Science & Industry

I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to here, sorry.

Yes, I think we get it. You guys are raging about past track records instead of just posting feedback on each iteration. You can either post it here and maybe get a good patch or not and get a steaming pile of crap you rage about for years. There is nothing particularly controversial in this bundle. We can debate a few % here and there but they are relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Given invention is getting a massive overhaul shortly after this patch there really isn't much point in trying to do precise tuning. Do it in the next pass.

double post

I would also point to a recent Guardian article that is quite expansive about the challenges of software development at CCP.

The past is the best predictor of the future. I am simply pointing to best industry practices and combine them with the track record of the company. Not a pretty scenario to say the least. Kenneth put together a list and I don't want to get even more depressed and look for more examples of feature abandonment. Just look at it this way: The project prioritization policies that CCP employs brought you World of Darkness and Dust 514.

I thought we wanted to discuss issues here and not gloss over serious concerns. There are plenty of other outlets for blowing sunshine up people's rear end and tell stories that have little to do with reality.

This suggestion looks like a very good balance between a flat modifier and an elaborate balancing process.

Looking at my numbers, i would suggest to add 5% to those (150% 140% 130% 125%), because no-decryptor/symmetry/accelerant/process actually give you a 153%, 144%, 135% and 126% modifier if you do the math.

Oh, and please make sure that extra materials only get the normal 1/0.9 modifier

The table is entirely hypothetical at this point, it only serves to illustrate what a move away from negative ME values would do, based on my interpretation of this thread.

Hey, I'm not upset with anyone - I meant literally what I said, which was that when Theng says "this is what I was worried about", I was not clear what the "this" was referring to. If it's about dealing with some invention issues as part of a follow-on package of changes to invention, then I totally understand the skepticism. Normally I wouldn't even be suggesting that we're waiting for later patches in public, but I'm sufficiently confident of these ones happening that I'm making an exception in this caes. I totally take the point that planning for a follow-up is risky, but the counterpoint in my mind is that the changes that were shelved were only being considered because they *were* a band-aid that would be ripped off shortly anyway. Normalizing to 24h with the current queuing mechanics is not a good long-term fix, in our eyes, so if we plan on the assumption that there is no follow-up, we still wouldn't be implementing that change :)



I'll have another look at the math here next week. This looks like it lines up very nicely with current numbers, but it's not totally clear yet that we do want to match them exactly. The current balance is to a large degree arbitrary, and if it weren't for the fact that we had done some very specific balance changes to moon minerals to deal with bottlenecks that we don't want to revisit, I wouldn't be attempting to get any closer than ballpark numbers anyway, because trying to tune to match arbitrary legacy balance is generally a poor use of time. If it looks like these changes will significantly impact moon mineral values then we'll probably do some more tuning, but if we'd just be changing everything in the same ratios with no impact on economic balance beyond the price of ships, that's probably not something that merits fine-tuning simply to match existing numbers. If there's a cost-balance problem with T2 ships then that would be much more sensibly addressed by a targeted balance pass on those costs; simply preserving the status quo has no value if the status quo itself has no specific value.

Again, I'm happy to be argued around on this sort of thing :)

[edit] And now I look at Qoi's numbers, to the degree that this is an artefact caused specifically by the changes to the relative values of decryptor stats, that's something that IMO is better addressed by a decryptor revisit, not by tuning base build numbers to match old decryptor usage patterns to new interim decryptor stats.

Ok, then I know the reasoning behind the factor used. As long as that reason/goal is stated we, the players, should be able to give nice feedback around it. :)




Don't work on weekends! Stop burning yourself out! We want you to stay healthy!

double post