And this is exactly what I am afraid of. The best practice is doing it right the first time. Everything else has sub-optimal outcomes - and I am putting it nicely that way. The track record of CCP to revisit complex systems as industry is poor. Any interim solution you are providing is going to be a semi-permanent one.

This is not a criticism of the front-line devs who take the brunt of the impact and I am sure are full of good intentions to actually follow through with what they are promising, but merely a summary of CCP's track record. I have personally been on both sides of the internal struggle. It's not an enviable situation, so I sympathize with what you are facing.

I can only implore you to either do it right the first time or not to ship the feature at all.

Given invention is getting a massive overhaul shortly after this patch there really isn't much point in trying to do precise tuning. Do it in the next pass.

Yes, I think we get it. You guys are raging about past track records instead of just posting feedback on each iteration. You can either post it here and maybe get a good patch or not and get a steaming pile of crap you rage about for years. There is nothing particularly controversial in this bundle. We can debate a few % here and there but they are relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Given invention is getting a massive overhaul shortly after this patch there really isn't much point in trying to do precise tuning. Do it in the next pass.

Yes, I think we get it. You guys are raging about past track records instead of just posting feedback on each iteration. You can either post it here and maybe get a good patch or not and get a steaming pile of crap you rage about for years. There is nothing particularly controversial in this bundle. We can debate a few % here and there but they are relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Given invention is getting a massive overhaul shortly after this patch there really isn't much point in trying to do precise tuning. Do it in the next pass.

Concrete suggestion.

Module baseline materials post Crius = 145% of present baseline.

- This reflects that most modules are produced without decryptors (153%) but a significant minority use Symmetry.


T2 Frigates and Destroyers baseline materials post Crius = 135% of present

- This reflects the widespread use of Symmetry decryptors on these.


T2 cruisers and BCs baseline materials post Crius =125% of present

These are usually invented with Accelerant or Process, sometimes Parity or Symmetry in unusual market conditions.


T2 battleships and larger baseline materials post Crius = 120% of present

These are always invented with Process.

Since i'm really bad at spreadsheet applications, i just made a website instead that shows you how the material usage modifiers would change. http://bp.kiwi.frubar.net/me-changes/

(I also incorporated most of the changes discussed in this thread into http://bp.kiwi.frubar.net/calc/ if someone wants to quickly check a few items without spending time with spreadsheets. [/shameless-plug] )

I would have included that table directly in this post, but sadly the new forums do not support preformatted text.

I assumed that is how it was going to be, and maybe I missed it, but has this been confirmed?

Concrete suggestion.

Module baseline materials post Crius = 145% of present baseline.

- This reflects that most modules are produced without decryptors (153%) but a significant minority use Symmetry.


T2 Frigates and Destroyers baseline materials post Crius = 135% of present

- This reflects the widespread use of Symmetry decryptors on these.


T2 cruisers and BCs baseline materials post Crius =125% of present

These are usually invented with Accelerant or Process, sometimes Parity or Symmetry in unusual market conditions.


T2 battleships and larger baseline materials post Crius = 120% of present

These are always invented with Process.

Concrete suggestion.

Module baseline materials post Crius = 145% of present baseline.

- This reflects that most modules are produced without decryptors (153%) but a significant minority use Symmetry.


T2 Frigates and Destroyers baseline materials post Crius = 135% of present

- This reflects the widespread use of Symmetry decryptors on these.


T2 cruisers and BCs baseline materials post Crius =125% of present

These are usually invented with Accelerant or Process, sometimes Parity or Symmetry in unusual market conditions.


T2 battleships and larger baseline materials post Crius = 120% of present

These are always invented with Process.

In this specific case, I am trying to make the decryptor-less invention line up nicely before and after, and allow people to deal with the fact that decryptors change the math in whatever way they see fit, in the same way that we're matching build time to 2x copy+invent at base stats and not factoring in starbase bonuses etc for those purposes.

With regard to whether it's 37.5% or 5x%, I'll have another proper look at it when I'm back in the office and less tired; the tricky bit is just ensuring that it's accounting for the fact that we're building waste into the base materials.

If you read back over the original threadnaught, Theng and I did post some incredibly thoughtful posts, which were summarily pish poshed and told we can't do that now, that will be next pass.


I am not neccesarily unhappy with this iteration, as long as it IS a stepping stone, but it does leave a lot of unfulfilled ideas.

Batch invention
actual copies required for invention - seems single run copies are OK now, but will that change?
decryptors - i have seen ZERO on final decrypt or numbers
actual conversion of T2 BPC to new positive ME values

Maybe if we had that data, the pessimism would slow down a bit

It's just about releasing a complete product that is interlocking and interdependent. There is nothing Jesus about asking for the equivalent of a car that has both an engine and brakes. If you release engine and car in stages you are going to see Jesus in person.

There is nothing remotely that dramatic in these changes. They already delayed it a month due to the handful of edge cases and that is more than sufficient. Edge cases fixed, balance preserved.

A good suggestion. However, unless you have access to data you probably shouldn't have access to to you can not know which decryptor is used for each product category. Sure, you can always state "it is the logical choice!" but given how illogical players are and how unoptimized a lot of industrialists (that I know of at least) are I fear that only CCP can know the answer to the question "which decryptor is most commonly used per product category".

This is so very true; presuming everyone always invents t2 battleships and larger with process decryptors makes you look like a fool. Check contracts sometime. Talk to smaller end inventors. I've seen a lot of JF, Blops, etc BPCs up for sale that used different decryptors, and have tried to talk people out of using inefficient ones. Sure, process may be the most efficient, but they aren't always used to invent BS and larger.

Oh, and please make sure that extra materials only get the normal 1/0.9 modifier

Are there actually any inventables that use significant amounts of extra materials? If so, this is actually a very significant point I'm surprised no one's noticed yet. If not, I'm okay with making jobs take up a couple of extra R.A.M. for the sake of consistency.

And while I'm at it, just to make sure,
Greyscale, you already know this, but just as a reminder: the Tech column in the invBlueprintTypes table is a bit misleading. A significant number of blueprints are marked as Tech 2, but are not actually inventables; they're basically just T1 blueprints. T2 components are an example off the top of my head.
Naturally, those blueprints should not get the same material requirements change as actual T2 inventables.

Haven't dug into the numbers too much like I plan to yet (model comparing overall gamewide usage before & after the patch including ability to revise based on expected change in decryptor usage, anyone? Depends on if I can setup the spreadsheet in a reasonable amount of time tomorrow) so I don't want to comment on the numbers too much, but...



When moons are such that we don't need a team of fifty people constantly refueling POS, emptying the silos, and clearing (often multiple times a day) siphons off of them, that they inject isk straight into the corp wallet instead of the value being realized by selling the materials to people who turn around and run even more POS, it'll be completely passive income. Until then, the most valuable of them is worth at best what one ishtar ratting two hours a day can make (and the guy maintaining the POS is undoubtedly more active than the ratter, too), and the "completely passive" argument is a dead horse flogged by the jealous or ignorant.


Besides, consider this: Demand for moon goo is separated from the actual moongoo by intermediate reactions, then advanced reactions, then Tech II component construction, and then the actual Tech II build times itself. For that reason, the moon markets shift in response to changing demand very slowly, and Alchemy - which regulates prices - makes upward changes even slower. With a full invention overhaul on the horizon after Crius, things probably won't have room to move very far before that shakes things up again anyway.

Having seen one crazy Russian in my former alliance manage 120 POS I both agree and disagree whilst it takes commitment to manage a large moon mining operation it's still pretty passive. The fact that less than half a percent of your alliance are involved in your biggest income source seems a bit out of balance.

Anyway lets not get caught up in the moon mining mechanics discussion more important is the impact of the actual change. Personally I think this change should be geared towards T2 material consumption remaining stable to try and keep prices the same.