Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1554
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:22:00 -
[91] - Quote
Thanks for the devblog.
Two questions/issues:
1 - With Battleship construction, right now it provides no bonus to production but is required at different levels to build higher level items. While I'm not really OK with allowing anyone who trains a skill to level 1 to build more advanced items than people who make the decision to train that skill for no other reason than to build those advanced items,
- What bonus will Advanced ship construction skills have to want to raise them to level 4 or 5? - If you do not provide a bonus, then what purpose does a level 4 Advanced ship skill have in this new system and will you reset these skills for all players?
2 - Costs of T3 items are primarily determined by Melted Nanoribbons and one or two polymers. Will you adjust the salvage drop rates (maybe this should have been done with the WH updates) or readjust the requirements so that there is a more dynamic market for building T3? After you dumb this down and combine it with invention, the market is going to tank and cease to be specialized. Can you make some sort of adjustments to ensure that doesn't happen as badly?
Thanks GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour! |
Charlie Firpol
Noob Mercs Monkeys with Guns.
251
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:27:00 -
[92] - Quote
Zappity wrote:What gameplay does multiple outcome tiers add? This SEEMS like good gameplay (more choices etc) until you realise that EVE industry is not 'crafting' but rather batch manufacturing. All that matters is the long term average.
Remove RNG and focus on more ways to modify that long term average. RNG just adds another calculation to a spreadsheet without adding gameplay. People doing high throughput invention won't even read the outcomes but just work on the average.
Also, I think we need some more detail on meta module tiericide now.
Thw worst thing that can happen to you is, you will have left over materials. There is no negative ME randomness. Is that such a problem? oO |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
894
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:30:00 -
[93] - Quote
i really hope prices on T3 subs drop significantly .. having subs from 10 -50 mil is bad and makes T3's far less versatile .. that and rigs ofc ... but the subs costing more than the hull is just bad design ...
subs being say 3-4 mil each is much healthier for T3 versatility Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS
1324
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:30:00 -
[94] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Module Teiricide is coming. All meta items will be useful (or removed if there's no way to have them being useful in comparison to other meta levels) The problem is not the usefulness or uselessness of particular meta modules. The problem is that almost all T1 modules are worthless, due to the overabundance of low (and high) meta modules and their comparitvely lower cost - the market value of low metas primarily being based on their reprocessing value (which recently dropped even further due to the 50% reprocessing change). There is simply no reason to fit most T1 modules, due to stats and cost, and thus not much reason to build them (except as an ingredient for building T2 modules). This, in turn, has left the noob industrialist without much opportunity to build anything which is profitable, except T1 ammo and rigs. T1 modules have been long overdue for a major fix. Outside of RvB, when was the last time someone posted a T1-only fit? Meta 4 modules are incredibly useful because of lower fitting requirements. Here's my guess at the tiericide changes:
Meta 4 will have similar stats to T2 but lower skill requirements. They will probably be given a specific class name to differentiate. Meta 2 and 3 will have slightly lower effect stats (e.g. DPS for a gun) but bonus to either CPU or powergrid. Meta 1 will largely be removed.
If drop rates are unchanged, meta 4 value will probably decrease on average while meta 2 and 3 increase but not anywhere close to current meta 4 prices. Specific CPU- and powergrid-bonused variants will be more popular depending on common fits so expect some specific meta 2/3 to remain worthless. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS
1324
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:33:00 -
[95] - Quote
Charlie Firpol wrote:Zappity wrote:What gameplay does multiple outcome tiers add? This SEEMS like good gameplay (more choices etc) until you realise that EVE industry is not 'crafting' but rather batch manufacturing. All that matters is the long term average.
Remove RNG and focus on more ways to modify that long term average. RNG just adds another calculation to a spreadsheet without adding gameplay. People doing high throughput invention won't even read the outcomes but just work on the average.
Also, I think we need some more detail on meta module tiericide now. Thw worst thing that can happen to you is, you will have left over materials. There is no negative ME randomness. Is that such a problem? oO Exactly. That's the worst that can happen and since it all averages out what's the point of it? There is no gameplay here when you account for the scale at which EVE manufacturing is done. Looking at this from a single run perspective ("Oh wow, I got an EXCEPTIONAL result") is unrealistic. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
360
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:35:00 -
[96] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:He's the problem I see. You're making it progressively more complicated to run calculations and analysis on what is necessary to produce, this punishes people willing to make the time investment to work things out properly.
Say I wanted to invent 90 ishtars, I would calculate the amount of materials to produce them using the best value racial decryptor (3 run) and invest in buying those component materials. I would then proceed to have my characters do as many invention jobs as necessary to get the 30 runs (i.e. 30 successful operations).
Now, by throwing more randomness into the fire, I'm not sure what I need without going through, checking every single blueprint and adding them all up, grouping them, calculating them all in turn and then merging the results back together.
I love the idea that failure does not have to consume all of the datacores, but dislike all the extra calculator work that can only be known once the invention jobs have completed.
I could of course save the extra components for a later build, but that then adds more leg-work by having to factor that in when building the next round of materials.
This coupled with the loss of ability to copy and paste tables of blueprints out of game makes it a real pain.
Previously you could open up the "group window" and copy and paste blueprint details, including runs, ME and PE, and you could then plan based on what you have by chucking it into a spreadsheet or a third-party tool. This went away in Crius.
This could be fixed again by making the blueprints list in the Crius UI copy and pastable as a table again.
There is a new blueprints API but it is not very useful for inventors, as it only updates every 24 hours - invention blueprints are transient and having to leave them in the same place for 24 hours to get data out isn't very useful - the API's only good for static BPOs. my teapot is ready |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
470
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:57:00 -
[97] - Quote
would like to congratulate whoever created this image used in the dev blog
invention chance new
as i thought it was a quite eloquent depiction of the fine line between genius (exceptional) and insanity (critical). |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
692
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:58:00 -
[98] - Quote
Charlie Firpol wrote:Zappity wrote:What gameplay does multiple outcome tiers add? This SEEMS like good gameplay (more choices etc) until you realise that EVE industry is not 'crafting' but rather batch manufacturing. All that matters is the long term average.
Remove RNG and focus on more ways to modify that long term average. RNG just adds another calculation to a spreadsheet without adding gameplay. People doing high throughput invention won't even read the outcomes but just work on the average.
Also, I think we need some more detail on meta module tiericide now. Thw worst thing that can happen to you is, you will have left over materials. There is no negative ME randomness. Is that such a problem? oO
It actually is a big problem because it piles up and without a lot more effort involved in including the left-over materials into new production batches, they continue piling up. It's already a problem now as I currently run a couple of T2 component productions for my subsequent T2 ship production. The thing that happened now is that I have loads of materials left over, both for the T2 components as well as finished components from the ships. And this is very irritating. |
probag Bear
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:58:00 -
[99] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:I've been thinking for a while about the decryptor rebalance for a while and have been trying to puzzle out a reasonable system. The variables that a decryptor modify are very different in value. ME boosts are, by far, to be the most valuable. TE modifications are, in my opinion, mostly useless. There's never been a situation where I need to manufacture something so much sooner that a couple hours will make a difference. Probablility and runs are somewhere in the middle depending on what you're working with. I'd like to see the decryptors modified to remove penalties. For example, something like this:
- +3 ME +2 TE +10% Chance +0 Runs
- +1 ME +6 TE +10% Chance +2 Runs
- +1 ME +2 TE +30% Chance +2 Runs
- +2 ME +4 TE +10% Chance +1 Run
- +1 ME +4 TE +20% Chance +2 Runs
- +2 ME +2 TE +10% Chance +2 Runs
- +0 ME +2 TE +10% Chance +5 Runs
- +0 ME +2 TE +50% Chance +0 Runs
Yes, they might be a bit more homogenous, but that's mostly the point. Small variations on 'all good' makes it much harder to pick than just going with a Process decryptor every time. Additional decryptors that modify the chance of getting a non-standard result would also be cool. Some that, on failure, spit out a meta print or reduce (or increase) datacore consumption could also be useful. The most important thing I see is that a decryptor that lowers ME will *never* be useful except in the most niche of niche circumstances and should be avoided.
The rise of Augmentation and its dethroning of Symmetry begs to differ with you.
Also, TE and Runs are very easily merged together into a single attribute. If you operate in a field where datacore costs are minor, you can also merge in +% chance, and the only attributes you're finally left with are +ME and Optimal SSlot/MSlot Ratio Modifier. |
Clifton Oksaras
Innocuous Anonymity
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:03:00 -
[100] - Quote
Oi. While I actually like most of these changes, It means I probably have to wait another 2-3 months for Zifrian's Eve IPH, which sucks. |
|
Callic Veratar
630
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:17:00 -
[101] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:My invention lines with Sabres and Jaguars beg to differ, with Augmentation decryptors dropping them to ME 0.
probag Bear wrote:The rise of Augmentation and its dethroning of Symmetry begs to differ with you.
Also, TE and Runs are very easily merged together into a single attribute. If you operate in a field where datacore costs are minor, you can also merge in +% chance, and the only attributes you're finally left with are +ME and Optimal SSlot/MSlot Ratio Modifier.
There's still the perception of only one best option (whether Symmetry or Augmentation or Process). Much in the way that the Hulk used to be the only barge ever, then the Mackinaw, it'd be nice to have a spread so it's not everyone running on couple decryptors. |
Het Silenius
Dominion Enterprise Psychosomatic.
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:18:00 -
[102] - Quote
Am I blind, or is the New Module Skill graphic missing AC/arty and rockets/missiles? |
Charlie Firpol
Noob Mercs Monkeys with Guns.
251
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:18:00 -
[103] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Charlie Firpol wrote:Zappity wrote:What gameplay does multiple outcome tiers add? This SEEMS like good gameplay (more choices etc) until you realise that EVE industry is not 'crafting' but rather batch manufacturing. All that matters is the long term average.
Remove RNG and focus on more ways to modify that long term average. RNG just adds another calculation to a spreadsheet without adding gameplay. People doing high throughput invention won't even read the outcomes but just work on the average.
Also, I think we need some more detail on meta module tiericide now. Thw worst thing that can happen to you is, you will have left over materials. There is no negative ME randomness. Is that such a problem? oO It actually is a big problem because it piles up and without a lot more effort involved in including the left-over materials into new production batches, they continue piling up. It's already a problem now as I currently run a couple of T2 component productions for my subsequent T2 ship production. The thing that happened now is that I have loads of materials left over, both for the T2 components as well as finished components from the ships. And this is very irritating.
Lets make a deal:
I will happily take every left overs from your production and you just contract them to me, okay? I will even do it totally for free! |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
1042
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:20:00 -
[104] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Querns wrote:Bugsy VanHalen wrote:Well, for the most part things look very good.
But the changes to base invention chance have me very confused.
Freighters are currently grouped with frigates and destroyers with a base of 30%.
The new invention chances do not list "Freighters" specifically, but I assume they will fall under Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20%". Although they are NOT listed as capital industrial ships in the market tree. If they are, that will be a huge negative impact for jump freighters, are they not expensive enough already?
This title just seems odd to me, as there are no other ships in this catagory with a T2 variant. the only "capital" ship industrial or otherwise with a T2 variant is freighters>>Jump freighters.
Also this one"All Battleships, Industrial Command Ship have 25%"
What industrial command ships are there? The ORCA is the only one I can think of as the Roqual should fit under the capital industrial ship catigory with the freighters. However neither the ORCA or the Roqual blueprints can be invented from, so the invention chance does not apply to them.
Why list ships here that do not have a T2 variant that can be invented? Should we expect T2 ORCA's, Roquals, Dreads, and Carriers, coming so that these new invention chances would have something to be applied to?
I kinda doubt they are specifically planning new T2 ships as a result of this change. Listing the chances like this just lets them have that work done now in case they want to do it later, if at all. Yep, that's why we wanted to keep the groups vague, in case we want to add something in the future.
The issue is the groups are not exactly vague, it is the fact that specific ship types are listed as having an invetion chance of success, while there is no T2 BPC that can be invented from those ship classes. How can you have a 20% chance of getting a T2 Capital BPC that does not exist?
For example; I could say, forget jump freighters, I am going to switch to inventing industrial command ships. they have a 5% higher invention chance. What do you mean I can not invent for industrial command ships, the developer blog says I can... ... Well if the BPC's and T2 variants do not exists why did the dev blog specifically list them?
or
Sweet according the the latest developer blog we can now invent for capital ships, T2 dreadnaughts and carriers, woot woot...
my point is, this is not vague it is flat out wrong. It will create a lot of confusion, which I am sure was not the intent. If we ever do see T2 Capitals, it will not be anytime soon. The ones we have, have not even had their teiricide pass yet. So why lie to players by specifically listing them as having an invention chance, when there is no intention of them ever being available for invention.
CCP Ytterbium wrote: For clarity purposes, Freighters belong in the Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships group for the invention chance, so yes, it's a reduction in success rate.
Seriously?? Jump freighters are already stupidly expensive, and invention attempts are already very expensive just due to volume of data cores, and time required to produce T1 BPC's. I build Anshars, I have dificulties as it is getting T2 BPC's. Do we really need the price of these jumping to over 10B isk putting them even farther out of reach for newer players? They are already one of the most expensive ships, beat out only by super capitals. And they are already Double to triple the cost of other jump capable capital ships.
Freighters and jump freighters do not belong in this same catagory as combat capable capital ships. They can not be armed, they can not be properly tanked. If there was other T2 Capital ships, such a low invention cost would make them so expensive, they would not be worth using.
A roqual is a capital industrial ship, a true capital. it has a worthy tank, and can not enter high sec. A freighter, or even a jump freighter is not a true capital. the have a stupidly low tank for their size and cost, and are essentially high sec industrial ships. At least they have been balanced as such. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2819
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:35:00 -
[105] - Quote
looks good to me so far.
a few comments: - i hope you will also try to reinburse the Data Interface BPCs somehow, since i bet there are more BPCs around then the actual interfaces - what happens with the resources used for those Data Interfaces? The value of those was already very low - lore/naming: i hoped you would take a look at the big picture and rename the whole thing. I mean why do you have to invent something every time before you build it? How often has the wolf been invented already? This never made any sense to me. Call it upgrade/specialization process (USP?) or similar... good scifi should be believable and make sense eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
453
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:43:00 -
[106] - Quote
Are you planning to rebalance the R&D agents, as well - in terms of what datacores are available from each agent and the distribution of agents across regions?
I took a quick look at the proposed datacore changes for the ORE ships, from Mechanical Engineering to Laser Physics. The one problem that I see is that Laser Physics datacores are primarily available from agents in Amarr Empire space, whereas the Gallente Starship Engineering datacores (assuming ORE ships still require Gallente Starship Engineering datacores) are primarily available from agents in Gallente Federation space.
In order to farm both types of datacores, you'd need to have access to both Amarr and Gallente R&D agents, which means more grinding of standings - a rather tedious activity.
It is likely that other proposed datacore changes will have similar repercussions. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
173
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:50:00 -
[107] - Quote
Ok you guys are on this "Balance" kick that I don't see as a good thing. I've witnessed the attempts at balance ruin games in the past and there is no need for it here. Data cores are gotten by players who can pick and choose which cores they research so if some get used more than others it's not a problem.
As far as merging T2 and T3 invention I've done a fair amount of T2 invention and have never Reverse Engineered anything. Maybe that is due to my extreeme distaste for the whole concept of the skill point loss potential of flying T3 ships maybe it's because of the differences that you described here. All that I can say is I started playing this game the day before RE was introduced and I've never even seen the UI for it.
I'm very curious you mention Tech 2 capitals and capital industrials does that mean we will see more than just jump freighters in the future?
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
750
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:53:00 -
[108] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Charlie Firpol wrote:Zappity wrote:What gameplay does multiple outcome tiers add? This SEEMS like good gameplay (more choices etc) until you realise that EVE industry is not 'crafting' but rather batch manufacturing. All that matters is the long term average.
Remove RNG and focus on more ways to modify that long term average. RNG just adds another calculation to a spreadsheet without adding gameplay. People doing high throughput invention won't even read the outcomes but just work on the average.
Also, I think we need some more detail on meta module tiericide now. Thw worst thing that can happen to you is, you will have left over materials. There is no negative ME randomness. Is that such a problem? oO It actually is a big problem because it piles up and without a lot more effort involved in including the left-over materials into new production batches, they continue piling up. It's already a problem now as I currently run a couple of T2 component productions for my subsequent T2 ship production. The thing that happened now is that I have loads of materials left over, both for the T2 components as well as finished components from the ships. And this is very irritating. you're now dealing with a new problem normal businesses have to deal with: put the effort into just-in-time logistics, or invest some capital in parts sitting around
sounds like a positive change requiring more tradeoffs and thinking to me
for example the poor will strive to maximize just-in-time while the superrich, like me, will invest some capital into lowering the effort involved |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
750
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:55:00 -
[109] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:My invention lines with Sabres and Jaguars beg to differ, with Augmentation decryptors dropping them to ME 0. probag Bear wrote:The rise of Augmentation and its dethroning of Symmetry begs to differ with you.
Also, TE and Runs are very easily merged together into a single attribute. If you operate in a field where datacore costs are minor, you can also merge in +% chance, and the only attributes you're finally left with are +ME and Optimal SSlot/MSlot Ratio Modifier. There's still the perception of only one best option (whether Symmetry or Augmentation or Process). Much in the way that the Hulk used to be the only barge ever, then the Mackinaw, it'd be nice to have a spread so it's not everyone running on couple decryptors. each one still has a role (and in many situations the best one can shift for the same item, like when you want to get lower margins for faster production because you have the capital to support that, or you want higher margins with lower production because you are capital-limited and can't have as much in build at once) |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
53
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:11:00 -
[110] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:what's this about inventing capital industrial ships now?
I think it was another slip up cause the author isn't aware that rorqual is a T1 capital industrial ship.
more proof they do not really play indy at all.. lol
unless................. RORQUAL IS GOING T2?????? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm |
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
692
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:14:00 -
[111] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:you're now dealing with a new problem normal businesses have to deal with: put the effort into just-in-time logistics, or invest some capital in parts sitting around
sounds like a positive change requiring more tradeoffs and thinking to me
for example the poor will strive to maximize just-in-time while the superrich, like me, will invest some capital into lowering the effort involved
This IS JIT... I don't preproduce my components; this is supposed to be exactly the number of components that are supposed to be required for the items I want to build after the production of the components. And still, I have left overs. |
Patrick Yaa
Starcade Group Elemental Tide
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:31:00 -
[112] - Quote
Why not wait with this change for the introduction of the rebalanced meta modules and thei blueprints?
Then you could try to work towards a t2 blueprint, but with the chance that if you fail, you get a meta mod BP. you can ofc also work towards a meta mod BP from the beginning and have higher chance.
In the end this might turn out to be that you have all skills to V= the chance to get a meta mod is 100% if you work directly towards it, but only a 60%, whatever chance to get a t2 BP with the chance to get at least a meta BP. hope this doesn't sound too confusing? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24534
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:35:00 -
[113] - Quote
Fap fap fap.
That is all. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2. |
Qmamoto Kansuke
Killing with pink power
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:10:00 -
[114] - Quote
Installing multiple invention runs at once instead of installing the same invention every hour over and over.
PLEASE MARRY ME NOW!
I've just decided to continue my subs thanks CCP i can't wait for the new changes. |
Lucy Sue
We're Only in It for the Money
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:23:00 -
[115] - Quote
Regarding the skills in the past when skill requirements have been changed it had been done in a way so that people who could do it before at a certain level could do it after at the same level. For example ships and drones. With the changes outlined in this blog it would force us to train skills to reach that same level as before, are any skills going to be raised to compensate? |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:39:00 -
[116] - Quote
Atossa Exior wrote:Quote:All Battleships, Industrial Command Ship have 25% Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20% So confirmed T2 version of orca and rorqual? And T2 Versions of all other Capitals, like T2 Archon ... ... If they mean with Capitals CAPITALS SHIPS (Caps, Supers, Titans)
|
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
184
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:46:00 -
[117] - Quote
Karash Amerius wrote:Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:Karash Amerius wrote:Data Interfaces being removed and reimbursed is fine. What about the pirate materials found at Data Hacking sites? What happens to the components/materials used to produce Data Interfaces? They are used in other stuff too. Sssshhhh. The storyline gear is miniscule as far as production goes. I admit to not being an industrialist...maybe there are more uses?
The storyline & COSMOS modules will be rebalanced probably this year or early next year at the latest. Logically speaking and given that there are limited quantities available I would expect them to have higher stats than T2 modules plus less CPU/PG requirements. |
Nalha Saldana
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
816
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:46:00 -
[118] - Quote
This sounds really good! I'm looking forward to these changes.
Just 2 things:
1. "allow players to start invention with multiple runs" Will this yield multiple BPCs or BPCs with more runs? (Please let it be more runs)
2. "We are aware that Tech III subsystems are not all equally valuable right now, which is why we may iterate on their material composition to counteract these changes if needed." Do NOT do this before fozzie and rise do a balancing pass on them! |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:49:00 -
[119] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Fade Toblack wrote:Querns wrote:Considering that "Battleship Construction" is being transformed into "Advanced Battleship Construction," that'd be impossible. :V Ah in that case, CCP need to improve the confusing image I linked, because it still lists "Cruiser Construction" as a pre-req for "Advanced Battleship Construction". Yes, those should be "Advanced Battleship Construction" and "Advanced Cruiser Construction" on the screenshot Why are you renaming it, if there is no other Skills comming for normal BS/CR Constructions?
|
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
184
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:50:00 -
[120] - Quote
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Querns wrote:Bugsy VanHalen wrote:Well, for the most part things look very good.
But the changes to base invention chance have me very confused.
Freighters are currently grouped with frigates and destroyers with a base of 30%.
The new invention chances do not list "Freighters" specifically, but I assume they will fall under Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20%". Although they are NOT listed as capital industrial ships in the market tree. If they are, that will be a huge negative impact for jump freighters, are they not expensive enough already?
This title just seems odd to me, as there are no other ships in this catagory with a T2 variant. the only "capital" ship industrial or otherwise with a T2 variant is freighters>>Jump freighters.
Also this one"All Battleships, Industrial Command Ship have 25%"
What industrial command ships are there? The ORCA is the only one I can think of as the Roqual should fit under the capital industrial ship catigory with the freighters. However neither the ORCA or the Roqual blueprints can be invented from, so the invention chance does not apply to them.
Why list ships here that do not have a T2 variant that can be invented? Should we expect T2 ORCA's, Roquals, Dreads, and Carriers, coming so that these new invention chances would have something to be applied to?
I kinda doubt they are specifically planning new T2 ships as a result of this change. Listing the chances like this just lets them have that work done now in case they want to do it later, if at all. Yep, that's why we wanted to keep the groups vague, in case we want to add something in the future. The issue is the groups are not exactly vague, it is the fact that specific ship types are listed as having an invetion chance of success, while there is no T2 BPC that can be invented from those ship classes. How can you have a 20% chance of getting a T2 Capital BPC that does not exist? For example; I could say, forget jump freighters, I am going to switch to inventing industrial command ships. they have a 5% higher invention chance. What do you mean I can not invent for industrial command ships, the developer blog says I can... ... Well if the BPC's and T2 variants do not exists why did the dev blog specifically list them? or Sweet according the the latest developer blog we can now invent for capital ships, T2 dreadnaughts and carriers, woot woot... my point is, this is not vague it is flat out wrong. It will create a lot of confusion, which I am sure was not the intent. If we ever do see T2 Capitals, it will not be anytime soon. The ones we have, have not even had their teiricide pass yet. So why lie to players by specifically listing them as having an invention chance, when there is no intention of them ever being available for invention. CCP Ytterbium wrote: For clarity purposes, Freighters belong in the Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships group for the invention chance, so yes, it's a reduction in success rate. Seriously?? Jump freighters are already stupidly expensive, and invention attempts are already very expensive just due to volume of data cores, and time required to produce T1 BPC's. I build Anshars, I have dificulties as it is getting T2 BPC's. Do we really need the price of these jumping to over 10B isk putting them even farther out of reach for newer players? They are already one of the most expensive ships, beat out only by super capitals. And they are already Double to triple the cost of other jump capable capital ships. Freighters and jump freighters do not belong in this same catagory as combat capable capital ships. They can not be armed, they can not be properly tanked. If there was other T2 Capital ships, such a low invention cost would make them so expensive, they would not be worth using. A roqual is a capital industrial ship, a true capital. it has a worthy tank, and can not enter high sec. A freighter, or even a jump freighter is not a true capital. the have a stupidly low tank for their size and cost, and are essentially high sec industrial ships. At least they have been balanced as such. They should also be treated as such for invention purposes, and currently are. There is no need for that to change.
The Orca & Rorqual are due to both be rebalanced very soon. This dev blog gives you the hint that there will be T2 versions of both ships released as well. On the proviso as usual that if you use this information to speculate it may not turn out as you think.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |