I glossed over it on my first read through of the patch notes and had to go back to look for it after I saw the effects ingame:

Fixed an issue where BPCs invented with decryptors would sometimes have one less production run than they should have.

What this means is that, now, if you use a decryptor on a 1run BPC, you still get all of the bonus runs. Previously using a +2 run decryptor on a 1 run BPC would produce 2 runs instead of 3.

This meant that, for ship invention, if you wanted to use a decryptor you realistically had to use a full run BPC to avoid "losing" a run (and thus exploding your invention cost-per-output-run). Full run ship copies take a long time.

This is no longer the case.

This is a fairly substantial change, as now you can ALWAYS use a 1-run BPC for ship invention, cutting out what was, by far, the largest time factor.

This has an effect on the landscape.

I saw that but didn't have time to test it yet. Did you test this out? If it happens like you say it does, which is possible but I'm not completely sure, then it is a big change.

I wonder if it was a glitch that happened sometimes and not others under certain circumstances and not something that is a big a change.

For the BPC copiers this could be seen as a nerf as their max run BPC's are pretty worthless now.

For the BPC copiers this could be seen as a nerf as their max run BPC's are pretty worthless now.

so for example a 1 run bpc of 425 mm railgun has the same chance of invention like a 300 run one?

the output will be 1 run of t2 -4/-4 ?

and for a 300 run one the output will be a 10 run of t2 -4/-4 ?

assuming that the invention process is succesfull.

thanks in advance!

Bye bye, nice and complex game play ...

Welcome, mass-gaming suitable easy rules!

How is it any less complex? If anything, it finally fixed an inconsistency that should have been corrected long ago and the effect will be minimal. I'm actually surprised someone at CCP actually took the time to look at it.

Bye bye, nice and complex game play ...

Welcome, mass-gaming suitable easy rules!

Always wondered if anyone would be a big enough ******* to gripe about a basic arithmetic fix. Turns out I shouldn't have.

E. New Releases of the Software

You are not entitled to receive any new releases of the Software, or any expansion packs, updates, upgrades or similar products under the EULA, but CCP may, in its sole discretion, offer any or all of the foregoing to you. CCP may update, upgrade or otherwise enhance the Software at any time, in its sole discretion, without obligation to you.

And, like you, they will not be compensated - nor do they deserve to be. Thing is, the first rule is that the rules are going to change. In fact, that the rules change every six months or so is considered to be a fairly major marketing point of the game. Every player is aware of this and has already explicitly agreed (more than once, most likely) to play under those terms, which makes crying about it when the rules do change both infantile and nonsensical.

It's right there in the EULA:

the above chunk from EULA is reffing to the software - but ofc, if you find it suitable you could quote it for your odd purpose of promising me i wont be compensated.... all that like i'd be after some stuff from your inventory or some of your SPs...

E. New Releases of the Software

You are not entitled to receive any new releases of the Software, or any expansion packs, updates, upgrades or similar products under the EULA, but CCP may, in its sole discretion, offer any or all of the foregoing to you. CCP may update, upgrade or otherwise enhance the Software at any time, in its sole discretion, without obligation to you.

While our current intention is to turn datacore gathering into more of an active profession than it currently is, we will be following feedback closely to make sure players that invested time into Research corporations are not abandoned, most likely by making further changes to them in the next release...."

...and? That doesn't sound like you're getting compensated to me. Sounds like, at best, they will simply make it marginally more competitive with FW - but make no mistake, it's never going to be what it was.

So, looks like this formula isn't correct now?
CCP, would you please post a right one?

InventedRuns = Math.Min(Math.Ceiling((Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_BPC_MaxRuns) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 10) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy)

Main difference is I've removed the round down part from the formula.

Did you mean Math.Max instead of Math.Ceiling?