| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
|
CCP Chronotis
   |
Posted - 2008.01.25 10:25:00 -
[1]
Amarr boost is coming in a future dev blog, lets keep this on topic 
Salvis; it is on our wishlist as well to at least let you enter multiple jobs at once.
Mack Dorgeans; though we disagree on how manufacturing process efficiency should work, your point is valid that manufacturing UI made easier so you know well in advance before the installation stage how much materials you will need.
Something we can look at is a new tool which lets you see an install quote without having the blueprint itself or having to go to the install stage of the process. Alongside more simpler changes like letting you know what materials you have and still need which all simplify what can be an overly complex process where it should not necessarily be. It is all on our wishlist.
clone 1; freighter invention will take into account decryptor runs bonuses in trinity 1.1 patch.
Gnulpie; we are still talking about moon mining and advanced material manufacturing. For now, keep any discussion on that to this thread and we promise to follow it and write a dev blog on it in the future 
The next dev blog kieron mentions is a break from the norm where we talk purely speculatively about one area we are looking at and I can follow that on with in a similar vein for moon materials and adv. manufacturing once we have looked into it a little more.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 14:24:00 -
[2]
Update on Manufacturing Waste Fix
This fix will not go out with the 1.1 patch but will a few weeks afterwards. The reason it is being slightly delayed is to bring in wider ranging ME changes which should also help relieve the empire NPC lab slot queues at the same time. More on that at a later stage.
So things will stay unchanged as they are a little longer now, though whilst its not ideal for things to go on too long as they are with more waste applying to larger batches and not smaller batches.
Comment on the Value of One Unit
The last few replies on the value of one unit and that at given quantities the rounding can in some cases benefit producers are correct. One unit can matter a great deal and that is why we want to make wider ranging changes to how certain groups of materials are treated when it comes to waste of different types. Certaintly in those cases, it is clear one formula will not realistically apply to all types of manufacturing.
What about extra materials?
To emphasize, we refer to 'raw materials' and not extra materials when it comes to waste, as waste does not apply to extra materials such as T1 items needed in T2 production for example for those who are getting a little confused by the general term 'waste' as we have three types of waste.
Materials should scale as a multiple of one batch suggestions
Several of you would like to see the requirements of one unit batches multiply by the number of runs so all waste is applied at the single run level and multiplied by runs. This idea has merit but removes the mass production factor for pure BP and skill waste modification only which really we do not see as being beneficial to producers of different scales. Nothing should be limited to the single unit producer, even if it makes the math easier for you though we are more inclined to make some UI overhauls so there is less need for manual calculations all the time.
Scaling installation cost by product groups
There was one idea to introduce greater variability in the installation costs and that is certainly something worth looking into to represent specialist facilities more like shipyards versus munitions factories rather than a one size fits all factory. Besides greater complexity for more advanced production it can be used as a method to scale the charges each facility might have for different types of manufacturing. It would be interesting to hear thought on using the installation costs as an extra factor
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 14:51:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Stormaar
May be some UI fixes will be implemented?
Not in the next patch as we are past deadlines for such changes now but it is on our wishlist for several changes such as more intelligent form filling (assemblyline location should default to blueprint location for example), showing you what you are missing and how much you still need when trying to install a job rather than just indicating something is missing only. Further afield, ability to install multiple jobs - they will still be handled as single jobs but installing them would be batched up so less clicking for you is the idea which I am hopeful for!
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 15:00:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Matthew
Interesting idea, though I would rather this just affect the fees, rather than actually fragmenting the factory capabilities in the way the different lab functions are split. Maybe just give each blueprint a fee multiplier property? The main issue will be balancing this against POS facilities.
Of course, before that is done, there really needs to be a review of the setting of NPC facility fees as a whole. The current fee levels are a historic snapshot from before the current S&I system, where a floating fee system, rather than a queuing system, was used to manage demand. This is far more noticable in lab rather than manufacturing slots, as factory slots rarely got to full usage and triggered a rise from the base slot cost.
This fee snapshot is now hopelessly out of date, both in terms of demand distribution, and more recent game developments, especially with the rise in use of POS facilities (which did not exist under the old system). Either the floating fees need to be reinstated (the option I prefer), or the fees need resetting in a structured, designed way.
the fees do need some rework and auto-balancing in there like the days of old. Fee multipliers by product group would need some more thought as to whether or not it actually has any benefit but I do think personally you should pay a little extra to produce ships than modules for example. The main problem currently is ME slots which really boil down to how ME works and personally i think this needs quite an extensive overhaul mainly in how BP waste, ME level and ME job time work.
My initial thoughts at this stage are looking at extending the diminishing return principle but also how waste applies to different categories of materials as I am not satisfied that the base quantity of a material determines whether or not it is affected by waste and comes back to how we handle one unit and cases where one unit matters and whether or not waste should really apply globally to all types.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 10:14:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Not in the next patch as we are past deadlines for such changes now but it is on our wishlist for several changes such as more intelligent form filling (assemblyline location should default to blueprint location for example)
Along those lines, changing "Blueprint Location" to "Usable from Blueprint Location" would be a great help. This is basically around the situation where you have the blueprint in a station corp hangar and wish to use it remotely in POS facilities within the same system. Currently you have to change the range filter to Solarsystem every time so that the POS arrays show up as options.
That is true, autofill a combo box to eligible facilities in range per blueprint would save quite a few clicks
Originally by: Matthew
Another potential benefit of making factory fees a noticable portion of build cost is that it would be a boost to PE research, which is very much the runt of the researching litter at the moment. Could be a way of pulling the balance a bit more even between ME and PE, rather than the dominant focus being on ME.
concur, currently the difference is 20% in build time which is not really significant to most products. Though would have to think a little over if there was a base hourly slot fee modifier per product group how it can be scaled properly. The product base cost is one possibility but will have to look into it more.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 08:46:00 -
[6]
Leandra, you're reading far too much into the analogy between our real world and very simple eve game mechanics but thank you for the precise definition Semantic debates aside, we are really disagreeing on the point that batch size is not a factor in waste calculations when they are and that mass production should be more or less efficient than single unit production.
There are however alternatives that can be used to mirror this and allow standard multiplication of materials like you want where we add something like an initial install cost to the assemblyline per job then a per hour rate both modified by the blueprint product group which is one area we are looking at. If that proves fruitful and beneficial, then we can look at changing the way waste is calculated and remove the runs variable. Though we are also looking further in depth at the whole ME system and the use of percentage modified units not really scaling too well or reflecting research in a nicer way than random according the the quantity of the material and not the material itself.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 17:27:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Chruker
What are the 3 types of waste?
The final calculation is the only one you folks really need to know, but its the variables that make up the last one have formula of their own (raw materials waste (bp waste as less accurately known), skill waste -> waste). It was a reference only that we can also affect the variable results in the final equation as well.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.03.09 15:00:00 -
[8]
A small update for manufacturers
We will be changing the manufacturing waste calculation so that the materials per unit will be the same regardless of the runs such that you should be able to multiply the blueprint info materials by your runs to get the materials required for the job. This changes both what occurred pre-trinity and occurs currently in trinity so will make your lives easier.
This change will come in Trinity 1.2 patch hopefully.
Looking beyond
I am following up on install cost and per hour cost in S&I jobs and would like to focus our intention to seeing how we can improve both of these to give much more significance to PE research, mass production considerations (install cost vs. per hour cost) and the type being produced to introduce an extra variable on the job costs.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 13:50:00 -
[9]
Originally by: clone 1
All I want is to be able to multiply the number of runs x minerals and have enough to make it. Why is that so difficult?
That is what will be happening in 1.2. The mass production efficiency and scaling will instead come from the job install and per hour costs in the future is the idea but for now, we will change the waste calculations to scale perfectly with runs.
I edited the blog to reflect the change as well now so hopefully less confusion all round.
|
|
| |
|