EVE Search - Invention

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Invention

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ruffio Sepico Minmatar Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering	Posted - 2007.02.09 14:23:00 - [31] Originally by: Celedris This isn't meant as a flame, and I can sympathize with people that spent billions on early interfaces. That said, it seems most of the complaints about invention involve the cost of the datacores. If invention is so broken and unprofitable: then why are so many people still spending so much cash to buy the datacores? You might have noticed but the disgruntled crowd is expanding day by day. So more people check out invention and more get frustrated about it. Home: http://www.hidden-agenda.co.uk
KIAEddZ Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.09 15:24:00 - [32] Originally by: Ruffio Sepico Originally by: Celedris This isn't meant as a flame, and I can sympathize with people that spent billions on early interfaces. That said, it seems most of the complaints about invention involve the cost of the datacores. If invention is so broken and unprofitable: then why are so many people still spending so much cash to buy the datacores? You might have noticed but the disgruntled crowd is expanding day by day. So more people check out invention and more get frustrated about it. Qft. KIA EVE Home
Liisa Freelancing Corp Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2007.02.09 15:37:00 - [33] Originally by: Celedris This isn't meant as a flame, and I can sympathize with people that spent billions on early interfaces. That said, it seems most of the complaints about invention involve the cost of the datacores. If invention is so broken and unprofitable: then why are so many people still spending so much cash to buy the datacores? Because there is no guide, no numbers and no formulas which tell you this. So the people go out and try something new, hoping to make some good isk and enjoy a new facet of the game. Sooner or later they find out that you only make a large profit if you consider datacores to be "free" because they are bought with research points. ----------------------------------
Ariel Dawn SniggWaffe Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.02.09 16:15:00 - [34] Originally by: Mirirar Originally by: Ariel Dawn Edited by: Ariel Dawn on 08/02/2007 21:36:25 Invetion should be rebalanced so it's more profitable than those building from T2 BPOs. Wait... what? What would the point of even having t2 BPO's be in this magical fairy-land version of Eve you envision? Why should something (T2 BPOs) that takes far less work than invention be far more profitable? The point of T2 BPOs would be the ability to build T2 modules without all of the hassle involved with invention. Seemed like a straightforward idea to me.
Ariel Dawn SniggWaffe Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.02.09 16:15:00 - [35] Originally by: Mirirar Originally by: Ariel Dawn Edited by: Ariel Dawn on 08/02/2007 21:36:25 Invetion should be rebalanced so it's more profitable than those building from T2 BPOs. Wait... what? What would the point of even having t2 BPO's be in this magical fairy-land version of Eve you envision? Why should something (T2 BPOs) that takes far less work than invention be far more profitable? The point of T2 BPOs would be the ability to build T2 modules without all of the hassle involved with invention. Seemed like a straightforward idea to me.
Kabeil Blackdawn The Shadow Order Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.09 22:36:00 - [36] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Why should something (T2 BPOs) that takes far less work than invention be far more profitable? The point of T2 BPOs would be the ability to build T2 modules without all of the hassle involved with invention. Seemed like a straightforward idea to me. Because they won the lottery.
Ihar Enda Caldari	Posted - 2007.02.09 23:41:00 - [37] Invention is a sad excuse for a way to open up the T2 market. CCP pls fix it finally.
Liisa Freelancing Corp Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2007.02.10 01:18:00 - [38] Would it be possible, Eddz, for you to write a small post about your expierence with invention? Specifically: Which decryptors have about what chance of success. How badly the decryptors increase (or decrease) the cost of production. It would be nice to be able to use the expierences of others instead of having to use my meager store of isk to try it all out. ----------------------------------
Medical One	Posted - 2007.02.10 02:14:00 - [39] Seriously I dont think they thought this thing through at all. While It is a very good idea, the implementation has totally been awful. Why the hell is anyone going to invent when it cost you 4x as much and you run the chance of not getting jack ****? Brainstorming ftw!!
Mohoi	Posted - 2007.02.10 06:04:00 - [40] I must agree, I have been very very much disappointed with invention (and exploration for that matter). Just sold my last interface (and I'm sure it will be back on the market as soon as it new owner tries a few invention jobs).
Soporo	Posted - 2007.02.10 06:35:00 - [41] Your all assuming they actually want Invention to be some sort of T2 relief, and not just some bone thrown to the slavering dogs.
Saltire System-Lords E N I G M A	Posted - 2007.02.10 08:01:00 - [42] Edited by: Saltire on 10/02/2007 07:58:18 If ccp dont fix this we should make our own botnet and DDoS the buggers back to the stone age WE ARE THE F*ING CUSTOMERS, THEY SHOULD BE ON THEIR F*ING KNEES APPOLOGISING!
Xordus Beasts of Burden YouWhat	Posted - 2007.02.10 09:19:00 - [43] I don't think the increased drop rate is such a horrible problem. It will make interfaces very cheap over time and utterly screw those that paid big isk for them 2 months ago but this issue doesnt break invention. Reducing the number of runs possible from a t2 bpc breaks invention. It makes it almost pointless to sink isk into datacores and because even in the unlikely event that you succeed its doubtful you'll recoup losses from failed attempts.... If CCP had made all the other changes and kept number of runs the same, I'd have kept quiet and accepted the whole thing. The way it stands their "fix" was more of a nerf than before....
Ruffio Sepico Minmatar Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering	Posted - 2007.02.10 11:22:00 - [44] Originally by: Xordus I don't think the increased drop rate is such a horrible problem. It will make interfaces very cheap over time and utterly screw those that paid big isk for them 2 months ago but this issue doesnt break invention. Reducing the number of runs possible from a t2 bpc breaks invention. It makes it almost pointless to sink isk into datacores and because even in the unlikely event that you succeed its doubtful you'll recoup losses from failed attempts.... If CCP had made all the other changes and kept number of runs the same, I'd have kept quiet and accepted the whole thing. The way it stands their "fix" was more of a nerf than before.... Agree, the changes to the runs, is what make it hopeless due to the failed jobs. You need to recover the loss of those with the ones that succeed. But that is next to impossible as it stand now. Sure there is a few modules that its possible to turn some profit on, but if invention get limited to just these few, then the invention path failed totaly. The lack of some decryptors (due to not be able to be found where they are supposed to drop (have been dropping), + the variations of decryptors that that seem to do nothing and some even useless to use. Decryptors supposed to be optional in the process too, just as the metha item. But then you are left with your skills only, and I have see no numbers or calcs on how they impact the process regarding success rate and runs on invented jobs etc. To many unknown factors in invention atm :/ The silence from the devs on the matters is even more frustrating. Home: http://www.hidden-agenda.co.uk
KIAEddZ Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.10 21:23:00 - [45] Originally by: Ruffio Sepico The silence from the devs on the matters is even more frustrating. Nail on head tbh. KIA EVE Home
Effei Gloom Minmatar eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.02.10 21:55:00 - [46] Originally by: Jemma Talcot Edited by: Jemma Talcot on 08/02/2007 19:15:37 CCP, always going from one side of the problem to the other, even a monkey could figure out balance better. It was obvious at first that certain components were to hard to get, they could have increased drop rate on components in exploration sites to about 20-40 mixed components from a hacking site, not the current 100-300 or whatever it is now. They didn't need to reduce build requirements on interface bpcs and they didn't need to make every single damn hack site drop multiple runs of interface bpcs, god damn, and i thought they were clever. You can bet the devs are all going "damn whiners on the forums, they are never happy, first they whine it's to hard and now they whine it's to easy" my answer to that would be - YOU SHOULDN'T MAKE IT SUPER HARD AND THEN GO TO THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM AND MAKE IT SUPER EASY THEN SHOULD YOU? The current changes are ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. I bet all the people who whined interfaces were to hard to get are gutted now, now that everyone has full sets of interfaces suddenly theres nothing special and nothing to be gained from owning one anymore. Then again it's ccps fault for overdoing it big time. The damage is done now, EVE is spammed with interfaces. signed yes, CCP messed this invention up by 100% this invention cant lower T2 prices
Ruffio Sepico Minmatar Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering	Posted - 2007.02.10 22:01:00 - [47] Originally by: KIAEddZ Originally by: Ruffio Sepico The silence from the devs on the matters is even more frustrating. Nail on head tbh. Read the end of TomB's devblog on invention and its more so. Home: http://www.hidden-agenda.co.uk
Mantalari Altis Caldari Mercatoris Technologies	Posted - 2007.02.11 07:31:00 - [48] I've been scratching my head over this for a while. I decided to sit down and do some rough math on it. Some basic assumptions that I'm not going to argue. You can believe them or not: CCP has stated that they want T2 production to be more in line with T1. I take this to mean that it should be possible with a significant investment in skills, time and isk to be able to produce T2 stuff without a BPO and get a return on your investment that is proportional to your overall character investment on the process. Most T1 production yields very little return on investment, but almost anyone can do it. Margins are often in the single digit percent. This gets better at various points along the way as you work your way up the T1 BPO tree, but gets worse again for some items. Battleships, for instance actually have fairly low margins considering the investment in time, isk and effort to gather the minerals needed to build them. At the top end, are the capital ships, which seem to have some of the best margins for T1 items, but correspondingly have very high isk investment requirements to get going. So general T1 production might get you say 1-20% profit margin, depending on item and local regional scarcity. Capital production might get you more like 25-50% profit margin. To my mind, I'd say that T2 production via invention, given its startup costs and skill requirements and so on, should probly live in the 100-200% profit margin ballpark. While this is debatable, I'm taking it as a given. It is my interpretation of CCP's stated goal. As such it means that all that is about to follow is nothing but opinion. Another big assertion that I'm going to make is that Cap Recharger II's (which I'm going to use as my example item here) should sell for more like 3.3M isk per unit. That seems to me to bring this particularly inflated item back down to reality. Again... highly debatable, but chalk it up to my interpretation above. Going from there, the total build + invention cost of a Cap Recharger II needs to be about 1.1 to 1.55M. Since build cost is close to, but under 100k, that leaves 1M to 1.45M for invention. Assuming best named cap recharger at a price of 5M, decryptor at a cost of 1.5M and success rate that yields an average of 13.3 runs per job at present resulting runs, lets do 10 invention jobs for 133 runs on average. That's 50M on eutectics, 15M of decryptors, for 65M spent out of the only 133M to 192.6M we have if we want to keep the target profit margin that supposedly makes it worth the trouble to invent. So for the 40 datacores we need we have only 68M to 127.6M left in the budget. That requires an average datacore cost of 1.7M to about 3.2M. The only way we'll see that is if CCP puts in NPC sell orders from the various R&D capable NPC corps at about 3.5M per datacore on averge, effectively capping the market. Remember though, that for BPO holders, the profit is based solely on the build cost of less than 100k per unit. At 3.3M each, they are making 3.2M. That's a whole lot more than a 200% margin. Now, the supply and demand problem for datacores. Let's assume you take characters that are maxed at what they do. Running 10 invention jobs on one character in 1h 15m yielding an average of 133 runs, then running the resulting BPCs to build them over the next 2d, you've consumed 40 datacores and not left the system. At the same time you have six level 4 R&D agents, level 5 in the appropriate science skills, and great standing to get good effective agent quality. You're probably getting about 100RP per day then for each agent, or one datacore per 5 days for an average of 1.2 per day over all six agents. (let's ingore the fact that there are no fractional datacores). It would take the datacore output of roughly 17 maxed out R&D characters to meet one inventor's demand in datacores for those 10 jobs per 2 days. And they have to visit thier agents to do it. That is how datacores limit invention.
Haffrage Less than Ideal	Posted - 2007.02.11 09:17:00 - [49] Datacores do seem to be the major bottleneck, but the only real solution would be to either seed them on the market, boost number of runs from invention, or as I've seen somebody else bring up they could even multiply the number of existing datacores by 10. That would count on market orders, in hangars, cans, etc. But that seems like much more work than is needed if CCP could just up the number of runs. At the rate data interfaces are falling, they may end up cheaper than the datacores themselves =/ -----
KIAEddZ Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.12 10:32:00 - [50] Originally by: Mantalari Altis Please read Devs KIA EVE Home
Unvisibility	Posted - 2007.02.12 10:50:00 - [51] Originally by: KIAEddZ I swear CCP, do you actually play this bldy game? Yeah, we know now that they do play this game - as members of T2BPO-owning alliances that don't want their lovely isk-printing BPOs reduced in value by a working invention system. Understand now why Invention is as broken as it is? BoD would complain if it was otherwise
Ruffio Sepico Minmatar Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering	Posted - 2007.02.12 11:09:00 - [52] Originally by: Unvisibility Originally by: KIAEddZ I swear CCP, do you actually play this bldy game? Yeah, we know now that they do play this game - as members of T2BPO-owning alliances that don't want their lovely isk-printing BPOs reduced in value by a working invention system. Understand now why Invention is as broken as it is? BoD would complain if it was otherwise Could you please keep your trolling out of this thread? There is those that actually want some serious feedback about invention. Being smug and send cheap shots at CCP these days seems to be a growing trend, a whole new brand of whine.... Home: http://www.hidden-agenda.co.uk
Unvisibility	Posted - 2007.02.12 11:56:00 - [53] Originally by: Ruffio Sepico Could you please keep your trolling out of this thread? There is those that actually want some serious feedback about invention. Being smug and send cheap shots at CCP these days seems to be a growing trend, a whole new brand of whine.... Actually trolling wasn't my intention. I genuinely believe that CCP see the current T2 BPO lottery system as a good idea, hence the pathetic implementation of Invention. People can post about how bad Invention is as much as they like, CCP are never going to loosen the stranglehold on T2 production that the BPO lottery creates, certainly not for ships anyway. KIAEddz's initial post asks if "CCP, do you actually play this bldy game?". Yes, we know that they DO play this game, and we know the kind of levels that a lot of them play it at. I personally believe that this could affect the decisions they make about things like T2 production.
Mantalari Altis Caldari Mercatoris Technologies	Posted - 2007.02.15 01:01:00 - [54] Originally by: Unvisibility I genuinely believe that CCP see the current T2 BPO lottery system as a good idea, hence the pathetic implementation of Invention. Actually, I think they do want to de-emphasize the T2 Lottery in favor of Invention in the long term. I suspect that they've just failed to understand the factors involved in this part of the economy very well. Along the way, they've hurt invenvtion quite a bit in an effort to 'fix' it. It was not horribly broken as it was. The only thing that needed to be fixed was the supply of the most basic material consumed in the invention process: datacores. Quote: People can post about how bad Invention is as much as they like, CCP are never going to loosen the stranglehold on T2 production that the BPO lottery creates, certainly not for ships anyway. I suspect that ship production is still profitable enough that people are willing to still do invention on it. It seems to mostly be module invention that is broken at the moment. Then again, I've only done an analysis of the inventions for which I have access to interfaces. I don't presently own a ship data interface, and I don't have good information about the statistics involved in success rates vs. runs on them. To the point of of CCP not wanting to breakdown the stranglehold of BPO owners on production, I think they definitely want to break the stranglehold. It is just unclear why they've made some of the choices they've made so far towards that goal. Quote: KIAEddz's initial post asks if "CCP, do you actually play this bldy game?". Yes, we know that they DO play this game, and we know the kind of levels that a lot of them play it at. I personally believe that this could affect the decisions they make about things like T2 production. I've not given up on CCP on this regard. Individuals might engage in acts of moral turpitude, but the organization as a whole seems to care very much about it. If nothing else then at the very least they want to make sure that most of us keep playing and paying for the game and that we don't bad mouth it so much that new players stop joining and the game stops making money for them. Hopefully that's not the only goal they have.
Soporo	Posted - 2007.02.15 01:17:00 - [55] Quote: The silence from the devs on the matters is even more frustrating. Hate to say it, but get used to that. CCP doesnt discuss in any meaningfull way, you make get a pronouncement, a vague blog, or not, you never know beforehand. They appear to be content with EVERY facet of T2 BPO's and Invention.
Ruri	Posted - 2007.02.15 02:33:00 - [56] I must admit I toyed with the idea if trying this out to the point i was looking at a bp of a T1 ship and i wanted to see what this whole invention was about, turns out i needed 16 of two different types of data cores. One i couldn't find in my region and the other was selling for 8 million each and there were only 2. Now the ship i was interested in was a Drake. I was able to get 5 X ME20 bpcs for 12.5 million total (I'm not sure if this is good I'm still new to the whole buying bpcs to build and sell) Am I doing something drastically wrong that I think the bpc via invention seems to cost something like (816)+(8X)+Y (I don't know how much the second datacore was and there was a third thing needed)? How many runs would this have? What sort of PE/ME would this have?
Arthmandar Valikari Gallente	Posted - 2007.02.16 20:15:00 - [57] This thread does have some constructive criticism in it, and I hope CCP does take note. I'll add my few cents. As far as I can tell, the whole point of invention was to drive prices on T2 modules that were ridiculously inflated (think: cap recharger, HAC, etc.) down by introducing more supply. Invention was never meant to be applied to tech II modules which can be prices which are reasonably close to build cost. There's a pretty short list of tech II modules and ships that were/are really inflated in price, and they, obviously, were the ones causing all the fuss that led to invention in the first place. These are the only feasible invention targets to begin with. If I'm the devs, then, I want to introduce a system, probably based on a lot of variables, by which I can tweak the cost to bring in greater supply of these modules. In the long term, the only real cost to invent is the datacores (and decrypters, if they're destroyed, I'm not clear on that point). So by controlling the failure percentage of inventing for a well-specialized character and the availability of these components, a new base price for these tech II modules can be very well fixed. Obviously, we don't know what that price is for each module, but hopefully the devs do have a price target in mind. For this to work, it has to be a target roughly inline with the costs of other tech II modules for the builders -- a reasonable rate of return for their investment and build costs, and then add a bit to protect the lottery winners (because, contrary to some belief, winning the lottery is not easy). So, and this to CCP -- you should have all the information at your disposal to calculate the true cost of invention from datacore to market for each module. Do the math. If the real cost (excluding one-time costs like the interfaces) of invention is where you believe it should be, do nothing, and long term the market will find its balance. However, empirically speaking, the people in this thread say that the costs of invention already are higher, even for the target modules, than buying from the market. That directly contradicts your stated intention, so either they are wrong, or you are. You've proven yourselves to be very capable game balancers, so take another look here. Your customers are telling you, in numbers, with evidence, and experience, that there's problems here, and the system doesn't work the way that you've indicated it should. I think we can forgive the fact that invention and its effects on Eve's awesome free market are extremely difficult to estimate without time and experience. You've had time and made tweaks, now, so I think the invention honeymoon is nearly over. Does this system really work the way you want it to? If it does, say so. If not, say so. But please say something. Quote: I for one welcome our new centrifuge generated superchicken overlords. -- Delerium of Disorder

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.