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.

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?

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.

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.

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 :)

Yeah, this is true, due to the way the math concertinas up and down.

In 1), this is only true if the market size is absolutely fixed, which seems implausible.

Ie, .1% waste under current becomes 1%. Its annoying and more than a little ****** on your end.

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.

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.

(Oh, and rename the ME skill please. Multiple meaning for the ME acronym is bad complexity)

The Material Efficiency skill will be repurposed, stay tuned for more information on that in a future blog.

Well, that let the cat out of the bag.

But only if they can get hold of these Gallente outposts, which will probably be quite rare I am guessing.

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.

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.

No, you won't.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, that's fair. I'll think about this some more.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

Apparently I am relevant enough to raise you and all the other center-pieces from the top of the biggest alliance.

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.

Yet they are not nerfing or removing T2 BPOs to not screw those non-intelligent investors. Double standard?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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... 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?

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.

...

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.

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.

And all that calculation is still there, because the complication is, and always has been, and will still be, the rounding inflection points.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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 %.

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.

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).

And rigs and T2 and POS structure and POS Fuel and.....

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Here, we must be speaking different languages again. In your language, "dumb" must mean the same as "cogent" means in my language.

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.

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.

The UI could EASILY have shown "Waste Base, Waste Divider, and Waste Effective = with Waste Effective simply Waste Base / Waste Divider.

What we have reduced this to is a simple difference of subjective opinion:

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

1) Was waste = 10% * 1 / (1+ME) where ME is 0+ so complicated that it needed to be reworked into whole %s of waste?

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.

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'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?

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.