Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 43 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 62 post(s) |
Arana Mirelin
Te'Rava Industries
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:42:00 -
[1231] - Quote
Sigras wrote:LHA Tarawa wrote:This may sound naive, but the whole BPO->copy->BPC->invent->T2 BPC seems like this "not good" complexity thing.
IF already planning massive changes to invention, why not BPO->intent->T2 BPC.
Click fest reduced, able to alter copy time and max run without significant impacts to invention,
Ask how many runs they want on their output T2 BPC (up to a max). Scale the time and number of input datacores and such to the runs on the output BPC. The issue here is that inventing from copies allows new players to get their feet wet with invention without investing a bunch of isk Im not sure that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it is a side effect that you may not be taking into account.
Depending on what you're inventing, starting from copies doesn't save you much. Most module or ammo BPOs are not that expensive compared to the other process inputs. If you're thinking to start with ships, you'll get soaked badly and probably deserve it.
An example that has served well in the past, but I haven't made in quite a while are t2 medium shield extenders. T1 BPO is about 150k isk. The datacores for one invention run cost more. A couple others I do still regularly produce are about 400k per BPO.
On the ship stood, I have a basilisk BPC I invented which has never offered the chance of profit. I keep it as a reminder to take better care in choosing ships to invent.
|
Annia Aurel
J-CORP
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 05:09:00 -
[1232] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Sigras wrote:...
I suggest you move from a 10 level system to a 100 level system. This is very simple and very relate-able, and it also allows you to move research along in increments of 0.1% because in industry 1% is a HUGE FREAKING DEAL. ...
This would allow you to round ME levels to the nearest 0.1%, so OLD --> New ME 0 = ME 0 ME 1 = ME 50 ME 4 = ME 80 ME 9 = ME 90 ME 20 = ME 95 ME 100 = ME 99 ME 222 = ME 100
...
Thoughts? This could work also. I definitely think 10 levels are not enough, 100 levels would be a much better figure.
+1
No, +100
|
Annia Aurel
J-CORP
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 05:18:00 -
[1233] - Quote
And while we are at it, there's a way to make things even simpler:
Both the old system and the proposed system have the scale upside-down (more ME/PE = better = less waste) and thus require for some calculations to get from ME to waste (addition and division in the old system, multiplication and subtraction in the new system).
Why not simply "less = better = less waste" and replace the ME and PE stats in units of levels by "material waste" and "time waste" stats in units of % directly?
Proposal: New blueprints start at "waste: 10.0%" (and the description directly says so). Every level of research reduces that stat by 1% (0.1% imho would be better). Blueprints which have reached 0.0% waste (after 10 or 100 levels of research) are perfect.
You can still implement any changes as you planned, but the end result would be easier for new players to understand and less confusing (old ME vs new ME) for veterans.
Thoughts? |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
76
|
Posted - 2014.05.25 02:17:00 -
[1234] - Quote
Anathema Device wrote:Anathema Device wrote: 1% at ME1 2% at ME2-3 3% at ME4-7 4% at ME8-15 5% at ME16-31 6% at ME32-63 7% at ME64-127 8% at ME128 - 255 9% at ME256 - 511 10% at ME512 or higher.
Use a similar conversion for PE/TE.
Given there has been no negative feedback from the people asking for compensation for highly researched BPOs then a variant on this idea is better than the CCP linear ME1 to ME10 conversion. Given different sized ships, modules, rigs and components are researched to different ME levels (probably no ME1024 Titan BPOs) then the scaling could be dependent on other behind the scenes adjustments CCP is making to rebalance module research/copy times. One possibility is: 1% = ME1 for all BPOs 2% = ME2-3 for Ammunition, ME2 for all other BPOs 3% = ME4-7 for Ammo, ME3-4 for Small rigs, ships (e.g. frigates), modules, ME3 for all other BPOs 4% = ME8-15 for Ammo, ME5-8 for Small, ME4-6 medium rigs, ships (e.g. cruisers), etc., ME4 for all other BPOs 5% = ME16-31 Ammo, ME8-15 Small, ME7-10 Medium, ME5-6 Large, ME5 for Capital ships 6% = ME32-63 Ammo, ME16-31 Small, ME11-18 Medium, ME7-10 Large, ME6 Capital Ships 7% = ME64-127 Ammo, ME32-63 Small, ME19-34 Medium, ME11-18 Large, ME7-8 Capital Ships 8% = ME128-255 Ammo, ME64-127 Small, ME35-66 Medium, ME19-34 Large, ME9-12 Capital Ships 9% = ME256-511 Ammo, ME128-255 Small, ME67-130 Medium, ME35-66 Large, ME13-28 Capital Ships 10% = ME512+ Ammo, ME256+ Small, ME131+ Medium, ME67+ Large, ME29+ Capital Ships This can minimise requests for compensation based on high research levels, will reduce the gift boosting of current BPOs up to 'perfect' BPOs, CCP did not put an upper limit on research under the current rules and people have invested real money via game time and ISK to reach their goals. The current linear translation proposed by CCP does not compensate for the real money that will be taken from one group and effectively gifted to other players who will receive 'perfect' BPOs. CCP's quick and dirty, linear solution for ME/PE/TE translations needs to be revisited.
Except several/many capital ships reach "perfect" (no wasted components) at ME 9 and below ... so now you'd actually be REDUCING the quality of many BPO's .... tough to balance I guess ... BPO Calc is down atm so can't verify which easily sorry, but many. |
Quadpush
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 18:38:00 -
[1235] - Quote
I'm very interested in 'crafting' side of all MMOs I've played in the past. Industry seemed great to me. I amassed capital, bought POS and modules, trained freighter pilots, manufacturers, copiers and inventors, built a huge excel spreadsheet. In the end I'm very disappointed with how tedious industry is.
What I find annoying in industry to the point of quitting this side of the game:
1. You need to log in every 75 minutes to start invention jobs on T2 modules and every 60 minutes for drones. People have lives, you know. But you cannot queue! I hated WoW for forcing you to log in every day to do dailies. But here. Every hour. 2. POS tetris: you have to move items between modules at the POS, oftentimes you have to split them, because not all fit. That is so ridiculous I cannot find a reason for the existence of such a mechanic. All other POS mechanics are so ancient, clumsy and outdated that I don't even want to mention. That's a miracle how they managed to allow us use labs' and assembly arrays' hangars within distance larger than 3500 m! That must have been a revolutionary change. 3. Thousands of blueprints that don't stack and take long time to move between corp hangars or ships, lagging the client. 4. Game does not give you any sort of identification of how many slots your manufacturer/scientist has free except counting running jobs.
I don't care about complexity of industrial calculations or such. I don't care about T2 BPOs.
What really brings me down is: 1. CCP devs don't play their own game. 2. CCP will never fix POSes (they will never rewrite their code because it's not 'documented'). 3. Lots of talent is leaving CCP. 4. CCP is shifting its focus from veterans to 'new players'. It means death to the old EVE we all love in the long run. CCP is forgetting its principles in pursuit of money (ship painting is another example).
I've read so many good suggestions here and in other threads. I hope devs listen to their player base because real pilots know what's good for the game. |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
354
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 17:58:00 -
[1236] - Quote
Quadpush wrote:I'm very interested in 'crafting' side of all MMOs I've played in the past. Industry seemed great to me. I amassed capital, bought POS and modules, trained freighter pilots, manufacturers, copiers and inventors, built a huge excel spreadsheet. In the end I'm very disappointed with how tedious industry is.
What I find annoying in industry to the point of quitting this side of the game:
1. You need to log in every 75 minutes to start invention jobs on T2 modules and every 60 minutes for drones. People have lives, you know. But you cannot queue! I hated WoW for forcing you to log in every day to do dailies. But here. Every hour. 2. POS tetris: you have to move items between modules at the POS, oftentimes you have to split them, because not all fit. That is so ridiculous I cannot find a reason for the existence of such a mechanic. All other POS mechanics are so ancient, clumsy and outdated that I don't even want to mention. That's a miracle how they managed to allow us use labs' and assembly arrays' hangars within distance larger than 3500 m! That must have been a revolutionary change. 3. Thousands of blueprints that don't stack and take long time to move between corp hangars or ships, lagging the client. 4. Game does not give you any sort of identification of how many slots your manufacturer/scientist has free except counting running jobs.
I don't care about complexity of industrial calculations or such. I don't care about T2 BPOs.
What really brings me down is: 1. CCP devs don't play their own game. 2. CCP will never fix POSes (they will never rewrite their code because it's not 'documented'). 3. Lots of talent is leaving CCP. 4. CCP is shifting its focus from veterans to 'new players'. It means death to the old EVE we all love in the long run. CCP is forgetting its principles in pursuit of money (ship painting is another example).
I've read so many good suggestions here and in other threads. I hope devs listen to their player base because real pilots know what's good for the game.
I think overall the coming industry changes will be good. Other than for some major annoying PITAs that will hurt a lot of people the overall update will address many issues. Your pain points #2 and #4 are being addressed.
#2. You wont need to split production into as many Arrays/Labs as the slots on them will be unlimited so you will only need 1. Unfortunately you will still need to shuffle BPOs if you plan on using them in a POS.
#4. With the new UI you will see how many jobs you can install and how many are installed. At least that's what I gathered from viewing the screenshots.
#3. They might improve optimization on the BPOs with the new changes... or they might get worse. We'll have to wait and see.
#1. I still can't believe they didn't fix that. With unlimited slots it should be easy as cake to implement. Queuing jobs for 24h seems like an obvious thing to add. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2310
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 19:20:00 -
[1237] - Quote
Arvo Laukkanen wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Aluka 7th wrote:ShesAForumAlt wrote:First things first: CCP Greyscale wrote: - I'm considering changing invention times so that build time is generally twice copy+invention, to maintain balance across character manufacture and research slots; this also has the advantage of giving invention time a clear driving force
Guessing you mean invention time would be twice copy + build? IE Invention = 2*Copy + Build, not Invention = 2*Copy + Invention? IMHO I think he ment T2 BPC build time = T1 BPO copy time + T1 BPO invention time. T2 take longer to build then T1 version of same thing. Yes, except 2x copy+invention to roughly account for invention failure rate :) Also, please can we avoid talking about future changes to T2 BPOs in this thread; if you want to talk about that stuff *somewhere* take it to this blog feedback thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=340181This thread is *just* about changing blueprint data, thanks :) Remove T2 BPOs. Do it.
Not for Crius or Kronos, sorry. We don't have the time to evaluate the impact of any possible changes given the other work we have on our plates right now.
Tau Cabalander wrote:If my math is correct, then the only ones that are the same or improved are ML 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10+ and the rest are penalized. I think the rounding method on conversion needs to be changed, ie. ML 1 | ML 4 | ML 9 need to be converted to ME 6% | ME 9% | ME 10%.
ML 00 = 10% / (1 + 00) = 10.00%, becomes ME 00% [base * (1 - 00%) / 0.9 = 11.11% waste]
ML 01 = 10% / (1 + 01) = 05.00%, becomes ME 05% [base * (1 - 05%) / 0.9 = 5.55% waste]
ML 02 = 10% / (1 + 02) = 03.33%, becomes ME 07% [base * (1 - 07%) / 0.9 = 3.33% waste]
ML 03 = 10% / (1 + 03) = 02.50%, becomes ME 08% [base * (1 - 08%) / 0.9 = 2.22% waste] ML 04 = 10% / (1 + 04) = 02.00%, becomes ME 08%
ML 05 = 10% / (1 + 05) = 01.66%, becomes ME 09% [base * (1 - 09%) / 0.9 = 1.11% waste] ML 06 = 10% / (1 + 06) = 01.43%, becomes ME 09% ML 07 = 10% / (1 + 07) = 01.25%, becomes ME 09% ML 08 = 10% / (1 + 08) = 01.11%, becomes ME 09% ML 09 = 10% / (1 + 09) = 01.00%, becomes ME 09%
ML 10 = 10% / (1 + 10) = 00.91%, becomes ME 10% [base * (1 - 10%) / 0.9 = 0.00% waste] ML 11 = 10% / (1 + 11) = 00.83%, becomes ME 10%
I'll try and remember to recheck my math tomorrow.
Gamer4liff wrote:Greyscale, if you're interested, I made a big ol' effortpost on balancing invention and T2 BPOs here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4620181#post4620181TL;DR, BPOs get capped at 1-3 ME levels less than the best possible invention ME level, T2 BPOs become carrots for long-term and diligent inventors, helping them improve their productivity. New, now nerfed, T2 BPOs are distributed through some means to active inventors.
I'll try and remember to give this a read too.
Annia Aurel wrote:And while we are at it, there's a way to make things even simpler:
Both the old system and the proposed system have the scale upside-down (more ME/PE = better = less waste) and thus require for some calculations to get from ME to waste (addition and division in the old system, multiplication and subtraction in the new system).
Why not simply "less = better = less waste" and replace the ME and PE stats in units of levels by "material waste" and "time waste" stats in units of % directly?
Proposal: New blueprints start at "waste: 10.0%" (and the description directly says so). Every level of research reduces that stat by 1% (0.1% imho would be better). Blueprints which have reached 0.0% waste (after 10 or 100 levels of research) are perfect.
You can still implement any changes as you planned, but the end result would be easier for new players to understand and less confusing (old ME vs new ME) for veterans.
Thoughts?
Once we throw out the concept of "waste", and frame blueprint research as a straight-up improvement, I don't think we need to go down this road. Numbers that are better when they're lower are generally suboptimal in terms of players understanding what's going on (see f.ex THAC0).
|
|
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
38
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 21:15:00 -
[1238] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Not for Crius or Kronos, sorry. We don't have the time to evaluate the impact of any possible changes given the other work we have on our plates right now.
Everyone will just take this to mean you are going to do it in a later patch. I'm not sure if you are being purposely cryptic or just take delight in fueling rampant rumor mongering and speculation. It's very un-CCP like.
You guys should at least put forth a consistent message, one way or the other. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
3002
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 23:00:00 -
[1239] - Quote
Angelina Duvolle wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Not for Crius or Kronos, sorry. We don't have the time to evaluate the impact of any possible changes given the other work we have on our plates right now.
Everyone will just take this to mean you are going to do it in a later patch. I'm not sure if you are being purposely cryptic or just take delight in fueling rampant rumor mongering and speculation. It's very un-CCP like. You guys should at least put forth a consistent message, one way or the other.
Their message is consistent and unambiguous. It is "We do not like the impact T2 BPOs have on the game, we recognise that removing them outright would be disruptive to the economy, and we have not yet made a decision on how to handle them". https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=346564 - a proposal to overhaul the Logistics skill https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. www.minerbumping.com - ganking miners and causing chaos |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2314
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 11:49:00 -
[1240] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Angelina Duvolle wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Not for Crius or Kronos, sorry. We don't have the time to evaluate the impact of any possible changes given the other work we have on our plates right now.
Everyone will just take this to mean you are going to do it in a later patch. I'm not sure if you are being purposely cryptic or just take delight in fueling rampant rumor mongering and speculation. It's very un-CCP like. You guys should at least put forth a consistent message, one way or the other. Their message is consistent and unambiguous. It is "We do not like the impact T2 BPOs have on the game, we recognise that removing them outright would be disruptive to the economy, and we have not yet made a decision on how to handle them".
Pretty much this. We are unhappy with the status quo, but we are not sure what changes we are going to make right now.
|
|
|
Seith Kali
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 12:36:00 -
[1241] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Pretty much this. We are unhappy with the status quo, but we are not sure what changes we are going to make right now.
Module teiricide and allowing us to build named modules in some manner could decimate many of the problematic modules if cunningly balanced, if considering potential sources of inspiration for iterative devaluing Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege.-á |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
134
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 16:34:00 -
[1242] - Quote
I am not sure if you have answered this or not, but how are you handling Capital BPOs. My ME6 PE1 Moros is at 0% waste, will I still be at 0% waste after this change? Basically I am asking if it will be a ME10 or a ME9 Blueprint after the patch, or am I going to get screwed over with a ME6 being just ME6 after the patch? |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3475
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 17:04:00 -
[1243] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Pretty much this. We are unhappy with the status quo, but we are not sure what changes we are going to make right now. Just turn them into non-functional collectors items. That way, anyone that wanted to collect them still can. You shouldn't need to retain redundant mechanics. Send them the way of mines. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
Elysiana Karasniz
Kazari Holdings
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 17:31:00 -
[1244] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Angelina Duvolle wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Not for Crius or Kronos, sorry. We don't have the time to evaluate the impact of any possible changes given the other work we have on our plates right now.
Everyone will just take this to mean you are going to do it in a later patch. I'm not sure if you are being purposely cryptic or just take delight in fueling rampant rumor mongering and speculation. It's very un-CCP like. You guys should at least put forth a consistent message, one way or the other. Their message is consistent and unambiguous. It is "We do not like the impact T2 BPOs have on the game, we recognise that removing them outright would be disruptive to the economy, and we have not yet made a decision on how to handle them". Pretty much this. We are unhappy with the status quo, but we are not sure what changes we are going to make right now. Could you put together an updated version of this: http://k162space.com/2012/07/17/percentage-of-items-from-invention-vs-tech-2-bpo/ along with any other relevant information so we know what the status quo actually is?
There's an awful lot of unfounded hysteria on the forums over T2 BPOs but that's because they're forums. It would be good to have some actual evidence to define the "status quo" before doing anything else.
My initial suspicion is that a lot of the terror over BPOs arises from quite a few products being on the market for sub-invention prices. However this may well have nothing to do with T2 BPOs - many t1 products are on the market for sub-build costs as well. Assuming everyone is rational and works strictly to the cost numbers is unfortunately a silly thing to assume. For an example of this, check Armageddon build cost against the average market price for the last year.
Not to say T2 BPOs *don't* have a big effect on some products, merely that we need some actual evidence either way. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3355
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 18:13:00 -
[1245] - Quote
Elysiana Karasniz wrote:For an example of this, check Armageddon build cost against the average market price for the last year.
Bad example.
The Armageddon used to be around 90 million to build. So many got built at that level. That stockpile has yet to be exhausted. People are selling at a price that's profitable for them.
Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
296
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 20:10:00 -
[1246] - Quote
@ CCP: Please consider doing something about the insane scaling of research time on the bigger, slower blueprints: As an example, take any capital BPO and compare a BP researched to ME5 to a ME10 under the current system. The difference in cost is typically very small and with linear time anyone can research just as far. Under the new system, the difference in cost is suddenly very pronounced, and at the same time, reaching the higher research levels has become basically impossible due to the geometric time scaling and is also much more costly. Basically this gives a huge advantage for the older industrials with already well researched BPs and makes the entry much more difficult for new players. Malcanis law applies once more. |
Psyrelle
Gentle Genesis
14
|
Posted - 2014.06.22 10:57:00 -
[1247] - Quote
I might be late comming into this but I have a qyestion and I don't really have the desire to read through 57 pages to find my answer.
When will the blueprint changes come into play.
I thought it would come with the latest expansion. but ingame my bp's still have me lvl 110 etc
Sorry if this was explained somewhere but im slightly confused |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3448
|
Posted - 2014.06.22 17:27:00 -
[1248] - Quote
Psyrelle wrote:I might be late comming into this but I have a qyestion and I don't really have the desire to read through 57 pages to find my answer.
When will the blueprint changes come into play.
I thought it would come with the latest expansion. but ingame my bp's still have me lvl 110 etc
Sorry if this was explained somewhere but im slightly confused It was postponed till the next release (Crius), as per http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/delivering-the-industry-new-eden-deserves/ Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices Masters of Flying Objects
751
|
Posted - 2014.06.22 17:30:00 -
[1249] - Quote
Steve: The items used in the NPE need to be special cased at least in those systems. If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide
See you around the universe. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3448
|
Posted - 2014.06.22 17:37:00 -
[1250] - Quote
Salpun wrote:Steve: The items used in the NPE need to be special cased at least in those systems.
To restrict the cost to install the jobs for the civilian modules? Known issue, which I've mentioned. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices Masters of Flying Objects
751
|
Posted - 2014.06.22 17:39:00 -
[1251] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Salpun wrote:Steve: The items used in the NPE need to be special cased at least in those systems. To restrict the cost to install the jobs for the civilian modules? Known issue, which I've mentioned. The NPE does not use civilian modules any more. Except for the items given you.
If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide
See you around the universe. |
Psyrelle
Gentle Genesis
14
|
Posted - 2014.06.22 18:03:00 -
[1252] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Psyrelle wrote:I might be late comming into this but I have a qyestion and I don't really have the desire to read through 57 pages to find my answer.
When will the blueprint changes come into play.
I thought it would come with the latest expansion. but ingame my bp's still have me lvl 110 etc
Sorry if this was explained somewhere but im slightly confused It was postponed till the next release (Crius), as per http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/delivering-the-industry-new-eden-deserves/
Awwwwww
Ahh well only 1 month until Ill start playing the game again then.
|
Lotus Lady
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 20:14:00 -
[1253] - Quote
Hi, I've read a bit in here so I know that old ME will be scaled to match witn new ME accordingly, as per above "ME 6 translates to ~8.6%, which we're rounding up to 9%" Still remains the question, what lowest old ME do I need to get new 10%? Is it ME 10 = new 10%?
I also read that ongoing research jobs will be scaled the same way, I suppose this will not impact the research time once it goes but only the outcoming BPO once the job completes, right?
There is nowhere I saw any comment on pending jobs. If I have BPO research waiting in line will it get started immediately after update or will I be waiting in "pending" status for the whole timer? At the same time, I suppose there won't be any research time change on that pending job when it starts (right?) and the resulting BPO will get adjusted the same way as others.
Please correct me if I'm wrong somewhere as I did manage to scrol through only about 25% of replies in this "snakelike" post. |
Psyrelle
Gentle Genesis
14
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 11:46:00 -
[1254] - Quote
Psyrelle wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Psyrelle wrote:I might be late comming into this but I have a qyestion and I don't really have the desire to read through 57 pages to find my answer.
When will the blueprint changes come into play.
I thought it would come with the latest expansion. but ingame my bp's still have me lvl 110 etc
Sorry if this was explained somewhere but im slightly confused It was postponed till the next release (Crius), as per http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/delivering-the-industry-new-eden-deserves/ Awwwwww Ahh well only 1 month until Ill start playing the game again then.
Another question, is there a way to see how the blueprints will change? Just so I can plan ahead?
|
Gamer4liff
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
98
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 22:48:00 -
[1255] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Gamer4liff wrote:Greyscale, if you're interested, I made a big ol' effortpost on balancing invention and T2 BPOs here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4620181#post4620181TL;DR, BPOs get capped at 1-3 ME levels less than the best possible invention ME level, T2 BPOs become carrots for long-term and diligent inventors, helping them improve their productivity. New, now nerfed, T2 BPOs are distributed through some means to active inventors. I'll try and remember to give this a read too.
Much appreciated. Removing BPOs outright would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A comprehensive proposal for balancing T2 Production: here |
Dynus
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 01:27:00 -
[1256] - Quote
I read through about six pages of this discussion and got bored. Somebody else may have pointed this out. I think you are going to have to take the following approach to the conversion, rather than the one you are suggesting:
With the current system you can estimate the conversion rate between time and ME.
With the new system there is also a conversion rate between time and level - a logarithmic one.
What is changing, conceptually, is that henceforth research will only be done in specified increments (1-10).
I recommend that the conversion be made based on time, not ME level, and that fractional levels be allowed on converted blueprints.
If your blueprint took 12 days to research to level 20, then in the new system it would also take 12 days to research, to level 6.4. If you want to research it to level 7, then you only have to invest the added 0.6, not the full time to get from level 6 to 7.
If you have a blueprint that took 3 years to get to level 800, then in the new system you will have a BPO with a material level of 11.3. Most people argue that such an improvement is irrelevant. The person that spent 3 years researching their BPO disagrees. Let them keep their marginally better BPO. Those people will celebrate because they have a priceless, irreplaceable BPO. Everybody else will just say "meh."
If you take this approach then you reduce the opportunities to take advantage of the switch-over.
Some fine-tuning required. |
Morgus Dei
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.09 13:36:00 -
[1257] - Quote
I tried to read through at least all dev post but didnt found some answers i am looking for:
1.) A statement is "with the goal that no blueprint gets *worse* as a result of the transition." (POST 469) and its conflict with the capital BPO Problem as already indicated (a.e.in POST 343 page 18): ">The double whammy is our well optimized ME 2-6 capital hull BPOs will suddenly get a load of extra waste." ... "There should not be "a load of extra waste", I am not sure where you're seeing that?"
And keeping this in mind: "Because we want ME to go to 10%, and we want "perfect ME" blueprints in the new system to give the same build cost as a "perfect ME" blueprint in the current system, we need to have the new base cost * 0.9 to be equal to the old base build cost, and to get that we have to divide it by 0.9, which comes to 11.11111...1111%." (Post 331 page 17)
I will take the Orca and its need for its capital cargo bays as Example (assuming perfect production skills):
Old requirement: 34 [Base Value] + 3 [10% waste= 3,4 -> 3 Units] = 37 Units unresearched, perfect reserched ME LVL means the 34 Base Units which is actually reached with an ME LVL of 6.
New: 34 * 1,111111... = 37,7777 -> 38 Base Units unresearched
-9% [ME9% was the former ME6 = perfect] = 34,58 -> 35 runded up (SISI Verified today) -10% [ME10%] = 34,2
->if you round the 34.2 down it means that the conversion take an perfect (ME 6 OLD) BPO and make an unperfect (ME9% new) BPO out of it as ME10% safe you another unit. ->if you round it up that will means that the orca needs 5 more capital parts (as other components are affected too) to be built in the new system compared to the old one if i did see it right on SISI, regardless if ME9% or ME10%
This happens as you need to round after the "* 1,111..." .As the ME reduction is applied when the BPO is used. Taking the Idea of the transition only: 34 (base old) * 1,111111 (for the new base value) * 0,91 (9% reduction) = 34,37777 mathematic correctly rounded down would be 34, but as i already said, there is an extra step between getting the new Base Value and the ME reduction (round 37,7777... to 38)...
Your last Idea:
Post 873 page 44: "We're currently leaning heavily towards calculating ME for the job as a whole, not per-run, probably with a limiter that requires every run always consumes at least one of every material (to prevent 9 apocs -> 10 paladins shenanigans)."
will not be helpfull as you cant install a production job for so many orcas to completly compensate. If you could get 100 runs you have to use 3458 Cargo Bay units which is 100 * 34,58 from the ME9% calculation above. But you cant install more than 3 at a time in an NPC station. And it would still be more than current (34*100=3400)
On the other side this new Idea has a serious downside: if you round correctly the 34,2 from the ME10% above you need 34 units per run, but 342 units from 10 runs, so 2 units wasted because of making more runs at once... Even with only 3 runs there can be waste if the requirement is rounded down for the production of 1 unit: 3*34,2=102,6 ->103
How do you plan to keep those type of BPOs perfect with the same built costs? Making all sub ME 10 but "perfect" BPOs ME10% would be a solution, changing the material requirements would be another ... but there could still be the problem with your latest idea...
2.) As BPOs can only be used where they are located, what will happen to the BPOs that will come out of research after patch (inserted before patch) if these are locked in a npc station, while beeing researched at a POS in the same system? - will those appear in the POS (getting unlocked by the same time) - appear in the station again, still locked (for a last time) - cause a DB error and disappear? (hopefully just joking)
I ask because its something that isnt tested in SISI as you remove all the POSes and the corresponding jobs and BPOs when you make a new snapshot from tranquility before you install new patches as far as i know / could see.
3.) I have many BPOs locked in a NPC station with manufacturing slots only and use a POS to research/copy them. Now i need to move them to a station with copy slots as i cant use the POS any more or to the POS (depending on Value) Will the Lock/unlock system be overworked? It would be a too long text to describe but have you ever tried to unlock 100s of BPOs ? its a click fest and take forever. The UI makes it even more complicated, as it dont close the votes, but only the tabs so you have to search for forgotten votes between all the accepted ones. Not to mention the work to lock them again.... and repeat all this when i want to change station because system cost are getting through the roof ....
Any solution for this in sight? |
Meroa Buelle
Deadly Harmony Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 19:50:00 -
[1258] - Quote
Here's a solution for the T2 BPO's --allow for invention to be done from a t1 bpo to a t2 bpo that way anyone that has an original bpo wont be annoyed with the eventual removal of t2 bpo's.
Admittedly this will need a large amount of datacores and maybe a slightly improved invention chance so that people arent waiting forever and a day to get a t2 bpo however the cost involved in this process should protect the value of the t2 bpo's already in circulation. |
Danastar
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2014.07.12 19:39:00 -
[1259] - Quote
Hello Guys,
I apologize for not being able to follow the discussion closely and read all the comments. If my question is already answered I ask for excuse one more time.
In the early stage of the research dev blogs, there was an idea for compensation of some sort for the ones that own highly researched BPOs. Is there final conclusion for that, is there going to be some sort of compensation and if yes, how is it going to be processed.
Thank You.
--Danastar
|
Black Romero
Aviation Professionals for EVE Rim Worlds Protectorate
9
|
Posted - 2014.07.12 20:43:00 -
[1260] - Quote
Okay guys, I have read as much as I can without my eyes falling out and searched the forums to no avail....it looks like this thread is active still, so I ask here....
What is happening to the Science Skill in Crius since Copying will be instantaneous now?
It is still a prereq for a lot of stuff, any chance of getting its' bonuses changed from 5% copy speed per level to something else?
Many pardons if this has been asked already and I just don't have the patience to keep looking. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 43 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |