|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 70 post(s) |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 12:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
Having perused the new proposed blueprint file, it becomes inescapable to come to the conclusion that the approach that CCP is taking to solve the click fest that invention is by simply extending the time it takes to invent. Instead of using a technology solution like stacking, a bureaucratic solution has been proposed.
Still, it also remains clear that CCP looks at the industry problem from the perspective of the small scale producer who now and then dabbles in industry as the frame work proposed falls apart when you look at industry from a large scale. Is nobody at CCP doing some kind of analysis what happens when people not build one carrier or other capital at a time, but five, ten, twenty? What happens when you don't build 10 or 20 T2 Sentry Drones, but hundreds or thousands per day?
Disappointing to say the least. |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 16:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
mynnna wrote:You seem to be operating under the flawed assumption that this is it for invention changes when it's been said many times over that a full rework for invention is still coming after Crius. The purpose of these changes is on the first page of the thread, if you would be so good as to educate yourself. I would note they while it has not been mentioned, these changes also have the upsides of a) closing the competitive gap between T2 BPOs and invention and perhaps more significantly and certainly more importantly b) placing a greater emphasis on the higher skill parts of invention (the actual inventing) as opposed to the copying. After all, specialization should be rewarded.
Having 20+ characters that can do invention with at least 4s, but mostly 5s in the relevant skills where I invent, I still fail to see the reward. Maybe I am just really bad at this game. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last time. |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 22:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
Some people are happy and content with halfway measures, incomplete features, compromises that just perpetuate a poorly thought through design that falls apart when brought to its logical conclusion. Considering that it will be at least another five years if not more, judging by history, that someone will look at industry again, I'd rather have this done right. |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 23:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
I have, but I am old enough to know that temporary solutions more often than not become permanent. I have seen this movie before and it doesn't end like you think it does. |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2014.05.30 18:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
My general philosophy is that you want to help the little guys to effectively compete without hurting mass producers and lower barriers of entry to lower prices.
One suggestion would be to increase the max run number of non-inventable BPCs to 30 or 60 or even 100. The max run number of 10 that is currently proposed is limited and rather low and creates an unnecessary click fest. Ideally, you would like to match the demand of one or multiple carriers with that of the components. If it takes say X days to build a capital ship one should be able to build the necessary components in one to two jobs. For example, if you would want to build a Thanatos (0/0) you need 61 capital drone bays, so the maximum run in order to avoid this being a click fest for components should be 30 or 60. The time to produce the 60 components could also be linked with the production time of a cap, whatever kind it may be. That way things nicely line up, but don't involve a dramatic over-purchasing of capital component BPOs. This has a two fold effect: It keeps the effective barrier of entry to build caps relatively low (today roughly 18b in BPOs) if not reduces it and avoids creating a massive copy fest for super and titan builders. If you don't do that, the temptation of building of capital component BPOs becomes very high. The victims here will be the smaller builders as they cannot effectively defend their POSes, while PL and CFC are the beneficiaries since as long as the B0tlord Accord stands their POSes are near invulnerable.
For invention, I would suggest to keep the effective time to invent one run constant for a ten-run T2 BPC, especially for items with a high consumption velocity. Lets use a T2 Sentry Drone as an example as it invents in 75 minutes, i.e.; 7.5 minutes per run and has to be repeated every 75 minutes. What would be helpful would be the stacking of multiple T1 BPCs into a higher run T2 BPC. You can either do that by allowing batching or by using multiple T1 BPCs as input and one larger T2 BPCs as output. Think of someone having say 10, 20 or more characters doing T2 Sentry Invention at 10 slots each. When you are done with the last character the, the invention of the first one is just done, so that all you do is invent by rote. There is nothing wrong with tying up the character as it is busy inventing, but it would be nice if the person doing the invention is doing more than just clicking for hours and that's all they do. |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 16:34:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Gilbaron wrote:i was talking about capitals, not supercapitals. i could give you a "good" definite number for each component, but i'm sitting in class right now and listening to a talk about life expectancy in east and west germany :D And then we're getting into super-abstruse land :) I've kicked *all* components (counting cap T1/T2, normal T2, T3, and RAMs) up to a week base build time because that seems like a pretty clean change, and the point about them intermediate components is a good one. T1 cap components are thus all sitting at 40 max runs right now.
Thank you for listening. Forty is not ideal, but workable. |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 13:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
And this is exactly what I am afraid of. The best practice is doing it right the first time. Everything else has sub-optimal outcomes - and I am putting it nicely that way. The track record of CCP to revisit complex systems as industry is poor. Any interim solution you are providing is going to be a semi-permanent one.
This is not a criticism of the front-line devs who take the brunt of the impact and I am sure are full of good intentions to actually follow through with what they are promising, but merely a summary of CCP's track record. I have personally been on both sides of the internal struggle. It's not an enviable situation, so I sympathize with what you are facing.
I can only implore you to either do it right the first time or not to ship the feature at all. |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 14:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
double post |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 14:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
I would also point to a recent Guardian article that is quite expansive about the challenges of software development at CCP. |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 14:22:00 -
[10] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Yes, I think we get it. You guys are raging about past track records instead of just posting feedback on each iteration. You can either post it here and maybe get a good patch or not and get a steaming pile of crap you rage about for years. There is nothing particularly controversial in this bundle. We can debate a few % here and there but they are relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Given invention is getting a massive overhaul shortly after this patch there really isn't much point in trying to do precise tuning. Do it in the next pass.
The past is the best predictor of the future. I am simply pointing to best industry practices and combine them with the track record of the company. Not a pretty scenario to say the least. Kenneth put together a list and I don't want to get even more depressed and look for more examples of feature abandonment. Just look at it this way: The project prioritization policies that CCP employs brought you World of Darkness and Dust 514.
I thought we wanted to discuss issues here and not gloss over serious concerns. There are plenty of other outlets for blowing sunshine up people's rear end and tell stories that have little to do with reality. |
|
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 15:29:00 -
[11] - Quote
Thank you Greyscale. I am worried about a piecemeal release of the features since they are interlocking and interdependent. It's like putting a new more powerful engine in the car and waiting to upgrade the brakes until a future date. You might just hit a wall before you get the future breaks.
There is a lot of internal pressure to deliver things. I get that - I have been on both sides of the situation. Delaying a feature creates even more pressure. Management wants to cross things off the list and pesky clients want to see what you promised for so long. Delivering "something" relieves a ton of pressure to the point where some in project management (and I have worked for people like that) declare "victory" because something was delivered rather than the right thing was delivered. The caravan moves on to the next project and in my case client services were left to hold the bag with an incomplete, not properly working product. Six months later the whole thing started over because the client didn't want to pay $50m a year for the piece of crap that got rushed through.
Delaying an incomplete, interlocking feature creates a lot of internal pressure to deliver to actually release a good deliverable. But it's actually "good" pressure. Any subsequent deliverables are better used to fine tune the overall framework. Delivering the framework in pieces has never worked in my 20 year experience of working with this stuff and for the good and bad I had a lot more resources to throw at problems than this here.
Please release a complete deliverable. I know it must be very difficult to push that through internally just at a time when you went into a wave development process ("Don't be part of the past, iterative development project plans we are doing is the future" type of corporate speak), but this is the wrong deliverable to do in waves.
PS: Band-aids are the wrong tool when dealing with a sucking chest wound. |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 15:32:00 -
[12] - Quote
double post |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 16:10:00 -
[13] - Quote
It's just about releasing a complete product that is interlocking and interdependent. There is nothing Jesus about asking for the equivalent of a car that has both an engine and brakes. If you release engine and car in stages you are going to see Jesus in person. |
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 20:39:00 -
[14] - Quote
Is this BPO translation as intended?
Providence ME 7/1 > 9/1
Propulsion 20 > 22 Armor 15 > 17 Cargo 76 > 84 Construction 49 > 54
On a different note: The current Sisi build is completely overwhelmed by large number of BPO/BPCs.... I have like 20,000+ in one system and ~1000 or more in other systems and the industry module becomes basically unusable as you can't find anything. |
|
|
|