Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
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. |
Icarus Able
Revenant Tactical
479
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 23:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
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. |
Winthorp
2709
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 23:05:00 -
[3] - 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. |
Icarus Able
Revenant Tactical
479
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 23:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
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...
|
Winthorp
2709
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 23:27:00 -
[5] - 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. |
Louis Catcher
J-Space BrotherHood Zombie Pony Express
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 01:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
Hmm... I myself get almost 100% of my income through subsystems, i get all nanoribbs, relic loot and data loot myself or through the corp, i normally trade my blue loot through my corp for more material. This makes me very very concerned. Will i have to take down my manufacturing pos or not?
The general knowledge about subs at the moment is that they will increase in price, therefore you should hold on to your precious subs right? Now if they let us choose bpc then the price would decrease dramatically as those nanobot and good offensive systems will be increased in masses :(
Thats how I would interpret it I am probably wrong but hey lets just let ccp screw us over even more shall we? |
Jack Miton
Isogen 5
3792
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 02:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
As long as I can still buy Proteus' in Jita it's fine. Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/ |
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 02:52:00 -
[8] - 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. |
Glyndi
Doom Generation THE H0NEYBADGER
246
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 03:14:00 -
[9] - Quote
Sounds like they are making changes to how they are made which kind of goes with the whole industry releases. How could you possibly tin foil that into them not changing subs? This is what's called "jumping to conclusions".
I mean, I get a person could now just make the "good" sub while avoiding the potential for one of the **** ones.
Either way, seems like a stretch. |
HerrBert
V0LTA Triumvirate.
513
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 03:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
I will post this written schnapshot of schei+ƒe that ccp has to deal with.
- Pos - Tech3 - Wormhole "PvE" - Incursions - Faction Warfare???? GO BLASTER SUPREMACY - Jita - Nullsec - Did I mention Pos? - Drones - Supercapitals - Jump Bridges - Roles and Asset Management - That fugging door - Legion (that one ... ha) - Next CCP Guard Song (still waiting for the record) - The Trailer for ... Kronos? - Fixing MONUMENT NAME FINDER - BETA* (if that Intern is still working on it) - Solid Wormhole Forum (just saying) - Scanning - Wormhole "Management" and Mapping Tool - Next Level Burner Missions - 6/10 and the story of the silly loot drops - Blitzing 10 / 10 oh wait .. actually blitzing any kind of mission or the "static" thing of missions in general (something something hard coded but Fozzie said things will come) - Waterboarding - TiDi (this just roll with it mentality is stressful, it clearly doesnt work in your favor and by that i mean ccp, more money could have burned) - "Station infestion of nullsec, by that i mean that the station coverage out in null is better then in Empire" - "More null to null connections"
and so on and on and on...
still love the changes to the fleet mechanics (non warp and management are dreams) Community-Challenge: Make Jack Miton sing a Duett with me. http://www.youtube.com/user/HerrBertism Jibbychiggawooooow - CSM 9 Corbexx
|
|
Maduin Shi
Perkone Caldari State
100
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 05:21:00 -
[11] - Quote
Glyndi wrote:Sounds like they are making changes to how they are made which kind of goes with the whole industry releases. How could you possibly tin foil that into them not changing subs? This is what's called "jumping to conclusions".
I mean, I get a person could now just make the "good" sub while avoiding the potential for one of the **** ones.
Either way, seems like a stretch.
I think this is the proper take. If anything, the fact that they're making changes to RE means that the subsystem rebalance is going to happen and its going to happen soon.
This may be a case of CCP doing things in an unexpected order because invention was sorta broken with Crius and folding in RE changes ahead of subs rebalancing was simply more convenient for the devs.
That said I hope our CSMs are on top of this. |
Ghenghis Kralj
Big Johnson's Dominatus Atrum Mortis
29
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 06:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
I am not sure I agree. The production/RE side is a separate issue. Let's get that done. I would also be guessing that it's a completely different team handling it.
I am not expecting any changes for T3 pricing. Yes, you have a lower probability of success, but you can use decryptors and actually RE stuff you want. At the end of the day, you'll end up at the same point.
Could be wrong. |
Kirasten
No Vacancies
84
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 06:12:00 -
[13] - Quote
After the way they handled the wormhole changes, am I alone in my fear of them touching t3s? |
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
97
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 07:30:00 -
[14] - Quote
Winthorp wrote: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. Sadly it is more like: Ishtar-another BS pass-Ishtar-Recons and bombers (and hopefully coverops thanks to midslotscanmodules)-Ishtar and EAFs- T3s....
And while I do not agree with Winthorp, this part of the devblog worried me, too. 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. This sounds alot like tenguparts too good, make them cheaper to produce to "balance it".
Also the Pre-Summit-0.0-thread is a slap in the face of the wormhole community |
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
181
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 07:32:00 -
[15] - Quote
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?
|
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 07:43:00 -
[16] - 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 |
Asayanami Dei
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
751
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 07:46:00 -
[17] - Quote
Maduin Shi wrote:Glyndi wrote:Sounds like they are making changes to how they are made which kind of goes with the whole industry releases. How could you possibly tin foil that into them not changing subs? This is what's called "jumping to conclusions".
I mean, I get a person could now just make the "good" sub while avoiding the potential for one of the **** ones.
Either way, seems like a stretch. I think this is the proper take. If anything, the fact that they're making changes to RE means that the subsystem rebalance is going to happen and its going to happen soon. This may be a case of CCP doing things in an unexpected order because invention was sorta broken with Crius and folding in RE changes ahead of subs rebalancing was simply more convenient for the devs. That said I hope our CSMs are on top of this.
Such is the development process. I imagine things will be much more clear after the summit next week. I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I-- THE CAPACITOR IS EMPTY Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/asayanami Twitter: https://twitter.com/Asayanami Twitch: http://www.twitch.tv/Asayanami
|
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 07:49:00 -
[18] - 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. |
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
181
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 08:06:00 -
[19] - Quote
What makes you think that T3 rebalance will not happen ? There is no reason to assume CCP will decide to ignore that ship class but do all the other ones ? that is just silly.
What I can predict however is that there will be a massive outcry when it does happen because the nerfbat will strike hard. |
Asayanami Dei
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
751
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 08:23:00 -
[20] - Quote
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 I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I-- THE CAPACITOR IS EMPTY Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/asayanami Twitter: https://twitter.com/Asayanami Twitch: http://www.twitch.tv/Asayanami
|
|
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 08:26:00 -
[21] - 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 ****.
|
Maduin Shi
Perkone Caldari State
100
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:01:00 -
[22] - Quote
I did hear from Fozzie amongst the wormhole podcasts that some kind of nerf to armor tanked proteus fits is "a safe bet". I'll pull up that podcast and listen to it again to confirm. Can't remember if he was talking about subsystems generally or about the Proteus in particular (or both). |
Asayanami Dei
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
751
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:06:00 -
[23] - Quote
Given that the schedule of the summit has not been posted your assumptions are far fetched to say the least. Like i say, there will be more to discuss after the summit. I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I-- THE CAPACITOR IS EMPTY Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/asayanami Twitter: https://twitter.com/Asayanami Twitch: http://www.twitch.tv/Asayanami
|
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
134
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:07:00 -
[24] - Quote
Winthorp wrote: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. Given how the last wormhole changes worked out I would honestly prefer if CCP wouldn't touch T3s at all.
|
Enthropic
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
150
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:16:00 -
[25] - Quote
excuse my ignorance, but may I ask if the mass-based wh spawn distance changes are also going to be a topic for the CSM summit? Also, where can the meeting minutes be found? I look here, but that only goes back to 2012.. https://community.eveonline.com/community/csm/meeting-minutes/
I know, wrong thread, sorry |
Maduin Shi
Perkone Caldari State
100
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:16:00 -
[26] - Quote
Jessica Duranin wrote:Winthorp wrote: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. Given how the last wormhole changes worked out I would honestly prefer if CCP wouldn't touch T3s at all.
Yeah. But they're gonna. |
Loki O'Grady
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:11:00 -
[27] - Quote
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? |
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:17:00 -
[28] - 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 -
[29] - 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. |
Loki O'Grady
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:49:00 -
[30] - Quote
Winthorp wrote: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....
Okay, fair enough. The point I was (poorly) attempting to make was that all the previous summits have been about both what's coming up next and also what CCP have planned for further down the track. So even if fixing sovnull is a priority, there is bound to be plenty of discussion unrelated to that goal. |
|
Borsek
Incertae Sedis
248
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 11:31:00 -
[31] - Quote
"Decryptors will affect Tech III blueprints. We will most likely tweak decryptor attributes in the process to balance their gameplay value."
Also most of my useless 14M SP in science will be less useless, seeing how I still probably won't be using it. One of these days imma retire to k-space and start up a t3 business. Probably right before the market for t3s crashes horribly. |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
693
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 12:56:00 -
[32] - Quote
Winthorp wrote:Icarus Able wrote: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. EDIT: Further more the profitable subsystem market will crash even further from their low % profit margins due to the easy accessibility of the desired subsystem BPC of choice. I guess i will just stick to hulls after changes http://i.imgur.com/Jt7IjUg.png but then so will other people. The changes seem like they haven't been thought through well.
You left out the part where reverse engineering stuff will most likely drop in value since you need less of it due to being able to pick which subs you want. while this isnt a huge income source for w-space its another small nerf.
I've already raised these issues. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
693
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 13:07:00 -
[33] - Quote
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.
not sure where this is from, but there is 20 plus topics and only 2 specifically on nullsec. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 13:34:00 -
[34] - Quote
grr fixing post |
Angie Chatter
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 13:48:00 -
[35] - Quote
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.
mhh, 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 |
MooMooDachshundCow
Incertae Sedis
45
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 13:49:00 -
[36] - Quote
So, this change that allows people to pick what BPC they get will mean in the short term that prices for relics will drop even more. This is unfortunate, because WE'VE REACHED THE POINT WHERE THERE IS NO REASON TO HACK DATA CANS and relics will be the next to go. Nobody will hack anything except the abandoned talocans because everything else will be worthless. People who are shooting for the BPC's will be able to harvest their own since there will be very little waste.
The bottom drops out of the market AND people will have no reason to mess with 10% of their content (the hacking cans thing is already bad gameplay but now it will be unprofitable as well).
So, being able to pick subsystem BPC that drops would be OK if all the subs were actually useful which as stated they are not ATM. Look for covert/nulli subsystems to drop in price along with the most commonly used subs.
CCP had better balance this stuff out quickly lest they further degrade the quality of gameplay. |
Louis Catcher
J-Space BrotherHood Zombie Pony Express
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 13:50:00 -
[37] - Quote
[/quote]
You left out the part where reverse engineering stuff will most likely drop in value since you need less of it due to being able to pick which subs you want. while this isnt a huge income source for w-space its another small nerf.
I've already raised these issues. [/quote]
I think that is quite a big nerf towards (again) smaller entities and lower class wh.
This will probably affect nrbs aswell since the manufacturing requirements would decrease. Which means that no only did they increase risk but they will lower the reward.
Hopefully ccp goes through these processes very carefully, you recon they qould when there r so many space sim concurrence on the horizon |
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 13:51:00 -
[38] - 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 -
[39] - 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. |
Nash MacAllister
Anomalous Existence Low-Class
165
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 14:05:00 -
[40] - Quote
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. Yes, if you have to ask yourself the question, just assume we are watching you... |
|
Winthorp
2711
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 14:09:00 -
[41] - 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.... |
Ahost Gceo
Rolled Out Triumvirate.
221
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 14:28:00 -
[42] - Quote
I better see some fantastic developments on the side of CCP come this summit, because the CSM reps already have the points and suggestions to be made that would make for vast improvements in the game in many respects.
Put shortly, I have confidence in the CSM because they too are players and get to deal with the effects of the changes CCP makes. But CCP has to put stock in what the CSM says and act on it.
T3 subsystems and their limited practical variety are a big factor in their market value. Most important is the combat meta in k-space, which now revolves heavily around drone boats, ability to disengage at a moment's notice, and in particular, Ishtars. T3s have never really been effective as kiting ships and are something used when getting into a nitty-gritty fight. This has to change first if demand for T3s is going to increase, and it is going to happen through changing of current subsystems and diluting of drone boat abilities to the point where for most fights you HAVE to commit and lose a ship. CCP ignore me please, I make too much sense. |
Andrew Jester
Origin. Black Legion.
679
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 14:30:00 -
[43] - Quote
Winthorp wrote: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....
Useful thread or flame thread? The debate rages. Let's hope for the latter If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy |
Nash MacAllister
Anomalous Existence Low-Class
166
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 14:33:00 -
[44] - Quote
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. Yes, if you have to ask yourself the question, just assume we are watching you... |
Asayanami Dei
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
753
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 14:33:00 -
[45] - Quote
corbexx wrote:
You left out the part where reverse engineering stuff will most likely drop in value since you need less of it due to being able to pick which subs you want. while this isnt a huge income source for w-space its another small nerf.
I've already raised these issues.
Less reverse engineering jobs will take place because you will be able to pick the outcome but the chance of success is decreased as well. Invention material consumption decrease will hit lower class system most, since higher class residents can still fall back on blue loot, and still have a higher chance of drops of intact loot in comparison. This will also introduce many new people into the system as it becomes easier, which will at the beginning at least produce stuff with little to no profit, droping the margins lower. However, we might also see a lot of people hoarding their produced subsystems waiting for the T3 rebalance and obviously price increase. Anyhow that's my basic understanding of it. I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I-- THE CAPACITOR IS EMPTY Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/asayanami Twitter: https://twitter.com/Asayanami Twitch: http://www.twitch.tv/Asayanami
|
Borsek
Incertae Sedis
249
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 17:55:00 -
[46] - Quote
Andrew Jester wrote:Winthorp wrote: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.... Useful thread or flame thread? The debate rages. Let's hope for the latter
How dare you make such twisted statements?!?! What Whinethorp was saying is A ART! There is only polite discussion in ALL wormhole threads, and since we are all respectable gentlemen, especially Winthorp, who has always been very vocal about the community, which he loves dearly, who ran for CSM, as well as put a lot of effort into the WH-community, not ever even touching the forum troll corporation of W-space [Rolled out] AND has ALWAYS (and still does) lived in W-space. You should know that his opinion has always been pur+¬e of heart and relevant. ALWAYS.
*note: all typos above are intended
*P.S.: Helping the latter become reality just for you, dearest Jester.
*for Winthorp: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Cauliflower_puree.jpg
*also for Winthorp - my char is 2 days older than yours |
Winthorp
2713
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 21:58:00 -
[47] - 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... |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2183
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 22:10:00 -
[48] - Quote
I deleted the replies to an edited out part of the quoted post. The edited out part was rule breaking.
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated. ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Alundil
Isogen 5
661
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 22:16:00 -
[49] - Quote
I don't see this as helping the lower class income potential at all. As I understand things, the prices for sleeper salvage and hacking loot will drop even further as a result of this.
= bad :/
I'm right behind you |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
357
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 23:22:00 -
[50] - Quote
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"
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
357
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 23:31:00 -
[51] - Quote
Alundil wrote:I don't see this as helping the lower class income potential at all. As I understand things, the prices for sleeper salvage and hacking loot will drop even further as a result of this.
= bad :/
The answer is to increase consumption.
Either you encourage more T3's to die or you increase the cost of making a T3. I'm sure since T3s mostly die unexpectedly in rather rare PVP situations, as opposed to other scenarios, the obvious answer is to increase build costs substantially. Consider how PVE can be run with noone else present and the resources it produces made available. Compare now with a T3 dying which is kind of hard to understand in a L4 environment, rare in lowsec and maybe slightly more common in null. WH space might be the biggest consumers of T3s by weight but who can really say?
Increasing the build costs by say, arbitrarily 400% for a year to eat away those massive stockpile hordes players have had years to accumulate would certainly drive up prices overnight and keep them high. Then when stockpiles start running low you might have a reason for more players to enter WH to start harvesting this now highly sought after resource, the same way Iron ore has been in Brazil and Australia for the last 14 years. While the boom is well and truly over now, the number of successful startup companies that have made coin was immense. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
Winthorp
2713
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 01:30:00 -
[52] - 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.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |