|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
739
   |
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
what's this about inventing capital industrial ships now? |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
739
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
So if I'm reading this correctly, when merging RE (where skills matter) and invention (where they essentially don't) you've made it so RE skills barely matter rather than the other way around? |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
739
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:10:00 -
[3] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Love that graph displaying a significant surge in manufacturing being done.
"the facts are completely the opposite of everything I've claimed they will be. the facts must be wrong. bad facts, do what dinsdale tells you" |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
740
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:17:00 -
[4] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Just as a note to people about Meta Items:
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)
Don't have a timescale.
the correct phrasing is "Soon(TM)" |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
740
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
I'm kind of curious how you plan to refund interfaces, considering how stupendously worthless all the non-ship ones are. Not that it'll be much of a deal as the only people with any real amount of interfaces will be people betting on you over-compensating, but it'll be an interesting puzzle. What compensation do people need for a worthless item? |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
750
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:53:00 -
[6] - 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 -
[7] - 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) |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
754
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 00:48:00 -
[8] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
Furthermore I find the very concept of hit and miss invention ridiculous. In the real world if you can do it once, then you know exactly how to do it again. !
wrongo
intel spends billions on chip manufacturing and there's still quite a random element factoring into if an individual chip works (and what it can be binned at) from an existing line of chips being manufactured
like they'll make a whole batch of haswell chips, then have to test each one to see which work, then what to bin each one as ('better' chips are just the ones that binned better, not a separate line of chips) |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
756
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 15:44:00 -
[9] - Quote
For the ship construction skills, 1% te is basically useless. Te bonuses need to be bigger than that or they're just consumed in the time between finishing and logging in.
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
756
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 15:46:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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 
Invention skills are so useless it's generally considered a waste to train them to IV. That's how little they matter with the current formula. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|