|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 28 post(s) |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
33
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
Tech2 bpo's will be converted the same as Tech1 bpo's. There was no mention of Tech1 bpo's that had a lower wastage factor, so be sure to check those after patch.
Tech2 bpcs also convert differently.
Also be aware Tech2 building cost is going up well over the "Reduction".. So at BEST your looking at a 24% increase in build cost. I was going to check my chart for invented bpcs, but the "test" server has been down so much this week it's difficult to check these things. What's odd is how the old -4 -4 prints turned into -6 -14 (or +6 +14) or +6 reduction +14 reduction (ugh hopefully in 12 months they'll either pick + or - as default)... But they are saying "new" jobs are -2/-4 ... Needless to say, If that conversion stays that way then you should invent your beehind off pre-patch .
I also hate how it's a Negative Positive. +9 Reduction...
TE Research is a bit lame too... For TE you can do 1 to 10 runs, but the output is 1 to +20, why not have it be able to do 1 to 20 runs?..
|
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
33
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
Lion El'Johnson wrote:Just one thing... Someone who has a BPO researched to ME 9 ( which will translate to ME 9 post-crius ) shouldn't have a smaller time to research it to level 10 than someone who had the same BPO at level 5 ( which will also translate to level 9 post-crius ) ? After all, in the first case there might be up to one year extra research which will be lost.
Put your blueprint in the lab now for 1 run. Even if it's stacked up with a 80 day wait then it'll be faster to do it that way!...
You should check the server for the print in question. Some of them now go from 0 to max in a fraction of the time, the downside is that the cost of upgrading expensive prints is laughable.
|
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
33
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:34:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lady Zarrina wrote:Mostly excited for these changes since I do a fair amount of industry.
But the deal with material efficiency skill needs to be dealt with. I know you are hoping it will get forget about in a few weeks. This will not happen. Just do the right thing and give a skill refund.
Yea, I think they should refund it too, and let us decide what to do with that free XP..
My guess, They know players wouldn't dump it back into such a crap skill as the one they are now "giving" us.. And thus they dont want to risk it.
|
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
33
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 22:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
Het Silenius wrote:Clayton Forester wrote: --question: I have several T2 ship bps that have multiple runs, for example 2 runs 5 runs, etc.
From what I read, all T2 ship BPs are going to have only 1 run? So I'm losing runs on these BPs? Or are you going to give me say five T2 BPs with one run each to replace my one BP with five runs?
did I misread the post?
Are you talking about this part? Quote:Successful invention always outputs a maximum-run copy as a baseline, which is then modified by decryptors; max runs have been adjusted to be 1 for T2 ships and Rigs and 10 for all other T2 products This has to do with invention of new T2 BPCs, not existing T2 BPCs. Currently, IIRC, if you want a max-run T2 BPC you have to feed a max-run T1 BPC into the invention process. For example, if you want a 10-run Hobgoblin II BPC, you have to begin with a 1,500-run T1 BPC.
Under the new system a 1 run HobGob will result in a 10 run HobGob II Thats if I am reading it Correctly
Existing BPCs are not getting converted by +6 then convert My -4/-4 prints went to +6/+14 My -1/-1 prints went to +9/+18 So the -1/-1's might hold true, but not the -4/-4's..
|
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
35
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 12:47:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Sorry, edited original post to add the word "time" between "whenever" and "it's", that wasn't clear.
Case 1, ME5. Case 2, ME9. We take whatever level the blueprint was at when the job started, convert that, and then when the job finishes add however many levels (capped at level 10) it was in research for.
Wow that's interesting.
So people can still get lvl10 prints with only a few days to spare then? Take a cruiser blueprint to Me:1 (2 days) Then install for 5 more (10 days, over patch cycle).. me1 becomes +5%, then 5 more gets added on top to give +10% So you get a +10% cruiser in 12 days worth of research :)...
I guess the upshot is that me5 capital prints that are put in now for 1 run will be me10 after they come out of the oven...
That is, if what your saying is the same as I understand it. |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
35
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 13:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
I would be surprised if it worked that way. Devs have been known to often get things wrong when explaining how they think it works ;P...
If someone would have found out about this 6 months ago they could have 10% cap prints after patch... Not a lot of time left, but I might see about throwing in some cruisers for 1/1 and rushing a me5 install prior to patch ;P...
|
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
35
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 13:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Yes, that math looks legit. There's a lot of generosity being done in numeric terms to avoid hurting anyone's absolute blueprint numbers. Two side-effects of this are that 1) people are getting a lot of stuff "for free" in the transition, which may cause us legacy headaches in a few years, and 2) some people are losing relative advantage. We judged that this ends up being a better option than eg nerfing blueprint absolute numbers to base off time spent or whatever - people will be unhappy either way, but at least this way nothing is being *directly* nerfed.
A bit odd and generous (those who knew about it ahead of time will benefit greatly!)... I would have expected one two things to happen, and neither was that.
So Me:1 +5r = 10% Me:2 +3r = 10% Me:3/4 +2r = 10% Me:5+ +1r = 10%
Def interesting.
|
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
35
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 13:42:00 -
[8] - Quote
So in this new system, material and time will both have base levels of 1-10? I only ask because if the conversion system is working on 1-20 then that would mean something that's converted and then has 1 run added would be in between research levels.
For example. Charon PL:1 with 1r Installed 1 -> 5, 5+1 = 6 (12%) -or- is it 1->10, 10+1 = 11 (11%)
I am guessing 12%. Me:1 (5%) +1r also means you miss out on conversion to 7%, so some people will be a little left out. |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
35
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 14:26:00 -
[9] - Quote
Sir HyperChrist wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Sir HyperChrist wrote:
2 questions: (again) 1) Are T2 BPO's jobs gonna cost 35-50% (depending on the previous ME) more materials? 2) For drones (small T2 drone, needs 1 robotics and 1 guidance system) how is this gonna round?
1) Yes. 2) Upwards, per unit. Acolyte II now requires 2 of most things (not the T1 drone obviously) so a 2-unit multi-run of acolyte II's will cost 4 robotics (etc etc), instead of 1.5*2=3? that would double their value /me is away gonna clean out certain markets.... *edit* and back, only vespas were close enough to margin. I've had better margins these last few months that I'd thought. *random remark* The markets for guidance systems and robotics will be shaken.... again...., robotics doubly so for the new posses that will come online
[/Quote]
Yay, my 120,000 Acolyte II's are going to go up in value :)... If there's one thing I am short on (and hate buying) It is robotics, Have 640k Guidance systems left from before introduction of PI (I Sadly I purchased Hydrogen instead of robotics by mistake, ohhhh how I have regretted that)...
That aside. I wish the test server was turned on so users could actually look at the changes... VIP Mode most of the week... If it was up then we could discover some of these changes! There has to be a bit of a worry when the test server cant stay online, with only 1 full working day left until the patch. |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
35
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:20:00 -
[10] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Yeah, wonder who the VIP's are that have had access to the server for the past few days, while the masses are locked out.
confirming that I am on sisi right now as I am a vip
If your saying your on SiSi during VIP mode then your saying your a DEV / ISD.. Saying your a DEV / ISD when your not = permaban. If you are a DEV / ISD then exposing your ingame char = Char Removal. Stop trolling. |
|
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
36
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 23:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: 1) Yes. 2) Upwards, per unit. Acolyte II now requires 2 of most things (not the T1 drone obviously)
Yay test server up.
Acolyte II requires 1 of most things, not 2.. On test server that is. |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
36
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 01:51:00 -
[12] - Quote
Sir HyperChrist wrote:
I second this. right now a Prorator bpo builds 51 units per month in a station, after patch only 18 a small T2 drone bpo builds 4125 units in a station, over 5500 at a pos (remotely), after patch only 2960 a medium T2 drone bpo is now at 2800 unites at a pos, which will drop to1480 in station (slightly more by using bpc's) a large T2 drone now gives 1880 units at a pos. Only986 will remain after patch
A T2 BPO nerf has been long in the coming, but this patch they get nerfed twice: 50% more materials and 2 to 3 times less units produced for the examples above. And no transparency about all this before the patchnotes. Is this truly what you want?
Some t2 bpo's had output raised quite a bit. My 10mn MWD II has gone from 4.5 hours build to 1.3 hours. That's a huge increase. Ammo too went through a similar change. DCII output has doubled. I guess it all depends on where your prints fall into this "Ranking" system. I too feel the pain with ships. Basilisk and Hawk have had output basically halved.
The cost increase shouldn't be considered a big deal as we can pass that on, not only that but t2 bpo holders will not be harmed as much as those people inventing.
It's a lot of changes to just to make ME Linear... But now we made research times NonLinear... So a lot of work to swap two equasions and sneak in a few nerfs and isk sinks. |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
36
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 12:07:00 -
[13] - Quote
Kahawa Oban wrote:I just want to be clear on this. A T2 BPC that was invented using a decryptor yeilding a -1/-1 ME/TE BPC will now require more components then previously? That is a big change for T2 battleships.
My understanding was that BP's were not going to get worse.
Someone please respond.
Your 10% decryptors will now be 29.54% more expensive to build from than before.
100*1.5 = 150 (new base) 150*.95 = 142.5 (new build cost using 10% chance decryptor, +3 ME +6 TE, 2/4 base, 5/10 after invent) 100*1.1 = 110 (Old build cost using invention with 10% -1/-1 output bpc) 142.5/110 = 1.2954
The flip side is that using worse decryptors results in cheaper runs. Most people didnt use the -1/-1 from what I seen anyhow (I did). The worst decryptor is 6.25% cheaper. Note that some of the decryptors have changed too. So the old (60%) decryptor now has a 40% chance (perhaps this change was long ago and I didnt keep up). 100*1.5 = 150 (new base) 150*1 = 150 (new build cost using 40% chance decryptor, -2 ME +2 TE, 2/4 base, 0/6 after invent +9r) 100*1.6 = 160 (old base cost using .60 with -6/+3) 150/160 = .9375 |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
37
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 14:36:00 -
[14] - Quote
Large Sheild Extender II still requires Nocx Explosive Dampening Amp II still requires Isogen Damage Control II still requires Nocx. I am sure there's more out there.
All 3 of the items I list have "Base Part" requirements. I haven't been through all of my blueprints, but I am sure a quick script could check this.
|
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
38
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 17:15:00 -
[15] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Ummm...are you kidding me? Yesterday you explicitly state that T2 small drones will need double their materials. Of course, singularity was down most of the week, and yesterday in VIP mode. So I , among others, actually BELIEVE you and go nuts trying to get as many T2 small drones cranked out before Tuesday. Now, today, you say, oops, I screwed up...oh well.
How many other things have you stated in your dev blog will be proven to be utterly false on Tuesday and have cost people time and money?
Mistakes can happen :P.... The last mirror some things were converted differently too... I think they have changed conversion formula on a few things.
Looking across my list of tech2 bpo's I dont think any were converted by "Roundup(1.5x)" because nearly every one of them has a odd value.
Damage control II for instance. Mechanical parts went from 3 to 3 (expected 5) Construction blocks went from 2 to 3
So it looks like there was some general rebalance work done as well as the conversion. |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
39
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 14:26:00 -
[16] - Quote
Rockgut Blackstone wrote:Having been an active industrialist (among other roles) for the last year or so I accept the changes. The math between past and future industrial actions is actually irrelevant - the future is here.
Much like the mining changes - live with them or quit the game.
Further as a long term player I am quite willing to bet my account that CCP will NOT lose as many 'industrial' accounts as they did when they mandated the graphics shader card hardware upgrade 2 years ago. I believe the loss at the time was initially about 40% of subscribers - back when most subscribers didn't have any alts.
The sand will settle into new patterns - the devoted will study and find the 'new' isk generating 'ooopses' .
There will be patches. There will be future releases.
Eve will continue.
Yes I still have only one character and one account - and I enjoy the game anyways.
The previous "Industry" nerf seen a lot of alt accounts quit (I kept mine going, but was unhappy).. Then the R&D Agent nerf came in, That one saw me drop about 8 accounts. This new change shouldnt cause a mass exit from game, with the exception of non-alliance capital building alts (as this patch is now locking that production down to large alliances with deep protected zones). The two biggest "harmful" changes with this patch are that remote blueprints can't be used, and that costings are going to be a huge drain. I am not sure people are seeing how large this isksink is, but its HUGE. |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
39
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 16:18:00 -
[17] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I particularly love the bold-faced lie CCP told re: capital Blueprints and "no functional value lost". Guess they have not bothered to get on Sisi and actually see the waste on manufacturing capitals now, compared to the waste today on TQ.
Go ahead CCP, go onto Sisi and look at the waste of my ME 6 Moros BPO, my ME 3 Archon and Thanato BPO's, and then compare them to the waste with the BPO's they have been morphed into on Sisi.
Go ahead, then come back and tell me how that "no functional value was lost."
That was because of a bug in the migration script, which we fixed thanks to your input. Thank you! Ummm..., once again no. I am on Singularity, right now, less than 24 hours before this mess goes live. I have my Archon BPO in my hand. It is sitting as an 8% / 10% BPO. (BTW, I grabbed a 0% / 0% BPO to see if my facts below are out of whack. The 0/0 BPO has higher component costs than my researched BPO, therefore I know I am solid ground factually.) I insert it in the UI. I am not going to go line by line for the individual capital components, but I now need 136 Capital Components to build a single Archon. Currently on TQ I need 127. If I go hardcore, and intend on building 3 Archon's, the Singularity UI, right now, now states 392 Capital Components, or a little less than 131 per ship. In my books, 136 , or even 131, is more than 127. You said that no functional value would be lost. Either you can't do math, your transition scripts are still borked, or you lied. Take your pick. This probably because the Material Efficiency skill is gone and they did not compensate the 25% loss from that skill. It's still as competitive as before and thus functional value is not lost. Unless I'm misunderstanding the term functional value.
Before your Lack of skill ADDED waste to a print, it didn't make it "Better"... So skill at V, and then print at perfect = your building at "Base" stats. Now they moved base.. Round(Oldvalue/0.9), but allowed blueprint research to pull waste (sorry, add savings, same freakin thing!) back to zero..
His ME:3 Archon "TQ" requires 127. His ME+8 or -8, or 8% savings, or whatever they deem it today/tomorrow shows me using 136 (in my excel document, it could be wrong, but he did say 136).. At ME+10 he'll drop down to 129 (the extra 2 are due to drone bay increase)
As to his change in build cost, The value doesn't look like it was converted. They have modified it in the DB for some reason, quite a few prints have had adjustments made. The best time to make them is during big patches like this anyhow. If your ticking off the community then why not go full bore. roundup((round(40/.9))*.9) = 40 So the base has increased from "40" to "45" on the old system, or from "44" to "50" in the new system.
The "Rewards" before were non-linear... The "Cost" now are non-linear...
CCP hasnt changed the complexity at all, they just moved it away from "Waste" and instead put it on "Time"... So Producers can now do the maths a bit easier, but LAB corps cant.
There are a lot of prints that have had adjustments made. Some are logical, some are just odd. Other smarter people than me will no doubt have a list of things that changed.
Only a few items will have grown by 1 unit. 40 = 40, 41 = 42 40 to 44 just means other adjustments happened. |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
39
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 19:24:00 -
[18] - Quote
Pheusia wrote: The subject has been discussed for literally years. All the 'consensus' that was going to be developed has been, because priviliged people never relinquish that privilige without a struggle, or at least without a lot of complaining and whining.
I personally weighed a pound of facts against a million tons of hi-sec "consensus" and the facts were what tilted the scale for me: the siutation was gigantically imbalanced. That's being corrected.
High sec production is only done by privileged high sec people :/...
first one for me.
|
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
41
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 15:00:00 -
[19] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:You guys said one thing early on with the ME and TE and did another. That's shady. Originally you said ME and TE were going to scale evenly i.e. ME was going to be 2% per level and now I see ME 1 being 5% and 6,7,8 and 9 being no improvement what so ever. Shady I tell you shady.
Under the new system ME does scale evenly. Time does not scale evenly.
Under the old system ME did not scale evenly. Time did scale evenly.
So this change was just converting one for the other.
me:+9 will have 9x the savings as me:+1 (you need items that use a lot of small materials to see this, like say battleships). Each "Level" of me is a "Saving" of 0.01*base, up to a maxium of 10% savings
TE is 2% per level. CCP were stuck on the conversions and they had to pick the best way to do it. Some people made out like bandits, some got stung hard, and some ended up with nearly the same thing.
It must be said however, that those that got stung hard in the conversion would have had low research, and under this new system they can still bump it up at minimal cost. |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
41
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 01:13:00 -
[20] - Quote
Barton Breau wrote:Kukihara Akachi wrote: 2) The very poorly planned change made it sure that it REALLY makes a difference that the cap prints are no longer perfect. With the Moros blueprint, for instance, you get the following part savings per ME level:
0->1 = components saved: 0 1->2 = components saved: 0 2->3 = components saved: 0 3->4 = components saved: 6 (65 million saved) 4->5 = components saved: 2 (17 million saved) 5->6 = components saved: 2 (22 million saved) 6->7 = components saved: 3 (34.4 million saved) 7->8 = components saved: 3 (30.1 million saved) 8->9 = components saved: 0 9->10 = components saved: 6 (64.2 million saved)
Capital components are rather large, arent you just beaten by rounding? Have you tried 100 moroses? (the bonus is now per batch, not job)
I am not sure you should be using the forums. Go on test server and get us a quote for 100 Moros's being built in one batch and i'll withdraw the implication that I think your a idiot.
To "Barton".. They could combat this by applying the same type of system they did to "RAM/R.Db"... Instead of needing say 40 comps, require 4000, It might not go back to the old levels, but you would see better linear progression from each level. |
|
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
42
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 19:43:00 -
[21] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:for more examples of an information gap see when ccp patched the contracts window to actually show the lowest price for a thing on contracts instead of whatever dumb default search pattern there was before that artificially increased the perceived minimum price of an item on contract for those who didn't know how the dialog worked
I think the default search pattern is.. (Same as Date-Created - Newest First).. So those 80 are listed first. Then you can sort those 80 by clicking.
But yes, many people get this wrong as you can flood enough of the same item on contracts and push those cheaper ones back 2-3 pages. And you can even (if you dont have enough to flood contracts) place your orders in a way that makes HIGHER orders appear before cheaper ones.
CCP has never had good "Sorting" on markets, contract, escrow, assets... Better over the years, but never quite to the good stage.
I used to take advantage of contract manipulation a while back on a char... Was sweet, sell an item for 120 mil and then buy the one that the guy put up for 25 mil on contracts. |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
42
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 23:53:00 -
[22] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Hirogenale wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:the complaint is basically that ccp fixed a case of the game giving poor and misleading information Then please make CCP also remove: margin trading, officer mods, min. buy amounts, Contracts that sell and demand the same Item, direct trading.... The things i meantioned above and many more are used in misleading ways a lot more often, so they should all be removed, correct? there's no problem with information regarding officer mods, contracts or trading. it doesn't matter if something is used to mislead, it matters if the game itself offers poor information. margin trading scams are based on a player's poor understanding of the market, which is not intuitive, and definitely does need to be explained better in-client. of course, once the information is made reasonably accessible (the evelopedia is not reasonably accessible imo), there's no reason to remove margin trading scams or margin trading
The margin trading scams are down to 1) player naivety. 2) broken mechanics. 3) market "bug" that allows players to have 0 isk held in sell orders.
1) can be fixed by players making mistakes. 2) players should be penalized for "Failed" buy orders, perhaps a 5% penalty of the "Total" order, there's no penalty mechanism in the game for putting up non-fillable orders. As a side note, this feature WAS in the game once, and they removed it. 3) A buy order that shows 1 billion isk for an item SHOULD have at least 240 mil in escrow in it, meaning if the scammer uses a 200 mil item and a 1bil fake order, you could make 40 mil. Sadly that's not possible, because you could have a 1bn isk buy order, with a 0.00 isk amount in escrow. This is a "Bug" and not how escrow systems work. CCP isnt going to code a fix for this any time soon either, they are "happy" with this bug as it doesnt impact players...
|
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
42
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 23:58:00 -
[23] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:CCP has actually said they don't like the margin trading scam being possible, they just don't have good ideas to fix it.
5% penalty on failed orders. Removing 0 isk escrows.
Who needs good ideas, when the basic ideas are great. |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
44
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 15:13:00 -
[24] - Quote
Gothie Maulerant wrote:Question - there are 14,000 lines in the reprocessing table, almost all of whch line up perfectly with the blueprint manufacturing table. Except for a whole 86 lines... (see list below; duplicates in case multiple materials differ in reprocessing / mfg values).
Any reason for this?
Thanks, G.
Mobile Large Jump Disruptor I Mobile Large Jump Disruptor I Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Mobile Small Warp Disruptor I Mobile Small Warp Disruptor I Mobile Medium Warp Disruptor I Mobile Medium Warp Disruptor I Mobile Medium Warp Disruptor I Mobile Large Warp Disruptor I Mobile Large Warp Disruptor I Modulated Strip Miner II Modulated Strip Miner II Shadow Large Blaster Battery Shadow Large Blaster Battery Blood Large Pulse Laser Battery Angel Large AutoCannon Battery Angel Large AutoCannon Battery Angel Large Artillery Battery Angel Large Artillery Battery Domination Large Artillery Battery Domination Large Artillery Battery Serpentis Warp Disruption Battery Shadow Warp Disruption Battery Serpentis Medium Blaster Battery Serpentis Medium Railgun Battery Blood Medium Beam Laser Battery Dark Blood Medium Beam Laser Battery Blood Medium Pulse Laser Battery Blood Small Beam Laser Battery Dark Blood Small Pulse Laser Battery Angel Medium Artillery Battery Angel Small AutoCannon Battery Sansha Large Pulse Laser Battery Sansha Medium Beam Laser Battery Sansha Medium Pulse Laser Battery Sansha Small Beam Laser Battery True Sansha Large Beam Laser Battery True Sansha Medium Pulse Laser Battery True Sansha Small Beam Laser Battery Shadow Sensor Dampening Battery Sansha Energy Neutralizing Battery Blood Energy Neutralizing Battery Dark Blood Energy Neutralizing Battery Mobile Tractor Unit 'Packrat' Mobile Tractor Unit 'Magpie' Mobile Tractor Unit Mobile Large Jump Disruptor I Mobile Large Jump Disruptor I Mobile Large Jump Disruptor I Improved Cloaking Device II Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Mobile Small Warp Disruptor I Mobile Small Warp Disruptor I Mobile Small Warp Disruptor I Mobile Medium Warp Disruptor I Mobile Medium Warp Disruptor I Mobile Large Warp Disruptor I Mobile Large Warp Disruptor I Mobile Large Warp Disruptor I Modulated Deep Core Strip Miner II Modulated Deep Core Strip Miner II Serpentis Large Blaster Battery Serpentis Large Blaster Battery Serpentis Large Railgun Battery Shadow Large Railgun Battery Shadow Large Railgun Battery Blood Large Beam Laser Battery Serpentis Warp Scrambling Battery Shadow Warp Scrambling Battery Shadow Medium Blaster Battery Shadow Medium Railgun Battery Dark Blood Medium Pulse Laser Battery Dark Blood Small Beam Laser Battery Blood Small Pulse Laser Battery Domination Medium Artillery Battery Domination Small AutoCannon Battery Sansha Small Pulse Laser Battery True Sansha Large Pulse Laser Battery True Sansha Medium Beam Laser Battery True Sansha Small Pulse Laser Battery Serpentis Sensor Dampening Battery True Sansha Energy Neutralizing Battery Scan Acquisition Array II Scan Pinpointing Array II Scan Rangefinding Array II
Submit it via a BR so you can get an official statement from them saying "It looks okay to us".. Once you can link it to pew-pew then BR it again and someone who gives 0.02 might actually look at it.
The people who can answer such a question are likely ignoring the thread. There were a lot of manual adjustments in the changes, It will now get more skewed over time as the changes were there to let them adjust build input without worrying about refine output. There are only a few items on that list where you could compress or do something similar. It is likely those items will get fixed/changed in the future if they are still usable in that way. As long as output is not greater than Input then there should be no need to worry.
For reference, in the past when some of these items were "changed", ccp would make them non-refinable. I don't think this should ever happen again with the current changes.
|
|
|
|