These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#181 - 2014-09-12 15:46:24 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
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?


Invention skills are a fine line to walk upon. Make them too valuable and they'll become a mandatory requirement for everyone to use before starting Invention, just like the old Production Efficiency skill used to force people to wait a bunch of weeks before profiting in Industry.

As we mentioned in the blog however, those numbers are not final - we can always increase the value of skills up if needed, but we would like to avoid massive bonuses here Blink

Invention skills are so useless it's generally considered a waste to train them to IV. That's how little they matter with the current formula.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#182 - 2014-09-12 15:46:38 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
For the ship construction skills, 1% te is basically useless. Te bonuses need to be bigger than that or they're just consumed in the time between finishing and logging in.


Or make it a me reduction. Even a 1 percent me bonus for level 5 is better than a 5 percent te bonus.
Lucy Sue
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#183 - 2014-09-12 15:49:25 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Lucy Sue wrote:
Regarding the skills in the past when skill requirements have been changed it had been done in a way so that people who could do it before at a certain level could do it after at the same level. For example ships and drones. With the changes outlined in this blog it would force us to train skills to reach that same level as before, are any skills going to be raised to compensate?


The ship tiericide caused us to delete old generic Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills and replace them with new ones, which is why we had to add and refund those skills to the players.

This change is just shuffling tech II skill requirements for science skills around - your existing skills won't lose value, they'll just allow you to invent / manufacture other types of items you originally aimed for. As such there is no plan for skills to be manually raised or reimbursed. That is why we wanted to bring this blog early on to give you time to adapt and train skills needed back up.


In the case of the capital ship pre-reqs being changed it was done in a way that no one really had to train any more than they already had to keep the same level. In the case of drones skills were bought up to match other skills that you may have trained.

The existing skills do lose value though, in the case of Sin used as an example in the blog, someone who really only builds ships would have mechanical engineering which is now useless to them and wouldn't have high energy physics which before they wouldn't of trained.

So the same treatment of skills towards ships will not be seen towards the industry? c/d
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#184 - 2014-09-12 16:14:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Bugsy VanHalen
It seems many did not get the point I was trying to make.

Dev Blog wrote:



  • All modules, rigs and ammo have 40%
  • All Frigates and Destroyers have 35%
    Cruisers, Battlecruisers, Mining Barges, Industrials, ORE industrial have 30%
    All Battleships, Industrial Command Ship have 25% << there are no T2 industrial command ships
    Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20% << The only ships here that have a T2 variant are freighters, yet they are not listed??



A fact distorted by this list, is that Freighters are the ONLY capital ship with a T2 counterpart. This is futher distorted by the fact that although they are included in this group, Freighters, the only ship that should actually be listed here, is actually not on the list. There are not even any T2 industrial command ships. If these other ships listed were actually used in invention, I can garantee those that invent and build them would be equally outraged at a reduced base invention chance.

Currently on TQ the invention chance for freighters is on par with frigates. This may seem odd, but there is a reason for this. The higher invention chance is offset by the significant costs of producing the BPC's, and a much higher requirement for consumable data cores in the invention process. Just to attempt the invention of a jump freighter BPC is very costly, and even with max skills, and an expensive +90% decryptor you don't get much better than a 50/50 chance of sucess. This does not mean 1 out of every 2 attepts will suceed however, I have had upwards of 5-6 failures in a row inventing jump freighter BPC's, with the current 30% base invention chance. And now they are going to nerf it.

Considering the cost of each attempt for inventing a jump freighter BPC, a 10% reduction in base invention chance is going to hit these ships very hard. If you think Jump freighters are expensive now, this will cause their price to go way up. trust me, I build them, and this change is going to really hurt.

Hidding the fact that jump freighter invention is being nerfed by grouping the invention chance will all other capitals, when there are NO other capitals that can be invented, and then not even listing freighters, the only ship in that catagory that actually can be invented. This is extremely shaddy and underhanded. Intended or not.

The only possible explaination is either the developers making these decissions are completely ignorant of what they have done, and are doing. Or they are intentionally trying to hide the true changes as I discribed above.

Which is it ignorance, or Deception? I believe it is Deception.
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
#185 - 2014-09-12 16:23:15 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Tzar Sinak wrote:
Upon reflection there seems to be a very interesting opportunity here. It is stated that data cores are to be reviewed and rebalanced. May I suggest that a new "wild card" series of data cores also be created. The type of data core that gives massive
advantages to those must succeed jobs.

These wild card data cores will need to be rare and thus very valuable. People will want these at almost any cost. Where will these be found? Only one place, data sites. Rare, elusive, significant impact on job success/inefficiencies and expensive. A must have item but difficult to find.


So, if these data cores/decryptors (data cores have no impact on the success chance, only decryptors have) are so rare, they will be so expensive that the massively increased cost overshadow the gains (increased success chance) compared to inventions without these decryptors and basically nullify the gain. Pretty pointless.


Pointless? On the contrary, the price will of course be supported by the market. If there is demand the price will fluctuate accordingly. The point is these rare decryptors and data cores would offer significant bonuses that will of course need to be balanced with cost.

Come on man! Think of the possibilities to both offer explorers and builders/inventors. Win/win/win.

Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE

Check out the Eve-Prosper show for your market updates!

Karash Amerius
The Seven Shadows
#186 - 2014-09-12 17:23:48 UTC
I would still like some clarification on the pirate components looted at (primarily) hacking sites on what will become of them now that 98% of their usage will be taken out of the game.

Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka

Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#187 - 2014-09-12 17:43:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Bugsy VanHalen
If they are going to add a feature that enables different levels of success, why not have an extremely rare chance to "Invent" a T2 BPO.

Then there would be no need to address the existing T2 BPO's in the game. It would be possible, although extremely rare for anyone to get one. The more invention you do the higher your chances of getting an ellusive BPO.

/Que the Flames

Edit;
I know how bad it would be to introduce more T2 BPO's. With time the need for invention would completely dissapear as T2 BPO's would eventually cover all the production needs.

However, As someone else earlyer in the thread mentioned. it really does not make sense for items to need to be "invented" thousands of times. Eventually those rare invented items should become common place enough to not need to be invented any longer. i.e. enough T2 BPO's around that they no longer need invention.

Such a system would allow for newly introduced T2 items to gradually become common items, with T2 BPO's for production. Eventually invention would only be useful to prevent the prices of the T2 BPO's from getting too high, as there would always be an alternative to using them, and a way to aquire additional T2 BPO's if market demand goes up.
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
#188 - 2014-09-12 18:05:43 UTC
Looking at the pie charts: If you are successful at an invention, you have a 5% chance for the exceptional success, 10% chance for a great success, 20% chance for a good success, and 65% chance for a standard success.

0.05*0.02 + 0.1*0.01 = 0.002. So I can expect an average 0.2% ME savings from my successful inventions. This really underscores the NEED to be able to combine BPCs with the same attributes into longer runs. when the batch size is limited to 10 for modules, then a 1% or 2% ME bonus may or may not yield any real savings. If I can combine them together into a batch of 100, then I will save some materials.

Likewise, when I can build a frigate or all 10 runs from a module blueprint in less than 24 hours, then the TE bonus is useless. Saving 28 minutes still means I still build 1 batch in a day. Stacked together, I could build for several days and get an extra unit from a blueprint with a TE bonus.


Again from the pie charts: If your invention fails, you have a 5% chance of a critical failure, a 10% chance of a terrible failure, a 20% chance for a poor failure, and a 65% chance of a starndard failure. 0.65*0.5+0.2*0.25+0.1*0.1 = 0.385 chance to get a datacore back on a failure.

Therefore, if I do a statistically large number of inventions with a 50% chance of success, then my total datacore consumption will be reduced by 19.25%. If I have lesser skills or am inventing ships with lower success rates, I can expect more datacores back. So the total demand for datacores across the Eve cluser will decrease by somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-25%.

I have no point here. I just wanted to do the math.
Kaydar ArX
Scorch Inc.
#189 - 2014-09-12 18:27:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaydar ArX
Good riddance meta items in invention.

Saving Datacores seems fine, but I don't feel +ME/+TE is an elegant design.

+Me: Sure I will save some components, but I build in batches and will always plan using the basic ME2/TE4 bpc.
+Te: Having a few TE5 bpcs finishing a few minutes earlier in a batch of TE4 will change nothing, I will just wait for my whole 10 lines to finish before setting up another batch.

Also science skills need some love, I understand you don't want them to be the new material efficiency skill for T2 manufacturing, but still...maxing them to V for such a minimal gain defies logic.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#190 - 2014-09-12 18:53:55 UTC

Are the loot tables of explorations sites going to be updated with new items when you remove the components for tools from the game?

Also, thank you for getting rid of these things... I have wwwaaayyy to many decryptor BPC's and parts that are mostly hangar trash.

Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#191 - 2014-09-12 19:00:12 UTC
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#192 - 2014-09-12 19:30:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Bugsy VanHalen
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
[quote=CCP Ytterbium][quote=Querns][quote=Bugsy VanHalen]Comments.


Jump Freighters are insanely powerful with their jump drive capability and should not be even remotely close to easy to build. Besides, it currently makes little sense for them to be easier to invent than Tech II Cruisers, Battlecruisers and Battleships.

they are not, The BPO's needed to create the BPC's are billions of isk, the production of BPC's to invent from takes a long time. And each attempt burns 128 datacores.

I am not saying they should be easy. i am saying that they are already hard enough.

base invention chance is not the only factor here.

How many invention attempts can a character resonably handle in say a month? you need to use 2-3 solts for copying, leaving 7-8 slots for invention, at ~12 days per attmept.

So a single character dedicated to Jump freighter invention can make approximately 14-16 attempts per month. While you could do hundreds for a cruiser.

With these changes, using a +90% decrytor you will be doing well to get a 40% chance of success.

With the lowest invention chance decryptor ,you could poassibly have a negative chance at success. How would that work?

Even with the 90% decryptor, giving about a 40% chance of success, that does not even garantee 1 out of 3 attempts to be a success. So at 14-16 attepts per month I would get, at best, if I was extremly lucky, and used a 90% invention chance decrptors, the absolute best I could hope for is about 6 sucessful T2 BPC's per month. The normal median will be much less.

With the current base invention chance I have a hard time getting 3-4 sucessful BPC's per month. I will occasionally get 5-6 but that is very rare.

Inventing cruisers I could easily get 30-40 successful T2 BPC's. using lower chance decrytors that give added runs.

So how is it that jump freighters are easier to invent than cruisers currently.? I don't see it. You obviously have not tested it, just made assumtions based on incomplete data.

My point is, it is not just invention chance, but the number of possible attempts that needs to be balanced. Cost is not an issue, A T2 capital should be insanely expensive to buy, or build.

Howeve, Manufaturing jump freighters is no simple indevor. You have all the effort of manufaturing freighhters, plus the aquisition of moon materials, and a complete set of additioanl BPO's for required T2 components. It is a very challenging endevor, as it stands currently, and a goal I have enjoyed working toward for over two years.

Jump freighters may seem to be a highly profitable venture currently, however the work involved is far greater than building dreadnaughts or carriers. With a far lower overall production. the ISK per hour is actually quite low considering the amount of work that goes into them. And despite the very high cost of the ships, the profit margins are not that big.

This change may seem small, however, it will have a far bigger impact than many players, and developers are expecting. All I ask is that you consider all the factors, not just look at an invention chance plot chart, before making this decission.
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
#193 - 2014-09-12 19:51:45 UTC
It has been said repeatedly in this thread that the science skills are not worth enough. It has also been said that we don't want these skills to be "level 5 or go home" like the old Production Efficiency skill was.

So here is some math to show how much effect these skills really have:

Imagine a module for which the T1 version costs 50k isk and T2 version costs 1M isk. It takes 6 datacores to invent (3 of each type) and returns a 10 run blueprint on success. I am doing this in a system with copying and invention cost indices of 3%.

The installation cost to make a T1 BPC = 50000*0.02*0.03 = 30 isk.
The installation cost to attempt each invention = 1000000*0.02*0.03 = 600 isk.

Datacores have cost between 80k isk and 150k isk each for quite a while now. Assume that after the market shakeup prices settle to about the same place. (FW runners choose different datacores to supply and things even out.) Let's use 120k isk for our datacore price.

The new system will return 38.5% of datacores per failure. Those returned datacores can be sold off or used for the next batch, so we don't count them as part of the cost of invention. The isk cost of datacores for one invention attempt = 120000*6*(1-Percentage of Returned Datacores)

The cost of each invention attempt is the installation cost of the copy + the installation cost of the invention + the datacore cost.

The Cost per Successful invention = Cost Per Attempt / Success Chance

The Cost Per Unit = Cost per Success / Runs per Success

With the current success formula, a character with level 3 in Science 1, Science 2 and Racial Encryption Methods has a 46% chance to invent a module. Someone with level 4 in those skills has a 48% chance. Someone with level 5 in those skills has 50% chance (Not 50.4% as was mentioned in the dev blog.) Calculate cost per module out for 46%, 48%, and 50% Success Chances and you will get:
................Success Chance...................46%...................48%..................50%
...........Returned Datacores..............20.79%..............20.02%.............19.25%
Datacore Cost per Attempt........570,312.00.........575,856.00.......581,400.00
.......Total Cost per Attempt........570,942.00.........576,486.00.......582,030.00
...............Cost Per Success.....1,241,178.26.....1,201,012.50.....1,164,060.00
......................Cost Per Unit........124,117.83........120,101.25........116,406.00

So, a character can train three rank 5 skills (two science skills and one encryption skill) from level 0 to 3 in about three days. Their T2 BPC will cost them 124k isk of the 1M isk finished T2 module.
That character can then train those three skills to level 4, and it will take them about 12 days. At that point, their T2 BPC will cost them 120k isk. That 4016 isk savings is 0.4% more profit over the character with rank 3 skills.
That character can then train those three skills to level 5. It will take about 60 days. They save 3695 isk per unit over the character with level 4 skills. 0.37%

This item was chosen to illustrate the maximum benefit one can get from the skills. For most other items the manufacturing cost is higher and the blueprint cost is a much smaller portion of the finished T2 item cost.

Yes, you heard that right! For the low, low cost of two months training you too can earn less than half of a percent more profit on your inventions!
Sheeana Harb
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#194 - 2014-09-12 20:38:16 UTC
Kaydar ArX wrote:
....
+Me: Sure I will save some components, but I build in batches and will always plan using the basic ME2/TE4 bpc.
...


Exactly what I had in mind. When building (and buying in batches), we will be left with 'spare' components just laying around since we all plan (and buy for) ME2.
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
#195 - 2014-09-12 20:53:24 UTC
Sheeana Harb wrote:
Kaydar ArX wrote:
....
+Me: Sure I will save some components, but I build in batches and will always plan using the basic ME2/TE4 bpc.
...


Exactly what I had in mind. When building (and buying in batches), we will be left with 'spare' components just laying around since we all plan (and buy for) ME2.


About 0.2% of all materials.

But really a lot less than that because with limited runs and rounding we will miss out on most of the savings.

For me, a couple exceptional successes will just mean that I need to buy fewer materials for next week's run.
Stonecutter Hardy
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#196 - 2014-09-12 21:00:34 UTC
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
It seems many did not get the point I was trying to make.

Dev Blog wrote:



  • All modules, rigs and ammo have 40%
  • All Frigates and Destroyers have 35%
    Cruisers, Battlecruisers, Mining Barges, Industrials, ORE industrial have 30%
    All Battleships, Industrial Command Ship have 25% << there are no T2 industrial command ships
    Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20% << The only ships here that have a T2 variant are freighters, yet they are not listed??



A fact distorted by this list, is that Freighters are the ONLY capital ship with a T2 counterpart. This is futher distorted by the fact that although they are included in this group, Freighters, the only ship that should actually be listed here, is actually not on the list. There are not even any T2 industrial command ships. If these other ships listed were actually used in invention, I can garantee those that invent and build them would be equally outraged at a reduced base invention chance.

Currently on TQ the invention chance for freighters is on par with frigates. This may seem odd, but there is a reason for this. The higher invention chance is offset by the significant costs of producing the BPC's, and a much higher requirement for consumable data cores in the invention process. Just to attempt the invention of a jump freighter BPC is very costly, and even with max skills, and an expensive +90% decryptor you don't get much better than a 50/50 chance of sucess. This does not mean 1 out of every 2 attepts will suceed however, I have had upwards of 5-6 failures in a row inventing jump freighter BPC's, with the current 30% base invention chance. And now they are going to nerf it.

Considering the cost of each attempt for inventing a jump freighter BPC, a 10% reduction in base invention chance is going to hit these ships very hard. If you think Jump freighters are expensive now, this will cause their price to go way up. trust me, I build them, and this change is going to really hurt.

Hidding the fact that jump freighter invention is being nerfed by grouping the invention chance will all other capitals, when there are NO other capitals that can be invented, and then not even listing freighters, the only ship in that catagory that actually can be invented. This is extremely shaddy and underhanded. Intended or not.

The only possible explaination is either the developers making these decissions are completely ignorant of what they have done, and are doing. Or they are intentionally trying to hide the true changes as I discribed above.

Which is it ignorance, or Deception? I believe it is Deception.


CCP needs to add to inventing a bpc to what ever it is,

if the BPC fails when your doing your inventing that bpc should still remain but change to Green or Red to say in a way it as failed, try again

When the inventing job you have done as failed and that bpc as gone green you should be able to re-research that bpc or some kind of way to make that bpc of the failed inventing re-usable, but add time it take for this to be done same time it took to invent it from start before it failed,

its gone green dam have to re run this failed invert job again, will loose a bit of runs over this try again job, but with few more data core to redo it my invert job, nice one it as passed this time after second fail,
Valterra Craven
#197 - 2014-09-12 21:04:33 UTC
Shoogie wrote:

Yes, you heard that right! For the low, low cost of two months training you too can earn less than half of a percent more profit on your inventions!


I'm not going to lie. A lot of this blew over my head. The real question I have, does CCP do this type of analysis on things that they change/ want to change and if not why don't they?
Zifrian
The Pannion Domin
Ghostbirds
#198 - 2014-09-12 21:15:40 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Zifrian wrote:
Thanks for the devblog.

Two questions/issues:

1 - With Battleship construction, right now it provides no bonus to production but is required at different levels to build higher level items. While I'm not really OK with allowing anyone who trains a skill to level 1 to build more advanced items than people who make the decision to train that skill for no other reason than to build those advanced items,

- What bonus will Advanced ship construction skills have to want to raise them to level 4 or 5?
- If you do not provide a bonus, then what purpose does a level 4 Advanced ship skill have in this new system and will you reset these skills for all players?


To make things clear, we are not removing the skill requirements to build larger ships, we are reducing skill requirements to build ships within each size.

Ex: training Advanced Battleship Construction will still require Advanced Cruiser Construction 4 which itself requires Advanced Frigate Construction 4.

Building a Sin however will only require Advanced Battleship Construction 1 instead of 4.

Bonuses for training Advanced Battleship Construction most likely will be a 1% TE reduction when building Tech II battleships.


Eh...ok I guess 1% is better than nothing but reducing TE for all these skills (and the old PE) is lackluster at best. 2% would be better but ME reduction somewhere in the skill trees would be most welcomed.

While I don't think the ME reduction for T2 ships is going to fly, how about 1% reduction from T1 hulls (not T2) in addition to the TE reduction as well? Something to give these skills an 'Advanced' flavor. Say Advanced battleship construction gives 1% reduction in ME for all T1 battleships and 2% TE reduction for T2 battleships? This would add some interesting choices to these skills imo.

One final thing, I'm assuming you will look at Industrial construction as well? Right now there is no reason to train past level 3.

Thanks

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder

Shoogie
Serious Pixels
#199 - 2014-09-12 21:20:02 UTC
Here is my proposal for a new invention success formula:

Success Rate = Base Rate * (1+ (Science Skill 1 + Science Skill 2 + Encryption Skill)/15)
Where Base Rate for Modules, Ammo, Drones = 26%
Base Rate for Frigates = 23%
Base Rate for Cruisers = 20%
Base Rate for Battleships 17%
Base Rate for Freighters = 14%

............Current Formula.....................................................Proposed Formula
Base.....Skills 3.....Skills 4.....Skills 5.........................Base.....Skills 3.....Skills 4.....Skills 5
40%..........46%.........48%..........50%........................26%........41.6%......46.8%.........52%
35%.....40.25%.........42%.....43.75%........................23%........36.8%......41.4%.........46%
30%.......34.5%.........36%.......27.5%........................20%...........32%.........36%.........40%
25%.....28.75%.........30%.....31.25%........................17%........27.2%......30.6%.........34%
20%..........23%.........24%..........25%........................14%........22.4%......25.2%.........28%

My new numbers were chosen around characters with level 4 science and encryption skills. Those characters would have approximately the same success rates in both formulas, but those with lesser skills have fewer successes and those with greater skills have more successes.

Plugging the proposed success rates into the same hypothetical module in my previous post:
................Success Chance...................41.6%...................46.8%......................52%
...........Returned Datacores...............22.484%...............20.482%.................18.48%
Datacore Cost per Attempt............558,115.20...........572,529.60...........586,944.00
.......Total Cost per Attempt...........558,745.20...........573,159.60............587,574.00
...............Cost Per Success........1,343,137.50........1,224,700.00........1,129,950.00
......................Cost Per Unit...........134,313.75...........122,470.00...........112,995.00

So the 12 days of training to get skills from 3 to 4 will yeild 1.18% more profit on this T2 item. The 60 days training to get skills from 4 to 5 yields 0.947% more profit. 1% is comparable to moving from a 5% system to a 4% manufacturing system, and less than is saved by using most teams. Much better return than previously, but certainly not required.
Sheeana Harb
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#200 - 2014-09-12 22:33:52 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Invention skills are a fine line to walk upon. Make them too valuable and they'll become a mandatory requirement for everyone to use before starting Invention, just like the old Production Efficiency skill used to force people to wait a bunch of weeks before profiting in Industry....


How about making use of the hacking minigame? Let's say that when adding a decryptor for invention, player would be given (totally optional) choice to 'run' a hacking minigame to improve the chances. And both respective invention skills could be act as baseline for virus strength and coherence. Failing the minigame should have some negative effects though, for balance.