| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
maarud
Coreli Corporation
Exuro Mortis
   |
Posted - 2007.09.11 14:13:00 -
[1]
So far we got more copy slots, which is awesome.
Anyword on the type datacores so we can choose which ship we want to invent? With the new ships in Rev 3 coming out, it sounds like there may be more T2 ship overlap and not being able to choose which ship I want to invent is gonna suck.
Also, any word on whether or not lvl V skills have an adverse effect on invention or not?
Thanks
Maarud.
Proudly a Ex-BYDI member |
Research AlterEgo
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 20:47:00 -
[2]
Don't go for lvl 5 skills. I've finished my lvl 5 skills, and with best decryptors and the base item, I have less than 25% chance of success on Gallente T2 Cruiser BPCs!!!! This is a real money sink, even with best decryptor and lvl 5 skills. Its a waste.
And yea, I support your idea about having a chance to influence the outcome. You should be able to at least increase chances to get a specific BPC instead of a random.
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 21:37:00 -
[3]
25% per ship invention is pretty good TBFH... I get barely 10% or so.
|
Morcam
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 23:47:00 -
[4]
Personally, I think that an increasing chance of your next success per failure would be appropriate, to make invention a bit more reliable, and to try and stop the 100 failures in a row. Ex: I do my first invention of a HAC, with a 10% chance of success. (Ok, my numbers are off) For my second consecutive invention of a HAC, I will get, for example, a 15% chance of success, if that fails, a 20%, 25%, etc... Obviously, once you do get a success, your chances of succeeding in invention would drop right back to 10%, and repeat the process. Maybe it would make invention too profitable? I dunno, just throwing it out there.
|
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 07:29:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Morcam
Personally, I think that an increasing chance of your next success per failure would be appropriate, to make invention a bit more reliable, and to try and stop the 100 failures in a row. Ex: I do my first invention of a HAC, with a 10% chance of success. (Ok, my numbers are off) For my second consecutive invention of a HAC, I will get, for example, a 15% chance of success, if that fails, a 20%, 25%, etc... Obviously, once you do get a success, your chances of succeeding in invention would drop right back to 10%, and repeat the process. Maybe it would make invention too profitable? I dunno, just throwing it out there.
I claimed this. The 'staticians' said no. I called BS, and got out of invention when it's golden age finished :) Thanks again to the public for helping with my 1000% ROI from 1 months work!
Improve Market Competition!
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 09:26:00 -
[6]
Kali 3 will hopefully bring with it the ability to add a RDb of the relevant manufacturer into the job, for eg. have a ferox, want a nighthawk then add in a RDb Kaalakiota to the job. However nothing is concrete yet on specifics but I'll be blogging about invention and other Research & manufacturing in the coming weeks once we are nearer to the public testing stage.
Lvl 5 invention skills only increase your chances of success, would be a bit silly if they did not since your characters have spent all that time researching the skill.
|
|
Kirjava
Lothian Quay Industries
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 14:27:00 -
[7]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Kali 3 will hopefully bring with it the ability to add a RDb of the relevant manufacturer into the job, for eg. have a ferox bpc, want a nighthawk then add in a RDb Kaalakiota to the job. However nothing is concrete yet on specifics but I'll be blogging about invention and other Research & manufacturing in the coming weeks once we are nearer to the public testing stage.
Lvl 5 invention skills only increase your chances of success, would be a bit silly if they did not since your characters have spent all that time researching the skill.
I have read many, many posts saying the complete opposite to this..... People attriute it to the same bug that was with the Tactical Sheield manipulation skill for years - when trained to 5 it had the effect of not being trained again. In that respect, yes CCP was a bit silly
Has CCP released that forumla on which the random chances are calculated?
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 14:43:00 -
[8]
Such claims are difficult to falsify. It takes thousands of jobs to build up a sample large enough for the average success rate to settle down. However, there is a reasonably well-documented tendency for extremely improbable failure streaks to build up, perhaps due to a pattern or flaw in the pseudorandom number generator used to determine success/failure. Even if this doesn't affect the average success rate over long enough periods of time, it is still possible that it is causing people to take much longer to arrive at a steady success rate.
Chruker's graph demonstrates this quite well. Even after 1000 jobs, it's not absolutely clear whether his sample average has converged to the expected average.
My research services
Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 14:58:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Kirjava
I have read many, many posts saying the complete opposite to this..... People attriute it to the same bug that was with the Tactical Sheield manipulation skill for years - when trained to 5 it had the effect of not being trained again. In that respect, yes CCP was a bit silly
Has CCP released that formula on which the random chances are calculated?
People do gossip don't they . Neither mechanic as anything to do with the other and a skill effect in one bit of code is different to how it affects another much like the assumption that % based systems are inextricably linked where they are not.
For the sake of repeating myself, invention is working fine and your skills increase your success chance.
|
|
Trak Cranker
Serenity Inc
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 17:08:00 -
[10]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
edit - whilst the current system works as intended, we are still looking to the future and how to improve it.
Chron, I appreciate your attention to this forum and the related professions a great deal. Just wanted to say that.
What I think a lot of people are looking for is something along the lines of:
"We have specifically looked into the speculations that training the related skills to level 5 would work opposite of what was intended. As far as we can tell from reproduction and code inspection, this is not true."
We are dealing with a subject here where it is immensely hard for the practioners to determine if such a thing is indeed the case, so we have to rely on you guys to alleviate such speculation.
I realise that it is what you are trying to do, and I have no reason the believe that it is not working correctly as you state.
Would just be nice to know that reoccuring and quite pointed speculation/claims are looked into specifically and not dismissed based on general overall numbers.
But once again; Truly appreciate the attention and participation you show.
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 17:56:00 -
[11]
Yes, of course we looked at everything (even your test spreadsheet you sent in) and mostly on a per character basis for my part. The formula variables, the success and failure results.
To give you a more fundamental standing, we simply use skill level to modify the formula, unlike any other suggested related problem like tactical shield manipulation, which is completely unrelated other than being another skill from your perspective but works differently in the code, neither is it related to any other % based mechanic in eve that the conspiracy theorists have mentioned.
Though I realise no amount of assurances will help as the forums being the way they are. The only promise I can give is that invention is continuously monitored (drop rates of all components, success and failure audits, market impact), and not changed on the fly like many have suggested, and when we do change it, we'll tell you what the overall effect will be.
|
|
William Alex
Viscosity
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 19:00:00 -
[12]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Yes, of course we looked at everything (even your test spreadsheet you sent in) and mostly on a per character basis for my part. The formula variables, the success and failure results.
To give you a more fundamental standing, we simply use skill level to modify the formula, unlike any other suggested related problem like tactical shield manipulation, which is completely unrelated other than being another skill from your perspective but works differently in the code, neither is it related to any other % based mechanic in eve that the conspiracy theorists have mentioned.
Though I realise no amount of assurances will help as the forums being the way they are. The only promise I can give is that invention is continuously monitored (drop rates of all components, success and failure audits, market impact), and not changed on the fly like many have suggested, and when we do change it, we'll tell you what the overall effect will be.
Thanks for the assurances, I'm sure you understand why so many have on tin foil hats these days, but at least we know that 'you' are trying to be on the level with us.
Please give us a 1 depth skill queue CCP.
|
Trak Cranker
Serenity Inc
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 19:11:00 -
[13]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Yes, of course we looked at everything (even your test spreadsheet you sent in) and mostly on a per character basis for my part. The formula variables, the success and failure results.
Such a quick response just reinforces my perception of your value to this part of the community. So thanks again.
And I am sorry if I in any way suggested you had not looked into it. That was not my intention or perception.
It was more that the precision in formulating it in relation to specific concerns could sometimes kill off some of the speculations sooner rather than later.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Though I realise no amount of assurances will help as the forums being the way they are.
That part I understand completely. :)
Thanks again.
|
William Alex
Viscosity
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 19:32:00 -
[14]
Edited by: William Alex on 12/09/2007 19:32:31
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Though I realise no amount of assurances will help as the forums being the way they are.
This mostly comes from people who assume that 50% of 10 is 5 and will always be 5.
Please give us a 1 depth skill queue CCP.
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 21:30:00 -
[15]
No need to apologise, its our job :)
The ability of invention to supply the market has been trialled over past year and in kali 3 we really will see how inventors cope. With such high overhead required, it is understandable you want assurances that things are working as intended and so do we, with placing such emphasis on invention as the sole supplier of major new content in the next patch.
|
|
Buildius Maximus
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 22:08:00 -
[16]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
No need to apologise, its our job :)
The ability of invention to supply the market has been trialled over past year and in kali 3 we really will see how inventors cope. With such high overhead required, it is understandable you want assurances that things are working as intended and so do we, with placing such emphasis on invention as the sole supplier of major new content in the next patch.
It's rather hilarious, to me, that if invention is simply chance based, modified by a simple combination of skills and parts, why does CCP hide the formula? I mean, ffs, we have the formula for nearly everything else ingame, why not this simple piece? Is it because it changes, and you don't want to be held to it point when you mess it up in a patch and the statisical analyses show that it is way off from what you state? Or is it that you don't want the community to analyze your formula and find the error in it?
|
Buildius Maximus
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 22:10:00 -
[17]
Originally by: William Alex
Edited by: William Alex on 12/09/2007 19:32:31
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Though I realise no amount of assurances will help as the forums being the way they are.
This mostly comes from people who assume that 50% of 10 is 5 and will always be 5.
People who do that are morons...flipping a coin is 50% chance for either side, but you don't always get 5 heads and 5 tails when you flip it 10 times...rather, when averaged out over time, you get, on average 50% of one and 50% of the other (assuming the coin isn't unevenly weighted on one side or the other, of course )
|
Aeryn Davenport
Claflin Industries
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 00:34:00 -
[18]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Kali 3 will hopefully bring with it the ability to add a RDb of the relevant manufacturer into the job, for eg. have a ferox bpc, want a nighthawk then add in a RDb Kaalakiota to the job. However nothing is concrete yet on specifics but I'll be blogging about invention and other Research & manufacturing in the coming weeks once we are nearer to the public testing stage.
Lvl 5 invention skills only increase your chances of success, would be a bit silly if they did not since your characters have spent all that time researching the skill.
If you do this I will send you the biggest case of beer you've ever seen, or whatever it is you prefer to drink.
Another issue I believe you may want to look at is the fact that not only can you not fit a packaged battleship into a mobile lab, but I don't believe there's any way to transport it over there in first place.
I understand you may want to keep it this way to make battleship invention an intentional pain-in-the-butt, but I think it is something to look at.
|
Jurgen Cartis
Caldari
Interstellar Corporation of Exploration
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 01:17:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Aeryn Davenport
Another issue I believe you may want to look at is the fact that not only can you not fit a packaged battleship into a mobile lab, but I don't believe there's any way to transport it over there in first place.
Freighter will work, as they now work within 30km of a CT, I think.
--------------------------------------------------
ICE Blueprint Sales
FIRST!! -Yipsilanti
Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth |
Bomazi
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 03:19:00 -
[20]
Is there an update on the issue with invention implants? When they may be fixed and reintroduced?
|
Tactus
the Organ Grinder and Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 08:33:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Buildius Maximus
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
No need to apologise, its our job :)
The ability of invention to supply the market has been trialled over past year and in kali 3 we really will see how inventors cope. With such high overhead required, it is understandable you want assurances that things are working as intended and so do we, with placing such emphasis on invention as the sole supplier of major new content in the next patch.
It's rather hilarious, to me, that if invention is simply chance based, modified by a simple combination of skills and parts, why does CCP hide the formula? I mean, ffs, we have the formula for nearly everything else ingame, why not this simple piece? Is it because it changes, and you don't want to be held to it point when you mess it up in a patch and the statisical analyses show that it is way off from what you state? Or is it that you don't want the community to analyze your formula and find the error in it?
the playerbase has improved their own understanding of eve by sheer grit, focus, and brilliance. at no point has ccp disclosed game mechanics to players in a formal fashion.
if you want that carrot dangling in front of you, then leap out and take it. "nerf string" is not an option.
________________________________________________
Originally by: Raivi
...but if spending all your imaginary money on an imaginary spaceship with a camo paintjob is wrong then I don't want to be right. |
moola
Band Of Frogs
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 10:13:00 -
[22]
Check out the last post in this thread
moan about lab sizes
Prolly gonna see a new lab type to deal with this, also a hawt bonus to reduce invention time would be nice, but i think they really need to sit and look at the space all labs have, if someone can point out the harm having huge bays on labs will do i'll shut up.
|
Colm McCulloch
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 14:49:00 -
[23]
If the Quote screen you get to confirm your invention job would tell you what you are going to invent (much like what you get when you get a list of active jobs), you would have better control of of what you invent. You can see which of the two types of ships you will get, and if it's the wrong one, you can cancel and get a new quote.
It would also be HOT if that quote screen also gave you the odds of success on the quote screen, I'm just saying...
Otherwise, I'm quite impressed how much the community has figured out about this black box.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 15:18:00 -
[24]
Originally by: moola
Check out the last post in this thread
moan about lab sizes
Prolly gonna see a new lab type to deal with this, also a hawt bonus to reduce invention time would be nice, but i think they really need to sit and look at the space all labs have, if someone can point out the harm having huge bays on labs will do i'll shut up.
It might interest you to know that using basic T1 (meta level 0) items has almost no effect on invention success rates. I think you may well have been wasting your isk. If this isn't changed (after suitable bug-reports/petitions), then I'd see it as tacit acknowledgement.
My research services
Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
J3ST3R
Gallente
Dark Light Inc
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 16:17:00 -
[25]
I'm sure others have found this also but for Invention to be a viable option for supply of T2 ships over seeding of BPO's then i think the negative levels of ME need to be adressed.
I was fortunate enough to create a 5 run Harpy BPC but with -7 me it is barely worth my effort and it would have been more profitable to have sold the datacores I got from my R&D agents in order to get it.
My other only other success of note was a 5 run Nighthawk BPO again me-7 however I had 2 attempts and if 1 had dropped as a Vulture Building those would have seen the attempt go into the red quite drastically.
Now with no BPO's to compete against for the new T2 ships that are set to be available in Kali3 invention is a viable option but with such low me levels the expensive of such ships is going to high to cover invention cost.
I can see 2 simple solutions to this issue
1. Allow T2 BPC's to be researched possibly and resource penalty.
2. Turn the base starting value of invented BPC's to 0 instead of -4
|
Colm McCulloch
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 16:45:00 -
[26]
I think it would be a good idea to allow any BPC to be researched just like a BPO. I don't see the harm in allowing it. It's not very time efficent, and of limited use since you only have a limited number of runs on the BPC.
So you could in this case do ME research on your -7 or -8 ME Command Ship BPC, but the time required to get that to ME 0 is significant. You whould have to decide if weeks of research was worth the savings in materials on 4 to 10 runs.
This can make Module and Ammo invention more competitive with the BPO holders. Getting a T2 Ammo BPC from -8 to 0 is still long compared to T1 ME research, but maybe your cost will be competitive with the market.
|
Salvis Tallan
Gallente
The Shadow Order
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 16:53:00 -
[27]
Originally by: J3ST3R
I'm sure others have found this also but for Invention to be a viable option for supply of T2 ships over seeding of BPO's then i think the negative levels of ME need to be adressed.
I was fortunate enough to create a 5 run Harpy BPC but with -7 me it is barely worth my effort and it would have been more profitable to have sold the datacores I got from my R&D agents in order to get it.
My other only other success of note was a 5 run Nighthawk BPO again me-7 however I had 2 attempts and if 1 had dropped as a Vulture Building those would have seen the attempt go into the red quite drastically.
Now with no BPO's to compete against for the new T2 ships that are set to be available in Kali3 invention is a viable option but with such low me levels the expensive of such ships is going to high to cover invention cost.
I can see 2 simple solutions to this issue
1. Allow T2 BPC's to be researched possibly and resource penalty.
2. Turn the base starting value of invented BPC's to 0 instead of -4
Everything has been balanced by CCP to include the success chance, and the math is quite simple. When they set the requirements for the new ships, they will know what price they want them to be on the market. They then set the materials to build plus cost to invent, adjust for success rates (cost of inventing/success rate = cost per success, then divide by runs, then add to cost to build) and they get a price per ship. That price will be carefully set to reflect what CCP wants them to sell for. In short, the price of the ships on the market will be exactly what CCP wants it to be, because they control all the factors.
------
|
moola
Band Of Frogs
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 17:11:00 -
[28]
Dont worry Kazuo that post was way back in April, about a week before general opinion had reached the T1 ships are a waste, they should let us add faction ships since they are a higher meta 
|
Qual
Gallente
Cornexant Research
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 16:20:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Qual on 14/09/2007 16:22:30
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
No need to apologise, its our job :)
The ability of invention to supply the market has been trialled over past year and in kali 3 we really will see how inventors cope. With such high overhead required, it is understandable you want assurances that things are working as intended and so do we, with placing such emphasis on invention as the sole supplier of major new content in the next patch.
Well i am sure the inventors of EVE are ready for the challenge. You ahve allready done this with succes actually for several T2 modules, so the risk really aint that high.
Just dont go shoot us in the back as you did with T2 Rig invention. We where told that that market would be invention only, yet the gave faily easy access to 2-run ME 0 prints thoughout EVE. This effectively killed T2 rig invention, as the added material cost of building even the best possible inveted bpc with ME -4, made it impossible to make a profit.
So do not let ANYTHING drop bpc's of these new ships. Do not let agents hand them out in the loyalty store either. Invention ONLY, please.
"The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf |
Dangermouse DM
Caldari
Black River Industries
APEX Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 04:18:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Qual
Just dont go shoot us in the back as you did with T2 Rig invention. We where told that that market would be invention only, yet the gave faily easy access to 2-run ME 0 prints thoughout EVE. This effectively killed T2 rig invention, as the added material cost of building even the best possible inveted bpc with ME -4, made it impossible to make a profit.
So do not let ANYTHING drop bpc's of these new ships. Do not let agents hand them out in the loyalty store either. Invention ONLY, please.
This is critical. So far inventors have virtually no control over priceing, this makes it very difficult to estimate profits as we also don't even have the exact chances for success. If BPCs are given out from the LP store I will be very disapointed as we have worked too hard to see our one chance for control of something so important slip through our fingers.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |