|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 70 post(s) |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
323
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 04:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
If you are going to display production times down to the second (this WAS sighted for Crius, right? Please?), please have TE clearly indicate what each level will shave off. If runs are calculated to be able to take fractions of a second, either individually and/or in a batch configuration, this information is highly valued and needed. It should be prominently displayed in the EVE window.
Because, unfortunately, our time keeping is not a decimal system. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
363
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 18:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Doesn't that mean that all currently existing T2 items will become almost 50% more valuable post-crius?
speculation machine running.... |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
363
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 18:40:00 -
[3] - Quote
Aluka 7th wrote:Loraine Gess wrote:Doesn't that mean that all currently existing T2 items will become almost 50% more valuable post-crius?
speculation machine running.... You are right. That means that all invention BPCs (-1 to -4 now) will become +XX BPC but will both require roughly the same amount of materials. That means things that are manufactured mostly from invention will still have similar price before/after Crius AND things that are manufactured mostly from T2 BPO will cost almost 50% more. Those are mostly T2 ships that will substantially increase in price.
Yes thank you for the differentiation! I was thinking about my statement for a moment and thought it couldn't possibly be right, as the 50% increase is meant to solve the invention change. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
365
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 02:27:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mashimara wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Ryshca wrote:Will you do anything to keep the status quo for t2 BPOs to Invention BPCs? All your 'ideas' seems to target to make t2 BPOs worthless. Quote:We are erring on the side of preserving the status quo in invention over preserving the status quo for T2 BPOs; note that, as previous point, we are not specifically targeting T2 BPOs in any particular way And they're hardly worthless. The gap is narrowed, but not removed. you still don't have to do any invention on them. You can do longer runs on them (saving more on build costs), and not losing any time to 'I'm not at the keyboard right now'. CCP have stated (in this thread, iirc) that they consider T2 BPOs an issue. One they don't have a solution for right now, but something they're going to be revisiting. This might not be the place for this BUT. I had a thought. Change manufacturing to REQUIRE a BPC to run a job on. Then simply make the time to copy a T2 BPO 3 times as long as a T1 BPO. This will level the time costs and make those T2 BPO owners happy that their BPO is still in their cargo !
Brilliant! Let's not fix invention - Let's bring everything else down its level! CLICKFESTS FOR EVERYONE!
|
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
426
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 21:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ealon Musque wrote: Suggested solution: Tweak the Bill of Materials of each ship to have a more even distribution of numbers, so that there is not a big predominance of round numbers such as 10, 20 and 25
Good thing the research changes are 1% ME per level and round for batch jobs. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
426
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 22:29:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ealon Musque wrote:Loraine Gess wrote:Ealon Musque wrote: Suggested solution: Tweak the Bill of Materials of each ship to have a more even distribution of numbers, so that there is not a big predominance of round numbers such as 10, 20 and 25
Good thing the research changes are 1% ME per level and round for batch jobs. Please explain.
Each level of ME is a 1% materials reduction. Batch jobs round. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
426
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 23:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ealon Musque wrote: Is your point that one can get around the "chunkiness" issue by running batches of multiple Archons (in this case) in one production run?
Unless you think it would be less clunky by having all the components be multiples of 3, with smaller numbers overall. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
431
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 19:19:00 -
[8] - Quote
Rionan Nafee wrote:Gilbaron wrote:you no longer need maxrun BPCs for invention, each invention only consumes a single run from the bpc
you should be able to switch to BPOs without any issues, they are cheap, need little research and, come crius, have a bunch of advantages We dont need the BPCs for invention but for regular mass production. Why we should buy and research additional 9 BPOs for each ammunition type because CCP changes the attributes for no reason at all? In particular the research in the POS needs additional money. A few time ago CCP said that the copy time would be shorter because it will no longer be possible to remote procudtion at POS so you can use BPCs instead of BPOs to lower the risk of destroying. Why now this massive change in the complete other direction?
Ammo BPOs requiring a minimal investment of 5m to be useful. "MASSIVE CHANGE"... |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
434
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 09:43:00 -
[9] - Quote
Jin d'SaanGo wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:... Rank selection: - Mods are 3/6/9 for S/M/L, 6 for all "unsized" mods, 40 for capital mods, and 10x larger for T2 ... I'm not sure if it's worth having a look at since I don't know if there are still any blueprints around: there are not just "small", "medium", "large" and "xl" modules, there is also the tiny group of "micro" modules (for example Micro Capacitor Booster I).
The blueprints do not exist anymore, no. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
437
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 19:12:00 -
[10] - Quote
Luci Lu wrote:Quote:Yup, there is some weirdness in this sort of thing, and there's not really a good obvious solution if we want to keep per-job rounding (which we generally do). I'll try and make time to have another look at this later. why not as usual multiply the number with some 10-100 and and change bpos/size accordingly?
Pretty much this, although it creates some additional... funsies
Not sure I'm a fan of the longer downtimes as we wait for the batch script to convert another billion stacks of stuff into other stuff, but I guess I'd live.
Taking the current "10" multiple and making it a "100" multiple solves uh, just about every issue I can imagine. Even the ones that aren't issues but people think they are. As I said, though, it creates issues involving the volume of capital parts... which is currently in a sensible, workable state. |
|
|
|
|