EVE Search - Invention Love

All Channels

Science and Industry

Invention Love

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
J3ST3R Gallente Dark Light Inc	Posted - 2007.09.16 21:06:00 - [31] For ship, rig and mod bpc's the negative me levels really hamstring inventors right now allowing research on bpc's can only lead to a thriving and healthy marketplace for sellers and consumers.
Dangermouse DM Caldari Black River Industries APEX Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.09.16 23:27:00 - [32] Edited by: Dangermouse DM on 16/09/2007 23:29:56 Originally by: J3ST3R For ship, rig and mod bpc's the negative me levels really hamstring inventors right now allowing research on bpc's can only lead to a thriving and healthy marketplace for sellers and consumers. The negative ME hurts but we're all paying it, it allows BPO holders a larger margin than datacores alone and apart from rigs isn't that big a deal. BPO holders will always be able to undercut us at the cost of their own profits whether there is negative ME or not. What I don't like is the claim invention hasn't been adjusted and they would tell us if they made a change. Well they did when they changed the negative ME formula and increased our prices by 20% I have never seen that addressed. The problem with invention is that it is bad game design to base success on an obvious dice roll, I hate delivering invention jobs because it feels like I am playing the pokkie machines. Invention isn't actually a fun game mechanic and bad streaks make me hate this game more than good streaks make me love this game. I would love to see a smoothing of the invention formula to reduce this problem and make the odds of success have a tighter accuracy around the mean.
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2007.09.17 04:21:00 - [33] Originally by: Dangermouse DM What I don't like is the claim invention hasn't been adjusted and they would tell us if they made a change. Well they did when they changed the negative ME formula and increased our prices by 20% I have never seen that addressed. That was an obvious bug. (The pre fix version.) I had pointed out that the formula for ME would indicate that it was off. And it was mentioned in the patch notes, though under a somewhat cryptic description. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2007.09.17 04:57:00 - [34] Originally by: Qual And it was mentioned in the patch notes, though under a somewhat cryptic description. No offense, but can you quote that part ? I'm having trouble finding it in the patch notes even if I know what to look for. _ [CNVTF] is recruiting \| Char creation guide \| Stack-nerfing explained
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2007.09.17 05:36:00 - [35] Edited by: Qual on 17/09/2007 05:36:22 Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Qual And it was mentioned in the patch notes, though under a somewhat cryptic description. No offense, but can you quote that part ? I'm having trouble finding it in the patch notes even if I know what to look for. Sure Revelations II, Patch 33752: "Blueprints with an ME of -1 will no longer have 0% wastage. They now have the correct 20% waste" "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Corporati Capitalis Tollan Technologies	Posted - 2007.09.17 11:40:00 - [36] Originally by: Dangermouse DM I would love to see a smoothing of the invention formula to reduce this problem and make the odds of success have a tighter accuracy around the mean. But that would mean the server tracking your previous invention results and taking them into account when calculating the current one, which kind of goes against the chance-based idea. And besides, all bad and good streaks eventually equalize anyway, which is good for dedicated investors.
Dangermouse DM Caldari Black River Industries APEX Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.09.17 20:03:00 - [37] But that would mean the server tracking your previous invention results and taking them into account when calculating the current one, which kind of goes against the chance-based idea. And besides, all bad and good streaks eventually equalize anyway, which is good for dedicated investors. It needn't be tracked, at the moment it is a simple random roll 1-100, if you get above 40 percent you fail, if you get below you win. What I'd like to see is a random number generator that produces a bell shaped curve around the mean so you don't get as many 9/9 (I've never even got 8/9) or 0/9 (I've had plenty).
Mechanikus Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.17 20:20:00 - [38] Wow some good information here, and thumbs up to the Dev Team for actually responding and interacting multiple times here. I can honestly say that invention has seen a lot of positive changes since January when I first decided to get into it, but I still have a list of things that I think should be improved, but a few of the biggest things pointed out here that I really would like to see is the option to invent for a specific ship for multiple ship type BPC's (rapier/huginn, etc.), and I would like to see the ME and PE of the invented BPC's addressed. The negative ME and PE thing really sucks, and there should be alternative ways to help remedy this, either through research or something.
Sinder Ohm Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.09.18 08:59:00 - [39] Originally by: Mechanikus Wow some good information here, and thumbs up to the Dev Team for actually responding and interacting multiple times here. I can honestly say that invention has seen a lot of positive changes since January when I first decided to get into it, but I still have a list of things that I think should be improved, but a few of the biggest things pointed out here that I really would like to see is the option to invent for a specific ship for multiple ship type BPC's (rapier/huginn, etc.), and I would like to see the ME and PE of the invented BPC's addressed. The negative ME and PE thing really sucks, and there should be alternative ways to help remedy this, either through research or something. I agree with the goon :P No seriously.. just imagine when the T2 BS come out, they are only available through invention which would mean we will get T2 BS BPC's with a ME of -4 or worse does someone want to try imagine how much these babys are going to cost to build. I do understand that invented BPCs should be inferior compared to T2 BPO's but as they are now its a bit too harsh. At least let us research T2 BPCS to 0 or 1 even if it comes with a time penalty. Originally by: Karanth Wimps play empire. Real men play in 0.0. Hardcore masochists live out in drone space.
Vardemis Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.09.18 09:46:00 - [40] I have no doubts, that the prices for the T2 BS will be silly anyway, a production cost of around 200-250m seems perfectly reasonable. With no T2 BS bpos available, they can set the base cost at ME -4 and all is good. No need to worry about it imho.
Pizi Gallente	Posted - 2007.09.18 09:57:00 - [41] why do the invention bpc need a -4 to -8 ME ? theres no other reason as to protect the T2 bpo owners but invention allready has such an big overhead compeared to an original T2 let us research BPC or let the original T1 ME influence the outcome please _______________________________________________ EVEpedia[Deutsch/German] add
Rotti	Posted - 2007.09.19 09:19:00 - [42] I agree I think you should be able to research a BPC back upto say 0 ME and 0 PE.
El'essar Viocragh Minmatar FSK23	Posted - 2007.09.19 10:24:00 - [43] Edited by: El''essar Viocragh on 19/09/2007 10:24:38 Won't work unless they somewhat modify the time calculation that negative levels are faster to research than positive ones. OR you are looking at around 22 days of research for a ME-8 BS BPC (if we use tier 2 tech 1 research times, skill at 5, mobile lab). And, for every BPC that invention produces. Basically, invention is then a mechanic that requires even more alts. -- [17:47] <Mephysto> its dead, jim
Trak Cranker Serenity Inc	Posted - 2007.09.19 10:30:00 - [44] Originally by: Pizi why do the invention bpc need a -4 to -8 ME ? theres no other reason as to protect the T2 bpo owners but invention allready has such an big overhead compared to an original T2 Indeed. Why?
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2007.09.19 19:18:00 - [45] Originally by: Trak Cranker Originally by: Pizi why do the invention bpc need a -4 to -8 ME ? theres no other reason as to protect the T2 bpo owners but invention allready has such an big overhead compared to an original T2 Indeed. Why? Historical reasons. AS with many other things in EVE it only makes sense seen in historical perspective. Unless CCP add ways to research BPC's the negative ME will only be a historical curiosity as the base for invented bpc could as well be 0 or positive when no investment heavy BPO counterparts exist. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2007.09.19 22:24:00 - [46] Originally by: Qual Revelations II, Patch 33752: "Blueprints with an ME of -1 will no longer have 0% wastage. They now have the correct 20% waste" Oh, so that's when they fixed it ? I was looking at the wrong patch notes, thought it was much more recent By the way, when did they fix the "T2 components not affected by waste" thing ? Same patch too, or only one of the more recent ones ? _ [CNVTF] is recruiting \| Char creation guide \| Stack-nerfing explained
DeltaH NOBODY Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.20 06:20:00 - [47] When you research a BPO you take it out of production thus there is a penalty. If you allowed ME research on invented BPCs there would be no reason not to research them. Since the creation of the BPC isn't tied to the use of the BPC (aka you can make more BPCs with no relation to previously invented BPC's) the situation would end with all BPC's being researched to ME0 (or beyond if there is no cap). If you have that situation, what is the point of having invented BPCs start with negative ME in the first place? The only limited would be ME slots which hi-sec POS have produced a lot of.
Pizi Gallente	Posted - 2007.09.20 08:37:00 - [48] thats a weak argument an inventor needs to copy the t1 bpo invent for ships with a 10% chance to get a measly 9 run then after all that hasslew he needs nearly 3 weeks to ME research it to ME 0 a char can have max 11 slots so he¦s certenly limitet all a t2 bpo owner needs to protuce ..... _______________________________________________ EVEpedia[Deutsch/German] add
Trak Cranker Serenity Inc	Posted - 2007.09.20 15:14:00 - [49] Originally by: Qual Originally by: Trak Cranker Originally by: Pizi why do the invention bpc need a -4 to -8 ME ? theres no other reason as to protect the T2 bpo owners but invention allready has such an big overhead compared to an original T2 Indeed. Why? Historical reasons. AS with many other things in EVE it only makes sense seen in historical perspective. Unless CCP add ways to research BPC's the negative ME will only be a historical curiosity as the base for invented bpc could as well be 0 or positive when no investment heavy BPO counterparts exist. Agreed, but given the overhead from the invention itself, the amount of negative ME seems a bit steep. Considering that competing BPOs can be researched the other way even. But it all comes down to how much advantage the BPO holders is meant to have I guess. And I recognize they (might) have made some investments into those BPOs that you can't fairly just eradicate.
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2007.09.20 15:22:00 - [50] Originally by: Akita T By the way, when did they fix the "T2 components not affected by waste" thing ? Same patch too, or only one of the more recent ones ? It's only ever been fixed for ships, not modules or other items afaik, but I haven't been doing invention for long enough to know whether it's always been like this or whether it actually was changed, let alone when. My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats
Aykido Gallente Lobster of Babel	Posted - 2007.09.20 15:52:00 - [51] T2 components are definately affected by waste I look at the numbers every day Selling PERFECT PRINTS of every seeded T1 BPO: modules, rigs, drones, ammo and ships (4 ships missing), and most capital modules too! Selling any INVENTED T2 BPC by order! Can build also!
J3ST3R Gallente Dark Light Inc	Posted - 2007.09.20 22:40:00 - [52] Originally by: Pizi thats a weak argument an inventor needs to copy the t1 bpo invent for ships with a 10% chance to get a measly 9 run then after all that hasslew he needs nearly 3 weeks to ME research it to ME 0 a char can have max 11 slots so he¦s certenly limitet all a t2 bpo owner needs to protuce ..... As much as I would like to see the ability to research BPC's included in the november patch I think a little tweaking in the area of ME levels is a more realistic option where by you invent BPC's with me0 - me-4 depending on your decrypter. Allowing us the option of researching BPC's would only overburden the labs available to the player base.
Colm McCulloch	Posted - 2007.09.21 14:36:00 - [53] Originally by: DeltaH When you research a BPO you take it out of production thus there is a penalty. If you allowed ME research on invented BPCs there would be no reason not to research them. Since the creation of the BPC isn't tied to the use of the BPC (aka you can make more BPCs with no relation to previously invented BPC's) the situation would end with all BPC's being researched to ME0 (or beyond if there is no cap). If you have that situation, what is the point of having invented BPCs start with negative ME in the first place? The only limited would be ME slots which hi-sec POS have produced a lot of. You do have a limit on how many lab slots you can use. If you are doing ME work on a BPC to go from say -8 to 0, that is a LONG period of time that slot is not making new copies or inventing. The BPO also has the benefit of being reusable. You CAN research your BPO from 0 to 8 in the same amount of time and you will always benefit from that research on all further production runs. The same research done on a BPC to get from -8 to 0 would only be good for the number of runs on that particular BPC. There is also the opportunity cost of not using a ME slot to research one of your BPOs. The decision to research your invented BPC would be a significant time and isk sink.
Benvie	Posted - 2007.09.21 22:11:00 - [54] Originally by: Aykido T2 components are definately affected by waste I look at the numbers every day They are for ships but not for modules.
Original Copy	Posted - 2007.09.24 05:35:00 - [55] 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, what I find worrisome is that BPOs can be researched to lower their ME/PE values whereas BPCs cannot. If you're going to make invention the sole supplier of major new content in the remainder of Eve's future, then the default -4 ME needs to be eliminated, or give the inventors the option of researching their BPCs for better production values. That, or continue the lottery or some other chance-based system for distribution of a certain number of BPOs that can be researched accordingly. Invention will keep the insane profits that T2+ BPO owners enjoyed in the past in check... but there will always be people who have by some limited process locked in ways of making insane ammounts of ISK that others cannot access (-0.1 systems that have an amazing degree of sovreignty without altering the sec status of the system... which makes no sense).
Pizi Gallente	Posted - 2007.09.24 12:51:00 - [56] Edited by: Pizi on 24/09/2007 12:51:51 yes absolutly correct , it would be just a workaround best option would be to let the T1 ME influence the outcome as they planned in the beginning by an factor 1:10 so if i but a ME 100 T1 into invention and the old outcome would be a ME -8 you now get an ME+2 and to all the T2 holders that say T1 research is fast ... it takes half a year or so to research a cruiser T1 BPO to 100 As much as I would like to see the ability to research BPC's included in the november patch I think a little tweaking in the area of ME levels is a more realistic option where by you invent BPC's with me0 - me-4 depending on your decrypter. Allowing us the option of researching BPC's would only overburden the labs available to the player base. _______________________________________________ EVEpedia[Deutsch/German] add
Liisa Absolutely No Return The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.09.24 16:52:00 - [57] Originally by: Pizi snip Allowing us the option of researching BPC's would only overburden the labs available to the player base. Incorrect. ME and PE research (unlike invention and copying) can be done in alliance pos labs, meaning that you only have to make a small corp which joins an empire alliance geared towards renting out pos lab slots and voila: no problem.
Benvie	Posted - 2007.09.25 01:12:00 - [58] If you're doing serious invention then you already have a POS with plenty of PE and ME slots.
J3ST3R Gallente Dark Light Inc	Posted - 2007.09.25 22:45:00 - [59] If the POS module Efficient Equipment Assembly Array actually reduced waste % by a half say instead of doing bugger-all it be part of the solution just a shame it doesnt work on mods or ships.
Vladimir Tinakin Caldari Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative	Posted - 2007.09.26 14:23:00 - [60] That would be pretty cool--have the "efficient" array reduce the negative ME penalty to allow for "near-unresearched-bpo" material waste. ----------------------------------------------- Adm Vladimir Tinakin CFO Hadean Drive Yards

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.