| 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.
|
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 |
Aykido
Gallente
Lobster of Babel
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 15:07:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Pizi
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.
This would be cool.
Or we could get ME/PE levels to negate part or all of the base negative of Invented BPCs. I'd be happy with that.
For example:
level 0-2 = no adjustment
level 3-8 = negative value lowered by 1
level 9-26 = negative value lowered by 2
level 27-80 = negative value lowered by 3
level 81+ = negative value lowered by 4
For example with an ME30/PE10 BPC, the result of the invention would be adjusted to base ME -1/PE -2 (and this figure would then be modified by decryptor).
And then introduce Efficient Arrays for ships, modules, drones, ammo that take longer to make things (say 1.25 time modifier), but that cut waste by half.
This would really help with making Invention more stable and competitive.
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! |
Bom Bolenath
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 23:15:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Bom Bolenath on 26/09/2007 23:18:03
Just one point to add to this excellent thread:
Even without implementation of t2 bpc research to improve ME, the new t2 ships are going to create an unprecedented rush for empire research slots.
Either CCP is going to double (minimally) the number of publicly available slots, or the profits from new t2 invention are going to go almost exclusively to POS owners. Smaller operators simply won't be able to turn over enough jobs to compete once they start waiting for invention slots like we have been for copy slots for so long. To add insult to injury, POSes go twice as fast, which I've never understood. Why aren't major station facilities faster than cheap mobile ones?
ME values on new ships won't matter a bit, as they won't be connected to the "perfect" stats of a BPO, so that's not a big concern, but I'll definitely jump on the bandwagon and urge CCP to consider buffing the ME penalties on existing t2 invention projects.
I love how we've been thanked for participating in a beta program designed more to correct a bloated t2 market than provide us a real career. I do make isk from invention, like all but the ship inventors with the worst luck, but it's hardly worth the time given the work of t2 production and then getting everything to market.
bom!
|
Triumdicta
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 03:48:00 -
[63]
Originally by: William Alex
This mostly comes from people who assume that 50% of 10 is 5 and will always be 5.
ok, granted i'm a complete noobie to invention, why else i'd be lurking these forums, but math is math, and 50% of 10 is and always will be 5
|
Benvie
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 07:25:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Triumdicta
Originally by: William Alex
This mostly comes from people who assume that 50% of 10 is 5 and will always be 5.
ok, granted i'm a complete noobie to invention, why else i'd be lurking these forums, but math is math, and 50% of 10 is and always will be 5
He means a 50% chance. "Chance" is the key word and a lot of people don't understand that it means results can vary.
|
Sinder Ohm
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 08:00:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Bom Bolenath
Edited by: Bom Bolenath on 26/09/2007 23:18:03 Lots of stuff
Well I agree with the part about improving the ME/PE of a invented t2 BPC. It cant carry on like this if invention is suposed to be the only suplier of the future t2 equipment/ships.
I disagree with seeding more research slots in empire since this wont change a thing. They will be availiable for a few hours then people (knowing our greedy nature) will use up all the available slots for as long as possable and the empire base will be forced to use pos slots again. (tbh the cost of errecting a research pos in low sec isnt that much.)
Originally by: Karanth
Wimps play empire. Real men play in 0.0. Hardcore masochists live out in drone space.
|
Dominique Vasilkovsky
Techmart Industries
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 09:03:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Dominique Vasilkovsky on 27/09/2007 09:03:30
It would be nice if the final ME/PE was affected by something, be it input ME/PE, advanced skill or implant doesn't really matter. Just as long as we can improve it.
Of course just lowering the base wastage a couple of levels would work as well.
Signature approved by Eldo |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |