Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Frug
Zenithal Harvest
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 16:39:00 -
[31]
Quote: Mobile Laboratories Reinforced
Great. Can i have back the labs I lost to a suicide attacker in empire?
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles |
Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 16:51:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Gnulpie Edited by: Gnulpie on 25/01/2008 09:30:29
Originally by: Mack Dorgeans ...producing 1 unit or 1 million, they should ALWAYS use the same amount of materials per unit.
You have obviously no clue about continuous productions. There is ALWAYS some overhead (waste) if you do continuous production - that is why you try to keep those machines running 24/7. Just look at the flat-glass production for example. Or band-steel. Or chemical reactions. Continous productions are more efficient usually, much easier to handle with logistics but they have some initial overhead. You need to start machines, you need to stop them. Material and energy is wasted during that. Machineries needs to be configured etc.
Get a clue before you start yelling around.
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.
And you should stop trolling. I expand upon my initial argument above. If you want real-world waste, then we should be prepared for MUCH more complicated and needlessly work-intensive processes in game manufacturing. My complaint is inconsistency in the use of fractional production calculations.
As for penalizing part-time players, my opinion stands. Someone who plays only a few hours a week is already at a competitive disadvantage based on how they can use their limited time. The manufacturing process is something that runs in the background once set up. Just because you can't be logged in every second the servers are up doesn't mean it should cost you more to build something.
When using manufacturing, you're building one item at a time on an assembly line, NOT throwing ingredients in a pot and having them come out in bulk at the end, even though that's the way it appears in EVE.
|
ZaKma
Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 17:40:00 -
[33]
What about the countless little UI bugs that just keep bugging the hell out of us? For example the Fleet window resetting it's position / size etc every time you join a new fleet?
Seleene > you sound like my wife |
Jita Dancer
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 18:46:00 -
[34]
Mack
Take the real life process of commercial printing. A printing press (big web ones like they print newspapers and catalogs on) takes half an hour or so running at full speed for the press engineers to 'bring it to color'. The happens every time the press is started, and consumes ink and paper. (lots of ink and paper!) The press engineers are tweaking the alignments of the plates, the pressure on the rollers, then tension in the paper, the heat of the driers, the crispness of the folder, the length of the staples and a million bazillion other things. If you want to print a single newspaper on a web press, it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars - because of the "setup' waste.
When you print millions of copies of the newspaper, the setup waste is a smaller fraction of the overall cost, so the per-piece cost is less - thats what the dude who was talking about continuos manufacture was trying to get at. Consider it a fixed cost of manufacture.
I think CCP should consider exagerating this phenominon even more so that extremely large runs of production are even more efficient. That way, dedicated builders with enough resources, time materials, and skills could make a bit more profit at the expense of potentially flooding the market with goods if they over do it. Cash and resource flow becomes a real issue for these guys. I can make a thousand cruisers for $1M each, or I can make a hundred for $1.1M each, or I can make one for $1.15M (okay the numbers should be tweaked). Sure somebody out there can invest huge amounts of money and mins to 'own the market' but they are also taking the long term gamble, cause a thousand cruisers will take months to sell and with mineral volatility theres an inherent risk of investment loss and a not inconsiderate cash flow cost. Dr Eyjog (sp?) whaddya reckon?
|
Popychacz
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 19:14:00 -
[35]
So, you're rounding ships needed for t2 manufacturing UP?:P:P:P
|
Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 19:21:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Mack Dorgeans on 25/01/2008 19:23:21
Originally by: Jita Dancer Mack
Take the real life process of commercial printing. A printing press (big web ones like they print newspapers and catalogs on) takes half an hour or so running at full speed for the press engineers to 'bring it to color'. The happens every time the press is started, and consumes ink and paper. (lots of ink and paper!) The press engineers are tweaking the alignments of the plates, the pressure on the rollers, then tension in the paper, the heat of the driers, the crispness of the folder, the length of the staples and a million bazillion other things. If you want to print a single newspaper on a web press, it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars - because of the "setup' waste.
When you print millions of copies of the newspaper, the setup waste is a smaller fraction of the overall cost, so the per-piece cost is less - thats what the dude who was talking about continuos manufacture was trying to get at. Consider it a fixed cost of manufacture.
I think CCP should consider exagerating this phenominon even more so that extremely large runs of production are even more efficient. That way, dedicated builders with enough resources, time materials, and skills could make a bit more profit at the expense of potentially flooding the market with goods if they over do it. Cash and resource flow becomes a real issue for these guys. I can make a thousand cruisers for $1M each, or I can make a hundred for $1.1M each, or I can make one for $1.15M (okay the numbers should be tweaked). Sure somebody out there can invest huge amounts of money and mins to 'own the market' but they are also taking the long term gamble, cause a thousand cruisers will take months to sell and with mineral volatility theres an inherent risk of investment loss and a not inconsiderate cash flow cost. Dr Eyjog (sp?) whaddya reckon?
Yes, in the real world, these kinds of processes are quite different than what we have in EVE. There are human and mechanical factors that affect cost and waste, which have no counterpart inside the game. I'm not espousing 100% lifelike manufacturing in EVE, but rather asking that the existing in-game system be made internally consistent. As it stands, the implementation is inconsistent on the subject of waste.
If we use your example, then it would be reasonable to also ask for increased time efficiency to result from running large numbers of runs in a single job. After all, you only start that printing press up once, whether it prints one sheet or runs all day. So, the startup time should be applied only once, and all runs beyond the first would take less time. We can look at every little detail like this and make a case for something similar to happen in the game, but again, it gets to the point of becoming needlessly complicated, and not at all enjoyable as a game. Certain game tasks are already too much like work, frankly.
I would just like to see waste treated consistently, and I don't think it's asking too much or approaching that area of being needlessly complicated.
|
Dominique Vasilkovsky
HOW Industries
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 19:58:00 -
[37]
I posted some ideas for a reworked S&I UI here, in essence use a similar layout to contracts where you don't have to chase the "next" button nor the windows across the screen.
I don't really care how the waste is calculated but I would love to see a few more decimals added to the numbers for easier calculations.
Have you had any more thoughts about the bonus the invention implant might end up with?
Signature approved by Eldo |
Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 20:11:00 -
[38]
Speaking of the UI, will it be fixed so hangar dropdowns default to the location of the blueprint being used, the way it used to be pre-Trinity?
|
Beness
Absolutely No Retreat Synchr0nicity
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 20:56:00 -
[39]
I'm neutral when it comes to the efficiency changes.
On one hand, I'm happy that the longer runs will be more efficient than the shorter runs, because this feels right to me. On the other hand, I'm not happy that there will be an increased focus on large builds, since that will mean that the public manufacturing facilities are likely to have longer queues.
Either way, the change makes sense in that if I have a blueprint that takes "5.5" of a specific thing, and I only make one run, I shouldn't be creating the 0.5 of the thing out of nowhere.
The only optimization I can think of is a probability based function. Continuing the example above, running one build I am required to provide 6 of a specific item at installation time, but I have a 50% chance (based on the decimal) of using the 6th. This would mean that the average material build cost would be identical no matter the division of jobs (many small runs or some large runs). However, it introduces probability into the manufacturing process.
|
Kweel Nakashyn
Minmatar Aeden Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 21:58:00 -
[40]
Why do you speak about the earth ? Earth is gone. See the age of stars. 2isk
|
|
Kweel Nakashyn
Minmatar Aeden Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 22:02:00 -
[41]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Amarr boost is coming in a future dev blog, lets keep this on topic
zomg damn. I'm a Minnie, you know.
Anyway, plussing Shadowsword. 2isk
|
Jane's War
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 22:53:00 -
[42]
fix the war dec system please create more revenue for ccp cut war outta 0.4 and above . no civilized empire would allow wars between corperations and loose tax base and resoures ie.mining
|
Wardo21
The Arcanum
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 23:15:00 -
[43]
As to reality arguments, it's a game...
For an in-game argument on waste, we should look at the way it worked before: ME research reduced on a percentage basis to affect the required parts. The old method rounded one run then ran it against the multiplier of how many runs. The percentage part was turned back into an integer (a whole whatever) earlier on in the calculation. Blueprints matched the multiplier no matter how many runs you did. This had the effect of making the little bits of waste not count towards the total sum. The math just ignored the fractional parts less than a half.
For materials like tritanium, consider one unit the smallest amount normally sold on the market, but still divisible for actual use. The old method didn't actually charge you the fractional part that got ignored, even though it should have been used. Just because the game can't return a tenth of a tritanuim unit, doesn't mean you can't actually file/grind off that much of the metal from the finished good.
I consider the Production Efficency skill more akin to wasted items where skill is a factor, such as welding on a part wrong, and having to scrap it and get a new one. As your skill increases, the wasted parts are reduced. This remains an issue for both equations, but also is a source for the small percentage missed in the calculations. You can however remove this penalty completely at Production Efficency level 5.
The new method does seem to make the construction components more wasteful, but you could also consider that the ME of the item also accounts for a better design. So you need some number of graviton thrusters, but another player needs 10 less because his print has a higher ME. Maybe his print has a better optimized layout for the thrusters to obtain the same agility or speed...
The simple fact is that it's a game, and the devs make the rules. If you don't like em, you can play something else, or you are free to complain on the forums for what it's worth...
It leads to a question though. If the method had been to round up all along, would you have claimed it was unfair and needed adjustment, or just accepted that game mechanic as the law?
Wardo21
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 01:40:00 -
[44]
The changes to the hit points of laboratories reminds me to ask:
When will POS-based laboratories be fixed so that access to them can be granted to alliance members (or even the public) and so that research can be conducted from hangars other than the POS-owner's corporate hangar? This would include allowing the output of such jobs to be directed to hangars to which the researcher has access -- rather than only the lab itself -- and allowing any necessary items (such as decryptors) to be located in places other than the laboratory itself.
Thank you,
-- Becq Starforged proprietor of Starforge Industries, a subsidiary of Minmatar Ship Construction Services
At Starforge Industries, the world of tomorrow is being blown apart today! |
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 01:59:00 -
[45]
Oh, and regarding the wastage calculations:
Doesn't this change mean that ME research on capital ship BPOs will be all but worthless? For example, a Thanatos requires either 6, 8, or 10 of each module except the drone bay. Currently there is a 1-module waste for each at ME 0; with the waste being eliminated at ME 1 for the modules requiring 6 and 8, and at ME 2 for the modules requiring 10. Under the new system, waste *cannot* be eliminated for anything but the drone bay requirement.
I understand that some of this waste is eliminated if multiple ships are built at a time, but is it really reasonable to require a job tying up several billion isk in assets for many weeks in order to realize more than a token savings from ME research?
This seems very harmful to all but perhaps the largest alliances (or large-scale capital builders), and at the very least inconvenient for them, too.
-- Becq Starforged proprietor of Starforge Industries, a subsidiary of Minmatar Ship Construction Services
At Starforge Industries, the world of tomorrow is being blown apart today! |
Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 05:20:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Wardo21 The new method does seem to make the construction components more wasteful, but you could also consider that the ME of the item also accounts for a better design. So you need some number of graviton thrusters, but another player needs 10 less because his print has a higher ME. Maybe his print has a better optimized layout for the thrusters to obtain the same agility or speed...
This goes to the root of the problem. There is no finished item that has any more or fewer parts than another of the same type, or else recycling would have to track every item's component bits, rather than just look up the standard list of ingredients. So, waste is entirely that -- it's scrap as a byproduct of inefficient/poor manufacturing.
The only way to explain the current system is to say those fractional amounts are not actual units of waste, but rather a rate of waste. If your blueprint calls for 2.5 units, then a one-run job uses 3 units, but a two-run job uses 5 units, not 2.5 rounded up to 3 on each run. Also, a 2.2-unit material would not produce waste until you set a three-run job, because it's rounding off 2.2 to 2 and 4.4 to 4, but 6.6 to 7. In this case, it costs more for a longer job than a shorter one. I have a similar situation happening to my Oneiros print in an array, where one run is 110 units each of plates, reactors, thrusters, and shield emitters. Two runs is 220 units, and three runs is 331 units.
As it stands, I'm being penalized for using a three-run job instead of sticking with one- or two-run jobs. I imagine once CCP "fixes" things in the next patch, a one-run job will cost 111 of each of those components, two runs will cost 221. So, not only did I get hit with a lot of new waste, now my research post-Trinity to get the print from ML 30 to ML 40, which saved me one unit per component on the two-run jobs, will be effectively rendered moot, and I'll have wasted my effort to improve the print, losing even my meager 6-unit savings per component per week.
It would help if we could see the decimals on the print material listings, but I still think all the waste changes have done is create more of an ISK sink, or move that ISK into the hands of moon miners, ultimately. It certainly doesn't help Joe Podpilot who goes shopping for a new ship.
Before Trinity, doing material research on T2 prints actually had some value in instances where you could get materials to round down to no waste. The new waste will mean doing such research results in too little impact to be worth the bother.
Regardless of what happens going forward, I'm going to always have more waste than I did before. That's fine as far as it goes, but I still think the process should be simplified so that building one unit at a time 15 times is the same as building 15 units in one job. I'd like it to be changed so that there's no double-dipping waste on T2 production both in component manufacture and ship manufacture, but I don't think that's likely given the stated dev preference.
It bothers me that you can't make use of fractional items, but fractions are used to increase our production costs. I guess if the bottom tenth of a shield emitter is damaged, I have to throw the whole thing away, rather than recycle the good bits for repairing other damaged emitters in the future. Not only did my robot assemblers become more inefficient, they also became stupider.
|
Marcus Tedric
Gallente Tedric Enterprises Space Exploration and Logistic Services
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 11:33:00 -
[47]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis ................. ... clone 1; freighter invention will take into account decryptor runs bonuses in trinity 1.1 patch.
......
Why??? You had a great isk-sink - Capital BPCs have always been one run - Invented runs also. At least it also made the other decryptors useful. This I just don't get
|
Mioelnir
Minmatar KULT Production Guardian Federation
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 11:37:00 -
[48]
Any chance the content department finally managed to finish level 5 pirate missions for 0.0?
|
Buyerr
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 12:10:00 -
[49]
well nice to finally see a dev blog about something usefull XD
soo when do we get something about that boost patch that i am sure we are all anxious to hear about ;)
(and nice going with the clones, so the oldest and most sp hugging people can get a upgrade :D ) I declare war on stupidity |
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 12:18:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Kerfira on 26/01/2008 12:20:44 Oveur: We need a dev blog, the natives are getting restless... *Oveur points to random dev* Oveur: You! Write a dev blog, you have 5 minutes. Clock started 4 minutes ago! Have it online in 1 minute! Go!
Disappointing to say the least.....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 12:20:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Marcus Tedric
Originally by: CCP Chronotis ................. ... clone 1; freighter invention will take into account decryptor runs bonuses in trinity 1.1 patch.
......
Why??? You had a great isk-sink - Capital BPCs have always been one run - Invented runs also. At least it also made the other decryptors useful. This I just don't get
That is not an ISK sink. An ISK sink is when money goes OUT of the game, not when they go to other players.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Alain DeMorgan
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 12:34:00 -
[52]
How are you meant to get economies of scale on capital ship production when you can't install more than 2 runs at a time?
Waste on capital ship BPOs behaves quite differently to waste on, say, tech1 ship BPOs because the inputs are small in number but individually expensive; so a difference of 1 unit makes a large difference in the final cost. If I interpret the dev blog correctly, it will increase the build cost of carriers (for example) by circa 10%. Is this an intentional result?
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 17:27:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Popychacz So, you're rounding ships needed for t2 manufacturing UP?:P:P:P
Some types of material requirements have never had waste applied to them. Ships are one of these. Therefore, they will not be rounded up, because waste will not apply to them in the first place. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Dr Caymus
Gallente Applied Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 18:47:00 -
[54]
Love the new clones, guys! Thank you.
|
Mrs Arbuckle
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 20:32:00 -
[55]
Going to get an Omega straight off the bat Doc? No harm in planning ahead...
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 21:27:00 -
[56]
mobile labs more hp? nice..
when I now would be able to select on which wallet the charge for a slot goes I would be really happy
And as I'm at it.. you allready bookmarked the POS-Overhaul-Topic of somebody in the Feature&Ideas-Discussion-Forums (POS: Flocking the dead horse).. when can we expect to hear a dev-blog about this whole battlefield, pos-stuff actually is?!
Nevertheless.. keep the good work up ccp!
Forge '07 on Sale
|
Ven Li
Heracles.
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 00:54:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Beness I'm neutral when it comes to the efficiency changes.
On one hand, I'm happy that the longer runs will be more efficient than the shorter runs, because this feels right to me. On the other hand, I'm not happy that there will be an increased focus on large builds, since that will mean that the public manufacturing facilities are likely to have longer queues.
So its great that as a T2 ship builder im punished cause the bpc's are never more than 4 run, to get a decent enough ME and PE during invention. Its gonna drive more ppl out of the T2 market as ppl are not going to be able to afford the t2 items. Its already hard enough to make any money out of invention as it is this is gonna be the final nail in the coffin for a lot of small T2 producers, myself included.
YouÆre basically killing each other to see whoÆs got the better imaginary friend. Richard Je |
Dr Caymus
Gallente Applied Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 03:43:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Dr Caymus on 27/01/2008 03:44:16
Originally by: Mrs Arbuckle Going to get an Omega straight off the bat Doc? No harm in planning ahead...
Of course, Mrs A...
|
Ranges
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 09:09:00 -
[59]
Oh my God... It's a devblog! I've missed those things. Thanks!
|
Marcus Tedric
Gallente Tedric Enterprises Space Exploration and Logistic Services
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 10:49:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Marcus Tedric
Originally by: CCP Chronotis ................. ... clone 1; freighter invention will take into account decryptor runs bonuses in trinity 1.1 patch.
......
Why??? You had a great isk-sink - Capital BPCs have always been one run - Invented runs also. At least it also made the other decryptors useful. This I just don't get
That is not an ISK sink. An ISK sink is when money goes OUT of the game, not when they go to other players.
Isk Sink! With invention runs staying at 1 you need more BPOs bought from the NPCs to make the T1 BPCs to start with. But np - I'll still try and make iskies.
Personally I think they need to balence the Decryptors again - they got some of those changes wayyyy off. When the different ones are sold for similar prices we'll now the balence is right
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |