wrote:
Besides the new UI, Crius was IMO a completely mistake that has completely f***** all indutry and a lot of the market. I hope we won't have to wait another 10 years to see a new industry overhaul

If it's anything like Crius, I'd happily wait another 10 years.

But I would much rather have an industry expansion that actually expands industry rather than removing half of it and breaking the rest.

I suppose it's fortunate that EVE doesn't have any competitors in its marketplace, or the act of sabotaging one of EVE's unique selling points could be seen as a terrible business move. Fortunately nobody else is making space MMOs and we can all sleep easy.


For someone new to the industry side of the game, could you elaborate on what was broken in the Crius expansion?

The old UI seemed to be a complicated clickwall. Was there any functionality loss in the UI? Else it seems like an improvement?

And when it comes to other changes, was it a dumping down of the system, or did they break the balance of it?

And finally, shouldn’t the market eventually adjust to the new balance?

I’m just being a curios newb Big smile
Shayla Sh'inlux
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2015-01-13 10:49:30 UTC
A couple of things I can think up:

1) Industry slots were a limited resource. While factories have always been abundant, lab slots have been a rare commodity ever since Eve's inception. Back in the day (2004) labs were like offices that you'd rent and use. That got changed to the reasonably well working queuing system ages ago to the no-queue-but-extra-tax system we have now. It basically means that the playing field is leveled for everyone and that gaining an edge by flying your 1bil+ Capital BPO's to lowsec for lower or no queue times has disappeared. The new system also punishes you for producing a lot of stuff in one place. Which is obnoxious.

2) Inventing was very different. Today, you can just plug in a single-run drone BPC and get a 10-run copy out of an invention job. You can also queue up, say, 100 invention runs. Before Crius, you needed max-run BPCs to get 10-run copies. That meant more time your BPO's spent in labslots copying and less free queue time for inventions. Also, for ships it was even more complicated as the required BPC depended on which decryptor you used. You also couldn't queue jobs: 1 BPC, no matter how many runs, resulted in 1 t2-BPC with an amount of runs depending on how many runs the BPC had and which decryptor you used. Basically, you can now get a ton more t2-runs than before in the same amount of time.

3) As a result of #1 and #2, lab time and research slots were the bottleneck in t2 production. As the skill requirements for t2 invention were quite high, requiring multiple lvl 4's and 5's in high-ranked skills training a research-alt was a hefty skillpoint and thus monotary investment.

4) The skill requirements for t2 production have been signifcantly lowered. Where the removal of Production Efficiency destroyed the t1 market (which was already a niche industry), the reworking of the t2 related skills did that for the t2 market. Skills that were required to build stuff, merely got changed so that they make you build faster (which leads to more flooding). Before Crius, for example, you needed Advanced Frigate Construction lvl 5 to build an AF. Not only did they totally change the requirements to build, they also significantly lowered the impact of good skills on invention jobs. Before Crius, training the rank 5 Science Skills to lvl 5 gave you a not-insignificant edge when inventin, especially when you were using 7 million costing decryptors. Nowadays, the difference is so small that an 8 hour traintime lvl III can basically get the same profit a the lvl V.

5) Build times got significantly lowered, especially for modules and ammo. I'm not sure what the thought behind this was, as one character (yes one character not person) can reasonably supply the ENTIRE DAILY DEMAND in Jita on his own now. For example, I can, on one alt with 9 million skillpoints, invent and build enough Heavy Missile Launchers II to satisfy the Jita market. Alone. It's no surprise HML's sell at a loss.

6) System tax is a major factor in the production cost. System tax cannot be avoided, not be smarted around nor be reduced by skills. System tax punishes you for having a ton of production in one place and punishes you for having a streamlined and well organized factory. The only way to avoid said tax is by relocating your entire operation every ~10 days and for large producers that's just not going to happen. For example, I run my own little production line with 2 alts and moving their operation would mean moving about 12 freighters of goods. Now imagine what big production corps would have to move. System tax is a stupid idea and needs to be reworked asap.

That's just a few reasons.
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#40 - 2015-01-13 10:51:05 UTC
Mino Adria wrote:
For someone new to the industry side of the game, could you elaborate on what was broken in the Crius expansion?
Sure.

There is a limit to how many players can be gainfully employed by the S&I system. Once all demand is satisfied any additional production is going to contribute to flooding the market, driving down prices, driving down margins, driving down profits and devaluing S&I as worthwhile and engaging game content.

With Crius, all BPOs were mapped to "ranks" that determine the duration of any S&I job carried out with that BPO. The duration of the S&I job in turn determines the production output and therefore the number of players that can be gainfully employed producing from that BPO.

Unfortunately, the lowest ranks were assigned too short a duration. This means that a single player can easily supply the entire demand of a low rank product without even trying. So there is now less industrial gameplay available to players at the low end.

Obviously this impact has been aggravated by the increased take up of S&I activity as a result of Crius. There were immediately a lot more players, many highly uninformed, all chasing the same tiny opportunities.

Probably even worse than the "ranks", is what CCP did to POSes. They basically gutted them, removing almost all of their value for many applications and then shipped Crius with them in an insultingly bad state.

Furthermore, the old system of limited S&I slots and limited POS anchoring sites forced industrialists to spread out and build infrastructure all over EVE. Removing slots, gutting POSes and then adding a "soft" incentive to spread out basically achieved the opposite of it's intention. We now have less reason to spread out and more reason to concentrate.

Bad Bobby wrote:
The old UI seemed to be a complicated clickwall. Was there any functionality loss in the UI? Else it seems like an improvement?

Your experience with the new UI will depend on how you engage in S&I, the scale of your operations and at least some degree of personal taste. For me there are certainly some improvements there, but we had to pay a fairly high price to get them. At best I can say the new UI is less awful than the old one, but it's still awful.

I don't think it's a good idea to hold your breath while you wait for CCP to learn what good UI actually is. We've been watching them progress slowly from god awful to awful over the period of 11 years... and there have been some big retrograde steps taken over that time.

Functionality wise, we've lost most of the S&I POS functionality and the entirety of the alliance S&I functionality. It's also got a lot slower and more buggy when dealing with large numbers of blueprints.

Bad Bobby wrote:
was it a dumping down of the system

When you take everything in to account, the system is less complex in some places and more complex in others. I'm not sure if you can really say it was "dumbed down" overall.

Bad Bobby wrote:
And finally, shouldn’t the market eventually adjust to the new balance?

The market will always adjust to the new balance. The question is whether the game is better or worse because of it.

I'm not going to go into the mess that was teams, BPO conversion and the conspicuous lack of new products to build. This post is already too long!