EVE Search - Let's Help Re-Invent: Invention

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Let's Help Re-Invent: Invention

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Khajin Caldari XERCORE	Posted - 2007.11.08 23:28:00 - [1] Edited by: Khajin on 08/11/2007 23:30:55 The purpose of this thread is to invite all inventors to post their experiences with the process in detail in one thread and help further the invention system in EvE. Hoepfully a developer can read how we are having difficulty with the system and a proper adjustment can be made. My experience is that the invention system has been released but not properly intergrated into community use. No matter how many skill points I have in science, I feel like I'm playing a slot machine rather than being rewarded for preperation, skill and time investment. Invention = It's VEGAS BABY! Seriously, It's time to help the devs understand our experiences. Please post with more than frustration, post with as much detail in regards to how much you put in to get obtain so little in return. Details would be awesome. Thank you
RoSsCs Caldari Jupiter Mining Corp New Eden Research	Posted - 2007.11.09 00:25:00 - [2] 1st and tbh invention for items which currently have BPOs in game is pretty pointless as its more expensive to invent and build than to buy pre-built items from the market.
Talla Hurzin	Posted - 2007.11.09 00:54:00 - [3] If Datacores were NPC seeded, and the spawn rate of megnetometric exploration sites were to be increased, I could see invention being a viable alternative. As it is now, you need around half a billion in starting capital, and even then all you can do is start out very very small with tiny profit margins just barely worth the effort, time, and ISK.
Mrs Amadeus	Posted - 2007.11.09 04:06:00 - [4] I have invented quite a bit, from ships to modules of all sizes. This is my take on it... The problem with invention vs BPOs, or just invention in general is that you are double penalized for it. You not only have a chance based system wether or not you get a T2 BPC, but you also get a hefty negative ME penalty to go along with it. This unfairly penalizes a group of people who have invested more game time and training to a skill-path for less return than the T2 BPO holders. My suggestion would be either to reduce ME penalties (my favorite) or do away with the random nature of invention success. T2 BPO holders will still have quite an advantage (half priced build cost or no invention costs), just not two of them like they enjoy now.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2007.11.09 04:07:00 - [5] because -9 me on a battleship is no fun for modules -9 isnt to bad. its not great but its doable, then for t2 battleships, thats an extra few 100mil on parts. as for data cores, how many can you get from r&d agents? decryptors are somewhat monopolized, although the move to exploration makes me wonder about supply.
Devian 666 Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.09 04:08:00 - [6] or convert the existing T2 BPOs into 1000 run bpc and let invention take over from the BPOs. Quote: "... I doubt they would have the skillpoints and cap fleet to take and make soverignty over a large established alliance like BoB."
RoSsCs Caldari Jupiter Mining Corp New Eden Research	Posted - 2007.11.09 14:03:00 - [7] Originally by: Devian 666 or convert the existing T2 BPOs into 1000 run bpc and let invention take over from the BPOs. Now imo, that is the fairest option for inventors but bpo holders will hate it.
RoSsCs Caldari Jupiter Mining Corp New Eden Research	Posted - 2007.11.09 14:05:00 - [8] I believe the best option would be in the first place allow invented bpcs to have their ME and PE affected by the original Tech 1 BPC, so for inventors it would actually allow them to make some more money.
Scimon Tinker	Posted - 2007.11.09 15:13:00 - [9] hey hey My biggest issue is that things that were promised in the invention blog didn't actually occur. Your base TII BPC comes out -4/-4 regardless or the original copy (so using a 0/0 BPC is just as effective) Runs are also not based on the original bpc and theres a base result for each module (10 for most 5 for others 1 for ships) again the original BPC has no real bearing on the TII output Decryptors are oddly "balanced" but a dev recently stated that they are being looked at for Rev III. also the move to exploration has interesting consequences. I would prefer if the "higher" level decryptors aren't restricted to low sec or 0.0 but we will have to wait and see about how it pans out. BTW to an above poster its probably going to be "radar sites" and not mag sites that they will drop from. Radar=Codebreaker and Mag=Arch/Sal also there a dev quote somewhere about increasing radar sites for the decryptor move to exploration. As to the success rates I very very very much indeed feel like I'm playing a slot machine rather than a deeply skilled technical game. I increased my science skills and encryption skill and i get just as many failures as before. the "success rate" for decryptors is also something to note and some actually have a negative effect on your success rate. II RC it was stated that using a decryptor and having a high quality BPC will give you a greater chance of success. ATM I'm mainly focused on the chance of success as this has the greatest impact on the wallet. The associated costs with invention can be quite high and for it to be nothing more than a game of roulette can get quite frustrating.
Scimon Tinker	Posted - 2007.11.09 15:27:00 - [10] as to changes/improvements to invention Decryptors All need to have a positive chance of success but should be tweeked to provide a choice of their effect on the BPC recieved if successfull. ATM i find its alot better to go straight for a -4/-4 BPC and skip a decryptor alltogether. Im not sure if an increased supply is sensible as yes it would drop the decryptor prices but it would remove the "mini profession" of invention. Im not saying that it should be an elitist occupation but just more specialised. moving to exploration im unsure about but its a very sensible step in the right direction. Specialised hacking ships with decent defenses coupled with scanning capability would be the next logical step as needing 2 ships to find and then complete a codebreaker site can be time consuming. coughMMOLGcough Datacores ATM i find nothing wrong with the current system and or pricing but i would state that the lottery is now over and maybe R&D agents should be adjusted to be more specific to datacores. maybe having an R&D RP store so whilst you still gain RP through a specific agent you can access your RP from any of that Research corps station. This would eliminate the need to travel multiple systems to collect datacores (need for speedÖ) also please please enough with the agent mail each visit :/ Success Rates I have no idea what does/does not improve the chance of success but i always use a max run well researched BPC. a small idea from me is to actually show your chance of success in the lab details much the same way refining does. At least that way you can see if your skill, BPC, Decryptor is actually making a difference. Hope that helps ya'll
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.09 15:34:00 - [11] Originally by: Khajin Edited by: Khajin on 08/11/2007 23:30:55 My experience is that the invention system has been released but not properly intergrated into community use. No matter how many skill points I have in science, I feel like I'm playing a slot machine rather than being rewarded for preperation, skill and time investment. Invention = It's VEGAS BABY! Its working well im getting richer. At the moment its abt 300-400m/day if i actually invent.
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.09 15:35:00 - [12] Originally by: RoSsCs Originally by: Devian 666 or convert the existing T2 BPOs into 1000 run bpc and let invention take over from the BPOs. Now imo, that is the fairest option for inventors but bpo holders will hate it. Sure - if you cover the difference between isk got for 1000runs and cost of BPO itself. Then i might go for it.
Scimon Tinker	Posted - 2007.11.09 15:44:00 - [13] after a constructive post comes a flame I dont see the need for the elimination of TII BPO's i think its petty jealousy between n00b and Vet and those that fell that its some way their god given right to content that was available BEFORE they were able to join in. it was my 3rd birthday recently and i missed at least 2 rounds of the lottery befor i joined in. I never managed to get a BPO and when my alt had 7k RP he did but due to a small issue he couldnt collect it and therefore could not claim it. I invent on a semi regular basis and even invent ships :) No i do not make a ** load of isk from invention but i mainly play to get by and enjoy the game but there is still a load of isk there to be made through invention and TII BPO owners dont always have the advantage. Also you could say that TII BPO owners earnt their BPOS and had to suffer with the endless agonising wait for their turn at the lottery win. They skilled up and invested time and effort so Whe the ** should they be nerfed purely because others dont have the TII they want. You had to be in it to win it if you wasnt then you couldnt, but at least you now have invention (also an isk printing machine if you wanted it to be) my 2 isk
Garlion	Posted - 2007.11.09 16:06:00 - [14] Personally, if someone is "inventing" a new technology, IMO, it should be a BPO. keep the "lottery" chance on the invention, but reward successes with BPO's instead of BPC's. Some may say it's overpowered, but if you're inventing something, wouldnt you have the original copy?
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.09 16:51:00 - [15] Originally by: Scimon Tinker I dont see the need for the elimination of TII BPO's i think its petty jealousy between n00b and Vet and those that fell that its some way their god given right to content that was available BEFORE they were able to join in. it was my 3rd birthday recently and i missed at least 2 rounds of the lottery befor i joined in. I never managed to get a BPO and when my alt had 7k RP he did but due to a small issue he couldnt collect it and therefore could not claim it. Im still less than 3 years old character-wise (this being my main) and yet I managed to accumulate abt 130-150k RPs here = some BPOs. So talking abt "vet that got stuff before you were able to" is just bull. And yes - the "new" newbs cant play lottery anymore - but invention gets enough iskies to remove the BPO holder advantage. And if you REALLY need to get BPO - pay for it like most ppl did anyways. And then hope you can make it back in 1-2 years (like all who bought em did).
RoSsCs Caldari Jupiter Mining Corp New Eden Research	Posted - 2007.11.09 17:15:00 - [16] Before we all go off topic here and start flaming each other to hell and back, lets try to keep this constructive. While Tech 2 Bpo holders have an advantage with regard to lower wasteage, why can't we just allow people to keep thier T2 bpos but allow inventors to invent bpcs with a decent material and production efficiency level based upon that of the T1 bpc. I personally think it would keep everyone happy, except for the usual whiners, or did I miss something?
Scimon Tinker	Posted - 2007.11.09 17:30:00 - [17] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Im still less than 3 years old character-wise (this being my main) and yet I managed to accumulate abt 130-150k RPs here = some BPOs. So talking abt "vet that got stuff before you were able to" is just bull. And yes - the "new" newbs cant play lottery anymore - but invention gets enough iskies to remove the BPO holder advantage. And if you REALLY need to get BPO - pay for it like most ppl did anyways. And then hope you can make it back in 1-2 years (like all who bought em did). 1. I totally agree and i also managed to accululate a load of RP's but wasnt successfull but that wasnt my point. it was just a little history of myself. the distinction between vet and n00b is much more towards your second point. but i used words most people seem to use to have that distinction between older and newer players and as your point 2 makes, player age is relative. 2. im pretty sure i made that point and totaally agree. The BPO holders advantage is the fact they have a bpo and have no failure/invention costs and i also agree that invention can far outproduce a BPO. Back on topic. in one of my chans we were discussing the increased Sleipnir prices and started looking at the base build cost and your cost to invent. Its very easy to see why prices have spiked to 200mil as the cost to invent them is pretty high and thats before you fail I havent mentioned costs or profit margins mainly because I try not to crunch the numbers too much and am happy with the wallet going in the right direction and im no economics expert. People have been talking about the costs of the new ships as theres no bpo and their costs will be purely invention driven. If CCP wish for TII ship prices to drop then maybe invention needs a tweak towards driving costs down.
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.09 18:28:00 - [18] Originally by: Scimon Tinker Back on topic. in one of my chans we were discussing the increased Sleipnir prices and started looking at the base build cost and your cost to invent. Its very easy to see why prices have spiked to 200mil as the cost to invent them is pretty high and thats before you fail 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.
Spoon Thumb Paladin Imperium	Posted - 2007.11.09 19:13:00 - [19] For me invention is just a matter of quantity, to statistically almost guarantee yourself over a long series of jobs a certain success rate. However, R&D agents are fundamentally flawed. Although they provide a steady and stable injection of datacores, after the initial investment of time and isk in skills, they are essentially free isk ever after Khaldari khanidpublic : RP channel for supporters of the Kingdom PLDN Recruiting
Masheine	Posted - 2007.11.09 20:03:00 - [20] I think invention should surpass BPO's in profitability. All the BPO holders have had time (and they certainly have the isk...) to be at the same level inventors are at with skills. There's no reason invented tech 2 BPC's shouldn't be better than tech 2 BPO's, in order to help nudge the market in the direction of invention. I'd like to see more "customizability" in invention (not of the resulting modules, just of the resultant BPC's and of the job itself). Decryptors are the obvious way to do it, but some other (non-change based) mechanic would also be fine. Specifically, I'd like: Ability produce ME0PE0 BPC's, with no possibility of failure. Ability to produce positive ME/PE BPC's, with some chance of failure. Ability to reduce number of datacores required for invention job (possibly skill based? Level V Encryption gives %50 reduction in datacore requirements or something...).
Scimon Tinker	Posted - 2007.11.09 20:43:00 - [21] Originally by: Masheine I'd like to see more "customizability" in invention (not of the resulting modules, just of the resultant BPC's and of the job itself). Decryptors are the obvious way to do it, but some other (non-change based) mechanic would also be fine. Specifically, I'd like: Ability produce ME0PE0 BPC's, with no possibility of failure. Ability to produce positive ME/PE BPC's, with some chance of failure. Ability to reduce number of datacores required for invention job (possibly skill based? Level V Encryption gives %50 reduction in datacore requirements or something...). I really like the datacore idea and that would also help with invention. also would follow a skilled path bonus and thats totally inline with the Ethos of EVE Producing a 0/0 with no chance of failure really isnt as theres no risk/reward factor but following along those lines. . . negative ME/PE = Higher success 0/0 = Normal chance for success positive ME/PE = Lesser chance of success All ofc modified accordingly. adding a decryptor to offset the -ME/PE or adding a decryptor to offset success rates. Unfortunatly the closer invention becomes to being fully skill based and having higher success rates will cause it to become very overpowered and eventually saturated with success due to skills eventually becomming more and more specialised and towards maxed stats. Having Perfect Success rates isnt what we are looking for but more along the lines as a specific reason to fail and not just a dice roll.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2007.11.09 22:04:00 - [22] Originally by: Garlion Personally, if someone is "inventing" a new technology, IMO, it should be a BPO. keep the "lottery" chance on the invention, but reward successes with BPO's instead of BPC's. Some may say it's overpowered, but if you're inventing something, wouldnt you have the original copy? but is it new technology if someone else owns a bpo for the item? it would also make t2 bpos worthless (compared to what they are now) although the i built it yesterday and now i have no idea how to do it aspect doesn't make sense. and at the same time if you invent something the me and pe shouldnt be great. but if you continue to invent taht same thing shoudlnt you get better at inventing it. (i supposed that should read better skills = better me/pe and chance of success)
Tessikhet	Posted - 2007.11.10 07:54:00 - [23] You don't need CCP to step in and artificially decrease the cost of datacores for you. There is no cap to the global number of datacores that can be produced over a given time period. Farming datacores is a passive activity; once you set up to be in that business, all you have to do is haul and sell. This makes it attractive for players to enter into the business of supplying datacores to inventors. The more players who enter into this business, the lower the datacore prices will fall (just as they've been falling all along). So eventually the market for datacores will bottom out at the "real" value of the datacores -- the price at which inventors will buy them to engage in attractively-profitable invention. I hope that CCP will give the market a big long chance to work out these issues before stepping in with artificial market regulation. The EVE market is a game for players to play, not CCP devs. Players deserve a capitalize on opportunities instead of watching CCP step in to squash them. If CCP does something to artificially reduce the demand for datacores, it sets a precedent that makes it very hard to justify the risk of pursuing in-game business opportunities in the future. I personally won't invest SP and ISK in any EVE business venture once I've observed that CPP doesn't mind intervening on the consumer's behalf to artificially lower the value of goods. For example, right now I'm grinding away standing with two NPC corps while training a multitude of science skills. I'm setting myself up to sell mech eng and nanite eng datacores, which takes a significant investment of time. A side-effect of this effort be to reduce the cost of those datacores slightly due to increased supplier competition. But if a month or so after I get settled into that business, CCP steps in and artificially fudges with the market by, for example, reducing the value of mech eng datacores by reducing the number of modules they are used to create, then suddenly I'll find out that due to a risk I could not evaluate, I've wasted my time. It would be like if the government of a certain country suddenly started a practice introducing price-controls to prevent private industry from making a significant profit in certain industries. Suddenly, the landscape for doing business in such a country starts looking extremely risky, because you never know when the government might step in and crush your profits. And ultimately that hurts the consumer because they end up with less supply to consume and fewer choices, because fewer companies decide to be in business. The market can work out the problem of the cost of invention components. Just give it a chance.
Fenderson Shadow Company FreeFall Securities	Posted - 2007.11.11 15:07:00 - [24] personally, i think the only problem with invention is the competition from BPOs. It was necessary to keep BPOs in the game as a transitional measure to make sure the t2 market didnt crash, but now that invention is in full effect it is obvious that we do not need tech 2 bpos anymore in order to keep the market stable. the only remaining reason to keep BPOs in the game is to not ** off BPO owners, which is not a valid reason to refuse to make a balancing change. you can give something to the bpo owners to compensate them, but the bpos need to go. Originally by:** CCP Wrangler Oh dear, how about we all calm down a bit instead?
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.11 16:59:00 - [25] Originally by: Fenderson It was necessary to keep BPOs in the game as a transitional measure to make sure the t2 market didnt crash, but now that invention is in full effect it is obvious that we do not need tech 2 bpos anymore in order to keep the market stable. 75mm railguns gatling lasers small t2 ammo javelin rockets Just some random items which are CHEAPER thanks to BPOs. Remove BPOs, those items will go from 0,1mil to 1,5-2mil/piece.
Landarian Spaceways Provisioning Company	Posted - 2007.11.11 18:00:00 - [26] Edited by: Landarian on 11/11/2007 18:02:06 Edited by: Landarian on 11/11/2007 18:00:11 1 - The run count of T1 BPC used in the invention process should absolutely impact the resulting invention. A 1-run T1 bpc should have minimal impact vs. a max-run T1 bpc that should up the resulting invented bpc run count. As an example, for every 5-runs the T1 bpc has, the invention result run count should go up by 1. A 15-run Caracal bpc should give a +3 run count of a resulting Cerberus bpc. 2- The ME/PE values of the T1 BPC used in the invention process should absolutely impact the resulting invention. An ME30 bpc should have a greater impact than an ME0 bpc. That whole negative ME/PE mess on invention is crap and IMHO is one of the biggest gripes when it comes to comparing invention results to T2 BPO holders. As an example, for every 10 points of ME of the T1 bpc, the negative ME value of the invented bpc should improve by 2. So an ME40 Caracal bpc should produce a Cerberus bpc with an ME of +4 3 - Decryptor and datacore availability really needs to increase, perhaps by a factor of 2. Invention can and should be something that increases the availability of T2 gear, particularly since T2 gear is supposedly the basis for invention of T3 stuff later on. Just my 0.02 ISK Land
Terail Zoqial	Posted - 2007.11.11 18:45:00 - [27] I faffed with invention when the profit margins were much more favorable. I slacked off for a while and got distracted by other aspects of Eve. I would probably get back into it if.. 1. Encryption thingums were available through exploration, which I know is on the cards, but am not sure how it will be implemented throughout the universe (can't go on test server atm due to it killing my clients) 2. We need at least 0 base me/pe and positive me/pe when we get the job 'right' 3. Need a greater chance of success based on skills instead of CCP's terrible lottery system. Sorry CCP, but you're better than that. 4. I love infinity's idea of failure does not mean your resources dissapear. It would be nice to have the choice of quick fix i.e. there is a greater chance of failure, but your resources go faster OR it takes longer, maybe up to a week for greater success, granted you don't have a %100 chance of success. It comes down to isk sink or time sink. 5. supplementary skills to yet again, increase invention chance. Yes, we all hate to train skills, but given the chance, I would rather spend a month increasing my chances rather than not having any option at all.
Fenderson Shadow Company FreeFall Securities	Posted - 2007.11.11 19:20:00 - [28] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: Fenderson It was necessary to keep BPOs in the game as a transitional measure to make sure the t2 market didnt crash, but now that invention is in full effect it is obvious that we do not need tech 2 bpos anymore in order to keep the market stable. 75mm railguns gatling lasers small t2 ammo javelin rockets Just some random items which are CHEAPER thanks to BPOs. Remove BPOs, those items will go from 0,1mil to 1,5-2mil/piece. having to pay 2 mil instead of 0.1 mil for a few low demand items hardly constitutes a market crash, and would have very little negative impact on the game. some invention jobs need a bit of tweaking still (ammo is a big one) but overall theres still no good reason to keep t2 bpo's in the game. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Oh dear, how about we all calm down a bit instead?
Sphynx Stormlord Gallente Anqara Tech	Posted - 2007.11.11 21:44:00 - [29] Quote: 2- The ME/PE values of the T1 BPC used in the invention process should absolutely impact the resulting invention. An ME30 bpc should have a greater impact than an ME0 bpc. That whole negative ME/PE mess on invention is crap and IMHO is one of the biggest gripes when it comes to comparing invention results to T2 BPO holders. As an example, for every 10 points of ME of the T1 bpc, the negative ME value of the invented bpc should improve by 2. So an ME40 Caracal bpc should produce a Cerberus bpc with an ME of +4 I would much prefer something like this. I would also much prefer the random element to be not so much 'did I achieve anythign at all' but 'how good was my result'. For example, a poor run might result in a ME-10 bpc, where a good one might result in a ME+1 bpc. Or a poor run might give a 2 run module bpc, with a strong attempt giving a 20 run module bpc; this would be more interesting (while potentially averaging the same) as getting or failing to get 10 run bpcs. I would also like to see bpc's being researchable - so that people who want to spend the extra time in a lab on their 10 run bpc can do so.
Eidolon Ra Caldari Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.11 22:32:00 - [30] I would like to see a couple of enhancements to the invention process. First, if you are inventing an item from the Kaalakiota labs then you should have a higher success or ME/PE if you use their lab for the job. Additionally your standings with the corporation should effect final outcome. This would tend to specialize inventors in certain module/ship types instead of the do what's hot now mode. Second, to enhance the outcome or better the odds implement the use of the R.Db tools. Combined with the first item you could have the better chance for either success or quality. Third, I agree with those who have said it should be easier the more times you do it. It could be handled like LP's or something along those lines. If nothing else, make them LP's with research agents that we can use to cash in for more Datacore's or Decryptors. Fourth, what if we could research our Interfaces? Fine tune them as it were so they invent faster, improve ME, improve PE, etc. It would allow us to adapt an interface to counter/enhance the decyrptors in a specific way. Finally, I would love to be able to do faction modules and ships by combining interfaces. Esoteric plus Incognito Ship Interface to get a Rattlesnake, etc. Could also cover the gap for the lack of faction modules available.
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]

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.