Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
4873
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 14:16:12 -
[1] - Quote
With Phoebe (coming in a few days on November 4th) we will see brilliant change coming to the Invention system, for example:
- Merging Tech-3 Reverse Engineering into the Invention system and selection of the subsystem you want to invent
- Multiple invention runs per installed invention job
- Removal of Interfaces
- Generic decryptors instead of race specific decryptors
- Update of build material requirements for Tech 3 component production
Discover what other exciting changes we will get and read CCP Ytterbium's latest blog Invention updates in Phoebe!
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Representative - Volunteer Manager
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
947
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 14:25:47 -
[2] - Quote
The six week release cycle working as intended again! Glad to see you were willing to punt on some of this stuff rather than try to cobble it into the release in a less-than-polished manner. Looking forward to the results of the teams retooling.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
317
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 14:41:49 -
[3] - Quote
You've badly screwed up how to compensate for directed subsystem invention.
Before, you had to run 4 jobs to get the 1 you wanted: so for each subsystem you consumed (on average) four times one invention job. Now, you'll do one invention job, but the manufacturing will cost a lot more. Your goal, presumably, is to keep the end price of the subsystem constant. However, you've badly screwed up the balance of the components.
Post-patch, you will use 1/4th as many relics, decryptors, and datacores as you did pre-patch. Their price will fall through the floor. However, material use will go way up, bottlenecking melted nanoribbons even more. What you're basically doing is murdering the value of sleeper sites and transferring it to sleeper salvage. That sounds like a side effect that was not well considered.
The correct fix would be to require 4x the relics you required before for a single job, which will maintain the balance of value between reverse engineering materials and construction materials. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3727
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 14:44:58 -
[4] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:You've badly screwed up how to compensate for directed subsystem invention.
Before, you had to run 4 jobs to get the 1 you wanted: so for each subsystem you consumed (on average) four times one invention job. Now, you'll do one invention job, but the manufacturing will cost a lot more. Your goal, presumably, is to keep the end price of the subsystem constant. However, you've badly screwed up the balance of the components.
Post-patch, you will use 1/4th as many relics, decryptors, and datacores as you did pre-patch. Their price will fall through the floor. However, material use will go way up, bottlenecking melted nanoribbons even more. What you're basically doing is murdering the value of sleeper sites and transferring it to sleeper salvage. That sounds like a side effect that was not well considered.
The correct fix would be to require 4x the relics you required before for a single job, which will maintain the balance of value between reverse engineering materials and construction materials.
We have also stated in the blog this has been done to stimulate Tech III component market as a whole. So far Nanoribbons and few others where the most demanded components, we've changed things around to make the other components more needed as well. |
|
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices Curatores Veritatis Alliance
180
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 14:47:30 -
[5] - Quote
So you say:
Quote: To compensate for this change, all those skills will now give a 1% Time Efficiency bonus for the Tech II manufacturing job they are required for, which is still going to give an incentive for players to train those up, or give an edge for players that already trained them. ... So after the change, the Arazu manufacturer would gain a 15% TE bonus if he / she had Advanced Medium Ship Construction, Gallente Starship Engineering and Electronic Engineering skills at 5.
That doesn't make sense, sorry. If it was to give 1% bonuses, then on lvl5 3 skills would give a total of 0.95^3=.857375 time factor, that is a 14.2% reduction.
If it was not percentages but percentage points then it would be 15%.
Could you please elaborate on this? :)
|
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 14:51:31 -
[6] - Quote
How many times do we have to tell you....we did NOT train all these skills to level 5 for a mere 1% Build Time bonus. Trust us when we say, if we had an option to train other skills, or a single skill for 20+ days to get a mere 1% bonus....we would leave it at level 4.
Also, you do realize there SHOULD be atleast a small barrier to entry into building T2 items. Unless you want to delete all lvl 5 skills needed to use the same T2 ships/modules? Because that follows the same logic. Or please explain how i'm wrong.
Lastly (i'm just highly disappointed in the whole of that blog), why the smug attitude about how 'great for the game' your idea of multiple outcomes was...even after nearly the entire thread of responses from ppl who actually play the game told you it was bad on every level? |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
317
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 14:56:23 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: We have also stated in the blog this has been done to stimulate Tech III component market as a whole. So far Nanoribbons and few others where the most demanded components, we've changed things around to make the other components more needed as well.
Whoops, missed that part. However, unless you did your math very carefully, that won't work (at least for salvage, might work for gasses). Sleeper salvage is a naturally bottlenecked system: the salvage is produced in one fixed ratio, and consumed in another. You can't seek out specific salvage (you get whatever your salvagers give you), and you can't shift what you build to avoid specific salvage (or if you do, someone else must build with it because at the end of the day you need a full set of subsystems and a hull).
In these sorts of systems, one item is used up completely and there is an excess of the others. The one used up item will gain all of the value attributable to the whole bottlenecked system, while the others become worthless. To the extent you boost their use, it doesn't matter, unless you get it to exactly the use of nanoribbons (in which case they'll both share the value) or boost it above nanoribbons (in which case they become bottlenecked and the nanoribbons become worthless).
I guess I'll poke around at the math some to see what the end results will be since I don't know what goes into particular T3 components off the top of my head, but if your goal is to boost the price of non-nanoribbon salvage (instead of the gasses) it won't work.
And you're still going to have the problem of relics becoming stupendously worthless. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
948
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:02:40 -
[8] - Quote
Lil' Brudder Too wrote:How many times do we have to tell you....we did NOT train all these skills to level 5 for a mere 1% Build Time bonus. Trust us when we say, if we had an option to train other skills, or a single skill for 20+ days to get a mere 1% bonus....we would leave it at level 4.
Also, you do realize there SHOULD be atleast a small barrier to entry into building T2 items. Unless you want to delete all lvl 5 skills needed to use the same T2 ships/modules? Because that follows the same logic. Or please explain how i'm wrong.
Lastly (i'm just highly disappointed in the whole of that blog), why the smug attitude about how 'great for the game' your idea of multiple outcomes was...even after nearly the entire thread of responses from ppl who actually play the game told you it was bad on every level? Considering the only use for those skills prior to Phoebe was to enable you to build certain blueprints at all, I'm failing to see why adding a time bonus to the skill at all is a bad thing.
Hell GÇö I know someone who trained Battleship Construction 5, despite the fact that it was useless. He's now moderately enthused about his useless skill training actually doing something.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Calorn Marthor
Standard Fuel Company Galactic Skyfleet Empire
35
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:08:48 -
[9] - Quote
Quote:Regarding invention teams, we are currently investigating the purpose and state of teams in the game as a whole.
I really like teams and the idea of "bending" the dynamic industrial spacescape a bit to fit your purposes. Only the possibility to snipe the auction pretty much defeats its purpose.
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
13098
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:11:43 -
[10] - Quote
Less clickeh, we like!
GÿàGÿàGÿà Secure 3rd party service GÿàGÿàGÿà
Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'
Twitter @Chribba
|
|
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
317
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:12:27 -
[11] - Quote
Calorn Marthor wrote:Quote:Regarding invention teams, we are currently investigating the purpose and state of teams in the game as a whole.
I really like teams and the idea of "bending" the dynamic industrial spacescape a bit to fit your purposes. Only the possibility to snipe the auction pretty much defeats its purpose. Yeah, I have the money for a team, I have a setup that would do well with a team, and I want a team. But I sure as hell am not setting an alarm for when the team I need is about to finish auction so I can actually get it. If I could set an ebay-like bid and forget about it, I'd be using them constantly. |
Lyta Jhonson
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
66
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:14:22 -
[12] - Quote
It's becoming a trend to drop most innovative changes: overheat rigs some time ago, manufacturing discounts for bulk production and now variable invention outcomes... While they don't look like big thing at a glance, they introduce new and interesting mechanics while most of other changes don't affect bigger picture.
And argument of player wish to accurately predict things just not make sense: if players were given right to choose, they'd like a "give me isk" and "blow-up enemy" buttons but a game developer should know that it's no fun to play a game where everything is that easy. And industry in EVE is already in a such state that the question "what to manufacture to get biggest profit?" could be automatically answered with all the data available. |
H3llHound
Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team
48
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:18:32 -
[13] - Quote
In which category does the Venture/Prospect fall? Frigate or Mining Barge
also :grrCCP: for making me change my excel sheets every 6 weeks |
Psyrelle
Coalition Of Gentlemen.
29
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:19:08 -
[14] - Quote
Few things I want to get out.
Why the heck are you including force projection in a invention blog. inventers don't give **** about it. And no as an inventer i would not rather have forced projection fixed than the awesome thing called multi-invention outcome. any realy inveter or industrialist don't use the ingame system for calculation anyway. multi invention would have made my day for this mini expansion/patch.
Also your changes to invention chances. awesome we don't have to use meta items but don't you bullshit us that the invention chances is roughly the same. Now due to lack of meta items which can be gotten really cheap I go from 71,4% chance of success to 45,05% And on ammo which i also made a lot of I go from 46,0% to 45,05% Now the ammo is not that bad tbh but when the market is already pretty unstable due to the reprocessing changes its hard to make real iskies.
0,95% less isk means I can barely have above 5isk per unit profit with the meta lvl decrease I basicly have no profit anymore.
So I urge you to try make it work cause with these changes industry is no longer worth it. |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
5009
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:20:04 -
[15] - Quote
Variable invention outcomes as described was a nuisance and I am glad they're not shipping it with Phoebe.
They also didn't say it was dropped, but needed more work, which they decided to spend on power projection instead, so we may see a more elegant version of it at a later date.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
H3llHound
Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team
48
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:21:43 -
[16] - Quote
Psyrelle wrote:Few things I want to get out.
Why the heck are you including force projection in a invention blog. inventers don't give **** about it. And no as an inventer i would not rather have forced projection fixed than the awesome thing called multi-invention outcome. any realy inveter or industrialist don't use the ingame system for calculation anyway. multi invention would have made my day for this mini expansion/patch.
Also your changes to invention chances. awesome we don't have to use meta items but don't you bullshit us that the invention chances is roughly the same. Now due to lack of meta items which can be gotten really cheap I go from 71,4% chance of success to 45,05% And on ammo which i also made a lot of I go from 46,0% to 45,05% Now the ammo is not that bad tbh but when the market is already pretty unstable due to the reprocessing changes its hard to make real iskies.
0,95% less isk means I can barely have above 5isk per unit profit with the meta lvl decrease I basicly have no profit anymore.
So I urge you to try make it work cause with these changes industry is no longer worth it.
Where do you see force projection comments? |
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:27:46 -
[17] - Quote
H3llHound wrote:Psyrelle wrote:
Why the heck are you including force projection in a invention blog. inventers don't give **** about it.
Where do you see force projection comments? I like how CCP is constantly stating how they have all their teams compartmentalized so that delaying one thing doesn't mean they can work on something else....then they come out with this...saying their invention team has decided to go and work on Null/Low force projection instead of the 'feature' that most of the feedback was negative for? |
Psyrelle
Coalition Of Gentlemen.
29
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:27:58 -
[18] - Quote
H3llHound wrote:Psyrelle wrote:Few things I want to get out.
Why the heck are you including force projection in a invention blog. inventers don't give **** about it. And no as an inventer i would not rather have forced projection fixed than the awesome thing called multi-invention outcome. any realy inveter or industrialist don't use the ingame system for calculation anyway. multi invention would have made my day for this mini expansion/patch.
Also your changes to invention chances. awesome we don't have to use meta items but don't you bullshit us that the invention chances is roughly the same. Now due to lack of meta items which can be gotten really cheap I go from 71,4% chance of success to 45,05% And on ammo which i also made a lot of I go from 46,0% to 45,05% Now the ammo is not that bad tbh but when the market is already pretty unstable due to the reprocessing changes its hard to make real iskies.
0,95% less isk means I can barely have above 5isk per unit profit with the meta lvl decrease I basicly have no profit anymore.
So I urge you to try make it work cause with these changes industry is no longer worth it. Where do you see force projection comments?
So we instead decided to spend our time working on force projection changes, which weGÇÖre sure you can agree was a much more pressing problem to address for this particular release.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
317
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:31:57 -
[19] - Quote
Lil' Brudder Too wrote:H3llHound wrote:Psyrelle wrote:
Why the heck are you including force projection in a invention blog. inventers don't give **** about it.
Where do you see force projection comments? I like how CCP is constantly stating how they have all their teams compartmentalized so that delaying one thing doesn't mean they can work on something else....then they come out with this...saying their invention team has decided to go and work on Null/Low force projection instead of the 'feature' that most of the feedback was negative for? Generally they're saying that when some idiot asks why they updated the model of a ship instead of [desired programming change], when they're pointing out that their artists are not programmers and if they weren't doing ship art they wouldn't be doing programming. |
Bill Stork
Arax Solutions
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:43:00 -
[20] - Quote
What's the plan for decryptor market orders? |
|
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:43:19 -
[21] - Quote
Querns wrote:Lil' Brudder Too wrote:How many times do we have to tell you....we did NOT train all these skills to level 5 for a mere 1% Build Time bonus. Trust us when we say, if we had an option to train other skills, or a single skill for 20+ days to get a mere 1% bonus....we would leave it at level 4.
Also, you do realize there SHOULD be atleast a small barrier to entry into building T2 items. Unless you want to delete all lvl 5 skills needed to use the same T2 ships/modules? Because that follows the same logic. Or please explain how i'm wrong.
Lastly (i'm just highly disappointed in the whole of that blog), why the smug attitude about how 'great for the game' your idea of multiple outcomes was...even after nearly the entire thread of responses from ppl who actually play the game told you it was bad on every level? Considering the only use for those skills prior to Phoebe was to enable you to build certain blueprints at all, I'm failing to see why adding a time bonus to the skill at all is a bad thing. Hell GÇö I know someone who trained Battleship Construction 5, despite the fact that it was useless. He's now moderately enthused about his useless skill training actually doing something. Okay, so lvl 5 wasn't exactly great, but lvl 4 was very much not useless...in as much as any ship or module skill @ lvl 5 to use certain ships/modules. It also served as a level of check system...okay, you've put in so much time...have likely researched how this thing works...you have now earned the right to build these items smartly to maximize your profit. If every newb in eve starts inventing and building all these T2 items, i guarantee you will see your margins drop significantly or go negative...because they still have the 'what i mine is free' mentality...
My main point is they are NOT worth a very long train for that little 1%. And again, as said by many-a-industrialist, this bonus will only help those that run their lines 23.5 hours every day. This will have absolutely no helpful benefit to the remaining 98% who make their builds over-night or during work hours. |
Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
415
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:48:38 -
[22] - Quote
I thought the racial decryptors added a nice cultural and sci fi variety rather than needless complexity. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3729
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 15:48:55 -
[23] - Quote
Psyrelle wrote:Few things I want to get out.
Why the heck are you including force projection in a invention blog. inventers don't give **** about it. And no as an inventer i would not rather have forced projection fixed than the awesome thing called multi-invention outcome. any realy inveter or industrialist don't use the ingame system for calculation anyway. multi invention would have made my day for this mini expansion/patch.
Also your changes to invention chances. awesome we don't have to use meta items but don't you bullshit us that the invention chances is roughly the same. Now due to lack of meta items which can be gotten really cheap I go from 71,4% chance of success to 45,05% And on ammo which i also made a lot of I go from 46,0% to 45,05% Now the ammo is not that bad tbh but when the market is already pretty unstable due to the reprocessing changes its hard to make real iskies.
0,95% less isk means I can barely have above 5isk per unit profit with the meta lvl decrease I basicly have no profit anymore.
So I urge you to try make it work cause with these changes industry is no longer worth it.
Regarding the invention chances, that was comparing the first blog on invention with that one. It's not comparing current invention chances on TQ with that blog, which are going to drop yes. |
|
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
339
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:03:33 -
[24] - Quote
Generally a positive change. However, I am concerned with industrial speed power creep, which started with the Advanced Industry change. Could you look at adjusting T2 build times back up to compensate for the ~14.3% reduction you're including here? |
Shamus en Divalone
The Clandestine Forge
25
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:05:00 -
[25] - Quote
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:I thought the racial decryptors added a nice cultural and sci fi variety rather than needless complexity.
This ^
I think 'Minmatar' Instead of 'Cryptic Process' would suffice, it's fun to send teams out to gather from certain locations depending on need. |
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity
55
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:08:34 -
[26] - Quote
What about skill requirements for building T3 items? Are there any plans for lowering the skill requirements in a similar way as for T2 construction?
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity
55
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:11:44 -
[27] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Generally a positive change. However, I am concerned with industrial speed power creep, which started with the Advanced Industry change. Could you look at adjusting T2 build times back up to compensate for the ~14.3% reduction you're including here?
+1
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3730
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:18:42 -
[28] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:Komi Toran wrote:Generally a positive change. However, I am concerned with industrial speed power creep, which started with the Advanced Industry change. Could you look at adjusting T2 build times back up to compensate for the ~14.3% reduction you're including here? +1
We'll keep an eye on build times to make sure this doesn't spin out of control yes. |
|
Kaydar ArX
Scorch Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:20:27 -
[29] - Quote
tldr: We removed the need of decent levels in science skills to invent T2 and gave a useless TE bonus to them.
Status of the 15 pages of feedbacks following the "lighting the invention bulb": [X] Ignored. |
Cristl
Perkone Caldari State
175
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:23:05 -
[30] - Quote
Quote:To compensate for this change, all those skills will now give a 1% Time Efficiency bonus for the Tech II manufacturing job they are required for, which is still going to give an incentive for players to train those up, or give an edge for players that already trained them.
1% TE as adequate compensation?
For shame CCP, for shame. You insult us to be honest.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |