-- Invention now removes one run from the input copy
-- Some special-casing and fuzzing has been done in certain places to make numbers more interesting

For your first point, can I assume that to get a 1 run T2 ship BPC, I now need to use a T1 BPC with 2 runs? Or to get a 9 run T2 BPC, I use a 10 run T1 BPC? If so, what are decryptors for? Is there any point in them?

"Special-casing and fuzzing to make numbers more interesting"
I hope you mean this as a temporary solution and not a permanent one. Industry doesn't run on "interesting numbers". To produce an efficient chain, everything must be known to work out how much it will cost and what materials are required. If these numbers are permanent, I assume they will be in the SDE when it's released? If so, what about the equations surrounding these "fuzzy numbers"?

-- Copy should be 80% of build time

So, If I conduct TE research, should my copy time therefore decrease as well?

- No, invention literally just removes exactly one run from the copy during the invention job. All invention jobs now need one run. This is happening as we want to normalize copy time at 80% of build time; we've adjusted invention and build times so that end-to-end copy-invent-build times remain roughly constant.
- We're not fuzzing dynamically, we've just played with some static numbers to create a bit more variety. IIRC the main one is that larger items take slightly longer than you'd otherwise expect to invent, and smaller items take slightly shorter, so larger ones are more invention-bound and smaller ones more build-bound.

1. If that works how I'm thinking it does, that sounds good. So if I invent off a 10 run T1 BPC, when the invention finishes, I get the T1 BPC back but with 9 runs? That sounds like an excellent midstep towards being able to do batched invention or an invention job for more than 1 run :D
2. Also good. I can understand the need to slightly bend material requirements for smaller/larger things.

Does that mean that, exempting decryptor effects, it is no longer possible to get multi-run T2 BPCs from invention? Currently (Kronos) max-run T1 module BPCs yield 10-run T2 BPCs. If invention only yields 1-run T2 BPCs then there will be *many* more invention jobs in Crius. Am I misunderstanding something?

MDD

All invention jobs will spit out a max-run blueprint. Sorry, should've mentioned that, lots of plates spinning today :)

I used to invent 400 max run BPCs so far for my T2 module production. Do the changes mean I just need to invent BPCs worth 400 runs to get the same results I had before? And, will the datacores get cheaper since it seems that inventions use more now or did I just miss something here?

Can't resize width of Industry panel but can change height. Problem seeing 'End Date' field.
Currently have a job running ~21 days, 8K isk, Outcome RESEARCHED BLUEPRINT +0%. Industry interface should not have started this job.

Questions to do with UI are definitely better off in the Manufacturing thread, I'll ask Ytterbium to rename that one.



I don't follow exactly what you're asking here WRT 400, sorry.

Allright, I'll try to explain it :-)

So far, whenever I wanted to start a new batch of production I copied BPOs until I had 400 BPCs with 300 runs each. I'm inventing them and at the end I'll get somewhere between 160 and 180 T2 BPCs with 10 runs each. And this is where my question starts. At the top you wrote that invention runs now remove a run from the input copy. So, if I use one character with 10 slots for my inventions now, I would just need 10 BPCs with 40 runs each to end up with 160 to 180 T2 BPCs with 10 runs in the end like before?

Allright, I'll try to explain it :-)

So far, whenever I wanted to start a new batch of production I copied BPOs until I had 400 BPCs with 300 runs each. I'm inventing them and at the end I'll get somewhere between 160 and 180 T2 BPCs with 10 runs each. And this is where my question starts. At the top you wrote that invention runs now remove a run from the input copy. So, if I use one character with 10 slots for my inventions now, I would just need 10 BPCs with 40 runs each to end up with 160 to 180 T2 BPCs with 10 runs in the end like before?

IF you are increasing the ME +2 of base invented bpc's and are increasing the materials to compensate for less waste, will you be converting existing t2 bpc's on July22.

And if you increase the materials of existing t2 bpc.s will you alter the ME to match..though I wonder if I am asking a dumb question and it doesn't matter if the end result is the same.

Greyscale, are bpcs that are having their max runs upped getting changed in the patch too?

Aka if the max run before was 5 and gets changed to 10, after patch will they still be 5 or will they get 5 additional runs?

To check if the numbers on Sisi are roughly correct I took my ME 10 Coercer on Sisi and compared it with TQ numbers today.

http://i.imgur.com/AQS0tXl.png

Seems like my ME 10 Coercer consumes more material than an old ME 0 that had 10% waste. :D

Some quick feedback:

1. -


2. -


3. Applying a team with bonus to destroyer ME does not change my mineral consumption at all for my Coercer BPO at ME 10. Is there a hard limit at 10% that hasn't been mentioned?

ME/TE Research Times are extremely wrong,

Uhm, the BPO shows the numbers above, BUT the new UI shows the correct amount of consumed materials when taking ME into account. So maybe it is down to "show info" giving old info? :)

(Probably all) T2 Blueprints, original and copy, require the T1 item 2 times. This is about to be adjusted, right?

(and may have been reported elsewhere already?)

Yeah this is a known issue, we will get it fixed shortly.

-- T2 items currently require 2x the T1 item; this is incorrect and will be fixed soon

This might be normal for the test server, so I am not sure it is even an issue or not. All bpo my corp had in research at towers are gone? I know their are no towers on sisi, but I figured those bpo would drop back into corp hangars?

Regards

second screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/k9mtAln.jpg
- all material requirement are roughly 50% higher than live, is this related to the 1.5x change, will it apply to BPO's?
- not all materials are represented, nocxium got left out.

Unable to install job due to the following reasons:
The job cost has changed

---

Error.MISMATCH_COST (206204, 4443)

Is there any logic behind the significantly reduced build times on T2 products? Coupled with the higher baseline TE level, and most 10 run blueprints last less than several hours instead of multiple days on the production lines (some, like large ammo last less than a day instead of weeks).

Is anyone else worried about the lowered times leading to massively reduced margins on most products? Part of why much of the T2 market maintains solid margins (unlike their T1 counterparts) is because they take time to build. If you take that time component out of the picture, you're left with a flood of supply against the same demand currently experienced on live.

I am also worried about lowered times leading to massively reduced margins on most modules. It's nice to have someone else make me feel less like a crazy person.

Is there any logic behind the significantly reduced build times on T2 products? Coupled with the higher baseline TE level, and most 10 run blueprints last less than several hours instead of multiple days on the production lines (some, like large ammo last less than a day instead of weeks).

Is anyone else worried about the lowered times leading to massively reduced margins on most products? Part of why much of the T2 market maintains solid margins (unlike their T1 counterparts) is because they take time to build. If you take that time component out of the picture, you're left with a flood of supply against the same demand currently experienced on live.

Most T2 items were kept at roughly the same TTM. Large T2 ammo was apparently not. Do remember to note when looking at other items, that invention+copying time matters just as much as manufacturing time for T2 production.

Unable to install job due to the following reasons:
Insufficient funds to pay job cost
The job cost has changed
The facility tax rates have changed

---

Error.ACCOUNT_FUNDS (0.0, 259)
Error.MISMATCH_COST (2877, 235)
Error.MISMATCH_TAX (288, 24)

Question, when does the partly-used BPC get returned? At the commencement of the job or the conclusion? (In other words, can a single 10 run Vexor BPC be used for 10 simultaneous Ishtar invention jobs, or would they need to be end-to-end?)

Copying doesn't seem to work:



Skills are definitely there, funds are also there, I am in the same station as the copy slot.

Mismatch is a known issue and should be fixed with an update today. I am looking into the account funds error. Is this a corporation or personal job? If it is a corp job try changing your default wallet division?

Went to see how the changes impacted existing T2 BPO's and it looks really wrong(only checked with an ishtar)?


first screen shot shows : http://i.imgur.com/FUzC34k.jpg
-TL/newPL is showing greater than 10, build time over 40% higher than live(unless t2 production time across the board are being increased)
- verified above with other T2 BPOS such as Berserker II BPO, its build time is under its copy time, seems like TE is on a 1-20 scale and not 1-10? build times are also higher than live.
-Copy time is not 80% less than build time, is greater than build times.
-max copy's is set to one for ships, intentional limit? all t2 module,ammo and drone BPO's are set to 10.

second screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/k9mtAln.jpg
- all material requirement are roughly 50% higher than live, is this related to the 1.5x change, will it apply to BPO's?
- not all materials are represented, nocxium got left out.

Spun up SISI and tried to invent out of a design lab. I wasn't able to select an output, or none came up. Was using 10mn afterburner bpc, as I had some lieing around. All mats in the appropriate slot, and everything blue up to the end. Might just be user error, but if so, the system is pretty non-intuitive.

Past that, I see that having the actual TTM in front of me confirms my maths on the matter. Module TTM is getting a huge shrink. So while the interface changes seem positive and intuitive, the incentive to actually build modules is probably going to disappear!

I really hope you guys will take another look at what you're doing to the amount of work available globally before finalizing the numbers.

Something like multiplying module demand at market (which shouldn't be affected by changes) by the TTM hours. I really don't think it makes sense for my small production corporation to be able to supply all of the adaptive invul II's used in the entire game without breaking a sweat... I think concerns of a labor shortage aren't going to be very well founded, considering that any shortage of labor will pump up the pay-check for builders and create a natural incentive for more to enter the field.

At the very least, please feel open to liberally revisiting TTM and changing it aggressively as needed. Its my opinion that the TTM stat is going to be the most directly linked to the amount of people who use production in New Eden, and that with the Crius changes you've got it tuned down to 3. Pump that sucker up to 11!

The invention changes are interesting. Less messing around with ridiculous numbers of BPCs is a good thing (I have over 5000 at my invention hub and that only services two characters). Best is the change favoring multiple run ship BPCs.

Question, when does the partly-used BPC get returned? At the commencement of the job or the conclusion? (In other words, can a single 10 run Vexor BPC be used for 10 simultaneous Ishtar invention jobs, or would they need to be end-to-end?)


Secondly, the increased material coefficient of 5/3 for t2 is going to break the market for expensive T2 products (HACs and larger) as badly as the increased material increases broke production of Brutix hulls. The present cost to build an Ishtar is not 150% of baseline materials, it is either 130% and ~1.6 Incognito Accelerants, or 120% and ~3.2 Incognito Process. This is being increased to ~150%, a big jump.

Ishtars will be sorted out fast because demand is so high, but I do not expect we will see other ships buildable for a long time.

The new max research times seem a little over the top.

Example: Abbadon
From ME0 to ME10 it shows 2453 days (about 6! years!). Given i only have Metallurgy 4, i can shove off another 5% it still is way to long for newer players.

Someone who starts manufacturing after crius could never hope to match someone who started before and got their blueprint converted to new ME10. You talked about difficulties with the NPE on Fanfest, please look at this again, or you would basically recreate a new form of T2 blueprints for everyone that started manufacturing before crius. Manufacturing should be decided by proper production lineup, logistics and skill. Not luck with your starting date of playing eve.

Uhm, the BPO shows the numbers above, BUT the new UI shows the correct amount of consumed materials when taking ME into account. So maybe it is down to "show info" giving old info? :)

ME/TE Research Times are extremely wrong, a rank 1 Blueprint currently takes 38 days to fully research, instead of 3. (I also understand what is going wrong, basically you are adding the numbers, both in terms of runs (instead of subtracting them) and in terms of levels (instead of only taking the number for the highest research level), which then produces some extremely big numbers) The research time for ME 0% -> ME 1% or TE 0% -> TE 2% is calculated correctly thoug...

Invention of Gyrostabalizers is showing as requiring 40 of each datacore type. Is it assuming I want to do 20 invention runs off this max-copy BPC, is something borked, or did I miss a change. I've done a bit of hunting, but I was busy with RL when the blueprint changes thread was active, so may have missed it.

thanks.

Research time has some confirmed math kinks, looking into them.

Better error messages will ofc be forthcoming!

I'll ask this here again since it's primarily a research issue and maybe a UI thing.

Why is a reduction of something indicated with a plus sign and an increase of something indicated with a minus sign? Surely it should be the other way around? I'm trying to come up with a logical train of thought to end up at the current system but I'm having a really really hard time.

@ CCP: Please consider doing something about the insane scaling of research time on the bigger, slower blueprints:

As an example, take any capital ship BPO and compare a BP researched to ME5 to a ME10 under the current system. The difference in manufacturing material cost is typically very small and with linear time anyone can research just as far.

Under the new system, the difference in cost is suddenly very pronounced, and at the same time, reaching the higher research levels has become basically impossible due to the geometric time scaling and is also much more costly.
Basically this gives a huge advantage for the older industrials with already well researched BPs and makes the entry much more difficult for new players. Malcanis law applies once more. And I thought we were trying to avoid T2 BPO-like situations...

Silly me!

I haven't looked into research and invention but if I get this right, the outcome of a tech2 copy is based on the runs of the tech1 copy.

Now on Tranquility we have decryptors that give us better ME and or PE on the tech2 copy but they also give +x runs on copy.

Question is, are decryptors staying or do they go away?

Decryptors stay, they're likely not getting a balance pass just yet so the balance will be rather skewed for a few months.

Which bits specifically are you referring to here?

Blueprint research will then be moved to a ten-step system. Each step of ME research will reduce material requirements on that blueprint by 1%, and each step of TE research will reduce manufacturing time on that blueprint by 2%. These values will be displayed as their actual percentages, rather than their step numbers, so a blueprint that has been researched six times in each will show as ME 6% and TE 12%.

Basically the indicators that show level of research on a blueprint. But specifically the way they are displayed in the industry window.

http://imgur.com/DzOvJyP

The two research indicators to the right of the blueprint. The first one indicates a reduction in production time. But this reduction is shown to be +20%. How does +20% become something positive?

Same thing for the material efficiency. The way anyone random player would read this is that it ADDS to the production time and materials instead of reduces. It's very confusing.

From the related dev blog:



So a blueprint researched to level 10 has a 10% reduction in material. Why is this reduction not simply shown as a blue -10% in the industry window, and a red +4% in the case of T2 BPC's?

Also I agree with a comment made a few posts back, switch around the TE and ME indicators so that ME is on top. It's the most important value out of the two.

Greyscale, some suggestions for the future of decryptors.

Note that I am heavily invested in decryptors currently (mostly Parity and Symmetry) due to my perceptions of the presently planned changes and their impact. I'll try to make the feedback unbiased, but you are hearing from someone who has 5% of their NAV invested in Symmetry decryptors now.


Decryptors currently have two throughput stats (+max runs, most important on ships/rigs, and +% invention chance, equally valuable everywhere). Consolidate these to one in future.
There is the %materials stat. This is the dominant factor in pre-Crius production (it's much more important than anything else) but loses about 85% of its value with Crius. Increase the importance of this in future, at least to the point that Process decryptors are the best choice for Marauders again.
Then there is the % production time stat. Relevant but not important now, trivial value after Crius. This should be increased numerically by a significant factor.
Finally, I think your planned rebalance should add a multiplier for invention job time, and at least one decryptor that prevents you consuming a BPC at all for the job.

Decryptors stay, they're likely not getting a balance pass just yet so the balance will be rather skewed for a few months.

The Decryptors who previously gave a + X TE bonus now give a "+ X % Time Efficiency" bonus, so with decryptors you can now also have odd numbers for the TE stat? (With researching you can only get even numbers)

Is this a bug?

I keep getting this facility error when attempting to do an invention job at a Design Laboratory

Facility Error

I cannot invent warp scramblers http://i.imgur.com/7HN2he9.png am I doing something wrong?

yes cos that makes sense

Passed this on to UI people, thanks for the input :)

All invention jobs will spit out a max-run blueprint. Sorry, should've mentioned that, lots of plates spinning today :)

All invention jobs will spit out a max-run blueprint. Sorry, should've mentioned that, lots of plates spinning today :)

All invention jobs will spit out a max-run blueprint. Sorry, should've mentioned that, lots of plates spinning today :)

Do you mean this as in T2 BPO info for max runs or the current max outputs (10% of T2 BPO's). Eg, would an Anshar BPC be 10 runs?

1. If that works how I'm thinking it does, that sounds good. So if I invent off a 10 run T1 BPC, when the invention finishes, I get the T1 BPC back but with 9 runs? That sounds like an excellent midstep towards being able to do batched invention or an invention job for more than 1 run :D
2. Also good. I can understand the need to slightly bend material requirements for smaller/larger things.

Research time has some confirmed math kinks, looking into them.

Better error messages will ofc be forthcoming!

We are still looking at this but I can confirm the output runs on invented blueprints is not correct. Will get this fixed next week.

Sooo.....hows that inbeded QA working for you guys? Did nobody even think to attempt a research job before they called this thing ready? How does this stuff get past QA anyways?

We are still looking at this but I can confirm the output runs on invented blueprints is not correct. Will get this fixed next week.

Forgive the bluntness...but this (after all the previous "Yeah that is broken, we'll look into it" replies) begs the question...

What of the research portion of this new mess IS correct? What is the point of putting something on the test server that hasn't even been partially tested by the teams involved. Research times are wrong, copy costs are wrong, invention stuffs are wrong..ect...

I understand it is a "test server"....but is that really supposed to mean that nothing has been tested at all prior to it being thrown onto SiSi? Because when this happens...we have to wait yet another week, in the already short time left, to find the actual bugs related to this massive change.

That is my point. In most workplaces these type of deployments would be worthy of disciplinary action. (maybe that is what part of the housecleaning was?)

And no, Beta testing CCP's products is not related to SiSi....TQ gets more than its fair share of fail deployments that are the beta versions of the concepts CCP is trying for. (really amazed and thankful they actually thought about deploying this two weeks ago)

I actually think it's pretty worrying that you initially planned to release this, in its grand buggyness state, with Kronos. You know, almost 2 weeks ago. I mean, if not even the values of things are correct on SiSi NOW, how did you guys ever expect to get this working properly in time for Kronos? It kinda baffles my mind, really.

I actually think it's pretty worrying that you initially planned to release this, in its grand buggyness state, with Kronos. You know, almost 2 weeks ago. I mean, if not even the values of things are correct on SiSi NOW, how did you guys ever expect to get this working properly in time for Kronos? It kinda baffles my mind, really.

We originally planned to release this with Kronos about 6 months ago. It wasn't ready so our plans changed.

The scope of this release makes it an almost impossible task to predict how long it will actually take with any accuracy, hence the recent change in release model which allows us to work on something and choose the release date when we are much closer to finishing.

Just finished some invention jobs, and I seem to have been quite unlucky, none of them was a success. I never liked the way invention results were presented in the old system, but no feedback at all whether an invention was successful or not is just as bad.
So, a way to see the result of an invention would be good, either visually on the delivery button or the job window, even if it's just a "success"/"failure".

Just finished some invention jobs, and I seem to have been quite unlucky, none of them was a success. I never liked the way invention results were presented in the old system, but no feedback at all whether an invention was successful or not is just as bad.
So, a way to see the result of an invention would be good, either visually on the delivery button or the job window, even if it's just a "success"/"failure".

Regarding the state of the build:
- This is the earliest something this large has been on SiSi in a very long time. As Nullabor said, SiSi was made available almost immediately after Kronos, and we wanted to start collecting public feedback as fast as possible
- The code running on SiSi is our nightly development build. It's not a sanitized, polished setup, it's literally "what we did yesterday". Internal testing is happening in parallel to stuff being deployed onto SiSi
- We are (I believe!) still comfortably confident that everything will be ready in time for the scheduled Crius release; a lot of things are broken right now but they are in general superficially broken and comparatively easy to fix. We don't have any big, risky features to implement or fixes to work on.
- The proof will of course be in the pudding, but given the current situation we do not feel it is productive to spend time discussing whether or not we will be ready in five weeks in these threads, so we ask that you focus your feedback on the specifics of what features are working how on SiSi right now rather than expressing your professional judgements as to the likely state of our codebase in five weeks' time. Thanks :)

Noted. But please take away from this the realization that you (CCP) failed with "expectation management" of the (current) state of Crius on Sisi. I haven't spent any time analyzing that failure and therefore don't have any advice for you.

MDD

Then why are you in here bitching? Seriously, you aren't giving any feedback on anything at all and said yourself you haven't bothered looking at things. Go play TQ for a bit, chill, relax, have a great day, then come back here when you have thought of something to test and try and report on.

And on another note, try and have a good day MDD.

Sooo.....hows that inbeded QA working for you guys? Did nobody even think to attempt a research job before they called this thing ready? How does this stuff get past QA anyways?

...expressing your professional judgements as to the likely state of our codebase in five weeks' time.

CCP Greyscale has a sneaky, yet powerful, pimp hand.

OT: I'm just going to wait until Crius rolls out and then see what the plans for decryptors are since it doesn't seem like they're going to make it into this build (no problem, a brief delay in aligning game mechanics isn't a big deal to me). Given the currently strong connection between invention and decryptors in the current game design, I'm not sure I can really accurately assess how well the changes for invention work without knowing what the decryptors are going to end up doing.

Keep up the good work, unreasonable expectations be damned.

Noted. But please take away from this the realization that you (CCP) failed with "expectation management" of the (current) state of Crius on Sisi. I haven't spent any time analyzing that failure and therefore don't have any advice for you.

MDD

Question in regards to ME/TE research times I know ( as of last I played on SiSi yesterday at least ) that they were still fudged. However, what numbers ARE you trying for CCP Greyscale? Could you give us the maths that you are wanting to use ( or are they posted elsewhere and I have missed it? )

At least that way we can make sure there aren't any obvious bugs when they do get fixed on SiSi.

invention doesn't seem to be working at all.

i'm trying to do some capital t2 trimarks as a test to see what decryptors do, however currently I am getting a 0% invention chance regardless of what decryptor (or lack thereof) I am using due to a -100% invention success chance bonus from the blueprint copy. That was freshly made on sisi.

Can I get some visibility on this?

In the summer release, all base build costs will be increased by 11%. ME will then reduce build costs by 10% of that new base value, which brings us back to where we started. The rest of this blog is working from that new, higher base.

What about blueprints who exist only in a bpc version ? (booster, ancilary, microjump etc...)

is it intended that the price of theses item is increases and there is nothing we can do about it ?

I've tryed, again, to invent some T2 Bpc.

On live, I consume a max run BPC to create, in the case of modules, a 10-12 run T2 BPC.

On the test server I consume a single run of the BPC to create a 1 run T2 BPC, however, I use the same amount of datacores. Is this intented? Wont this increase massively the cost of datacores and consequentially the cost of T2 mods? Have I missed some DEV explaination to this?

P.s. I'm quite aware this wont matter if you are inventing ships or anything else that used single runs BPC.

Thanks in advance.

Can someone answer this thanks.I have the same issue.

Are you still intending to remove the option of POS Reserching BPO that are in station?

That is correct. In order to do something with a BPO/BPC, it has to be wherever the activity is going to be conducted. If you want to research a BPO in HS for instance, you either have to do it in a POS lab (and have the BPO physically located there) or you have to research it at a NPC station with research capabilities.

Is this still up for debate?

Is this still up for debate?

OK anyway one thing that i don't get. Is it going to cost isk to reserch in your own pos?

OK anyway one thing that i don't get. Is it going to cost isk to reserch in your own pos?

So if you want a low price on your POS reserch, you need to find a system without research agents for starters?

Very unlikely to change at this point. Removing it means we can always assume that the job is happening where the blueprint currently is. If we break that link, we need to make a major change to the codebase to support blueprint and job in different locations, and that'd be adding a lot of work and risk very close to the release.

[quote=CCP Greyscale]
So it's a not a balancing thing? Basically, it's a change because code? That means that there's a chance we might get it back later after you're done mucking up reworking the system?

that ship has sailed. stop waving at it.

Not sure if it has been answered already or not, but what is happening to those players Skills that specifically trained for Remote research so they can use a POS and keep the BPO's in a outpost/station? Now that you are taking abilities away from the point of having trained that remote skill up, is something being done with the skill or are players going to get reimbursed SP for a now useless skill since it is wiser to keep the BPO safe in a station.

I have a question, i can get level 10 ME Research on small rigs, almost all of them have under 9 units of less of each material. Why am i able to do ME research on this rings?

So if you want a low price on your POS reserch, you need to find a system without research agents for starters?

Uhm, what? Research agents has nothing to do with researching ME/TE in your own POS; despite both having "research" in their activity name.

(except for the weird special case of "whole and single" items they reintroduced for no sane reason)

Unless this leads to a major expansion of invent-to-sell, the actual throughput of invention should not significantly change as a result of shorter copy times.

-- Invention now removes one run from the input copy

Invention of T2 ships, specifically the Rapier, it says max runs per Blueprint Copy is 1???

I used the Optimized Cryptic Attainment, which should have given me 3 runs (+2)

BPC are still in my hangar if you need to look.


Also, as some feedback regarding the UI. I do NOT like the way that it doesn't tell you the results of your invention when you deliver it.

Personally, if it told us whether it was successful or not after we installed it, that would be fine with me, especially since we don't have to worry about slots anymore.

By the way, it would be nice if you:

a) Put out a research devblog with all the current changes
b) updated the original post in this thread with all known issues and their current status

So it's a not a balancing thing? Basically, it's a change because code? That means that there's a chance we might get it back later after you're done mucking up reworking the system?

The special case is to deal with things like:

I make 10 Paladins, I require 9 Armageddons.

It's something which would skew the market more than desired.

Basic algorithm:

required = max(runs,ceiling(runs*base material requirement* ME modifiers from the blueprint and arrays and so on))

This happens to be a huge change to Invention. Can you CCP Grayscale talk more about how these changes will affect the graph you put up in the first industry dev blog https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/building-better-worlds/ ?
Changing the Invention to use fewer total bpc, and encouraging the use of max run copy jobs or whatever point it will balance out to through use, seems to indicate that increasing the number of jobs interacted with on a daily basis is not a goal despite being the implication of the very first paragraph of your dev blog.

" You can see below that more than 50,000 characters use manufacturing and invention on a daily basis. Other industry activities, like research ME, PE, copying and reverse engineering only are a fraction of that number. That is the main reason why, for EVE's summer release, we are going to focus our efforts on industry as a whole."

With the higher levels of ME taking significantly longer then the lower levels, once the job is installed for them there will be no interaction, and with the loss of granularity it will be harder to justify researching things to level ten. or putting something in for a few levels when waiting for something else to complete. These bpos will sit fallow if there is any expectation that they will need to get used in the next month.
Net : Fewer ME jobs.

Similar to Material Efficiency, Time or PE will take a similar hit to jobs, as mid level PE will be deemed "optimal" because of the way that PE scales. Just as before the patch 1-3 was optimal on most blueprints, Three to five will in most cases be optimal PE levels after.
Net : Similar low numbers of PE jobs

With the changes to copying, long max run jobs (with smaller numbers of copies ) will be the norm as invention can take place running down the existing multi run bpc. More total invention jobs will occur, but fewer copy jobs will be necessary to maintain the same output. I expect that with the removal of slots, similar numbers of copy jobs will be started. because fewer will be necessary to support existing levels of invention, more invention will occur.
Tied to this is the Datacore changes introduced in the Factional warfare changes, With there no longer being a standings grind for research agents or a time sink for research points, There is virtually no limiting factor to invention as alt fw plexing is already a thing, and complained loudly about.
Net : Similar copy, More invention jobs

Reverse engineering Is a special beast, as the parts for it are not player made and / or the jobs themselves are dependent on the items being found to be invented. Reverse engineering cannot support the same type of expansion that other research jobs can, they simply aren't scalable the same way.
Net : these changes do nothing to change Reverse engineering job numbers. There will be more batching as reverse engineering labs are currently artificially restrictive, but since they are from found items the jobs will be batched more and less everyday occurrences then before. being able to run all available lab slits concurrently will mean that reverse engineering labs will be onlined for several hours one day and offline for the vast majority of the rest of the time.

None of the proposed changes decrease the complexity of Research as job costs change daily due to cost scalings with ME and PE being affected by timed team influence. Reduced granularity reduces competitive options for industrialists and gives established industrialists a significant boost over those just starting.
There are no fixes for handling large numbers of bpc,
there are no positive changes to pos or corp roles that reduce the vulnerability of assets being stolen with a significant reduction in security from the loss of remote bpo to pos research.
Moving materials has taken a hit from the freighter, JF fuel and compression changes.

The Industry window itself is less informative then it used to be, with fewer instantly visible indicators of material shortages (it says you are short through red lines, but not by how much until you hit the rollover which cannot be copied or made to stay while moving assets in other windows). It is not scalable and the giant pulsing sphincter cannot be collapsed or closed while taking more then half the window in noninformative graphics. The blueprint section of the window does not have enough screenspace as it is, because of the giant graphics associated with it, and does not have a left-right scroll bar despite having many things that will vanish off to the right of the panel. Prospective teams window cannot be open at the same time as currently active teams or blueprints, something which would be useful for planning jobs or finding out what is available to be built by the player. There is a five line scroll bar for six items. Blueprint locations are available only through another drop down scroll bar and not through a window or static list

So far nothing actually works correctly on SISi,

CCP Grayscale. What is going on? Each individual project seems that it could fix one of the industry issues, but taken all together they do more damage then the initial problem.

There are design reasons for doing it, but the code changes involved in changing that design decision a non-starter at this point even if we wanted to (which we don't) :)

This is exactly the sort of thing that we're trying, where possible, to cut down in this release, precisely so we can make time for what we believe to be more interesting decisions such as "am I still doing industry in the correct place, or should I consider moving, or should I try and reshape my system so it stays optimal?". We want to create more decisions, not more clicks.

That's bogus. There is no point in moving your double digit billion ISK assets around every week or even more frequently. The only thing you achieve with that is to generate easy PVP content and frustration because your system, as it is now, is utterly vulnerable to manipulation and exploits, and, for instance, if you bid on a team and someone drives the prices higher and higher, there's not even a way to pull back out. It will also make it a lot easier to harass people, who actually won their team (as useless as it maybe) for their system, by driving cost of production/science up until everything you to do in this system turns into a loss of a lot of money from you. That is your vision of "making meaningful and more interesting decisions"?

I don't even want to start with the corp hangar theft problem. Cooperation in EVE is as toxic as it can possibly get, there is no trust in this game and every person you put an ounce of trust in, is just someone who hasn't backstabbed, assaulted and robbed you yet. And in this environment I should grant access for others to my assets, which I amassed through hard labor and risking their theft for absolutely no rewards or gains from this sharing? What you (CCP in general) do is causing more hassle, more frustration and more 1-man corps instead of more interaction and cooperation. You take away safety and expect people to share more of their expensive assets. You cause people to split up work even more. You cause the lockup of your personal BPOs in your own 1-man corp, copying from them all the time and then handing out the copies to other alliance members (yes, alliance members, not corp members in order to remove the theft risk and the usage of a system that, according to CCP, doesn't even exist in the game's code), causing more load for some and less for others, more unnecessary complexity and usage of an utterly outdated and terrible system (namely POS), instead of fixing or replacing this POS/corporation code abomination with something new, easier to understand and to access and better usable.

There are so many areas in the game that are used for industry and that would have needed improvements or replacement, before you throw more people into these ruins. And what does CCP do? Create more ruins and overpopulate existing ruins.

The goal with movement is that it's a question you're asking frequently but only acting upon occasionally. We know that people don't want to move large operations regularly.

We know that corp management needs an overhaul, that's why we have "overhaul corp management" high up on our to-do list.

So how about delay this impending disaster, fix corp management FIRST, then look at this industry mess?
Why is it so crucial to get the industry overhaul done before sorting out corp mechanics, which are critical to having these proposed industry changes function?

An actual question: is there a timeline on when the invention revamp is going to come? I was under the impression it was initially scheduled for Crius back when the initial industry changes were Kronos. Is it just vaugely scheduled for "SoonTM" or is it vaugely scheduled for the patch after Crius?

basically I want to know how much optimization and investment I should be doing for the Crius invention mechanics or if I should basically plan to muddle through and invest in doing the new mechanics right

because corp mechanics are not at all critical to having these industry changes function

Current plan is to start work on it more-or-less immediately after Crius. Exactly which release it will ship in depends on how much we decide to change and how long it takes to get it into a good state :) This is the way a lot of things are going to be with the new development process - we can talk about what order we plan to start doing things in, but not so easily when they'll be done.

Um...in your null sec nirvana, trust issues are not a big deal because of the structure of your groups of people, and the strict control of who will be allowed to handle your BPO's.

In the rest of the Eve universe, corp mechanics are a massive impediment with regard to these proposed changes.

Um...in your null sec nirvana, trust issues are not a big deal because of the structure of your groups of people, and the strict control of who will be allowed to handle your BPO's.

In the rest of the Eve universe, corp mechanics are a massive impediment with regard to these proposed changes.

Greyscale, while we've got your attention, could you please clarify the exact conversion formula for TQ BPCs with negative ME to the new system? I saw that it's balanced around +2/+4, but -4/-4 BPCs are being converted up to +6/+14, and -1/-1 to +9/+18, rather than +2 & + 5 respectively.

Edit: On a closely related topic, what are the current thoughts on reimbursement for highly-researched BPOs (it was discussed for a while, then the topic was abandoned), and upon the extreme time scaling for ME 9 / 10 research under the new system? It would be unfortunate indeed if practical considerations led to effective 'legacy' ME 10 BPOs whereby it was unrealistic to ever create a new ME 10 Archon / Wyvern / etc BPO (Which I have seen on TQ), granting old vets a monopoly on the best production methods because new players couldn't catch up even after investing a similar amount of research time.

Edit2:
Have you carefully considered the implications of the discount for multiple runs on T2 ship production? There is the known application for T2 BPO holders, but under the new system where Process won't necessarily be the only viable decryptor for this purpose, an optimized augmentation decryptor would allow for 8-run JF BPCs, which comes in close to a 10% reduction in materials consumption versus eight single run BPCs. If you genuinely don't want to further centralize production of high-end T2 ships into the hands of those with enough capital to do eight-run JF jobs, this may merit consideration.

if your concerns are based on those raised by the original blog I'd appreciate if you'd revisit the new numbers and give feedback on those.

The batch discount for inherently long-running jobs is a thing that needs further looking at, it's probably too powerful right now.

The only thing you achieve with that is to generate easy PVP content and frustration because your system, as it is now, is utterly vulnerable to manipulation and exploits, and, for instance, if you bid on a team and someone drives the prices higher and higher, there's not even a way to pull back out. It will also make it a lot easier to harass people, who actually won their team (as useless as it maybe) for their system, by driving cost of production/science up until everything you to do in this system turns into a loss of a lot of money from you. That is your vision of "making meaningful and more interesting decisions"?

because corp mechanics are not at all critical to having these industry changes function

But going after everyone in a system that has won a nice team? Oh, THAT will happen for sure. Bid on a nice Battleship/marauder team and people will know what you are doing and where you are doing it. :)
This aspect I do like.

Hi everyone! Pls comment on this situation:

1) Capital Titanium Diborite Armor Plate Blueprint

Tranq:
PE=133
TE=20

Materials:
Sylramic Fibers - 1501
Titanium Carbide - 2001

Sing:
PE=10
TE=20

Materials:
Sylramic Fibers - 1682
Titanium Carbide - 2242

It's a new near perfect BPO? It's a wasted time!! And so in all perfect or near perfect BPO! All perfect BPO with PE=10 use more materials than it is now.

2) Corp POS labs are not visible in the list available for use