EVE Search - A Short Transmission on a Few Upcoming Changes

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

A Short Transmission on a Few Upcoming Changes - New Chronotis Blog

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 10 post(s)

CCP kieron	Posted - 2008.01.25 03:09:00 - [1] It's been a while since the last blog, but a lot has happened in the intervening time. We deployed Trinity, celebrated Christmas, brought in the New Year and started work on both the 1.1 patch and our next expansion. Unfortunately, blog publishing has suffered as a result, but now the silence is broken. Chronotis got together with Hammerhead, they threw some ideas around and came up with a couple blogs. While the second one will be posted around the end of the weekend (Sunday) due to some last minute checks, the first one is now available. Clones? Yup, nifty changes there. Drones? Yeah, they get some love. Manufacturing your gig? We got something for you. Oh yeah, everybody loves logs, logs get more functionality. Here you go, A Short Transmission on a Few Upcoming Changes. Enjoy!

NeoShocker Caldari Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.01.25 03:26:00 - [2] So the pinatas got more HP huh? Good changes. :) ----------------------------------- Peace through power!
Princess Xenia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.01.25 03:34:00 - [3] Dear CCP, If you believe Amarr has been fixed or is on-par with other race, can you please tell us all Amarr pilots to STFU about any future 'improvement' concerning their PURE-LASER ships. This way I will stop expecteing too much from you and move on... Thank you for nothing... A very grumpy Amarr pilot...
Aindrias Amarr Labteck Corporation LTD. Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.01.25 03:53:00 - [4] I thought the mining drones were fine.. GIVE ME AMARR COMPETITIVE BOOST! ;-) Otherwise, neat..
IVeige	Posted - 2008.01.25 04:07:00 - [5] 'They will still need protection as any rogue can easily destroy them but they should now be able to withstand someone sneezing on them. ' still doesnt worth it to use them, especially t2 mining drones, they are way to slow to be effective. Unless you want to put your barge at 1000 m of the asteroid.. if they cant survive when the first npc show up, if they cant go enough fast to come back in cargo hold before getting pop, then they are useless and nobody will use them.
Salvis Tallan Gallente The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.25 04:31:00 - [6] I shake my fist at your waste calculations, but in my heart I know it to be good. Now if only we could get a UI/Interface overhaul for the whole system... Also, let this devblog be the first of many (many many many) this year!! ------
Ambani Gallente Infinitus Morti R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.01.25 04:47:00 - [7] There are people who use them - and these people get spawn aggro first before releasing the drones. and the t2 ones cost only 300-400k ffs - and they generate around 10 mill/hour. I welcome this change though:) Meet Eve's most paranoid carebear - Ambani!
Mack Dorgeans Camelot Innovations	Posted - 2008.01.25 05:11:00 - [8] Quote: Manufacturing Waste Fix in Trinity 1.1 Many of you were affected by a Trinity change to the rounding of manufacturing waste where both the blueprint and skill waste are rounded with runs. This resolved a lot of issues but had the side effect of making single batch or small scale production more efficient than mass production. Since smaller batch sizes suffered from reduced loss a diseconomy of scale resulted. To fix this, we need to go one step further and realize that waste is significant at all levels by rounding up the waste so single run batches will be less efficient than mass production of an item returning us once more to economies of scale. For the many spreadsheet producers out there wanting to know how this will affect you, this means changing your Trinity spreadsheets from round to ceiling function when calculating the necessary materials needed in future jobs. OK, so in English, are you saying the nerf to manufacturers was so much fun, you thought it only fair to make even single-run jobs more wasteful? Here's my main problem with the rounding nerf, and the production process in general even before this: it should not take different amounts of materials to build the same item from the same blueprint in the same facility whether it's one run or one million. All other considerations being equal, if I build one item or a million of them, they should ALL individually use exactly the same amount of materials per build. Unless you introduce fractions of units, the system as it stands is broken. Period. Furthermore, by adding to manufacturing waste, you've increased demand for materials without increasing the supply. This is particularly true for T2 production, which gets bludgeoned by the new waste rules repeatedly. Not only does an Oneiros I build now require more materials, but each and every T2 component that goes into it is subject to waste, as well. For T1, it's not nearly so bad, because supply of minerals is limited only by the available rocks and miners, which are both extremely large numbers, and every item built is only subject to waste once. For T2, there are only so many moon mining operations out there producing the materials needed to create T2 components and items, PLUS Trinity just dropped an instant increase in demand into the game in the form of all those new T2 ships, particularly the T2 battleships and jump freighters. Prices on things like fermionic condensates and ferrogel are just silly now compared to a few months ago. I have no problem rolling with market fluctuations, but shouldn't the processes behind production make sense? For instance, why does it take more T2 components and minerals to make a T2 ship, but it doesn't take more of the T1 ship? It's inconsistent. Furthermore, blueprint research has never made much sense. At least pre-Trinity many prints could be researched to a point where they became effectively "perfect" material levels, even if they weren't really perfect. Certainly you could reach a threshold where additional research had negligible effect on material requirements. For instance, if I had a Crystalline Carbonide Armor Plate BPO at say material level 10 pre-Trinity, it was effectively perfect. Now I can put 100 points of research into the material level, and I still have waste if I build more than a few units at a time. There should be a ceiling for ML or PL, say at 100. Small item prints, like ammunition or drones, can be gotten to 100 pretty quickly. Larger item prints take proportionately longer to improve, but if I so desire, I should have the option of using my time and resources to attain a perfect research level. T2 prints also shouldn't be so out of whack when it comes to research time. The difference between T1 and T2 print research times is excessive, since T2 already require additional skills and materials to run the jobs. If you want T2 prints to be more costly to improve, increase the materials needed.
Mack Dorgeans Camelot Innovations	Posted - 2008.01.25 05:27:00 - [9] To continue... The problems with material levels and productivity levels are even more obvious now with widespread invention showing everyone just how lame improved research stats are when compared to negative stats on invented BPCs. If a ML 0 print is 10% waste, and each negative point is another flat 10% waste added on, why is the positive research an infinite curve? Sure, we don't want ML 1 to be zero waste, but there should be a finite scale on the positive side of research. Have you ever tried explaining blueprint research to a new player? I have. My fingers should bleed from the typing, and their heads should explode. For instance, it's sensible to guess that maybe 100 points = 100%, so they are understandably confused. Oh, and thanks, CCP, for your eternally lacking documentation in all areas of the game. It does such wonders for the new player experience, as you call it, that I'm stunned we retain any new players these days (though I guess they could just be alts and isk sellers, after all). On top of skill requirements, raising money to get in on the science professions, public lab/production assembly line queues vs. costs and limitations of POS facilities, it really isn't surprising that in the past I lost many promising researchers to pew pew, or, more often simply other games. Now I don't bother. I just discourage anyone I meet from trying to be a scientist/builder. Well, I've ranted enough. I know it won't make a raindrop's difference in the ocean, but at least I feel better for venting.
Mack Dorgeans Camelot Innovations	Posted - 2008.01.25 05:34:00 - [10] I lied. One more point to make... Whatever you decide to do about waste, STOP PENALIZING PART-TIME PLAYERS. I am able to log in often enough each day to do daily runs of my various production jobs, or multiple jobs per day if I really want to, but what about the player who is lucky to spend a couple hours a weekend playing? They pay the same fees as 23/7 players, so why shaft them? If someone wants to put a week or a month of production into one job, then it shouldn't cost them any more per run than it does me when I put the same blueprint in for a one-day job. This goes back to my main point, which I'll repeat one last time (tonight): producing 1 unit or 1 million, they should ALWAYS use the same amount of materials per unit.
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.01.25 09:21:00 - [11] Well, we got the promised dev blog, but this one is fairly disappointing. It covered only very minor issues. When will you guys speak about real problems like Amarr, speed tanking, assault frigs and pos warfare? ------------------------------------------ What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2008.01.25 09:23:00 - [12] Originally by: Mack Dorgeans ...STOP PENALIZING PART-TIME PLAYERS...what about the player who is lucky to spend a couple hours a weekend playing?... Stop ranting!! You can't be seriously talking that someone who plays 2 hours a week should get almost the same as one who plays 20 hours a week or even more. That is ridiculous. And the waste of materials and shortage of supply. Since it affects everyone it doesn't matter much - everyone has to pay the higher prices. If you are clever you look for some long-term supply for a good price. The ME on the blueprints and material waste? Why need a change. Does it really matter that running small size batches produce 0.005% less waste than running large size batches?!?! Fixing that is WASTED ENERGY. Keep it as it is! Instead of wasting energy with those unimportant material levels please go on and work on new moon mining models! What happend with the discussion there? Any progress? Please inform us about these interesting things more.
adriaans Amarr Advanced Capital Ship Designs Hephaestus Rising	Posted - 2008.01.25 09:30:00 - [13] some nice changes, but what about the boost patch and amarr 'lasers boats that works better with other weapons' ships? -sig- Support the introduction of Blaze M crystals for Amarr! (Or make Amarr the only race able to deal EM damage from turrets).
clone 1 Laughing Leprechauns Corporation Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.01.25 09:53:00 - [14] Disappointing Devblog. The most annoying thing about manufacturing at the moment, is that you dont know how much materials you need to build when its more than one item. Sure you can make a calculated guess. Been working with this rounding issue now for nearly 2 months and its just annoying when you are just units short of materials just to finish off your run. But this is a bug, that has been called a bug and we have been told its being worked on. There has been dev mentions of increasing runs of freighter invention bpcs, increasing availability or altering t2 component manufacture to balance the races. The last gameplay related live dev blog continuously mentioned 'Boost Patch' when asked questions about ship discussions. Was this some sort of in-joke answer to questions YOU asked us to put on the forums? Really looking forward to the Sundays devblog. It will be very interesting. -------------------------------------------------- The Angels Have the Phone Box
Njara Naoltaos	Posted - 2008.01.25 10:00:00 - [15] How about a mining ship specialized in mining drones and a new class of mining drones for that ship?
Typhado3 Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium	Posted - 2008.01.25 10:04:00 - [16] /me wonders why people are complaining about amarr when nothing was said about amarr in blog.... good work on all 5 of those changes My Opinions are my own, not my corp's, not my friend's, and not my pet fedo's

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2008.01.25 10:25:00 - [17] 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.

Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.01.25 11:14:00 - [18] I used to think that a dev blog, any dev blog would be better than nothing. Now I know better lol. Telling us about improvements to mining drones and then saying that 'drones got some love' is just cruel! Please CCP let the Sunday blog have some meat to it. I hope I hope I hope. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Helison Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.	Posted - 2008.01.25 12:08:00 - [19] Thank you for the Devblog! Even if the "interesting stuff" wasn¦t touched, it was good info! Originally by: CCP Chronotis 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. Well there is one thing which should be really changed and which would be very easy: Change the information in the BPO-info for production materials from integers to real numbers with two digits after the comma. Then it¦s much easier to calculate the waste ourselves. Btw: One of the items, which are very heavily affected by this change, is the rorqual, as it needs small numbers of 14 different components. For example it currently needs 5 Capital Drone Bays (normally not affected by waste). With this new calculation it will probably need 6 Capital Drone Bays for single runs (20% waste) and 5.5 bays for jobs with 2 runs, which will run for about 28 days. Ehmmm, something else: When will we see a bugfix-patch?
A Sinner Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.25 12:10:00 - [20] For your consideration: I know a lot of us are expecting a boost for amarr and gallente recon ships, which are pretty much worthless right now. With 3 damps and 2 efficiency rigs it still doesn't do much to my oponent and I can easily be killed. Sure.. damps were to powerful, I totally agree with that, but not in general, there were powerful for ships without damp bonus, that was the bad thing about it, but for arazu/lachesis , there were just right. Imho that needs to be changed, I say leave it as it is for other ships than gallente recons, celestis and keres, and give it a boost when fitted to those i just mentioned. Make some special scripts or something that you could only fit on those ships or increase the bonus. Same thing goes for the amarr recons, regarding the tracking disrupters. I don't fly amarr but I heard as many people complaining about that as I heard about gallente recons. Thanks in advance, I know the choice you will make will be a logic one.
Lyikka Minmatar Genco	Posted - 2008.01.25 12:18:00 - [21] Quote: Combat Log Upgraded to Allow You to Scroll Backwards The combat log will soon let you browse further back than the last 25 records in your character sheet combat log allowing you access to rest of your kills and losses. Its nice that you guys are actually doing something to this log, but further improvements to this would be very satisfactory. - A way to see what type of dmg your receiving, example 500hit your shild (40%emp, 60% explosive) - Same with the dmg you make as above. - It seems to forget what it should sort on each time you close the window, annoying. - The combat log should not clear its log each time i jump/dock etc. - The log does not displaying armor/shield repairs, on either you or your target. - Fix it so that we can scroll sideways to read the extra long strings of text. personally i would love to see what type of dmg the incomming and outcomming dmg does, as this is one of the things that really bother me. To play and equip more efficently.
Garia666 Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E Mercenary Services	Posted - 2008.01.25 12:24:00 - [22] Quote: Amarr boost is coming in a future dev blog, lets keep this on topic whoo hooo cant w8 for this one!! ->My Vids<- Quote: CCP Chronotis Amarr boost is
xttz GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.25 13:28:00 - [23] Is there any timeframe on rebalancing super-capitals, specifically motherships? The forums are full of threads on how pointless MSes have become, and a quick view of the sales forum shows that their sale price has dropped below build cost with no buyers. Normally rebalancing ships isn't a time-sensitive matter, but in this case many people have expensive characters tied to ships that can no longer fulfill the functions they were built for.
Rashmika Clavain Gallente Revelation Space	Posted - 2008.01.25 14:01:00 - [24] I am glad the mobile labs are being looked at! I lost my net connection and was unable to fuel my POS, some fracker in a NPC corp came along in a t1 Destroyer fitted with t1 ions and popped them both. I only hope Concorde got him! It's my own fault, yes, but expensive POS modules shouldn't be that vulnerable to a 3m ship setup on a throwaway alt.
Laendra	Posted - 2008.01.25 14:01:00 - [25] Edited by: Laendra on 25/01/2008 14:02:12 Quote: Manufacturing Waste Fix in Trinity 1.1 Many of you were affected by a Trinity change to the rounding of manufacturing waste where both the blueprint and skill waste are rounded with runs. This resolved a lot of issues but had the side effect of making single batch or small scale production more efficient than mass production. Since smaller batch sizes suffered from reduced loss a diseconomy of scale resulted. To fix this, we need to go one step further and realize that waste is significant at all levels by rounding up the waste so single run batches will be less efficient than mass production of an item returning us once more to economies of scale. For the many spreadsheet producers out there wanting to know how this will affect you, this means changing your Trinity spreadsheets from round to ceiling function when calculating the necessary materials needed in future jobs. Gotta agree with Mack Dorgeans. This is dumb. The CORRECT way to do it would be to do a CEILING on the blueprint itself, so that all component values are rounded up, instead of regular rounding. Then EVERY item made will COST THE SAME, regardless of batch size. You talk about economies of scale, but we have already researched the blueprints and trained our skills to maximize efficiency, as much as possible/feasible. If you really want to talk about economies of scale, that should be a factory property...which by the way, thanks for making ADVANCED factories use MORE materials than a standard factory. Nothing too advanced about that, is there? -------------------
Togakure Slacker Industries	Posted - 2008.01.25 14:03:00 - [26] Quote: Mobile Laboratories Reinforced More hit points have also been added to Mobile Laboratories; they are now a little more resistant to attack when the occasion comes that they are vulnerable. The dream is over. :(
Letrange Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2008.01.25 15:37:00 - [27] Edited by: Letrange on 25/01/2008 15:38:37 RE: Manufacturing changes. There are two seperate issues really. One is waste and waste reduction (and the concept of "perfect" bpos). The other is Economies of scale. One of the interesting things is that with a round to ceiling, the concept of "perfect" bpos will go out the window. This is because all waste calculations will result in at least 0.000001 (or something similar) part of a material no matter how much the bpo is researched. Which will then round up so that there will always be at least 1 material added to any calculation. Which is fine so long as we know what's comming. However because of this it will be impossible to research any bpo to the point where there is no waste, since even 0.001% waste will get rounded up. As far as economies of scale go, the true mechanism to represent this is the "line setup cost". The problem is that it is not pegged to the type of BPO being manufactured, which has the effect of costing a straight 1000 isk whether you're manufacturing a 100 rounds of ammo or a battleship. On the Small ammo, the effect of the initial startup means you DO get some economies of scale (since the price of startup is much larger than the mineral value of a single run). But for battleships... well it's a drop in the bucket. The % effect of building 1 BS or building 10 BS on the same line from the same BPO is totally negligible. The "interesting" thing about these changes is that we will be going from . The old situation: - ALL BPOs could theoretically be made "pefect" although in practice only those that were attainable withing 100 or so were really researched to this level. Through the current situation: - Technically still possible but the number of runs affected the point at which a BPO was "perfect" with the advantage going towards the lower production number. To the upcoming situation: - Impossible to ever get "perfect". There will always be at least 1 of each material in waste no mater how much the BPO is researched. But minimizing the waste will be skewed towards the larger production runs.
Caiman Graystock Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.01.25 16:19:00 - [28] It wouldn't be a dev blog that has nothing to do with the amarr if the whingers didnt turn up to cry about them.
Xaen Caldari Black Podding	Posted - 2008.01.25 16:21:00 - [29] A little perspective on clones... Why do we even have to worry about updating our clones? What does requiring you to remember that you have to occasionally upgrade your clone add to the game? Medical clones seem to be a very, very minor money sink + the chance to lose skillpoints when you die. Hardly makes the game better than if we didn't have to worry about it, IMO. -- Support fixing the EVE UI \| Suggest Jita fixes
Mack Dorgeans Camelot Innovations	Posted - 2008.01.25 16:33:00 - [30] Originally by: CCP Chronotis 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. ... 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. So, can you explain exactly how manufacturing process efficiency SHOULD work, rather than just saying my opinion is different than yours? Oh, and I don't recall mentioning the UI, but yes, indeed, there's a lot of room for improvement there. As for moon mining, the change to waste calculations was great for them -- they get higher demand and no increase to the amount of work they need to perform. I hope someday skills will factor into moon mining, via more advanced and efficient equipment, but that's for another day... I still argue that the current blueprint and production rules are inconsistent and needlessly complicated. If you're not going to implement fractional units, all numbers should be based on the cost of one run. The single run material requirements should be rounded up. As it is now, if I build one Oneiros (ML 40) in an advanced assembly array, it requires 276 oscillator capacitor units (up from 251 in an NPC factory). If I build two ships in the array, it requires 551 units, so I'm being charged 275 and a half units per run, saving one unit vs. building two ships in one-run jobs. If I can make use of fractions to my advantage when building two ships, why are fractional amounts in one run simply thrown away? How can you even HAVE half a unit of a piece of machinery? The waste to basic materials is reasonable when the oscillator capacitor units are built, but half an OCU is not a usable item. In essence, what the blueprint says is that we're breaking a certain number of units in a build because of inefficiency, but the finished product always includes the same number of OCUs, which is the no waste baseline, as evidenced by what is returned to you upon recycling the finished product with perfect refining skills/facilities. To build one ship, if there's waste to T2 components, then it should always be the same waste per run, whether it's one or a million. You don't make an ML 0 Oneiros blueprint require 11 Exequrors for a 10-run job (10% waste), do you? No, the T1 ship is treated as "extra material" used at 100%. Meanwhile there are R.A.M.- Starship Tech listed as extra material that are damaged in the process, with one unit left over at the end repairable in most T2 ship builds. In the case of my Oneiros print, I always have to use 95% of 8 RAMs per Oneiros, whether that's a single run or multiples per job. Here you've implemented fractional units. Why not do something similar with other advanced building materials? Because it's unnecessarily complicated would be one reason not to implement fractions for more types of items. If that's the case, why use fractional waste calculations? It's also unnecessarily complicated. Another answer might be that you LIKE having pure waste that can't be recovered. It's an ISK sink of sorts. If that's the reasoning behind waste changes, then at least own up to it. The manufacturing process should be more logically consistent. If you want increased waste, then every build should have the same waste to advanced materials, rather than be subject to fractional calculations.
Frug Zenithal Harvest	Posted - 2008.01.25 16:39:00 - [31] Quote: Mobile Laboratories Reinforced Great. Can i have back the labs I lost to a suicide attacker in empire? - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
Mack Dorgeans Camelot Innovations	Posted - 2008.01.25 16:51:00 - [32] Originally by: Gnulpie Edited by: Gnulpie on 25/01/2008 09:30:29 Originally by: Mack Dorgeans ...producing 1 unit or 1 million, they should ALWAYS use the same amount of materials per unit. You have obviously no clue about continuous productions. There is ALWAYS some overhead (waste) if you do continuous production - that is why you try to keep those machines running 24/7. Just look at the flat-glass production for example. Or band-steel. Or chemical reactions. Continous productions are more efficient usually, much easier to handle with logistics but they have some initial overhead. You need to start machines, you need to stop them. Material and energy is wasted during that. Machineries needs to be configured etc. Get a clue before you start yelling around. Originally by: Mack Dorgeans ...STOP PENALIZING PART-TIME PLAYERS...what about the player who is lucky to spend a couple hours a weekend playing?... Stop ranting!! You can't be seriously talking that someone who plays 2 hours a week should get almost the same as one who plays 20 hours a week or even more. That is ridiculous. And the waste of materials and shortage of supply. Since it affects everyone it doesn't matter much - everyone has to pay the higher prices. If you are clever you look for some long-term supply for a good price. The ME on the blueprints and material waste? Why need a change. Does it really matter that running small size batches produce 0.005% less waste than running large size batches?!?! Fixing that is WASTED ENERGY. Keep it as it is! Instead of wasting energy with those unimportant material levels please go on and work on new moon mining models! What happend with the discussion there? Any progress? Please inform us about these interesting things more. And you should stop trolling. I expand upon my initial argument above. If you want real-world waste, then we should be prepared for MUCH more complicated and needlessly work-intensive processes in game manufacturing. My complaint is inconsistency in the use of fractional production calculations. As for penalizing part-time players, my opinion stands. Someone who plays only a few hours a week is already at a competitive disadvantage based on how they can use their limited time. The manufacturing process is something that runs in the background once set up. Just because you can't be logged in every second the servers are up doesn't mean it should cost you more to build something. When using manufacturing, you're building one item at a time on an assembly line, NOT throwing ingredients in a pot and having them come out in bulk at the end, even though that's the way it appears in EVE.
ZaKma Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.01.25 17:40:00 - [33] What about the countless little UI bugs that just keep bugging the hell out of us? For example the Fleet window resetting it's position / size etc every time you join a new fleet? Seleene > you sound like my wife
Jita Dancer	Posted - 2008.01.25 18:46:00 - [34] Mack Take the real life process of commercial printing. A printing press (big web ones like they print newspapers and catalogs on) takes half an hour or so running at full speed for the press engineers to 'bring it to color'. The happens every time the press is started, and consumes ink and paper. (lots of ink and paper!) The press engineers are tweaking the alignments of the plates, the pressure on the rollers, then tension in the paper, the heat of the driers, the crispness of the folder, the length of the staples and a million bazillion other things. If you want to print a single newspaper on a web press, it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars - because of the "setup' waste. When you print millions of copies of the newspaper, the setup waste is a smaller fraction of the overall cost, so the per-piece cost is less - thats what the dude who was talking about continuos manufacture was trying to get at. Consider it a fixed cost of manufacture. I think CCP should consider exagerating this phenominon even more so that extremely large runs of production are even more efficient. That way, dedicated builders with enough resources, time materials, and skills could make a bit more profit at the expense of potentially flooding the market with goods if they over do it. Cash and resource flow becomes a real issue for these guys. I can make a thousand cruisers for $1M each, or I can make a hundred for $1.1M each, or I can make one for $1.15M (okay the numbers should be tweaked). Sure somebody out there can invest huge amounts of money and mins to 'own the market' but they are also taking the long term gamble, cause a thousand cruisers will take months to sell and with mineral volatility theres an inherent risk of investment loss and a not inconsiderate cash flow cost. Dr Eyjog (sp?) whaddya reckon?
Popychacz Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.01.25 19:14:00 - [35] So, you're rounding ships needed for t2 manufacturing UP?:P:P:P
Mack Dorgeans Camelot Innovations	Posted - 2008.01.25 19:21:00 - [36] Edited by: Mack Dorgeans on 25/01/2008 19:23:21 Originally by: Jita Dancer Mack Take the real life process of commercial printing. A printing press (big web ones like they print newspapers and catalogs on) takes half an hour or so running at full speed for the press engineers to 'bring it to color'. The happens every time the press is started, and consumes ink and paper. (lots of ink and paper!) The press engineers are tweaking the alignments of the plates, the pressure on the rollers, then tension in the paper, the heat of the driers, the crispness of the folder, the length of the staples and a million bazillion other things. If you want to print a single newspaper on a web press, it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars - because of the "setup' waste. When you print millions of copies of the newspaper, the setup waste is a smaller fraction of the overall cost, so the per-piece cost is less - thats what the dude who was talking about continuos manufacture was trying to get at. Consider it a fixed cost of manufacture. I think CCP should consider exagerating this phenominon even more so that extremely large runs of production are even more efficient. That way, dedicated builders with enough resources, time materials, and skills could make a bit more profit at the expense of potentially flooding the market with goods if they over do it. Cash and resource flow becomes a real issue for these guys. I can make a thousand cruisers for $1M each, or I can make a hundred for $1.1M each, or I can make one for $1.15M (okay the numbers should be tweaked). Sure somebody out there can invest huge amounts of money and mins to 'own the market' but they are also taking the long term gamble, cause a thousand cruisers will take months to sell and with mineral volatility theres an inherent risk of investment loss and a not inconsiderate cash flow cost. Dr Eyjog (sp?) whaddya reckon? Yes, in the real world, these kinds of processes are quite different than what we have in EVE. There are human and mechanical factors that affect cost and waste, which have no counterpart inside the game. I'm not espousing 100% lifelike manufacturing in EVE, but rather asking that the existing in-game system be made internally consistent. As it stands, the implementation is inconsistent on the subject of waste. If we use your example, then it would be reasonable to also ask for increased time efficiency to result from running large numbers of runs in a single job. After all, you only start that printing press up once, whether it prints one sheet or runs all day. So, the startup time should be applied only once, and all runs beyond the first would take less time. We can look at every little detail like this and make a case for something similar to happen in the game, but again, it gets to the point of becoming needlessly complicated, and not at all enjoyable as a game. Certain game tasks are already too much like work, frankly. I would just like to see waste treated consistently, and I don't think it's asking too much or approaching that area of being needlessly complicated.
Dominique Vasilkovsky HOW Industries	Posted - 2008.01.25 19:58:00 - [37] I posted some ideas for a reworked S&I UI here, in essence use a similar layout to contracts where you don't have to chase the "next" button nor the windows across the screen. I don't really care how the waste is calculated but I would love to see a few more decimals added to the numbers for easier calculations. Have you had any more thoughts about the bonus the invention implant might end up with? Signature approved by Eldo
Mack Dorgeans Camelot Innovations	Posted - 2008.01.25 20:11:00 - [38] Speaking of the UI, will it be fixed so hangar dropdowns default to the location of the blueprint being used, the way it used to be pre-Trinity?
Beness Absolutely No Retreat Synchr0nicity	Posted - 2008.01.25 20:56:00 - [39] I'm neutral when it comes to the efficiency changes. On one hand, I'm happy that the longer runs will be more efficient than the shorter runs, because this feels right to me. On the other hand, I'm not happy that there will be an increased focus on large builds, since that will mean that the public manufacturing facilities are likely to have longer queues. Either way, the change makes sense in that if I have a blueprint that takes "5.5" of a specific thing, and I only make one run, I shouldn't be creating the 0.5 of the thing out of nowhere. The only optimization I can think of is a probability based function. Continuing the example above, running one build I am required to provide 6 of a specific item at installation time, but I have a 50% chance (based on the decimal) of using the 6th. This would mean that the average material build cost would be identical no matter the division of jobs (many small runs or some large runs). However, it introduces probability into the manufacturing process.
Kweel Nakashyn Minmatar Aeden Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.01.25 21:58:00 - [40] Why do you speak about the earth ? Earth is gone. See the age of stars. 2isk
Kweel Nakashyn Minmatar Aeden Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.01.25 22:02:00 - [41] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Amarr boost is coming in a future dev blog, lets keep this on topic zomg damn. I'm a Minnie, you know. Anyway, plussing Shadowsword. 2isk
Jane's War	Posted - 2008.01.25 22:53:00 - [42] fix the war dec system please create more revenue for ccp cut war outta 0.4 and above . no civilized empire would allow wars between corperations and loose tax base and resoures ie.mining
Wardo21 The Arcanum	Posted - 2008.01.25 23:15:00 - [43] As to reality arguments, it's a game... For an in-game argument on waste, we should look at the way it worked before: ME research reduced on a percentage basis to affect the required parts. The old method rounded one run then ran it against the multiplier of how many runs. The percentage part was turned back into an integer (a whole whatever) earlier on in the calculation. Blueprints matched the multiplier no matter how many runs you did. This had the effect of making the little bits of waste not count towards the total sum. The math just ignored the fractional parts less than a half. For materials like tritanium, consider one unit the smallest amount normally sold on the market, but still divisible for actual use. The old method didn't actually charge you the fractional part that got ignored, even though it should have been used. Just because the game can't return a tenth of a tritanuim unit, doesn't mean you can't actually file/grind off that much of the metal from the finished good. I consider the Production Efficency skill more akin to wasted items where skill is a factor, such as welding on a part wrong, and having to scrap it and get a new one. As your skill increases, the wasted parts are reduced. This remains an issue for both equations, but also is a source for the small percentage missed in the calculations. You can however remove this penalty completely at Production Efficency level 5. The new method does seem to make the construction components more wasteful, but you could also consider that the ME of the item also accounts for a better design. So you need some number of graviton thrusters, but another player needs 10 less because his print has a higher ME. Maybe his print has a better optimized layout for the thrusters to obtain the same agility or speed... The simple fact is that it's a game, and the devs make the rules. If you don't like em, you can play something else, or you are free to complain on the forums for what it's worth... It leads to a question though. If the method had been to round up all along, would you have claimed it was unfair and needed adjustment, or just accepted that game mechanic as the law? Wardo21
Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.26 01:40:00 - [44] The changes to the hit points of laboratories reminds me to ask: When will POS-based laboratories be fixed so that access to them can be granted to alliance members (or even the public) and so that research can be conducted from hangars other than the POS-owner's corporate hangar? This would include allowing the output of such jobs to be directed to hangars to which the researcher has access -- rather than only the lab itself -- and allowing any necessary items (such as decryptors) to be located in places other than the laboratory itself. Thank you, -- Becq Starforged proprietor of Starforge Industries, a subsidiary of Minmatar Ship Construction Services At Starforge Industries, the world of tomorrow is being blown apart today!
Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.26 01:59:00 - [45] Oh, and regarding the wastage calculations: Doesn't this change mean that ME research on capital ship BPOs will be all but worthless? For example, a Thanatos requires either 6, 8, or 10 of each module except the drone bay. Currently there is a 1-module waste for each at ME 0; with the waste being eliminated at ME 1 for the modules requiring 6 and 8, and at ME 2 for the modules requiring 10. Under the new system, waste cannot be eliminated for anything but the drone bay requirement. I understand that some of this waste is eliminated if multiple ships are built at a time, but is it really reasonable to require a job tying up several billion isk in assets for many weeks in order to realize more than a token savings from ME research? This seems very harmful to all but perhaps the largest alliances (or large-scale capital builders), and at the very least inconvenient for them, too. -- Becq Starforged proprietor of Starforge Industries, a subsidiary of Minmatar Ship Construction Services At Starforge Industries, the world of tomorrow is being blown apart today!
Mack Dorgeans Camelot Innovations	Posted - 2008.01.26 05:20:00 - [46] Originally by: Wardo21 The new method does seem to make the construction components more wasteful, but you could also consider that the ME of the item also accounts for a better design. So you need some number of graviton thrusters, but another player needs 10 less because his print has a higher ME. Maybe his print has a better optimized layout for the thrusters to obtain the same agility or speed... This goes to the root of the problem. There is no finished item that has any more or fewer parts than another of the same type, or else recycling would have to track every item's component bits, rather than just look up the standard list of ingredients. So, waste is entirely that -- it's scrap as a byproduct of inefficient/poor manufacturing. The only way to explain the current system is to say those fractional amounts are not actual units of waste, but rather a rate of waste. If your blueprint calls for 2.5 units, then a one-run job uses 3 units, but a two-run job uses 5 units, not 2.5 rounded up to 3 on each run. Also, a 2.2-unit material would not produce waste until you set a three-run job, because it's rounding off 2.2 to 2 and 4.4 to 4, but 6.6 to 7. In this case, it costs more for a longer job than a shorter one. I have a similar situation happening to my Oneiros print in an array, where one run is 110 units each of plates, reactors, thrusters, and shield emitters. Two runs is 220 units, and three runs is 331 units. As it stands, I'm being penalized for using a three-run job instead of sticking with one- or two-run jobs. I imagine once CCP "fixes" things in the next patch, a one-run job will cost 111 of each of those components, two runs will cost 221. So, not only did I get hit with a lot of new waste, now my research post-Trinity to get the print from ML 30 to ML 40, which saved me one unit per component on the two-run jobs, will be effectively rendered moot, and I'll have wasted my effort to improve the print, losing even my meager 6-unit savings per component per week. It would help if we could see the decimals on the print material listings, but I still think all the waste changes have done is create more of an ISK sink, or move that ISK into the hands of moon miners, ultimately. It certainly doesn't help Joe Podpilot who goes shopping for a new ship. Before Trinity, doing material research on T2 prints actually had some value in instances where you could get materials to round down to no waste. The new waste will mean doing such research results in too little impact to be worth the bother. Regardless of what happens going forward, I'm going to always have more waste than I did before. That's fine as far as it goes, but I still think the process should be simplified so that building one unit at a time 15 times is the same as building 15 units in one job. I'd like it to be changed so that there's no double-dipping waste on T2 production both in component manufacture and ship manufacture, but I don't think that's likely given the stated dev preference. It bothers me that you can't make use of fractional items, but fractions are used to increase our production costs. I guess if the bottom tenth of a shield emitter is damaged, I have to throw the whole thing away, rather than recycle the good bits for repairing other damaged emitters in the future. Not only did my robot assemblers become more inefficient, they also became stupider.
Marcus Tedric Gallente Tedric Enterprises Space Exploration and Logistic Services	Posted - 2008.01.26 11:33:00 - [47] Originally by: CCP Chronotis ................. ... clone 1; freighter invention will take into account decryptor runs bonuses in trinity 1.1 patch. ...... Why??? You had a great isk-sink - Capital BPCs have always been one run - Invented runs also. At least it also made the other decryptors useful. This I just don't get
Mioelnir Minmatar KULT Production Guardian Federation	Posted - 2008.01.26 11:37:00 - [48] Any chance the content department finally managed to finish level 5 pirate missions for 0.0?
Buyerr	Posted - 2008.01.26 12:10:00 - [49] well nice to finally see a dev blog about something usefull XD soo when do we get something about that boost patch that i am sure we are all anxious to hear about ;) (and nice going with the clones, so the oldest and most sp hugging people can get a upgrade :D ) I declare war on stupidity
Kerfira University of Caille	Posted - 2008.01.26 12:18:00 - [50] Edited by: Kerfira on 26/01/2008 12:20:44 Oveur: We need a dev blog, the natives are getting restless... Oveur points to random dev Oveur: You! Write a dev blog, you have 5 minutes. Clock started 4 minutes ago! Have it online in 1 minute! Go! Disappointing to say the least..... Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Kerfira University of Caille	Posted - 2008.01.26 12:20:00 - [51] Originally by: Marcus Tedric Originally by: CCP Chronotis ................. ... clone 1; freighter invention will take into account decryptor runs bonuses in trinity 1.1 patch. ...... Why??? You had a great isk-sink - Capital BPCs have always been one run - Invented runs also. At least it also made the other decryptors useful. This I just don't get That is not an ISK sink. An ISK sink is when money goes OUT of the game, not when they go to other players. Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Alain DeMorgan	Posted - 2008.01.26 12:34:00 - [52] How are you meant to get economies of scale on capital ship production when you can't install more than 2 runs at a time? Waste on capital ship BPOs behaves quite differently to waste on, say, tech1 ship BPOs because the inputs are small in number but individually expensive; so a difference of 1 unit makes a large difference in the final cost. If I interpret the dev blog correctly, it will increase the build cost of carriers (for example) by circa 10%. Is this an intentional result?
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2008.01.26 17:27:00 - [53] Originally by: Popychacz So, you're rounding ships needed for t2 manufacturing UP?:P:P:P Some types of material requirements have never had waste applied to them. Ships are one of these. Therefore, they will not be rounded up, because waste will not apply to them in the first place. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Dr Caymus Gallente Applied Technologies Inc	Posted - 2008.01.26 18:47:00 - [54] Love the new clones, guys! Thank you.
Mrs Arbuckle	Posted - 2008.01.26 20:32:00 - [55] Going to get an Omega straight off the bat Doc? No harm in planning ahead...
Tres Farmer Gallente Federation Intelligence Service	Posted - 2008.01.26 21:27:00 - [56] mobile labs more hp? nice.. when I now would be able to select on which wallet the charge for a slot goes I would be really happy And as I'm at it.. you allready bookmarked the POS-Overhaul-Topic of somebody in the Feature&Ideas-Discussion-Forums (POS: Flocking the dead horse).. when can we expect to hear a dev-blog about this whole battlefield, pos-stuff actually is?! Nevertheless.. keep the good work up ccp! Forge '07 on Sale
Ven Li Heracles.	Posted - 2008.01.27 00:54:00 - [57] Originally by: Beness I'm neutral when it comes to the efficiency changes. On one hand, I'm happy that the longer runs will be more efficient than the shorter runs, because this feels right to me. On the other hand, I'm not happy that there will be an increased focus on large builds, since that will mean that the public manufacturing facilities are likely to have longer queues. So its great that as a T2 ship builder im punished cause the bpc's are never more than 4 run, to get a decent enough ME and PE during invention. Its gonna drive more ppl out of the T2 market as ppl are not going to be able to afford the t2 items. Its already hard enough to make any money out of invention as it is this is gonna be the final nail in the coffin for a lot of small T2 producers, myself included. YouÆre basically killing each other to see whoÆs got the better imaginary friend. Richard Je
Dr Caymus Gallente Applied Technologies Inc	Posted - 2008.01.27 03:43:00 - [58] Edited by: Dr Caymus on 27/01/2008 03:44:16 Originally by: Mrs Arbuckle Going to get an Omega straight off the bat Doc? No harm in planning ahead... Of course, Mrs A...
Ranges	Posted - 2008.01.27 09:09:00 - [59] Oh my God... It's a devblog! I've missed those things. Thanks!
Marcus Tedric Gallente Tedric Enterprises Space Exploration and Logistic Services	Posted - 2008.01.27 10:49:00 - [60] Originally by: Kerfira Originally by: Marcus Tedric Originally by: CCP Chronotis ................. ... clone 1; freighter invention will take into account decryptor runs bonuses in trinity 1.1 patch. ...... Why??? You had a great isk-sink - Capital BPCs have always been one run - Invented runs also. At least it also made the other decryptors useful. This I just don't get That is not an ISK sink. An ISK sink is when money goes OUT of the game, not when they go to other players. Isk Sink! With invention runs staying at 1 you need more BPOs bought from the NPCs to make the T1 BPCs to start with. But np - I'll still try and make iskies. Personally I think they need to balence the Decryptors again - they got some of those changes wayyyy off. When the different ones are sold for similar prices we'll now the balence is right
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

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2008.03.10 13:50:00 - [91] 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.

clone 1 Laughing Leprechauns Corporation	Posted - 2008.03.10 13:59:00 - [92] Originally by: CCP Chronotis 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. I edited the blog to reflect the change as well now so hopefully less confusion all round. See, you just made me throw my hands up in the air in disgust I was looking forward to easier T2 production tomorrow .. oh well.. Will 1.2 be another 3 months down the line? -------------------------------------------------- The Angels Have the Phone Box
Sidrat Flush Caldari Life is Experience	Posted - 2008.03.10 18:01:00 - [93] Why do we have to wait several months for something that got broken in the first place? Change it back to the way it was, and then put in the desired nerf later on in one head-banging-on-wall moment. Waste from a blueprint should be known. A non-researched blueprint has 10% waste as default. That's fine. ME:100 should mean that waste=0.00% The best that item (ship, module, ammo, missile or drone) can be made from the materials required. This is the system that's been in place for as long as I can remember. Is this going to be changed at all? Making multiple runs shouldn't be any cheaper, in terms of time or mineral requirements. Keep production simple, dirty and nasty like it always has been. Don't fix what isn't broken for the sake of "realism", it just gets confusing and convoluted. If you must address a "saving" for multiple runs, give the boost to the time it takes to do the total run, not the materials used. This will be of greater benefit to the mass producers out there than having saved a couple of units of low end minerals. Life is about memories the more the better. http://lifeisexperience.freeforums.org (because it's a small corp)
Letrange Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2008.03.18 12:18:00 - [94] well unless the install costs get a serious upgrade you realize that this change brings us back exactly to where we started?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.