|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Winthorp
2709
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 22:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
Source: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/lighting-the-invention-bulb/
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?
EDIT: They are also adding decryptor usage and a 40% reduction in RE % rates you can expect your current cheap T3 costs to change. |
Winthorp
2709
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 23:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
Icarus Able wrote:Um...So they want to make all the subsystems useful. Therefore making all of them wanted by some people, and your logic is that noone will build them or want them....
Im really confused.
My logic is this change to RE dos not go hand in hand with them making every subsystem usefull in the future and there is now concern that won't happen.
Please read again before derping. |
Winthorp
2709
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 23:27:00 -
[3] - Quote
Icarus Able wrote:Winthorp wrote:Icarus Able wrote:Um...So they want to make all the subsystems useful. Therefore making all of them wanted by some people, and your logic is that noone will build them or want them....
Im really confused. My logic is this change to RE dos not go hand in hand with them making every subsystem usefull in the future and there is now concern that won't happen. Please read again before derping. How do they not go hand in hand? Making all the subs useful and being able to choose the sub you make have no connection...
/Sigh... OK.
The change is made from short term goals due to the heavy whining from people that make subsystems and continually get subsystem BPC's that never get built due to the profit margins, so this change is a play to that so they can avoid unprofitable susbs.
If in the future there was changes to subsystems so they are all useful then this change wouldn't be needed as the builder would be happy with a variable chance based system.
See my concern now? Short term this change suits me greatly, long term it leads towards they either havn't spoken with other CCP teams that would be working on T3 changes now or in the future or the future changes just won't be happening. |
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 02:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:As long as I can still buy Proteus' in Jita it's fine.
See they will always be there, what concerns me is nothing will change about them and we will have the same ****** subs forever. |
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 07:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ya Huei wrote:So,
two changes
1. RE allows making of specific BPC 2. Rebalance of subs to make them all useful
If 1 happens but not 2, you will no longer waste time/isk on shitsubsystem bpc's anymore so you should be happy if 1 AND 2 happen you get the added benefit of being able to use all your stored "**** bpc's" so you should be happy if 2 happens but not 1 you will be able to use your "**** bpc's" so you should be happy if neither happens, you should be happy because CCP already gave us all these lovely Hyperion changes.
Did I get that right?
You fail to grasp the entire point of this thread.
I will adapt regardless just as my post suggests. I have a stupid amount of ISK
Pro tip: this post is about future T3 rebalance and is it happening? Should we start discussing it seriously now to avoid a Hyperion level expansion?
And given that they are letting sov null know the timetable of their changes now i think we deserve being told when our T3's are to be rebalanced as we didn't get any warning our entire way of life was getting rebalanced in Hyperion.
For the source on how much notice they have been given and how much input they are getting compared to WH space: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=372889 |
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 07:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
Asayanami Dei wrote:
Such is the development process. I imagine things will be much more clear after the summit next week.
Considering it has already been stated that the majority of the summit will be concerning sov null i wouldn't hold your breath. |
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 08:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
Asayanami Dei wrote:Winthorp wrote:Asayanami Dei wrote:
Such is the development process. I imagine things will be much more clear after the summit next week.
Considering it has already been stated that the majority of the summit will be concerning sov null i wouldn't hold your breath. https://i.imgflip.com/85j5j.jpg
Are you that mad i said you should resign that you fail to even discuss a serious issue?
I understand NDA but that is not the issue here and you are just being a giant ****.
|
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:17:00 -
[8] - Quote
Loki O'Grady wrote:Winthorp wrote:Asayanami Dei wrote:
Such is the development process. I imagine things will be much more clear after the summit next week.
Considering it has already been stated that the majority of the summit will be concerning sov null i wouldn't hold your breath. Considering that CCP have moved to ten releases per year and the summits remain at two per year, wouldn't it be fair to assume that this next summit will cover more than just what will be in Oceanus?
When did i say the summit will be all about Oceanus? Sure just make stuff up.... |
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:18:00 -
[9] - 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 this change we should just ignore this as i guess RE changes won't affect WH space at all. |
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 13:34:00 -
[10] - Quote
grr fixing post |
|
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 13:51:00 -
[11] - Quote
Angie Chatter wrote:Winthorp wrote: They are also adding decryptor usage and a 40% reduction in RE % rates you can expect your current cheap T3 costs to change.
Your math is off, a ~40% chance reduction, while being able to select the resulting sub, results in reduced RE cost. Nearly 75% of all groups have only 2 "good" subs and the rest have either just 1 or 3. Examples: NOW: two "good" subs per group: 82% x 50% = 41% one "good" sub per group: 82% x 25% = 21% NEW: 82% - 40% = 42% So we get a 1% gain compared to the common two "good" subs groups case and a 21% gain in the rarer 1 "good" sub scenario. This is even without taking the new Decryptors into account. So this change will actually lower RE cost across the board, especially for Caldari subs, since the expansive racial interface will be gone. On the other hand RE cost for most subs make up only about 5-20% of the total costs, so given those numbers mainly the subs in the "one good per group" will maybe drop by 1-5m. For T3 hulls, this change will actually increase RE cost, but hulls have very low RE cost anyway around 2.5%, so i expect no change at all in this case. just my 2 cents
The below is from the devblog, i honestly am to lazy to math that up.
That means a 20% chance drop when inventing Tech II Blueprint copies if you were using a Meta 4 item, and approximately 40% chance drop when inventing Tech III blueprint copies with maximum skills. While that is quite a lot in practice, this is not set in stone yet and we have a lot of changes coming in to mitigate that.
We are compensating the success chance decrease by:
Having Decryptors now affect Tech III blueprints as well, allowing you to impact their ME and TE levels. Having Teams affect Invention ME and TE inputs, which can shave Datacore costs down. And more importantly, by the changes that are explained below, so we encourage you to keep reading.
|
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 14:03:00 -
[12] - Quote
What i find of concern also is that if they see the subsystem market depress which i think it clearly will without a subsystem rebalance then they are more then happy to just mess with Melted Nano Ribbons drop rates.
Will they even look at the consequences of this good or bad to WH player income or just how the HS industrialist is concerned, who they have just done the RE rework for. And to mess with the MNR's drop rate to fix a subsystem slump will artificially affect T3 hull prices. |
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 14:09:00 -
[13] - Quote
Nash MacAllister wrote:Winthorp wrote:that was more your butthurt new associate that wants to ignore a serious concern thread and use it as a platform to troll people that asked him to resign. I am glad i made him mad though he has overcompensated with lots of stupid forum posting the last day or so... Ok, so let me get this straight. We have an actual engaging conversation going on with not 1, but 2 of "our" CSM representatives, who are actively discussing the concerns with CCP, and this is the **** you are going to keep going on and on about? I don't know you at all except from your posts but seriously, stop doing w-space any favors, STFU, and let the adults talk if you can't be one of them... Please continue with the discussion esteemed CSM reps.
No Corbexx was discussing it, the new guy didn't engage in any serious discussion at all and is only interested in continuing a personal gripe.
If Asay would actually like to comment on anything i have brought up other then to just troll with imgur links then sure i can drop it too...
Maybe you would actually like to add something other then that to the issue Nash?... Nope ok.... |
Winthorp
2713
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 21:58:00 -
[14] - Quote
Nash MacAllister wrote:Winthorp wrote: Maybe you would actually like to add something other then that to the issue Nash?... Nope ok....
I and I am sure everyone else here appreciates your continually enlightening commentary. And far be it from me to even suggest you are the participant with the actual issue, creating the problem here. That would be, as I like to say, "crazy talk". I prefer to consider what is being said, assess what I think about it, then decide if I would like to add something to the discussion. At this point I will stick to sitting on the sidelines as there are folks much more knowledgeable than I on the topic still adding to the discussion. But thank you for your concern on my participatory level.
I said that thinking there was in fact much you could add to the debate, you live in low end WH space where the sites that most of the product used in reverse engineering could come from.
Currently i am not sure much of the product comes from low end Wh space due to its value and time wasted in acquiring them. Now you have a situation where that income is going to be affected and MNR's drop rates are likely to be adjusted when the subsystem market crashes. Being that MNR's are the biggest part of low end WH income i would have thought this affects your members greatly and you have nothing to add surprises me.
Seriously why did i bother when people just carry on like pork chops. Corbexx read it that's enough for me i suppose i will just mail him from now on. And when ignorant people wake up and changes are too late and MNR drop rates have been messed with to suit an industry change with no thought to how that affects players living in WH's i guess you can all deal with that.
And done... |
Winthorp
2713
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 01:30:00 -
[15] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Winthorp wrote:Source: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/lighting-the-invention-bulb/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 Subsystem BPC's i have? EDIT: They are also adding decryptor usage and a 40% reduction in RE % rates you can expect your current cheap T3 costs to change. the problem with statements like this is it assumes the devs spent time deliberately creating sub-par subsystems for what was at the time their latest 'jesus feature'. I don't think anyone ever thought they should just create inferior stuff like that, it just ended up that way because of the way the game works. For example if gates just threw you to a random spot in the target system like a giant catapult then having warp speed subs or agility subs makes a lot more sense for travel purposes. If Overheating subs had been designed around burst combat with the highest DPS loadouts available for the ship class then they might be one of the most used solo/small fleet subs instead of literally the least used. If logi wasn't so powerful (or rather if cap stability was significantly harder to achieve) then the RR sub might come in to its own in a t3 fleet. little things here and there that seem silly in isolated cases but in the overall context of the game there are some design decisions that force the playerbase to behave a certain way, hence gatecamps, hence wardecs, hence sov, hence ragerolling, hence deployable bubbles, hence industry overhaul, hence FW overhaul, hence ship rebalancing and many more hence cases ad nauseum. the bigger picture is a massive spiderweb of inter-related cause and effect matrices and when designing new things its really rather crucial to consider how the impact of a new introduction will affect every related field. I'm glad to see our modern devs are much more enlightened about this than previous dev teams and I think they cop unnecessarily large amounts of flak for their work when the only answer today is to iterate. Even if CCP is going broke today, it was broke and on the skin of its arse before EVE even launched and with that the game can still be turned around. End game ships like T3's and their production needs the utmost understanding of every other facet of the game before an attempt can be made. or in the words of the immortal Chairman Sheng-ji Yang Quote:Technological advance is an inherently iterative process. One does not simply take sand from the beach and produce a Dataprobe. We use crude tools to fashion better tools, and then our better tools to fashion more precise tools, and so on. Each minor refinement is a step in the process, and all of the steps must be taken.
Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Looking God in the Eye"
To be fair i didn't say they got designed to be **** and i agree this evolved over time due to other factors of gameplay. I don't dare to say i have all the answers as to how they should be either but i will say this, the way to increase their value is not to arbitrarily mess with MNR drop rates to increase their value like they are willing to do it seems.
My hope is this RE patch is a little while off and the CSM can explain to CCP the related outcomes of this change if it isn't introduced at the same time as a Subsystem/T3 rebalance.
When looking at the T3 saga of a re balance they will need to look at all areas of EVE to make them useful and not just WH space i agree with you on that as WH space is a smaller market of consumers to T3's even if they feature heavily in our Meta.
|
|
|
|