EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: Lighting the invention bulb

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev blog: Lighting the invention bulb

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 16 post(s)

CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3694	Posted - 2014.09.11 15:00:00 - [1] - Quote Panteraa wrote: Are there plans to change T2 BPO's? I'm not looking for details, I'm just curious if a change is on the timeline. We are not happy with them in general - what would exactly happen to them and when remains quite undefined for now.


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3696	Posted - 2014.09.11 15:04:00 - [2] - Quote Querns wrote: Very glad to see meta items and data interfaces being removed from the invention process. A question (if it can even be answered at this point): how will decryptors affect the new non-binary success chance? Since the non-binary success chance will be affected by anything that affects invention chance. Thus, decryptors with a high chance bonus may be worthwhile to use to try and get an exceptional result. However, as mentioned in the blog, we'll need to make sure Decryptors are properly balanced not to break things in the new system.


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3696	Posted - 2014.09.11 15:46:00 - [3] - Quote Querns wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: Querns wrote: Very glad to see meta items and data interfaces being removed from the invention process. A question (if it can even be answered at this point): how will decryptors affect the new non-binary success chance? Since the non-binary success chance will be affected by anything that affects invention chance. Thus, decryptors with a high chance bonus may be worthwhile to use to try and get an exceptional result. However, as mentioned in the blog, we'll need to make sure Decryptors are properly balanced not to break things in the new system. So, the chance for each type of successful result would be increased at the same time? E.g. (with fake numbers): I have a 50% chance to invent normally, with a 30% standard, 10% good, 7% great, and 3% exceptional. I add a decryptor that changes my success chance to 75% -- would that change my success "bands" to 45% standard, 15% good, 10.5% great, and 4.5% exceptional? Yes. Granular outcomes are based on the standard chance to succeed. If standard chance goes up, so does the others as you explained.


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3696	Posted - 2014.09.11 16:10:00 - [4] - Quote 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


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3696	Posted - 2014.09.11 16:13:00 - [5] - Quote 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. 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.


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3711	Posted - 2014.09.12 09:53:00 - [6] - Quote Sizeof Void wrote: Will the T2 mining ships - Hulk, Mackinaw, Skiff - still be considered Gallente, for the purposes of the second Science skill? Yes, no changes about that particular point.


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3711	Posted - 2014.09.12 10:13:00 - [7] - Quote Zifrian wrote: 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? To make things clear, we are not removing the skill requirements to build larger ships, we are reducing skill requirements to build ships within each size. Ex: training Advanced Battleship Construction will still require Advanced Cruiser Construction 4 which itself requires Advanced Frigate Construction 4. Building a Sin however will only require Advanced Battleship Construction 1 instead of 4. Bonuses for training Advanced Battleship Construction most likely will be a 1% TE reduction when building Tech II battleships. Zifrian wrote: 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? We will adjust salvage requirements if we think it's needed yes. Zifrian wrote: A final reaction: while the tiered level of invention success and failure looks good and all, it's just going to muck up any sort of industrial planning. If that's what you want to do, fine but most people don't run an invention job without trying to figure out if it's worth their time over the long run. Also, people usually don't run one or two invention jobs, they do 100's. But you know this. I'm not convinced on this change really. That's a fair point, we'll discuss this internally, thanks for bringing it up


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3711	Posted - 2014.09.12 10:18:00 - [8] - Quote Het Silenius wrote: Am I blind, or is the New Module Skill graphic missing AC/arty and rockets/missiles? This lists only shows modules that change skill requirements. Tech II Projectiles invention and manufacturing requirements stay the same with Mechanical Engineering / Nuclear Physics. Same with Tech II missiles, which are a mix of Plasma Physics and Rocket Science.


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3711	Posted - 2014.09.12 10:31:00 - [9] - Quote Bugsy VanHalen wrote: [quote=CCP Ytterbium][quote=Querns][quote=Bugsy VanHalen]Comments. Jump Freighters are insanely powerful with their jump drive capability and should not be even remotely close to easy to build. Besides, it currently makes little sense for them to be easier to invent than Tech II Cruisers, Battlecruisers and Battleships.


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3711	Posted - 2014.09.12 10:38:00 - [10] - Quote Lucy Sue wrote: 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? The ship tiericide caused us to delete old generic Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills and replace them with new ones, which is why we had to add and refund those skills to the players. This change is just shuffling tech II skill requirements for science skills around - your existing skills won't lose value, they'll just allow you to invent / manufacture other types of items you originally aimed for. As such there is no plan for skills to be manually raised or reimbursed. That is why we wanted to bring this blog early on to give you time to adapt and train skills needed back up.



CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3711	Posted - 2014.09.12 10:50:00 - [11] - Quote Arronicus wrote: Great job here, however; if your intent was to shift many of the inventions to be more intuitive with the race that uses them and the weapon type, why were railguns shifted away from electromagnetic physics and Caldari, the technology they actually use, and the race that they are styled for, to plasma physics and Gallente instead, when Plasma is a blaster element and gallente ships are not tailored for railguns? Ah, that's a good question we asked ourselves during design. We had to strike a balance between clarity and racial composition as it not possible to have a 100% perfect system here. You see, not only we had to make sure each science field was relatively well distributed among others, but also that one particular race wasn't too much over-represented over the others as well. Point is, Caldari already is the main Invention / Tech II manufacturing race needed for all missiles and a bunch of shield / electronic modules - as such we had to be careful on how many modules they'd be used for. Besides, it makes sense for all Hybrid turrets to use the same racial requirement for consistency purposes (especially since we haven't forgotten about the need to iterate on Industry certificates after this is done). We also would not take it for granted that Gallente ships are not tailored for railguns.


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3711	Posted - 2014.09.12 10:54:00 - [12] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: Once again another excellent round of changes from the peeps at CCP and CSM making a great indy game even better. I particularly love the multiple invention runs and think the scaling levels of success are a great idea. I have to points that I would love to see included in the final shape of these changes. #1 - skills. NOBODY trains invention skills to 5. going from 4 to 5 only gives a half a percent greater chance of success. Skills should play more of a factor. Even if you're perfect skills you only get a 50% chance of success for a module. If you're skills are at 2 you get a 40% or so. I personally think a character with skills at 5 should have well over a 50% chance of success. And skills at 1 shouldn't get you much at all. Can you adjust that formula? Invention skills are a fine line to walk upon. Make them too valuable and they'll become a mandatory requirement for everyone to use before starting Invention, just like the old Production Efficiency skill used to force people to wait a bunch of weeks before profiting in Industry. As we mentioned in the blog however, those numbers are not final - we can always increase the value of skills up if needed, but we would like to avoid massive bonuses here


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3713	Posted - 2014.09.12 11:07:00 - [13] - Quote Quartermaster Wild wrote: 4) Could the size of datacores be decreased from 1.0m3 to something more reasonable (0.3m3?), in order to encourage Exploration to look at datasites, in order to increase market fluidity? The other changes you mentioned aren't that easy to come up with, but this we could do during a lunch break Sounds like a good idea, we'll discuss this internally. Quartermaster Wild wrote: Questions: If ships, say, will need Mechanical Engineering and some other Science skill (Quantum Physics etc), does this mean that the Racial Starship Engineering skills will be made useless? If so, what will occur with the SP invested in those skills? We are not touching Racial Starship Engineering skills, so no need to worry about those . Quartermaster Wild wrote: What is driving the change away from Meta items as optional ingredients? I really dislike the Teams approach, as the system as currently implemented can effectively render whole areas non-optimal for smaller players / people just starting out. Relatedly, does the removal of the usage of meta items in this manner indicate a possible future module tieracide? The biggest problem with Teams right now is Team sniping, which we are aware of and need to fix. Below are some reasons why we hate Meta Items in Invention with deep raging intensity right now: It's a mess to use and predict depending on the module type. The mechanic doesn't not apply to ships. We have Dr. Evil plans for meta item themselves, but we don't want to spit the beans until our Dev Blog on that one is ready to go Long story short, the new meta item scheme will not be compatible with its current implementation in Invention when we're done with them.