Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
|
CCP kieron
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 03:09:00 -
[1]
It's been a while since the last blog, but a lot has happened in the intervening time. We deployed Trinity, celebrated Christmas, brought in the New Year and started work on both the 1.1 patch and our next expansion. Unfortunately, blog publishing has suffered as a result, but now the silence is broken.
Chronotis got together with Hammerhead, they threw some ideas around and came up with a couple blogs. While the second one will be posted around the end of the weekend (Sunday) due to some last minute checks, the first one is now available.
Clones? Yup, nifty changes there. Drones? Yeah, they get some love. Manufacturing your gig? We got something for you. Oh yeah, everybody loves logs, logs get more functionality.
Here you go, A Short Transmission on a Few Upcoming Changes. Enjoy!
|
|
NeoShocker
Caldari Foundation R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 03:26:00 -
[2]
So the pinatas got more HP huh? Good changes. :) -----------------------------------
Peace through power! |
Princess Xenia
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 03:34:00 -
[3]
Dear CCP,
If you believe Amarr has been fixed or is on-par with other race, can you please tell us all Amarr pilots to STFU about any future 'improvement' concerning their PURE-LASER ships.
This way I will stop expecteing too much from you and move on...
Thank you for nothing...
A very grumpy Amarr pilot...
|
Aindrias
Amarr Labteck Corporation LTD. Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 03:53:00 -
[4]
I thought the mining drones were fine..
GIVE ME AMARR COMPETITIVE BOOST! ;-)
Otherwise, neat..
|
IVeige
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 04:07:00 -
[5]
'They will still need protection as any rogue can easily destroy them but they should now be able to withstand someone sneezing on them. '
still doesnt worth it to use them, especially t2 mining drones, they are way to slow to be effective. Unless you want to put your barge at 1000 m of the asteroid..
if they cant survive when the first npc show up, if they cant go enough fast to come back in cargo hold before getting pop, then they are useless and nobody will use them.
|
Salvis Tallan
Gallente The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 04:31:00 -
[6]
I shake my fist at your waste calculations, but in my heart I know it to be good. Now if only we could get a UI/Interface overhaul for the whole system...
Also, let this devblog be the first of many (many many many) this year!! ------
|
Ambani
Gallente Infinitus Morti R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 04:47:00 -
[7]
There are people who use them - and these people get spawn aggro first before releasing the drones.
and the t2 ones cost only 300-400k ffs - and they generate around 10 mill/hour.
I welcome this change though:)
Meet Eve's most paranoid carebear - Ambani! |
Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 05:11:00 -
[8]
Quote: Manufacturing Waste Fix in Trinity 1.1
Many of you were affected by a Trinity change to the rounding of manufacturing waste where both the blueprint and skill waste are rounded with runs. This resolved a lot of issues but had the side effect of making single batch or small scale production more efficient than mass production. Since smaller batch sizes suffered from reduced loss a diseconomy of scale resulted.
To fix this, we need to go one step further and realize that waste is significant at all levels by rounding up the waste so single run batches will be less efficient than mass production of an item returning us once more to economies of scale. For the many spreadsheet producers out there wanting to know how this will affect you, this means changing your Trinity spreadsheets from round to ceiling function when calculating the necessary materials needed in future jobs.
OK, so in English, are you saying the nerf to manufacturers was so much fun, you thought it only fair to make even single-run jobs more wasteful?
Here's my main problem with the rounding nerf, and the production process in general even before this: it should not take different amounts of materials to build the same item from the same blueprint in the same facility whether it's one run or one million.
All other considerations being equal, if I build one item or a million of them, they should ALL individually use exactly the same amount of materials per build. Unless you introduce fractions of units, the system as it stands is broken. Period.
Furthermore, by adding to manufacturing waste, you've increased demand for materials without increasing the supply. This is particularly true for T2 production, which gets bludgeoned by the new waste rules repeatedly. Not only does an Oneiros I build now require more materials, but each and every T2 component that goes into it is subject to waste, as well.
For T1, it's not nearly so bad, because supply of minerals is limited only by the available rocks and miners, which are both extremely large numbers, and every item built is only subject to waste once.
For T2, there are only so many moon mining operations out there producing the materials needed to create T2 components and items, PLUS Trinity just dropped an instant increase in demand into the game in the form of all those new T2 ships, particularly the T2 battleships and jump freighters. Prices on things like fermionic condensates and ferrogel are just silly now compared to a few months ago.
I have no problem rolling with market fluctuations, but shouldn't the processes behind production make sense? For instance, why does it take more T2 components and minerals to make a T2 ship, but it doesn't take more of the T1 ship? It's inconsistent.
Furthermore, blueprint research has never made much sense. At least pre-Trinity many prints could be researched to a point where they became effectively "perfect" material levels, even if they weren't really perfect. Certainly you could reach a threshold where additional research had negligible effect on material requirements. For instance, if I had a Crystalline Carbonide Armor Plate BPO at say material level 10 pre-Trinity, it was effectively perfect. Now I can put 100 points of research into the material level, and I still have waste if I build more than a few units at a time.
There should be a ceiling for ML or PL, say at 100. Small item prints, like ammunition or drones, can be gotten to 100 pretty quickly. Larger item prints take proportionately longer to improve, but if I so desire, I should have the option of using my time and resources to attain a perfect research level. T2 prints also shouldn't be so out of whack when it comes to research time. The difference between T1 and T2 print research times is excessive, since T2 already require additional skills and materials to run the jobs. If you want T2 prints to be more costly to improve, increase the materials needed.
|
Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 05:27:00 -
[9]
To continue...
The problems with material levels and productivity levels are even more obvious now with widespread invention showing everyone just how lame improved research stats are when compared to negative stats on invented BPCs. If a ML 0 print is 10% waste, and each negative point is another flat 10% waste added on, why is the positive research an infinite curve?
Sure, we don't want ML 1 to be zero waste, but there should be a finite scale on the positive side of research.
Have you ever tried explaining blueprint research to a new player? I have. My fingers should bleed from the typing, and their heads should explode. For instance, it's sensible to guess that maybe 100 points = 100%, so they are understandably confused. Oh, and thanks, CCP, for your eternally lacking documentation in all areas of the game. It does such wonders for the new player experience, as you call it, that I'm stunned we retain any new players these days (though I guess they could just be alts and isk sellers, after all). On top of skill requirements, raising money to get in on the science professions, public lab/production assembly line queues vs. costs and limitations of POS facilities, it really isn't surprising that in the past I lost many promising researchers to pew pew, or, more often simply other games. Now I don't bother. I just discourage anyone I meet from trying to be a scientist/builder.
Well, I've ranted enough. I know it won't make a raindrop's difference in the ocean, but at least I feel better for venting.
|
Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 05:34:00 -
[10]
I lied. One more point to make...
Whatever you decide to do about waste, STOP PENALIZING PART-TIME PLAYERS. I am able to log in often enough each day to do daily runs of my various production jobs, or multiple jobs per day if I really want to, but what about the player who is lucky to spend a couple hours a weekend playing? They pay the same fees as 23/7 players, so why shaft them? If someone wants to put a week or a month of production into one job, then it shouldn't cost them any more per run than it does me when I put the same blueprint in for a one-day job.
This goes back to my main point, which I'll repeat one last time (tonight): producing 1 unit or 1 million, they should ALWAYS use the same amount of materials per unit.
|
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 09:21:00 -
[11]
Well, we got the promised dev blog, but this one is fairly disappointing. It covered only very minor issues. When will you guys speak about real problems like Amarr, speed tanking, assault frigs and pos warfare? ------------------------------------------
What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs. |
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 09:23:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Mack Dorgeans ...STOP PENALIZING PART-TIME PLAYERS...what about the player who is lucky to spend a couple hours a weekend playing?...
Stop ranting!!
You can't be seriously talking that someone who plays 2 hours a week should get almost the same as one who plays 20 hours a week or even more. That is ridiculous.
And the waste of materials and shortage of supply. Since it affects everyone it doesn't matter much - everyone has to pay the higher prices. If you are clever you look for some long-term supply for a good price.
The ME on the blueprints and material waste? Why need a change. Does it really matter that running small size batches produce 0.005% less waste than running large size batches?!?! Fixing that is WASTED ENERGY. Keep it as it is!
Instead of wasting energy with those unimportant material levels please go on and work on new moon mining models! What happend with the discussion there? Any progress?
Please inform us about these interesting things more.
|
adriaans
Amarr Advanced Capital Ship Designs Hephaestus Rising
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 09:30:00 -
[13]
some nice changes, but what about the boost patch and amarr 'lasers boats that works better with other weapons' ships? -sig-
Support the introduction of Blaze M crystals for Amarr! (Or make Amarr the only race able to deal EM damage from turrets).
|
clone 1
Laughing Leprechauns Corporation Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 09:53:00 -
[14]
Disappointing Devblog.
The most annoying thing about manufacturing at the moment, is that you dont know how much materials you need to build when its more than one item. Sure you can make a calculated guess. Been working with this rounding issue now for nearly 2 months and its just annoying when you are just units short of materials just to finish off your run. But this is a bug, that has been called a bug and we have been told its being worked on.
There has been dev mentions of increasing runs of freighter invention bpcs, increasing availability or altering t2 component manufacture to balance the races. The last gameplay related live dev blog continuously mentioned 'Boost Patch' when asked questions about ship discussions. Was this some sort of in-joke answer to questions YOU asked us to put on the forums?
Really looking forward to the Sundays devblog. It will be very interesting.
-------------------------------------------------- The Angels Have the Phone Box |
Njara Naoltaos
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 10:00:00 -
[15]
How about a mining ship specialized in mining drones and a new class of mining drones for that ship?
|
Typhado3
Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 10:04:00 -
[16]
/me wonders why people are complaining about amarr when nothing was said about amarr in blog....
good work on all 5 of those changes
My Opinions are my own, not my corp's, not my friend's, and not my pet fedo's |
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 10:25:00 -
[17]
Amarr boost is coming in a future dev blog, lets keep this on topic
Salvis; it is on our wishlist as well to at least let you enter multiple jobs at once.
Mack Dorgeans; though we disagree on how manufacturing process efficiency should work, your point is valid that manufacturing UI made easier so you know well in advance before the installation stage how much materials you will need.
Something we can look at is a new tool which lets you see an install quote without having the blueprint itself or having to go to the install stage of the process. Alongside more simpler changes like letting you know what materials you have and still need which all simplify what can be an overly complex process where it should not necessarily be. It is all on our wishlist.
clone 1; freighter invention will take into account decryptor runs bonuses in trinity 1.1 patch.
Gnulpie; we are still talking about moon mining and advanced material manufacturing. For now, keep any discussion on that to this thread and we promise to follow it and write a dev blog on it in the future
The next dev blog kieron mentions is a break from the norm where we talk purely speculatively about one area we are looking at and I can follow that on with in a similar vein for moon materials and adv. manufacturing once we have looked into it a little more.
|
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 11:14:00 -
[18]
I used to think that a dev blog, *any* dev blog would be better than nothing. Now I know better lol. Telling us about improvements to mining drones and then saying that 'drones got some love' is just cruel!
Please CCP let the Sunday blog have some meat to it. I hope I hope I hope.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
Helison
Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 12:08:00 -
[19]
Thank you for the Devblog! Even if the "interesting stuff" wasn¦t touched, it was good info!
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Mack Dorgeans; though we disagree on how manufacturing process efficiency should work, your point is valid that manufacturing UI made easier so you know well in advance before the installation stage how much materials you will need.
Something we can look at is a new tool which lets you see an install quote without having the blueprint itself or having to go to the install stage of the process. Alongside more simpler changes like letting you know what materials you have and still need which all simplify what can be an overly complex process where it should not necessarily be. It is all on our wishlist.
Well there is one thing which should be really changed and which would be very easy: Change the information in the BPO-info for production materials from integers to real numbers with two digits after the comma. Then it¦s much easier to calculate the waste ourselves.
Btw: One of the items, which are very heavily affected by this change, is the rorqual, as it needs small numbers of 14 different components. For example it currently needs 5 Capital Drone Bays (normally not affected by waste). With this new calculation it will probably need 6 Capital Drone Bays for single runs (20% waste) and 5.5 bays for jobs with 2 runs, which will run for about 28 days.
Ehmmm, something else: When will we see a bugfix-patch?
|
A Sinner
Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 12:10:00 -
[20]
For your consideration: I know a lot of us are expecting a boost for amarr and gallente recon ships, which are pretty much worthless right now. With 3 damps and 2 efficiency rigs it still doesn't do much to my oponent and I can easily be killed. Sure.. damps were to powerful, I totally agree with that, but not in general, there were powerful for ships without damp bonus, that was the bad thing about it, but for arazu/lachesis , there were just right. Imho that needs to be changed, I say leave it as it is for other ships than gallente recons, celestis and keres, and give it a boost when fitted to those i just mentioned. Make some special scripts or something that you could only fit on those ships or increase the bonus. Same thing goes for the amarr recons, regarding the tracking disrupters. I don't fly amarr but I heard as many people complaining about that as I heard about gallente recons. Thanks in advance, I know the choice you will make will be a logic one.
|
|
Lyikka
Minmatar Genco
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 12:18:00 -
[21]
Quote: Combat Log Upgraded to Allow You to Scroll Backwards The combat log will soon let you browse further back than the last 25 records in your character sheet combat log allowing you access to rest of your kills and losses.
Its nice that you guys are actually doing something to this log, but further improvements to this would be very satisfactory. - A way to see what type of dmg your receiving, example 500hit your shild (40%emp, 60% explosive) - Same with the dmg you make as above. - It seems to forget what it should sort on each time you close the window, annoying. - The combat log should not clear its log each time i jump/dock etc. - The log does not displaying armor/shield repairs, on either you or your target. - Fix it so that we can scroll sideways to read the extra long strings of text.
personally i would love to see what type of dmg the incomming and outcomming dmg does, as this is one of the things that really bother me. To play and equip more efficently.
|
Garia666
Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E Mercenary Services
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 12:24:00 -
[22]
Quote: Amarr boost is coming in a future dev blog, lets keep this on topic
whoo hooo cant w8 for this one!! ->My Vids<-
Quote: CCP Chronotis
Amarr boost is |
xttz
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 13:28:00 -
[23]
Is there any timeframe on rebalancing super-capitals, specifically motherships? The forums are full of threads on how pointless MSes have become, and a quick view of the sales forum shows that their sale price has dropped below build cost with no buyers. Normally rebalancing ships isn't a time-sensitive matter, but in this case many people have expensive characters tied to ships that can no longer fulfill the functions they were built for.
|
Rashmika Clavain
Gallente Revelation Space
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 14:01:00 -
[24]
I am glad the mobile labs are being looked at! I lost my net connection and was unable to fuel my POS, some fracker in a NPC corp came along in a t1 Destroyer fitted with t1 ions and popped them both.
I only hope Concorde got him!
It's my own fault, yes, but expensive POS modules shouldn't be that vulnerable to a 3m ship setup on a throwaway alt.
|
Laendra
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 14:01:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Laendra on 25/01/2008 14:02:12
Quote: Manufacturing Waste Fix in Trinity 1.1
Many of you were affected by a Trinity change to the rounding of manufacturing waste where both the blueprint and skill waste are rounded with runs. This resolved a lot of issues but had the side effect of making single batch or small scale production more efficient than mass production. Since smaller batch sizes suffered from reduced loss a diseconomy of scale resulted.
To fix this, we need to go one step further and realize that waste is significant at all levels by rounding up the waste so single run batches will be less efficient than mass production of an item returning us once more to economies of scale. For the many spreadsheet producers out there wanting to know how this will affect you, this means changing your Trinity spreadsheets from round to ceiling function when calculating the necessary materials needed in future jobs.
Gotta agree with Mack Dorgeans. This is dumb. The CORRECT way to do it would be to do a CEILING on the blueprint itself, so that all component values are rounded up, instead of regular rounding. Then EVERY item made will COST THE SAME, regardless of batch size. You talk about economies of scale, but we have already researched the blueprints and trained our skills to maximize efficiency, as much as possible/feasible. If you really want to talk about economies of scale, that should be a factory property...which by the way, thanks for making ADVANCED factories use MORE materials than a standard factory. Nothing too advanced about that, is there? -------------------
|
Togakure
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 14:03:00 -
[26]
Quote:
Mobile Laboratories Reinforced
More hit points have also been added to Mobile Laboratories; they are now a little more resistant to attack when the occasion comes that they are vulnerable.
The dream is over. :(
|
Letrange
Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 15:37:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Letrange on 25/01/2008 15:38:37 RE: Manufacturing changes. There are two seperate issues really. One is waste and waste reduction (and the concept of "perfect" bpos). The other is Economies of scale.
One of the interesting things is that with a round to ceiling, the concept of "perfect" bpos will go out the window. This is because all waste calculations will result in at least 0.000001 (or something similar) part of a material no matter how much the bpo is researched. Which will then round up so that there will always be at least 1 material added to any calculation. Which is fine so long as we know what's comming. However because of this it will be impossible to research any bpo to the point where there is no waste, since even 0.001% waste will get rounded up.
As far as economies of scale go, the true mechanism to represent this is the "line setup cost". The problem is that it is not pegged to the type of BPO being manufactured, which has the effect of costing a straight 1000 isk whether you're manufacturing a 100 rounds of ammo or a battleship. On the Small ammo, the effect of the initial startup means you DO get some economies of scale (since the price of startup is much larger than the mineral value of a single run). But for battleships... well it's a drop in the bucket. The % effect of building 1 BS or building 10 BS on the same line from the same BPO is totally negligible.
The "interesting" thing about these changes is that we will be going from .
The old situation: - ALL BPOs could theoretically be made "pefect" although in practice only those that were attainable withing 100 or so were really researched to this level.
Through the current situation: - Technically still possible but the number of runs affected the point at which a BPO was "perfect" with the advantage going towards the lower production number.
To the upcoming situation: - Impossible to ever get "perfect". There will always be at least 1 of each material in waste no mater how much the BPO is researched. But minimizing the waste will be skewed towards the larger production runs.
|
Caiman Graystock
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 16:19:00 -
[28]
It wouldn't be a dev blog that has nothing to do with the amarr if the whingers didnt turn up to cry about them.
|
Xaen
Caldari Black Podding
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 16:21:00 -
[29]
A little perspective on clones...
Why do we even have to worry about updating our clones? What does requiring you to remember that you have to occasionally upgrade your clone add to the game?
Medical clones seem to be a very, very minor money sink + the chance to lose skillpoints when you die. Hardly makes the game better than if we didn't have to worry about it, IMO. -- Support fixing the EVE UI | Suggest Jita fixes |
Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 16:33:00 -
[30]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Mack Dorgeans; though we disagree on how manufacturing process efficiency should work, your point is valid that manufacturing UI made easier so you know well in advance before the installation stage how much materials you will need.
Something we can look at is a new tool which lets you see an install quote without having the blueprint itself or having to go to the install stage of the process. Alongside more simpler changes like letting you know what materials you have and still need which all simplify what can be an overly complex process where it should not necessarily be. It is all on our wishlist.
...
The next dev blog kieron mentions is a break from the norm where we talk purely speculatively about one area we are looking at and I can follow that on with in a similar vein for moon materials and adv. manufacturing once we have looked into it a little more.
So, can you explain exactly how manufacturing process efficiency SHOULD work, rather than just saying my opinion is different than yours? Oh, and I don't recall mentioning the UI, but yes, indeed, there's a lot of room for improvement there.
As for moon mining, the change to waste calculations was great for them -- they get higher demand and no increase to the amount of work they need to perform. I hope someday skills will factor into moon mining, via more advanced and efficient equipment, but that's for another day...
I still argue that the current blueprint and production rules are inconsistent and needlessly complicated. If you're not going to implement fractional units, all numbers should be based on the cost of one run. The single run material requirements should be rounded up.
As it is now, if I build one Oneiros (ML 40) in an advanced assembly array, it requires 276 oscillator capacitor units (up from 251 in an NPC factory). If I build two ships in the array, it requires 551 units, so I'm being charged 275 and a half units per run, saving one unit vs. building two ships in one-run jobs. If I can make use of fractions to my advantage when building two ships, why are fractional amounts in one run simply thrown away? How can you even HAVE half a unit of a piece of machinery?
The waste to basic materials is reasonable when the oscillator capacitor units are built, but half an OCU is not a usable item. In essence, what the blueprint says is that we're breaking a certain number of units in a build because of inefficiency, but the finished product always includes the same number of OCUs, which is the no waste baseline, as evidenced by what is returned to you upon recycling the finished product with perfect refining skills/facilities. To build one ship, if there's waste to T2 components, then it should always be the same waste per run, whether it's one or a million.
You don't make an ML 0 Oneiros blueprint require 11 Exequrors for a 10-run job (10% waste), do you? No, the T1 ship is treated as "extra material" used at 100%. Meanwhile there are R.A.M.- Starship Tech listed as extra material that are damaged in the process, with one unit left over at the end repairable in most T2 ship builds. In the case of my Oneiros print, I always have to use 95% of 8 RAMs per Oneiros, whether that's a single run or multiples per job. Here you've implemented fractional units. Why not do something similar with other advanced building materials?
Because it's unnecessarily complicated would be one reason not to implement fractions for more types of items. If that's the case, why use fractional waste calculations? It's also unnecessarily complicated. Another answer might be that you LIKE having pure waste that can't be recovered. It's an ISK sink of sorts. If that's the reasoning behind waste changes, then at least own up to it. The manufacturing process should be more logically consistent. If you want increased waste, then every build should have the same waste to advanced materials, rather than be subject to fractional calculations.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |