| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Noelle Fay
   |
Posted - 2008.01.27 11:49:00 -
[61]
Amarr boost in the future?
Yeehaw... They seriously need it. Let us enslave some minnies again!
The secret to success, whether it's women or money, is knowing when to quit. I oughta know: I'm divorced and broke. |
BoB Peon
Caldari
Stop Posting on COAD You Tards
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 16:31:00 -
[62]
When are you going to follow through with your promise to remove static content like asteroid belts? How about that cloaking nerf we were promised last summer? Where is the speed we needed? When are you going to make pos battles fun?
- Lagging in delve
Goon Leadership says: REMEMBER 46DP! |
Franga
NQX Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 16:41:00 -
[63]
Good, good.
 Originally by: Rachel Vend
... with 100% reliability in most cases ...
General Aesthetics Changes Thread |
Grimpak
Gallente
Trinity Nova
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 00:40:00 -
[64]
so where's hammer's blog?
---
planetary interaction idea! |
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 14:24:00 -
[65]
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
|
|
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 10:49:00 -
[66]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
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.
Interesting. Look forward to seeing what you have in mind.
Also, while better in-game tools for calculating build costs would be welcome, please don't forget the wide array of 3rd party spreadsheets and tools, on which many producers rely, and you will not reasonably be able to replace completely with in-game functionality. The recent change in rounding was fairly easy to reverse-engineer, but what you're now describing seems like a much bigger change that will be far harder to adapt to if we are left blind to it.
So by all means tweak and change the waste formula, but do please tell us what the new formula is, and exactly what it does and doesn't apply to (preferably specifying it using information available in the public db dump).
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
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
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.
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Stormaar
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 13:54:00 -
[67]
May be some UI fixes will be implemented?
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 14:51:00 -
[68]
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!
|
|
Stormaar
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 14:57:00 -
[69]
so sad in any way.
Is it realy hard to make internal API for mods and let community help to make EVE beter?
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 15:00:00 -
[70]
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.
|
|
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 16:38:00 -
[71]
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.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
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.
I tend to agree with you. While things like ships tend to have a higher per-unit build time, hence get charged more fees per unit, this is not really linked with unit value in any meaningful way. For most high-value goods, the factory costs are a negligable part of the total build cost, where personally I would like to see the factory fee be a similar proportion of the baseprice of the product, for all products. Keying it to base price, rather than product group may make the authoring easier, and would help avoid odd cases slipping through (e.g. battleship weapons vs frigates if you do a module/ship split).
There are two reasons that come to mind why this would be a good thing:
1) Ensures that floating factory fees impact across all manufacturing. As it is now, floating factory fees are likely to disproportionately discourage things like ammo production, while they would have to reach astronomical levels to have any real discouraging affect against some other products.
2) Consistency with player facilities. The POS manufacturing arrays have varying effective running costs based on their differing fitting requirements. These requirements are already staged, with the ship arrays needing more than drone or ammo arrays, for example.
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 09:23:00 -
[72]
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.
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 10:14:00 -
[73]
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.
|
|
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 11:05:00 -
[74]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
That is true, autofill a combo box to eligible facilities in range per blueprint would save quite a few clicks
Ahh yes, that word "eligible" reminds me that there's slot compatibility to check, as well as range. Wouldn't want it listing an ammunition assembly array as a valid location for an Armageddon job 
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Laendra
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:18:00 -
[75]
Why do you keep insisting that "Econmy of Scale" refers to material waste? What mechanic causes that to occur?
Material Level of Blueprint: Waste from flaws in the blueprint's design
Production Efficiency: Waste from lack of production experience
Nowhere in there did I see any mention of waste due to size of the production run.
Economy of Scale, in simple terms, refers to cost per unit savings due to discounts associated with buying raw materials in bulk (something that isn't really available to us here in EVE, because it tends to be the reverse, where you have to pay more for larger quantities), or with production run setup costs (i.e. installation fees for 1 item are the same for multiple items, resulting in a cost saving when producing multiple items). It's funny that you have an economist on staff, yet you can't seem to grasp this concept.
If you have to go through and adjust the production costs of each item to more accurately reflect what you want them to be, do so, but correctly round the raw material costs of the single item before any runs are applied, so that 100 runs of 1 item only cost 100.0000000000000000000000000x the 1 item, and not more than 100x.
-------------------
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 08:46:00 -
[76]
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.
|
|
Laendra
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 12:49:00 -
[77]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
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.
Looks better, from a manufacturer's standpoint, and more realistic. Please explore that route more. Hopefully, you'll look at the PE system too, as it's rather vanilla (i.e. one size fits all), and both PE and ME should include component waste during research as well as use of tools (RAM/R.dB, et.al).
Perhaps further down the line, you could look in more detail at the assembly arrays, where you can modify the individual slots (for a given cost/equipment) to run a certain product group and they get additional time bonuses (because the equipment is already setup).
Additionally, please look at removing the 10% waste for the advanced and component assembly arrays. That makes them nearly useless for invented BPCs (a double ISK sink for the waste and the starbase fuel), and not a viable alternative to station factories.
And, as others have already mentioned recently, the efficient assembly arrays need more love
-------------------
|
Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 17:21:00 -
[78]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
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!
That latter function is quite interesting. As it stands today, and as it stood pre-Trinity, if I set a 6-run Astarte production job in my advanced assembly array, it costs more than 6 1-run jobs. I have to do this every couple of weeks because I need the 8-hour savings on that 6-run job so I don't have to be up at odd hours for most of a week just to reset builds.
However, if your intention is to make multi-run jobs more efficient than single-run jobs, supposedly I would have no reason to make use of a batch queue system as you describe. The only benefit I can see is that you could deliver the finished product when it's convenient, while the factory keeps setting up additional jobs. Is that the intention? If so, does that require a new procedure for job queues and delivery?
Frankly, the only reason I don't set build jobs for several days of runs is that I typically save materials (and thus costs) by doing daily runs instead. The problem with that method is I risk losing production time if I'm late delivering and resetting the job.
It still bothers me that so far the only real improvement I've seen has been in how much money moon miners and those reacting simpler materials into more complex ones are able to earn due to higher waste and demand. So far, there's been no real advantage to producers, or any advantage is wiped out by disadvantages.
Overall, I'm seeing a lot of intriguing ideas, but they don't all seem to be working to improve the game in the same direction. Are we going to be subject to months (or years) of incremental tweaks, forcing us to adapt our spreadsheets and procedures as each little change is implemented?
|
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.02.01 08:54:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Mack Dorgeans
However, if your intention is to make multi-run jobs more efficient than single-run jobs, supposedly I would have no reason to make use of a batch queue system as you describe. The only benefit I can see is that you could deliver the finished product when it's convenient, while the factory keeps setting up additional jobs. Is that the intention? If so, does that require a new procedure for job queues and delivery?
As I understand it, the batch system would let you submit jobs on multiple different blueprints at the same time, not stack up several jobs in a row on the same blueprint, and wouldn't be a way of getting around your limit on active jobs. Essentailly there would be no new capabilities on when you could install or deliver jobs, it would just make it quicker to input lots of jobs at the same time.
For example, if you have 10 different blueprints, and you want to put them all into manufacturing jobs, right now you have to go through a click-fest for each one individually. The batch system may allow you to select all of them, and submit them at the same time. The current "form" style of input for the parameters would be replaced by a table, with one row for each BP, and one column for each variable of the job (facility, runs etc), a unified materials quote etc. The jobs would still enter the system as individual jobs, and be subject to all the normal limitations, it would purely be an easier method of data entry.
Originally by: Mack Dorgeans
Are we going to be subject to months (or years) of incremental tweaks, forcing us to adapt our spreadsheets and procedures as each little change is implemented?
Well, they've deliberately delayed the changing of ROUND to CEIL in the ME formula, because they know they want to change it further, so I'm confident that they're not going to spam changes unnecessarily.
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Akami Nebuli
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 10:10:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Akami Nebuli on 04/02/2008 10:13:23
my first post as comment to a dev blog... so let¦s see...
I got no problem with using a ceiling function instead of a round function in general because both possibilities are stealing the producers their time... Most of us have no problem with sligthly increased building costs but if you have to calculate exact values at least if it comes to producing from adv moon minerals to tech2 components and then to tech2 ships... it¦s ridiculous...
Another important thing is simple... at least the moment we are talking about capital ships... there are only very few components (quantity wise) needed to build them.. by using a ceiling function you directly destroy the weeks/months spend on material research on capital ship bpos (apart from super capitals)... building costs will increase... I guess somewhere around 5-8% because formerly researched bpos will revert to ME0 BPOs component wise... and on this field nobody will be able to just build a batch of 20 units because the bulding time on slots is limited to 30 days (which is perfectly fine)...
Please think about what kind of effect this change will have especially to certain areas where people are building...
|
Chruker
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 09:47:00 -
[81]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
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.
What are the 3 types of waste?
Is it:
- Regular materials (minerals, composite materials (ferrogel and stuff)
- Tools
- Tech 1 items or components
?
----- http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online -----
Top wishes:
- No daily downtime
- Faster training on sisi
- Speedup IGB table rendering |
Zey Nadar
Gallente
Heavily Utilized Mechanic Mayhem
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 12:06:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Zey Nadar on 11/02/2008 12:07:14
Originally by: CCP kieron
Drones? Yeah, they get some love.
As a miner I issue my thanks for improving mining drones past the 1 point of armor and 0 shield they currently have. But I wish to highlight one remaining problem of drone AI. If a mining drone that was mining is ordered to return to bay, it does NOT do so. It will approach the ship, unload its ore, and then just ORBIT. This is very annoying behaviour, and means you have to order them to bay multiple times. This AI behaviour has gotten lots of my mining drones destroyed by rats completely needlessly.
Also, having possibility for a shortcut buttonbind to "mine repeatedly" would be nice, as opposed to "engage target". Or make "engage target" command work for mining drones as well.
|
Mannakin
Caldari
Mercurialis Inc.
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 16:07:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Akami Nebuli
Edited by: Akami Nebuli on 04/02/2008 10:13:23
Another important thing is simple... at least the moment we are talking about capital ships... there are only very few components (quantity wise) needed to build them.. by using a ceiling function you directly destroy the weeks/months spend on material research on capital ship bpos (apart from super capitals)... building costs will increase... I guess somewhere around 5-8% because formerly researched bpos will revert to ME0 BPOs component wise... and on this field nobody will be able to just build a batch of 20 units because the bulding time on slots is limited to 30 days (which is perfectly fine)...
Please think about what kind of effect this change will have especially to certain areas where people are building...
It is currently 76d to research a Rorqual BPO by one ME at a POS lab. What level of ME (if any) would be required (under the proposed changes) to make a single build work at anything better than an ME zero print and how long would this ME research take?
|
Bahhs Deep
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 22:20:00 -
[84]
I have an idea, tell the guys in charge of deleting posts they should lighten up...
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 17:27:00 -
[85]
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.
|
|
Dapanman1
Amarr
Beets and Gravy Syndicate
Rare Faction
|
Posted - 2008.02.23 23:15:00 -
[86]
Does this mean that suiciding highsec Pos Labs in Kestrels is not an intended use of game mechanics?
Beets, you're among friends. |
Phoenix Gold
|
Posted - 2008.02.28 11:51:00 -
[87]
The Unloved Orphans of Exploring (Gravimetric Sites) should get a fix also. Who want to waste time scanning these down when there is plenty of the same all around (in 0.0 space).
Please give Gravimetric Sites a special ore that will have Hulk pilots risking their very lives to get to the site.
Additional thoughts: Why is there no Advanced Mining skillbook that could increase your personal amount by 2% (maybe requiring Exhumers 4).
Faction Strip Miners that can use crystals, A Tech3 Mining Barge, Faction mining crystals, Ancient Veldspar (found only in dangerous spots), and Drone Rocks that reprocess for minerals & chips :)
Need for speed: Has anyone really mined out ONE Ice Crystal. Could do something to reduce the number of ice in each belt.
Also, replicating asteroid belts - mine one out and another with even better rocks show up, and so on.
CCP Thanks for all the mining upgrades.
|
Gillian Haas
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 11:39:00 -
[88]
Another thing that could be done to improve efficiencies of "mass production" would be adding an "install time" to BP manufacturing and reducing the production time for a single run so that
new production time + install time = old production time
if this was done then it would be more efficient to install a job with multiple runs compared to a job with single runs.
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.03.09 15:00:00 -
[89]
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.
|
|
clone 1
Laughing Leprechauns Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 13:44:00 -
[90]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
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 change will come in Trinity 1.2 patch hopefully.
Looking beyond
I am a little confused. In your blog you stated that a change in trinity waste calcs caused a little problem for manufacturers because 1. its was more efficient to make 1 than many, and 2. calculating materials for multiple manufacturing runs was problematic due to this rounding up. Meaning, buying enough materials for multiple runs based on listed requirements meant that you didn't have enough materials for that number of jobs..
Does thing mean that the fix has been postponed until 1.2?
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?
--------------------------------------------------
The Angels Have the Phone Box |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |