Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Quartermaster Wild
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 07:19:00 -
[151] - Quote
As someone brand new to invention (first successful batch of T2s invented last night), the things that I would like to see:
1) Have all BPC's with the same attribute values (Item, # runs, %TE, %ME) stackable.
2) Make skilling to V actually matter. Everything that I've read prior to getting into invention indicates that of the science skills, the research based ones only should be trained to IV, as V only offers a fractional amount of datacore passive acquisition, and a meaningless percentage increase on success.
3) I'd also like to see BPC's tradable on the market, rather than in contracts. Alternatively, also give us some Advanced Contracting skills that open more Contract slots, in the same manner as Trade skills add more market order slots.
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?
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?
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?
|
Ai Sekana
Hellium Corporation V.L.A.S.T
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 07:36:00 -
[152] - Quote
I like most of the proposed changes, but some of them does not make any sense
1. Removing interfaces because they don`t do anything and are not even sink for minerals or materials. Ok I can agree with that but when we start removing stuff because of that "thing" lets remove and say RAM that is pretty much the same situation aside from been a very little mineral sink and is more of inconvenience than anything else. Please rethink this. Either make it consistent and remove useless small stuff all over or keep it as it is. If you feel that you need to do something about the interfaces just make all of the x100 and use 1 per invention where BPC from data site will provide 2 to 5 runs of 100 interfaces. Make the interfaces even optional item that adds some maybe extra runs or some chance improvements. Reduce the volume of the required materials to 0.01m3 so people actually start looting them and with that you will increase the value of data sites and will not need to remove tons of BPC and interfaces from the game and wonder how to compensate them. Waste not something that you can simply repurpose.
2. Random outcome form invention feels more like a "middle finger" than anything else. This will not add anything of worth to the equation aside from overcomplicating it. This will NOT bring choices. To be perfectly honest with you CCP aside from choosing what to manufacture there are no real choices in Industry. Anything is predictable and scalable in long term. Your new formula will just require readjusting to the existing calculations and in the end for the middle and big industrials it will sum up to the same result where the little guys will lose money or will even quit, because of the extra logistics and planning required.
3. Rebalancing decriptors. Ok I am on board with that, but you really need to have a look at the use of decriptors in module invention. I for one invent around 40 different modules and I have never ever used decriptor. They just don`t bring anything to the table. 1% reduce in price for module that cost 300k to produce is not viable option. Extra runs do not cover the cost of the decriptor. All this might be worth it for ships, but please think about the module invention also. Add module specific decriptors - say -50% chance 15 more runs no ME/TE change, so in long term we are getting 5 more runs and the profit of them might cover the cost of the decriptor and even give us some extra buck. I would like to see decriptors that add more runs to the invention BPC so ME and TE modifiers actually matter for the lower tiers.
|
Carraig naTairbhe
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 08:47:00 -
[153] - Quote
Situation I would like to set an opposing view on data interfaces. I hold the opinion that data interfaces add a nice 'colour' to the game without being overly complex.
Background: I am moving into manufacturing from exploration. I have all these BPCs that I am converting into items where they'll sell for more than the price of the BPC on contract + manufacturing cost. Perhaps it is the throw of the dice but I have a LOT of data interface BPCs that are becoming data interfaces.
Assessment Removing data interfaces will impoverish the game in my opinion. There exist two kinds of complexity in Eve, the kind that gives Eve its hard factor (worth keeping) and the complexity that simply frustrating (worth trimming). Removing this natural segue from exploration to manufacturing appears to me to be removing a complexity of the first kind.
Recommendation If these are removed from exploration they need to be replaced with something else or else the exploration loot tables will become even more repetitive. |
Canenald
Rubella Solaris Test Alliance Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:00:00 -
[154] - Quote
When balancing the decryptors, please take into account that you are reducing value of already ****** Data Sites by removing Data Interfaces from the game.
Maybe it would be a nice opportunity to rebalance Data Sites while you are rebalancing their drops? It would be nice if Data containers could contain multiple decryptors per stack. |
Extractor Bill
Invictus Patria Aeternus Eernus
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:20:00 -
[155] - Quote
A few things ..
- I suggest you revise the output BPC's for T2 invention to make the system easier to understand. The "Negative" ME and TE base outputs for the invention outputs hold no value, and only complicate the process by making you have to calculate additional materials and time, which is similar to the reason for some of changes last patch to T1 BPO's. Similar to how you adjusted T1 BPO's last patch, you should make the base output for invention a BPC with 0 ME and 0 PE, then allow things like team, decryptor, and outcome to modify the result. This would not affect any costs, rather it would allow it to make more sense.
- Invention will now have the option of multiple runs. However I do not see the relationship with Decryptors yet in multi run deals. Is it correct to assume that all runs in a job must have the same attributes. Meaning that if I want to attempt to invent a T2 BPC ten times (10 runs), and wish to use a decryptor, then I need to supply 10 decryptors to the job along with at least a 10 run BPC, and other materials proportional to this job.
- I highly recommend you provide "diminishing returns" on how chance based bonuses affect your possible results. You should never allow Exceptional or Great success (or any result with a ME bonus) become even somewhat reliable results. When a global bonus is applied to the chance result, I would suggest you either have it sku heavily towards improving the likelyness of a Good or Standard result. Allowing any chance result that affects ME to become even somewhat reliable will create a new "junk' status for T2 BPC's as it would create a new minimum acceptable standard. This also can offer some new gameplay opportunities.
- If you do option 3, a new opportunity is to add new gameplay through rare encryptor drops. Perhaps you can have a high risk decryptor that only improves the result of Exceptional and Good success at some sort of additional risk(ex. Higher chance to fail altogether, with the additional failure rate being added to the critical failure, and terrible failure).
I like how the new system allows for modified outputs with chance adding to the mix. I feel it adds lots more gameplay, and with a variable result you stand a chance to "get lucky" and make lots of isk off your Exceptional and Great results as they are rare, always in demand, and allow you to potentially push your resultant BPC above the former maximum ME potential. This new gameplay is fun, and also encourages invention as a major activity since the result is no longer binary.
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:53:00 -
[156] - 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. |
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
693
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:03:00 -
[157] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Adding data interfaces as a consumable, so each invention job requires two data core types and a data interface specific to the type of BPC/relic being invented/reverse engineered, would be a better option for improving the value of exploration.
Then remove data cores from exploration, since most exploration ships have small holds. Thus data cores come from the folks wandering around their local research agents, while data interfaces come from exploration (or rather the components for data interfaces come from exploration).
This opens up the option for station owners to buy research agents in much the same way as teams. Post a bid for an agent, they will move to your station and live there for a production period of a week/month/whatever, with the owner getting a split of the ISK cost of purchasing data cores. If a station is destroyed, or an agent is not bid for, that agent simply becomes unavailable for the remainder of the current production period.
Removing data interfaces and reducing the demand for data cores by ~50% hurts two professions at once.
Are you out of your mind? |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
693
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:12:00 -
[158] - Quote
Tzar Sinak wrote:Upon reflection there seems to be a very interesting opportunity here. It is stated that data cores are to be reviewed and rebalanced. May I suggest that a new "wild card" series of data cores also be created. The type of data core that gives massive advantages to those must succeed jobs.
These wild card data cores will need to be rare and thus very valuable. People will want these at almost any cost. Where will these be found? Only one place, data sites. Rare, elusive, significant impact on job success/efficiencies and expensive. A must have item but difficult to find.
So, if these data cores/decryptors (data cores have no impact on the success chance, only decryptors have) are so rare, they will be so expensive that the massively increased cost overshadow the gains (increased success chance) compared to inventions without these decryptors and basically nullify the gain. Pretty pointless. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:13:00 -
[159] - 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 -
[160] - 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. |
|
|
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:26:00 -
[161] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
So you would just change more of WH space income to suit an industry change after the backlash you received for no consultation with the WH space community about Hyperion.
I support Hyperion changes but can you not see the anger when we had no consultation with the changes yet for industry and Null sov future changes there is so much advanced warning and consultation? |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:31:00 -
[162] - 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 -
[163] - 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 -
[164] - 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 -
[165] - 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 -
[166] - 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.
|
|
Noriko Mai
1487
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 11:16:00 -
[167] - Quote
If we will be able to install multiple invention runs. Will the cost (according to the changing system cost index over time) be calulated evertime a new run starts automatically or will it be the same for all invention runs in a "batch"? -Æ-ï-¦-+-Ç-ï! -Æ-ï-¦-+-Ç-ï! -Ü-¦-+-¦-+-¦-¦-é-ï - -+-+-¦-+-Ç-ï! | -ô-¦-+-¦-+-¦-¦-+-¦ |
Quartermaster Wild
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 11:20:00 -
[168] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
Many thanks for your time and response CCP Ytterbium, I'm looking forward to the changes.
|
Sheeana Harb
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
32
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 11:37:00 -
[169] - Quote
Hello,
I would like to provide feedback specifically to a multiple invention outcome feature:
This change will make it harder to buy larger amounts of materials for T2 manufacturing. Before if I had 80 T2 BPCs all with ME2, I knew I could open one said BPC in the industry UI, select 10 runs and then start buying materials x 80 and it would all match up afterwards. After the change I will likely end up with a portion of BPCs with different ME so I will need to either buy extra mats (if the BPCs I'm buying from is with lower ME) or go through the buying process twice or deal with the fact that I bough redundant mats.
Having an ingame shopping list tool would be very valuable. |
Medalyn Isis
Rosewood Productions Stain Confederation
312
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 11:39:00 -
[170] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:He's the problem I see. You're making it progressively more complicated to run calculations and analysis on what is necessary to produce, this punishes people willing to make the time investment to work things out properly.
Say I wanted to invent 90 ishtars, I would calculate the amount of materials to produce them using the best value racial decryptor (3 run) and invest in buying those component materials. I would then proceed to have my characters do as many invention jobs as necessary to get the 30 runs (i.e. 30 successful operations).
Now, by throwing more randomness into the fire, I'm not sure what I need without going through, checking every single blueprint and adding them all up, grouping them, calculating them all in turn and then merging the results back together.
I love the idea that failure does not have to consume all of the datacores, but dislike all the extra calculator work that can only be known once the invention jobs have completed.
I could of course save the extra components for a later build, but that then adds more leg-work by having to factor that in when building the next round of materials. This is my only concern too. It makes it even more difficult to calculate with having so many different outcomes.
Now, what would be cool, would be if we could invent meta blueprints, with the T2 blueprint being the highest outcome, and meta versions ranging down. Perhaps we could even have special decryptors which allow us a chance at inventing faction bpcs.
That would make this gameplay change fun and interesting.
Right now, all it is going to do is add a lot of extra maths and make our spreadsheets even more unwieldy than before for very little improvement in actual gameplay. |
|
Moloney
Faceless Men
144
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 11:42:00 -
[171] - Quote
"Please remember all of this is subject to change until deployed and that Market speculation is done at your own risk."
Let me translate that for you:
"Please remember that we will likely **** it all up and ignore you when we are done." - or have you kicked Fozzie out already? |
Medalyn Isis
Rosewood Productions Stain Confederation
312
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 11:45:00 -
[172] - Quote
Ai Sekana wrote:2. Random outcome form invention feels more like a "middle finger" than anything else. This will not add anything of worth to the equation aside from overcomplicating it. This will NOT bring choices. To be perfectly honest with you CCP aside from choosing what to manufacture there are no real choices in Industry. Anything is predictable and scalable in long term. Your new formula will just require readjusting to the existing calculations and in the end for the middle and big industrials it will sum up to the same result where the little guys will lose money or will even quit, because of the extra logistics and planning required.
Echoing this while it is still hopefully on the drawing board for CCP. I think this change is not going to go down well, and actually is more head ache inducing than adding any type of fun gameplay.
If we get actually get different modules from an invention run though, that would be more interesting.
|
Moloney
Faceless Men
144
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 11:53:00 -
[173] - Quote
Is it not the purpose of a sand box to provide options?
Having subsystems that are currently not popular is a fact of the current game mechanics and meta.
Add more features to the sandbox where the currently unused subsystems would excel. Don't remove them. Don't change the build cost for systems that are not popular.
When something else changes and suddenly a previously unpopular sub becomes popular... What, are you going to rebalance their cost again!?
Can we have some foresight instead of the usual crap you come up with please? |
Erikku Leonhart
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 11:58:00 -
[174] - Quote
Hello Mr ccp Guy thank you for all your hard work i was just wondering about somethig in that dev blog of yours, you see, i saw that you said t2 Capital and t2 Indutrial capital ships have a 20% reserch chance and i was well....Wondering if thats something you can confirm if not could you be botherd for a moment to say so it really is kill me as a miner main, one of the few might i add that doesnt multibox XD i would be really excited about t2 caps :D that are not jump frieghters |
BooomBox
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 12:06:00 -
[175] - Quote
Hello, CCP Ytterbium. Would you be so kind to make a clarification on second skill for t3 hulls invention. According to dev blog the second skill is changed for t2 ships according to their role. Will Plasma physics remain the second invention skill for t3 hulls invention? Cheers |
Juliette Asanari
Saeder-Krupp Trading Division
64
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 12:09:00 -
[176] - Quote
With the removal of the Data Interfaces, the materials required for those (e.g. Auxilliary Parts) will only be useful for building storyline modules, thus rendering them completely worthless (as opposed to marginally useful now) - additionally, they have a volume of 1m3 (and usually only get aquired from exploration sites).
I'd like to see a pass on that, either a reduciton in size or another use for them (exploration loot could use a pass in general, finding a site with 1 metal scrap and 2 carbon is not fun.) |
SpacePhenix
KnownUnknown
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 13:21:00 -
[177] - Quote
I know & understand that you have tried to improve the game. But honestly most of us feel like you have been changing too many things too fast. Personally I think it has been a really bad idea! For example, now for us to make any different type or types of outcomes with the invention blueprints, it is becoming increasingly difficult for us to change the outcome to what we would like it to be, as we now no longer have the option to do so. The Advanced industry was already hard enough for the more experienced players to calculate, you can only imagine how hard it would be for less seasoned players. Before you released the summer patch you made it harder & since you have released this summer patch you have once again made it even harder to use. By the way this is also the same summer patch that you all promised not to change at this yearGÇÖs CCP Fanfest! An industrialist needs to have numbers that he or she can rely on! That means that he or she would only keep one type of blueprints outcome. Now with being able to have multiple different outcome blueprints, will only result with the contract market overflowing with a lot of GÇ£BADGÇ¥ blueprints!
As for the system tax it has been a bad move on your behalf & to be honest with you it is stupid. The system tax need to be fixed, changed or better yet it should be removed completely. The system tax increases way too fast especially when you compare it to the system tax cool down time. There are some players who are not interested in going to wormhole, low sec or 0.0 stupid political space... You have completely destroyed the industry part of the game for those players... This game is not only played by gamers who like to shoot at other players... Some players just like to hang out in High Sec space flying their nice spaceships. Are they not allowed to have a little income to do so?? From my point of view it seems like you are favoring a certain group of players & not worrying about the many other groups of player within this game. I hope that you take this seriously & I hope that you will address some of our/ my concerns about the issues I have addressed with you.
SpacePhenix |
Gynax Gallenor
Conquering Darkness
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 14:30:00 -
[178] - Quote
Sheeana Harb wrote:Hello,
I would like to provide feedback specifically to a multiple invention outcome feature:
This change will make it harder to buy larger amounts of materials for T2 manufacturing. Before if I had 80 T2 BPCs all with ME2, I knew I could open one said BPC in the industry UI, select 10 runs and then start buying materials x 80 and it would all match up afterwards. After the change I will likely end up with a portion of BPCs with different ME so I will need to either buy extra mats (if the BPCs I'm buying from is with lower ME) or go through the buying process twice or deal with the fact that I bough redundant mats.
Having an ingame shopping list tool would be very valuable.
It'll make it harder, but I don't think by a huge amount.
For large scale operations like the one you are describing, the Law of Large Numbers is going to be your friend. As you run more and more invention jobs, the expected outcome is going to get more and more certain, so you will end up being able to come up with a reasonably accurate estimate of all the different BPC types you have.
This assumes you aren't changing things, and teams/decryptors etc stay the same, of course, but even allowing for that would be very doable.
It is definitely more complex, but I think it is of the 'good' variety, cos it will reward people willing to think about what they are doing and putting the spade work in, as well as requiring reasonably active monitoring for shifts in market prices.
I definitely agree on the shopping list. I know jEveAssets has one, but I have found myself very poor at properly using it.
Fly Reckless, cos flying safe is no damn fun!
http://flyreckless.com/newsite/ |
Gynax Gallenor
Conquering Darkness
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 14:35:00 -
[179] - 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?
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?
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.
Thanks
I think the T3 market will not be healthy till they rebalance all the subsystems and the material inputs for them, rather than Reverse Engineering itself.
Fly Reckless, cos flying safe is no damn fun!
http://flyreckless.com/newsite/ |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
756
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 15:44:00 -
[180] - 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |