First things first:



Guessing you mean invention time would be twice copy + build? IE Invention = 2*Copy + Build, not Invention = 2*Copy + Invention?

IMHO I think he ment T2 BPC build time = T1 BPO copy time + T1 BPO invention time. T2 take longer to build then T1 version of same thing.

- Copy time to 80% of build time base; TE and skills mean it works out slightly faster copying than building

- I'm considering changing invention times so that build time is generally twice copy+invention, to maintain balance across character manufacture and research slots; this also has the advantage of giving invention time a clear driving force

No prob. Static data on these BPOs is wrong:

Capital Processor Overclocking Unit I Blueprint
Capital Drone Control Range Augmentor I Blueprint
Capital Drone Durability Enhancer I Blueprint
Capital Drone Mining Augmentor I Blueprint
Capital Drone Repair Augmentor I Blueprint
Capital Drone Scope Chip I Blueprint
Capital Drone Speed Augmentor I Blueprint
Capital Sentry Damage Augmentor I Blueprint
Capital Stasis Drone Augmentor I Blueprint

They have research/manufacture time of Large rig BPO and copy time between Small and Medium rig BPO.

This is where I disagree as I already mentioned in the previous thread. My proposal would be to split items into various (pre-existing) categories, and then work out ratios for them rather than putting a ratio on everything.

Having certain items which are still limited by manufacturing time would be good as that would help new inventors get into the market. I am working out under your new proposal that invention time would be the limiting factor for all BPO's (correct me if I am wrong).

Stuff like ammo for instance could be manufacture limited, as this has a dual benefit of meaning science skills are not as important in outcomes, due to the fact that invention process is only a small part of the overall chain.

Stuff like ships could be heavily invention limited, which means success in an invention job becomes that much more important, and getting skills to V would really matter.

Some items could be pretty balanced, for instance turret modules, with a roughly 1:1 ratio between invention and manufacturing.

Also, have you considered the fact that if the job has a 50% success rate, then this is already doubling the ratio of invention slots needed due to the fact that half will fail.

Also just a side note, I would love to see decryptors play a very important role in allowing us to manipulate the properties of invented BPCs in the future, although that is probably outside the scope of these changes, but something that could be bared in mind.

Specific changes I am looking at making right now:
- Copy time to 80% of build time base; TE and skills mean it works out slightly faster copying than building

- I'm considering changing invention times so that build time is generally twice copy+invention, to maintain balance across character manufacture and research slots; this also has the advantage of giving invention time a clear driving force

If the invention success rates went up dramatically, tying the time / duration might have less of an impact

On to actual content - That seems to me that goes against the whole industry focused on building from copies concept. Is this because of the crazy good copy time modifiers?

For ship blueprints the only extra materials are the ship itself and the RAM. So the effect of your ME changes will be a large fall in the material costs of invented ships - probably your intention - but your extra-material justification is just a fig leaf.

Also, please can we avoid talking about future changes to T2 BPOs in this thread; if you want to talk about that stuff *somewhere* take it to this blog feedback thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=340181

This thread is *just* about changing blueprint data, thanks :)

Possibly changing build times to be a function of rank; otherwise modules and charges (among other things) may need to break the copy/build paradigm to avoid a big nerf

SIZE:
1 - frigate/destroyer modules (power draw between 2 and 34)

Setting rank to equal size*metalevel

I'm considering changing invention times so that build time is generally twice copy+invention, to maintain balance across character manufacture and research slots; this also has the advantage of giving invention time a clear driving force

We are expecting to mechanically rework invention following the Crius release, so we do not want to create wasted work by making too many changes to it for Crius

- I'm considering changing invention times so that build time is generally twice copy+invention, to maintain balance across character manufacture and research slots; this also has the advantage of giving invention time a clear driving force

As many others have also highlighted, each BP is limited by a different aspect of the production chain. If you do decide to amalgamate everything to have exactly the same ratios and have every BP limited by manufacturing slots, then you will turn the current bumpy landscape into a flat desert. [snip]

That can easily be something good, something you want changed, and I'm fine with that. But I don't want it to be something that you just overlook and yet it significantly changes the dynamics of the invention profession.

Of course, there are varied options in between, where we adjust both the production time and copy time. I like the idea of making all the blueprint timings all nice and neat and internally consistent, but as far as I can see, however we cut it, we are going to end up with some items having some properties that are quite drastically different to their current values. I think the key to whether this is going to work will be which items take that hit, in what direction, and just how big the hit is.

Possibly changing build times to be a function of rank

It doesn't really matter from an inventors perspective. If inventing stuff gets harder, that just means less supply and prices increase. As long as there isn't a drastic change, then I'm not concerned personally. T2 BPO holders may get a slight buff, but they are already getting a heavy nerf as a result of getting rid of negative me and pe levels.

- We are expecting to mechanically rework invention following the Crius release, so we do not want to create wasted work by making too many changes to it for Crius
- Simple things that make industry better are very much in our ballpark!

Specific goals we are currently pursuing:
- We would like to make copy times consistently lower than build times, so building from copies is the optimal play (dovetails with our starbase changes, for example)

- Copy time to 80% of build time base; TE and skills mean it works out slightly faster copying than building
\

On to actual content -
If copy time is roughly the same as build time, that means it'll take roughly twice as long to build from copies as building from the original. That seems to me that goes against the whole industry focused on building from copies concept. Is this because of the crazy good copy time modifiers?

You say that you want to make rank equal to size times meta level - first, I assume all T1 mods are assigned meta 1 instead of meta 0 currently, correct? OR its actually meta +1. Second, that seems like a nice way to fix it if build times are a function of rank so that T2 Build time is 5 times longer than T1. I like the idea of T2 things having a fixed relationship vs the base item. Its odd when say ammo (scorch L for example) is ~60 times as long of a build time from the T1 version vs say a T2 frigate which takes only about 5 or 6 times as long (Purifier vs Inquisitor). Having that relationship be fixed would be great, and I like just a flat multiplier better than looking at both copy and invention times.

Be careful with the size*metalevel thing, especially if want to allow us to manufacture our own meta 2-4 modules (fozzies balancing presentation)

If the meta level no longer means quality but specialisation instead, you are up to some significant price differences based on this

How about something with tech level instead?

I do not see the comprehension that module blueprints and ship blueprints are very different.

Modules

For module blueprints most of the non-minerals are extra materials - a change put through a few nerfs ago to bring build costs for bpo and bpc's closer together - researching a module bpo only save some minerals.

Your changes will have a small reduction in the cost of most modules - unless you fix the build cost back up...at which stage you have to wonder why bother?

Ships

For ship blueprints the only extra materials are the ship itself and the RAM. So the effect of your ME changes will be a large fall in the material costs of invented ships - probably your intention - but your extra-material justification is just a fig leaf.

please please please just finaly add blueprint specs to the inventory, specs being, ME/PE(TE) and runs remaining. and/or allow blueprints being linked to chat from the S&I display.

Now why does one want this,:
Case Bp user: allows him to quickly pick a print from inventory to move over to a pos or different station to build, research, copy or invent.

Case Bp seller: after a while some people (yes including me) have build up a nice supply of prints, wich are researched to various levels to supply builders with a print in there price range (high-+low quality)

Now to sell those prints he/she will want to link a certain print to chat and sell to a buyer to avoid public contracts and having the actual talk and haggle with people as part of the game experiance taking time to do so and being compensated by not having fees.

Public contract fees example: capital prints wich on average are 1B+ start @ 9-10m fee +10m deposit and are limited to regional acceptance

thank you for your attention

:)

If I recollect, in the previous thread Greyscale mentioned that base material cost would be increased for all T2 BPOs and BPCs to leave the materials required to build at around the same levels for invented T2 BPCs.

Just wondering on this point though, what is the level of ME which you are intending to set as equivalent to the current -4 ME Greyscale? You mentioned decryptors would possible be able to push ME to +5, so would ME 0 be the equivalent in terms of materials as a current ME -4 BPC?

Currently Capital, Large, Medium and Small rigs regarding all time stats (copy,manuf,inv,ME/TE) in this ratio 8:4:2:1.
In new system they would be rank 40:20:10:5.

Could you explain how would this ratio be after patch so I could give you better feedback?
Will size be applied to them (4x,3x,2x,1x) with would end being 32:12:4:1 (when rank and size is applied)? Not shure where am I applying the size thingy to RIG scenario
That (32:12:4:1) would reduce demand for salvage with current production capacity about 4.08 times which would have devastating effect on salvage price and I would really suggest ...

And while we're pointing out inconsistencies in blueprints stats:

All T2 non-armor rigs have the following manufacture requirements:

• Small rigs - Level 1 of parent rigging skill
• Medium rigs - Level 1 of parent rigging skill
• Large rigs - Level 1 of parent rigging skill
• Capital rigs - Level 4 of parent rigging skill

T2 armor rigs are the only ones that follow a different pattern of manufacture requirements:

• Small rigs - Level 1 of parent rigging skill
• Medium rigs - Level 2 of parent rigging skill
• Large rigs - Level 3 of parent rigging skill
• Capital rigs - Level 4 of parent rigging skill

I assume by this you mean reducing the build time on these, as an alternative to increasing copy times? If we are going to do this across the board, then we can set a baseline using a Size 1, Tech 1 frigate module:

150mm railgun I blueprint (frigate size) current has production time of 600s, copy time per run of 80s. If we adjust the build time downwards to maintain the desired 80% copy time ratio, then this would give a new production time of 100s, so we are now manufacturing frigate modules significantly faster than before.

If we then step up to the battleship-sized 425mm railgun, this again currently has 600s production time and 80s copy time. So if we wanted to keep the copy time ratio, we would also reduce the production time on this to 100s. But that doesn't respect the scaling by rank, so we would multiply this up by 3 to give 300s production time and 240s copy time, so you've halved production time but increased copy time by 3x.

Scaling it up further, we take an Abaddon, current production time 18000s, copy time per run of 72000s. If we keep the size scaling of production time already established, the Abaddon would come out with a new production time of 6000s, 1/3 of it's current value. Copy time would then reduce to 4800s.

If we use the Abaddon as the baseline instead, we would massively increase build time to 90000s to make the copying ratio work, which would scale build times on the 425mm railgun to 4500s and the 150mm railgun to 1500s. Copy times on those two would then be 3600s and 1200s respectively.


Of course, there are varied options in between, where we adjust both the production time and copy time. I like the idea of making all the blueprint timings all nice and neat and internally consistent, but as far as I can see, however we cut it, we are going to end up with some items having some properties that are quite drastically different to their current values. I think the key to whether this is going to work will be which items take that hit, in what direction, and just how big the hit is.




Might want to re-zero this size scale, otherwise you are presumably going to end up with lots of things of size <1, such as ammo, drones, T2 components etc, which currently have manufacturing times significantly less than a T1 frigate module.




Just want to echo concerns already in the thread about how this will interact with module Tiericide. Something that will presumably have to be factored into the wider invention re-work as well.

However, if we go with the stats we have and say that Tech 2 is Meta 5, and we've scaled Tech 1 as per my example above, then manufacturing time for 150mm railgun II becomes 500s (down from 7000s), with the corresponding copy time then 400s (down from 5600s). That's a pretty drastic reduction.

Looking at this more widely, this would mean that any T2 item where the T2:T1 production time ratio is <5:1 would get a production time increase, while anything >5:1 would get a decrease. The former would be siege modules, small T2 ammo, jump freighters, a few odd modules, mining links and T2 frigates. At the other end of the scale is large T2 ammo, larger modules and some T2 rigs. The ratios range from 1:1 all the way to 100:1, so again there would be some quite drastic changes if this was to be flattened out to 5:1 across the board.

Note that the above ratios are based on the ratio of the T1 and T2 productionTime values, adjusted for the portionSize attributes of the two productTypeIDs to give a ratio of time per unit of product. If you don't do this, you end up with ratios up around 266:1 for ammo, due to the much larger portion size of the T2 ammo compared to T1.



Let Tech 1 production time = X
Tech 2 production time = 5X
(on the basis that the T2 item will always be the same "size" as the T1 item, just at Meta 5). This then implies:
Tech 1 copy time = 0.8X
Tech 2 copy time = 4X

Let Invention time = Y
Use T2 BPC build time = 2 * T1 BPO copy time + T1 BPO invention time

Gives 5X = 1.6X + Y
Therefore, Y = 3.4X


The vast majority of invented items currently have an invention time significantly higher than 3.4 times their T1 manufacturing time - the majority are currently at 15x. So, all other things being equal, this would lead to significant reductions in invention times.

Of course, the downside is that it relies on establishing the 5:1 scaling of production times between Tech 1 and Tech 2, and the copy time scaling, with the significant changes covered above. However, once you start to move away from these ratios, it starts looking significantly less neat. While other combinations will work, you are limited to the T2:T1 production time ratio always needing to be appreciably larger than twice the T1 Copy:Build ratio to avoid skewed invention times.

As it stands, inventi...

Firstly, these proposed changes will drastically change the decryptor market. By closing the gap in production cost between 'good' ME results and 'bad' ME results, throughput (invention probability x modified max runs) will become the only important statistic on most decryptors. Currently, the difference between build price on a no decryptor invented BPC and a Process decryptor BPC is 25%; after these changes it will be 3-6% depending upon how you do it. Factor in invention chance, and the Process decryptor will only just be worth using on Marauders after this change, whereas presently it is used on HACs and anything larger.

Personal interest statement on this feedback: given that I am sitting on hundreds, maybe thousands of Symmetry decryptors (and low double figures of the much more expensive and soon to be nearly worthless Process decryptors), I can live with this :). Doesn't mean I think it's a good change, but it will definitely make me billions.


Secondly, there are four things that can be limiting with the present tech 2 production system - player tolerance for clicks, copy slot time, invention slot time and production time. The second and third overlap as they Examples of each:

- Warrior II is limited by click tolerance
- Most battleship modules are limited by copy slot time; in addition, for most inventors that do not have access to a POS, this becomes limiting for many more things.
- Rigs and ships are limited by invention slot time
- Ammo is limited by production time
- In addition, all sorts of production may be limited by available capital (for example, I cannot run nine Marauder builds at once).

I would recommend you continue this system. The less knowledgeable inventor will continue mass inventing one or two items they are familiar with and will just accept that they always have (for example) too many production lines; the more knowledgeable will game the system and do some from each category, trying to maximize all four resources, and the most knowledgeable will treat the whole system as an optimization problem and try to solve it for maximized ISK, rather than maximized resource usage.


Concrete suggestions:

- Increase the multiplier for larger module (BS/capital) copy and invention time significantly, and decrease the multiplier for small modules, so that those with science slot hours to spare have the option to focus on larger modules, and those for whom science slot hours are limited can focus on smaller ones.

- Sample times of what I'd like to see for public station slots, max skills:

Copying:
Light Neutron Blaster I, 20 copies, 300 runs: 30 hours (presently 100)
Heavy Neutron Blaster I, 20/300: 120 hours (presently 100)
Neutron Blaster Cannon I, 20/300: 300 hours (presently 100)

Invention:
LNB II: 60 minutes (presently 150)
HNB II: 240 minutes (presently 150)
NBC II: 600 minutes (presently 150)

Production time:
For consistency I assume no decryptors anywhere here, although for obvious reasons anyone actually building Neutron Blaster Cannon II would use at least a cheap Symmetry decryptor and I believe they are optimal on Heavy Neutron Blaster II too.
LNB II (no decryptor, 10 runs): 20 hours (currently about 22.2)
HNB II: 40 hours (currently I think these are about 45)
NBC II: 60 hours (currently about 67)

In short, science times would go up in a 1:4:10:X ratio from frig:cruiser:BS:capital modules, with production times 1:2:3:X. (I'm leaving capital modules out; someone that knows more about them than me is more qualified to make suggestions there).


A side benefit is that this would provide science jobs that work well for people that log on twice a day. Presently someone looking to optimize the % of time their science slots are in use that can log on twice a day is somewhat limited to rigs, as most invention jobs are either short module jobs (2.5 hours or less) or long ship jobs (25 hours or more).



Personal interest statement: I and my in-game associates are very, very large net user of Light Neutron Blaster II and would benefit from less science slot hours being required to produce these, so I do stand to personally gain from this proposal.

And while we're pointing out inconsistencies in blueprints stats:

All T2 non-armor rigs have the following manufacture requirements:

• Small rigs - Level 1 of parent rigging skill
• Medium rigs - Level 1 of parent rigging skill
• Large rigs - Level 1 of parent rigging skill
• Capital rigs - Level 4 of parent rigging skill

T2 armor rigs are the only ones that follow a different pattern of manufacture requirements:

• Small rigs - Level 1 of parent rigging skill
• Medium rigs - Level 2 of parent rigging skill
• Large rigs - Level 3 of parent rigging skill
• Capital rigs - Level 4 of parent rigging skill

If you are going to display production times down to the second (this WAS sighted for Crius, right? Please?), please have TE clearly indicate what each level will shave off. If runs are calculated to be able to take fractions of a second, either individually and/or in a batch configuration, this information is highly valued and needed. It should be prominently displayed in the EVE window.




Because, unfortunately, our time keeping is not a decimal system.

That would be a very needed change.
But!
Are you ready to reduce the time for Cynosural Field Generator by 60 times or increase the time for Abaddon by 60 times? Because at the moment, they have the same build time, and their ranks are 60 times apart. As for me, I'd like to see build times to be ...

We're going to have to change some things majorly if we do this, yeah :) I think it's *probably* worth the disruption, though.

Incidentally, if anyone can explain why we see eg ME -8 Sensor Booster II blueprints in people's inventories on TQ, that'd be super, because I can't immediately see how that has happened :/

any significant price changes should not be much of a problem, some people are going to make a bunch of money from it, but that will dry up rather quickly compared to the tiericide changes that still have an impact today.mostly because the possible speculation profit comes from manufacturing time, not manufacturing cost.

I will run through this this afternoon, thanks for the work! :)

Yup, this essentially breaks decryptor balance as-is; we're generally leaning towards being OK with this given that we intend to significantly overhaul that mechanic following Crius anyway.

(Woo. people doing my job for me Carry on.)

Just to expand on that last statement. There are 177 blueprints with 0% waste, 69 with 5% waste, and 2883 with 10% waste.

5% ones are things like the new implants, the mind links, and the fuel blocks.

60 of those 0% waste ones are getting deep-sixed with the compression change

not sure what the rest are though - maybe items only seeded as bpcs?

How about this for a neat formula which ties things together, which allows enough flexibility still to not break everything.

Total build time for max run BPO/BPC Gê¥ Rank * ( Meta Level + 1 )

Max run copies on BPO/BPC Gê¥ 1 / Volume of one run of end product

Copy time per run = Build time per run * 0.8

This way you have quite a few variables which can be adjusted to tweak things so we don't end up with some silly build times.

I'll run some numbers when I am back at home.

if you are doing significant disruptions you should probably try to avoid significant changes towards shorter manufacturing/invention times (over the whole market, for single items it's irrelevant)

changes to industry will cause a lot of people to take a look at the feature. right now, the margins are tight in a lot of areas because of :reasons: . Significantly shorter manufacturing/invention times will only make things worse. right now, invention is a high maintenance space-occupation, some longer cycles will be very welcome.

any significant price changes should not be much of a problem, some people are going to make a bunch of money from it, but that will dry up rather quickly compared to the tiericide changes that still have an impact today.mostly because the possible speculation profit comes from manufacturing time, not manufacturing cost.

...this isnt first change to invention CCP is doing. In long lost past, decryptors had even stranger modifiers, thats why you can see ME -8 or even other similar things that cant be produced anymore.

Let me know if there's anything you need there. Those CSVs only took a few lines of extra code to generate, and I can change them whichever way you want.
I made them because with all the decryptors and modifiers, you might not be able to see the actual impact of changes by looking at just base values. And because I doubted you had a profit-maximization script lying around.



Requesting that at some point in the process of decryptor redesign, you also contact the team in charge of loot tables and work out new drop rates, since the valuable decryptors are likely to change.

Oh, and while we're spamming you with questions and requests:

Whenever you get the time, remember that there's a sizable chunk of blueprints with 0% base waste. I don't recall you telling us how they'll be handled, but they'll eventually need to be handled.

As a quick example, every single T3 subsystem blueprint takes 5 separate materials, requiring 1 unit of each, with 0% base waste. If you revamp these BPs the same as all the 10% base waste blueprints, they will suddenly require double the materials at ME lower than 10. Which means always, since these BPs can only be obtained as 0-ME BPCs via reverse engineering.

You could just band-aid this by making reverse engineering spit out 10-ME BPCs. But then you've got a lot of other 0% base waste blueprint groups you'll have to look at individually and decide whether to band-aid or not.

Hey Greyscale,

Nice changes on the invention stuff. Will have to watch this very carefully because this is how I make all of my isk...

Some thoughts....

* Are invention skills going to be looked at?

Currently there's no reason for me to ever train level 5 invention skills due to how poor the bonus is, and it doesn't meaningfully set me apart from other people doing this kind of industry unless I decide I want to start doing T3 hulls for some reason.

* Are research agents ever going to be useful for invention again outside of their current near-useless status as suppliers of datacores?

* Please be careful when making major material changes.

There appear to already be plans to change the loot spew mechanic and crap all over salvage drop rates. ...

This may sound naive, but the whole BPO->copy->BPC->invent->T2 BPC seems like this "not good" complexity thing.

- We are rebasing invention TE/ME values to all be positive or 0 at all times, removing negative ME/TE from invention outputs, as this solves a number of issues with removing extra materials

- I'm considering changing invention times so that build time is generally twice copy+invention, to maintain balance across character manufacture and research slots; this also has the advantage of giving invention time a clear driving force

- Removal of waste necessitates an increase in all manufacturing costs
- Removal of negative TE/ME probably requires an increase in T2 build costs to balance out component demand before and after

- We would generally like all blueprint data to follow a coherent pattern; we're still discussing how far we would like to take this

Also, balancing a max run bpc for invention to the times, or maybe doing away with the requirement for max run. Maybe making the size factor in so max run isn't always required

Further more the current invention output is highly depending on online time. With one invention cycle every 1:15 hour you get 2 to 3 on an average evening if you don't wander of in another region. If you increase this time to something between 3 and 7 hours many players won't manage to get more than one cycle each evening. That would greatly nerf the output of invention. I would suggest if you touch this times consider increasing the output runs. I would be fine with the invention taking 12 hours but the result is not a 10 run copy but a 50 run copy. But that starts to go deep into invention cost balance soon and might be out of scope. And therefore I would even suggest to keep the current invention times until you redo the hole invention thing. I will stop here for now on that subject.



Sounds good, it is always helpful if there is a solid pattern to follow if you want to explain something to someone else. I would suggest the T1 item bpo as the base line while T2 and later Meta-level BPs go with a meta modifier. Currently that would be t2 item takes 5 times of a t1 item.

But those are the obvious ones. Is cost scaling a part of this GÇ£dataGÇ¥? Is the BPO rank part of the installation cost and / or the team cost? A rank 10 item is harder to build than a rank 1 so it would be reasonable if the workforce gets more expensive with BPO rank.

Greyscale, just to bounce this off someone whose responding and actively thinking about industry....

Is CCP happy with the way drugs work? These do not appear to have been touched in several years.

Eg, is there going to be a balancing pass made against them and/or are there plans for more specialized boosters?

I like making them, but they are an incredible nuisance due to how horrible the pos interface is for chaining the reactions. And how it is just annoying to get them into highsec.

Personally I'd like to see more variety and specialization like with implants that do some of the same things but some really different things.

Like mining / science / industry specific boosters.

Further, its' really hard to source materials and bpcs for drugs due to how certain components only appear in certain constellations. At least please make it regional, or not at all location based like with what was done to moon materials.


Overall I like the changes. I think. But to repeat myself, we definitely need to see them on sisi becuase eve has a lot of moving parts and y'all are tweaking a lot of them.

One other thing is the difference between blue prints that get invented and ones that don't

These don't need to worry about max runs
Cap Components
T2 cap components
shuttles
containers
Carriers
dreads
orca
rorqual
there are probably others...


These do:
anythign that gets invented
Also, balancing a max run bpc for invention to the times, or maybe doing away with the requirement for max run. Maybe making the size factor in so max run isn't always required

CCP Greyscale, what will happen with copy time of superweapon (AKA DD) BPs?
They have 40h manufacture time and 1month, 1days and 6h copy time (you per single run stat) .

It is capital module same like for example XL gun Dual 1000mm Railgun which has 20h manufacturing time but 1day 13.5h copy time. When we are at it, I hope XL gun will get copy time reduction also.

Greyscale

will you write another dev blog when you have the second iteration about the Industry changes coming in Crius?
it is hard for a Industry newbie like me to follow all those forum posts.

POS arrays are composed of extra materials only. Will these be changed to standard materials and effected by ME changes?

Thank you,

BB

Would it be possible to get some sample data to play with to give better feedback. I'm really interested in making copy/build times a multiple of the ranks you proposed however its much easier for you to pull a nice organised table of this data for different BPOs straight from the DB than it is for us to pull it manually.

Even if its 20 ships and modules across different classes giving build times and copy times we can really help give much better input with some data that we can play around with in excel. If there's a database dump anywhere of all of this static data somewhere we can manipulate even better just point the right general direction.

I think the blueprint data is in the SDE, but I could be wrong. Regardless, I'll see what I can do about dumping out what I have once the spreadsheet is in a good state. Right now, I'm working on assigning ranks to stuff like structures so I can math everything at once.

I think the blueprint data is in the SDE, but I could be wrong. Regardless, I'll see what I can do about dumping out what I have once the spreadsheet is in a good state. Right now, I'm working on assigning ranks to stuff like structures so I can math everything at once.

Do we know what will happen to blueprints that are partway though a remote POS research job, when the changes are implemented?

[..]

I think character specialisation is a good thing. I want to be "elite" and that implies that not everyone and their mother have been willing to put 20m skill points into it to get the best out of it. You're already doing this with refining, for which I'm currently specialising one character. I think it should be the same with manufacture and invention.

[...]

I like the consistency but I do have a concern and that is time investment in specialism to get the best or be the most productive. I feel there's not enough of this. Some items do require some time investment in skilling (some T2, like Covert Ops Cloaks) and A LOT of slot time investment in copying. For example copying the prototype cloak 3 x max runs takes well over 20 days (with a 5% copy time implant at a POS). If you reduce copy down to build time but don't increase skill requirements, absolutely anyone will be able to do it with minimal character specialisation.

I think character specialisation is a good thing. I want to be "elite" and that implies that not everyone and their mother have been willing to put 20m skill points into it to get the best out of it. You're already doing this with refining, for which I'm currently specialising one character. I think it should be the same with manufacture and invention.

Also, obligatory take T2 BPOs out of the game comment.

Yup, aware of this :) Max run stuff is a pain, probably not being changed in Crius

Firstly, these proposed changes will drastically change the decryptor market.

Personal interest statement on this feedback: given that I am sitting on hundreds, maybe thousands of Symmetry decryptors (and low double figures of the much more expensive and soon to be nearly worthless Process decryptors), I can live with this :). Doesn't mean I think it's a good change, but it will definitely make me billions.

I started making this table for myself, but I might as well post it too. Concerning decryptors:

With one major assumption, current decryptor benefits can be boiled down to just 2 values: their effect on material requirements, and their effect on the ideal invention time per manufacturing time ratio. The major assumption is that T2 manufacturers seek to optimize their invention time to manufacturing time ratio, so as to not leave a bunch of slots chronically under-used.

Another assumption that just simplifies calculations is to take the ratio of ProductivityModifier/BaseProductionTime as 0.2. This is the case for 738 out of 766 inventable T2 blueprints, and is also the value Devs are using as a standard. ["while for negative TE we're subtracting 1 and multiplying by 20"]. Similarly, the waste factor is taken to be a constant 10.

And finally, for the sake of pretty numbers, the material requirement modifier is given as a simple multiplier. In practice, this effect can vary wildly from item to item due to rounding; a particular high-volume item I'm acquainted with has the exact same material requirements at -2 and -1 ME, which moves pressure off accelerants and onto symmetries.

That given, have a 9-line CSV.
Tiny Pastebin CSV

All the modifiers are with respect to the "base" -4 / -4 inventable BPC.
Volume is the estimated daily volume bought from sell orders, averaged over the last 30 days. It's there for reference, as is price.


A tad too drowsy to make any thought-out comments on the data. From a quick glance, I'm surprised that Optimized Augmentation is actually that good. If it had drop rates closer to that of Accelerants, it would be very useful.

Skills are a different problem that'll be tackled at a later date.

This is a proposal to get rid of "efficiency" stats entirely (ME, PE)
and use "waste" stats instead ("material waste", "time waste").
Because waste is what actually matters. Stop using a proxy.

The change to number of runs is far from inconsequential too. As it changes the dynamics wrt invention cost per successful run.

My biggest concern is the addition of the added costs to everything based on the 'value' of the end product....which will then increase in price due to the additional costs which will add more cost into the build/invent cost...which will then translate again into higher prices, which will translate into higher 'costs' ect ect.....

This endless 'feedback loop' if you will, cannot be a good idea in the long run. Has this possibility been thoroughly explored?

This seem like it will especially increase the cost of inventions because of the new cost of copies, plus adding the cost related to the final T2 products market value. (or are you strickly going to base this on material value and not market price?)

Not even for items that don't have T2 equivalents, such as capital components?

Not sure yet. Hopefully they'll "just work". Do you have any specific concerns you'd like us to keep in mind when validating them?

So all the invented blueprint copies that exist right now that are -4/-4 will be what values after the patch ?

Anything that exists as negative values now won't be worth building/using after the patch if the invention under the new system guarantees at worst an of ME 0.

Or do you plan to scale them as well ? IE do you plan to modify the existing BPCs that people have to reflect the new minimum ME 0 result of invention.

Also where the max runs is currently set very low like capital parts and the new max run copy goes up what will the number of runs on the copies I currently have be after the patch ?

Are there yet any thoughts on this?

We are aware of the significance of this change and do not expect very expensive blueprints (Battleship and above) to be risked in such a manner, but we do feel it to be a good trade-off for smaller blueprints.

- We do have our fingers in the industry code right now, so small changes to eg formulas are on the table if we can justify them; larger sweeping changes are *not* on the table
- We are erring on the side of maintaining the current balance for things that are not on our list of goals (below), but we are happy with any reasonable balance disruptions in pursuit of those goals
- We are erring on the side of preserving the status quo in invention over preserving the status quo for T2 BPOs; note that, as previous point, we are not specifically targeting T2 BPOs in any particular way

Specific goals we are currently pursuing:
- We would like to make copy times consistently lower than build times, so building from copies is the optimal play (dovetails with our starbase changes, for example)
- For at least non-invention blueprints, we are reviewing max run numbers to alleviate issues in certain areas eg cap construction, nanite paste

Specific changes I am looking at making right now:
- Copy time to 80% of build time base; TE and skills mean it works out slightly faster copying than building
- I'm considering changing invention times so that build time is generally twice copy+invention, to maintain balance across character manufacture and research slots; this also has the advantage of giving invention time a clear driving force

Rubicon:
Pastebin CSV

Option 1 (BCT = 0.8*BMT && BIT = BMT/2-BCT):
Pastebin CSV

Option 2 (BCT = 0.8*BMT && BIT = BMT/2-BCT && Actual IT = BIT * number of resulting T2 BPC runs-¦):
Pastebin CSV

- I'm considering changing invention times so that build time is generally twice copy+invention, to maintain balance across character manufacture and research slots; this also has the advantage of giving invention time a clear driving force

To give you some data, I whipped up a quick script to go through every inventable item and find out what the limiting factor is.

Method:
Iterate through every inventable item and use current prices-¦ to determine optimal T1 BPC runs, optimal decryptors, and optimal meta item usage, for maximum isk/hr.
Optimal T1 BPCs for invention are actually always either max-run or min-run. I don't believe there's any exceptions to that, but my script tried to find them anyway.

Assumptions:

• IVs for all datacore and encryption skills.
• Current decryptor attributes (which will change, I gather).
• A 1:1 science to manufacturing slot ratio. As in, a person that has a couple of characters with 10 MSlots and 10 SSlots each, rather than 8 characters with 10 MSlots and 4 characters with 10 SSlots. I feel this is the most common configuration among industrialists. Changing the slot ratio messes with the entire calculation.
• A world in which our hypothetical industrialist never leaves any slots unused. Or at least a world in which he wastes equal times on both MSlots and SSlots. Your proposal to "put in 24 hours' worth of invention in one go" would bring reality closer to this model.
• The time multiplier for the revamped POS modules is used: Design labs for copying and invention, and Assembly Arrays for manufacturing.

Abbreviations used:

• MT = Manufacture time
• IT = Invention time
• CT = Copy time
• B* = Base * (e.g: BCT = base copy time, from the raws)

Edit: Forgot to clarify. Under the modifier column, mX means you use the optional lower-meta ingredient with meta level X, and dX means you use decryptor X from the zero-starting list [none, Augmentation, Optimized Augmentation, Symmetry, Process, Accelerant, Parity, Attainment, Optimized Attainment]. For example, d0m0 means no decryptor and no meta item, while d3m3 would mean Symmetry and a meta 3 item.

Rubicon:
Pastebin CSV

Option 1 (BCT = 0.8*BMT && BIT = BMT/2-BCT):
Pastebin CSV

Option 2 (BCT = 0.8*BMT && BIT = BMT/2-BCT && Actual IT = BIT * number of resulting T2 BPC runs-¦):
Pastebin CSV


And yeah, there's a handful of modules where that proposed invention time would actually end up being negative. Could quickly be fixed though.


-¦ Eve-Central reported prices from around the time Eve went down for Americans (20:00?). Been waiting to post this since then.
buy-percentile used for raw material prices, sell-percentile used for finished product prices.

-¦ Example: say the time needed to invent a 1-run Damnation is 8hr. The time needed to invent a 2-run Damnation (Accelerant decryptor) would be 16hr. You briefly asked about this somewhere in the other thread.


My personal opinion:

Firstly, these proposed changes will drastically change the decryptor market. By closing the gap in production cost between 'good' ME results and 'bad' ME results, throughput (invention probability x modified max runs) will become the only important statistic on most decryptors. Currently, the difference between build price on a no decryptor invented BPC and a Process decryptor BPC is 25%; after these changes it will be 3-6% depending upon how you do it. Factor in invention chance, and the Process decryptor will only just be worth using on Marauders after this change, whereas presently it is used on HACs and anything larger.

Personal interest statement on this feedback: given that I am sitting on hundreds, maybe thousands of Symmetry decryptors (and low double figures of the much more expensive and soon to be nearly worthless Process decryptors), I can live with this :). Doesn't mean I think it's a good change, but it will definitely make me billions.


Secondly, there are four things that can be limiting with the present tech 2 production system - player tolerance for clicks, copy slot time, invention slot time and production time. The second and third overlap as they Examples of each:

- Warrior II is limited by click tolerance
- Most battleship modules are limited by copy slot time; in addition, for most inventors that do not have access to a POS, this becomes limiting for many more things.
- Rigs and ships are limited by invention slot time
- Ammo is limited by production time
- In addition, all sorts of production may be limited by available capital (for example, I cannot run nine Marauder builds at once).

I would recommend you continue this system. The less knowledgeable inventor will continue mass inventing one or two items they are familiar with and will just accept that they always have (for example) too many production lines; t...

This is a proposal to get rid of "efficiency" stats entirely (ME, PE)
and use "waste" stats instead ("material waste", "time waste").
Because waste is what actually matters. Stop using a proxy.

Situation:
(both currently and after your planned changes)

The game shows "efficiency" stats (ME, PE).
The actual waste stats are not shown.
The scale is upside down: more levels = less waste.

Complication:

Some calculations are required to get from ME and PE to waste.
In the old system, an addition, a division and a multiplication were required.
In the new system, it is simpler, but you still have to calculate "waste % = 10% - ME * 1%".

Resolution:

Replace ME and PE efficiency stats (in units of levels) entirely by "material waste"
and "time waste" stats (conveniently displayed in units of % already).

New blueprints start at "waste level: 10%" (and the description directly says so).
Every level of research reduces that stat by 1%. Blueprints which have reached
0% waste (after 10 levels of research) are perfect. Description now reads:
"waste level: 0%". Simple, aint it? And the scale is straight: less % = less waste.

Internally, you can use 10 integer levels of course, only need to output a "%" on the screen.

You can use this opportunity to remove some "bad" complexity from the game.
You can still implement any changes as planned, but the end result would be easier
for new players to understand and less confusing (old ME vs new ME) for veterans.

Thoughts?

I understand your desire to push skill changes off, but these are skills for *industry* (not usage/fitting) that are obviously wrong. Since Crius is all about overhauling industry, shouldn't correcting obvious *industry* skill problems be on the table? I believe you are already mucking about with skill effects as they apply to refining. That seems inconsistent.

MDD

Well, they don't have a specific size assigned yet but they aren't a module nor do they draw power. How will they be "scaled" post-patch? Same goes for max runs on copies; any clues yet to this number? This is somewhat important because it ties into the starbase changes for component assembly arrays. I would hate us to get in a situation like with the current equipment assembly array not being able to hold the minerals for 18 capital guns (6 lines x 3 run bpc). It's avoidable :)

I just want to go back to the research times. CCP Greyscale, I notice that you're using Shoogie's fallback rank of 600 for the titan he got based on the Hyasyoda lab instead of his original 480. Is your reasoning for this the same as Shoogie's? Because upon a re-read of the "building a better worlds" dev-blog, I noticed this:

If you are factoring in the Hyasyoda lab bonus, aren't you implicitly expecting those very expensive blueprints to be risked in just such a manner?

Also, I've read the discussion but may have missed it, but do BPOs going from 9 to 10 have to be researched continuously, or can we break that up into multiple sessions of week long jobs over the course of however many months or years it takes?

Are the T1 mods/ships needed for production stock accounted for the above?
If not, it suggests a manufacturing bottleneck for pretty much all the vertical integration scenarios (assuming a standardized BPO framework), especially for the higher ranked items.

P.S Didn't read whole thread. Ignore the above if it's been mentioned.

This is interesting and definitely worth thinking about. My gut feeling is that longer TTM is better as it gives more time to exploit imbalances before the market catches up. Thoughts?

This is interesting and definitely worth thinking about. My gut feeling is that longer TTM is better as it gives more time to exploit imbalances before the market catches up. Thoughts?

This is interesting and definitely worth thinking about. My gut feeling is that longer TTM is better as it gives more time to exploit imbalances before the market catches up. Thoughts?

Aright, FINALLY followed up on this :) It pretty much aligns with the assumptions I've been making: ships are generally bottlenecked on research, other stuff mainly on build (although I didn't know about rigs being so all over the place :P)

Thanks for the data, I'll be referring back to it regularly :)

...yeah, all my math is wrong. Goddamnit. I'll get back to you :P

MIN(MAX(ROUND_DOWN( (Input_T1_BPC_Runs / T1_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy) * (T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy / 10) + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus), 1), T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy)

T2_Max_Runs_Per_Blueprint_Copy + Decryptor_Runs_Bonus

This is interesting and definitely worth thinking about. My gut feeling is that longer TTM is better as it gives more time to exploit imbalances before the market catches up. Thoughts?

This is interesting and definitely worth thinking about. My gut feeling is that longer TTM is better as it gives more time to exploit imbalances before the market catches up. Thoughts?

I'm currently looking at boosting all non-inventable items to have at least 48h of build time, which seemed at least somewhat reasonable.

I ran a bunch of numbers on the profitability of Copying and Inventing at a POS array as well as MFG at a POS array.

These arrays give a 2% reduction in material usage as well as a time efficiency bonus. When examining modules, small modules are basically NEVER profitable to copy, invent, and/or build at a POS because the value of the module is soo low that your material reduction cost savings never exceeds the POS's operational fuel costs unless you have 50 characters working with a small POS.

Large modules are generally alright with current copy, invention, and manufacturing times, often requiring only a couple people to cover the costs of a Small POS, and less than 10 to cover the operational expenses of a Large POS.

Ships are also alright, while T2 ammo is in desperate need of help.

Since module size is often indicative of module value (although many exceptions exist), it would probably be a good idea to make adjust copy, invention, and manufacturing times to scale with module size, and to then perhaps even improve the benefits of POS S&I Modules to ensure that there exists a fiscally sound reason to put your assets at risk at a POS!!!

The time efficiency bonus, on the other hand, can be very useful.

Dropping a 25 hour build to a 21 hour build means you can have one run per day. Rather than one per 2 days.

For example. (and the invention reduction from 2 hours, to 1 hour, pretty much doubles your invention throughput.)

Here's a wild suggestion.

• You want to standardize and simplify things by setting base 1-run copy time equal to 0.8 * base 1-run manufacturing time across the board. This ruins invention for many things.
• You want to raise the max copy runs of blueprints across the board, to go along with the new philosophy of "manufacture off BPCs, not BPOs". This ruins invention for many things.
• You don't want to ruin invention, and don't seem to care awfully much about stepping on T2 BPOs' toes.

Change the invention runs formula from the current, complicated

to

and simultaneously change the max runs per blueprint copy of all T2 BPOs to 10 / 1.

• This lets you play with T1 copy time almost as much as you want without stepping on invention's toes.
• This lets you raise the max copy runs of T1 blueprints however much you want without affecting invention as well.
• This simplifies invention's learning curve from "max-run copy these items, but only 1-run copy these other ones" to "copy everything just the same".
• This means T2 BPOs have to have their copy jobs babysat regularly if their owners want to safely manufacture at a POS, as opposed to in a station. Coincidentally, I own no T2 BPOs.

by moving the weight of the work from copying to invention, it requires a higher ratio of invention-skilled characters

Being able to only invent a single copy per slot is going to seriously reduce volume of T2 modules being manufactured.

Currently I can throw a max-run (100-run) copy into a invention job and tomorrow I have a 50% chance of a 10-run T2 BPC. This proposed change would mean that tomorrow I have a 50% chance of a 1-run T2 BPC and I still have 99 runs left on T1 copy.

Roll this out over 10 slots and I go from manufacturing 50 T2 items a day to only being able to manufacturing 5 items

Is build time with perfect TE research or an un-researched blueprint?

Just to make sure I've read the numbers right:

In this system:
I'm making Expanded Cargohold IIs. I have a character with 10 research, and 10 manufacturing slots.

I make ten 2 run copies - 1440 seconds. 48 minutes
I run 20 invention jobs - 97500 seconds. A little over 54 hours.
I get (for simplicity) 10 successful 10 run blueprints.
I run ten 10 run manufacturing jobs. - 180,000 seconds 2 Days, 2 hours.

so around 4 days or so, for 100 copies


As compared to:
I make 10 sets of 2 max runs copies. 7.5 hours (not how I'd do it in reality. I'd have an alt making 20 max run copies per slot)
I run 20 invention jobs (2 sets) . 5 hours.
I get 10 ten run copies.
I run 10 manufacturing jobs. 48000 seconds. ( 13 hours, 20 minutes)

I have 100 Expanded cargo holds.
Just over 24 hours

- Invention time is...
-- Total build time for the output (1 run for ships, 10 runs for mods in all cases)
-- Plus build time for the T1 feedstock
-- All divided by 2 to approximate a 50% failure rate in invention
-- Minus copy time (for one run)
-- And then fuzzed up or down up to 10% depending on rank, so some things are slightly more build-bound and some things slightly more research-bound

i THINK you misunderstood this. invention time in greyscales data already includes copy jobs and manufacturing.




that means 54 hours compared to 24 hours. still a significant change but much less than what you said.

we really need the stuff on SiSi in order to make good statements. naked data is always a bit hard to work with, especially if so many modifiers and new changes need to be kept in mind.

i THINK you misunderstood this. invention time in greyscales data already includes copy jobs and manufacturing.

one more thing we need to keep in mind:

skills (and lab boni !) need to be applied on TOP of greyscales data. those are significant. 20% manufacturing from Industry, 25% copy speed from Science, XX% invention time from the various labs (don't have the new numbers in mind)

In the data dump, is Max Research for either ME/TE or both ME/TE? I.e. should I be doubling or a perfect BPO?

some data (invention, research time) looks weird but that may have something to do with invention changes. as an example: torp launchers and tempests have almost the same invention times.

other than that, i had hoped for a bit more variety in the ranks. some items that are (or feel) more "advanced" than others could maybe use a higher rank, i am thinking about warfare links, bubble launchers, probe launchers, .... maybe anything that requires a special ship or maybe a skill that is only there for one module.

Is build time with perfect TE research or an un-researched blueprint?

I think build time in that draft table is without Industry skill applied and any TE research done.


CCP Greyscale - RIG BPO stats are right on the mark (all 314 of Tech1s and 314 of Tech2). Good job.

i THINK you misunderstood this. invention time in greyscales data already includes copy jobs and manufacturing.




that means 54 hours compared to 24 hours. still a significant change but much less than what you said.

we really need the stuff on SiSi in order to make good statements. naked data is always a bit hard to work with, especially if so many modifiers and new changes need to be kept in mind.

one more thing we need to keep in mind:

skills (and lab boni !) need to be applied on TOP of greyscales data. those are significant. 20% manufacturing from Industry, 25% copy speed from Science, XX% invention time from the various labs (don't have the new numbers in mind)

So I was right in thinking that for Expanded Cargohold IIs, you're increasing the time to create 100, by a factor of 4?



Granted, the invention time can be cut in half, taking it down to 27 hours. But that leaves a significant difference.

(just noticed I forgot to update a base figure in my stats. The 97500 should have been doubled. But I have it right for the human readable version. (54 hours))

the decryptor market is getting completely changed

Since I'm throwing out .csv's, have a comparison of the time-to-create / throughput of T2 inventables, without decryptor effects, POS effects, or other modifiers.
Looks like roughly half of the items will be "losers" and half "winners". I'll look at it more carefully tomorrow.

And just a quickie: there may be a legitimate error in the new data. Reverse Engineering can currently spit out T3 hull BPCs with 20 runs. Their max runs in the data though is getting changed to 1. The game might not like that.

Oh man, 90 day base invent time for a JF.

Definitely watching this space.

Greyscale - when can we expect to get this on sisi? A lot of us are simply tinkering with spreadsheets right now and holding back opinions until we can see this in action.

Could you generate that again, but assume a Symmetry decryptor is always used? It's much more realistic as Symmetry is so underpriced that using it increases ISK per hour on almost every profitable T2 invention job.

Considering that max run on BPC copied from T2 BPO will be1, it is safe to say that copy time can be similar to manufacturing time. Invention can get multiple multi-run BPCs but little worse ME (few % in new system) & keep it capability of mass production, while BPO can create only one run copies and loose benefits of multiple runs in new system thus only way to benefit from T2 BPO is actually to manufacture from it directly which again benefits from amarr factory outpost 0.65x production time bonus, teams and multiple run ME reduction same like it could from gallente outpost. Even today when copy time is just little longer then manufacturing time IMHO I didn't see T2 BPCs being created in gallente outpost in any substantial number or if any on contracts. so copy time = 3x manufacturing time is

Copy time should be 0.8x manuf. time and see what happens then in worst case readjust it in next patch.
Invention usually done in POS with all bonuses gets one copy 1-run or multiple run copy with decryptor in 12 hours and when we factor invention chance you will get more runs per single line from invention then by coping T2 BPO in same time not to mention you can run 10 lines per person with invention.


Invention is high volume & lossy while originals are low volume and lossless.
Invention is lower start investment better profit but more clicking, T2 BPO is high investment, better margin per line, less total profit but less clicking.
Balance. Well benefit is little on the side of invention.

T2 BPO are going the way of the Titan - slowly nerfing them and buffing everything around them, until they are pretty much useless.

Anything that's not a ship spits out a 10-run copy on success.

Suggestion: To adjust the TTM, adjust the output from a blueprint run to being multiple units. (and adjust the inputs accordingly)

This (as the system currently stands) would mean you could only refine modules if you had multiples of them, which is a probably undesired side effect, but that may not be a concern with how you're changing refining.


Ideally build time per unit shouldn't change significantly, as that has serious knock on effects on the market, which needs separate consideration. Increasing T2 build time, for example, will reduce demand for moon-goo, and increase price per module. (reducing the viable isk/hr won't encourage more people to make it.)

I've got it sized as a cruiser module right now I think, if that's what you mean?

(The 50mm is out of alignment because it only draws 1PG; I'm going to shift all the 0/1PG items so they're sized by slot, which should fix this along the way.)

[Edit] And by "cruiser" I mean "frigate", whoops.

I've got it sized as a cruiser module right now I think, if that's what you mean?

(The 50mm is out of alignment because it only draws 1PG; I'm going to shift all the 0/1PG items so they're sized by slot, which should fix this along the way.)

[Edit] And by "cruiser" I mean "frigate", whoops.

Just as an aside, what role do you imagine the 50mm plate to serve?

Same thing with small shield extenders, and such.

that's a question for module rebalancing, not for industry

T2 copy ratio of 3x is almost certainly way too high, I agree - I'm leaving it there for now because I want to keep it in a "safe" place until I can properly look at it. It may be that the way we deal with the Gallente outpost is just to nerf its copy speed bonus a bit :)

Also, those changes look good. Except for maybe how it relates jump freighters.

Right now JF manu is in a bad place due to only in-station production. The pos module to build them being unfucked is a significant step forward, please don't undo that beautiful long time coming fix! :)

I do see you mentioned it earlier so I'm glad they won't fall by the wayside. The market is "annoying" enough as it is.

I know, I can't help myself. But that's a long standing question I've had that I have had a hard time getting an answer to.

Note that I'm not saying "please fix this", just his opinion because I am genuinely curious.

If you adjust this downwards, don't forget to also adjust the copy speed of a T3 caldari outpost as well -- they can get 50% copy speed bonus at T3 along with their ME/PE bonus. Otherwise, you're just making gallente outposts the red-headed stepchild of outposts while not seriously affecting "maximum" copy speed.

If you are doing this big change to EVE industry, I thing that it is the right time to do something with T2 BPO and invention.

There is no way for player inventing T2 BPC and than manufacturing from it to be cheeper on the market than player who is manufacturing from T2 BPO. For long time I was trying to check market prices of needed materi+íls compared to product prices. There was no possibility to make some profit on it. So why should I loose time with something like this?

So I decided to check which T2 BPO was available before CCP changed it. Than I just choosed modules and ships which has no T2 BPO existing, because they came to the game after the T2 BPO change. I again tryed to check market prices of needed materials compared to product prices and now I saw, that there is some possibility for a little profit. So I started to invent and manufacture these modules / ships.

I guess 99% of players do this the same way I did.

Players who has T2 BPO rules market prices and nobody can manufacture even at the same cost as they do. So there is pointless to invent and manufacture anything for which T2 BPO exists in the game.

Mostly all the changes you make to the T2 instrustry will be pointless without removing balancing this issue.

So I suggest remove from the game all existing T2 BPOs. So there could be only one possibility to go through invention for T2 modules and ships. OR give to T2 BPC some boost - so Invention and manufacturing costs will be and same level as T2 BPO manufacturing costs.