| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Keithos
Caldari
   |
Posted - 2007.11.11 23:49:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Prices spiked mostly due to 50/50 invention succes on em and not many inventors (after 1st batches of inventor-craziness on command ships). Wait till rev3 and you will see prices drop quite a lot (i guess the prices will go down till 130mil or so).
As for t2 BS - it is a good experimentation field for invention. They will be ONLY invention based, so NOONE will be able to say thay "BPO holders are undercutting prices" and crap like that.
I think the bold is the most important point. While I wouldn't be surprised if BPO holders actually have an edge over invention the new t2 ships will actually allow CCP and the players to see for themselves.
Not to mention I think it offers an objective way to look at invention because you're not dealing BPOs so I think after Trinity you could see adjustments made to invention
|
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 02:31:00 -
[32]
To fix invention they need to adjust the success rates *massively*, esp on items w/o BPOs.
60% - modules, drones, ammo
40% - rigs & ships.
The BPC efficiency should have a direct affect on the end ME/PE of the invented result, on say a 1:10 ratio (ME 40 BPC = ME 0 T2 BP).
And a thorough rebalancing on datacores that have the heaviest use (Mech Eng).
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 04:26:00 -
[33]
moving to Features & ideas forum and bookmarking :)
|
|
Dr Aryandi
Bloodstone Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 11:48:00 -
[34]
Ok, we've been inventing for a while now and quite simply 90% of ships and modules just aren't worth our time. I could get better profit margins on tech 1 or just building the components and skipping the whole invention step.
The ME/PE on the T1 BPC should effect that of the produced BPC. The idea of dividing by 5 or 10 and then adding that to the tech 2 one sounds good.
We have an invented vulture sat in our hanger at the moment from when we were experimenting with nighthawks. Even leaving aside invention costs it is not economically viable to build from that bpc. It actually costs more in materials than the ship is worth.
Varying degrees of success with worse or better ME/PE/Runs sounds like a very interesting idea as well - I quite like that.
Fundamentally we can cope with the extra cost of invention over the BPO holders since we gain in flexibiity and scalability over them. However the increased build cost and time on top of the invention costs tips huge numbers of things over the edge.
The idea of a skill to reduce datacore use is also an interesting one. I don't think it's needed though as by increasing the chance of success training the existing skills to a higher level also reduces the effective cost of each run.
Blueprint Research Service Available
See thread for details.
|
Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 08:34:00 -
[35]
There are a number of items where the supply from BPOs is > the demand. Mostly because the T2 item itself is crappy, or not as good as another version, or just there is soo much supply and no demand due to other market forces (Hemorphite say is worthless to mine and only found in 'dangerous' space, so the crystals are not purchased). With those, the market price is often LESS than the cost to make them :o Even if invention was free the extra waste would well and truely not be worth it.
Other items, demand is of course > supply from BPOs, so the price without invention would go up and up until some alternative became worth using. At the moment it still goes up quite a way for ships especially due to the higher invention costs and wastage effects. For those items removing the BPOs wouldn't have any effect, because the price is solely determined by invention.
Infact, there's probably no actual reason to remove BPOs, you would be far better off making the invention result less and less waste so that it could be as good as the BPOs, that would reduce prices across the board, except for those items already in oversupply.
|
Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 08:40:00 -
[36]
Also as mentioned, datacore supply is fine in that, there is no 'limit' you know what you have to do to get more, and you can. You get a specific number of datacores guaranteed. Supply is capable of ramping up to meet increased demand. Prices will spike briefly for increased demand, but over time the will continue to drop and drop and drop.
Decrypytors on the other hand, need a more guaranteed and fair way to enter the market. At least while they are essentially 'required' for ships. Admittedly if datacores totally bottomed out decryptors would have no choice but to follow, but still. These are necessary and supply is random at best (more random though more fair after the can no longer be farmed).
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.13 13:04:00 -
[37]
I think Invention works fine, but there need to be options for dedicated inventors to improve theprofitability with skills.
Why not add a few skills like:
Advanced Science skills (lvl 10) Increases chance of success for invention jobs involving these science skills by 1% per level
Advanced Encryption skills (lvl 12) Increases chance of success for invention jobs using these skills by 1%.
Prerequisites would be the relevant science skills at level 5.
Then add:
Advanced Metallurgy: increases ME of invented BPCs by 1 per level.
'Racial' Production Mastery: increases number of runs from invention with that racial production skill by 20% per level (so at level 5 a BPC which would normally provide a 1 run BPC, now provides 2 runs).
That would be beneficial in the sense that people who spend the time specializing will be able to pursue specific elements of invention with more success. Also, by making the skill requirements higher, you would be promoting real specialization instead of people running all invention types themselves with skills at level 4. This system would provide an incentive to focus on a specific area and train the skills there to level 5 and promote trade/interaction with others who specialized in other areas.
------------------------------------------------
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |