These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Lighting the invention bulb

First post First post
Author
Lady Zarrina
New Eden Browncoats
#121 - 2014-09-11 22:06:43 UTC
Clifton Oksaras wrote:
Oi. While I actually like most of these changes, It means I probably have to wait another 2-3 months for Zifrian's Eve IPH, which sucks.



IPH need a set of rules like Fight club. We need to make sure it does not get used by the masses.

The first rule of IPH is to never to talk about IPH :)

Seriously, if you like manufacturing, and you are not eagerly awaiting IPH you might be doing something wrong*.


* I know many other programs are out there, and many people have developed their own programs and spreadsheets for personal use, but IPH is great program.

EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#122 - 2014-09-11 22:06:55 UTC
Adding data interfaces as a consumable, so each invention job requires two data core types and a data interface specific to the type of BPC/relic being invented/reverse engineered, would be a better option for improving the value of exploration.

Then remove data cores from exploration, since most exploration ships have small holds. Thus data cores come from the folks wandering around their local research agents, while data interfaces come from exploration (or rather the components for data interfaces come from exploration).

This opens up the option for station owners to buy research agents in much the same way as teams. Post a bid for an agent, they will move to your station and live there for a production period of a week/month/whatever, with the owner getting a split of the ISK cost of purchasing data cores. If a station is destroyed, or an agent is not bid for, that agent simply becomes unavailable for the remainder of the current production period.

Removing data interfaces and reducing the demand for data cores by ~50% hurts two professions at once.
Copper Khai
#123 - 2014-09-11 22:30:05 UTC
Great Job CCP - really like the way indy is going. It's a lot less spreadsheety. You guys blow me away when you release dev blogs. The systems you think up are so much better than my own ideas.The gradual success/failure is sooooo nice!

1 issue - The old lure of Indy was the "efficiency" of production. That thrill is now much harder to calculate. Market pvp depended on knowing if you were winning of losing. You'll have to make it up there I guess.

2 issue - Passive income. I play EVE to build and make ISK I dont PVP or PVE much (no time to collectively play). But I can get on for hours solo (semi/afk). Is there any thought to making some part of Indy a Codebreaking type endevour? Something active? Even mining is semi active and PI is more lucrative if you are more active (shorter timed).

Not everything has to be passive to PVP/PVE.
Arronicus
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#124 - 2014-09-11 22:32:56 UTC
Great job here, however; if your intent was to shift many of the inventions to be more intuitive with the race that uses them and the weapon type, why were railguns shifted away from electromagnetic physics and Caldari, the technology they actually use, and the race that they are styled for, to plasma physics and Gallente instead, when Plasma is a blaster element and gallente ships are not tailored for railguns?
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#125 - 2014-09-11 22:46:46 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Then remove data cores from exploration, since most exploration ships have small holds.


or reduce volume from 1m3 to 0,1m3.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Red Bluesteel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#126 - 2014-09-11 23:05:48 UTC
1st of all, with all of you nice Industry Change Graphs, I'm missing one Major Graph => The Changes of how much more isk all those changes cost us e.g. ME/PE/Copy/Invention Costs. WHO the F*** is spending for an Aeon PE+6 (12%) 1,5 bil isk ???

2nd Why the F*** are Inventions take so much longer than post patch, 37 Mins vs 8,xx Hours for an Scorch L Invention ???
Im running out of T2 BPCs, because the Production is that Freaking Fast, i thing you have to Fix that a bid, Less Invention Time More Production Time.

3rd To: Science field changes for Invention and Tech II manufacturing, Since when are Railguns Plasma Weapons, a Railgun is a Magnetic driven Gun, so changes from Elect.Magnetic to Plasma Physics make no real sense. This and others too. Please do here an Review.
Railgun Wiki

4th The changes on the Sin (Mechanical Engineering to High Energy Physics) also make no sense, why i don't need Mechanical Skills to Build an Ship? As additional Skills High Energy Physics make sense, because the Sin is an T2 Ship with need more requirements than an T1 Version.

5th Why the hell is the Chance Formula that different from T2 to T3? Base Chance CR (new) T2 = 37,5% vs T3 = 61,5%, seems to me a bid unbalanced.

Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
Capital Interstellar Group
#127 - 2014-09-11 23:08:34 UTC
Once again another excellent round of changes from the peeps at CCP and CSM making a great indy game even better. I particularly love the multiple invention runs and think the scaling levels of success are a great idea.

I have to points that I would love to see included in the final shape of these changes.

#1 - skills. NOBODY trains invention skills to 5. going from 4 to 5 only gives a half a percent greater chance of success. Skills should play more of a factor. Even if you're perfect skills you only get a 50% chance of success for a module. If you're skills are at 2 you get a 40% or so. I personally think a character with skills at 5 should have well over a 50% chance of success. And skills at 1 shouldn't get you much at all. Can you adjust that formula?

#2 - There's not enough here to kill T2 BPOs. Maybe it will come with the decryptors, but an inventor needs a way to produce a ME10/TE20 BPC. Maybe it will come from decryptors, maybe it will come from having skills at 5. Maybe the 'uber critical success' should be more than +3. Please work it out so that an inventor can create a 10/20 BPC.

Otherwise, from what I see, improvements look significant and will be very successful.
Winthorp
#128 - 2014-09-11 23:11:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Winthorp
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=372926&find=unread

Crosposting this as your changes here affect future changes that have been spoken of by CCP devs.


So with the changes RE is now being merged into invention they have made further worrying changes to subsystem reverse engineering.

The new change is you will be able to select the subsystem directly and not the random chance it is currently. While short term this is great as there will be no wastage involved with reverse engineering unprofitable subsystems long term it worries me.

Long term we were told by devs that when they are looking at the T3 rebalance their ideal outcome would be rebalancing susystems so that all subsystems become useful unlike their current form. The changes to reverse engineering do not really go hand in hand with what we understood to be their future plans.

It was my understanding that T3's are after recons in the rebalance cycle so T3's should be getting looked at either now by developers or very soon behind the scenes.

So should we start to worry or should we have the dreaded T3 debate now so we don't get a Hyperion level patch we all hate?

Should i right click trash the ******* hundreds of unprofitable T3 Subsytem BPC's i have?
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#129 - 2014-09-11 23:34:22 UTC
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:

The Orca & Rorqual are due to both be rebalanced very soon. This dev blog gives you the hint that there will be T2 versions of both ships released as well. On the proviso as usual that if you use this information to speculate it may not turn out as you think.

Unlikely. But, hey, if you wanna throw away your money, go for it.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Charlie Nonoke
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#130 - 2014-09-11 23:57:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Charlie Nonoke
Not exactly stoked about the new changes.

My experience:

Limitless Invention / Stackable jobs:
I made the EFFORT to set timers to redo my invention jobs once every hour and a half, compared to the average Joe beside me, who did NOT put effort into it. He felt it was too much of a chore, and did not want the hassle of logging in every so and so to repush the buttons. Granted, my work allows me to run EVE, and redo the process.

The rewards I get are more T2 BPCs than Joe, and as a result, I also get to produce more products than he does, yielding me better profits, because by the same virtue, I also get to reclick the manufacturing jobs at the same rate.
Joe on the other hand could only make a batch's worth of profit, because he did not put in effort.

But this stackable invention thing isn't as much of a deal than the one below, because I know that even if Joe invents 24/7 non stop, his profit bottleneck will be from manufacturing. As long as you don't make production jobs stackable, I'm still good.

Non-binary outcomes:
It's a change from the usual 1/0 output, which is welcoming, but the varied ME/TE results on the BPCs will sorely mess up any manufacturers plan of action. You don't know what to expect until the job is complete, and with the results, calculating exactly how much materials to bring will be troublesome. Some people approach industry with a huge stockpile of materials. But others also do things JIT way.
That was ME. As for TE, same situation, with my skills staying static, the only variable to completion time is the TE of the BPC. With varied BPC TEs, it will mess up any industrialist's production pipeline. You might have jobs completing minutes earlier than the others, and if someone wants to run at full capacity, it's more of a hindrance.
Not to mention, this change will not affect those who "set it and forget it", since they run a normalized sort of timeframe. And for those who run things like I mentioned above, it'll mess things up. So why introduce this varied BPC outcome?
Consistency is perhaps an industrialist's best friend. And speaking for myself, I prefer to know that my BPCs after cooking, is a ME-2 TE-4 BPC.
If someone wants a better ME or TE, go plug in a decryptor... It's what they were made to do.
By doing this we still achieve consistency. We will know with probability 1, that any successful invention will yield ME/TE of those specific values.


My suggestion is to get rid of the added bonus ME/TE additions, and replace them with the exact things from the failure bonuses. Exceptional successes could return your datacores, or part of the batch, and so on...
Or introduce new decryptors which grant those little minute bonuses. That can be your SINK which counteracts the return of the datacores... perfect for those individuals who prefer the added ME/TE bonuses.
The important thing here is, there is consistency.
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan
#131 - 2014-09-12 00:09:42 UTC
Het Silenius wrote:
Am I blind, or is the New Module Skill graphic missing AC/arty and rockets/missiles?
Lighting the Invention Bulb devblog:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Also, figuring which race is needed to invent an item isn’t always intuitive. One could assume inventing an ECM II module would require Caldari Encryption Methods with a Caldari Data Interface, since ECM is the main Caldari electronic warfare system. However, it actually requires Gallente Encryption Methods at the moment, which is quite confusing. So, we are cleaning this quite a little bit.
I underlined and bolded the reasoning why the entire list is not needed. Only the changed "Skills Before vs Skills After" items are listed; I would think the missing items are intuitive and not changing.
Megumi Miura
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#132 - 2014-09-12 00:16:59 UTC
Things I like:
1. Being able to install multiple invention runs. Thank you CCP.
2. Making science skills more equitably useful
3. Rationalisation of Invention with RE - but please rename "Invention" to "Upgrade", "Customise" or some-such.


Things I don't like:
1. The pathetic impact of skills on chance for success. 40% to 50% for 15 levels of skills? Gimme a break! 30% to 60% would be better.
2. Are CCP freighter-haters? On top of their wonderful recent "rebalancing" comes a reduction to invention chance. If CCP want industry to spread across EVE then they should make Freighters and Jump Freighters as cheap as chips. This would help industry logistics and increase ganking targets - a win-win for everyone!

Things not mentioned:
1. Will there be any changes to the time and cost of invention and RE? I personally disliked what Crius did to the time and cost of research. The time and money needed to get the last couple of ME and TE are, for many items, ridiculous. There is now a significant time/ISK barrier facing new industrialists wanting to compete with established industrialists. I believe this will discourage the growth of the industrialist community .
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#133 - 2014-09-12 00:24:50 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Panteraa wrote:
Are there plans to change T2 BPO's? I'm not looking for details, I'm just curious if a change is on the timeline.


We are not happy with them in general - what would exactly happen to them and when remains quite undefined for now.


  • Increase their material requirements to include the average requirements for inventing the equivalent BPCs.
  • Add 'invention' materials to the requirements for making copies of T2 BPOs.

  • Problem solved.

    Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.

    Dorian Wylde
    Imperial Academy
    Amarr Empire
    #134 - 2014-09-12 00:35:51 UTC
    Altrue wrote:
    Interesting changes indeed.

    I think however that polishing invention could've been the opportunity to completely remove RNG-based elements, as they provide no benefits to gameplay or enjoyment whatsoever.


    An opinion that I assure you is not shared by everyone. RNG makes things far more interesting and thus less dull and repetitive.
    Swiftstrike1
    Swiftstrike Incorporated
    #135 - 2014-09-12 00:40:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Swiftstrike1
    I strongly dislike the random chance element of the invention mechanic. I propose that the varying degrees of success CCP wish to introduce should be entirely dependent on the team used for the job, not on random chance.

    Furthermore I find the very concept of hit and miss invention ridiculous. In the real world if you can do it once, then you know exactly how to do it again. This would be most accurately modelled by allowing the invention of T2 BPOs. This would crash the T2 market and play merry hell with the invention profession, but at least it would solve the problem of existing T2 BPOs. I think CCP should give some serious consideration to how they might be able to balance T2 BPO invention.

    A good start would be to prevent the copying of T2 BPOs!

    Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.

    Retar Aveymone
    DJ's Retirement Fund
    Goonswarm Federation
    #136 - 2014-09-12 00:48:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Retar Aveymone
    Swiftstrike1 wrote:

    Furthermore I find the very concept of hit and miss invention ridiculous. In the real world if you can do it once, then you know exactly how to do it again. !

    wrongo

    intel spends billions on chip manufacturing and there's still quite a random element factoring into if an individual chip works (and what it can be binned at) from an existing line of chips being manufactured

    like they'll make a whole batch of haswell chips, then have to test each one to see which work, then what to bin each one as ('better' chips are just the ones that binned better, not a separate line of chips)
    NEONOVUS
    Mindstar Technology
    Goonswarm Federation
    #137 - 2014-09-12 00:56:26 UTC
    Retar Aveymone wrote:
    Swiftstrike1 wrote:

    Furthermore I find the very concept of hit and miss invention ridiculous. In the real world if you can do it once, then you know exactly how to do it again. !

    wrongo

    intel spends billions on chip manufacturing and there's still quite a random element factoring into if an individual chip works (and what it can be binned at) from an existing line of chips being manufactured

    like they'll make a whole batch of haswell chips, then have to test each one to see which work, then what to bin each one as ('better' chips are just the ones that binned better, not a separate line of chips)

    A good point on this is the simple impact that can occur from mixing a polymer together
    Sure its the same ingredients each time, but if the stuff were to clump around the beaters, you will be missing a chunk of product or worse the entire batch
    And then there is the issue of what happens if grime goes in the wrong place and a switch jams wrong
    All you really need to do is consult some of the OSHA post case reports to realize things are very much able to fail even with people paying attention-let alone them not

    Also think of any skill you havent done in 4 years, try doing it now, now 10 years
    Code Redd
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #138 - 2014-09-12 01:30:50 UTC
    Meta items in mod inventions MUST STAY.

    1. it adds a competitive edge. if you can find cheap meta items to increase your chances, you're cutting costs over your compeition. It's nice to have an edge that doesnt require buying a team (most people who invent, invent dozens of types of things, a team usually covers 1 group).

    2. There are hundreds, HUNDREDS of meta items on market that have a value just below their mineral value, if you KEEP META items in invention, it gives them a place to go--other than reprocessing. This is good for both miners, and the savvy invention specialist.

    3. Nothing adds success like a meta item, as EASY as it does.

    I know that it's 'confusing' when it comes to things that are not mods, but the interface could make it so that the option to input a meta item doesnt even appear on the things that cant be effected by them (ships, rigs, etc).

    but PLEASE keep the meta items for mod invention.

    i'm begging!

    (and i dont use them that often either, but i LIKE to, when i can get 50% more invention success for 40k a job (when the datacores are 400k) ... that's like getting a free batch of runs, for 400k!

    keep the meta items!
    Sizeof Void
    Ninja Suicide Squadron
    #139 - 2014-09-12 01:32:32 UTC
    Retar Aveymone wrote:
    Swiftstrike1 wrote:

    Furthermore I find the very concept of hit and miss invention ridiculous. In the real world if you can do it once, then you know exactly how to do it again. !

    intel spends billions on chip manufacturing and there's still quite a random element factoring into if an individual chip works (and what it can be binned at) from an existing line of chips being manufactured

    like they'll make a whole batch of haswell chips, then have to test each one to see which work, then what to bin each one as ('better' chips are just the ones that binned better, not a separate line of chips)

    As you noted, the random factor actually occurs in manufacturing.

    After the first time that Intel successfully "invented" the Haswell chip blueprint, using Ivy Bridge as a guide, the process does not need to be repeated for each manufacturing run.

    So, if you really want to mimic RL, then invention should be a one-time activity, to create a T2 BPO from a T1 BPO, and the per build random factor should be moved to the manufacturing process.
    Querns
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #140 - 2014-09-12 01:35:07 UTC
    To all those decrying the loss of meta items in invention, fear not -- there are plans to make them matter more in the future. Your mission scavenging businesses are going to get a shot in the arm.

    This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.