Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
4640
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
While the changes to industry with the Crius release were undoubtedly massive and quite successful, there is more to come: Science! Invention and Reverse Engineering are going to be revamped and improved.
Here a brief overview of the proposed changes (which are not coming with Oceanus):
- To invent Tech-2 items you require for each invented item a set of two specific science skills. Which skills you exactly need will be changed. For ships you always needed the Mechanical Engineering skill, that is going to change depending on the role of the invented ship.
- Reverse Engineering to create a Tech-3 blueprint will be merged with Invention, you also will be able to select which subsystem you would like to create. As the invention of Tech-3 blueprints is then integrated in the Invention system, will can also use decryptors for Tech-3 invention.
- The use of meta items will be removed from Invention, instead of meta items you will be able to use Teams in Invention.
- Data Interfaces will be removed (and properly reimbursed).
- Invention results will be non-binary, with some good luck to get an extra boost of ME/TE or,with only a little bad lack you will receive back some datacores used in the invention.
- Success chances of items and ships will be tweaked a little bit.
- Installing multiple invention runs at once instead of installing the same invention every hour over and over.
To give everyone enough time to adjust and to get enough feeback, these changes are NOT coming with Oceanus.
Please read all the exciting details, explanations why something is done the way it is and all the juicy background information in CCP Ytterbium's latest dev blog Lighting the invention bulb. CCP Phantom - Senior Community Representative - Volunteer Manager |
|
Kusum Fawn
State Protectorate Caldari State
542
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
finally getting around to this ? hmm... Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
Panteraa
Bermuda Tax Haven
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
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. |
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1337
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
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. |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
12879
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
\o/
|
|
Kynric
Sky Fighters
167
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:36:00 -
[6] - Quote
Are there any plans to add value to data sites to compensate for the loss of data interface related drops? |
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices Curatores Veritatis Alliance
165
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:36:00 -
[7] - Quote
Quote: Multiple invention runs
Last but not least, we recently changed Invention to only consume one run of a Tech I blueprint copy instead of eating the whole stack. The next logical course of action is to allow players to start invention with multiple runs (that each consume one run of the input blueprint copy) so they donGÇÖt have to launch them manually every hour, which is what weGÇÖre going to do with this set of changes.
As a direct consequence of whatGÇÖs explained just above and after gathering some data of whatGÇÖs happening post-Crius, we may tweak invention times further on some blueprints to make sure Invention is in a proper state before we move on. We will post more details on this particular point as we get them.
This was most time from it. What you say, "every hour" is like twice a day, or a single time. People either have a chance to put a job in before to head to work, or not, but they most probably have, after work. depending on one's biocycles, maybe one more job if it's a very short one.
Personally right now i even feel using a POS for inventions (half the time) pointless, because t simply wouldn't allow me to install more jobs. So, according to murphy, 4 hours = 7 h = 6h = ... = 24h, as per jobtime. It doesn't matter how long it takes, because it's just not possible for most of us to do anything with it, it simply doesn't fit real life cycles.
Hope this can be taken as an input, and not in the "let's nerf it even more" way.
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
739
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
what's this about inventing capital industrial ships now? |
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices Curatores Veritatis Alliance
165
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:40:00 -
[9] - 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.
Except for the statistical analysis for planning the production batch's cost ahead, the other things you mention here can be pretty much handled. We have assets API to take the remnants into account. We have the SDE with all the data and do recursive analysis for total material requirements. We can select the best-ME BP for each iteration for the quantity it has. So, most of this can be done. However, excel sheets are not much use anymore I agree to that.
And the additional complexity from the variable outputs is really a headache. Right now it's easy to statistically predict the cost of a production batch, including copying, inventions, whatnot. The variable ME throws a bunch of factors in, which will really be a headache to calculate with.
|
Kusum Fawn
State Protectorate Caldari State
542
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:44:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:While the changes to industry with the Crius release were undoubtedly massive and quite successful, there is more to come: Science! Invention and Reverse Engineering are going to be revamped and improved. Here a brief overview of the proposed changes (which are not coming with Oceanus): - To invent Tech-2 items you require for each invented item a set of two specific science skills. Which skills you exactly need will be changed. For ships you always needed the Mechanical Engineering skill, that is going to change depending on the role of the invented ship.
- Reverse Engineering to create a Tech-3 blueprint will be merged with Invention, you also will be able to select which subsystem you would like to create. As the invention of Tech-3 blueprints is then integrated in the Invention system, will can also use decryptors for Tech-3 invention.
- The use of meta items will be removed from Invention, instead of meta items you will be able to use Teams in Invention.
- Data Interfaces will be removed (and properly reimbursed).
- Invention results will be non-binary, with some good luck to get an extra boost of ME/TE or,with only a little bad lack you will receive back some datacores used in the invention.
- Success chances of items and ships will be tweaked a little bit.
- Installing multiple invention runs at once instead of installing the same invention every hour over and over.
To give everyone enough time to adjust and to get enough feeback, these changes are NOT coming with Oceanus. Please read all the exciting details, explanations why something is done the way it is and all the juicy background information in CCP Ytterbium's latest dev blog Lighting the invention bulb.
1. Why? please justify changing this. It doesnt make sense.
2 this is because not all subs are good at what they are supposed to do and are not particularly useful in any meta.
3. Are teams not working as expected? Players not using them as much as you wanted? Thats because the implementation of them is terrible.
4. .. Kind of like how bpos were ? great.
5. this will result in standardized inventors (as noted by another poster) to have larger shifts in his calculations. while that isnt bad, it also isnt good. a bad ME print hurts far more then a good ME print helps.
6 and 7 . The only interesting parts of this. Everything else is stupid change for the sake of changing things. Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
|
MuraSaki Siki
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
57
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:47:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote: [list] Data Interfaces will be removed (and properly reimbursed).
how about the exploration tweak? data site right now is full of data interfaces raw materials and BPC
does it mean data site will contain only Decryptors after this proposed changes?
or is it something new to add in data site exploration? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:48:00 -
[12] - Quote
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? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
259
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:48:00 -
[13] - Quote
Hmm, I always liked Railguns as a Caldari weaponsystem and Blasters being Gallente. This way you had Caldari with missiles and Railguns being all efficient from range and Gallente with Drones and Blasters being all pew pew in your face. Baddest poster ever |
Noriko Mai
1484
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:53:00 -
[14] - Quote
Please proofread... will can also... bad lack = recieve something back? -Æ-ï-¦-+-Ç-ï! -Æ-ï-¦-+-Ç-ï! -Ü-¦-+-¦-+-¦-¦-é-ï - -+-+-¦-+-Ç-ï! | -ô-¦-+-¦-+-¦-¦-+-¦ |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
730
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:54:00 -
[15] - Quote
Customers - prepare to have your skill set raped CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
739
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:57:00 -
[16] - 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? |
probag Bear
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 14:57:00 -
[17] - Quote
Ouch. Adding new outcomes to invention is going to be extremely painful for me.
Please, at least, consider giving us a better way to filter through all these new BPC options? The current S&I only lets you sort, not filter, by ME and TE. That's extremely unwieldy when you've got a couple of hundred of invention jobs finishing at the same time.
Also consider letting us trash items directly from the S&I interface? Currently, there is no way to filter OR sort blueprints in the inventory menu, and since the inventory is the only way we can currently trash items, that means it will be close to impossible to sort through all the outcomes and trash the undesirables. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3694
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:00:00 -
[18] - 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. |
|
Ms Michigan
Aviation Professionals for EVE Rim Worlds Protectorate
53
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:00:00 -
[19] - Quote
Overall as a former industry/science guy, I like the changes.
The major thing I caution you on is the value of Meta 2-4 gear post this change!
If you implement this as is I can forsee an overabundance of either A) wasted meta bpcs, or B) excess meta loot added to the market.
Before all of you go flaming me, I think it needs mention that I do recollect that Meta loot drops might be removed all together? and Meta loot WILL be tweaked (I believe CCP Fozzie mentioned this).
With that said, I would like to see CCP comment here on how these changes take into account this problem and working with the META loot tweaks before this thread turns into a 100 page rage fest on this topic. |
Michael Gaulewicz
Bohemian Veterans Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:03:00 -
[20] - Quote
still not info about the data sites - I would like to see more BPC of ships and another stuff there instead of material nad BPCs for interfaces - will be reimbursed also material needed for Interfaces? |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
3428
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:04:00 -
[21] - Quote
Love that graph displaying a significant surge in manufacturing being done.
How about breaking it down showing how much was done in high sec pre and post Crius. Or how many characters are doing industry today (and not 1 week's worth to test out the new system), as opposed to 1 year ago, and where they are located. Maybe that would explain the drop in the PCU.
I also love how many T2 profit margins, as predicted, are wiped out for the casual player now. DC II's are at about 60-70% of their pre-Crius price, as an example, while risk of transportation, time required in said transportation, and overhaul hassle, has gone up exponentially.
If you can pull up detailed graphs exploring overall manufacturing, you could certainly produce detailed ones showing the activity and profit margins in the various sectors of space now.
But I am not holding my breath on that one.
As for these invention changes, who really cares anymore. (Though I am pretty sure you will get an earful from whatever wh groups are left after the jump range disaster) You are making changes for change sake, as far as I can see. You will do what you think is best, regardless of the player feedback.
Based on the activity level in game recently, that has worked out beautifully.
Do you guys really believe that changing this system into something else, even if it is supposed to be simpler, will encourage more people to play Eve in the long run? All it does it allow the casual industrial player to figure out faster that he should stop industry because he is barely making profits, or even losing ISK.
But hey, outside of a surge pre-Crius to use up some soon to be useless T2 BPC's, I don't do industry anymore, and shut down my indy accounts long ago. These new low prices actually are good for me, as module costs go down. Too bad they wreck the game for so many. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3696
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:04:00 -
[22] - 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. |
|
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
731
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:09:00 -
[23] - Quote
Sure there was a surge of industry after the patch - people shut down weeks prior in order to not get raped over in the market after the changes. Show a graph of previous 6 months if you want cred CCP.
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Davion Falcon
Those Once Loyal
102
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:09:00 -
[24] - Quote
So, first, let me caveat all this with of my 5 accounts, 4 are currently unsubbed. I used to run a large POS for T2 invention and production. Well, Crius rolled around and said to my spreadsheet "well, **** you" and obsoleted it followed by me looking at said spreadsheet, figuring how much more work I'd need to throw into it just to get back into operationg and said "well, **** that", and have been slowly unsubbing since. I don't have much of a dog in how this goes (yet).
Datacore normalization: I'm okay with, it'll make some waves in the market but hey, that's what happens with change.
T2 invention success rate: Your graphs x-axis makes no sense. But it appears that it won't be significantly different from inventing without meta items anyway, so it's okay.
Multiple outcomes to invention: Why? Dealing with invention means taking the long view of success % over time. When you're dealing with several hundred attempts, the success rate works itself out to the expected value. Adding 'granularity' to it adds nothing. If what looks like 7% (I can't ******* tell, I'm red/green colourblind and all those colors in that pie chart run together) of all invention jobs ended up with a mishmash of ME -1/2, that just means I'm going to end up with a little bit of excess spoor on the floor. The TE bonus? An hour or two one way or another isn't likely to make a lick of difference.
When I operated, and I suspect the majority of inventors were this way, I worked on a block 24 hour schedule. That means that I'm going to calculate everything normalized around setting a build/invention job batch once every 24 hours. Whether a job ends in seven hours or six and a half because of some TE bonus that I didn't bother to pay attention to, doesn't matter one bit to my cost/output calculation. Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise. Never forgotten, never forgiven. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3822
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:10:00 -
[25] - Quote
Noriko Mai wrote:Please proofread... will can also... bad lack = recieve something back?
Little bad luck. If you're not /really/ unlucky, you can get some of your datacores back. you've still failed, but it's not cost you so much.
Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
739
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:10:00 -
[26] - 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" |
Z1gy
Vindicator Corporation
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:12:00 -
[27] - Quote
as an inventor i do agree with some of the comment regarding multiple invention run time - pls try to tweak it so that at least it will coincide with our RL work timer rather than making it into another alarm clock indy CTA!
I do not agree in removing data interface and substituting team for it.
i do like the non binary outcome for the t2 bpc and the abilities to choose the subsystem outcome for the t3 subs bpc
as for the JF - can increase the base chance or keep it as it were?
by merging RE and invention - will you making them bland? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3822
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:12:00 -
[28] - Quote
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. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Aliventi
C.Q.B Gods Work.
766
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:17:00 -
[29] - Quote
When it comes to decyptors I always wished there was a way to dynamically build your own instead of the static decyptor we have now. Perhaps there is a way to change each current decyptor into giving a single bonus. Have one that gives +1 ME, another that gives +1 TE, another that gives +1 run, and another that give +% chance. Then we can use any number and combination of them that we choose (with a maximum) to have even greater influence on the output BPO.
Part of the changes for industry were designed to increase skill in industry so industry could be something you are "good" at. I feel like the ability to decide how to build the best decyptor for the job would take some skill.
Also, I kind of wished you would have just doubled the materials needed for invention and by doing so guaranteed success. This way if I want 20 BPCs I still need to invest the same amount of materials, I just don't have to try inventing 40 jobs to get there (with perfect skills). Then the skills could influence the % of exceptional, great, good, standard success. Great skills means you will have a competitive edge because you will get better T2 BPCs. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
740
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:17:00 -
[30] - 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)" |
|
Atossa Exior
The Back Yard Twilight Federation
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:18:00 -
[31] - Quote
Quote:All Battleships, Industrial Command Ship have 25% Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20%
So confirmed T2 version of orca and rorqual? |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
731
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:18:00 -
[32] - 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.
BFD CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
832
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:18:00 -
[33] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:Sure there was a surge of industry after the patch - people shut down weeks prior in order to not get raped over in the market after the changes. Show a graph of previous 6 months if you want cred CCP.
Going back 2 years and redrawing the same graph tells the same story. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
740
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:21:00 -
[34] - 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? |
Z1gy
Vindicator Corporation
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:23:00 -
[35] - Quote
if i choose to do a what is the correct term - a continuous 30 runs invention using the new system - is each run success being calculated separately or in batches?
Coz as some of the poster have said - once you run enough large sample - eventually the success rate wont matter as much for some of the items.
|
probag Bear
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:25:00 -
[36] - Quote
And on another topic:
The random element in Reverse Engineering is currently the only thing that's keeping it an interesting, profitable, and balanced market.
- Interesting: Players are given a stimulating problem to solve.
The calculations that determine what's optimal to Reverse Engineer are more complex than those needed for, say, invention. Yes, there are still algorithms that spell out the optimal course of action letter by letter. But they are more difficult to reach, and for some reason they are not shared with the public.
- Profitable: Capable players profit greatly, while incapable players lose money.
Probably due to the above point, profits tend to be high in Reverse Engineering. Running off of 12 characters, I can make a direct profit of ~3-4bil in ~5 hours (3 sessions of S&I, so ~47 minutes of actual playtime), buying directly from sell orders and dumping onto buy orders (no extra time spent babysitting market orders). I can only do this once every three weeks, sure, due to the low demand for T3 subs. But the fact that potential profit rises higher every week as long as I don't crash the market shows that players with better scripts receive greater rewards. Which is one of the fundamental tenets of Eve.
- Balanced:
"We are aware that Tech III subsystems are not all equally valuable right now" is a massive understatement.
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
832
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:25:00 -
[37] - Quote
Z1gy wrote:if i choose to do a what is the correct term - a continuous 30 runs invention using the new system - is each run success being calculated separately or in batches?
Coz as some of the poster have said - once you run enough large sample - eventually the success rate wont matter as much for some of the items.
Each run will have their success calculated separately. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:31:00 -
[38] - Quote
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? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
222
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:32:00 -
[39] - Quote
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. |
Z1gy
Vindicator Corporation
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:36:00 -
[40] - Quote
Tech 3 hull manufacturing - will you guys reducing the skill from racial starship engineering 5 to 1 as it requisite skill to build them?
i know for the subsystem you need jury rigging 5 as a requisite to build them
thanks |
|
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
731
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:36:00 -
[41] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:Sure there was a surge of industry after the patch - people shut down weeks prior in order to not get raped over in the market after the changes. Show a graph of previous 6 months if you want cred CCP.
Going back 2 years and redrawing the same graph tells the same story.
"show" CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Z1gy
Vindicator Corporation
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:38:00 -
[42] - Quote
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. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1517
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:38:00 -
[43] - Quote
The announcement of chained invention runs makes me both scared and excited. It's probably gonna crush the margin without a significant increase in invention times (takes longer the more runs are chained together.
Other than that, sad to see meta loot gone, it was never a good feature, but always a nice twist.
I like the new partial failure thing.
And I really wonder what I should speculate on :D Build your empire ! Start today ! Rent Space in Perrigen Falls and Feythabolis Contact me for details :)
|
Zimmy Zeta
Lisa Needs Braces.
47208
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:41:00 -
[44] - Quote
I like the new non-binary invention outcomes, makes it a little more interesting.
One thing I always wanted since I started with invention was to have the option to deliberately spend additional datacores for a slightly improved invention chance, maybe this could be implemented, too?
Also glad to hear that you are going to take another look at decryptors... some of them feel just incredibly useless to me, a rebalancing would be really appreciated. I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
200
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:44:00 -
[45] - Quote
Any chance you can make all the pictures of the module group in the blog be the same module/market group for those who have zero previous experience in industry/science? Would simplify things's fantastically. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3696
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:46:00 -
[46] - 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. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:48:00 -
[47] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: How about breaking it down showing how much was done in high sec pre and post Crius. Or how many characters are doing industry today (and not 1 week's worth to test out the new system), as opposed to 1 year ago, and where they are located. Maybe that would explain the drop in the PCU.
They actually did this during the Alliance Tournament -- during a break between fights, CCP Greyscale showed some charts with industry breakdown before and after Crius along highsec / lowsec / nullsec lines. There wasn't much change -- both sides showed 80-85% highsec, 15-20% nullsec. (I don't recall the exact amount, sorry.) Total job count increased in highsec's favor very slightly ( < 1% ) and total job minutes increased in nullsec's favor very slightly ( < 1% ).
Incidentally, despite having access to superlative facilities in nullsec, I'm doing all of my manufacturing in highsec, because, surprise surprise, nullsec's shipping costs make my particular industry a non-starter. I'm turning over hundreds of billions of isk a week and pocketing 5-10% margin for my troubles. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
DaOpa
Static Corp
38
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:49:00 -
[48] - Quote
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.
DaOpa's EVE Fansite ||Wormhole Database / Wormhole Systems Lookup Tool ||Live Streamer at twitch.tv/daopa |
Fade Toblack
Per.ly The 20 Minuters
72
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:51:00 -
[49] - Quote
On the skill changes, http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66476/1/Newskillreq2.png - it would make more sense for "Advanced Battleship Construction" to have "Battleship Construction" as a pre-req rather than "Cruiser Construction".
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:53:00 -
[50] - Quote
Considering that "Battleship Construction" is being transformed into "Advanced Battleship Construction," that'd be impossible. :V This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Fade Toblack
Per.ly The 20 Minuters
72
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:01:00 -
[51] - Quote
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". |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
1042
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:04:00 -
[52] - Quote
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?
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:07:00 -
[53] - Quote
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. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3696
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:10:00 -
[54] - 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 -
[55] - 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. |
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1278
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:22:00 -
[56] - Quote
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. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
51
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:33:00 -
[57] - Quote
When do I get to invent with an industrial command ship BPC and what will it do?!?! :-D |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
149
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:34:00 -
[58] - Quote
Hmmm
As far as I know industrial command ship and Capital Industrial Ship do not have a T2 version, yet are specifically listed
Spoiler alert maybe with some rebalancing?? Fozzie said Rorqual rebalance coming soon?? |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
184
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:35:00 -
[59] - Quote
Kynric wrote:Are there any plans to add value to data sites to compensate for the loss of data interface related drops?
Since the exploration mini-game was introduced the selling price of those interface BPCs is miniscule. Remember when the ship ones sold for 120 million ISK each ? Or was it 150 million ISK each - I forget. Admittedely those were silly prices but after the mini-game it went completely the other way. |
Qoi
Exert Force
95
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:35:00 -
[60] - Quote
The multiple invention runs change was long awaited and will do very crazy things to the market
Will Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II still be the only blueprint with a default number of 20 output runs on invented blueprints? http://eve-industry.org |
|
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. |
|
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1554
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:22:00 -
[91] - Quote
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?
Thanks GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour! |
Charlie Firpol
Noob Mercs Monkeys with Guns.
251
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:27:00 -
[92] - Quote
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 |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
894
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:30:00 -
[93] - Quote
i really hope prices on T3 subs drop significantly .. having subs from 10 -50 mil is bad and makes T3's far less versatile .. that and rigs ofc ... but the subs costing more than the hull is just bad design ...
subs being say 3-4 mil each is much healthier for T3 versatility Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS
1324
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:30:00 -
[94] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote: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? Meta 4 modules are incredibly useful because of lower fitting requirements. Here's my guess at the tiericide changes:
Meta 4 will have similar stats to T2 but lower skill requirements. They will probably be given a specific class name to differentiate. Meta 2 and 3 will have slightly lower effect stats (e.g. DPS for a gun) but bonus to either CPU or powergrid. Meta 1 will largely be removed.
If drop rates are unchanged, meta 4 value will probably decrease on average while meta 2 and 3 increase but not anywhere close to current meta 4 prices. Specific CPU- and powergrid-bonused variants will be more popular depending on common fits so expect some specific meta 2/3 to remain worthless. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS
1324
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:33:00 -
[95] - Quote
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 Exactly. That's the worst that can happen and since it all averages out what's the point of it? There is no gameplay here when you account for the scale at which EVE manufacturing is done. Looking at this from a single run perspective ("Oh wow, I got an EXCEPTIONAL result") is unrealistic. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
360
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:35:00 -
[96] - 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 coupled with the loss of ability to copy and paste tables of blueprints out of game makes it a real pain.
Previously you could open up the "group window" and copy and paste blueprint details, including runs, ME and PE, and you could then plan based on what you have by chucking it into a spreadsheet or a third-party tool. This went away in Crius.
This could be fixed again by making the blueprints list in the Crius UI copy and pastable as a table again.
There is a new blueprints API but it is not very useful for inventors, as it only updates every 24 hours - invention blueprints are transient and having to leave them in the same place for 24 hours to get data out isn't very useful - the API's only good for static BPOs. my teapot is ready |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
470
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:57:00 -
[97] - Quote
would like to congratulate whoever created this image used in the dev blog
invention chance new
as i thought it was a quite eloquent depiction of the fine line between genius (exceptional) and insanity (critical). |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
692
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:58:00 -
[98] - Quote
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. |
probag Bear
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 18:58:00 -
[99] - 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.
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. |
Clifton Oksaras
Innocuous Anonymity
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:03:00 -
[100] - Quote
Oi. While I actually like most of these changes, It means I probably have to wait another 2-3 months for Zifrian's Eve IPH, which sucks. |
|
Callic Veratar
630
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:17:00 -
[101] - Quote
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. |
Het Silenius
Dominion Enterprise Psychosomatic.
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:18:00 -
[102] - Quote
Am I blind, or is the New Module Skill graphic missing AC/arty and rockets/missiles? |
Charlie Firpol
Noob Mercs Monkeys with Guns.
251
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:18:00 -
[103] - 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.
Lets make a deal:
I will happily take every left overs from your production and you just contract them to me, okay? I will even do it totally for free! |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
1042
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:20:00 -
[104] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
The issue is the groups are not exactly vague, it is the fact that specific ship types are listed as having an invetion chance of success, while there is no T2 BPC that can be invented from those ship classes. How can you have a 20% chance of getting a T2 Capital BPC that does not exist?
For example; I could say, forget jump freighters, I am going to switch to inventing industrial command ships. they have a 5% higher invention chance. What do you mean I can not invent for industrial command ships, the developer blog says I can... ... Well if the BPC's and T2 variants do not exists why did the dev blog specifically list them?
or
Sweet according the the latest developer blog we can now invent for capital ships, T2 dreadnaughts and carriers, woot woot...
my point is, this is not vague it is flat out wrong. It will create a lot of confusion, which I am sure was not the intent. If we ever do see T2 Capitals, it will not be anytime soon. The ones we have, have not even had their teiricide pass yet. So why lie to players by specifically listing them as having an invention chance, when there is no intention of them ever being available for invention.
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.
Seriously?? Jump freighters are already stupidly expensive, and invention attempts are already very expensive just due to volume of data cores, and time required to produce T1 BPC's. I build Anshars, I have dificulties as it is getting T2 BPC's. Do we really need the price of these jumping to over 10B isk putting them even farther out of reach for newer players? They are already one of the most expensive ships, beat out only by super capitals. And they are already Double to triple the cost of other jump capable capital ships.
Freighters and jump freighters do not belong in this same catagory as combat capable capital ships. They can not be armed, they can not be properly tanked. If there was other T2 Capital ships, such a low invention cost would make them so expensive, they would not be worth using.
A roqual is a capital industrial ship, a true capital. it has a worthy tank, and can not enter high sec. A freighter, or even a jump freighter is not a true capital. the have a stupidly low tank for their size and cost, and are essentially high sec industrial ships. At least they have been balanced as such. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2819
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:35:00 -
[105] - Quote
looks good to me so far.
a few comments: - i hope you will also try to reinburse the Data Interface BPCs somehow, since i bet there are more BPCs around then the actual interfaces - what happens with the resources used for those Data Interfaces? The value of those was already very low - lore/naming: i hoped you would take a look at the big picture and rename the whole thing. I mean why do you have to invent something every time before you build it? How often has the wolf been invented already? This never made any sense to me. Call it upgrade/specialization process (USP?) or similar... good scifi should be believable and make sense eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
453
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:43:00 -
[106] - Quote
Are you planning to rebalance the R&D agents, as well - in terms of what datacores are available from each agent and the distribution of agents across regions?
I took a quick look at the proposed datacore changes for the ORE ships, from Mechanical Engineering to Laser Physics. The one problem that I see is that Laser Physics datacores are primarily available from agents in Amarr Empire space, whereas the Gallente Starship Engineering datacores (assuming ORE ships still require Gallente Starship Engineering datacores) are primarily available from agents in Gallente Federation space.
In order to farm both types of datacores, you'd need to have access to both Amarr and Gallente R&D agents, which means more grinding of standings - a rather tedious activity.
It is likely that other proposed datacore changes will have similar repercussions. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
173
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:50:00 -
[107] - Quote
Ok you guys are on this "Balance" kick that I don't see as a good thing. I've witnessed the attempts at balance ruin games in the past and there is no need for it here. Data cores are gotten by players who can pick and choose which cores they research so if some get used more than others it's not a problem.
As far as merging T2 and T3 invention I've done a fair amount of T2 invention and have never Reverse Engineered anything. Maybe that is due to my extreeme distaste for the whole concept of the skill point loss potential of flying T3 ships maybe it's because of the differences that you described here. All that I can say is I started playing this game the day before RE was introduced and I've never even seen the UI for it.
I'm very curious you mention Tech 2 capitals and capital industrials does that mean we will see more than just jump freighters in the future?
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
750
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 19:53:00 -
[108] - 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 -
[109] - 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) |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
53
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:11:00 -
[110] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:what's this about inventing capital industrial ships now?
I think it was another slip up cause the author isn't aware that rorqual is a T1 capital industrial ship.
more proof they do not really play indy at all.. lol
unless................. RORQUAL IS GOING T2?????? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm |
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
692
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:14:00 -
[111] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote: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
This IS JIT... I don't preproduce my components; this is supposed to be exactly the number of components that are supposed to be required for the items I want to build after the production of the components. And still, I have left overs. |
Patrick Yaa
Starcade Group Elemental Tide
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:31:00 -
[112] - Quote
Why not wait with this change for the introduction of the rebalanced meta modules and thei blueprints?
Then you could try to work towards a t2 blueprint, but with the chance that if you fail, you get a meta mod BP. you can ofc also work towards a meta mod BP from the beginning and have higher chance.
In the end this might turn out to be that you have all skills to V= the chance to get a meta mod is 100% if you work directly towards it, but only a 60%, whatever chance to get a t2 BP with the chance to get at least a meta BP. hope this doesn't sound too confusing? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24534
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 20:35:00 -
[113] - Quote
Fap fap fap.
That is all. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2. |
Qmamoto Kansuke
Killing with pink power
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:10:00 -
[114] - Quote
Installing multiple invention runs at once instead of installing the same invention every hour over and over.
PLEASE MARRY ME NOW!
I've just decided to continue my subs thanks CCP i can't wait for the new changes. |
Lucy Sue
We're Only in It for the Money
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:23:00 -
[115] - Quote
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? |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:39:00 -
[116] - Quote
Atossa Exior wrote:Quote:All Battleships, Industrial Command Ship have 25% Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20% So confirmed T2 version of orca and rorqual? And T2 Versions of all other Capitals, like T2 Archon ... ... If they mean with Capitals CAPITALS SHIPS (Caps, Supers, Titans)
|
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
184
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:46:00 -
[117] - Quote
Karash Amerius wrote: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?
The storyline & COSMOS modules will be rebalanced probably this year or early next year at the latest. Logically speaking and given that there are limited quantities available I would expect them to have higher stats than T2 modules plus less CPU/PG requirements. |
Nalha Saldana
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
816
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:46:00 -
[118] - Quote
This sounds really good! I'm looking forward to these changes.
Just 2 things:
1. "allow players to start invention with multiple runs" Will this yield multiple BPCs or BPCs with more runs? (Please let it be more runs)
2. "We are aware that Tech III subsystems are not all equally valuable right now, which is why we may iterate on their material composition to counteract these changes if needed." Do NOT do this before fozzie and rise do a balancing pass on them! |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:49:00 -
[119] - 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 Why are you renaming it, if there is no other Skills comming for normal BS/CR Constructions?
|
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
184
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 21:50:00 -
[120] - Quote
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. The issue is the groups are not exactly vague, it is the fact that specific ship types are listed as having an invetion chance of success, while there is no T2 BPC that can be invented from those ship classes. How can you have a 20% chance of getting a T2 Capital BPC that does not exist? For example; I could say, forget jump freighters, I am going to switch to inventing industrial command ships. they have a 5% higher invention chance. What do you mean I can not invent for industrial command ships, the developer blog says I can... ... Well if the BPC's and T2 variants do not exists why did the dev blog specifically list them? or Sweet according the the latest developer blog we can now invent for capital ships, T2 dreadnaughts and carriers, woot woot... my point is, this is not vague it is flat out wrong. It will create a lot of confusion, which I am sure was not the intent. If we ever do see T2 Capitals, it will not be anytime soon. The ones we have, have not even had their teiricide pass yet. So why lie to players by specifically listing them as having an invention chance, when there is no intention of them ever being available for invention. 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. Seriously?? Jump freighters are already stupidly expensive, and invention attempts are already very expensive just due to volume of data cores, and time required to produce T1 BPC's. I build Anshars, I have dificulties as it is getting T2 BPC's. Do we really need the price of these jumping to over 10B isk putting them even farther out of reach for newer players? They are already one of the most expensive ships, beat out only by super capitals. And they are already Double to triple the cost of other jump capable capital ships. Freighters and jump freighters do not belong in this same catagory as combat capable capital ships. They can not be armed, they can not be properly tanked. If there was other T2 Capital ships, such a low invention cost would make them so expensive, they would not be worth using. A roqual is a capital industrial ship, a true capital. it has a worthy tank, and can not enter high sec. A freighter, or even a jump freighter is not a true capital. the have a stupidly low tank for their size and cost, and are essentially high sec industrial ships. At least they have been balanced as such. They should also be treated as such for invention purposes, and currently are. There is no need for that to change.
The Orca & Rorqual are due to both be rebalanced very soon. This dev blog gives you the hint that there will be T2 versions of both ships released as well. On the proviso as usual that if you use this information to speculate it may not turn out as you think.
|
|
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
155
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 22:06:00 -
[121] - Quote
Clifton Oksaras wrote:Oi. While I actually like most of these changes, It means I probably have to wait another 2-3 months for Zifrian's Eve IPH, which sucks.
IPH need a set of rules like Fight club. We need to make sure it does not get used by the masses.
The first rule of IPH is to never to talk about IPH :)
Seriously, if you like manufacturing, and you are not eagerly awaiting IPH you might be doing something wrong*.
* I know many other programs are out there, and many people have developed their own programs and spreadsheets for personal use, but IPH is great program. damn it is hard to delete my signature |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5428
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 22:06:00 -
[122] - Quote
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.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Copper Khai
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 22:30:00 -
[123] - Quote
Great Job CCP - really like the way indy is going. It's a lot less spreadsheety. You guys blow me away when you release dev blogs. The systems you think up are so much better than my own ideas.The gradual success/failure is sooooo nice!
1 issue - The old lure of Indy was the "efficiency" of production. That thrill is now much harder to calculate. Market pvp depended on knowing if you were winning of losing. You'll have to make it up there I guess.
2 issue - Passive income. I play EVE to build and make ISK I dont PVP or PVE much (no time to collectively play). But I can get on for hours solo (semi/afk). Is there any thought to making some part of Indy a Codebreaking type endevour? Something active? Even mining is semi active and PI is more lucrative if you are more active (shorter timed).
Not everything has to be passive to PVP/PVE. |
Arronicus
Caldari Navy Reconnaissance
1135
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 22:32:00 -
[124] - Quote
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? |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
80
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 22:46:00 -
[125] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Then remove data cores from exploration, since most exploration ships have small holds.
or reduce volume from 1m3 to 0,1m3. Bacon tastes so much better when it's marinated in vegan tears.-á
I am the night. I'm Bantam. |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 23:05:00 -
[126] - Quote
1st of all, with all of you nice Industry Change Graphs, I'm missing one Major Graph => The Changes of how much more isk all those changes cost us e.g. ME/PE/Copy/Invention Costs. WHO the F*** is spending for an Aeon PE+6 (12%) 1,5 bil isk ???
2nd Why the F*** are Inventions take so much longer than post patch, 37 Mins vs 8,xx Hours for an Scorch L Invention ??? Im running out of T2 BPCs, because the Production is that Freaking Fast, i thing you have to Fix that a bid, Less Invention Time More Production Time.
3rd To: Science field changes for Invention and Tech II manufacturing, Since when are Railguns Plasma Weapons, a Railgun is a Magnetic driven Gun, so changes from Elect.Magnetic to Plasma Physics make no real sense. This and others too. Please do here an Review. Railgun Wiki
4th The changes on the Sin (Mechanical Engineering to High Energy Physics) also make no sense, why i don't need Mechanical Skills to Build an Ship? As additional Skills High Energy Physics make sense, because the Sin is an T2 Ship with need more requirements than an T1 Version.
5th Why the hell is the Chance Formula that different from T2 to T3? Base Chance CR (new) T2 = 37,5% vs T3 = 61,5%, seems to me a bid unbalanced.
|
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
103
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 23:08:00 -
[127] - Quote
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?
#2 - There's not enough here to kill T2 BPOs. Maybe it will come with the decryptors, but an inventor needs a way to produce a ME10/TE20 BPC. Maybe it will come from decryptors, maybe it will come from having skills at 5. Maybe the 'uber critical success' should be more than +3. Please work it out so that an inventor can create a 10/20 BPC.
Otherwise, from what I see, improvements look significant and will be very successful. |
Winthorp
2709
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 23:11:00 -
[128] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=372926&find=unread
Crosposting this as your changes here reflect future changes that have been spoken of by CCP devs.
So with the changes RE is now being merged into invention they have made further worrying changes to subsystem reverse engineering.
The new change is you will be able to select the subsystem directly and not the random chance it is currently. While short term this is great as there will be no wastage involved with reverse engineering unprofitable subsystems long term it worries me.
Long term we were told by devs that when they are looking at the T3 rebalance their ideal outcome would be rebalancing susystems so that all subsystems become useful unlike their current form. The changes to reverse engineering do not really go hand in hand with what we understood to be their future plans.
It was my understanding that T3's are after recons in the rebalance cycle so T3's should be getting looked at either now by developers or very soon behind the scenes.
So should we start to worry or should we have the dreaded T3 debate now so we don't get a Hyperion level patch we all hate?
Should i right click trash the ******* hundreds of unprofitable T3 Subsytem BPC's i have? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
788
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 23:34:00 -
[129] - Quote
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote: The Orca & Rorqual are due to both be rebalanced very soon. This dev blog gives you the hint that there will be T2 versions of both ships released as well. On the proviso as usual that if you use this information to speculate it may not turn out as you think.
Unlikely. But, hey, if you wanna throw away your money, go for it. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Charlie Nonoke
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 23:57:00 -
[130] - Quote
Not exactly stoked about the new changes.
My experience:
Limitless Invention / Stackable jobs: I made the EFFORT to set timers to redo my invention jobs once every hour and a half, compared to the average Joe beside me, who did NOT put effort into it. He felt it was too much of a chore, and did not want the hassle of logging in every so and so to repush the buttons. Granted, my work allows me to run EVE, and redo the process.
The rewards I get are more T2 BPCs than Joe, and as a result, I also get to produce more products than he does, yielding me better profits. Joe on the other hand could only make a batch's worth of profit, because he did not put in effort.
Non-binary outcomes: It's a change from the usual 1/0 output, which is welcoming, but the varied ME/TE results on the BPCs will sorely mess up any manufacturers plan of action. You don't know what to expect until the job is complete, and with the results, calculating exactly how much materials to bring will be troublesome. Some people approach industry with a huge stockpile of materials. But others also do things JIT way. That was ME. As for TE, same situation, with my skills staying static, the only variable to completion time is the TE of the BPC. With varied BPC TEs, it will mess up any industrialist's production pipeline. You might have jobs completing minutes earlier than the others, and if someone wants to run at full capacity, it's more of a hindrance. Not to mention, this change will not affect those who "set it and forget it", since they run a normalized sort of timeframe. And for those who run things like I mentioned above, it'll mess things up. So why introduce this varied BPC outcome? Consistency is perhaps an industrialist's best friend. And speaking for myself, I prefer to know that my BPCs after cooking, is a ME-2 TE-4 BPC. If someone wants a better ME or TE, go plug in a decryptor... It's what they were made to do. By doing this we still achieve consistency. We will know with probability 1, that any successful invention will yield ME/TE of those specific values.
My suggestion is to get rid of the added bonus ME/TE additions, and replace them with the exact things from the failure bonuses. Exceptional successes could return your datacores, or part of the batch, and so on... |
|
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan
75
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 00:09:00 -
[131] - Quote
Het Silenius wrote:Am I blind, or is the New Module Skill graphic missing AC/arty and rockets/missiles? Lighting the Invention Bulb devblog:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Also, figuring which race is needed to invent an item isnGÇÖt always intuitive. One could assume inventing an ECM II module would require Caldari Encryption Methods with a Caldari Data Interface, since ECM is the main Caldari electronic warfare system. However, it actually requires Gallente Encryption Methods at the moment, which is quite confusing. So, we are cleaning this quite a little bit. I underlined and bolded the reasoning why the entire list is not needed. Only the changed "Skills Before vs Skills After" items are listed; I would think the missing items are intuitive and not changing.
|
Megumi Miura
The Council Evictus.
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 00:16:00 -
[132] - Quote
Things I like: 1. Being able to install multiple invention runs. Thank you CCP. 2. Making science skills more equitably useful 3. Rationalisation of Invention with RE - but please rename "Invention" to "Upgrade", "Customise" or some-such.
Things I don't like: 1. The pathetic impact of skills on chance for success. 40% to 50% for 15 levels of skills? Gimme a break! 30% to 60% would be better. 2. Are CCP freighter-haters? On top of their wonderful recent "rebalancing" comes a reduction to invention chance. If CCP want industry to spread across EVE then they should make Freighters and Jump Freighters as cheap as chips. This would help industry logistics and increase ganking targets - a win-win for everyone!
Things not mentioned: 1. Will there be any changes to the time and cost of invention and RE? I personally disliked what Crius did to the time and cost of research. The time and money needed to get the last couple of ME and TE are, for many items, ridiculous. There is now a significant time/ISK barrier facing new industrialists wanting to compete with established industrialists. I believe this will discourage the growth of the industrialist community . |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
770
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 00:24:00 -
[133] - Quote
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.
Increase their material requirements to include the average requirements for inventing the equivalent BPCs. Add 'invention' materials to the requirements for making copies of T2 BPOs. Problem solved. Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul |
Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
483
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 00:35:00 -
[134] - 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.
An opinion that I assure you is not shared by everyone. RNG makes things far more interesting and thus less dull and repetitive. |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
770
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 00:40:00 -
[135] - Quote
I strongly dislike the random chance element of the invention mechanic. I propose that the varying degrees of success CCP wish to introduce should be entirely dependent on the team used for the job, not on random chance.
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. This would be most accurately modelled by allowing the invention of T2 BPOs. This would crash the T2 market and play merry hell with the invention profession, but at least it would solve the problem of existing T2 BPOs. I think CCP should give some serious consideration to how they might be able to balance T2 BPO invention.
A good start would be to prevent the copying of T2 BPOs! Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
754
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 00:48:00 -
[136] - 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) |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
931
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 00:56:00 -
[137] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote: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) A good point on this is the simple impact that can occur from mixing a polymer together Sure its the same ingredients each time, but if the stuff were to clump around the beaters, you will be missing a chunk of product or worse the entire batch And then there is the issue of what happens if grime goes in the wrong place and a switch jams wrong All you really need to do is consult some of the OSHA post case reports to realize things are very much able to fail even with people paying attention-let alone them not
Also think of any skill you havent done in 4 years, try doing it now, now 10 years |
Code Redd
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 01:30:00 -
[138] - Quote
Meta items in mod inventions MUST STAY.
1. it adds a competitive edge. if you can find cheap meta items to increase your chances, you're cutting costs over your compeition. It's nice to have an edge that doesnt require buying a team (most people who invent, invent dozens of types of things, a team usually covers 1 group).
2. There are hundreds, HUNDREDS of meta items on market that have a value just below their mineral value, if you KEEP META items in invention, it gives them a place to go--other than reprocessing. This is good for both miners, and the savvy invention specialist.
3. Nothing adds success like a meta item, as EASY as it does.
I know that it's 'confusing' when it comes to things that are not mods, but the interface could make it so that the option to input a meta item doesnt even appear on the things that cant be effected by them (ships, rigs, etc).
but PLEASE keep the meta items for mod invention.
i'm begging!
(and i dont use them that often either, but i LIKE to, when i can get 50% more invention success for 40k a job (when the datacores are 400k) ... that's like getting a free batch of runs, for 400k!
keep the meta items! |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
459
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 01:32:00 -
[139] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote: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. !
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) As you noted, the random factor actually occurs in manufacturing.
After the first time that Intel successfully "invented" the Haswell chip blueprint, using Ivy Bridge as a guide, the process does not need to be repeated for each manufacturing run.
So, if you really want to mimic RL, then invention should be a one-time activity, to create a T2 BPO from a T1 BPO, and the per build random factor should be moved to the manufacturing process. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
788
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 01:35:00 -
[140] - Quote
To all those decrying the loss of meta items in invention, fear not -- there are plans to make them matter more in the future. Your mission scavenging businesses are going to get a shot in the arm. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 01:49:00 -
[141] - 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. Even I know how much ccp HATES the t2BPO's if you have not figured that out **** outta luck man. If you want clarity I HOPE THEY DELETE THEM OUTTA GAME!!!! :) mainly so I can read your tears about unsubbing because they took out a broken item. Also you should not ask for things that are not going to happen. |
Enhala
Ephemerid
8
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 02:18:00 -
[142] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:For ships you always needed the Mechanical Engineering skill, that is going to change depending on the role of the invented ship.
You make this change the day after I train Mechanical Engineering to 5?
Was it something I said? |
Alexis Nightwish
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 02:44:00 -
[143] - Quote
Came hoping T2 BPOs were being removed, left disappointed again. |
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
8
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 03:02:00 -
[144] - Quote
CCP Phantom [* wrote: The use of meta items will be removed from Invention, instead of meta items you will be able to use Teams in Invention.
Invention results will be non-binary, with some good luck to get an extra boost of ME/TE or,with only a little bad luck you will receive back some datacores used in the invention. Ummm, have you actually tried invention since Crius....the use of meta items has already been removed....
Second point....so when i get a set of invented BPC's, i'll now have a plethora of variants that i now have to add all the different materials together, that will all take different times to build....how is this better? This is WAAAY more complicated.
Third, so....the teams to 'manipulate inputs'....if that means datacore amounts....you do realize that most small items only require 2 datacores to invent. So in order to manipulate that figure with a % discount....you are going to need more than your token 1-3%'s that you are typically using for "build" teams. |
khaip ur
K.C.C
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 03:10:00 -
[145] - Quote
Lil' Brudder Too wrote:CCP Phantom [* wrote: The use of meta items will be removed from Invention, instead of meta items you will be able to use Teams in Invention.
Invention results will be non-binary, with some good luck to get an extra boost of ME/TE or,with only a little bad luck you will receive back some datacores used in the invention. Ummm, have you actually tried invention since Crius....the use of meta items has already been removed....
The item slot has only been removed on ships as far as I can tell because your only option a meta 1 item did nothing to improve the success chances. On items where loot variants exists you have the option of including items items for meta level.
My question is if reverse engineering and invention are to be combined does that mean reverse engineering will be available at npc stations? |
Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
410
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 03:39:00 -
[146] - Quote
I like having the racial interfaces as a catalyst for invention. They add sci fi flavor. |
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
138
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 05:01:00 -
[147] - Quote
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. 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 |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
447
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 05:56:00 -
[148] - Quote
A few questions:
1. So now we will be able to run multiple inventions from a blueprint with more than one run remaining. But will we be able to run multiple reverse from a stack of relics?
2. Will teams affect price of running reverse job only (which right now at least where I do it is as close to zero as possible) or also chance of success?
3. I like the concept of random better results (+x/+y blueprints). But for large scale industrialist it require even more book-keeping than before. My spreadsheet will just get THAT much more complicated to accomodate for diffrent numbers of diffrent blueprints in a total batch of jobs I run. But overall I like the concept :) Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
447
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 06:02:00 -
[149] - Quote
Lil' Brudder Too wrote:CCP Phantom [* wrote: The use of meta items will be removed from Invention, instead of meta items you will be able to use Teams in Invention.
Invention results will be non-binary, with some good luck to get an extra boost of ME/TE or,with only a little bad luck you will receive back some datacores used in the invention. Ummm, have you actually tried invention since Crius....the use of meta items has already been removed.... Second point....so when i get a set of invented BPC's, i'll now have a plethora of variants that i now have to add all the different materials together, that will all take different times to build....how is this better? This is WAAAY more complicated. Third, so....the teams to 'manipulate inputs'....if that means datacore amounts....you do realize that most small items only require 2 datacores to invent. So in order to manipulate that figure with a % discount....you are going to need more than your token 1-3%'s that you are typically using for "build" teams.
But now You will be able to run batch jobs of those. So the reduction will actually kick in :) Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
HelicoBacter
Lords of Sandbox Rebel Alliance of New Eden
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 06:23:00 -
[150] - 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, or give us stacking for same attributes blueprints |
|
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.
|
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
756
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 15:46:00 -
[181] - 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. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1525
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 15:46:00 -
[182] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote: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.
Or make it a me reduction. Even a 1 percent me bonus for level 5 is better than a 5 percent te bonus. Build your empire ! Start today ! Rent Space in Perrigen Falls and Feythabolis Contact me for details :)
|
Lucy Sue
We're Only in It for the Money
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 15:49:00 -
[183] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
In the case of the capital ship pre-reqs being changed it was done in a way that no one really had to train any more than they already had to keep the same level. In the case of drones skills were bought up to match other skills that you may have trained.
The existing skills do lose value though, in the case of Sin used as an example in the blog, someone who really only builds ships would have mechanical engineering which is now useless to them and wouldn't have high energy physics which before they wouldn't of trained.
So the same treatment of skills towards ships will not be seen towards the industry? c/d |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
1047
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 16:14:00 -
[184] - Quote
It seems many did not get the point I was trying to make.
Dev Blog wrote:
- All modules, rigs and ammo have 40%
All Frigates and Destroyers have 35% Cruisers, Battlecruisers, Mining Barges, Industrials, ORE industrial have 30% All Battleships, Industrial Command Ship have 25% << there are no T2 industrial command ships Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20% << The only ships here that have a T2 variant are freighters, yet they are not listed??
Some others have mentioned that this may imply that we ,may be seeing a T2 ORCA and/or Roqual in the near future. As much as I would like to see that, and admit that it certainly is possible. It has been said numerous times there are no plans for new T2 ships unless there is a significant need for it. Although the new prospect frigate was recently introduced. So who really knows.
What I see here is a significant nerf to jump freighters. This fact is cleverly hidden by adding other ships to the list that do not actually have T2 versions. Ships for which a low invention chance means nothing, as they can not be used in invention. Bear with me, i will explain.
Currently on TQ, jump freighters are prohibitively expensive. Billions of isk, far more expensive than even carriers or dreadnaughts. But can still be built in high sec. They are very costly to both invent the BPC's and build the actual ships,
A fact distorted by this list, is that Freighters are the ONLY capital ship with a T2 counterpart. This is futher distorted by the fact that although they are included in this group, Freighters, the only ship that should actually be listed here, is actually not on the list. There are not even any T2 industrial command ships. If these other ships listed were actually used in invention, I can garantee those that invent and build them would be equally outraged at a reduced base invention chance.
Currently on TQ the invention chance for freighters is on par with frigates. There is a reason for this. The higher invention chance is offset by the significant costs of producing the BPC's, and a much higher requirement for consumable data cores in the invention process. Just to attempt the invention of a jump freighter BPC is very costly, and even with max skills, and an expensive +90% decryptor you don't get much better than a 50/50 chance of sucess. This does not mean 1 out of every 2 attepts will suceed however, I have had upwards of 5-6 failures in a row inventing jump freighter BPC's, with the current 30% base invention chance. And now they are going to nerf it.
Considering the cost of each attempt for inventing a jump freighter BPC, a 10% reduction in base invention chance is going to hit these ships very hard. If you think Jump freighters are expensive now, this will cause their price to go way up. trust me, I build them, and this change is going to really hurt.
Why would CCP do this?
Perhaps it is part of their denied directive to push industry into Null. If Jump freighters become significantly more expensive, only the largest alliances would be able to afford to operate them. Smaller groups may be forced to build in Null, rather than import, or jump supplies in. Overall this could be a good thing. However, I have a problem with the manner in which it is being done. This seems very shaddy and underhanded.
Hidding the fact that jump freighter invention is being nerfed by grouping the invention chance will all other capitals, when there are NO other capitals that can be invented, and then not even listing freighters, the only ship in that catagory that actually can be invented. This is extremely shaddy and underhanded. Intended or not.
The only possible explaination is either the developers making these decissions are completely ignorant of what they have done, and are doing. Or they are intentionally trying to hide the true changes as I discribed above.
Which is it Stupidity, or Deception? I believe it is Deception. |
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
140
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 16:23:00 -
[185] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: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/inefficiencies 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.
Pointless? On the contrary, the price will of course be supported by the market. If there is demand the price will fluctuate accordingly. The point is these rare decryptors and data cores would offer significant bonuses that will of course need to be balanced with cost.
Come on man! Think of the possibilities to both offer explorers and builders/inventors. Win/win/win.
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 |
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
199
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 17:23:00 -
[186] - Quote
I would still like some clarification on the pirate components looted at (primarily) hacking sites on what will become of them now that 98% of their usage will be taken out of the game. Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
1047
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 17:43:00 -
[187] - Quote
If they are going to add a feature that enables different levels of success, why not have an extremely rare chance to "Invent" a T2 BPO.
Then there would be no need to address the existing T2 BPO's in the game. It would be possible, although extremely rare for anyone to get one. The more invention you do the higher your chances of getting an ellusive BPO.
/Que the Flames |
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
142
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 18:05:00 -
[188] - Quote
Looking at the pie charts: If you are successful at an invention, you have a 5% chance for the exceptional success, 10% chance for a great success, 20% chance for a good success, and 65% chance for a standard success.
0.05*0.02 + 0.1*0.01 = 0.002. So I can expect an average 0.2% ME savings from my successful inventions. This really underscores the NEED to be able to combine BPCs with the same attributes into longer runs. when the batch size is limited to 10 for modules, then a 1% or 2% ME bonus may or may not yield any real savings. If I can combine them together into a batch of 100, then I will save some materials.
Likewise, when I can build a frigate or all 10 runs from a module blueprint in less than 24 hours, then the TE bonus is useless. Saving 28 minutes still means I still build 1 batch in a day. Stacked together, I could build for several days and get an extra unit from a blueprint with a TE bonus.
Again from the pie charts: If your invention fails, you have a 5% chance of a critical failure, a 10% chance of a terrible failure, a 20% chance for a poor failure, and a 65% chance of a starndard failure. 0.65*0.5+0.2*0.25+0.1*0.1 = 0.385 chance to get a datacore back on a failure.
Therefore, if I do a statistically large number of inventions with a 50% chance of success, then my total datacore consumption will be reduced by 19.25%. If I have lesser skills or am inventing ships with lower success rates, I can expect more datacores back. So the total demand for datacores across the Eve cluser will decrease by somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-25%.
I have no point here. I just wanted to do the math. |
Kaydar ArX
Scorch Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 18:27:00 -
[189] - Quote
I'd really prefer an inventionSuccessChance/10 to get an additional invented blueprint (with ME2/TE4) than this +ME/+TE lottery. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4124
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 18:53:00 -
[190] - Quote
Are the loot tables of explorations sites going to be updated with new items when you remove the components for tools from the game?
Also, thank you for getting rid of these things... I have wwwaaayyy to many decryptor BPC's and parts that are mostly hangar trash.
|
|
Nalha Saldana
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
816
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 19:00:00 -
[191] - Quote
Want to know how to spreadsheet these numbers? Work with averages.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ikRteYe8iSCau-H2Y0J5vO0Dl1RTrfZfd_tFQcrCXD8/edit?usp=sharing |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
1047
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 19:30:00 -
[192] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. they are not, The BPO's needed to create the BPC's are billions of isk, the production of BPC's to invent from takes a long time. And each attempt burns 128 datacores.
I am not saying they should be easy. i am saying that they are already hard enough.
base invention chance is not the only factor here.
How many invention attempts can a character resonably handle in say a month? you need to use 2-3 solts for copying, leaving 7-8 slots for invention, at ~12 days per attmept.
So a single character dedicated to Jump freighter invention can make approximately 14-16 attempts per month. While you could do hundreds for a cruiser.
With these using a +90% decrytor you will be doing well to get a 40% chance of success.
With the lowest invention chance decryptor ,you could poassibly have a negative chance at success. How would that work?
Even with the 90% decryptor, giving about a 40% chance of success, that does not garantee 1 out of 3 attempts to be a success. So at 14-16 attepts per month I would get, at best, if I was extremly lucky, and used a 90% invention chance decrptors, the absolute best I could hope for is about 6 sucessful T2 BPC's per month. The normal median will be much less.
With the current base invention chance I have a hard time getting 3-4 sucessfull BPC's per month. I will occasionally get 5-6 but that is very rare.
Inventing cruisers I could get 50-60 successful T2 BPC's.
So how is it that jump freighters are easier to invent than cruisers.
My point is, it is not just invention chance, but the number of possible attempts that needs to be balanced.
Manufaturing jump freighters is no simple indevor. You have all the effort of manufaturing freighhters, plus the aquisition of moon materials, and a complete set of additioanl BPO's for required T2 components. It is a chalenging endevor, as it stands, and a goal I have enjoyed working toward for over two years.
Jump freighters may seem to be a highly profitable venture currently, however the work involved is far greater than building dreadnaughts or carriers. With a far lower overall production. the ISK per hour is actually quite low considering the amount of work that goes into them. And despite the very high cost of the ships, the profit margins are not that big.
This change may seem small, however, it will have a far bigger impact than many players, and developers are expecting. |
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
142
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 19:51:00 -
[193] - Quote
It has been said repeatedly in this thread that the science skills are not worth enough. It has also been said that we don't want these skills to be "level 5 or go home" like the old Production Efficiency skill was.
So here is some math to show how much effect these skills really have:
Imagine a module for which the T1 version costs 50k isk and T2 version costs 1M isk. It takes 6 datacores to invent (3 of each type) and returns a 10 run blueprint on success. I am doing this in a system with copying and invention cost indices of 3%.
The installation cost to make a T1 BPC = 50000*0.02*0.03 = 30 isk. The installation cost to attempt each invention = 1000000*0.02*0.03 = 600 isk.
Datacores have cost between 80k isk and 150k isk each for quite a while now. Assume that after the market shakeup prices settle to about the same place. (FW runners choose different datacores to supply and things even out.) Let's use 120k isk for our datacore price.
The new system will return 38.5% of datacores per failure. Those returned datacores can be sold off or used for the next batch, so we don't count them as part of the cost of invention. The isk cost of datacores for one invention attempt = 120000*6*(1-Percentage of Returned Datacores)
The cost of each invention attempt is the installation cost of the copy + the installation cost of the invention + the datacore cost.
The Cost per Successful invention = Cost Per Attempt / Success Chance
The Cost Per Unit = Cost per Success / Runs per Success
With the current success formula, a character with level 3 in Science 1, Science 2 and Racial Encryption Methods has a 46% chance to invent a module. Someone with level 4 in those skills has a 48% chance. Someone with level 5 in those skills has 50% chance (Not 50.4% as was mentioned in the dev blog.) Calculate cost per module out for 46%, 48%, and 50% Success Chances and you will get: ................Success Chance...................46%...................48%..................50% ...........Returned Datacores..............20.79%..............20.02%.............19.25% Datacore Cost per Attempt........570,312.00.........575,856.00.......581,400.00 .......Total Cost per Attempt........570,942.00.........576,486.00.......582,030.00 ...............Cost Per Success.....1,241,178.26.....1,201,012.50.....1,164,060.00 ......................Cost Per Unit........124,117.83........120,101.25........116,406.00
So, a character can train three rank 5 skills (two science skills and one encryption skill) from level 0 to 3 in about three days. Their T2 BPC will cost them 124k isk of the 1M isk finished T2 module. That character can then train those three skills to level 4, and it will take them about 12 days. At that point, their T2 BPC will cost them 120k isk. That 4016 isk savings is 0.4% more profit over the character with rank 3 skills. That character can then train those three skills to level 5. It will take about 60 days. They save 3695 isk per unit over the character with level 4 skills. 0.37%
This item was chosen to illustrate the maximum benefit one can get from the skills. For most other items the manufacturing cost is higher and the blueprint cost is a much smaller portion of the finished T2 item cost.
Yes, you heard that right! For the low, low cost of two months training you too can earn less than half of a percent more profit on your inventions! |
Sheeana Harb
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
32
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 20:38:00 -
[194] - Quote
Kaydar ArX wrote:.... +Me: Sure I will save some components, but I build in batches and will always plan using the basic ME2/TE4 bpc. ...
Exactly what I had in mind. When building (and buying in batches), we will be left with 'spare' components just laying around since we all plan (and buy for) ME2.
|
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
143
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 20:53:00 -
[195] - Quote
Sheeana Harb wrote:Kaydar ArX wrote:.... +Me: Sure I will save some components, but I build in batches and will always plan using the basic ME2/TE4 bpc. ... Exactly what I had in mind. When building (and buying in batches), we will be left with 'spare' components just laying around since we all plan (and buy for) ME2.
About 0.2% of all materials.
But really a lot less than that because with limited runs and rounding we will miss out on most of the savings.
For me, a couple exceptional successes will just mean that I need to buy fewer materials for next week's run. |
Stonecutter Hardy
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 21:00:00 -
[196] - Quote
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:It seems many did not get the point I was trying to make. Dev Blog wrote:
- All modules, rigs and ammo have 40%
All Frigates and Destroyers have 35% Cruisers, Battlecruisers, Mining Barges, Industrials, ORE industrial have 30% All Battleships, Industrial Command Ship have 25% << there are no T2 industrial command ships Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20% << The only ships here that have a T2 variant are freighters, yet they are not listed??
A fact distorted by this list, is that Freighters are the ONLY capital ship with a T2 counterpart. This is futher distorted by the fact that although they are included in this group, Freighters, the only ship that should actually be listed here, is actually not on the list. There are not even any T2 industrial command ships. If these other ships listed were actually used in invention, I can garantee those that invent and build them would be equally outraged at a reduced base invention chance. Currently on TQ the invention chance for freighters is on par with frigates. This may seem odd, but there is a reason for this. The higher invention chance is offset by the significant costs of producing the BPC's, and a much higher requirement for consumable data cores in the invention process. Just to attempt the invention of a jump freighter BPC is very costly, and even with max skills, and an expensive +90% decryptor you don't get much better than a 50/50 chance of sucess. This does not mean 1 out of every 2 attepts will suceed however, I have had upwards of 5-6 failures in a row inventing jump freighter BPC's, with the current 30% base invention chance. And now they are going to nerf it. Considering the cost of each attempt for inventing a jump freighter BPC, a 10% reduction in base invention chance is going to hit these ships very hard. If you think Jump freighters are expensive now, this will cause their price to go way up. trust me, I build them, and this change is going to really hurt. Hidding the fact that jump freighter invention is being nerfed by grouping the invention chance will all other capitals, when there are NO other capitals that can be invented, and then not even listing freighters, the only ship in that catagory that actually can be invented. This is extremely shaddy and underhanded. Intended or not. The only possible explaination is either the developers making these decissions are completely ignorant of what they have done, and are doing. Or they are intentionally trying to hide the true changes as I discribed above. Which is it ignorance, or Deception? I believe it is Deception.
CCP needs to add to inventing a bpc to what ever it is,
if the BPC fails when your doing your inventing that bpc should still remain but change to Green or Red to say in a way it as failed, try again
When the inventing job you have done as failed and that bpc as gone green you should be able to re-research that bpc or some kind of way to make that bpc of the failed inventing re-usable, but add time it take for this to be done same time it took to invent it from start before it failed,
its gone green dam have to re run this failed invert job again, will loose a bit of runs over this try again job, but with few more data core to redo it my invert job, nice one it as passed this time after second fail,
|
Valterra Craven
273
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 21:04:00 -
[197] - Quote
Shoogie wrote: Yes, you heard that right! For the low, low cost of two months training you too can earn less than half of a percent more profit on your inventions!
I'm not going to lie. A lot of this blew over my head. The real question I have, does CCP do this type of analysis on things that they change/ want to change and if not why don't they?
|
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1559
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 21:15:00 -
[198] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
Eh...ok I guess 1% is better than nothing but reducing TE for all these skills (and the old PE) is lackluster at best. 2% would be better but ME reduction somewhere in the skill trees would be most welcomed.
While I don't think the ME reduction for T2 ships is going to fly, how about 1% reduction from T1 hulls (not T2) in addition to the TE reduction as well? Something to give these skills an 'Advanced' flavor. Say Advanced battleship construction gives 1% reduction in ME for all T1 battleships and 2% TE reduction for T2 battleships? This would add some interesting choices to these skills imo.
One final thing, I'm assuming you will look at Industrial construction as well? Right now there is no reason to train past level 3.
Thanks GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour! |
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
145
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 21:20:00 -
[199] - Quote
Here is my proposal for a new invention success formula:
Success Rate = Base Rate * (1+ (Science Skill 1 + Science Skill 2 + Encryption Skill)/15) Where Base Rate for Modules, Ammo, Drones = 26% Base Rate for Frigates = 23% Base Rate for Cruisers = 20% Base Rate for Battleships 17% Base Rate for Freighters = 14%
............Current Formula.....................................................Proposed Formula Base.....Skills 3.....Skills 4.....Skills 5.........................Base.....Skills 3.....Skills 4.....Skills 5 40%..........46%.........48%..........50%........................26%........41.6%......46.8%.........52% 35%.....40.25%.........42%.....43.75%........................23%........36.8%......41.4%.........46% 30%.......34.5%.........36%.......27.5%........................20%...........32%.........36%.........40% 25%.....28.75%.........30%.....31.25%........................17%........27.2%......30.6%.........34% 20%..........23%.........24%..........25%........................14%........22.4%......25.2%.........28%
My new numbers were chosen around characters with level 4 science and encryption skills. Those characters would have approximately the same success rates in both formulas, but those with lesser skills have fewer successes and those with greater skills have more successes.
Plugging the proposed success rates into the same hypothetical module in my previous post: ................Success Chance...................41.6%...................46.8%......................52% ...........Returned Datacores...............22.484%...............20.482%.................18.48% Datacore Cost per Attempt............558,115.20...........572,529.60...........586,944.00 .......Total Cost per Attempt...........558,745.20...........573,159.60............587,574.00 ...............Cost Per Success........1,343,137.50........1,224,700.00........1,129,950.00 ......................Cost Per Unit...........134,313.75...........122,470.00...........112,995.00
So the 12 days of training to get skills from 3 to 4 will yeild 1.18% more profit on this T2 item. The 60 days training to get skills from 4 to 5 yields 0.947% more profit. 1% is comparable to moving from a 5% system to a 4% manufacturing system, and less than is saved by using most teams. Much better return than previously, but certainly not required. |
Sheeana Harb
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
32
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 22:33:00 -
[200] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: 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....
How about making use of the hacking minigame? Let's say that when adding a decryptor for invention, player would be given (totally optional) choice to 'run' a hacking minigame to improve the chances. And both respective invention skills could be act as baseline for virus strength and coherence. Failing the minigame should have some negative effects though, for balance.
|
|
Ramman K'arojic
Lone Star Warriors Yulai Federation
25
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 23:57:00 -
[201] - Quote
Re:
CCP Ytterbium wrote: "Finally for Tech II manufacturing we are bringing all GÇ£ConstructionGÇ¥ skill requirements to 1 instead of having arbitrary restrictions to 4 or 5. To compensate, we are giving a bonus for training those skills, like a Time Efficiency reduction.
This is wrong; backwards and it doesn't encourage people to be specialists manufacturers. I understand the strategic objective is make the game more playable (less hurdles) as an entry point - by reducing the skill requirements across the board in all areas; but this doesn't reward people who have already specialized or who want to..
I am guessing that 99% of all corporations / individuals don't have the resources to chain multiple battleship T2 constructions; thus this "Time Efficiency" is worth nothing to 99% of us.
My proposal is why not give a small like 0.5% discount in material requirements (rounded down) per level after level 2 has been trained. e.g In your SIN example in the blog would become Ion Thruster 225 less (0.5 x 4= 2%) at L5 i.e 221 at battleship construction level 5.
Similar treatment could be applied to Cruiser and Frigate construction; however given there are less components in Frigs and Cruiser (i.e it only applies after the 100 quantity for each single component required) the benefit to the build is reduced thus the impact to industry as a whole is minimal.
Thus the question Is it worth spending ~35 days training to save 4 Ion Thrusters per SIN made - only the die hard / dedicated industrial individual would be able justify.
Ramman |
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
107
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 01:39:00 -
[202] - Quote
CCP Ytterbaum, thanks for taking the time to engage so many posts directly in this thread.
I have to say, I complained about projects being released or not released without a chance for engagement and feedback and the next thing you know, a thread appears about something 'not' coming in Oceanus but is a big project that could use some transparency, namely this invention thread. Over time I just get more and more impressed with how CCP operates.
About the skills, I understand the concern of making level 5 mandatory. Up to you guys and the CSM in the end I guess. However, in the thread I noticed a couple of other comments about skills not being important enough in addition to mine and I noticed that my post got 4 likes (a personal record for one of my posts). So I guess, just keep in mind that it seems like some others think skills could be given more of a role. Just something to think about. Invention skills are definitely not a major broken feature of the game but I do think they could be looked at. The distribution of skill requirement changes are spot on and excellent. I was just commenting on the overall skill effects.
I'm sure whatever you guys come up with in the end will be great and if there's no changes I don't think anyone is going to rage quit. But please do ponder the idea of changing the percent chance of success and giving skills a greater role.
This invention update is going to be great. Thanks for the thread and the feedback and the good ideas. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5430
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 02:49:00 -
[203] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Are you out of your mind? The "reduced demand for data cores" does absolutely not hurt me. It only makes my life easier as I don't need to look for as many in data sites any more and can life my the ones I find in data sites longer, as well as of those I get from my research agents. Moreover, how much more cumbersome and tedious do you want to make Invention with consumable interfaces? The components for these interfaces are what clutters the holds of exploration ships (if you decide to grab them in the first place), not the minuscule amounts of data cores.
Removing data cores from exploration would free up more cargo capacity for interface components, right? Then there's just that minor issue of the sheer volume of those components: 36 Positron Cords contribute to making a device. Each cord is 1m3 and the device itself is 1m3. Even if the data interface was 10m3, the components that go into it don't need to be bigger than 0.1m3.
Datacores are already available through FW, so there's really no reason to also have them available through exploration. Making data cores bulky increases the hauling work required to pick them up from agents and deliver them to market. Their 1m3 size is just fine.
I'd really like CCP to reconsider the removal of data interfaces. Convert them to consumables to support Exploration. I end up leaving behind most of the components at present since they just aren't worth the hassle of picking up.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
8
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 02:55:00 -
[204] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:Lil' Brudder Too wrote:[quote=CCP Phantom]
Third, so....the teams to 'manipulate inputs'....if that means datacore amounts....you do realize that most small items only require 2 datacores to invent. So in order to manipulate that figure with a % discount....you are going to need more than your token 1-3%'s that you are typically using for "build" teams. But now You will be able to run batch jobs of those. So the reduction will actually kick in :) Yes....2% of 20 units is still....carry the 0..subtract the...oh wait...20 units. will be a great discount for batch jobs.... (assuming they cap the invent batches to 10, 2 datacores x 10 runs x .98 = 20 datacores) |
Odoya
Poor Old Ornery nOObs Brothers of Tangra
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 04:29:00 -
[205] - Quote
Magic Crisp wrote: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.
Except for the statistical analysis for planning the production batch's cost ahead, the other things you mention here can be pretty much handled. We have assets API to take the remnants into account.
I'd rather see a smaller bump to the base success rate than a variety of possible success outcomes. Even IF the change can be accounted for by more programming and outside the game analysis, such effort leads away from enjoyable game play, not towards it. I've spent more time re-working spreadsheets to be competitive than I have flying a ship. It's fun in its own way but it won't make this aspect of the game more interesting or attractive for newer players. A similar type of logic was used to revamp ME/PE etc. Invention and production should be intuitive enough for people who are not mathemagicians. |
Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
109
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 07:32:00 -
[206] - Quote
Quote:Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20%
Do I detect a hint of future fun things? |
Kusum Fawn
State Protectorate Caldari State
543
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 14:21:00 -
[207] - Quote
Odoya wrote:Magic Crisp wrote: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.
Except for the statistical analysis for planning the production batch's cost ahead, the other things you mention here can be pretty much handled. We have assets API to take the remnants into account. I'd rather see a smaller bump to the base success rate than a variety of possible success outcomes. Even IF the change can be accounted for by more programming and outside the game analysis, such effort leads away from enjoyable game play, not towards it. I've spent more time re-working spreadsheets to be competitive than I have flying a ship. It's fun in its own way but it won't make this aspect of the game more interesting or attractive for newer players. A similar type of logic was used to revamp ME/PE etc. Invention and production should be intuitive enough for people who are not mathemagicians.
To add to Odoya's point, anyone not doing 100 runs of something but still more then one bpc's worth of ships has a much larger burden of out of game calculations to run and a much more involved process of materials gathering. While this is not necessarily a problem, it meas that small manufacturers get a much larger shaft then someone sinking several tens of billions into materials purchasing every week.
Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 17:28:00 -
[208] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. It still remains a waste of time.
Especially for people who learned the skills for just this item you are now changing. These people are now be forced to learn one or two more skills, your are seriously kidding?
This are 16-32 days loss of time that I have planned for other skills and that's a damn unacceptable loss in game time which costs me my real money. |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 17:39:00 -
[209] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. Then Spread out the Missiles to the other Races belong on there Main Damage Types, but led the Science type be the Same.
Same thing for the Rail Guns, led the Main Science type the same and only just change the Race behind. Because a Rail Gun isn't an Blaster driven Gun it's an Electromagnetic driven Gun. Wiki: Railgun |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 18:03:00 -
[210] - Quote
Red Bluesteel wrote:1st of all, with all of you nice Industry Change Graphs, I'm missing one Major Graph => The Changes of how much more isk all those changes cost us e.g. ME/PE/Copy/Invention Costs. WHO the F*** is spending for an Aeon PE+6 (12%) 1,5 bil isk ???
Still want to see these Graphs of the New Isk Sinkhole you have turned the Industry in to. |
|
Frug Pock
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 19:08:00 -
[211] - Quote
Great idea (lots of irony included!!!)
Having spend a long time training to be perfect at ship invention, you come up with the splendid idea that I should spend even more time. Great, Im really looking forward to that.
Honestly: The latest changes took away more and more of my motivation to even get online. |
Sheeana Harb
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
33
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 20:16:00 -
[212] - Quote
Red Bluesteel wrote:It still remains a waste of time. Especially for people who learned the skills for just this item you are now changing. These people are now be forced to learn one or two more skills, your are seriously kidding? This are 16-32 days loss of time that I have planned for other skills and that's a damn unacceptable loss in game time which costs me my real money.
I also am not happy with the fact that a skill I trained to level 4 will loose it's value (TE as consolation prize isn't enough, since most of us can't chain T2 battleships to benefit from it). The skill change CCP is planning equals me just NOT having a skill in training for two weeks while still paying for the game. And that's unacceptable. |
Beta Maoye
37
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 22:42:00 -
[213] - Quote
I want to add one more level of fun to invention. The outcome of exceptional success level is further divided into four categories. Let's say 99% of exceptional success will be a standard exceptional success which gives a Meta 5 bpc with ME2 and TE3 bonus. 0.6% of exceptional success will be a wonderful success which gives a random Meta 6-7 bpc. 0.3% of exceptional success will be an incredible success which gives a random Meta 8-10 bpc. 0.1% of exceptional success will be a marvelous success which gives a random Meta 11-14 bpc.
At 50% rate of success, the chance to get Meta 5 with ME2 and TE3 will be 2.475%. The chance to get Meta 6-7 will be 0.015%. The chance to get Meta 8-10 will be 0.0075%. The chance to get Meta 11-14 will be 0.0025%.
I think the chance is small enough to discourage meta bpc farming. The above "big prizes" will make invention much more unpreditable and enjoyable. |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.14 01:48:00 -
[214] - Quote
Beta Maoye wrote:I want to add one more level of fun to invention. The outcome of exceptional success level is further divided into four categories. Let's say 99% of exceptional success will be a standard exceptional success which gives a Meta 5 bpc with ME2 and TE3 bonus. 0.6% of exceptional success will be a wonderful success which gives a random Meta 6-7 bpc. 0.3% of exceptional success will be an incredible success which gives a random Meta 8-10 bpc. 0.1% of exceptional success will be a marvelous success which gives a random Meta 11-14 bpc.
At 50% rate of success, the chance to get Meta 5 with ME2 and TE3 will be 2.475%. The chance to get Meta 6-7 will be 0.015%. The chance to get Meta 8-10 will be 0.0075%. The chance to get Meta 11-14 will be 0.0025%.
I think the chance is small enough to discourage meta bpc farming. The above "big prizes" will make invention much more unpreditable and enjoyable. Yeah Nice, i want an Meta 14 Ishtar... *ironic off |
Beta Maoye
37
|
Posted - 2014.09.14 03:47:00 -
[215] - Quote
Red Bluesteel wrote:Yeah Nice, i want an Meta 14 Ishtar... *ironic off
It will just pick a random item from the existing item set. One may argue he don't want to get a Gistum A-Type Shield Booster when inventing a Ishtar. I just want to add a very small chance to get a surprising reward from routine invention process. |
Veinnail
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
102
|
Posted - 2014.09.14 05:07:00 -
[216] - Quote
First, I think the dust has settled and the community is generally happy with the results of Crius.
[this is if we ignore the massive isk sink that you've dumped on us, sell plex bros, sell plex]
About these notes.
1. Yes, I agree with the skill requirement changes for certain items/ships, follow through with a solid iteration. a. perhaps a third skill for the various ships. mechanical and starship seem realistic. b. I don't agree with the ECM modules being for each race. I believe Caldari invented ECM and produced all of it. (lol) 2. Dynamic invention results seems like an awfully volatile idea. You do realize this is already tedious? a. Please don't vary too widely here. if you have something like a +-5 swing, we're all going to be crying. b. Is this focused solely on ME, TE or both? 3. Thank you for opening the window to queued invention runs. a. As a producer my reaction is to like this. I do see this as a future hazard, a market flood mechanism. |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
309
|
Posted - 2014.09.14 13:26:00 -
[217] - Quote
I'm not too keen on the outcome tiering. It does nothing but increase complexity (again). Over enough attempts the same average (statistical) output can be achieved just as well with the current binary outcome.
So just to confirm, within a success or failure, the tiers will occur with the following probabilities (from most frequent to rarest): 65%, 20%, 10% and 5%, yes? iveeCore: PHP library for calculation of industrial activities, now with Hyperion support |
Parisma Calles
Aideron Robotics
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.14 17:56:00 -
[218] - Quote
I have a couple of questions about removing the Data Interfaces coming from an exploration point of view.
1. Will data sites be dropping anything new to make up for removing the blueprints and materials for building the data interfaces or will they only be dropping Datacores, skillbooks, and decryptors now?
2. The dev blog said that the Data Interfaces people now own would be "reimbursed", how exactly?
Thanks. |
Mr M
Sebiestor Tribe
408
|
Posted - 2014.09.14 21:30:00 -
[219] - Quote
I'd like to see some actual Critical failures. Like Jita collapsing in on it self.
|
Chacho Baggins
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 01:41:00 -
[220] - Quote
While you are working on invention can you help clarify the system. Can you list on ammo charge T1 blueprints what the T2 variant will be? And/or put what the T2 blueprint is invented from.
If you want to invent Spike ammo you need to know what it is, look it up out of game, ask someone who knows, or guess based on the pictures. With missiles Scourge becomes T2 Scourge which is easy to figure out but Antimatter to Void isn't straight forward.
Thank you |
|
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
310
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 07:46:00 -
[221] - Quote
The concern over the disparity in use causing a disparity in the market is a bit odd IMHO. Disparity in demand in the market is an incentive to suppliers and, with Datacores having shifted (at least somewhat) to gun-mining, allows supply to shift. My impression is that Mechanical Engineering Datacores being highest demand means that they also have the greatest potential for oversupply - available from all of the FW LP Stores and with more characters "subscribed" to its R&D Agents...
On an unrelated note - please ensure that everything requires at least one "practical"* science skill. If a specialist in High Energy Physics and a specialist in Plasma Physics get together the likely outcome is a formula rather than a blueprint; if you want a real output then you need an engineer.
*Science skills can easily be separated into Theoretical and Practical sciences: Simply, any skill with Physics or Science in the name can be classed as Theoretical while everything with Engineering in the name becomes Practical. Remember that, while it could easily be viewed as the epitome of Rocket Science, the Saturn V had millions of components and could easily be described as the most complex mechanical device ever built. |
Sael Va'Tauri
Morgan Industry
11
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 16:50:00 -
[222] - Quote
I skipped a few pages of this thread, but I didn't see this suggestion in the first 6 pages.
The current suggestion for output BPC is random. Why do this? How about we change it so it involves input variables, thus requiring player skill to be successful at industry.
For example:
there are currently 4 levels of success:
Standard Good Great Exceptional
and the inventor can't control that. How about this:
To yield a standard BPC, change nothing.
Now, lets let the inventors take a little more risk to try to get a better BPC. Invention success could be less at each level, which is offset by the new feature of recovery of datacores.
For example: To yield a good BPC, require 1 extra data core of each type (total 3 each), and raise required science skills be at level 3. base chance of success 25%, modified by skills. Add a 15% chance of "minimal" failure where only no datacores are consumed.
To yield a great BPC, require 2 extra data cores of each type (total 4 each), and raise required science skills be at level 4. Base chance of success is 15%, and add a 25% chance of "minimal" failure where only 1 datacore of each type is consumed.
To yield exceptional BPCs, require 3 extra data cores of each type (total 5 each) and raise required science skills to be at level 5. Base chance of success is 10%, with a 30% chance of minimal failure where only 2 datacores of each type are consumed.
A new skill could be introduced that would slightly increase the chance of minimal failures, or reduce the number of datacores consumed in each instance.
This approach would put the power in the hands of the inventors. Spend more time and more risk inventing for better BPCs, or take the safer approach and spend fewer datacores for less profit.
|
Sheeana Harb
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
34
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 20:02:00 -
[223] - Quote
Sheeana Harb wrote:Red Bluesteel wrote:It still remains a waste of time. Especially for people who learned the skills for just this item you are now changing. These people are now be forced to learn one or two more skills, your are seriously kidding? This are 16-32 days loss of time that I have planned for other skills and that's a damn unacceptable loss in game time which costs me my real money. I also am not happy with the fact that a skill I trained to level 4 will loose it's value (TE as consolation prize isn't enough, since most of us can't chain T2 battleships to benefit from it). The skill change CCP is planning equals me just NOT having a skill in training for two weeks while still paying for the game. And that's unacceptable.
To follow this idea up, Advanced ship manufacturing skills could affect, in a small way - 1 maybe 2 percent per level - chance of an exceptional (as well as great and good) result of an invention. That way it would still be useful for specialized characters while not providing 'mandatory' bonuses. |
Sheeana Harb
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
34
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 20:03:00 -
[224] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:
Invention results will be non-binary, with some good luck to get an extra boost of ME/TE or,with only a little bad luck you will receive back some datacores used in the invention. Honestly I would much rather prefer if an extraordinary invention result would affect number of runs on the output T2 BPC rather than ME/TE. So I wouldn't need to deal with a material difference when buying in batches while still keeping the excitement of a lucky invention result.
|
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 23:14:00 -
[225] - Quote
Hopefully this hasn't been addressed in the last few pages i only skimmed over:
Do ppl asking for chances on T2 BPOs as invention outcome even realize what utter nonsense they are wishing for? Even with a typical "epic drop" chance of 0,000xxxxxxx1% it would only be a matter of large enough quantities and/or time till major manufacturers could shift their entire production to well researched T2 BPOs and thus become independent of further invention work (I'd like all my jobs being done from T2 BPOs, but it's still stupid and doesn't help the general T2 BPO issue.... not...one...bit).
While the idea might sound nice for about a fraction of a femtosecond, it can never ever make it to being considered even remotely reasonable or "good"....
Regarding the general direction of the invention changes: me gusta
(even if it means i have to adjust my programs...again ) |
Kaydar ArX
Scorch Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 07:51:00 -
[226] - Quote
Sheeana Harb wrote:
Honestly I would much rather prefer if an extraordinary invention result would affect number of runs on the output T2 BPC rather than ME/TE. So I wouldn't need to deal with a material difference when buying in batches while still keeping the excitement of a lucky invention result.
Well, having a chance to increase the number of runs on the output T2 bpc is quite similar to increasing the InventionSuccessChance%. |
Jeann Valjean
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
44
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 14:19:00 -
[227] - Quote
Just read the dev blog, and while I like most of the changes I have to put a strong "no, please no" on introducing varying outcomes for invention (the example in the post were outcomes ranging from "exceptional success" to "critical failure" with differing ME/TE levels).
This is introducing more complexity when your original goal was to reduce complexity. This complexity takes the form of unknown material costs and wasted TE. Let's look at these issues one at a time:
Unknown materials
Scenario: I want to manufacture 200 medium armor rigs. I know what decryptor I'll use and thus know exactly how much material the completed rigs will need, because the ME is consistent. I calculate my costs and profit, and buy the materials for invention *and* place buy orders for the manufacturing materials. By the time my buy orders are filled, my invention has completed and I start manufacturing.
With the proposed changes, now I have 4 possible ME outcomes on a successful invention. I can no longer calculate my profits or materials needed prior to finishing all my invention. Either I have to a) invent everything before buying manufacturing mats because I don't know ME, or b) *guess* what the materials needed will be if I want to buy mats while invention is running.
In a nutshell, right now I control both my time and my profitability. The proposed changes force me to either value my profits or my time. That's not a choice that adds value to EVE, it's one that takes value away.
Wasted TE
Speaking of time, when I start a manufacturing run I know exactly how long it will take to invent and manufacture those 200 rigs because I'm using Y decryptor, my invention chance is Z and I'll be using X characters with W lines to manufacture. If CCP changes TE possible values on invented items, I'm not going to say "Oh boy! I have 190 BPC's with 8 TE, and 10 have 10 TE and they'll go 2 hours faster! I'm going to log in just to retrieve those 10 items that finished first and [deliver them to market / start new jobs]!!!" No, I'm going to log in to grab my items when the last one finishes.
If the new system gives me "bonus" TE on some of the BPC's, that's going to be wasted on me and anyone else who runs any more than ahandful of manufacturing lines. When you introduce a mechanic that'll be immediately ignored, that's unneeded complexity. |
Suzuka A1
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
23
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 17:11:00 -
[228] - Quote
Quote:"Stay tuned for more and expect threads to appear on the GÇ£Features & Ideas DiscussionGÇ¥ to discuss specific points mentioned in this blog with time."
I had no idea this thread existed and nor did I EVER THINK TO LOOK FOR IT because I was constantly checking the features and ideas section...since the dev blog said to.
Why is this thread not linked in the dev blog?! Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H-á What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626 |
Suzuka A1
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
23
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 17:23:00 -
[229] - Quote
As someone with about 2,000 runs worth of Data Interface BPCs I would really like to know if I need to rush to build them all (it would take me about 55.5 days to build all of them, math below) to have them properly reimbursed. It's nice they are being removed since 20 hour build times are absurd, but I'm just worried I am about to be completely screwed over.
Math: (~2,000 runs / 9 slots) * (20 hrs/run - (20*0.7) null sec speed bonus) = 1333.33hrs
1333.33 hrs / 24 hrs/day = 55.5 days (assuming no downtime) on my only active account Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H-á What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626 |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3849
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 19:54:00 -
[230] - Quote
Jeann Valjean wrote:Just read the dev blog, and while I like most of the changes I have to put a strong "no, please no" on introducing varying outcomes for invention (the example in the post were outcomes ranging from "exceptional success" to "critical failure" with differing ME/TE levels).
This is introducing more complexity when your original goal was to reduce complexity. This complexity takes the form of unknown material costs and wasted TE. Let's look at these issues one at a time:
Unknown materials
Scenario: I want to manufacture 200 medium armor rigs. I know what decryptor I'll use and thus know exactly how much material the completed rigs will need, because the ME is consistent. I calculate my costs and profit, and buy the materials for invention *and* place buy orders for the manufacturing materials. By the time my buy orders are filled, my invention has completed and I start manufacturing.
With the proposed changes, now I have 4 possible ME outcomes on a successful invention. I can no longer calculate my profits or materials needed prior to finishing all my invention. Either I have to a) invent everything before buying manufacturing mats because I don't know ME, or b) *guess* what the materials needed will be if I want to buy mats while invention is running.
In a nutshell, right now I control both my time and my profitability. The proposed changes force me to either value my profits or my time. That's not a choice that adds value to EVE, it's one that takes value away.
Wasted TE
Speaking of time, when I start a manufacturing run I know exactly how long it will take to invent and manufacture those 200 rigs because I'm using Y decryptor, my invention chance is Z and I'll be using X characters with W lines to manufacture. If CCP changes TE possible values on invented items, I'm not going to say "Oh boy! I have 190 BPC's with 8 TE, and 10 have 10 TE and they'll go 2 hours faster! I'm going to log in just to retrieve those 10 items that finished first and [deliver them to market / start new jobs]!!!" No, I'm going to log in to grab my items when the last one finishes.
If the new system gives me "bonus" TE on some of the BPC's, that's going to be wasted on me and anyone else who runs any more than ahandful of manufacturing lines. When you introduce a mechanic that'll be immediately ignored, that's unneeded complexity.
Well, you have to 'guess' what the outcome will be right now. After all, you can't be /certain/ what the outcome will be, wrt the number of successes.
Oh, you say you can, because of the law of big numbers? Still applies. Over the course of a large number of runs, the numbers of each type of success will tend to the percentage values.
And if you start from the pessimistic standpoint, that you'll not get any ME bonus, you're not going to be short on materials.
Oh, and 3 possible options. basic ME, +1 and +2. TE has no effect on materials required. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
|
Jeann Valjean
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
44
|
Posted - 2014.09.16 20:22:00 -
[231] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:And if you start from the pessimistic standpoint, that you'll not get any ME bonus, you're not going to be short on materials.
Oh, and 3 possible options. basic ME, +1 and +2. TE has no effect on materials required.
Well that's a disappointing response.
Wrt ME: now everyone will have various amounts of leftover materials. Sure you can say, "well you can use those for the next run" but the bottom line is, it's now one more thing to keep track of. Added complexity without need.
About TE: I didn't claim it had an effect on materials. I said, pretty clearly, that a TE bonus is meaningless because it won't affect any industrialist's behavior. In which case it's, again, adding unnecessary complexity.
Try focusing more on "how can we make the system better?": instead of "how can we replace convoluted mechanics with different convoluted mechanics?" Isn't the whole revamp about improving the NPE anyway and making the system more intuitive? If the CSM/CCP thinks they need to replace one set of confusing concepts with a different set of equally unnecessary changes, that's not exactly marching toward your goal. |
BraiZure Harloon
A-31 Violent Intent
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.17 07:57:00 -
[232] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: "Finally for Tech II manufacturing we are bringing all GÇ£ConstructionGÇ¥ skill requirements to 1 instead of having arbitrary restrictions to 4 or 5. To compensate, we are giving a bonus for training those skills, like a Time Efficiency reduction. Please For the love Frig construction V don't. That is the worst possible thing I've ever seen. If you must change it, change it to something usefull like an ME buff for all Small ships advanced or not. I hate that what your are suggesting is making a lvl 5 skill never mater at all unless I own a BPO.
I am OK with the removal of those interfaces I love hacking empty cans nothing is more rewarding than going through the scanning and hacking process for an empty can. We need more of those. Oh we could substitute them with more carbon and hydrogen batteries. |
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
179
|
Posted - 2014.09.17 14:44:00 -
[233] - Quote
BraiZure Harloon wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: "Finally for Tech II manufacturing we are bringing all GÇ£ConstructionGÇ¥ skill requirements to 1 instead of having arbitrary restrictions to 4 or 5. To compensate, we are giving a bonus for training those skills, like a Time Efficiency reduction. Please For the love Frig construction V don't. That is the worst possible thing I've ever seen. If you must change it, change it to something usefull like an ME buff for all Small ships advanced or not. I hate that what your are suggesting is making a lvl 5 skill never mater at all unless I own a BPO. I am OK with the removal of those interfaces I love hacking empty cans nothing is more rewarding than going through the scanning and hacking process for an empty can. We need more of those. Oh we could substitute them with more carbon and hydrogen batteries.
I have to agree, this is absurd. Why not just remove the skills from the game completely? |
MrWalter White
Breaking Bad Corp
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 02:51:00 -
[234] - Quote
for some of us - getting a better TE does not matter much in term of playing behaviour! why you asked , it is because we log in after we finish our Rl job obligation so some of the TE changes does not matter much.
and if you wanna change TE to affect why not change it to affect base on what type of stuff being build - giving a TE bonus that would shave few minutes on a ammo time is less useful compare to a TE bonus that affect the build time on larger item like t2 siege/triage mod
now for the ME bonus - that would change the profit
i rather have higher level skill affect the ME rather than TE |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3849
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 09:10:00 -
[235] - Quote
Skills will not affect ME. Because the moment you have ME being affected, the skill becomes one required at 5. Like Production Efficiency was. CCP have stated in another thread that they do not want skills to be like that. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 10:15:00 -
[236] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Skills will not affect ME. Because the moment you have ME being affected, the skill becomes one required at 5. Like Production Efficiency was. CCP have stated in another thread that they do not want skills to be like that.
Unless the bonus is kept small enough to not be a world changing matter between say level 3 and 5, but high enough to grant some little extra profit. For example a mere 0.x per level with a reasonably small x might still work without making the skill mandatory for everyone. A bonus of 0.3 ME per level would result in a total bonus at max level that resides just between other modifiers like decryptors or pos arrays, while still not being in the dimension provided by specialized teams.
And yes, like others have already pointed out, there is no reason to move the skills to a TE bonus, UNLESS ofc that bonus becomes large enough to be a real influence (in which case the same argument about being required at 5 can be made...). |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 02:02:00 -
[237] - Quote
Banko Mato wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Skills will not affect ME. Because the moment you have ME being affected, the skill becomes one required at 5. Like Production Efficiency was. CCP have stated in another thread that they do not want skills to be like that. And yes, like others have already pointed out, there is no reason to move the skills to a TE bonus, UNLESS ofc that bonus becomes large enough to be a real influence (in which case the same argument about being required at 5 can be made...). How much more influence in time efficiency you need?
When i see at all the changes in Industry with the past few Game Downgrades we have already an F*** up of the whole system.
Building is fast as Hell, e.g. Scorch L from 11d16h to 21h (@Pos) ... The Dark Side of the Medal is, that all the other stuff now take Ages, like Inventions, for T2 Scorch L BPCs from 37m to 9h (@Pos) ...
A TE Bonus is utterly useless smaller than BS size Productions and other non Ship/Module/Ammo Productions.
CCP acts like Blizzard, they do not see what their changes cause at the end of the tunnel, they ruin a great game. |
BraiZure Harloon
A-31 Violent Intent
22
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 02:07:00 -
[238] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Skills will not affect ME. Because the moment you have ME being affected, the skill becomes one required at 5. Like Production Efficiency was. CCP have stated in another thread that they do not want skills to be like that. Then don't change the requirements for Construction skills. Keep them at 4 and 5 respectively. Having a skill that I trained to 5 that all of a sudden has little to no effect on play at all is pointless. Its bad enough that the skill changes for invention require me to change my invention lines or train skills. The TE bonus will only benefit folks with T2 BPOs that can queue several runs at the same time. Don't change it. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1873
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 13:08:00 -
[239] - Quote
Am I understanding right that the manufacture of T2 items may require different skills after the update?
... So the invention alt that I trained to make a specific item might no longer be able to make that item? +1 |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
4694
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 13:11:00 -
[240] - Quote
I'd like to be on record regarding the varying degrees of invention success, that I would really not want differing ME and PE values. You will only end up with a batch of jobs that need more or less materials and/or end at different times, making the whole workflow a complete mess.
Please try to find something else, even if it's just returned datacores. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
|
Princess Mary-I
Angels of Ptah
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 22:03:00 -
[241] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Skills will not affect ME. Because the moment you have ME being affected, the skill becomes one required at 5. Like Production Efficiency was. CCP have stated in another thread that they do not want skills to be like that.
If I get u right, then CCP don't think there should be a skill required to lvl 5 to reap the "benefits" and to be mandatory to get to lvl 5, and they have stated so in a thread.
That makes no sense to me, reading that, cause was that not the reason behind the refining change? U would need all reprocessing skills to lvl 5 to reap the "benefits", and therefor becomming a mandatory skill, and if I remember right, that was in a dev blog too. Yes yes I know no none refine anymore :D but that is not the point.
So maybe you can help me out here - do they want skills to be mandatory to get to lvl 5 or do they not want skills to mandatory to get to lvl 5?
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3864
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 22:19:00 -
[242] - Quote
Princess Mary-I wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Skills will not affect ME. Because the moment you have ME being affected, the skill becomes one required at 5. Like Production Efficiency was. CCP have stated in another thread that they do not want skills to be like that. If I get u right, then CCP don't think there should be a skill required to lvl 5 to reap the "benefits" and to be mandatory to get to lvl 5, and they have stated so in a thread. That makes no sense to me, reading that, cause was that not the reason behind the refining change? U would need all reprocessing skills to lvl 5 to reap the "benefits", and therefor becomming a mandatory skill, and if I remember right, that was in a dev blog too. Yes yes I know no none refine anymore :D but that is not the point. So maybe you can help me out here - do they want skills to be mandatory to get to lvl 5 or do they not want skills to mandatory to get to lvl 5? There's a huge difference.
With refining skills, you make /less/ isk. You can still sell for profit.
With a skill that reduces manufacturing costs, you can easily reach the point where, without it, you cannot make /any/ profit without it at 5. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
247
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 22:38:00 -
[243] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Princess Mary-I wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Skills will not affect ME. Because the moment you have ME being affected, the skill becomes one required at 5. Like Production Efficiency was. CCP have stated in another thread that they do not want skills to be like that. If I get u right, then CCP don't think there should be a skill required to lvl 5 to reap the "benefits" and to be mandatory to get to lvl 5, and they have stated so in a thread. That makes no sense to me, reading that, cause was that not the reason behind the refining change? U would need all reprocessing skills to lvl 5 to reap the "benefits", and therefor becomming a mandatory skill, and if I remember right, that was in a dev blog too. Yes yes I know no none refine anymore :D but that is not the point. So maybe you can help me out here - do they want skills to be mandatory to get to lvl 5 or do they not want skills to mandatory to get to lvl 5? There's a huge difference. With refining skills, you make /less/ isk. You can still sell for profit. With a skill that reduces manufacturing costs, you can easily reach the point where, without it, you cannot make /any/ profit without it at 5.
Can you both elaborate? I can not follow the refining / producing connection to skill lvl, are there not many more factors at work to talk those things? |
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
137
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 11:48:00 -
[244] - Quote
A big part of these changes I think have to tie in to big changes in Data Site exploration - and these should be answered. I think that would fall under "Team Space Glitter" - CCP Affinity and CCP Bayesian have done the most recent adjustments to Relic and Data Sites. They've already said that Exploration sites need a much bigger pass - maybe this is an opportunity to tie it in?
- If the Data Interfaces are going to be removed, and the items refunded, this means all of the BPCs of them, the building components (e.g. Electric Conduit, Force Cable) should all be refunded at some kind of fair rate as well. These weren't exactly the most popular items to get from Data sites, as they were very bulky, and low ISK value on their own.
- What will be replacing these items in the Data sites as loot? The rebalance to the Datacore usage might help a bit, but Data sites are typically worth a lot less than Relic sites. A lot of this is due to the size of the Decryptors and Datacores. If you are going to reduce the size of these items, that would certainly help a bit, but they still need a bit more help.
- A lot of the special run BPCs in Data sites are almost worthless- they almost all build at a loss, even with ME10. This might be due to the changes in Crius, or just some modules not being very popular. The Target Spectrum Breaker, Reactive Armor Hardener, Large Micro Jump Drive, and Medium Micro Jump Drive are all examples of this. Some of the Anciliary Armor/Shield BPCs can be worth building - just depends on market timing to sell them. Since Crius however, a lot of the prices have plummeted. The rarer T2 and Faction BPCs can sometimes be worth it, but you still get a lot of random Large/Capital BPCs which are not worth building.
- Is there any thoughts on moving the sources for Datacores around again, or are you happy with how Faction Warfare LP stores have been used to acquire them? For reference, here is a dev blog article from 2012 when Datacores were added to the LP stores to discourage the use of Research Agents for Datacore Farming.
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2008" |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3864
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 12:40:00 -
[245] - Quote
TheSmokingHertog wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Princess Mary-I wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Skills will not affect ME. Because the moment you have ME being affected, the skill becomes one required at 5. Like Production Efficiency was. CCP have stated in another thread that they do not want skills to be like that. If I get u right, then CCP don't think there should be a skill required to lvl 5 to reap the "benefits" and to be mandatory to get to lvl 5, and they have stated so in a thread. That makes no sense to me, reading that, cause was that not the reason behind the refining change? U would need all reprocessing skills to lvl 5 to reap the "benefits", and therefor becomming a mandatory skill, and if I remember right, that was in a dev blog too. Yes yes I know no none refine anymore :D but that is not the point. So maybe you can help me out here - do they want skills to be mandatory to get to lvl 5 or do they not want skills to mandatory to get to lvl 5? There's a huge difference. With refining skills, you make /less/ isk. You can still sell for profit. With a skill that reduces manufacturing costs, you can easily reach the point where, without it, you cannot make /any/ profit without it at 5. Can you both elaborate? I can not follow the refining / producing connection to skill lvl, are there not many more factors at work to talk those things?
I have less than Max refining skills: I refine something, and sell it on the market. I make isk.
I have less than max skills in something that reduces manufacturing material costs: I make something. I cannot sell it for profit, because someone who has been around longer, and has it maxed out, has set the market value at just enough for them to make a profit, but where it's below the level I can make it at.
That's what happened with the old Production Efficiency skill. you pretty much had to have it at 5, or you couldn't compete. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Princess Mary-I
Angels of Ptah
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 16:25:00 -
[246] - Quote
TheSmokingHertog wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Princess Mary-I wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Skills will not affect ME. Because the moment you have ME being affected, the skill becomes one required at 5. Like Production Efficiency was. CCP have stated in another thread that they do not want skills to be like that. If I get u right, then CCP don't think there should be a skill required to lvl 5 to reap the "benefits" and to be mandatory to get to lvl 5, and they have stated so in a thread. That makes no sense to me, reading that, cause was that not the reason behind the refining change? U would need all reprocessing skills to lvl 5 to reap the "benefits", and therefor becomming a mandatory skill, and if I remember right, that was in a dev blog too. Yes yes I know no none refine anymore :D but that is not the point. So maybe you can help me out here - do they want skills to be mandatory to get to lvl 5 or do they not want skills to mandatory to get to lvl 5? There's a huge difference. With refining skills, you make /less/ isk. You can still sell for profit. With a skill that reduces manufacturing costs, you can easily reach the point where, without it, you cannot make /any/ profit without it at 5. Can you both elaborate? I can not follow the refining / producing connection to skill lvl, are there not many more factors at work to talk those things?
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
787
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 19:44:00 -
[247] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Then remove data cores from exploration, since most exploration ships have small holds. or reduce volume from 1m3 to 0,1m3.
More like .0000000001m3. Why are data cores so huge? Even irl today, one cubic meter can store an insane amount of data. What are people in New Eden doing? Burning text onto armor plates with welding torches?
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥ -Grath Telkin, 2014.
Free PASTA! |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
787
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 23:14:00 -
[248] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Removing data cores from exploration would free up more cargo capacity for interface components, right? Then there's just that minor issue of the sheer volume of those components: 36 Positron Cords contribute to making a device. Each cord is 1m3 and the device itself is 1m3. Even if the data interface was 10m3, the components that go into it don't need to be bigger than 0.1m3.
Datacores are already available through FW, so there's really no reason to also have them available through exploration. Making data cores bulky increases the hauling work required to pick them up from agents and deliver them to market. Their 1m3 size is just fine.
I'd really like CCP to reconsider the removal of data interfaces. Convert them to consumables to support Exploration. I end up leaving behind most of the components at present since they just aren't worth the hassle of picking up.
In general I agree with Mara. The removal of interfaces from invention and RE is not only pointless from a gameplay standpoint, but it will also negatively impact exploration, as well as removing the ability to choose race in Reverse Engineering. Retain them and make them consumed per run and you will boost exploration. Adjust volumes.
Needless Complexity and the Merging of Invention and Reverse Engineering The fact that interfaces behave differently in the code is utterly irrelevant and completely invisible to the inventor. We don't see that. All we see is x of item A is required to produce y of item B. But then we get all x of item A back. That is the counter-intuitive part. Make interfaces consumed per job.
I'm okay with making Invention and Reverse Engineering behave in an identical way. This makes sense and gets rid of needless complexity. But one of the stated goals is to remove the randomness from Reverse Engineering. Then you reintroduce randomness right back in with "granular" outcomes. Bad idea.
Granularity in Results I really couldn't care less about getting an average of 1/3 of 50% of my datacores back when datacores cost about 100k isk. The bonus ME on exceptionally good results is meaningful. But the entire concept of granularity in results is only adding more needless complexity just for the sake of complexity. I suggest you scrap it. It is counter to your stated goals.
INTERFACES Interfaces have been a problem child for years. But rather than being sent to the funny farm, they just need some love.
Continue to use interfaces to determine the race of the hull or subsystem BPCs. They provide a vital function in Reverse Engineering by allowing the player to choose hull/subsystem racial type.
Next, you have to decrease the volume of the required materials to something much smaller. An Esoteric Ship Data Interface requires 378 units of materials (340/.9), each one of which requires one meter per unit. The item itself has a volume of 1m3 packaged. I don't think we'll have to worry about compression issues. But please make the required materials smaller, like .1m3.
While you're at it, please make datacores smaller as well. This isn't the stone age. We aren't writing down the collected knowledge of our race on stone tablets or even magnetic tape.
RE SKILLS Why is plasma physics required for hulls? This makes no sense at all. Change this to require the relevant racial type for the matching racial hull. So if you want to get a hull BPC, you need [racial] Starship Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering. Also, why are these skills so low? Its T3. These shouldn't be level 1 requirements.
RE MATERIALS For subsystems, continue to use the interface to determine race, the relic to determine type, and use the second non-subsystem datacore to determine which subsystem will be created. Each race currently has 4 subsystems per category. You could choose to use the same datacore set across each race. But that would look weird when you're using a laser-related datacore for a Tengu or a missile-related datacore for a Proteus. I'll come up with a suggested list later.
TEAMS Oh, boy! Oh, boy! Oh, boy! I'll rush right out and bid on that team that gives me 3% ME reduction on all 3 datacores. Unless that team gives me an ME reduction on all the datacores used for an entire stack of runs at once, it will be utterly pointless.
Like others have said, reducing the time required per invention/RE job doesn't change when I get online to throw in another batch. This will mostly help those using bots to run invention jobs 24/7. However, if it reduces the time required on an entire stack of runs by a significant amount (I consider 10-20% to be significant for this) then it will be useful.
If teams give bonuses like reduced ME/TE on the resultant BPCs, then that would also be useful and meaningful.
INVENTION/RE SKILLS Currently, the difference between level 4 and 5 skills for invention is pretty pointless. The benefit of an additional 1% is far too weak. If you make the spread between level 1 and level 5 actually meaningful, I might be willing to train them to 5. This also applies to RE since you have stated that RE success formula will become the same as Invention.
Ship Invention Skills IMO Disruption ships should require Electromagnetic Engineering, and Exploration ships Electronics. EWAR uses high-power electromagnetic devices, while an advanced microscope or centrifuge is more of an electromechanical device. I won't cry if you choose not to do this. It's purely fluff.
As always, I greatly appreciate the work being done as well as the opportunity to give my input. I'm looking forward to testing this stuff out on sisi. GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥ -Grath Telkin, 2014.
Free PASTA! |
Kaydar ArX
Scorch Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 08:49:00 -
[249] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:
I have less than Max refining skills: I refine something, and sell it on the market. I make isk.
I have less than max skills in something that reduces manufacturing material costs: I make something. I cannot sell it for profit, because someone who has been around longer, and has it maxed out, has set the market value at just enough for them to make a profit, but where it's below the level I can make it at.
That's what happened with the old Production Efficiency skill. you pretty much had to have it at 5, or you couldn't compete.
Let's take another example using the proposed changes about datacores refunds. player A with low invention skills player B with max invention skills
Both of them restocks their components at Jita and invent some 2ME/4TE T2 bpcs so their manufacture costs are exactly the same. (and they build at the same station with no team)
Player A invention costs over larges invention batches can be averaged at 1m isk per T2 Bpc (10 runs) Player B with max skills get a few more datacores back when inventing so in average he's inventing the same 10runs T2 bpc for 800k isk. That's 20k isk saved per T2 item. (read CCP Ytterbitium on page 3 about granular outcome of invention working that way)
So if player B decides to, he can list those manufactured items on the market for a lower price than player A manufacture+invention costs, thus no profit could be done by player A.
Is that ok in this case?
tl,dr: CCP is removing the skill related to saving materials during manufacturing then add a system that does the exact same thing during invention. Pretty confusing...
Note that I'm not against those changes to invention! I like my skills to be relevant for profit making. But so far, the proposed changes are either dull (converting prerequisite skill to a TE bonus...) or quite contradictory to the big scheme of CCP about Industry (easing the access to industry and guaranteeing profit) |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
174
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:04:00 -
[250] - Quote
I believe that I already commented on how I thought that this was useless since players can pick and choose what data cores that they research so even if one gets used more than all others it's not a problem since more people can just start research on that type. The market will even everything out has is the capitalist motto that eve marches to.
I just posted in the dev thread in the Science and Industry section of the forums about how info on invention is currently broken and if you want to show a newbie how to do invention you basically have to use out of game resources now. If you go ahead with these changes you will make all of those out of game resources out of date and invalid to further break the instruction and learning process.
Here is the thread if you are curious on how info tabs are broken: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5048123#post5048123
This has "bad idea" all over it. It seems like changes that are changes for the sack of changing so that you can say you changed something. It seems to add nothing to game play and does not really simplify any process. It just balances data core usage which I have already pointed out does nothing for the game other than force everyone to reexamine what they have their agents researching. Oh and another market adjustment that will need to settle out. |
|
Jeann Valjean
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
45
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 18:00:00 -
[251] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:... seems like changes for the sack of changing... [and] adds nothing to game play and does not really simplify any process
This.
|
BraiZure Harloon
A-31 Violent Intent
25
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:51:00 -
[252] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Princess Mary-I wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Skills will not affect ME. Because the moment you have ME being affected, the skill becomes one required at 5. Like Production Efficiency was. CCP have stated in another thread that they do not want skills to be like that. If I get u right, then CCP don't think there should be a skill required to lvl 5 to reap the "benefits" and to be mandatory to get to lvl 5, and they have stated so in a thread. That makes no sense to me, reading that, cause was that not the reason behind the refining change? U would need all reprocessing skills to lvl 5 to reap the "benefits", and therefor becomming a mandatory skill, and if I remember right, that was in a dev blog too. Yes yes I know no none refine anymore :D but that is not the point. So maybe you can help me out here - do they want skills to be mandatory to get to lvl 5 or do they not want skills to mandatory to get to lvl 5? There's a huge difference. With refining skills, you make /less/ isk. You can still sell for profit. With a skill that reduces manufacturing costs, you can easily reach the point where, without it, you cannot make /any/ profit without it at 5.
I beg to differ. Today several ore processing skills at lvl2 without an implant make no profit off buying ore and reprocessing it. You either need a pos or implant or max skills or all of the above to compete, and this is twice the ranks needed before the change. Veldspar lvl 2 16% loss Scordite lvl 2 17% loss Omber lvl 2 11% loss Gneiss lvl 2 4% loss Dark Ochre lvl 2 9% loss Hemorphite lvl 2 15% loss Arkonor lvl 2 13% loss
That "huge difference" you speak of doesn't seem to be there from my point of view. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 02:24:00 -
[253] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:TheSmokingHertog wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Princess Mary-I wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Skills will not affect ME. Because the moment you have ME being affected, the skill becomes one required at 5. Like Production Efficiency was. CCP have stated in another thread that they do not want skills to be like that. If I get u right, then CCP don't think there should be a skill required to lvl 5 to reap the "benefits" and to be mandatory to get to lvl 5, and they have stated so in a thread. That makes no sense to me, reading that, cause was that not the reason behind the refining change? U would need all reprocessing skills to lvl 5 to reap the "benefits", and therefor becomming a mandatory skill, and if I remember right, that was in a dev blog too. Yes yes I know no none refine anymore :D but that is not the point. So maybe you can help me out here - do they want skills to be mandatory to get to lvl 5 or do they not want skills to mandatory to get to lvl 5? There's a huge difference. With refining skills, you make /less/ isk. You can still sell for profit. With a skill that reduces manufacturing costs, you can easily reach the point where, without it, you cannot make /any/ profit without it at 5. Can you both elaborate? I can not follow the refining / producing connection to skill lvl, are there not many more factors at work to talk those things? I have less than Max refining skills: I refine something, and sell it on the market. I make isk. I have less than max skills in something that reduces manufacturing material costs: I make something. I cannot sell it for profit, because someone who has been around longer, and has it maxed out, has set the market value at just enough for them to make a profit, but where it's below the level I can make it at. That's what happened with the old Production Efficiency skill. you pretty much had to have it at 5, or you couldn't compete.
You are talking out 2 sides of your mouth
If you refine, you sell and make isk - You of all people should know it is reprocessing now BTW
If you build and sell, you have to make a profit?? you can still make isk
Don't get caught up in the if I mine it, then it is free
Why is advanced industry still a pre req for cap ship const??
|
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 13:15:00 -
[254] - Quote
Multipart post incoming:
After replying to the "no materials reduction via skills ever" scream a while ago I continued to think about adding very small boni to production efficiency (material vise). The fear that having skills impact material efficiency would lead to them becoming "lvl 5 or gtfo" expressed by Steve is imho only really valid for T1 production, where the market is tight enough to reduce margins down enough, so that they can be effectively killed by screwing with deviations of a few percent or less.
BUT on the "high tech" sector (T2, T3 and roughly everything that requires more skills than Industry 1) there is still space for improvements. If you take a look at the skills needed for the production of a blueprint and their respective benefits (outside of simply being prereqs for the production task) the high tech sector is in a damn poor shape. As an example lets assume we want to make some Hawks. For manufacturing the required skills are as follows: Industry 5 Frigate Construction 5 Mechanical Engineering 1 Caldari Starship Engineering 1 Of those skills the only one giving any benefits is the generic Industry skill, granting us 20% reduced build time (wohooo, but damn, we need it at lvl 5 anyway for the jobs). Compared to invention, there is very little (read: none) motivation to train any skill higher than the bare minimum required to do the manufacturing job (disclaimer: when doing the invention yourself, you might wanna get those "utility" skills as high as justifiable to reap better invention chances. But right now we're only looking at manufacturing!).
My proposal is to add a very tiny material efficiency bonus to every science and production skill (other than the Industry skill itself) that is required in manufacturing. The initial numbers could be 0.1ME per level for science skills and 0.2ME per level for production skills.
The following overview is a breakdown of currently available blueprints and the science and production skills (minus Industry) involved (again broken down in their individual counts for every possible level):
Total blueprints: 3180 Buildable blueprints: 2791 Blueprints with 0 skills required: 1509 Blueprints with 1 skills required: 339 Blueprints with 2 skills required: 772 Blueprints with 3 skills required: 90 Blueprints with 4 skills required: 81 Blueprints with 5 skills required: 0 Average number of skills required: 0.46
Amarr Encryption Methods : 9 3 4 3 5 Amarrian Starship Engineering : 16 3 0 23 1 Battleship Construction : 1 0 0 8 0 Caldari Encryption Methods : 7 2 4 7 2 Caldari Starship Engineering : 16 3 0 23 1 Capital Ship Construction : 98 0 17 10 4 Cruiser Construction : 4 0 0 96 16 Defensive Subsystem Technology : 16 0 0 0 0 Drug Manufacturing : 16 0 8 0 8 Electromagnetic Physics : 122 16 8 45 0 Electronic Engineering : 155 15 58 53 0 Electronic Subsystem Technology : 16 0 0 0 0 Engineering Subsystem Technology : 16 0 0 0 0 Frigate Construction : 0 8 4 8 13 Gallente Encryption Methods : 5 6 3 6 3 Gallentean Starship Engineering : 20 3 0 23 1 Graviton Physics : 22 5 9 23 0 High Energy Physics : 89 5 7 18 0 Hydromagnetic Physics : 88 1 6 25 0 Industrial Construction : 4 0 4 0 0 Laser Physics : 59 10 21 12 0 Mechanical Engineering : 215 29 24 58 0 Minmatar Encryption Methods : 7 2 3 2 3 Minmatar Starship Engineering : 16 3 0 23 1 Molecular Engineering : 42 11 5 13 0 Nanite Engineering : 84 6 0 18 0 Nuclear Physics : 45 4 7 12 0 Offensive Subsystem Technology : 16 0 0 0 0 Outpost Construction : 4 0 0 0 0 Plasma Physics : 25 3 5 21 0 Propulsion Subsystem Technology : 16 0 0 0 0 Quantum Physics : 95 3 3 15 0 Rocket Science : 80 8 6 9 0 Sleeper Technology : 4 10 4 6 1 Takmahl Technology : 3 6 5 3 4 Talocan Technology : 3 7 3 5 2 Yan Jung Technology : 3 7 5 2 3
Continue below |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 13:17:00 -
[255] - Quote
Part 2/2:
The blueprints listed as "0 skills required" are those that rely solely on the Industry skill. The ones with 1 skill required outside of Industry are mainly (super)capitals, storyline items and special stuff such data interfaces etc... The bulk of T2 production goes into the "2 skills" section, always relying on 2 science skills in the case of modules, and the additional production skill for T2 ships, moving them into the "3 skills" department. The most skill intensive blueprints are those for T3 production, representing the top with 4 required skills (again, not counting the Industry skill). Looking at the requirements distribution for individual skills, you can see that many skills are in the situation, that most times they are only required at a rather low level, therefore not justifying a level-up.
Taking up the example above, we would look at a maximum ME bonus of 2 (1ME for the Frigate Construction skill and 2 * 0.5 for the 2 science skills), with an initial ME bonus of 1.1 (using the minimum skill levels required to actually build the damn thing). So the possible advantage of an all 5 toon over the minimalistic skillpoint saver would only be 0.9ME which I think is small enough in this case to not be game breaking and high enough for the dedicated producer to put training time to good use. What I am still not really happy about are those cases with already mandatory level 5 skills (the Hawk again...). Imho some level 5 skills for manufacturing purposes should be lowered to 4 (and most lvl 4 down to 3) to provide a little more spread in the achievable range of material efficiency. Take for example T3 subsystems: They require a bunch of lvl4 and 5 skills with only the respective subsystem engineering skill at level 1. So this means a ME bonus deviation between 0.8+0.4+0.4+0.1=1.7ME and 1+0.5+0.5+0.5=2.5ME, which for the high number of 4 involved skills is kinda low.
Do you think this is something worth poking CCP with or would it in your opinion create too much difference between "skilled" and "unskilled" producers? |
zendeejay
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 10:50:00 -
[256] - Quote
I have noticed while looking at the module list that there are some modules which have changed race, does anyone have any information on whether and how this will impact upon the materials required to build their T2 variants |
Ginger Barbarella
2020
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:45:00 -
[257] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Am I understanding right that the manufacture of T2 items may require different skills after the update? ... So the invention alt that I trained to make a specific item might no longer be able to make that item?
According to CCPs own chart, different items are going to require different datacores (and training up those Science skills for better success chance), so yes.
Also, if racial elements are changing in production, one can also assume that if you don't have the *now* required Amarr Encryption Methods (for example), you will have to train that also.
Which all feeds back into CCPs pocket: everything in Eve takes time, and you're paying money for that time. Gotta take 21 days (3/4 of a month's subs) to train that Amarr Encryption Methods up to L5 (or whatever) to do the same thing you could before? Tough noogie. Gotta take a month to train up all those refining skills to be able to get the same thing you could refining ore before? Tough noogie. IMHO this is yet another kick to the crotch of Industry. Not enough people spending cash on microtransactions or PLEX by exploding ships, so CCP strives to eliminate that portion of the player base. "Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac |
Ginger Barbarella
2020
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:47:00 -
[258] - Quote
Veinnail wrote:First, I think the dust has settled and the community is generally happy with the results of Crius.
You say that like we had a choice in the matter. "Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac |
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:59:00 -
[259] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:With refining skills, you make /less/ isk. You can still sell for profit.
With a skill that reduces manufacturing costs, you can easily reach the point where, without it, you cannot make /any/ profit without it at 5. So, following your logic, i guess we all need to switch to the idea that anything we mine is 'free'.
There is a positive aspect to having a barrier of entry. The more knowhow that is needed to build advanced items, means there will be more experience behind the time needed to reach that level. Smarter/more experienced players putting up the sell orders, collectively not tanking their own profit margins just for the sake of 'i want isk now' mentality. If all the new players are able to build all the advanced items, they will typically just tank the margins just because they want to sell their item 'for profit' (minerals are free, right?). Then all your effort to allow everyone to 'make profit' will be negated by the new lower price from all the less experienced players who just want their isk NEOW!
As everyone else has stated, all these changes to TE bonuses mean next to nothing for 98% (i dare to guess) of those of us who build stuff. And contrary to popular belief, it was VERY possible to still make a decent profit margin on the old system with only the lvl 4 skill, i did it all the time. As with the advanced ships requiring lvl 5 skills, it is always possible for a lower level skilled ship to beat them, it just takes a bit more effort to figure out how to overcome any 'disadvantage' the lower SP ship has vs the higher SP ship. It does not mean that we must neuter all the advanced ships/modules to only require lvl 4 (or lvl 1 in some cases).
There is also the "death to required lvl 5 skills" montra that seems prevalent. What then does this mean for all the ship skills? How many ships and modules require lvl 5 skills? How is that any different? You make more money ratting if using a more advanced ship/module, so (following CCP's logic) it seems it should be deemed 'unfair' for all the newer players to be at a disadvantage since they have not invested the weeks/months to get the advanced modules ships, yes?
Is CCP even paying attention anymore, or have they already determined exactly how they want this to go, and all of our 'feedback' is just for token sake? |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
492
|
Posted - 2014.10.05 21:43:00 -
[260] - Quote
Suggest that TE on the BPC should improve invention speed.
Also, ME on the BPC should improve invention chance of success, or reduce required number of datacores (or increase chance that datacores will not be consumed). |
|
Momiji Sakora
Omni Galactic
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 16:56:00 -
[261] - Quote
Has there been any updates regarding the suggestions?
I'd really like to see the ME/TE research levels of the BPC being used in invention having an affect on the product. Surely if you understand the base object more you're likely to have better results?
Has this already been discussed? Any roundups on what's been said so far? |
Calzan
The Graduates Forged of Fire
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 18:50:00 -
[262] - Quote
Why is the formula based on Mod Meta levels that are about to go away? I either get 1+.5/5 or 1+.5/4 and likely there's going to be lots of Meta1 modules that are cheap and highly available as they're not FOTM. I agree it's cool pre-Module Tiericide but kind of limp after. |
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 20:36:00 -
[263] - Quote
Calzan wrote:Why is the formula based on Mod Meta levels that are about to go away? I either get 1+.5/5 or 1+.5/4 and likely there's going to be lots of Meta1 modules that are cheap and highly available as they're not FOTM. I agree it's cool pre-Module Tiericide but kind of limp after.
Edit: disregard I should read the whole thing before posting. I lost the ability to use meta items in invention in Crius...there was no option for them anymore (atleast for the few items i was/am building)
Also, CCP, are you still plowing ahead with this whole variable outcome thing? If so, please re-read most of the comments in this thread that relate to said idea... |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1569
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 22:42:00 -
[264] - Quote
Apparently this so going live. Any info on suggested changes in this thread? GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour! |
Steppa Musana
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
206
|
Posted - 2014.10.11 00:25:00 -
[265] - Quote
We can collapse the top! I love you guys. Actually listening to us about the UI now. Such heroes. Hey guys. |
Calzan
The Graduates Forged of Fire
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.11 02:19:00 -
[266] - Quote
Will CCP be buying the metric ton of Data Interface BPCs that have been clogging my 'storage ships' in jita for months?
Or should I build them all to get payment? |
Kaydar ArX
Scorch Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.11 12:05:00 -
[267] - Quote
So this is going live in spite of all the negative feedbacks this thread gave? |
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
12
|
Posted - 2014.10.11 23:27:00 -
[268] - Quote
Kaydar ArX wrote:So this is going live in spite of all the negative feedbacks this thread gave? And some wonder why we even bother to give feedback anymore...i know i am...since i am paying them so that i can be an ignored beta tester...not as glamorous as it seemed at first. |
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
253
|
Posted - 2014.10.12 04:25:00 -
[269] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:TheSmokingHertog wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Princess Mary-I wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Skills will not affect ME. Because the moment you have ME being affected, the skill becomes one required at 5. Like Production Efficiency was. CCP have stated in another thread that they do not want skills to be like that. If I get u right, then CCP don't think there should be a skill required to lvl 5 to reap the "benefits" and to be mandatory to get to lvl 5, and they have stated so in a thread. That makes no sense to me, reading that, cause was that not the reason behind the refining change? U would need all reprocessing skills to lvl 5 to reap the "benefits", and therefor becomming a mandatory skill, and if I remember right, that was in a dev blog too. Yes yes I know no none refine anymore :D but that is not the point. So maybe you can help me out here - do they want skills to be mandatory to get to lvl 5 or do they not want skills to mandatory to get to lvl 5? There's a huge difference. With refining skills, you make /less/ isk. You can still sell for profit. With a skill that reduces manufacturing costs, you can easily reach the point where, without it, you cannot make /any/ profit without it at 5. Can you both elaborate? I can not follow the refining / producing connection to skill lvl, are there not many more factors at work to talk those things? I have less than Max refining skills: I refine something, and sell it on the market. I make isk. I have less than max skills in something that reduces manufacturing material costs: I make something. I cannot sell it for profit, because someone who has been around longer, and has it maxed out, has set the market value at just enough for them to make a profit, but where it's below the level I can make it at. That's what happened with the old Production Efficiency skill. you pretty much had to have it at 5, or you couldn't compete.
Thats bad for business, but makes sense... |
Backfyre
Hohmann Transfer
67
|
Posted - 2014.10.12 12:21:00 -
[270] - Quote
Have not followed the whole thread but had a thought on Data Interfaces. Saw one person mentioned using them to tweak some other job aspect. Another thing would be to make them wear out like R.A.M. The harder the job, the more wear. Then, use uncommon drops from exploration or other sites to build/repair. That would give them useful functionality, motivate people to run exploration sites, and remove ISK from the economy. Perhaps even use interfaces to guide T3 results. |
|
Agnahr
The Executives Executive Outcomes
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.12 13:41:00 -
[271] - Quote
I haven't read the whole 14 pages posted here so apologies if this was raised before. But I agree with some comments that giving an improved TE for invention won't make a great deal of difference. However having different ME is going to be a pain in the back side rather than a bonus unless the changes comes with an easy way to calculate total bill of materials.
At the moment it's easy. To invent tech II mods, I use no descriptor leading to blueprints with a ME of -2 and TE of -4. So I look at one blueprint, multiply the required input of materials by 10 runs and then by the number of blueprints I have to know how much raw material to buy. I can then go to a trade hub and by everything I need.
Wit the proposed change, I'll have some blueprints with 3 different ME. This will lead to tedious sums with possibility of errors, leading to time wasted going back to buy the stuff I got wrong. I don't see that as enjoyable game play.
Of course I can invest some time to make a fancy spreadsheet or hope that someone makes a nice third party tool for me. But in my view it would be much better if the Industry window can tell me what I need directly. At the moment I can select one blueprint and the top half of the Industry window shows what the materials I must have and in what quantity. A simple solution would be the ability to select multiple blueprints of the same type and the top half of the window shows me the total requirement for each material. And it'd be even better if I can install all those jobs in one go too. |
Hulk Miner
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 18:14:00 -
[272] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:
Here a brief overview of the proposed changes (which are not coming with Oceanus):
To invent Tech-2 items you require for each invented item a set of two specific science skills. Which skills you exactly need will be changed. For ships you always needed the Mechanical Engineering skill, that is going to change depending on the role of the invented ship.
I have specialized characters in invention skilled in a certain way and these may now become defunct until I skill up another random skill?
So will the same apply to invention as it did battle cruisers and destroyers, if you can do it now you will be able to do it after the changes and give me the other skill needed to the level I have it now?
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
58
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 18:23:00 -
[273] - Quote
Hulk Miner wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:
Here a brief overview of the proposed changes (which are not coming with Oceanus):
To invent Tech-2 items you require for each invented item a set of two specific science skills. Which skills you exactly need will be changed. For ships you always needed the Mechanical Engineering skill, that is going to change depending on the role of the invented ship. I have specialized characters in invention skilled in a certain way and these may now become defunct until I skill up another random skill? So will the same apply to invention as it did battle cruisers and destroyers, if you can do it now you will be able to do it after the changes and give me the other skill needed to the level I have it now?
pretty much it means that you can build it right now, but its changing and you will need to skill up additional skills to get back what you can build right now.
he's just created a huge skill up grind for everyone across the board when it comes to invention and whats even worse hasn't kept the thread updated nor even discussed what the official changes are!. this is terrible customer service no wonder folks continue to get fed up and leave the game. |
Agnahr
The Executives Executive Outcomes
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 20:21:00 -
[274] - Quote
Momiji Sakora wrote:Has there been any updates regarding the suggestions?
Has this already been discussed? Any roundups on what's been said so far?
The last DEV post was on page 9, so it looks like CCP is no longer interested in this thread...
I'll share some further thoughts on this anyway. With the last research and industrial changes, what I observed is that
- the production cost have increased by as much as 30% in some cases because of the re-balancing of the bill of materials. This led to smaller margin.
- the production time was reduced, and the concept of slot was removed. This led to quicker turn around, hence more items on the market. More items means more competition, which leads to even smaller margin.
CCP is now proposing to hit invention a second time. Wtih the decrease in the success rate, more datacores and decrytors will be needed to achieve the same number of tech II blueprints. Also we'll be able to set 10 inventions run in one go as opposed to just one. So if your inventions take 3 hours, after 30 hours, you should have 5 blueprints (taking a 50% chance of success to keep simple). Sounds great, no? But again reduce success rate AND a bigger turn around, will put an even greater pressure on the datacores. More demands for those items means higher prices and quicker turn around will cause yet more competitions and margins squished even further.
In short, inventions may become just a hobby or for the well organised corps with poses and teams at their services. Maybe I should run data sites, at least I might make some good money out of datacores.
But who cares, CCP don't read responses to their posts...
|
Suzuka A1
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
38
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 15:52:00 -
[275] - Quote
Quote:Dev Blog: "Stay tuned for more and expect threads to appear on the GÇ£Features & Ideas DiscussionGÇ¥ to discuss specific points mentioned in this blog with time."
...still waiting.
Also, still waiting for confirmation that CCP has some strategy to reimburse Data Interface BPCs for those of us who bought large amounts of them off the market...and can't possibly build all of them by Nov 4th due to the 20 hour build times/run. Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H-á What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626 |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
58
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 22:01:00 -
[276] - Quote
Suzuka A1 wrote:Quote:Dev Blog: "Stay tuned for more and expect threads to appear on the GÇ£Features & Ideas DiscussionGÇ¥ to discuss specific points mentioned in this blog with time." ...still waiting. Also, still waiting for confirmation that CCP has some strategy to reimburse Data Interface BPCs for those of us who bought large amounts of them off the market...and can't possibly build all of them by Nov 4th due to the 20 hour build times/run.
he's not saying jack cause he's allowing time to click on down to the very last minute in order to avoid a invention level debate or thread of rage about the changes.
so countdown begins!.. this mess is about to go live without feedback from its fanbase.. no further mention of the changes being made.. just some 3rd party app crap..
|
Je'ron
The Happy Shooters
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 19:26:00 -
[277] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
How much lead time are you going to give us? I need > 120 days of training to be able to invent and produce the same items at the succes rate as I'm currently making. That is on a char mapped for science And how commitment are you going to us? Because if you change while I'm training you **** me again. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
64
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 00:11:00 -
[278] - Quote
Je'ron wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. How much lead time are you going to give us? I need > 120 days of training to be able to invent and produce the same items at the succes rate as I'm currently making. That is on a char mapped for science And how commitment are you going to us? Because if you change while I'm training you **** me again.
we still get no response from him after us asking for more info over and over again. invention what you can make now .. better be your top priority and stock up before his change goes live cause its a mess. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4052
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 05:29:00 -
[279] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Je'ron wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. How much lead time are you going to give us? I need > 120 days of training to be able to invent and produce the same items at the succes rate as I'm currently making. That is on a char mapped for science And how commitment are you going to us? Because if you change while I'm training you **** me again. we still get no response from him after us asking for more info over and over again. invention what you can make now .. better be your top priority and stock up before his change goes live cause its a mess.
As for the 'how much time' http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/coming-to-eve-online-in-the-phoebe-release-on-november-4th/ Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
ORLICZ
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 10:32:00 -
[280] - Quote
wtf ???
so now i ll have 100 different t2 bpc my damage control II ?? me 2% te 3% or me 3% te 2% ... etc ? click click wtf??? where is mine ME 10% BPC :P
solution: show ME and TE on bpc icon and ad stacking bpc
and stuff from exploration should be valuable - solution: less sites with exploration
|
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
4960
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:18:05 -
[281] - Quote
Proposal for multiple outcomes to Invention:
- Success (exceptional): 50% of datacores returned
- Success (great): 25% of datacores returned
- Success (good): 10% of datacores returned
- Success (standard): no datacore returned
- Failure (standard): 10 run BPC of a random meta version is produced
- Failure (poor): 5 run BPC of a random meta version is produced
- Failure (terrible): 1 run BPC of a random meta version is produced
- Failure (critical): no results
This will avoid incoherent manufacturing time and material requirements when producing larger batches of T2 items while still retaining a significant return for fringe results.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
16
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 22:23:32 -
[282] - Quote
So....any word yet?
Or are you just planning to bludgeon this change straight through regardless of what most of the feedback is begging you to do? |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
66
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 23:34:55 -
[283] - Quote
Lil' Brudder Too wrote:So....any word yet?
Or are you just planning to bludgeon this change straight through regardless of what most of the feedback is begging you to do?
dude hasn't even responded since creating the thread, I think he's forgotten about it. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4069
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 01:14:17 -
[284] - Quote
There's another devblog coming, with updates.
Woo! CSM 9!
http://fuzzwork.enterprises/
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
16
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 01:52:01 -
[285] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:There's another devblog coming, with updates.
Yes, we were told Soon(tm)....a month ago...
I don't know if you remember, but a while back CCP "promised" to take huge steps forward in their communication with this community....There has not been a single Dev response in this "feedback" thread for 37 days. Which is troubling when one considers that they also had a goal of having all this info out to us in time to get good testing time before release. (re-read OP)
It really would not be very hard for just a single person from the team involved to read and respond to concerns brought up in their respective 'feedback' threads. Really, it wouldn't. My guess is maybe 1 hour (if that) of work time every other day would generally be sufficient to cover the basic communication needs. But narry a peep in over a month is not what most people would consider 'good communication'.
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
66
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 18:41:39 -
[286] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:There's another devblog coming, with updates.
yea it did.. how to sell your s***t...
they post about the new sell items interface. nothing at all on the invention CHANGES!... big frigging changes to invention.. and he's ignored it..
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4069
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 19:32:48 -
[287] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:There's another devblog coming, with updates. yea it did.. how to sell your s***t... they post about the new sell items interface. nothing at all on the invention CHANGES!... big frigging changes to invention.. and he's ignored it..
Not the dev blog I was referring to. There is more than a single development stream you know.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5133468#post5133468 refers to it.
Woo! CSM 9!
http://fuzzwork.enterprises/
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
66
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 19:47:26 -
[288] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:There's another devblog coming, with updates. yea it did.. how to sell your s***t... they post about the new sell items interface. nothing at all on the invention CHANGES!... big frigging changes to invention.. and he's ignored it.. Not the dev blog I was referring to. There is more than a single development stream you know. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5133468#post5133468 refers to it.
you guys are there discussing the invention outcome, parsing, tic for tac never mind geek mess.. we're talking about whats here on the INFO portal.. where it was stated the skills required to build the friggin item was changing.. not spreadsheet warrior madness on a different channel.. you guys need to get it together and stop posting multiple links all around this site and have one solid comprehensive information portal. I should not have to hunt for information...what is this.. eve online should be difficult to even locate information on an upcoming change?? no wonder folks are leaving!..
|
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
16
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 22:42:09 -
[289] - Quote
Yes. Because all industry players read all the 3rd party developer kit threads that pop up. How about answering questions related to the blog that said thread is supposed to give feedback for? Why would i look under the forum section devoted to "player tools and applications" for information about the invention changes?
And why post only in that thread 2 days ago talking about the possible updates...when they haven't posted in THE THREAD DEDICATED TO INVENTION FEEDBACK for well over 30 days?
And then we as players attempting to give feedback get yelled at by dev's/csm's for "giving the wrong dev's feedback for stuff that is 'not their area"....can you understand our frustration? |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
66
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 23:20:26 -
[290] - Quote
Lil' Brudder Too wrote:Yes. Because all industry players read all the 3rd party developer kit threads that pop up. How about answering questions related to the blog that said thread is supposed to give feedback for? Why would i look under the forum section devoted to "player tools and applications" for information about the invention changes? And why post only in that thread 2 days ago talking about the possible updates...when they haven't posted in THE THREAD DEDICATED TO INVENTION FEEDBACK for well over 30 days? And then we as players attempting to give feedback get yelled at by dev's/csm's for "giving the wrong dev's feedback for stuff that is 'not their area"....can you understand our frustration?
lol exactly... there you have it folks your own csm dude.. says look somewhere else for information although the dev posted a thread here about the changes coming.. yet doesn't talk about that.. epic fail on proper forum usage for all of us... |
|
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
330
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 01:48:33 -
[291] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Proposal for multiple outcomes to Invention:
- Success (exceptional): 50% of datacores returned
- Success (great): 25% of datacores returned
- Success (good): 10% of datacores returned
- Success (standard): no datacore returned
- Failure (standard): 10 run BPC of a random meta version is produced
- Failure (poor): 5 run BPC of a random meta version is produced
- Failure (terrible): 1 run BPC of a random meta version is produced
- Failure (critical): no results
This will avoid incoherent manufacturing time and material requirements when producing larger batches of T2 items while still retaining a significant return for fringe results. ^^ CCP, if you want multiple degrees of success, listen to this man. |
Maco Mirta
South Rapids Trading
9
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 10:58:15 -
[292] - Quote
These changes look neat, and Im looking forwad to them |
Je'ron
The Happy Shooters
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 18:30:28 -
[293] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:Je'ron wrote:... How much lead time are you going to give us? I need > 120 days of training to be able to invent and produce the same items at the succes rate as I'm currently making. That is on a char mapped for science And how commitment are you going to us? Because if you change while I'm training you **** me again. we still get no response from him after us asking for more info over and over again. invention what you can make now .. better be your top priority and stock up before his change goes live cause its a mess. As for the 'how much time' http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/coming-to-eve-online-in-the-phoebe-release-on-november-4th/
The link you posted doesn't include actual details about the content for the category Invention. It does refer to this
LIGHTING THE INVENTION BULB wrote: ... However, Crius was so extensive that we just couldnGÇÖt fit all the changes we had planned in one go. Now, as the dust begins to settle, time has come to close the loop with two industry professions that were left out, namely Invention and Reverse Engineering.
Also, in an effort to give players time to adjust, please note that those changes are not planned for Oceanus and will be delivered at a later date.
Which isn't clear about "a later date" either.
So my question stand: I want to know how much lead time CCP is going to give us given that I need ~4 months training to recover from the skills reshuffling they plan to do for inventions |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
71
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 22:35:47 -
[294] - Quote
Je'ron wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:Je'ron wrote:... How much lead time are you going to give us? I need > 120 days of training to be able to invent and produce the same items at the succes rate as I'm currently making. That is on a char mapped for science And how commitment are you going to us? Because if you change while I'm training you **** me again. we still get no response from him after us asking for more info over and over again. invention what you can make now .. better be your top priority and stock up before his change goes live cause its a mess. As for the 'how much time' http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/coming-to-eve-online-in-the-phoebe-release-on-november-4th/ The link you posted doesn't include actual details about the content for the category Invention. It does refer to this LIGHTING THE INVENTION BULB wrote: ... However, Crius was so extensive that we just couldnGÇÖt fit all the changes we had planned in one go. Now, as the dust begins to settle, time has come to close the loop with two industry professions that were left out, namely Invention and Reverse Engineering.
Also, in an effort to give players time to adjust, please note that those changes are not planned for Oceanus and will be delivered at a later date.
Which isn't clear about "a later date" either. So my question stand: I want to know how much lead time CCP is going to give us given that I need ~4 months training to recover from the skills reshuffling they plan to do for inventions
going by the dev blog.. dated 9/21.. the timer began then.. I think they need to push this off and deal with neural remap changes so we can not have to deal with waiting a year to speed this epic grind up in preparation for his change.
|
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
21
|
Posted - 2014.10.27 21:28:35 -
[295] - Quote
Soon(tm).....
Sooo, i guess they don't really want any more feedback on any changes they may or may not be making to this...because they are sorta running out of time to get constructive feedback before its too late to change it before release...
Seriously...please explain to us why we should continue bothering attempting to communicate with CCP, when they seem to have no desire to follow through with their commitment to improve their communication with us. |
Damjan Fox
Fox Industries and Exploration
47
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 11:51:22 -
[296] - Quote
Quote:Sooo, i guess they don't really want any more feedback on any changes they may or may not be making to this...because they are sorta running out of time to get constructive feedback before its too late to change it before release...
Seriously...please explain to us why we should continue bothering attempting to communicate with CCP, when they seem to have no desire to follow through with their commitment to improve their communication with us.
Sadly seems that way, with the latest CCP response in this thread being 2 months old. |
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity
55
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 14:46:05 -
[297] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Abrazzar wrote:Proposal for multiple outcomes to Invention:
- Success (exceptional): 50% of datacores returned
- Success (great): 25% of datacores returned
- Success (good): 10% of datacores returned
- Success (standard): no datacore returned
- Failure (standard): 10 run BPC of a random meta version is produced
- Failure (poor): 5 run BPC of a random meta version is produced
- Failure (terrible): 1 run BPC of a random meta version is produced
- Failure (critical): no results
This will avoid incoherent manufacturing time and material requirements when producing larger batches of T2 items while still retaining a significant return for fringe results. ^^ CCP, if you want multiple degrees of success, listen to this man. So after one source of junk BPCs was finally removed (Data Interfaces) you want to add a much bigger one?
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Jeann Valjean
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
45
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 23:55:10 -
[298] - Quote
Just wanted to come back here and thank CCP/CSM for taking everyones concerns with multiple ME/TE outcomes into consideration:
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/invention-updates/
|
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan
77
|
Posted - 2014.11.13 01:19:16 -
[299] - Quote
Lil' Brudder Too wrote:Yes. Because all industry players read all the 3rd party developer kit threads that pop up. How about answering questions related to the blog that said thread is supposed to give feedback for? Why would i look under the forum section devoted to "player tools and applications" for information about the invention changes? And why post only in that thread 2 days ago talking about the possible updates...when they haven't posted in THE THREAD DEDICATED TO INVENTION FEEDBACK for well over 30 days? And then we as players attempting to give feedback get yelled at by dev's/csm's for "giving the wrong dev's feedback for stuff that is 'not their area"....can you understand our frustration? I am familiar with your frustration. I know it may be difficult to be patient with all involved parties, but give it time... hopefully, they will come through for us.
|
Adare Darmazaf
Anemos Research
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 22:35:59 -
[300] - Quote
I used todo invention. I could reasonably follow that. I'm dutch so english is not my native language. So its hard for me to follow all the tech talk. But now it seems I cant get higher then the old ME=2/TE=4. While I have the idea that ME=7/TE=14 is available for every T2 invention using the right tools. Am I correct?
I dont get those teams. Seems like some auction. Not a feature I welcome. I hear from different people that they dont get it anymore.Invention I mean.
Not all people are nerds :) although they wanne play with invention.
Is there a simple explenation as to the route to max ME invention
|
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4334
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 22:44:27 -
[301] - Quote
Adare Darmazaf wrote:I used todo invention. I could reasonably follow that. I'm dutch so english is not my native language. So its hard for me to follow all the tech talk. But now it seems I cant get higher then the old ME=2/TE=4. While I have the idea that ME=7/TE=14 is available for every T2 invention using the right tools. Am I correct?
I dont get those teams. Seems like some auction. Not a feature I welcome. I hear from different people that they dont get it anymore.Invention I mean.
Not all people are nerds :) although they wanne play with invention.
Is there a simple explenation as to the route to max ME invention
2/4 is the base.
To get better, you have to use a decryptor. it's often not worth it.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Adare Darmazaf
Anemos Research
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:20:28 -
[302] - Quote
lol, so your saying the whole invention revamp is for naught?
Then they shouldnt have changed it. At least I understood it and had some fun. |
Eodp Ellecon
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
14
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 11:34:40 -
[303] - Quote
As stated ME 2 / TE 4 is the new standard result.
The reason for ME 2 is so that even with a decryptor in use you never go back into negative (-) ME.
The ME 7 / TE 14 you are seeing is a 1x artifact of the conversion of all BPC's so that there were no negative BP statistics around the time of the Crius release.
|
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan
79
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 10:17:19 -
[304] - Quote
The Evelopedia invention page is crying for an update, though not loudly enough I guess. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [one page] |