open All Channels
seplocked Science and Industry
blankseplocked The Mystery of ME, PE and Perfect ME
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic

Kjellerup
Minmatar
The Qing Dynasty
X13 Alliance
Posted - 2006.08.14 08:04:00 - [61]
 

Edited by: Kjellerup on 14/08/2006 08:09:09
Originally by: Chondu Hataki
Edited by: Chondu Hataki on 14/08/2006 04:37:08
Great post, really helped me understand ME. Just some numbers in my game are bothering me.

I'll use a tristan BPO for this. At 0 ME, so the waste factor is 0.1

--------------- PERFECT / YOU(me)
PE0 Tritanium 23071 / 28839
PE1 Tritanium 23071 / 27686

ETC ...



As GC13 wrote, you have to look up the perfect build amount on the EVE website, rather than showing info on the blueprint. If you do that you'll find that the Base Mineral cost for the Tristan is 20974 Tritanium. If you use the formula provided by GC13 you'll find that at PE1 and ME0 you indeed use 20974 + (20974 * (0.25 - 1) + (20974 * 0.1) = 27265 provided that you round each result within the parentheses.

So where do the numbers on the blueprint come from? Well I actually think it's a screw up by CCP. The only way I can get them to match is by taking the Base Amount and instead of using the above formula, then multiply in series. EDIT: (As I just read GC13 mentions too)

If you take the numbers for Tritanium: 20974 * 1.1 * 1.25 = 28839.25
And at PE1: 20974 * 1.1 * 1.2 = 27685.68

Now according to the Player Guide, the BPO numbers should be the correct ones as the Guide clearly shows a formula that multiplies in series:
Originally by: Player Guide

(1.25 - 0.05 * Production Efficiency Skill Level) * (1 + (Base Waste Factor / (1 + Blueprint Mineral Efficiency Level)) * Base Minerals

But when actually making a production job, GC13's formula is used. I don't know which programmer at CCP got it right, but right now we got the cheapest one, so we shouldn't complain too much Smile

Chondu Hataki
Posted - 2006.08.14 15:05:00 - [62]
 

Sounds good to me. I musta missed that part in the guide Confused
but for now im happy with the cheapest formula Very Happy

Bado Sten
Minmatar
Republican Guard
Posted - 2006.08.15 18:46:00 - [63]
 

When is this thread getting a sticky? Would be great if it made people stop researching ME to 100 and freed up some slots Rolling Eyes

DeODokktor
Caldari
Dark Templars
The Fonz Presidium
Posted - 2006.08.15 20:52:00 - [64]
 

too much typing for what little info there is ;)
But yea, it looks to be fairly "there".

ccp didnt make a screw up when you view blueprint info of a npc print (it states clearly that it's me:0 and it is what it'll be when you buy it. Escrow should be expanded to get around that I think).

You also forgot about 2 mutators.
One cuts wastage in half (so your base waste factor can be .1 or .05)
The other is that some items are immune to wastage calculations. (I figgure that's more of a insane mutator that jsut refuses it a chance to get more numbers added of said item)

Mutators are not public info so I guess there's not a big reason to point them out ;).

Wastage in a pos is also calc'd in a strange way and those HIGHLY EXCESSIVE research'd prints can have a place.

and prints like say a heavy nos bpo @ 2190 me has a place too ;).. Mineral compression.

I guess the only "odd" thing to think about is where your next bit of expensive mineral will break over.

lets say 9 -> 10 takes you down 10k.. 10 -> 11 2k, and then 11 -> 12 takes you down 19k. Those spots are not on many prints but when morphite, mega, or zyd are not at perfect build levels then it can make a big difference in the long run ;)

Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
Posted - 2006.08.15 23:18:00 - [65]
 

Edited by: Crumplecorn on 15/08/2006 23:50:32
I've been looking at GC13's formula for the waste. If (and I stress the If) I am applying it correctly, it gives slightly inaccurate amounts for large numbers of runs.

I have a blueprint which has a base trit cost of (among others) 1786.
I know from actually manufacturing it that the wastage per run is 268.3, this I found by doing enough runs that rounding was never done on the numbers, and dividing by the number of runs.
So for say 100 runs, the waste is 26830.


Calclulating this using GC13's forumla:
Mineral cost = Base cost + (Base cost * (0.25 - (0.05 * Production Efficiency))) + (Base cost * Mineral wasteage factor)
Waste = (Base cost * (0.25 - (0.05 * Production Efficiency))) + (Base cost * Mineral wasteage factor)


He says it is rounded per run, so I calculate for one run and multiply by the number of runs, right?
Waste=(1786*0.05)+(1786*0.1)
Waste=89.3+178.6
267.9
Rounded=268
For 100 runs = 26800.

This is slightly inaccurate.

I have found that it is possible to correct this by only rounding the ME waste per run, and rounding the total at the end. So:
Waste=(1786*0.05)+(1786*0.1)
=89.3+178.6
=89.3+179 <=== Round ME only
=268.3
For 100 runs = 26830

For one run this rounds to 268, as per the result of the original formula. However, for larger runs that .3 is not rounded out, and impacts the number slightly. It is just me or does the original formula not account for this?


Edit: Just found this does not work for a BP with 1 megacyte per run. It never wastes any megacyte with any number of runs.

GC13
Caldari
Species 5618
R0ADKILL
Posted - 2006.08.16 00:14:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Crumplecorn
For one run this rounds to 268, as per the result of the original formula. However, for larger runs that .3 is not rounded out, and impacts the number slightly. It is just me or does the original formula not account for this?
Interesting. I'll see what I can do with this (as soon as I do a clean Eve install WITHOUT the test patch, which it prompted me to install after I connected to TQ...).

Fubar
Posted - 2006.08.16 04:40:00 - [67]
 

Crumplecorn,

Your findings are correct.

ME waste is rounded before it is multiplied by the number of runs.

Skill waste and station waste are not rounded before they are multiplied by the number of runs.

But, and a big but, if a particular mineral does not have ME waste it will not have skill waste or station waste. This is a bug in my opinion.

So basically you have (Excel functions)
*you all know the waste formulas so I will not post them here

Waste_1 = round(ME waste) * qty
Waste_2 = skill waste * qty
Waste_3 = station waste * qty

Final waste = int(waste-1 + waste_2 + waste_3)

And remember in the above if waste_1 = 0 then waste_2 and waste_3 will also equal zero.

Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
Posted - 2006.08.16 11:14:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Fubar
But, and a big but, if a particular mineral does not have ME waste it will not have skill waste or station waste. This is a bug in my opinion.
Can someone confirm so that with large enough mineral requirements the likes of megacyte are wasted? I checked the minerals I found never to be wasted, namely megacyte and zydrine, and found that in the bill of materials these, along with morphite, do not have and 'you' and 'perfect' listed, but just one figure, which lead me to believe that these higher-end minerals might never be wasted?
However the above quoted also explains it rather nicely, and makes more sense, I'd just like to be sure......

Fubar
Posted - 2006.08.16 21:58:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Crumplecorn
Can someone confirm so that with large enough mineral requirements the likes of megacyte are wasted?


I can confirm that waste calculations are always performed on minerals.

The mineral requirements shown in a blueprints showinfo window are not correct for characters that do not have production efficiency level 5. There is mention of this in the known issues section of this website. You should always look at a manufacturing quote to determine what minerals are required to build an item, don't rely on the show info list.

Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
Posted - 2006.08.17 11:35:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Fubar
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Can someone confirm so that with large enough mineral requirements the likes of megacyte are wasted?


I can confirm that waste calculations are always performed on minerals.
Sweet! Your explanation seems to be correct so.

Originally by: Fubar
The mineral requirements shown in a blueprints showinfo window are not correct for characters that do not have production efficiency level 5. There is mention of this in the known issues section of this website. You should always look at a manufacturing quote to determine what minerals are required to build an item, don't rely on the show info list.
I've never relied on the showinfo bill of materials, I noticed early on in manufacturing how wrong it is, and have since relied on the actual values given in factory quotes. But with this small change GC13's formula calculates mineral requirements down to the last unit of tritanium, so I don't even need to have a copy of the BP to figure out exact mineral requirements. FTW.

Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
Posted - 2006.08.21 13:47:00 - [71]
 

Stickeh?

Agara Nuhto
Posted - 2006.09.11 13:23:00 - [72]
 

great info!

Mik Nostrebor
Minmatar
Ex Coelis
Posted - 2006.09.11 22:21:00 - [73]
 

Edited by: Mik Nostrebor on 11/09/2006 22:41:26
Hmm,

In short I suppose that the following would be a rule of thumb guide?:

Small Ammo - No ME research
Med Ammo - ME 1
Large Ammo, Frigates, Destroyers - ME 5
Cruisers ~ME 9-19 PE 5
BC and BS ~ME 9 PE 5

Mik

Dawnstar
Gallente
Kiroshi Group
Exiliar Syndicate
Posted - 2006.09.11 22:27:00 - [74]
 

Quote:

As GC13 wrote, you have to look up the perfect build amount on the EVE website, rather than showing info on the blueprint. If you do that you'll find that the Base Mineral cost for the Tristan is 20974 Tritanium. If you use the formula provided by GC13 you'll find that at PE1 and ME0 you indeed use 20974 + (20974 * (0.25 - 1) + (20974 * 0.1) = 27265 provided that you round each result within the parentheses.

So where do the numbers on the blueprint come from? Well I actually think it's a screw up by CCP. The only way I can get them to match is by taking the Base Amount and instead of using the above formula, then multiply in series. EDIT: (As I just read GC13 mentions too)

If you take the numbers for Tritanium: 20974 * 1.1 * 1.25 = 28839.25
And at PE1: 20974 * 1.1 * 1.2 = 27685.68

Now according to the Player Guide, the BPO numbers should be the correct ones as the Guide clearly shows a formula that multiplies in series:

Originally by: Player Guide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1.25 - 0.05 * Production Efficiency Skill Level) * (1 + (Base Waste Factor / (1 + Blueprint Mineral Efficiency Level)) * Base Minerals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now according to the Player Guide, the BPO numbers should be the correct ones as the Guide clearly shows a formula that multiplies in series:


Perhaps I can shed a bit of light on this and the history of the manufacturing information that is in the Player's Guide.

I wrote the original manufacturing guide several years ago in the very early days of Eve. At that time the numbers on the blueprints were very confusing and didn't very well represent what was actually happening. They also didn't indicate the "perfect" values at the time.

Through a bit of trial and error I derived the formula which you cited from the guide. At the time, it matched up very well. Somewhere along the way I recall there suddenly being some very slight discrepancies between my formula and what was actually happening. It was after a patch, although I'm rather hard pressed at this point to be able to point to which one it was. As a result, the information in my guide became slightly off.

The guide was originally hosted on eve-i. However at some point the images got lost on eve-i (I believe I still have the original guide files, although at this point in time, the blueprint shots no longer match up with what BPs look like today). Due to some RL stuff, I wasn't able to update the guide at the time, so the original guide stood as-is.

When CCP finally put together the manual, my guide got rolled into it, as it was (at the time) still probably the best resource on manufacturing and science, despite having images missing and being over a year nad a couple of major patches old. Someone on the staff put some new images in and edited up the document for the new images. However, when this was done, there was no correction for the discrepancy (since it wasn't in my original guide).

I must admit that I'm rather tickled that people are still citing some of my original formulas and terms (I first coined design and incompetence waste in my guide for example). Its also interesting to see that most of the other guides out there still have much of my original information in them too.

Back in action once again after some time away...


Kjellerup
Minmatar
The Qing Dynasty
X13 Alliance
Posted - 2006.09.11 22:41:00 - [75]
 

Welcome back :)

Guess it's all back to trial and error then. I always thought CCP wrote those guides and that we therefore could assume those to be right, apparently I was wrong, which incidently is quite good to know.

Kayleigh Lothian
Minmatar
Obsidian Inc.
Posted - 2006.10.11 11:57:00 - [76]
 

Thank you all very much for the information in this thread. I has been of help to me and my friends :)

GC13
Caldari
Species 5618
R0ADKILL
Posted - 2006.10.11 14:20:00 - [77]
 

Just a question to everybody else asking if they can verify what I've observed:

Lately, it seems that the display bug with the Perfect value and the calculated factory value is gone (i.e. the Perfect value is adding and not multiplying the wastes). Is anybody else getting this? I aim to verify it myself, but I'm just a tad paranoid since I didn't spot this fix in any sort of patch notes or dev post. ugh

Fubar
Posted - 2006.10.14 18:05:00 - [78]
 

Edited by: Fubar on 15/10/2006 15:00:54
Originally by: GC13
Just a question to everybody else asking if they can verify what I've observed:

Lately, it seems that the display bug with the Perfect value and the calculated factory value is gone (i.e. the Perfect value is adding and not multiplying the wastes). Is anybody else getting this? I aim to verify it myself, but I'm just a tad paranoid since I didn't spot this fix in any sort of patch notes or dev post. ugh


I just verified that you are correct.

The blueprints show info material requirements now match the factory quote.


IceTea
Gallente
Inverted Destruction Inc.
Posted - 2006.11.23 17:35:00 - [79]
 

Edited by: IceTea on 23/11/2006 18:26:24
Edited by: IceTea on 23/11/2006 18:26:00
Edited by: IceTea on 23/11/2006 17:43:29
Edited by: IceTea on 23/11/2006 17:41:31
Bringing this back from the nearly deceased. I have noticed some problems with the above formulae.

Where the ME part works without problems: endcost = basecost * ( 1 + ( 0.1 / 1 + ME ) )
(assuming PE5)

BUT the PE skill is where it starts going wrong in my research.
PE modifier turns out at endcost = basecost * ( 1.25 - ( 0.05 * PE ) )
(assuming infinite ME) (BTW is exactly the same as 1.25 * (1 - (PE * 0.04)) )

Total equasion: endcost = basecost * ( 1 + ( 0.1 / 1 + ME ) ) * ( 1.25 - ( 0.05 * PE ) )

For the tritanium cost of a megathron this would be:
basecost: 7.372.840 (eve-website)
0-ME 0-PE following formula: 10.137.655
0-ME 5-PE following formula: 8.110.124
A char ingame with no PE levels viewing a fresh BPO on the market:
You (should be PE0): 9.953.334
Perfect (should be PE5): 8.110.124

If I calculate the difference between the ingame numbers, it amounts to a difference of 22.72727...% OR 4.54545...% per level of PE. (PE0/PE5=1.2272727...)

Conclusion, there appears to be something wrong with the PE skill effect. It might just be the figure given by the blueprint on the market (if anyone wants to donate me a megathron BPO to compare production costs drop me a line) OR me making a booboo in my reasoning?

What gives ??

Scratch this found the correct formula 2 seconds after posting (as usual) as I was decrypting the last 2 posts
MEwaste = basecost * ( 0.1 / ( 1 + ME ) )
PEwaste = basecost * ( 0.25 - ( 0.05 * PE ) )
EndCost = basecost + MEwaste + PEwaste

It's not that late is it??

Sirot
Posted - 2006.12.30 22:02:00 - [80]
 

I was just looking over a spreadsheet I made and I discovered that perfect ME is in fact the largest quantity of resource needed on the 'perfect' column of the blueprint divided by 5.5 and then rounded down, not 5 as the guide says. A minor problem since no one really researches the perfect ME, but notable nonetheless, if you're researching to one of the lesser needed materials' perfect ME.

GC13
Caldari
Species 5618
R0ADKILL
Posted - 2006.12.30 22:12:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Sirot
I was just looking over a spreadsheet I made and I discovered that perfect ME is in fact the largest quantity of resource needed on the 'perfect' column of the blueprint divided by 5.5 and then rounded down, not 5 as the guide says. A minor problem since no one really researches the perfect ME, but notable nonetheless, if you're researching to one of the lesser needed materials' perfect ME.
And do you want to know why it's the Perfect column divided by 5.5?

Because the Perfect column still has the +10% cost from having a ML of 0.

Artmedis Valben
Gallente
Posted - 2007.01.01 16:56:00 - [82]
 

This is all fine and dandy from a purely manufacturing point of view.

If you want to sell BPCs as well, you will be at a serious disadvantage having just researched your BPO to a breakeven point, as in thinking of lost manufacturing days.

My corporation is primarily a research corp, and this is why we research all our prints far beyond the practical from a manufacturing standpoint. All our prints except the ships and the some of the Revelations BPOs are already at ML100 (0.09% waste), and at PL 100.

This is surely a ridiculous overkill on research, unless your primary motive is to gain a competitive edge over the BPC sellers you compete with. And although a Perfect ML can be as low as ML0 (mining crystals) or ME4 some small ammo types. Just researching everything to ML100 makes it unnecessary for the buyer to examine the material needs of each and every BPO to see where the savings stop, and make sure that my BPCs sell before lesser researched BPCs and thus in the long run (be it 2-3 years) I will be ahead of those who merely research to a manufacturing breakeven point.

And in most cases, a strict manufacturer will be better off buying PERFECT PRINTS from me rather than research his own BPO to a breakeven point. I already provide BPCs for several giving them the edge they need.

With the current waiting lines for ML research, you definately can make a lot of money from BPCs manufacturing while you wait for your BPOs to cook, or you can use the money you make from manufacturing for other stuff like Hulks, Transports and Freighters, and push ahead of the competition that way.

The reason so many collect BPOs is beacuse they like to own them. (Its a stamp collection) And they want them researched well enough so that they have no reason to buy BPCs. It makes them independent, and it doesn't matter that they will never make the investment back from the produce they make from said prints. They will earn much more money from buying max run BPCs on a permanent basis from provider with a well researched collection.

Templer Relleg
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.01.06 18:28:00 - [83]
 

Sticky please. Fantastic material!

Could use some ME tho, because its very long Laughing

EffBee Primus
Caldari
DCS Ltd
Posted - 2007.01.09 18:57:00 - [84]
 

As said many times before this is an excellent thread.

However - when I play games like EvE I get uncomfortable when the game analysis reaches this level of detail. (Even though I do it myself!). My problem is that you are playing directly against the programming model coded into the game, rather than playing an economic simulation through the game, if you see what I mean.

However that aside, it seems to me that the critical thing to understand in this thread's arguments is the behaviour of the little 1/(1+X) function. It starts at one for x=0, and asymptotically tends towards zero at x=infinity. The result is a proportion. This proportion doesn't doesn't care if it is applied to a Titan or a Shuttle.

If I am a poor struggling producer just starting out with little funding, few resources and a cheap BPO producing high volume cheap goods, I might research the blueprint to leave me a percent or two of waste.
If I am a megawealthy industrialist with massive resources behind me churning out something vastly expensive then I might also research the blueprint to leave me only a percent or two waste. In absolute terms there is a vast, vast, vast difference in isk saved or wasted. But in relative terms the rich man and the poor man are probably wasting and saving the same. Relatively!

I think that things start to go wrong for industrialists in EvE when they start focussing too much on the absolute isk involved in these calculations without relating it to their overall wealth. They then start getting obsesed with the few ISK they are wasting rather than concentrating on the much larger number of isk they are saving. You could argue that it is worth spending all that extra time to optimize your profits - but you could start out and make a lot more isk doing something completely different in the game. It depends whether you are role playing a money grabbing tycoon or an anally retentive stamp collector.



In real life someone on social benefits might spend a morning shopping around the local shops and supermarkets to save a few dollars/pounds/yen or whatever. Similarly someone moderately well off might spend a morning studying online wine merchants to save a couple of hundred before buying his monthly wine supply. Both people are saving amounts of money that are significant to them, buying things that are important to them. The richer man wouldn't dream of spending a morning shopping around to save a little on groceries - it simply wouldn't be effective use of his time. The poorer man can only dream about being able to spend that much money on luxuries. In practice they might both be saving the same proportion of their total income.

In summary I think I suggesting that a fairly stress free way to get your personal PE and ME levels right is to mentally set a sensible level of wastage and research down to that level. Don't forget the Pareto principle.

Antway - as a new industrialist thats the way I need to do it otherwise I will become utterly obsessive about making every blueprint perfect for its own sake, losing track of the fact that a blueprint is a tool in the game to make things to sell and use for fun!


Dektor
Gallente
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Nebula Rasa
Posted - 2007.01.26 13:26:00 - [85]
 

For some reason of mine a m8 doesn't get any incompetence waste on some quotes.

He has PE on level 3. But on the two examples below he doesn't have to pay any incompetence waste over (some of) the requirements.

Is this a bug or is this part of the game mechanics and is there a way to determine when this happens?

http://cdlist.mine.nu/dump/nowaste1.jpg
http://cdlist.mine.nu/dump/nowaste2.jpg


P.S. He confirmed that the materials mentioned in the quote were the actual materials that were taken from his hanger so its not just a display bug.

Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
Posted - 2007.03.04 03:39:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Dektor
For some reason of mine a m8 doesn't get any incompetence waste on some quotes.

He has PE on level 3. But on the two examples below he doesn't have to pay any incompetence waste over (some of) the requirements.

Is this a bug or is this part of the game mechanics and is there a way to determine when this happens?

http://cdlist.mine.nu/dump/nowaste1.jpg
http://cdlist.mine.nu/dump/nowaste2.jpg


P.S. He confirmed that the materials mentioned in the quote were the actual materials that were taken from his hanger so its not just a display bug.
No waste occurs if there is no ME waste, as there is not in this case due to the ME level of 20.

Did this get a stickeh yet?

QTC Mineral'Index
Posted - 2007.03.05 17:22:00 - [87]
 

And! there will never be any ME waste on something that can not be refined.

More bumps are always good :)


Tare Bloodraven
Posted - 2007.04.04 10:30:00 - [88]
 

Ok now that I am totally confused...

Can someone put the correct formula that works in EXCEL that answers the original question...something doesn't work correctly in what I Grok'ed out of this threat.

Please show me the formula to calc the minerals for ME 0 ME10 and ME50 for the kestel

no more, no less...I got the theory, just need the lastest greatest version of the MATH.

This is truely an awesome thread but it's 3:23 am Very Happy

Thanks Very Much for everyone's efforts involved here.

Liam Money
Minmatar
Posted - 2007.04.04 18:55:00 - [89]
 

This is one of the most useful posts I think I have ever seen anywhere on this website, you sir are a gentleman and a scholar.

Talkie Toaster
Amarr
Incoherent Inc
Otaku Invasion
Posted - 2007.06.12 12:57:00 - [90]
 

Edited by: Talkie Toaster on 12/06/2007 12:56:41
ok i THINK this is the right formula for ME that will work in excel

(1.25-0.05*X)*(1+(0.1/(1+Y)))*Z

where:

x = Your PE lvl
Y = BPs ME lvl
Z = Base minerals

im working on my own ME spreadsheet that will show the mins needed at differnt ME's ona chart so as to be easily visible.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only