Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aelius
Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 10:53:00 -
[1]
Current state of R&D in EVE:
"add x amounts of stuff A + Y amounts of stuff B + Z amounts of stuff C = T2 chocolate cake" \O/
I like this Hilmar Petergunson quote "horizontal complexity of EVE" sadly this "complexity" is only due to the amount of diferent stuff (modules/commodities/random stuff) and not it's actual complexity.
Every "chef" has it's secret ingredient idea:
-Not coming with your average "cook book" diferent ingredients could be experimented at a lab possibly creating something new on the lines of T2 named modules/ships.
- Trying to combine such items would "burn" them if unsuccessful, creating a isk sink and adding risk VS reward.
- CCP would seed them into tranquility without letting us know how to make them.
ie: 3 tritanium + 10 laser physics datacores + 1 melted nanoribon + 10 carbon86 = t2 named beam laser (better than t2)
The combinations/amounts would be preset by CCP in secret, leaving to the players the work to find out.
The seeding of limited "rare" parts for ultra powerfull items (high risk high reward)(rats/sleepers/random rare scannable anomalies across EVE universe would add to exploration and to the sense of being the 1st to find something completely new.
Hints on how to build item A or B "encrypted" into EVE story.
Use your imagination
_________________________
If you can read this you don't need glasses _________________________
|
Angie McFish
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 11:07:00 -
[2]
No. We don't need more powerful weapons, highsec grinding is easy as it is.
|
Kohana Chayton
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 11:12:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Angie McFish No. We don't need more powerful weapons, highsec grinding is easy as it is.
Limit their use to low/null sec as Concord forbids their use in Empire.
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist OK everyone, please play nicely. There is no need to start getting angry or show off your Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Troll impression.
|
Serpents smile
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 11:17:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Aelius
The combinations/amounts would be preset by CCP in secret, leaving to the players the work to find out.
And if the do find out, which they will, you'll end up once again with another "cook book". Granted with more receipts in it then before.
It was one of the things that draw me into EVE: invention. I was going to invent something no one had seen before. How dissapointed I was only to find out that what I was "inventing" already existed.
|
Wyke Mossari
Gallente Staner Industries
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 12:35:00 -
[5]
I agree invention is not really invention but cookie cutter reverse engineering. However I'm not keep on your suggested process. I've always liked the following method, many variations of which have been seen on these forums before.
Take a BPO. Apply a research skill. Various attributes of the ship or module have a quasi-secret research skill linked. Make discovering these links a valuable trade secret of inventors.
E.g. research High Energy Physics improves the PG requirement of a module. Or research Electronic Engineering improves the CPU requirement of a module.
When a success is achieved, the BPO becomes an improved named version. Named after the inventing Character or Corporation i.e. The Wyke Improved PDU Mk1.
Allow multiple levels to be researched (e.g. Mk2, Mk3 etc.), but with each improvement taking an increasing time, requiring input resources and diminishing returns. (e.g. Mk1 is 10% better, Mk2 is 15%, Mk3 is 17.5%, Mk4 is 18.75%, etc.)
I think these improved modules should only be sold by contract or private trades and not on the public market.
|
iP0D
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 13:10:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Aelius Current state of R&D in EVE:
"add x amounts of stuff A + Y amounts of stuff B + Z amounts of stuff C = T2 chocolate cake" \O/
I like this Hilmar Petergunson quote "horizontal complexity of EVE" sadly this "complexity" is only due to the amount of diferent stuff (modules/commodities/random stuff) and not it's actual complexity.
I'd love to see a source for that quote, since EVE is an example of vertical product expansion, not horizontal. Depending on whether that is an actual quote, and if applicable its context, that'll be either very disturbing, or just marketing.
The confusion may come from the management perspective on "EVE Forever" (the IP / brand "container" in which CCP expands the IP horizontally) and "EVE the product" which solely expands vertically, by means of a constant cycle of addition of content & feature sets on top of older ones - sometimes to replace, sometimes to enhance, but always building on top of previously established mechanisms. It's also why intents of integration between several products established within that "EVE Forever" container are rather challenging, to say the least, since each product grows at different speeds, while each product caters to a wide variety of very different market segments. Products established merely share the IP by default, sharing infrastructure is a task which makes corification efforts look like child's play.
Complexity is not an instrument of game design btw, it is an instrument of product development and marketing, maybe there's a little confusion internally on this angle. Law of diminishing returns does apply contextually there, nearly 15 years of research on gaming & gaming industry is rather clear on this, even the original Daedalus Project already put similar unnerving observations on the table. |
Aelius
Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 20:08:00 -
[7]
Originally by: iP0D
Originally by: Aelius Current state of R&D in EVE:
"add x amounts of stuff A + Y amounts of stuff B + Z amounts of stuff C = T2 chocolate cake" \O/
I like this Hilmar Petergunson quote "horizontal complexity of EVE" sadly this "complexity" is only due to the amount of diferent stuff (modules/commodities/random stuff) and not it's actual complexity.
I'd love to see a source for that quote, since EVE is an example of vertical product expansion, not horizontal. Depending on whether that is an actual quote, and if applicable its context, that'll be either very disturbing, or just marketing.
The confusion may come from the management perspective on "EVE Forever" (the IP / brand "container" in which CCP expands the IP horizontally) and "EVE the product" which solely expands vertically, by means of a constant cycle of addition of content & feature sets on top of older ones - sometimes to replace, sometimes to enhance, but always building on top of previously established mechanisms. It's also why intents of integration between several products established within that "EVE Forever" container are rather challenging, to say the least, since each product grows at different speeds, while each product caters to a wide variety of very different market segments. Products established merely share the IP by default, sharing infrastructure is a task which makes corification efforts look like child's play.
Complexity is not an instrument of game design btw, it is an instrument of product development and marketing, maybe there's a little confusion internally on this angle. Law of diminishing returns does apply contextually there, nearly 15 years of research on gaming & gaming industry is rather clear on this, even the original Daedalus Project already put similar unnerving observations on the table.
You can find that quote during EVE's last fanfest movie.
_________________________
If you can read this you don't need glasses _________________________
|
dankness420
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 20:15:00 -
[8]
Could always go the diablo route and allow us to make items with a prefix and a suffix around the name with random stats. So like the Beastly 200mm Autocannon of Smiting could be invented if you combine the right PI goods and the regular stuff needed to make a t2 autocannon. Or it could fail.. or even make a crappy terrible item!
|
Metalcali
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 20:45:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Serpents smile
Originally by: Aelius
The combinations/amounts would be preset by CCP in secret, leaving to the players the work to find out.
And if the do find out, which they will, you'll end up once again with another "cook book". Granted with more receipts in it then before.
It was one of the things that draw me into EVE: invention. I was going to invent something no one had seen before. How dissapointed I was only to find out that what I was "inventing" already existed.
Similar story with me and hacking. Would see locked containers, took the time to train for hacking before the lower requirements only to find out that wasn't what they are used for |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 21:06:00 -
[10]
I interpret invention more like a copyright transfer contract from the empire corporations to Capsuleers. You hook up with a R&D agent that provides you with datacores that allow research in certain fields. You can sell those datacores if you want.
Then you get some blueprint copies and do research on certain fields that are related to the blueprints you are researching about. Any breakthroughs are reported to the corporation that owns the rights to the blueprint and it provides you with a T2 blueprint giving you the right to build a certain amount of the item you wanted.
So the empire corporations get research done and only need to pay for success while the Capsuleer has to carry all risk and investments. Sweet deal for them, pays for CONCORD, new ship development that can licensed away to Capsuleers again for more profits and of course this new Opux Luxury Yacht for having parties and paying agents to have Capsuleers fetch beef or cigarettes should the execs run out of anything. -------- All I want is a better mankind.
|
|
Ocih
Amarr The Program Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 23:41:00 -
[11]
Originally by: dankness420 Could always go the diablo route and allow us to make items with a prefix and a suffix around the name with random stats. So like the Beastly 200mm Autocannon of Smiting could be invented if you combine the right PI goods and the regular stuff needed to make a t2 autocannon. Or it could fail.. or even make a crappy terrible item!
That's true crafting. Add a prefection stage to BPCs so not all T2 200mm autoannons are the same. Leave everything as it is, that's base and the perfection route might make it worse, might make it better. Throw in some nano paste and make it possible that we make base items with overdrive stats. It could be done, I dont know if they ever will. |
Glengrant
TOHA Heavy Industries TOHA Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 09:01:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Glengrant on 14/06/2010 09:05:14 Everybody would love really inventive inventions and new BPs named after Chars/Corps.
But the former could easily break game balance and the later would break database efficiency.
Some of those restrictions have very pragmatic reasons.
And I agree with Abrazzar - I interpret BPs as licence agreements - otherwise there wouldn't be a limit on copies either.
Quote:
Add a prefection stage to BPCs so not all T2 200mm autoannons are the same
We already have an insane variety of ship, mod, rig, subsystem, modifiers and ammo combinations. Having much more would not really improve the game. --- Save the forum: Think before you post. ISK BUYER = LOSER EVE TV- Bring it back! Laptop, NVidia7900GS, Ubuntu 8.04, WINE |
Ninetails o'Cat
League of Super Evil
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 10:27:00 -
[13]
The one problem with this is how many more database queries it would cause.
|
Vaneshi SnowCrash
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 21:25:00 -
[14]
Originally by: dankness420 Could always go the diablo route and allow us to make items with a prefix and a suffix around the name with random stats. So like the Beastly 200mm Autocannon of Smiting could be invented if you combine the right PI goods and the regular stuff needed to make a t2 autocannon. Or it could fail.. or even make a crappy terrible item!
Interesting idea. Personally I've always wondered why I can't take for example an Arbalest HML (Meta 4), a HML (Meta 0/1), a HML BPO/BPC and reverse engineer an Arbalest HML BPC or have some way of upgrading a T1 Meta 0 item to a T1 Meta 4 via some system with appropriate risks on failiure depending on how hard I push it.
It's just always struck me as odd I can make T1 items (Meta 0) and T2 items (Meta 5) but nothing inbetween.
|
Fumen
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 21:43:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Aelius Current state of R&D in EVE:
**R&D stuffs**
Wasn't this how crafting of various sorts was done in Asheron's Call? Devs were constantly adding in new recipes here and there. Unfortunately, 95% of it was so formulaic it really didn't amount to anything special other than to the new players that hadn't read the cheat sheets yet.
So, what is really different? Here the recipe is given to you, there, you just had to go and look it up outside the game. The end result was the same: Same spell, same sword, same cake, whatever.
If you're talking truly 'modular' fittings, I'm all for it if it can be done with a sense of real balance and not more of the same of what we currently have. Modular fittings: can change range, damage, ROF, etc. into all kinds of strange settings (more variability than is currently available, that is).
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |