|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 62 post(s) |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7077
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 14:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
I assume that research that starts now, and ends after the expansion, will likewise be converted this way when it comes out (e.g. converted to the 'new' ME that makes it as good as before)? Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7077
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 14:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
man i gotta say this is a VAST improvement: no longer will we have to explain to people that a bpo that's ME200 is basically the same as one that's ME 20, not 10x better. I will have to do the math though on how best to exploit the changeover :v: Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7078
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 15:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
I THINK i've done the math here correctly but I'm not positive, could you confirm for the ME levels not listed (ME 2-4) for the conversion, they correspond to:
Current ME2 = future ME 6% Current ME3 = future ME 7% Current ME4 = future ME 8%
(obviously this is assuming the 10% waste bpos) Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7080
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 15:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
when it comes to insanely researched bpos, give these people a stupid non-functional collectors item or something. those were worthless compared to a properly researched bpo before, so they shouldn't be given actual value in exchange: they should get something shiny like the hull tanking elite cert Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7082
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 15:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
Verhanna wrote:While I can see what you're doing here, I'm extremely concerned by the lost investment in time that has been made with my BPOs. You're putting all long term researchers into a competitive disadvantage and aside from "give us ideas to make you happy" don't seem to have done anything at all to mitigate that.
long-term researchers were not at a competitive advantage: they had squandered huge amounts of lost funds in opportunity costs for incredibly insignificant savings that in no way made up for the lost ROI
long-term researchers were making the dumb mistake this devblog is helping to avoid newbies making: thinking much bigger numbers=better
the dropoff in value of ME after 20 was so severe that only fools researched anything besides capital component bpos over that, fools should not be rewarded for their foolishness Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7084
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 16:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Can you explain more clearly what a bad change would be here? I think I understand the situation you're describing but I'm not sure what the thing you're worried about is. Would kicking the maxruns number up be a bad thing?
he basically wants to make sure if he's building off bpcs that he can install reasonable numbers
the issue you're going to have with "max-run" bpcs is invention: module invention needs max-run bpcs. If you make that too high, you're going to effectively nerf invention
i.e. if you make an armor explosive hardener I max-run bpc whatever lets you install 30d worth of armor explosive hardener Is, anyone inventing them either doesn't get 10 run bpcs from a successful invention cause they use one-run copies, or they have to copy for nearly an entire month to get a max run bpc. both are not ideal and will significantly raise the price of invention.
this is not a problem with capital components so you can go hog wild raising the bpc cap there - it's only module bpos that are used in invention where you have to be careful about increasing max run size Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7086
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 16:50:00 -
[7] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:I would love for someone to go through and give the intersection of high sec systems that offer the complete package of ME, TE, copying, and invention services. i might be missing some stations as I don't research in highsec but I'm not aware of any station type that has one of (me/pe/copying) and not the other two. I think only the advanced lab pos mod is the only way to research that's missing one (TE).
and I think you can invent anywhere you can research Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7086
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 16:56:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: It's a 6.25% throughput increase on the BPO, assuming you were building from BPOs rather than copies before (ie, you're not insane). It makes slightly more profit per hour but doesn't change the profit per unit at all. It doesn't seem like it's obviously going to kill off invention as a result.
you're not thinking about t2 bpos correctly
t2 bpos allow you to have an absolute cost advantage: you're always producing cheaper than someone inventing. what matters is how much that t2 bpo (and the others of that type) can produce. if it can meet demand without invention, the price will be where invention is not profitable. if it can't, the price will largely depend on how much of the demand is met by invention
when you make it possible to produce more on a t2 bpo, every new unit it produces forces one invented unit out of the market. the profits on invention will fall until someone leaves.
producing more on a T2 BPO is absolutely a huge deal, much more than if you boosted its cost a little bit, because its impact on the market depends on the amount it can produce, not the costs (unless the cost is higher than invention)
a t2 bpo holder essentially has a monopoly: their price isn't dictated by their costs its dictated by what the market will bear
you absolutely should make it so a t2 bpo max copy speed is exactly equal to its current build speed: anything else is a buff that will push out inventors Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7091
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 17:10:00 -
[9] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: On the assumption that demand is somewhat elastic based on product cost, I'm not immediately aware of any T2 item where the balance between invention and BPO output is close enough that this will actually matter in practice. If you've got specific examples, please let me know and I'll look at the numbers :)
Demand doesn't tend to be that elastic based on product cost as for mods cost is nearly irrelevant (few million), and for t2 ships you're looking for a specific role and need that role rather than a slightly cheaper ship that's filling a different one.
I believe underused recons (e.g. pilgrims) and command ships fall into this category but it's been a little while since I looked at the numbers.
Basically when you're thinking about t2 bpos you simply can't do it the way you were (by cost, ignoring volume): the only reason that invention even can be a profession is the limited number of t2 bpos can't supply the entire t2 market. But each unit they do supply is one unit an inventor gets forced out of supplying, because the inventor can never produce as cheaply as the t2 bpo holder. The T2 bpo holder will build as many units as he possibly can, and price them at the highest price they'll move at (which is largely set by how many inventors he needs to muscle aside). Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7094
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 17:37:00 -
[10] - Quote
This base change is actually increasing prices for things and you'll get more waste under the current math until you get to perfect. See:
http://i.imgur.com/pjHil5G.png
Notice that the blueprint at ME1 currently (to be converted to ME5%) is actually increasing in price. When you multiply the base amount by 1.11 (repeating), then subtract 5%, you don't wind up in the same place.
Formula for column D is just round(B*1.11111111111111111), formula for E is .95*D
Now, once you get to ME10%, they are indeed the same - but when you take my ME1 titan bpo, and give me a ME5% titan bpo, I'm gaining waste. I got 105% of the build cost in the current system, but what I'm getting in the new system is 105.55555555555555% of the old build cost (.95/.9) Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7094
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 17:50:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Yeah, this is true, due to the way the math concertinas up and down.
It's actually not a rounding issue, it will always be worse unless it is rounded to the same (and I don't think that will happen except in cases where the amounts are tiny). But does this mean that we should assume that ME1 will be converted to ME6% (so it's the same or better as before) rather than ME5%? Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7094
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 17:54:00 -
[12] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: In 1), this is only true if the market size is absolutely fixed, which seems implausible.
I disagree, but you can have your economist test it: with the nerf to tech and the subsequent rise of the r64s, we saw a period of change in how valuable ships were, and I expect that the current settled price is different from the pre-tech settled price (and that prices are now stable and can be compared to previous stable prices). I suspect that you'll see that as price changed, use changed very little (if at all) for t2 items, and that almost all change in the rate of use of t2 items can be explained by subscriber growth and rebalances that affect those items/ships (even if only indirectly, like the cynabal being buffed affects sales of vagabonds even when the vagabond itself is not touched). Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7095
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 17:57:00 -
[13] - Quote
Myxx wrote: Ie, .1% waste under current becomes 1%. Its annoying and more than a little ****** on your end.
0.1% waste becomes 0% waste, not 1% Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7098
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 18:09:00 -
[14] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:So you say it won't cost any more to produce from "Perfect" BPOs but somehow we add in 11% more build mats and then take them out again with the new ME. What happened to the old "waste" from unresearched BPOs? I find this confusing could you explain it better?
Currently BPOs have a 10% wastage factor on most items. If you add 11% on top of that and then remove 10% I fail to see how that is not going to get about 10% more expensive to build. 1.11(repeating)*.9=1
so you wind up back at the "old base cost" (currently the zero-waste cost) Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7103
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 18:53:00 -
[15] - Quote
Myxx wrote:OK, upon running through EVERYTHING once again, it does actually work out at ME10 as Weasle pointed out.
You said a lot for very little reason beyond simplifying the maths and here I went chasing ghosts for a little bit so thats my bad.
What in the actual ****, greyscale?
But... just note that you really only had to change copy times and could've left it as it was. The change you made was totally and completely pointless. All the hard math is converting from this system to the new system. Once in the new system, everything is really easy math-wise. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7103
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 19:09:00 -
[16] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote: (Oh, and rename the ME skill please. Multiple meaning for the ME acronym is bad complexity)
It's getting altered:
Quote:The Material Efficiency skill will be repurposed, stay tuned for more information on that in a future blog.
Presumably it will have a new name that describes its new role. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7112
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 21:37:00 -
[17] - Quote
I'll elaborate on what Aryth just said, as we've been bouncing this around for a few hours.
Currently anyone sensible produces their t2 module/ammo bpo in an Amarr station (.7 build time modifier) or a pos (.75 build time modifier iirc).
It is currently possible, but a stupid idea, to upgrade a minmatar station to tier 3 to get a .4 build time modifier (this may not actually apply to ammo). It's dumb because it's only for modules, and you get limited slots (and for a while you'd max out at like ten total slots) and essentially double your bpo's output. This already happens with t2 ships, which are built in tier 3 amarr stations and obtain that .4 built time modifier.
So what's going to happen? Well, the minmatar station is dumb...but a tier 3 gallente copying factory is not. You'll get a .4 time modifier on your t2 copy job, which is equivalent to the .4 built time modifier for any t2 bpo at all: you can essentially double its production by making two runs in the time it used to take you to build one run. And everyone is going to be making these tier3 gallente copyhouses for their supercaps.
So all those markets where BPOs didn't dominate? Well, what happens when you double the volume of production you can manage with a t2 bpo? I'm guessing "nothing good". And that's what's about to happen: every DCII bpo will be producing double what it produces today.
Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7112
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 21:38:00 -
[18] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Aryth wrote:After some internal debate we want to point out something. It isn't 6.25%. It will be more like 60%. I doubt CCP wants T2 BPO production to more than double. So barring some other changes we haven't seen yet this is what will occur. Well, that let the cat out of the bag. it turns out there's no high-quality t2 module bpos for sale Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7115
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 22:05:00 -
[19] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Thanks for putting that out in the light Weasilor. Combined with the fact that the profit margins for any T2 BPO are higher, this is going to make for a significant change in the flow of profit to T2 BPO holders. But only if they can get hold of these Gallente outposts, which will probably be quite rare I am guessing.
not rare at all: most regions have a gallente outpost and if not they cost ~25b to build and drop, then you buy npc sold upgrade platforms and it costs 50-60b to get a fully upgraded one Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7117
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 22:42:00 -
[20] - Quote
Plug in Baby wrote: So what about those capital producers?
For doing the sensible thing we are now going to be rewarded with ME 100 compontent BPOs suddenly worth no more than a very basic BPO. Great.
The double whammy is our well optimized ME 2-6 capital hull BPOs will suddenly get a load of extra waste.
for the first, you get a bpo that is actually perfect and to the extent you overresearched, well, that was a thing
the well-optimized capital hull bpos you should get shoved in research asap to get a few extra high ME points on there, that would cost you much more under the new system, and you'll have an advantage over people researching from the beginning Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7120
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 23:30:00 -
[21] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote: I do think, it should be possible to partially research BPOs between levels (I get the impression this will not be possible). That way players can research a hefty BPO in stages, and also means that players can have there BPOs put between ME levels when this BPO change occurs.
Yeah, I wouldn't mind partial research being saved so you can do it in bits - it would give you the ability to stick something in research for bpo downtimes without having to commit to, say, an entire years worth of research on your titan bpo. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7122
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 03:56:00 -
[22] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Dramaticus wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Dramaticus wrote:Given how it is possible to use a BPO in a POS with absolutely zero risk to the BPO I don't see the big deal out of this. It won't be after the change. The BPO will need to be physically present at the POS it is being used at. (Source: first blog). So the BPO will be at risk from the time the POS is reinforced, until the time the BPO is secured in a station or the POS attackers are defeated. If you decide to keep the BPO in the POS and defend it, it is at risk there if you fail to defend the POS. If you decide to transport the BPO out of the POS and to the station, it is at risk while in transport. I expect BPOs under a billion will regularly be located in POSes and BPOs over a billion will mostly never leave empire stations, the exception being those sovereign nullsec alliances that (rightly or wrongly) consider their stations 100% safe. You can and will still be able to use a BPO in a POS with absolutely zero risk to the BPO. No, you won't. yes you will
use that noggin a bit more and figure it out Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7140
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 14:27:00 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: I thiiiiiink that jobs lasting more than 30 days are fine provided they're single-run. Certainly that works for manufacturing, otherwise it'd be impossible to build titans already. In any case, we're going to make sure that long single-run jobs work fine :)
As to people with ME10 Titan BPOs, that's ~4 years of research time under the current system. I'll go check if any exist, but I doubt it.
That's correct, a +1 ME, +1 PE, or 1-run copy can always be installed even if it exceeds 30 days. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7143
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 15:49:00 -
[24] - Quote
Regan Rotineque wrote:adding another voice to the 100 lvl idea - tjis would allow much more flexibility in terms of conversion and create far fewer 'perfect' scenarios, and at the same time reward those who invested additional time to 'market shape' their BPO collection for the purposes of selling bpc's or bpc kits. these people are idiots and should not be rewarded for their idioticy
making the new system more complex and worse in order to handle the changeover - and particularly, demands from people who made dumb choices and want to be rewarded for them - is not a good way to balance. The issue will vanish a week after patch day, never to be heard again if it's just properly ignored. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7143
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 15:50:00 -
[25] - Quote
w/r/t the issue of "old" bpos being worth more than "new" bpos: most of those markets will be glutted with perfect bpos and the new industrialist will just buy one of those instead of researching an npc bought one
that's already the case in supercaps, a researched bpo goes for less than NPC, it is not a real problem Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7152
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:33:00 -
[26] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: I have all ME500+ capital component BPOs and other BPOs have taken 2 years to research to be the best of all on the market.
This was a long term investment, we had no "preadvice" our investments would be worth zero " :because: ".
How CCP will deal with this (in a simple or complex manner) is not related with the simple fact that people invested in stuff for a result and now the result is being deleted.
you absolutely had preadvice, you had the formula and were able to determine that the extra 300 me saved you like one unit of trit per run
if you're saying that you invested that so people would pay higher prices your component bpcs: you were scamming them, and when scams using arcane interfaces get patched you suck it up and deal, goons didn't demand compensation for the abolition of free-form contracts Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7156
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 18:07:00 -
[27] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Yeah, that's fair. I'll think about this some more.
The issue here may be that the scaling gets a little out of hand at the high end: I'm not sure there's any gameplay benefit to having research times measured in decades for anything in-game. I think you should look at adjusting the curves or times for the high-end bpos (basically capital and above) if you want to fix this sort of problem. I think the problem more is that we are discussing a (base) research time of 21 years for ME9%. Your problem with the conversion is there - the endpoint is ludicrous - rather than the general principle of maintaining the same amount of waste. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7156
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 18:34:00 -
[28] - Quote
GeeBee wrote:Weaselior wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Yeah, that's fair. I'll think about this some more.
The issue here may be that the scaling gets a little out of hand at the high end: I'm not sure there's any gameplay benefit to having research times measured in decades for anything in-game. I think you should look at adjusting the curves or times for the high-end bpos (basically capital and above) if you want to fix this sort of problem. I think the problem more is that we are discussing a (base) research time of 21 years for ME9%. Your problem with the conversion is there - the endpoint is ludicrous - rather than the general principle of maintaining the same amount of waste. Its not just titan bpo's it scales like this to all T1 blueprints from old to new. Rank 60s BC / BS ME10 Before 41d 16h After 306 Rank 60 BC / BS ME9 Before 37d 12h After 128 Rank 10 Capital Components ME10 Before 7D 9H After 51 Days Rank 10 Capitial Components ME 9 before 6D 16H After 21 Days A 100 Point System with a research time scaling that is somewhat linear to our current system would be better, working on a spreadsheet for it nows. I have less of an issue with saving a month doing it pre-patch: such is life, it is easy to get over that hump as a new player.
I do however understand the "saving 21 years" problem is less amenable to a "deal w/it" solution. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7156
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 18:53:00 -
[29] - Quote
GeeBee wrote: we're not saying make them less efficient we're saying make the research times before and after equal and possibly go to a 100 point system instead and increase the cutoff if we cant live with me10 being perfect.
Gospadin is Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7302
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 11:30:00 -
[30] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: They should have simply change ME from int to float, and then handled the conversion in the UI. (9% - 0.11 ME, 8% = 0.25 ME, etc).
as a reminder this is an idiotic idea that increases complexity and causes the UI to lie to you and has no redeeming features whatsoever
stop posting it Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7303
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 12:09:00 -
[31] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Look, more than angry bees they look like angry ants, copy pasting intellect from the top who somebody DARED to quote.
I am sorry, your combined knowledge of the BPCs sales markets seems quite limited. 6 months invested in achieving say a ME 300 BPO when the others sell for 200 gives a sensible market advantage. I don't CARE if the buyers will save 10k building a cargo bay, I CARE that my ME300 BPO sold at the same price of the 200, will always win and I could slam a double digits a month worth of BPCs in the face of the others. Their contracts expired and mine sold.
"i wasted a great deal of effort to scam people through abusing the flawed user interface, effort that is now wasted because the user interface is improved. i demand compensation for my wasted time that i knew was wasted, but i hoped to stick someone else with the bill." Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7305
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 16:48:00 -
[32] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Now you dare the hypocrisy to shut off one person who worked within perfectly allowed game mechanics, invested for years and created his own successful operation?
Why is that? Because I owe nothing to anyone except to myself? Because you hate that when you do your market manipulations I hop in them and squeeze out ISK meant for you?
this is analogous to when we used free-form contracts to scam the **** out of everyone: it's using flawed UI mechanics to make people think one thing is happening while another is (in this case, that your bpc is better in any real way than the other, in ours that a freeform contract means anything at all)
when ccp nerfed those there was no river of tears from us we merely adapted (hello goonswarm.net, the most trusted name in goonswarm recruiting)
and i don't know what sort of pathetic pedestrian market manipulations you think we do but that you think you're able to hop in them and squeeze out isk meant for us means you have no idea what we do Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7305
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 16:52:00 -
[33] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Apparently I am relevant enough to raise you and all the other center-pieces from the top of the biggest alliance.
if the standard for eve relevance is "said something dumb enough to get goons to mock it" we're talking something like 95% of posters on eve-o are relevant
Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7305
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:06:00 -
[34] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: I am not scared by cheaters. I am not scared by CCP either, they setup the game with certain rules and faithfully playing within those rules somebody could get disgustingly rich without any cheat. And so I did.
rules change all the time that is what patches are for
any investment should take into account the risk the mechanic will be changed: intelligent investors know how to identify risks of change (e.g. t2 bpos)
most of the reason that these changes are provoking such rage from highsec industrialists and the like is that they are largely people who mindlessly optimized a specific set of rules rather than learning to adapt and are suddenly being dumped out of their rut and told to learn to adapt.
you are losing nothing here: you are losing merely the ability to con people into believing that they were gaining something they were not. you are complaining not that you are losing actual value, but that you are losing scam value. i applaud you for scamming people: just not for demanding game mechanics changes to preserve your ability to perpetuate a UI scam or to demand you be paid off for future UI scam profits. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7306
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:23:00 -
[35] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Weaselior wrote:rules change all the time that is what patches are for
any investment should take into account the risk the mechanic will be changed: intelligent investors know how to identify risks of change (e.g. t2 bpos)
Yet they are not nerfing or removing T2 BPOs to not screw those non-intelligent investors. Double standard? someone didn't watch the industry panel Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7306
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:35:00 -
[36] - Quote
also pay close attention to the distinction between "nerf" (the thing is not as good as before) and "thing is exactly the same as before, but the UI no longer lies and claims it is better than something else so it is less good for scamming"
this is the latter, what will happen to t2 bpos is the former Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7306
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 21:24:00 -
[37] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: The proposed changes will allow me to research a BPO to 1% to 10% material reduction, without bothering to tell me if the research will have no actual effect. If I need max 8 of something, meaning 1 waste, unless I go to 3% reduction, the research will have no effect.
your argument presumes that the only ME reduction that exists is bpo-driven
that is inaccurate
Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7306
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 21:37:00 -
[38] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Dramaticus wrote:I'm more amazed he couldn't come up with some sort of chart showing the ever diminishing returns he was getting by researching BPOs for years on end. Those who bought them had diminishing returns. Not me. It's a subtle difference. They freely chose a ME 300 over a ME 100 despite the diminishing returns, that's their own opinion. I just provided with my offer what was in demand. Demand and offer, does not require a lot of charts. what were your bpos not doing when they were researching to 300
it begins with c and has seven letters Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7307
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 23:04:00 -
[39] - Quote
Angelina Duvolle wrote:If I have a supercap bpo in for pe1 now, and approximately 75% done (3 mos out of 4 total completed) when the patch hits in june, how will that be handled. Will it still come out at TE1, after 4 months of research, when the "new" TE1 would have taken much much less overall time? It seems like it should come out at a higher level given the amount of time it will have spent in research, but If the conversion is just based off the current level on the bpo, I'll fall thru the cracks?
you're free to cancel it and reinstall post-patch
i don't see how you could complain you're getting exactly what you expected when you put the thing in research Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7310
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 12:59:00 -
[40] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Because the suggested alternatives deal with the REAL waste rather than hypothetical.
With CCPs proposed changes, players will still have to manually look at the BPO to see the needs, and manually figure out what their actual waste is, what their reduction could be, and at what research point that extra is removed.
If we need 5 of something now and 1 waste, we're shown 6 need and told that is 10%. It is actually 20% waste. Current, that complexity is manual calculation. Proposed, that complexity is still manual calculation. My proposed seems complex, because I'm having the UI do that calculation for you.
Current, that 20% waste goes away at ME1, which is a manual calculation. Their proposed design, the 20% goes away at research 9% reduction. Mine appears more complex, because in addition to showing the actual 20%, I present the player with the one research point where perfect is achieved.
In other words, their design only appears more simple, because they're still not dealing with blueprints where the needed amounts are less than 100 so they hypothetical reductions are not real reductions. Their still leaving all that complexity as manual work to be figured out by the player.
My design only appears more complex, because I'm dealing with that complexity and having the UI do all the work for you. your system is idiotic, overcomplicated, and once again you seem to be entirely unaware that there are other things now that give percentage cost reduction
so "oh well teams give 7.5% reduction and a pos gives 2% reduction and blueprints give a reduction based on a complicated conversion of a hidden value to a percentage with several decimal points" is mind-bogglingly dumb Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7313
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 13:14:00 -
[41] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: If a BPO uses 4 of something, my design tells them NO WASTE, even at no research. If they try to research, my design tells them they are already perfect. CCP proposed design offers them the 1-10% reduction, even though those actually do nothing.
If they need 5 of something as most, CCP's design offers them a 1-10% reduction, even though, the actual reduction will be 20%, and that 20% all occurs when they research to 1%. My design shows the actual 20%, and if they try to research, it shows them the one option of going to perfect (or in the ideal design, some arbitrary amount of time between current and perfect to allow partial research).
see, this is why your system is idiotic. you appear to not be able to grasp the new system and are struggling vainly not to get moved out of your rut
intermediate research on the 5 unit thing has value before you hit a reduction from the bpo alone because bpo research is not the only cost-reducing factor so intermediate research + teams or pos will hit the breakpoint when no research would not
you'd think you'd have realized this in one of your many c/ps of the same dumb idea Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7313
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 13:19:00 -
[42] - Quote
also: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=342096&p=14
CCP Nullarbor wrote: Confirming the new Industry will not do any material rounding until AFTER we multiply by the number of runs, meaning material efficiency discounts due to facility / teams / skills / blueprints / whatever may produce slightly better results with multiple runs.
all intermediate research has value even without teams and pos, as even 1% off a 5-item bpo will have an effect in sufficiently large job runs
so that just buried the last tiny shread of worth that the stupid idea LHA has been spamming relentlessly has so i hope we can all discuss something besides LHA playing My First Game Design Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7313
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 14:18:00 -
[43] - Quote
Angelina Duvolle wrote:If I have a supercap bpo in for pe1 now, and approximately 75% done (3 mos out of 4 total completed) when the patch hits in june, how will that be handled. Will it still come out at TE1, after 4 months of research, when the "new" TE1 would have taken much much less overall time? It seems like it should come out at a higher level given the amount of time it will have spent in research, but If the conversion is just based off the current level on the bpo, I'll fall thru the cracks?
i misunderstood this initially: greyscale clarified that when it comes out, it will come out at the same value as if your research was done pre-patch (i.e. you will have te10%)
Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7313
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 14:41:00 -
[44] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: The "easy to understand" 0-10% reduction is a LIE, that really only applies to BPOs that need 100+ items, and the complication is still there for items that need more.. it is just a manual calculation rather than handled by the UI correctly.
wrongo are you even able to read: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4567112#post4567112 Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7313
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 14:55:00 -
[45] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: Except they are still trying to hack in a change to make the reduction calculated at job level instead of batch level....
So fail on so many levels.
If they were trying to remove complexity, then they have failed disastrously.
If their goal was to create emo-rage about how badly they screwed the pooch, then mega thumbs up... becuase they have SERIOUSLY screwed the pooth in SOOOO many ways.
yeah all the rage is coming from npc alts and other barely human people whose entire argument appears to be (a) please preserve my broken advantage over all other areas of the game and (b) please don't change literally anything as i can't function in a system that has been exhaustively min-maxed by others and given to me in spreadsheet form i simply cannot abide something that requires thinking
yours mostly falls under (b)
you keep citing increasingly narrow edge cases as a reason to completely ignore the changes and implement a reskinning of the old system (which will not require you to alter your spreadsheets one bit) but now we are left with "well, newbies might not realize that when they build a single unit of a very low-part item that their 1% research (which takes thirty seconds) might not have an effect, ergo we should abolish this new system that is easier and intuitive in 99.999% of cases for the sake of these vanishingly small edge cases. really i'm all about the newbies, not just raging at change" Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7313
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 14:57:00 -
[46] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: Yeah... big fat "MAY".
So... I have to do a 10-run job of carriers for the % reduction to actually have any effect above 5% research?
yeah we really gotta think of all those newbie carrier manufacturers who are churning out carriers but can't work out how this pretty simple new research system works
that definitely seems like a real concern and not something trumped up that would never happen ever Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7313
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 15:34:00 -
[47] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: You fail to address the main concerns. 1) Round up of every ME10 to perfect. 2) Drastically longer research times for newer players. 3) Still massive complexity in the new system due to rounding. 4) Makes it impossible to do partial research between whole % waste.
1) this is great and one of the best features of this change, the elimination of idiotic infinite research for infinitely small returns 2) i consider this an issue of the ramping-up of research time being too harsh 3) the complexity exists only in edge cases and those are getting rarer and rarer as i knock down your dumb posts. we are left with capitals (where its expensive enough they can dealw/it or a newbie making a single small rig which is literally the only time a newbie will hit this issue) 4) only a problem due to extreme time-scaling: it's only when we're talking supercap bpos with research times in years that this becomes more of an issue than the current system
your entire incredibly stupid argument for your dumb system is based solely on the edge case of a newbie making a single small rig. SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD REASON TO JUNK A GREAT CHANGE TO ME Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7313
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 15:45:00 -
[48] - Quote
to make clear for the benefit of readers who are glossing over what I have been implying: LHA Tarawa doesn't even believe his own stated concerns and just hates being moved out of his rut and is throwing whatever he can find at the wall to see what sticks
none of it is sticking Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7316
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 16:00:00 -
[49] - Quote
Basically, as I said in the other thread my largest concern is with the scaling on capital and above BPOs. While I recognize it's somewhat unfair for a new industrialist to have to research his bpo for four months instead of two in order to get a perfect Raven bpo, I consider this an acceptable level of grandfathering. The advantage gained is temporary and easily overcome and really acts as a mild benefit to current bpo holders in the same way, say, a gift of a gnosis or gecko did (they get a one-time bonus, new subscribers have to pay to get the same thing but can easily do so).
The real issue is supercap bpos because there the time-scaling turns a minor disadvantage into an insurmountable obstacle. For example, I have a leviathan BPO that will convert as a ME4/PE2 bpo. That's a lot of research: probably a year or two (but leviathans were in so little demand that amount of research was just done during its downtime). But post-patch that's like half a decade or more. That's an absolutely insurmountable obstacle for a new leviathan bpo holder: it is more akin to a t2 bpo than a gnosis, something that will be a permanent advantage.
So there, you've got to rethink it a little bit. The simplest solution to me is to just cut the research time of these high-end BPOs: make it so that researching to "perfect" is doable in timespans shorter than a standard college education. It won't seriously cut the price of titans and it will prevent old-bpoers from being inassalably better (even if only to a relatively small degree). It's much simpler than adjusting the increasing price at the high end (though I do think it ramps up too hard and would benefit from reducing the multiplicitive increase from level to level and starting out initial research higher). Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7317
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 16:48:00 -
[50] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: F'n over people that put time and effort into achieving something, is "one of the best festrues". Nice.
ME 19 to get to .5% waste or 39 to get .25% waste is not "idiotic". ...
And I consider it to be utter f'up in removing ability to research between whole %.
...
It is not an edge case. We frequently use JIT manufacturing of a couple small items.
... The "simplification" still hides the complexity for small jobs, and for large jobs the rounding at job level moves the complexity to identifying optimal job size instead of optimal BPO research level.
1) it was dumb and it's great it's being removed 2) given your bad opinions that have been repeatedly smashed into the ground things you "consider" that are unsupported are worse than meaningless 3) it is absolutely an edge case, it is 100% an edge case and you are flatly lying if you claim that your industrial operation will be at all impacted in any meaningful way 4) there is no complexity for small jobs, and the changes are intended to reward longer jobs (which you would know if you'd understood them: cost per run goes down for longer jobs), basically you've got to use your noggin but the UI is much better at giving you the data to use your noggin on instead of the hard part being wrestling the data from the UI
LHA Tarawa wrote: Your pro-change argument appears to be: 1) F'n over players that spent a lot of time and effort researching BPOs is good. 2) Maybe at some point CCP will change the F'd up stupid long research times to help new player (further F'n over the players that had spent time and effort researchign BPOs) 3) Changing the optimization complexity from BPO level to job size level to get optimal rounding is good.... because F the little guys that don't do 10 runs of a carrier at a time. 4) Change for the sake of change, even if it removes functionality, f's over players and doesn't achieve its stated goal becuase rounding has always been the source of complexity and is still present, is good, because players will have to spend 2 mins updating spreadsheets.
Of course, then there is the implied argument. Changes that make the large, rich and powerful alliances larger, more powerful and richer, by giving them much larger advantages over the small corps is GOOOD!!!!
It so happens, I disagree with all your points.
unsuprisingly you are unable to grasp my arguments (much like you are unable to grasp the changes)
players that spent time researching their bpos will have better bpos post-change, your whining aside, the long research times are noted as a thing that may change in the initial blog announcement, the little guy is completely irrelevant here and is something you're making up and don't care about and the little guy doesn't build carriers you nitwit
and the changes are all great, they're not for the sake of change and they achieve their goals. you just aren't smart enough to use the new system so you're furious at it Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7317
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 16:51:00 -
[51] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Babbet Bunny wrote:Love the change, not that the math was complicated, but that others were too lazy to calculate.
And all that calculation is still there, because the complication is, and always has been, and will still be, the rounding inflection points. nope
the rounding inflection points matter when you are building a single carrier without teams or an outpost, and that is it
every other time there are no longer inflection points except in extreme edge cases, 5% is 5% everywhere Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7317
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 16:52:00 -
[52] - Quote
i can literally keep dunking you all day if you keep making the same stupid mistake, you're going to have to make new and interesting mistakes to have a chance at conning anyone into believing your point for even a few seconds Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7322
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 19:48:00 -
[53] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: And explain it to me in real simple terms, because with only a 140 IQ, I seem unable to understand how screwing people over is a good thing.
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *gasp* *wheeze* hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
you know those internet tests generally set their baseline at like 150 so you pay for the report on what a genius you are right
you must have really blown it to get a 140 that's like dog-level on their scale Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7323
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 20:59:00 -
[54] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: Oh...well that makes perfectly clear what you like about the new system.
Thanks for the explanation.
In addition to thinking the best feature is how people are being screwed over, the sumary of your argument for the current release is insults.
Again, thanks.
you posted that you had sub-dog-level iq to try to support your point, not realizing how bad it was
i respect the readers of this thread enough to know they've read and understood the responses to your hilariously bad ideas and that they don't need them repeated yet again: it is not like you will learn, after all
but you actually went and tried to post about your iq, that is hilarious and the sort of pratfall a thread reader will enjoy Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7325
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 00:13:00 -
[55] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: However, in this case, the stated goal and initial design indicated they really did not understand the issue.
The complexity of ME research did not come from understanding 10% * 1/2, 10% * 1/3, 10% * 1/4...
The complexity is, was, and will be, in the rounding that multiplying the % by the items needed. Since their initial design did not in any way alter or remover the complexity, I have to assume they simply misunderstood the source of the complexity.
this is so obviously untrue the only appropriate response would get my post eaten by ISD Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7325
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 00:37:00 -
[56] - Quote
really, all people need to do is ask themselves, do I believe the guy who says "The complexity of ME research did not come from understanding 10% * 1/2, 10% * 1/3, 10% * 1/4... " (a formula I'm sure 99% of people reading this thread do not know) actually is advocating for newbies who might be confused when they don't get 5% off when their one small rig build doesn't give them back .8 of an armor plate but who will intuitively understand and love...that forumula? Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7327
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 01:49:00 -
[57] - Quote
DireNecessity wrote: Having finally moved on from concerns about the transition (which were mostly due to continuing to think of BPO research as *the* thing), I'm still sad to see the blueprint copy market niche get crushed. Accordingly, I'll again toss the same challenge out to the blueprint copiers, "Can you think of a way to save your niche that isnGÇÖt based on nearly unassailable (though hard won) time already played advantage?GÇ¥ If you canGÇÖt, your future prospects look rather dim because a market that never ever lets players younger than you compete is suicidal game design and probably wonGÇÖt get much ongoing support from CCP.
I'm not sure it will be destroyed. Sure, supply is going to zoom up and price will fall - but demand will zoom up as people don't want to use a bpo in their pos (and as they see no reason to buy one given the ample cheap bpos on contract). And bpo-havers can make many more copies.
In some markets where most bpc demand is inelastic (like capital ship bpcs which appear to strictly be for build-your-own people) they may get hosed - but in others they may see hugely increased demand. i would need about nine copy guys for all my component bpos (because I'm not sticking 90 component bpos in a pos to build titans) and might go :effort: and just buy premade bpcs. That is, of course, assuming greyscale lifts the cap (if he doesn't, I'm just building in station because death 2 5-run cap part bpcs) Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7329
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 14:16:00 -
[58] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: The complexity was NEVER in waste = .1/(1+ME). The complexity is, was, and STILL WILL BE from applying the % to the items needed and finding the inflection points in the rounding!
attention readers: this is the only necessary sentence to read in his entire post
if you think that the formula waste = .1/(1+ME) is simpler and easier for newbies to understand and more intuitive than rounding issues (which really come into play only in capital construction, virtually every other time you're dealing with something so cheap the extra part is a rounding error) you may agree with LHA and may want to read his post
for everyone else, who recognizes that the quoted section is obviously absolutely insane and has no connection to reality, the rest of the post merely elaborates on it Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7329
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 14:18:00 -
[59] - Quote
unsuprisingly, no matter how many times LHA points out that fire is wet and water burns, ccp does not take his advice
let us ponder why that is Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7329
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 15:20:00 -
[60] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: 1) They broke capital ship manufacturing, 2) They screw people that spent a lot of time, ISK and effort doing high research, because everyone else catches up. 3) They screw new players that will have to research much longer to get sub 1$ BPO. 4) They broke the ability to research fraction of a %.
1) nope 2) as discussed repeatedly this is not an artifact of the change you're ranting hysterically about: this is an artifact of the scaling between ME levels in the new system. it is unrelated to if we should have 1% ME or (insert inane formula here). i have discussed that at length in this thread with more sensible people 3) see above 4) great, that was stupid as all hell because you were researching fractions that made no sense and it is great that it got atomized and moved to a clear and easily understandable system Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7329
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 15:22:00 -
[61] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Weaselior wrote:unsuprisingly, no matter how many times LHA points out that fire is wet and water burns, ccp does not take his advice
let us ponder why that is If there is a flaw in someone data or logic, critics attack those flaws. When the critics are unable to find a flaw in the argument, they turn to logical fallacy, such as this obvious use of the logical fallacy known as Strawman. If A, then B. If not A, then C. C. i've torpedoed you arguments over and over (sadly ISD felt my obvious scorn was over the line so they've been hidden). that was, in fact, the post right above the one you're replying to
i seperately wrote to mock the "boy it is so clear fire is wet, why isn't ccp listening to me :argh:" comments you keep making
there's a reason you do nothing but repeat the same argument over and over again: its a bad one and can't respond to criticism so you can only hope to win through repetition Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7329
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 15:24:00 -
[62] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: 5) They removed only a portion of the complexity (I think none, but I'll accept that some people couldn't do .1/(1+ME).), but some (all) the complexity has been moved from research to selecting optimal batch size at job start (and manufacturing is done WAY more often than research).
rewarding longer runs is an explicit and intended feature of the changes, as demonstrated in the cost-scaling formula
selecting the proper batch size for your industrial setup is good complexity: figuring out what an inane UI element means is bad complexity
you keep ignoring the difference between the two
LHA Tarawa wrote: And rigs and T2 and POS structure and POS Fuel and.....
rounding error, rounding error and irrelevant as you can't research, rare edge case but mostly rounding error, made in such huge batches unless you're a crazy person that the issue does not exist Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7329
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 15:32:00 -
[63] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:I am forced to wonder what the goons are gaining from this obviously flawed re-design of research that is making them so dismissive of its obvious flaws (oh, it broke capital construction, rmoves the ability to partial % research, screws people over, and moves complexity to manufacturing from research.... no problem because .1/(1+ME) is hard.).
Unless they have a ton of ME 10 BPOs that are jumping to perfect, I don't understand their defense of these messed up changes.
it's not flawed and every one of your arguments is utter garbage and we enjoy dunking them
everything you cite as a problem is trumped up nonsense: as someone who actually understands industry I know when you're selecting edge cases that are irrelevant vs. relevant issues that come up and you are picking edge cases and in many cases lying about them Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7329
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 15:42:00 -
[64] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: You tell me what is so good about the changes that justifies: Breaking capital ships construction, Screwing people over, Moving complexity to manufacturing from research, Removing the ability to do resarch between whole %s.
capital ship construction is fine, despite your repeated lies that it is not. the math may be a little more involved because you have to care about breakpoints but capital ship construction is high-skill high-capital construction and I am fine with it having good complexity. it is certainly not representative of standard industry
to the extent that people are screwed over because they have increased research time compared to grandfathered bpos, that is a problem with the scaling as I have noted repeatedly (and you have repeatedly ignored, because you don't actually care about this issue). anyone with grandfathered bpos is getting a better bpo in return and i have no patience for the argument that they should get a nicer one than someone else because the UI lied to people before. nobody's getting screwed there, they're merely not profiting
the complexity in manufacturing is good complexity - where you must weigh options and make the best choice given the situation. the complexity being removed in research is bad complexity: where you must struggle with a deceptive and crappy UI to figure out what it means but there is only one right answer (so you just go to the out of game tool that gives it to you)
you couldn't do research between 10% and 5% before. this is a trumped-up nonsense whine that is just that you don't like the change. the atomization is much, much better. the scaling has issues that I've pointed out before, but that's issues of scaling not of atomization
all of these dumb arguments you're making have been bashed into the ground already and I've given you all these answers before. you have not been able to rebut them: you just ignore the fact they've been demolished and keep spamming your bad, discredited idea and hope that people will get tired and stop rebutting it Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7333
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 16:55:00 -
[65] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: I think it is bad that mega corps will get a major advantage over little corps because they can crank out capital ships in batches, while I think that is a bad thing.... so I'm a liar. Got it.
that's intended. what is a lie is your professed newbie-concern and your attempting to claim you're opposing these changes for any reason other than they might hurt you, personally, in a slight amount: you (a capital producer) are upset because you may get outcompeted. your arguments besides pure-self interest are trumped up.
LHA Tarawa wrote: Here again, we're clearly not speaking the same language. I consider taking away a competitive advantage that people had been using to increase profits is screwing them.
On the other hand, you continue to dismiss the massive time increase to sub-1% waste as "just a scaling thing", but CCP still has not offered any indication they intend to alter the scaling. I do not see how they could alter the scaling to make 0% waste reasonable, without making 1% or less too quick.
What you dismiss as a "scaling thing" is really the result of removing partial % research.
i have no patience for people whining about a competitive advantage that was not real. the scaling thing is not related to atomization: it is related to the choice to make each level take more time than the next, and the time increase between levels, and that this was not scaled to current research times. it probably should have been.
LHA Tarawa wrote: I could not disagree more. Research only needed to be done once per BPO, whereas manufacturing is done repeatedly, and BPO research it was the same for everyone, regardless the size of corp/alliance they were in. Now the rounding at the job level will favor those in the largest corporations that can run capital ships in large batches rather than one at a time.
I respect your opinion, but disagree that this is "good" complexity.
interpreting ME was a thing that needed to be done when buying bpos. all complexity came from the fact that the figure you were given didn't mean what any normal person would think it means. now, complexity comes into play in such things as "am I better off putting in a long build job, tying up capital for a long time for higher profits per unit, or am I better off doing short runs and churning capital repeatedly". you have demonstrated your inability to compete by not realizing this tradeoff: you think this is the same as the old method where you just find the right answer and do that. it's not. as a rich and powerful industrialist i may choose to crush you through long jobs - or, I may choose to crush you through cycling capital through short jobs and saturating the market and making a smaller profit but making it more often so it compounds
LHA Tarawa wrote: Because of the scaling, In the new system the difference between not being able to do research between 10% and 5% compared to not being able to do fraction of a % between 1% and 0% is a ration of 1.5 hours to 4 2/3rds days (that is for items with multiplier of 1. expanding that ratio to capital it is the difference between a month, and 7 years).
For the old system, it was similar ration... for something like a battleship, the jump for 10% to 5% was 4 days while the jump from 1% to 0% was years.
I think it is far more important to be able to do partial research of steps that take days (or years) than hours (or days).
Then again, I have to remember were speaking different languages, so perhaps in your languages 2 orders of magnitude difference in "trumped up nonsense". Maybe it is just as important to be able to do partial research for things that take days, as it is to be able to do partial research that takes decades.
in the old system the difference between ME1 and ME0 was huge for a titan bpo but for a time it didn't make sense because at the time bpcs were so valuble it would take a long time to pay off keeping it idle
now, i could research it quickly to intermediate values between 0 and 5%. this is not a real concern and is merely something you're trumping up. the problem - that it scales too hard on the high end - is fixed by fixing that. it never should have been a "years" jump from 1% to 0% for t1 ships, that was stupid and it's great they're going away. i have no perticular opposition to a research point system where intermediate research can be done in chunks so it's not lost if you want to put your bpo in research for a month then use it before the next level is done, just like skills.
LHA Tarawa wrote: Here, we must be speaking different languages again. In your language, "dumb" must mean the same as "cogent" means in my language.
this is basically a dunning-kruger problem: you don't have the knowledge to know how little you know. or put another way: when you've been posting bad opinions nonstop, why would we trust your opinion on if they're dumb? if you knew they were dumb you wouldn't have posted them and if they were good they'd stand on their own merit instead of you needing to repeatedly assure everyone no actually they are smart Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7333
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 17:05:00 -
[66] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:So, if waste = 10% * 1 / (1+ME) was too complex... could they have resolved the complexity by 1) Renaming it to waste_divider, 2) Starting it at 1 instead of 0.
That would have simplified it to waste = 10% / Waste_Divider. there is literally no merit to this suggestion whatsoever, i don't know how many times I can say that you simply do not understand the issue
the issue is that the UI should give you meaningful information. giving you ME and you needing to divide 10% by ME, then compare that waste to the waste of the alternative ME avalible, is horrible UI. it's crap, it has no redeeming features whatsoever
tweaking the exact formula you need to use to make numbers meaningful is not helpful in the slightest. you really do not understand the problem at all, and that's why your solutions are such garbage. you have glommed onto that this may hurt you in a tiny way, so because your isk/hour depends on you not understanding the problem you refuse to understand it Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7334
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 17:40:00 -
[67] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: You continue to be dismissive, and speaking a different language.
My concerns cover all players. Existing players that have put years into research only to have other players "catch up". Newer players that will have much longer research times. Small corporations that do not run carriers in batches. All manufacturers that have the complexity moved from 1-time research to every time they start a manufacturing job.
i continue to be dismissive because you merely spam the same argument over and over again rather than understand and respond to criticism
your concerns do not cover all players. they cover only yourself. i have repeatedly torpedoed every attempt to generalize your concerns outside your narrow self-interested attempt to protect your personal industry. the one legitimate concern you raise i have spoken at length about and it does not at its core relate to the change in system but perticular decisions in its implementation that can be altered
your dumb argument about carriers in batches i addressed, you did not understand the response so you've just repeated your point. a dismissive noise is all this deserves.
and lastly, you continue to be unable to understand good complexity vs bad complexity Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7334
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 17:44:00 -
[68] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: The UI could EASILY have shown "Waste Base, Waste Divider, and Waste Effective = with Waste Effective simply Waste Base / Waste Divider.
still terrible ui with no redeeming features
LHA Tarawa wrote: What we have reduced this to is a simple difference of subjective opinion:
no. our differences are rooted in that your points are objectively and demonstrably wrong. that you're resorting to saying it's your opinion and just repeating it endlessly proves that. your inability to parse and respond to criticism proves that. all of the things you say are "your opinion" are wrong, I have explained why they are wrong, and you have not even attempted to rebut the reasons why they are wrong.
needless to say, given your inability to even attempt to rebut my arguments, your attempts to explain what my "opinion" (in actuality, my description of objective reality) is are nonsense not worth even reading (and I literally didn't read them). my points stand on their own and are unassalibly correct. it is, of course, ironic you complained about strawmanning and your sole response now is trying to "rephrase" my posts Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7336
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 20:07:00 -
[69] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: Again, rounding is not an issue. It is simply the source of the complexity. And CCPs stated goal was to remove complexity, and since they utterly misunderstood the source of the complexity, their goals have not been met.
this, right here, is one of the reasons that it's obvious you don't understand or respond to when your arguments are demolished, and instead just mindlessly repeat them
the goal is to reduce bad complexity, and increase good complexity
now, this is seperate from your complete inability to understand what complexity is but CCP has said repeatedly what I just said above, I have pointed it out to you repeatedly, and your response is to keep copying the same screeds Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7336
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 20:10:00 -
[70] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Quintessen wrote:@LHA Tarawa I, and many, get that you feel that rounding is the source of a lot of complexity, but rounding is something that myself, and a lot of others are perfectly fine with -- something generally learned in primary and secondary school.
I never suggested they get rid of rounding. Their stated goal was to remove complexity, and since the complexity is because of the rounding, they failed to achieve the goal. As for learned i secondary school, if they can multiply % and determine round, then waste = 10% / (1+ME) should have been no problem at all! what quintessen told you was that whatever your personal difficulties with rounding are, they're not problems for anyone else
your response was to mindlessly assert again that the complexity is because of the rounding, something so obviously not true that you will never convince anyone. like this is the "fire is wet" part of your argument: it is untrue. it is obviously untrue. it is so untrue that by asserting it (repeatedly) you make clear the issue isn't just you're wrong, its that you have no connection to reality Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7336
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 21:02:00 -
[71] - Quote
another blatantly obvious issue missed by LHA: waste no longer exists
its not a thing that's there, there's the cost then you apply things that reduce cost
it would be garbage to have teams reducing costs by even, nice amounts, pos and ouposts reducing costs by even, nice amounts
then bpos reducing amounts by 10% - 10%*(1/1+ME)
like man, would that be a moronic system Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7336
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 21:05:00 -
[72] - Quote
Darin Vanar wrote: CCP, what is going on with the new ME? It seems you are scrambling to fix something but you are incorporating more issues. You are clearly running out of time and this isn't ready for release. If you run DB scripts in the current state, you are going to create a disaster.
Here's a crazy idea. How about you delay this ME system from the Industry changes? Keep the old system, but incorporate your removal of slots and increasing install costs based on usage, and deploy this (whatever this is) when it's *ready* for release.
It might not even be necessary.
the scripts are simple as all hell, incredibly simple, even LHA could code the logic, because it's an incredibly simple conversion formula that's put in the initial post that has exactly 7 states: if it's ME0, ME1, ME2, ME3, ME4, ME5-9, ME10+
you can just do seven passes of a stupidly simple script
seriously people, put some effort into your baseless attacks Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7339
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 21:21:00 -
[73] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: As for you point, my argument has always been to NOT go forward with the research changes. Therefore, in that case, waste will still exist, and can be calculated as waste = 10% / waste_divider, where waste_divider = old ME + 1.
and that's garbage considering that there are actual material reduction things in place now, so you've made a system where instead of being able to add up the mineral reductions easily then making your hard choices based on tradeoffs, you're forced to wrestle with the UI about what things mean
that's crap and makes the entire system needlessly complicated just for the sake of not having you need to update spreadsheets Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7339
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 21:23:00 -
[74] - Quote
Darin Vanar wrote:Weaselior wrote: that has exactly 7 states: if it's ME0, ME1, ME2, ME3, ME4, ME5-9, ME10+
I rest my case. I think you know enough to mis-represent my post, that the issue with "once the scripts run" is not in the difficulty of running said scripts but in what those scripts will actually do. Incoming massive amounts of perfect BPOs that will take 5x as long to research for anyone new to get up to the level these DB scripts will generate. The only ones defending this are the ones who stand to benefit. "Cui bono?" counselor you rest your case when you think you've won not when you've just lost
your dumb complaint was " If you run DB scripts in the current state, you are going to create a disaster."
you want to ***** and whine about changes you don't like you do that rather than imply they're going to **** up the db Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7339
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 21:29:00 -
[75] - Quote
ElectronHerd Askulf wrote: Additionally, turning the crank on a naive implementation of this stuff leads me to the improbable situation of requiring 2 rifters to build 1 jaguar. This is based on Nullarbor's comments regarding having a 'ceil' prior to multiplication by number of runs in a job (to support the 2% material reduction in POS modules effecting low-input blueprints). Will there be still be inputs that will be treated differently, or am I missing additional rounding somewhere? I'll throw in a 'floor' for now, but I'd really like to know I'm putting it in the right place before I start making decisions about this.
almost assuredly the base t1 item for a t2 item is hardcoded to be one and only one, no matter anything else, but that's it Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7343
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 21:52:00 -
[76] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: And we're back to a simple difference of opinion.
All the material adjustments they are making in this release seem highly ill advised to me.
the "opinion" that fire is hot and burns and the "opinion" that fire is wet and cold are not differing opinions
your opinions are consistently based on obviously incorrect assumptions, views of reality that bear no relationship to actual reality, and studiously ignoring people pointing that out
that's not a difference of opinion. that's you being wrong. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7343
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 22:03:00 -
[77] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: 1) Was waste = 10% * 1 / (1+ME) where ME is 0+ so complicated that it needed to be reworked into whole %s of waste?
how much better is a ME100 bpo than a ME 50 BPO
please give me an exact answer without reaching for a calculator Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7343
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 22:08:00 -
[78] - Quote
well lets see
*pulls out paper, pencil*
now lets set X = ME50 and Y=100
we are looking for better where Y =X*better
so X = 10% * 1 / (1+50) Y = 10% * 1/(1+100)
so 10% * 1/(1+100) = 10% * 1 / (1+50)*better
so (1/51)*(10% * 1/(1+100))=10%*better
better= (1/51)*(10% * 1/(1+100))/10%
now i just need to calculate what that does and I have solved the simple intuitive calculation of how much better a ME100 bpo is than an ME50 bpo Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7343
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 22:09:00 -
[79] - Quote
how could anyone NOT think that was intutive, my gosh
now, under this new system, I pay only 94% of each material, the bpo calls for 10 so that's 9.4 but i have to round that
*goes crosseyed, falls over*
god how could anyone have been expected to deal with that problem Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7344
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 22:23:00 -
[80] - Quote
Darin Vanar wrote: Math doesn't lie. It cannot be embellished with grandiose statements of importance. This patch is broken on arrival. That's just a fact from even a casual look at the numbers.
the numbers show nothing of the sort, and stop posting on an alt LHA Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7358
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 14:30:00 -
[81] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Did you read my post on carrier construction, where the move to always round up means you have top produce billion ISK ships in bulk and to get a pretty goob BPO will take 5 years instead of 3 months? Move to 100 steps only takes a few months off the 5 years that will be required to get 11 to be 10 with the new "always round up". i realize the chance you'll understand this time when you have not understood ... anything, however I've already pointed out even if you have the money for long carrier runs that may not be the right move
however i genuinely don't think you can grasp things like churning capital being better than slightly higher margins so let me repeat for readers:
while you may get slightly higher profit margins if you install 5 runs of carriers at once, you can't sell carriers 1-4 in that time and buy minerals for new carriers. you're generally going to be better off when you can sell those carriers as they come out and immediately start a new one: two 5% profits beat one 7% profit. this will largely depend on your setup and market but you'll have to use your noggin
lha, of course, cannot figure that out Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7358
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 14:32:00 -
[82] - Quote
Quintessen wrote: I'm all for partial progress. I'm not sure I'm for that partial progress affecting gains. Really though, if they eliminate the major increases in research times doesn't a lot of this go away? If you could get there in 6 months instead of 6 years isn't that okay?
You're getting at the main issue: LHA just hates the change in general, he's only pretending to care about the bpo issue. That's why he ignores that point repeatedly: because then he doesn't have a bloody shirt to wave against having to think more when doing industry. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7358
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 14:36:00 -
[83] - Quote
Darin Vanar wrote: Quoting posts also assumes you have read through enough of the thread to know what we were talking about. The math is there. Doesn't need me to drudge up what we went through 5 pages ago.
Unless you're not just here to troll the random last poster out of a sense of comraderie towards your fellow goons.
lha's math has been smashed into little bits more times than you can count, he just spams it to try to drown out the posts tearing it to shreads Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7358
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 19:32:00 -
[84] - Quote
Takara Mora wrote:Currently almost everything(?) you do in EVE takes less than 1 - 2 months - and even the highest quality ME / TE can be incrementally improved in ~1 month increments. titan bpos are like three-month jobs per me (with 40% time off) Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7358
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 19:37:00 -
[85] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: If you couldn't figure out that researching to 2 waste divider drips waste to 5%, and 3 to 3.33% and 4 to 2.5%, then you should be doing manufacturing....
you still haven't figured out the concept of return on capital given your relentless complaining about carriers, probably the most important manufacturing concept, and you're talking about who should be doing manufacturing
lawl Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7358
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 21:57:00 -
[86] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: Another hack to cover up failed design, and I don't mind you figuring out where your enemies are building suppers, I just think you should have to work for it, like traveling around their space looking for a lot of component construction arrays. I don't think it should be as easy and as "out of game" as pulling the solar system usagae reports from the API.
in todays "basic features of EVE Online LHA Tarawa is unaware of" it is currently trivial to find every CSAA an alliance owns provided you can get a single character in the alliance with no roles whatsoever (absolutely trivial for anyone looking to kill csaas) Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7361
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 13:37:00 -
[87] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: I think they are intentionally not answering the questions about what it will some out as. I'm sure people are buying up BPOs and putting them in to research to ME 10 so that they can get the big round up, expecting the BPO to be perfect with a fraction of the time of what everyone else will face after the big round up.
It is EVE, so even though it is right there in the EULA "Thou Shalt not Exploit" EVERYONE does, as there seems to be little to no punishment for it.
I doubt their going to implement a bunch of code to adjust end times of running research. That is all that is stored in the server. The server doesn't track how far you have gone. It only tracks the end time.
that's not an exploit you complete idiot Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7361
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 14:22:00 -
[88] - Quote
not only is taking action now to benefit from announced patch changes not an exploit, ccp devs routinely advise people to do it Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7385
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 03:59:00 -
[89] - Quote
Luke Erata wrote: I imagine some idiot out there who created hundreds of lvl 20 T1 ammo BPOs getting the aforementioned "tokens" and applying them to something much more costly. Sure time is time, but he did not have his capital tied up in a more expensive BPO while it was being researched.
Again I am only offering a different idea, one opposing "time tokens", to the BPOs that are researched beyond lvl 10. yeah i too think its a good idea to spawn massive amounts of free bpos for idiots who spent ages on useless research
gimme gimme gimme Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division. |
|
|
|