Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
692
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:37:00 -
[61] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Interesting changes indeed.
I think however that polishing invention could've been the opportunity to completely remove RNG-based elements, as they provide no benefits to gameplay or enjoyment whatsoever.
You mean to make it easier to exploit? |
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
154
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:44:00 -
[62] - Quote
Looks very interesting. All the hard core accountant types will go crazy with the new variability in outcomes, but I personally like it. I gave up long ago trying to track my exact costs for each and every item. And somehow I still seem to make ISK.
And I know I am going to love being able to queue up multiple invention jobs. damn it is hard to delete my signature |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3429
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:45:00 -
[63] - Quote
Z1gy wrote:Komi Toran wrote:Not liking the changes.
In my mind, anything that makes invention harder = good. Anything that makes it easier = bad. There are some exceptions to the rule, but generally, this is where the margins on T2 production come from. So you've got two things that qualify as good here. First, even if it's annoying, is the skill requirement rebalance. I may be sad that my Mechanics V skill won't be all that useful anymore, but eggs and omelets and all that. Second is the meta item removal. Lower chance of invention success means more time to successfully invent.
Now you go and muck it up by raising the invention chance for ships and including the new non-binary success chance. The dev blog states this is "quite needed to counteract the success changes," but it doesn't present any evidence of that assertion. The ability to have multiple invention runs alone could be enough. I find recovering datacores to be questionable, as they long ago lost 90% of their market value. This is just going to hit them again, which is another nerf to data sites.
In short, I was really hoping this was going to go the other direction. it will hit the R&D agent and the faction warfare farmers hard.
We already got killed when Soundwave declared war on casual players years ago. My RP agents, which I killed myself to get standings for alts that can't run missions, well, we got hammered by a factor of 80-90% then. I have one char on this account who still has an RP agent working, but have not bothered to cash in, since the RP is essentially worthless.
So any additional changes can't impact RP "farmers" much anymore. Now, FW folks, they get hammered. |
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
198
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:48:00 -
[64] - Quote
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? Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
4122
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:48:00 -
[65] - Quote
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. Because JF invention success is currently too high?
Having lost billions of ISK in a single month of bad luck (not one JF invention success), I'm not looking forward to reduced success. My peers told me I was insane to continue. There comes a point when it is no longer fun though.
Team sniping really needs to be addressed as teams become even more vital. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
928
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:50:00 -
[66] - Quote
Can we get the multiple invention runs with Oceanus? That would be a wonderful feature |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:52:00 -
[67] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote: Team sniping really needs to be addressed as teams become even more vital.
Agreed -- I'd like to see Vickrey auctions or something similar, that allow for sniping to be mitigated. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Edgar Strangelove
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
21
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:53:00 -
[68] - Quote
Quote:We are going to remove that chance element out of the system by allowing players to directly select the subsystem output they desire instead of running multiple attempts.
Sweet mother of lasers. |
Callic Veratar
630
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:56:00 -
[69] - Quote
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. |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
184
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 17:00:00 -
[70] - Quote
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. |
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1404
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 17:07:00 -
[71] - Quote
Excellent changes. The Tears Must Flow |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
184
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 17:11:00 -
[72] - Quote
These changes seem like more 'dumbing down' of the game with a sprinkling of changes that will damage the profitability in some markets & careers. Personally I'd rather keep the interfaces than add 'teams' to the formula but I suppose this falls under the conflict driver rule. The interface change also feels like another nail in the coffin of the backstory and history of New Eden - if you get where I'm coming from.
With the announcement that yet another CCP Dev has been lured to Riot Games I'm starting to wonder if EVE Online will still be around come May 2015 when my next yearly subs are due. It's not the place to say it but fixing nullsec sovereignty should be high on your list before the online figures drop much further. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3824
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 17:13:00 -
[73] - 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.
My invention lines with Sabres and Jaguars beg to differ, with Augmentation decryptors dropping them to ME 0. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
134
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 17:20:00 -
[74] - Quote
Your blog is well written and very understandable. You clearly stated what still needs to be hashed out and what is likely to be removed. You also clearly addressed the binary success outcome currently used and a good proposed replacement.
I very much like the direction CCP is taking with all things industry: Better visibility in game for the players and better API tools for those that want additional detail. All this leads to good game play.
For those that are concerned for their style of play, remember, when you first started industry you had to learn your current methods. Now, with the benefit of that experience you get to remodel your methods to be even more efficient. CCP is handing you a new puzzle. It is time to play again and not just continue your "virtual job".
CCP please stay the course and keep the game fresh.
+1 Of all the podcasts I listen to Hyrdostatic is the best! http://hydrostaticpodcast.blogspot.ca/ Nolen Cadmar spreadsheets: Excellent value, great customer service. Don't wait and check them out. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=295315 |
ichn
Stoned Clones
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 17:21:00 -
[75] - Quote
This stuff has potential, but it's still absolutely not worth spending any time on until t2 bpos are nerfed. This would have been the perfect time to do it too. |
DaReaper
Net 7 The Last Brigade
935
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 17:23:00 -
[76] - Quote
DaOpa wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. Wow, this is exactly what I dont want to hear - a Undefined answer, no clarity - nothing .. Keep it simple - Either totally remove T2 BPO's or During Invention, have a rare chance to spawn a BPO instead of a BPC
Other changes that need to happen for industry since the removal of slots is to change the caps on how many jobs you can have ... Max Level Science / Manufacture Jobs at 11 - to low, update this higher. I personally would like to see "caps" removed, since there is no more slot limitations.
Why would they tell you what they have in there think tank for T2 BPO's when nothing is set in stone? Lets look at this logically. They say they want to do something, so they have ideas but nothing set. So lets just say one of the ideas is to remove T2 BPO's and compensate somehow, but this is not happening for like a year lets say. But they tell you now, the T2 BPO's market would crash, the T2 market also could crash, as people would stop using the BP's. Then lets say they make some other change and go 'oh we don't need to to that to the bpo's lets do this instead' then you would have a mssive backlash. Or lets say they are going to do something so the BPO' are least effective, so people plan and start hording, only to be told 'no, no we are removing them' backlash.
Its is easier, to deal with back lash when something is set in stone, then to give out details of something that is no where near completion and might change and have to do with the ramification of that. That is one of the things the Jita riots of 2011 were about, CCP said WiS would be one thing, but when they came out they were not. Dust was said to be one thing, and suffered because it wasn;t. It is stupid, illogical, and dumb to tell you what might happen to stuff, in a game where market manipulation and hording happens. Until its set in stone or REALLY close to that. They will address T2 BPO's when they are ready. not before. OMG Comet Mining idea!!! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=331766 |
Chjna
the Goose Flock
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 17:27:00 -
[77] - Quote
The fact that saddens me is that the only industry that have a element of fun, will loose it. (The random in T3 production)
Quote:Invention is used to obtain Tech II blueprint copies out of Tech I blueprint copies and was introduced to replace the old Tech II blueprint original GÇ£lotteryGÇ¥. Still waiting on it... Remove T2 BPOs |
DaReaper
Net 7 The Last Brigade
935
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 17:28:00 -
[78] - Quote
One question:
I do a lot of RE over the years, the images show a remove of Ram chips, but no actual info on that. Are you removing the use of RAM from the RE process? OMG Comet Mining idea!!! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=331766 |
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
224
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 17:46:00 -
[79] - Quote
Tzar Sinak wrote:For those that are concerned for their style of play, remember, when you first started industry you had to learn your current methods. Now, with the benefit of that experience you get to remodel your methods to be even more efficient. CCP is handing you a new puzzle. It is time to play again and not just continue your "virtual job". Meh. I'll be honest: I'm selfish and lazy. I like to do things other people aren't because that's often where you get the most ISK for the minimum of effort. Before Apocrypha, I ran radar sites in low-sec, because no one did them. Then Apocrypha hit, everyone did them, and I moved on.
I am aware that my preferences will often run counter to CCP's goal. While I was disappointed to see everyone in a battleship running sites I used to have all to myself, CCP was thrilled with the increase in activity. It's the same thing here: I don't necessarily like that there are more people inventing in Eve, but CCP is going to be thrilled with it, and I cannot say they are wrong. But, I would still appreciate some concession, and that is slow invention down so that this industrial ecosystem can more easily support the influx of new players.
|
Sir SmashAlot
The League of Extraordinary Opportunists Intergalactic Conservation Movement
138
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 17:52:00 -
[80] - Quote
I am thrilled that industry is continuing to receive love from CCP and I look forward to these invention changes.
However, I would strongly urge that CCP begins communicating that there is Null sec/SOV changes in the works if there are any. Flashy new mechanics add little value to industrialists if they are selling into a congested market. |
|
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
199
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 17:55:00 -
[81] - Quote
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? Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
785
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 17:56:00 -
[82] - Quote
Sir SmashAlot wrote:I am thrilled that industry is continuing to receive love from CCP and I look forward to these invention changes.
However, I would strongly urge that CCP begins communicating that there is Null sec/SOV changes in the works if there are any. Flashy new mechanics add little value to industrialists if they are selling into a congested market. I guess no one watched the Alliance Tournament. They laid down the general order of changes forthwith: starbases, then nullsec. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Vartan Sarkisian
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
162
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:00:00 -
[83] - Quote
Currently even though invention takes 1 run from a BPC, you still currently need 10 BPC to set of 10 inventions of the same item at any one time, becuase the BPC is tied up for the duration of the invention.
You mention multiple invention runs which is great but will that mean the BPC is NOT tied up in the invention process so that we can have literally 1 max run BPC that we can use for setting up 10 invention runs at once?
under multiple invention runs you also mention so they donGÇÖt have to launch them manually every hour, which is what weGÇÖre going to do with this set of changes. Does this mean that we can set off as many invention runs that we have skills for an then another set could run afterwards.
So I could set of 10 inventions, queue another 50 inventions then go off and do something else? I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die. |
Mackenzie Nolen
XYJAX
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:02:00 -
[84] - 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
Would this not be a good time to simply remove cruiser/frigate requirements from T2 battleship construction?
This was done for ship piloting to facilitate specialization; I don't see why that shouldn't apply to manufacturing as well. If I want to produce battleships why would I be forced to learn cruiser production first? Surely there are other relevant skills that can be used as pre-req time sinks similar to the changes made to spaceship command skills.
On a separate note, the baseline % chance success increases from skills seems very underwhelming (and has always felt that way). A 10% total improvement spread across three separate rank 5 skills is pretty harsh. Can we not take this opportunity to make skills a bit more rewarding for this process? I should want to train some of these things to level 5. |
Capsups
Blitzkrieg. Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:08:00 -
[85] - Quote
So CCP, if I may come with a suggestion:
before utterly destabilizing the T3 market, wouldn't it be an idea to rebalance the various subsystems before making the cookie cutter builds extremely oversupplied because of the ability to freely choose the outcode of reverse engineering attempts?
The entire subsystem market revolves around that mechanic currently, because it's hard to keep up a steady supply of the cookie cutter subsystems that everybody wants since even with a rather sizeable investment into reverse engineering, you're not guaranteed to get any decent amounts of those subsystems. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
105
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:14:00 -
[86] - Quote
Sir SmashAlot wrote:I am thrilled that industry is continuing to receive love from CCP and I look forward to these invention changes.
However, I would strongly urge that CCP begins communicating that there is Null sec/SOV changes in the works if there are any. Flashy new mechanics add little value to industrialists if they are selling into a congested market.
How many times do they have to say it?
http://crossingzebras.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/3aa4d_eve-blocking.jpg
Industry > Stations/Outposts/Starbases > Corps/Alliances > Sov
We're on step 1. Fozzie and others have already stated in various townhalls, podcasts, etc that teams are already formed and working on it. CCP Seagull in the ama said as much but of course they're not going to tell you dates, timelines or anything else until it's ready to be discussed in a devblog just like these invention changes didn't until now.
|
Throwaway Sam Atild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:15:00 -
[87] - Quote
These changes are a very big resounding Meh. Does it seem natural that there's more of one type of datacore in use than another, or the wrong type of datacore? Probably not. Had it ever even occurred to me that this was some sort of 'problem' with industry. Nope.
Are data interfaces super-annoying to forget back in Jita, sure, I'll give that one to you.
Teams? I guess this is fine. Invention costs are usually pretty low though, so I guess I'll probably just run my invention out of Jita or Nibain or wherever the best team is.
As for the multiple inventions being chained together... This is more love/hate. It's my opinion that you guys are pretty careless about hacking time out of production. As others have pointed out you've basically killed T2 module production as the margins are getting low to the point of not worth doing for many people. Crius was basically a big minimum wage reducer for the T2 manufacturer. So my suggestion is to be sure to couple this with a compensatory time hike. Short example, I might be able to log on to put in 5- 1 hour inventions during a day where I'm not busy. So make sure to pump invention time up to 4.5 hours or so, otherwise I'll be able to do all of my corp's invention on a single character.
I was dead set opposed to Granularity when I first looked at it. I had my morning shower beer though and have adjusted my opinion. I can keep my planning centered around the bad bpc and be left with some extra mats at the end. Those mats are actually a pain in the butt, as they have to be reintegrated into future projects or sold back to market, but it's not the planning nightmare I first thought it would be. So basically another meh change. However I would beg that you let me view the ME/TE of my bpc's in the inventory window! Especially now that you'll be randomizing which ones I get!
To get out of the meh zone, y'all need to do a few things:
-Keep the chaining and increase invention time to compensate -Go ahead with the T3 merge -Add a bunch of end to end time back into T2 manufacturing. This pumps up margins to make it more worth doing. -Add risk to manufacturing. This is the critical one. Crius made it impossible to lose at manufacturing. You guys need to genius up a way to incentiveize getting the mats into space for an extended period of time (significantly more than 24 hours) so that they are at risk of being destroyed. At the same time you have to ensure that this incentive doesn't provide null production with an unbeatable advantage. Something like pumping up station tax 100% might do the trick, but I'm sure it has down-sides.
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
453
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:16:00 -
[88] - Quote
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? |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
453
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:17:00 -
[89] - Quote
Will the T2 mining ships - Hulk, Mackinaw, Skiff - still be considered Gallente, for the purposes of the second Science skill? |
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS
1324
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:18:00 -
[90] - Quote
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. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |