EVE Search - Giving Invention a Boost.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Science and Industry

Giving Invention a Boost.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.08.25 20:52:00 - [31] Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 25/08/2010 21:12:41 Originally by: Selling Slave ...blather... Manufacturing and the market are tightly related. You cannot discuss the merits of a change or addition to manufacturing and pretend like the market can be ignored. Saying, "Well we're just going to ignore it!" doesn't change that. It renders the discussion pointless. Get over it. Quote: Something else dawned on me, could it be that a few of you have T2 BPOs an that any type of boost or change for inventors is seen as a threat? Are you that afraid of change? Ah. Of course. It couldn't just be that your ideas are bad. It must be that we all have an ulterior motive. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
Kerfira Kerfira Corp	Posted - 2010.08.25 22:33:00 - [32] You or CCP can do absolutely NOTHING to boost a completely player-driven area of the game like invention. No matter what you or CCP do, you'll end up getting paid EXACTLY the same for your effort! Any change will be short-lived. People can choose to do invention or not. If a change suddenly makes it more profitable (ie. better pay per effort), more people will spend their grinding time on invention, and that'll make the competition harder and the profitability will drop. Once a new profitability equilibrium has been reached, you'll get the same for your effort as you did before. The pay-per-effort is an EVE-wide constant for all types of grind. In the end, you'll get the same... As has been said, the only thing that can really be done is to raise the entry bar (ie. require more skills and so on), but in general CCP is moving in the other direction. Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
IoWalker	Posted - 2010.08.25 22:45:00 - [33] nothing in this game is "player-driven". to give you an idea of how wrong that idea is, let every miner, inventor, and hauler leave this game immediately and watch the prices stabilize at reasonable levels almost immediately. there is a supposed "player driven market" and there is real life. little if any player activity is driving prices other than the absence of buyers.
Enthral	Posted - 2010.08.25 23:02:00 - [34] The problem with "boosting" invention, or anything else, is that it is boosted for everyone. All that it accomplishes is that the supply is boosted, while the demand remains the same. That lowers prices, which means that you need to invent even more for the same level of profit. CCP should definitely fix the invention GUI, but if anything, invention needs to be nerfed a touch so the markets aren't quite as flooded as they are now...
Caldari Citizen20090217	Posted - 2010.08.25 23:21:00 - [35] Apparently over 1/3 of all t2 is made by BPO holders. Want to boost invention? nerf T2 BPOS. In before T2 BPO holder alts trying to justify their monopoly....
IoWalker	Posted - 2010.08.25 23:53:00 - [36] Originally by: Enthral The problem with "boosting" invention, or anything else, is that it is boosted for everyone. All that it accomplishes is that the supply is boosted, while the demand remains the same. That lowers prices, which means that you need to invent even more for the same level of profit. CCP should definitely fix the invention GUI, but if anything, invention needs to be nerfed a touch so the markets aren't quite as flooded as they are now... what i'd like to see most of all, and something that could be accomplished as at least a sort of stop-gap measure to how blase invention is, is making invention at least some sort more personalized accomplishment for someone just wanting to invent for the sake invention. something like putting your name on a module or its blueprints. even if the module attributes weren't unique. just some that at least gives a sense of you being in the process regardless of how token the change would be. maybe, some NPCs would start addressing you differently after you inventing X number of things or something. i mean there's all sorts of environmental stuff that could be done here.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2010.08.26 00:02:00 - [37] Originally by: Caldari Citizen20090217 Apparently over 1/3 of all t2 is made by BPO holders. Want to boost invention? nerf T2 BPOS. I'm trying to find the QEN where that figure comes from, but my Bing-fu is failing me :\ Does anyone have a link handy? -- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel]
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.08.26 00:52:00 - [38] Originally by: Mara Rinn Originally by: Caldari Citizen20090217 Apparently over 1/3 of all t2 is made by BPO holders. Want to boost invention? nerf T2 BPOS. I'm trying to find the QEN where that figure comes from, but my Bing-fu is failing me :\ Does anyone have a link handy? Q2 2009. It's pretty amusing that people actually try to refer to that document when speaking out against BPOs, given the conclusion of the report. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2010.08.26 02:04:00 - [39] Thanks for the link! -- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel]
Nahkep Narmelion Gallente CALIMA COLLABORATIVE	Posted - 2010.08.26 04:31:00 - [40] And keep in mind that was over a year ago, so those numbers are out of date...i.e. invention is probably a larger segment of the market and T2 BPOs are even less of a force in the market...but don't tell some people that. They simply wont believe it.

Kerfira Kerfira Corp	Posted - 2010.08.26 07:54:00 - [41] Originally by: IoWalker nothing in this game is "player-driven". to give you an idea of how wrong that idea is, let every miner, inventor, and hauler leave this game immediately and watch the prices stabilize at reasonable levels almost immediately. there is a supposed "player driven market" and there is real life. little if any player activity is driving prices other than the absence of buyers. Your example is not valid. With as many players as EVE has, you'll not get such drastic changes. You'll get small movements as the herd moves towards what player-driven activity is most profitable at the time, which'll then reduce the profitability of that until you're at the old average. What sets that average are the activities that aren't player-driven, like mission income. You'll always end op being paid just about the same per effort when things have reached equilibrium. Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2010.08.26 07:58:00 - [42] Originally by: Caldari Citizen20090217 Apparently over 1/3 of all t2 is made by BPO holders. Want to boost invention? nerf T2 BPOS. In before T2 BPO holder alts trying to justify their monopoly.... 1) learn what monopoly mean; 2) read countless thread explaining why you are wrong; 3) QUEN 2 - 2009 data. In the meantime EVE has added about 40K active account (QUEN 2- 2010). But nothing like using obsolete data to shore up your position .
keeltemall	Posted - 2010.08.26 09:22:00 - [43] If I was a t2 bpo owner, I would also anonymously argue against improvments for invention, which potentially cut into my profits.
Kryss Stevenson Caldari Red Stallion Mercantile and Manufacturing	Posted - 2010.08.26 12:15:00 - [44] Okay, since people like to throw numbers out there to show the ôevilsö of the BPOs. Can you tell me what is preventing me from opening up 5 accounts and train all three slots on each of those to run inventions and manufacturing? And mind you the following numbers are just for making modules specifically the ones that sell around 2000 per day. That would create the ability to manufacture 150 lines per day at roughly 1500 units pumped out per day. The inventions available would be over 2000 inventions per day. I donÆt think that all the BPOs out there can compete with that. So I would say boost BPOs to be able to counter the inventions out there. Oh, and mind you, the above set up would strip the market of raw materials very fast and glut the market with tech 2 modules very fast. Also with that amount I would also be buying plexes there by affecting that part of the market also. For those who think that this is not a player run economy and think that the miners, haulers and inventors are not needed ask yourself one question, where of where will people find their tech 2 items? Yes, that is rightà the mission runner boats. Think carefully about what a small change will do to the entire economy, that is one reason why CCP hired an economist and it is also one of the reasons why EVE is unique it is so far the only game were the player run economy has not collapsed and has made certain items out of reach of everyone. ______________________________ Rock's fine, Nerf paper
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2010.08.26 13:34:00 - [45] Originally by: Caldari Citizen20090217 Apparently over 1/3 of all t2 is made by BPO holders. Want to boost invention? nerf T2 BPOS. In before T2 BPO holder alts trying to justify their monopoly.... . You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. What so ever.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.08.26 14:31:00 - [46] Originally by: keeltemall If I was a t2 bpo owner, I would also anonymously argue against improvments for invention, which potentially cut into my profits. I'm an inventor. I am arguing against idiotic changes to invention that would cut into my profits. Seriously, why is it that so few of you understand that anything that makes invention easier, cheaper, or more accessible will ultimately decrease profits? --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
Mr LaForge	Posted - 2010.08.26 14:40:00 - [47] Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Seriously, why is it that so few of you understand that anything that makes invention easier, cheaper, or more accessible will ultimately decrease profits? Is it such a bad thing to want batch jobs?
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.08.26 15:02:00 - [48] Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 26/08/2010 15:05:18 Originally by: Mr LaForge Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Seriously, why is it that so few of you understand that anything that makes invention easier, cheaper, or more accessible will ultimately decrease profits? Is it such a bad thing to want batch jobs? Actually, if you wander back to page 1, you'll note that I already suggested something to the effect of "make-it-less-clicky". I did note that even that is something I am "iffy" about. On the one hand, it's one of the few ways you could improve invention without altering the math, which is a good thing. On the other, it's hard to say how much that increase in convenience will affect player participation. The easier you make the system, the more people are willing to participate in it. The more people participate, the greater the supply - thus the reason I said I am hesitant about even that little of a change. Being able to mass install would probably not be that bad, no. The problem is the horde of people who want to **** with the math because they (incorrectly) believe it will allow them to make more money. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
Nahkep Narmelion Gallente CALIMA COLLABORATIVE	Posted - 2010.08.26 15:17:00 - [49] Originally by: keeltemall If I was a t2 bpo owner, I would also anonymously argue against improvments for invention, which potentially cut into my profits. Or course, as would inventors and also probably traders. Just about everyone currently on the supply side would not like it. Focusing on just T2 BPOs means you are either stupid or a troll.
Makko Gray Gallente Nexus Aerospace Corporation The Volition Cult	Posted - 2010.08.26 15:46:00 - [50] Edited by: Makko Gray on 26/08/2010 15:48:45 I don't think labs would have an impact on profitability as the market is player driven so most of the changes mentioned would just be cancelled out by inventors still competing when it comes to market. Increasing the max runs returned would likely see smaller markets as we'd end up with higher supply - even if there were demand you'd still likely see inventors squeezing their margin per item so they ending up with the same profit being ccreated for the same amount of effort. If you made it more difficult so fewer people could invent that would likely increase profitability, but making it less accessible is fairly undesirable in general. You could make it so it was more difficult to invent, but while this might give you more profit per item you'd produce less overall. Perhaps a more marked difference in probability between skill levels would help the hardcore inventors turn more profit compared to those with lower skills. Personally I think having the ME and PE of the input BPC affecting the levels on the output BPC might be the best route for any boost. It may also address the concerns of those worried about T2 BPOs if the invented BPCs could rival them on build cost. Edit: should also make clear I don't think a direct map of ME to PE would be the answer but maybe +1 ME on the output BPC for every 50 ME on the input BPC as an example (obviously subject to balancing).

Durin Sarga	Posted - 2010.08.26 16:09:00 - [51] Edited by: Durin Sarga on 26/08/2010 16:11:13 Ok... T2 BPO discussion aside.... Market impact discussion aside... I'm not saying those should be disregarded, I'm just saying they can be continually ranted on later. After the OP's thoughts are thoroughly explored. Selling Slave, you brought up the idea of tweaking labs to thus tweak invention, etc. I understand the discussion of T2 Invention lab, but the fact remains that invention is already capable with the existing lab options. On top of that, invention is a function of both copy slots and invention slots. This assumes that you have already researched your BPOs. The bonus to invention time tweak is an interesting target as well. So here are my thoughts regarding this: - Make POS labs customizable. Have the advanced lab contain X slots. Then purchse 'invention laboratories' off the market to fill one of your available slots. Similar to how we equip ships, except now you are equipping your laboratory space. It honestly makes sense. If I work at a university and decide to set up a Chemistry Lab, I am not then obligated to have an Anthropology lab that I DON'T use. If Player A wants a lab with all invention slots, then let them have it. If they want a lab with all copy slots, let them have it. - For any of the laboratories (Invention/Research/Copy/Reverse Engineering), have the quality of the lab (time multiplier) be based on how much 'space' you want to give it. If I have a small chemistry lab, I can't have a 'fast' institution. If I have a huge building dedicated to lab experiments I can get a lot of stuff accomplished. So a base 0.5 multiplier would be if you dedicate one slot to Research Lab 1. If you allow Research Lab 1 to expand into a second slot, it still can only run one job at a time, but the multiplier is now 0.75. Thoughts? Would this be code intense? Probably. Would it be cool? Hmm... I think so. Nothing I can't stand more than looking at research slots (ME/PE) that I don't use anymore because we have all our BPOs researched. I'd love to 'remodel' that space into something more useful, like extra invention slots, etc. Meh, I'm not hardcore on any of this. Just thought I'd bounce the idea out there and let you all kick it around a bit. Later. Edit: Grammar.
Edith Bunker	Posted - 2010.08.26 16:26:00 - [52] T2 BPO's need to go go go....just pay compensation to the owners and zap them. Datacores need to stop coming from agents and be part of manufacturing. CCP should create datacore BPOS and nerf the agents.
Kryss Stevenson Caldari Red Stallion Mercantile and Manufacturing	Posted - 2010.08.26 17:49:00 - [53] Mmmm.... I have not seen any CCP response in any of these very important discussions. Either way they won't be able to look at them until 17 or is it now 16 months from now? They have more important things to consider, like how the different hair styles are going to move in Incarna or the rate of fire for some of the weapons for Dust and since tech 2 BPOs will not affect either one of those programming requirements at the moment the whole thing becomes a moot point. ______________________________ Rock's fine, Nerf paper
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2010.08.26 18:10:00 - [54] Originally by: Kryss Stevenson Mmmm.... I have not seen any CCP response in any of these very important discussions. Either way they won't be able to look at them until 17 or is it now 16 months from now? They have more important things to consider, like how the different hair styles are going to move in Incarna or the rate of fire for some of the weapons for Dust and since tech 2 BPOs will not affect either one of those programming requirements at the moment the whole thing becomes a moot point. They dont give a **** and i cant blame them. Two sides arguing over profit potential is the core issue. Why should CCP get in the middle of a functioning as intended issue that greedy players want to make appear broke for profit reasons.
Kryss Stevenson Caldari Red Stallion Mercantile and Manufacturing	Posted - 2010.08.26 18:12:00 - [55] exactly my point ______________________________ Rock's fine, Nerf paper
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2010.08.26 18:17:00 - [56] Originally by: Kryss Stevenson exactly my point Yep thought id add my emphasis on it.
Selling Slave	Posted - 2010.08.26 20:10:00 - [57] Maybe some people have greed in mind when they think of changing invention, maybe some people would just like to see change. Maybe some people are hungry for isk, an would do anything to increase their profit margin. Maybe some people are scared that if change came, their profits would be in jeapordy, maybe some people aren't. All isk really is, is pixels on a screen, you don't own the isk, CCP does, your borrowing the right to use the isk for as long as you pay for your account. So, if your going to assume that people have greed for motive, you could be absolutely WRONG, an of course, people who usually assume, make an A$$ out of themselves. My motive is simple, I would like to see change because, I am lazy, I am tired of the relentless clickfest. I also wouldn't mind seeing change so there was less failures for my inventing jobs, not because I want to make more, but because it is fun to see the Job Successful when you go to deliver the job. It has nothing to do with greed, at the end of the day, all the isk I have made isn't mine, it belongs to CCP. You could remove all the isk from the game as far as I care, it's not about wealth for everyone, it is about fun. Maybe it is the isk that drives you, well, have at it, just remember one thing, it isn't yours, never has been, never will be.
Morcam	Posted - 2010.08.26 21:34:00 - [58] Edited by: Morcam on 26/08/2010 21:35:08 Originally by: Wyke Mossari Originally by: Selling Slave I feel that invention needs a boost. I also think a lot of other people agree, or don't agree, who knows. Anyway, I feel that boosting invention a little bit wouldn't hurt, an make it slightly more profitable for the inventor. Buffing invention will not make it more profitable, it will do the opposite and make it less profitable. The way to make it more profitable is to make it more difficult, so that fewer industrialists can do it successfully. If it theoretically does decrease the profitability of invention, less people will invent, and the market will restabilize itself. That holds true for anything in eve, basically.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.08.26 22:51:00 - [59] Originally by: Morcam Edited by: Morcam on 26/08/2010 21:39:45 Edited by: Morcam on 26/08/2010 21:35:08 Originally by: Wyke Mossari Originally by: Selling Slave I feel that invention needs a boost. I also think a lot of other people agree, or don't agree, who knows. Anyway, I feel that boosting invention a little bit wouldn't hurt, an make it slightly more profitable for the inventor. Buffing invention will not make it more profitable, it will do the opposite and make it less profitable. The way to make it more profitable is to make it more difficult, so that fewer industrialists can do it successfully. If it theoretically does decrease the profitability of invention, less people will invent, and the market will restabilize itself. "Stable" only means the price isn't in free-fall. It would almost certainly stabilize at a point that is less profitable. You're pretty dense if you think it would simply "restabilize" at the same level of profitability. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
Morcam	Posted - 2010.08.26 22:55:00 - [60] Edited by: Morcam on 26/08/2010 22:55:59 Originally by: SurrenderMonkey "Stable" only means the price isn't in free-fall. It would almost certainly stabilize at a point that is less profitable. You're pretty dense if you think it would simply "restabilize" at the same level of profitability. And at that point people who were willing to work for a smaller profit would have a share. Obviously it wouldn't be as profitable as it were before, why is that relevant? Item prices on everything are set by how low people are willing to set their prices. Look at what PI did to pos fuel prices. PI now isn't as profitable as it was when PI was first introduced.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.