Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 70 post(s) |
Orovana
V.L.A.S.T. V.L.A.S.T
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 11:10:00 -
[451] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: - We would like to make copy times consistently lower than build times, so building from copies is the optimal play (dovetails with our starbase changes, for example)
First to state that manifacturing is not my main activity in the game and I just do invention of modules as a steady passive income while doing other stuff. That been said I would like an explanation on this point and why do you think this will make ppl use BPCs for T1 manifacturing instead of BPOs.
As it stand at this moment say Warp Disruptor have a base manifacturing time of 600s per unit and copy time of 60s per unit with Science 5. That means that copy is 10% of manifacturing time. That means that if I want to produce max ammout of units from single BPO i better set 10 max run BPCs and manifacture from them while i wait for new batch of BPC the next 50 hours (all this is based on station and such and i am not including all the extra bonuses that you can have). So as we stands with copy / manifacture atm with 1 BPO i can produce as i like have 10. So you want to do copy time 80% of manifacturing time. That only says to me that you are actually nerfing how much a BPO untilized correctly can manifacture per given ammout of time. Not to mention that with this i will need to wait way way longer to get the same ammount of max runs BPC for invention. So how this is not a major nerf to manifacturing? Did i get it wrong in some way?
Do you ment to say that manifacturing from BPC will have inherit bonus of 20% faster manifacturing time? Because this will make sense to me to use BPC to BPOs if ofc you keep the somewhat the same copy times as you do now.
I admit i am not familiar with copy/manifacturing times for big ships and such but for small modules this seems like a massive slow down in production.
P.S. I had not the time to read all the 23 pages of this post and maybe someone already asked this question, if so I am sorry of raising the same issie.
Regards |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2386
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 10:37:00 -
[452] - Quote
Orovana wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: - We would like to make copy times consistently lower than build times, so building from copies is the optimal play (dovetails with our starbase changes, for example)
First to state that manifacturing is not my main activity in the game and I just do invention of modules as a steady passive income while doing other stuff. That been said I would like an explanation on this point and why do you think this will make ppl use BPCs for T1 manifacturing instead of BPOs. As it stand at this moment say Warp Disruptor have a base manifacturing time of 600s per unit and copy time of 60s per unit with Science 5. That means that copy is 10% of manifacturing time. That means that if I want to produce max ammout of units from single BPO i better set 10 max run BPCs and manifacture from them while i wait for new batch of BPC the next 50 hours (all this is based on station and such and i am not including all the extra bonuses that you can have). So as we stands with copy / manifacture atm with 1 BPO i can produce as i like have 10. So you want to do copy time 80% of manifacturing time. That only says to me that you are actually nerfing how much a BPO untilized correctly can manifacture per given ammout of time. Not to mention that with this i will need to wait way way longer to get the same ammount of max runs BPC for invention. So how this is not a major nerf to manifacturing? Did i get it wrong in some way? Do you ment to say that manifacturing from BPC will have inherit bonus of 20% faster manifacturing time? Because this will make sense to me to use BPC to BPOs if ofc you keep the somewhat the same copy times as you do now. I admit i am not familiar with copy/manifacturing times for big ships and such but for small modules this seems like a massive slow down in production. P.S. I had not the time to read all the 23 pages of this post and maybe someone already asked this question, if so I am sorry of raising the same issie. Regards
Basically modules get a lot slower, ships get way faster, and everything uses a unified time. It is a reduction in throughput to module manufacturing but we're reasonably comfortable with it given that everything now uses the same time, meaning you need to learn fewer facts to wrap your head around industry as a whole. |
|
Orovana
V.L.A.S.T. V.L.A.S.T
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 11:32:00 -
[453] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Basically modules get a lot slower, ships get way faster, and everything uses a unified time. It is a reduction in throughput to module manufacturing but we're reasonably comfortable with it given that everything now uses the same time, meaning you need to learn fewer facts to wrap your head around industry as a whole.
So i get that you want to lower the complexity and stuff you need to wrap your head around to manifacture (not that i see any reason for that if any manufacturing is rather straight forward activity as it is), but my main consern is with invention. Maybe for ships those changes look great i agree with that, but with modules where you need maxed run BPC this increase of copy time will mean that we will require a looooot longer time to get a single copy that we can try inventing on. Are you not worried that this will create massive price change and will totaly break the current state of thing that you so desire not to mess to much with it. Using the same example Warp Disruptor I currently you need 4 days to get 20 max runed BPC, and with the new change you will require say 8 times longer for same result and efectively lowering all module inventors production capacity drasticaly.
As a manifacturer it makes no difference to me to be hones i will say a singe warp disruptor 8 times more expensive and will have the same isk/hour ratio but I dont think that general public will like the sudden increase in module pricess.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2387
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 11:56:00 -
[454] - Quote
Orovana wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Basically modules get a lot slower, ships get way faster, and everything uses a unified time. It is a reduction in throughput to module manufacturing but we're reasonably comfortable with it given that everything now uses the same time, meaning you need to learn fewer facts to wrap your head around industry as a whole.
So i get that you want to lower the complexity and stuff you need to wrap your head around to manifacture (not that i see any reason for that if any manufacturing is rather straight forward activity as it is), but my main consern is with invention. Maybe for ships those changes look great i agree with that, but with modules where you need maxed run BPC this increase of copy time will mean that we will require a looooot longer time to get a single copy that we can try inventing on. Are you not worried that this will create massive price change and will totaly break the current state of thing that you so desire not to mess to much with it. Using the same example Warp Disruptor I currently you need 4 days to get 20 max runed BPC, and with the new change you will require say 8 times longer for same result and efectively lowering all module inventors production capacity drasticaly. As a manifacturer it makes no difference to me to be hones i will say a singe warp disruptor 8 times more expensive and will have the same isk/hour ratio but I dont think that general public will like the sudden increase in module pricess.
You no longer need a max run copy to invent, you only need one run and if the BPC has more it will decrement the run count by 1 (as with a build job) rather than consuming it :) |
|
Orovana
V.L.A.S.T. V.L.A.S.T
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 12:45:00 -
[455] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: You no longer need a max run copy to invent, you only need one run and if the BPC has more it will decrement the run count by 1 (as with a build job) rather than consuming it :)
I am sorry to keep poking the same topiv but yet another question is rising.
So with the new system if i have 10run t1 BPC i will be able to invent 10 times from it and get potentualy 6-7 t2 10run BPC before that single t1 BPC runs out. Does this mean that the 100 max run BPC that i currently have will supply my invention for years to come, or will you change those BPC to 1 run BPC? How will you handle this transition?
And on the other hand, because you answer can be interpreted in 2 ways, if 10run t1 BPC produces 9run t2 BPC that mean that 300 run BPC will produce 299 run t2 BPC and as we all know we can make the chance go over 100% with decriptors meaning that we well the price for invention will drop drasticaly for modules.
Please dumb it down for me with example so i can get it correctly or point me to source where it is explained step by step
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2389
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 13:14:00 -
[456] - Quote
Orovana wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: You no longer need a max run copy to invent, you only need one run and if the BPC has more it will decrement the run count by 1 (as with a build job) rather than consuming it :)
I am sorry to keep poking the same topic but yet another question is rising. So with the new system if i have 10run t1 BPC i will be able to invent 10 times from it and get potentualy 6-7 t2 10run BPC before that single t1 BPC runs out. Does this mean that the 100 max run BPC that i currently have will supply my invention for years to come, or will you change those BPC to 1 run BPC? How will you handle this transition? And on the other hand, because your answer can be interpreted in 2 ways, if 10run t1 BPC produces 9run t2 BPC that mean that 300 run BPC will produce 299 run t2 BPC and as we all know we can make the chance go over 100% with decriptors meaning that the price for invention will drop drasticaly for modules. Please dumb it down for me with example so i can get it correctly or point me to source where it is explained step by step
I have a 10-run Tracking Computer I BPC. I successfully invent off it. I now have a 9-run Tracking Computer I BPC and a 10-run Tracking Computer II BPC.
I have a 10-run Omen BPC. I successfully invent off it. I now have a 9-run Omen BPC and a 1-run Zealot BPC.
Yes, your old stacked up BPCs will likely last you a while, enjoy :) |
|
Elena Thiesant
Sun Micro Systems
1374
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 13:37:00 -
[457] - Quote
Invention chances are unchanged (at present) AFAIK
If you have a 300 run T1 BPC, you can use it for 300 separate invention jobs, each job removes 1 run and has the usual chance of successfully producing a max run T2 BPC.
So if you have a 45% chance of success for a module BPC, then you should, if you use that 300 run T1 module BPC for 300 separate invention jobs, get out around 135 T2 BPCs, each of 10 runs. |
Elena Thiesant
Sun Micro Systems
1374
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 13:39:00 -
[458] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Yes, your old stacked up BPCs will likely last you a while, enjoy :)
I know what I'm doing the couple weeks before Crius deploys. :-) |
Orovana
V.L.A.S.T. V.L.A.S.T
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 14:17:00 -
[459] - Quote
Elena Thiesant wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Yes, your old stacked up BPCs will likely last you a while, enjoy :) I know what I'm doing the couple weeks before Crius deploys. :-)
Yep now I that this was my last invention job today. Long live module copyng ... well for next 5 weeks at least :)
|
John Henke
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.18 15:54:00 -
[460] - Quote
I just invented a 75mm Gatling Rail II BPCs. Each of them had 10 runs (in the line max runs per BPC), but only 1 licensed production run remaining. So it is effectively a 1 run TII-BPC, not a 10run TII BPC. |
|
Orovana
V.L.A.S.T. V.L.A.S.T
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 06:45:00 -
[461] - Quote
CCP Grayscale with invention result not linked to the runs of the BPC invented from will you allow us to run inventions in the same manner as manufacturing or copying?
Say i have 10 run BPC for and i want to invent 10 times from it with single instalation, provided ofc that all required invention materials for 10 runs are present. In such case it will be easyer for us to time manage our invention, as with the current state of module invention it is in few hours cycle and a lot of invention time is wasted due to IRL activities like sleep and work :D
|
Elena Thiesant
Sun Micro Systems
1375
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 07:02:00 -
[462] - Quote
He said previously in this thread that 10 inventions off a 10-run BPC will require 10 separate jobs, each started after the preceeding one completes.
Before complaining that module inventions are a few hours, have a read through this thread and check the revised times. Also bear in mind there's an invention overhaul planned for soon after Crius. |
Orovana
V.L.A.S.T. V.L.A.S.T
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 07:09:00 -
[463] - Quote
Elena Thiesant wrote:He said previously in this thread that 10 inventions off a 10-run BPC will require 10 separate jobs, each started after the preceeding one completes.
Before complaining that module inventions are a few hours, have a read through this thread and check the revised times. Also bear in mind there's an invention overhaul planned for soon after Crius.
Thank you I will w8 and see how things turn out and will follow with the invention changes after Crius release and if need be will voice my opinions for the next invention update.
|
Micheal York Solette
Dragon Star Enterprize
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 18:16:00 -
[464] - Quote
OK
I know I don't get much comments or reponse to my post I only hope they spark thoughts and ideas. Now the one thing I haven't seen talk about is the ME & PE (TE) of existing research. My thought and I know that any T2 BPO owners out there are not going to like it is. DRUM ROLL PLEASE! For those of us that have BPO researched above 10 let that affect the level of ME & PE (TE) on the invention of Tech 2 BPC. Example I have a BPO of a Frigate at a ME of 56 & a PE (TE) of 31 lets say for every 5 levels = a bonus to the level of a T2 BPC invention that would mean if you got a secessful invention then it would be a ME of 10 & PE (TE) of 6 on the T2 BPC that you did. This would mean some compition to those that own Tech 2 BPO's if we could do that and also a reason to try to get the current BPO's that are below 10 to something higher then 10.
As I said. I don't know if anyone reads my idea's but I just through this one out for those of use that haven't been playing since the game came out. I just hope it sparks some decusion and ideas.
MYS
CEO and Production leader Mine to Live Live to Mine
|
Altessa Post
Midnight special super sexy
139
|
Posted - 2014.06.22 21:16:00 -
[465] - Quote
How reliable are the SiSi numbers?
Comparing some blueprints between SiSI and TQ showed some unexpected changes and an increase in cost.
One ( I did not check more) BC and one BS were about 10% more expensive on SiSi. One Marauder was 23% more expensive. One carrier was around 10% more expensive. One JF was 28% more expensive to build.
Intentional?
I actually never like when prices increase. Believe it or not, noobies still start with empty pockets. Increasing prices with every second release feels a bit unfair.
Building a marauder suddenly required additional minerals. Why? The JF needed new capital parts...
On the internet, you can be whatever you want to be. It is amazing that so many people chose to be stupid. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2398
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 09:52:00 -
[466] - Quote
Altessa Post wrote:How reliable are the SiSi numbers?
Comparing some blueprints between SiSI and TQ showed some unexpected changes and an increase in cost.
One ( I did not check more) BC and one BS were about 10% more expensive on SiSi. One Marauder was 23% more expensive. One carrier was around 10% more expensive. One JF was 28% more expensive to build.
Intentional?
I actually never like when prices increase. Believe it or not, noobies still start with empty pockets. Increasing prices with every second release feels a bit unfair.
Building a marauder suddenly required additional minerals. Why? The JF needed new capital parts...
- Showinfo is inaccurate, you need to check the industry window for actual values. - Some T2 things have the build cost for the T1 prerequisite rolled into their costs currently, this is a bug. |
|
Ealon Musque
Veldspar Industries Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 20:40:00 -
[467] - Quote
Problem
I am concerned about the effect of the adjustments on capital ship ME research. Specifically, I have looked at Carriers, Dreads and the Rorqual.
The problem is the "chunkiness" of the Bill of Materials, due to small numbers of each type of cap component. The problem is very strongly exacerbated by the love of the number 10 in the Bill of Materials.
What happens is that going from ME9 to ME10 becomes the main part of research. For instance, researching an Archon BPO from ME0 to ME9 reduces the cost of materials by only 2.2%. ME10 increases this to 7.3%. Each step was meant to give approximately the same effect but at increasing time cost, but here the effect of the last step is more than twenty times as big as the others.
This is clearly not intended. A skill at level IV is intended to be good, just not as good as level V. In the same way, ME9 should be close to ME10. ME10 for a capital ship BPO will take almost a year and a half to research, so cap BPO research becomes a stupid and boring waiting game for that BPO to come out.
Solutions
[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, 25 etc..
Alternative solutions:
One "hacky" solution would be to let ME10 be 0.00001% waste, not perfect. However, this would only devalue cap BPO research, as ME10 would only be a few percent better than ME0.
Another solution would be to make cap components smaller, cheaper and faster, and require more of them per capital ship. However, this also feel unsatisfactory (if nothing else, it removes the very realistic and appropriate problem of handling those huge components).
Note: I base this on info from: http://bp.kiwi.frubar.net/calc/ |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
426
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 21:57:00 -
[468] - 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. |
Ealon Musque
Veldspar Industries Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 22:27:00 -
[469] - Quote
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. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
426
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 22:29:00 -
[470] - 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. |
|
Ealon Musque
Veldspar Industries Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 22:32:00 -
[471] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote: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.
Is your point that one can get around the "chunkiness" issue by running batches of multiple Archons (in this case) in one production run? |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
426
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 23:01:00 -
[472] - 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. |
Ealon Musque
Veldspar Industries Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 23:14:00 -
[473] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote: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.
I am sorry, I must be really bad, because I don't even understand whether you are agreeing with me, disagreeing with me or making an alternative proposal.
I thought I'd clarify my example - maybe that will help us along:
Archon Bill of Materials: Capital Drone Bay......................... 44 Capital Armor Plates.................... 11 Capital Capacitor Battery............. 11 Capital Power Generator............. 11 Capital Jump Drive....................... 11 Capital Ship Maintenance Bay.... 11 Capital Corporate Hangar Bay.....11 all other components....................<10
First of all, note that any items that occur on the Bill of Materials with less than 10 units will be unaffected even by ME10 (unless running batches let's you recover partial gains - but the batch size of Archon BPCs is 1).
Second, the only item on the entire Bill of Materials that is affected before ME10 are the Capital Drone Bays. So you save one of those when reaching ME3, another at ME5 and another at ME7. This is the only effect you get from ME research at all before reacing ME10, At ME10, however, you get enormous savings, because you save one of each of Drone Bay, Armor Plates, Capacitor Battery, Power Generator, Jump Drive, Maintenance Bay and Hangar Bay.
So, to summarize, ME0-9 saves you a total of 3 Drone Bays (the cheapest components), whereas ME10 alone saves 7 different components. This is the "chunkiness effect". |
Rionan Nafee
Industrie und Handels Konsortium Tribunal Alliance
362
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 05:43:00 -
[474] - Quote
Waht happened with the ammunition BPOs?
Currently: 20 copies with 1,500 runs (Maxrun) needs on a NPC-Station 2 days 2 hours. 3,000 minutes / 30.000 runs = 0.1 minutes / run
On Sisi there are only 200 runs maximum und the copy time for 20 copies needs 25 days. 36,000 minutes / 4,000 runs = 9 minutes / run
Is there a somehow meaningfull reason for this massive change for the worse? Our ammunition fabrication which runs with copies is now complete nonsens. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1457
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 06:51:00 -
[475] - Quote
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 GRRR Goons |
H3llHound
Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team
29
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 10:00:00 -
[476] - Quote
With the current build on Sisi. Is it on purpose that t2 ammo bpc only come in a 1run (5000units) form whn not using decryptors? I might have missed something in here, thats why I ask. |
Rionan Nafee
Industrie und Handels Konsortium Tribunal Alliance
362
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 12:54:00 -
[477] - Quote
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? |
Eodp Ellecon
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
8
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 18:50:00 -
[478] - Quote
Skill lvl discrepancy while we're reviewing all things
To manufacture T2 Large Ammo you need sciences at IV To manufacture T2 Large Rigs you do Not need Sciences at IV To Manufacture T2 Capital Rigs you need sciences at IV
It would seem lvl IV sciences are domain of Capital and therefore Large Ammo is out of order in progression.
|
Electrified Circuits
Fault Line Industries Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
17
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 19:05:00 -
[479] - Quote
I am also interested in what will happen with Cap BPOs. Currently having them at me 2 for many of them you can competively produce but will it now be neccessary to have them at 10 if this gives a >5% Material reduction? |
Ealon Musque
Veldspar Industries Brave Collective
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 19:15:00 -
[480] - Quote
Electrified Circuits wrote:I am also interested in what will happen with Cap BPOs. Currently having them at me 2 for many of them you can competively produce but will it now be neccessary to have them at 10 if this gives a >5% Material reduction?
Just a clarficiation of my post: The 5% material reduction from ME9 to ME10 was specifically for the Archon. It is lower for the other capitals I looked at, but still very big (3-5%, instead of the 1% that seems to be inteded). |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |