These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New research gameplay (implants)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mercer Nen
Summicron Holdings
#1 - 2015-08-30 17:56:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Mercer Nen
The subject of how research currently works has come up in the thread about the new research lab structures. Instead of just implementing research as it currently exists this seems like a good opportunity for CCP to introduce some new gameplay tied to the new structures. Full disclosure, I don’t have a lot of experience in doing research and manufacturing, so it’s entirely possible that I’ve got some of the details horribly wrong.

The current research mechanics are integral to manufacture and since that has already gone through a recent overhaul, adding more complexity and gameplay to existing manufacturing doesn’t seem like a good idea. As a result it seems best to link any new research gameplay to something new. One possibility is for this new research to be a part of the process of inventing and manufacturing implants.

A core element of this new research process is that the more proactive a player is the better the odds of a good result. Proactive management of research should increase the probability of desired results and sometimes result in exceptional results. Required interaction should be fairly minimal. However, the more passive a player is with their research, the odds of success decrease and the greater potential for more random results.


New Gameplay Goals

  • Non-binary result
  • Active participation is rewarded
  • Risk/reward balance
  • Choices and actions throughout the process affect results
  • Degree of randomness in results
  • Gameplay and corresponding UI should not necessitate a lot of meta decisions, or out of game activities
  • The interactions involved in proactively managing the process should be interesting and possibly even fun (?).


Current research process

My impression of the way research currently works is that there are no tactics involved in the actual research gameplay (if you can call it that). Choices have already been made. Just plug in appropriate components, hit start, wait, then see what the result is. A few key points:

  • Plugging in correct elements gives % chance of positive result.
  • Success or failure, nothing in between. Complete failure if positive result isn’t returned.
  • There is minimal choice in use of components. Only active choice is whether or not to use decryptors (?)


How it could work

  • Player can choose how active or passive their participation is for a research project.
  • Different combinations of components generate a list of potential results.
  • Chance of getting desired result is determined by how components are combined (i.e. hierarchy, sequencing, specific links between components). These choices might increase or decrease the probability for different results.
  • The potential results, and their probabilities of occurring, should be visible throughout the research process.
  • The research process consists of a number of stages. Might vary according to what is being researched?
  • The list of potential results is updated at the conclusion of each stage. The number of possible results should (?) decrease after each stage.
  • Research can be set to pause between stages to allow for adjusting the research plan. A greater variety of choices and interactions should be available between stages than while stages are running.
  • Player interactions possible throughout each research project might include: injecting a new component, adjusting the hierarchies, links, and sequencing of components, shifting research emphasis, or even following a new strand of research based on the results of the previous stage.
  • There will always be a degree of randomness involved in the results of each stage as well as the final result.


New research process

To summarise, this whole thing might look something like this:

1. Choose your desired output (Implant blueprint)
2. Choose your framework (number of stages, teams?)
3. Choose and add components (i.e. Artefacts, Database, Datacores, Data interface, Decryptors, Research data)
4. Establish links and sequencing
5. Start research
6. Monitor progress & modify as necessary
7. Result!
Big smileStraightSad
Mercer Nen
Summicron Holdings
#2 - 2015-08-30 18:03:20 UTC
Results & Manufacturing

The initial post doesn’t really talk much about the variety of results possible, so I thought I’d cover some of the possibilities before someone shouts at me (inevitable?). At this point I’m imagining that the manufacturing process would be the same as other manufacturing, using the same UI. But that is certainly an open question.

Booster production is a massive blind spot for me, so I’m not sure if there should be any similarities between booster production and implant manufacturing. Could this new research process also be used for booster blueprints? I think CCP has expressed some interest in reviewing Boosters in general, so I thought I’d just leave it out of the conversation for now.

Where I see the biggest variable and potential source of randomness in the outcome would be the benefit percentage. But there are a lot of other easily imaginable possibilities.


Random result examples

You were hoping to get a +3% Hybrid damage implant blueprint. You got:
2% hybrid damage, or
x% medium hybrid damage, or
x% hybrid capacitor use

You were hoping to get a blueprint for an implant that works the same way the Inherent Implants ‘Lancer’ Gunnery RF-903 implant works (+2% turret rate of fire). You got what you wanted but with a side effect:
Implant degrades over time, or
Blueprint cannot be researched


Researching research

Since this new process does include a degree of randomness, it seems only fair that any blueprints generated could be further researched. A positive result of this further research could increase the benefit given, if the initial goal wasn't met. Therefore, if you got a implant blueprint with a 2% benefit from your original research, but your research target was 3%, you might be able to increase the percentage to 2.5% or even 3% with an outstanding result through another round of research.


I’m not touching the numbers around probability and cost because… well why would I at this point? It’s just a bunch of ideas.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#3 - 2015-08-30 20:01:45 UTC
EVE should never become Farmville, which is what you are suggesting it become. You should not need 12 hours a day to be successful.
Also since every item in EVE needs a database entry you are proposing a massive inflation of the database to be able to account for all your variations.

So in short, No to all your changes to research & production.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#4 - 2015-08-30 20:13:46 UTC
As always with these ideas... I present the main problem with them;

I wrote:
Having the ability to completely customize anything usually does not produce the results its proponents say it does ("more variety").

There will always be stats, slots, and ship bonuses that are more desirable than others... and people will, if given the chance, try to get those stats with certain slot configurations over all other considerations in order to "be the best."


Also consider that the people in the best position to get those "ideal" stats are those in large organizations with huge amounts of resources and manpower... because they can easily absorb the extra time, tedium, and "failures" that come with the system you are proposing in addition to doing it on a HUGE scale.

This means that they can create virtual monopolies over "the best" modules and dictate prices over "mom and pop" operations that can only produce a few at a time (if that).

How did you Veterans start?
Mercer Nen
Summicron Holdings
#5 - 2015-08-31 00:06:11 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
EVE should never become Farmville, which is what you are suggesting it become. You should not need 12 hours a day to be successful.
Also since every item in EVE needs a database entry you are proposing a massive inflation of the database to be able to account for all your variations.

So in short, No to all your changes to research & production.


This is not a proposed change to current research and production. Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough. It's an additional type of research. The point is to add meaningful choice. Similar to how you fit a ship and then use the fitting to see if it works (via PVE or PVP). If anything it would ideally create a new type of research that is more similar to how EVE currently works.

Although I've not played FarmVille I suspect that PI more closely resembles it? Any new gameplay relating to research should avoid the existing game design and ux issues of PI.
Mercer Nen
Summicron Holdings
#6 - 2015-08-31 00:32:30 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
As always with these ideas... I present the main problem with them;

I wrote:
Having the ability to completely customize anything usually does not produce the results its proponents say it does ("more variety").

There will always be stats, slots, and ship bonuses that are more desirable than others... and people will, if given the chance, try to get those stats with certain slot configurations over all other considerations in order to "be the best."


Also consider that the people in the best position to get those "ideal" stats are those in large organizations with huge amounts of resources and manpower... because they can easily absorb the extra time, tedium, and "failures" that come with the system you are proposing in addition to doing it on a HUGE scale.

This means that they can create virtual monopolies over "the best" modules and dictate prices over "mom and pop" operations that can only produce a few at a time (if that).



Honest question, how does the current manufacturing & research system prevent monopolies?

In general I would agree with the concept of people with more time to invest will achieve better results. Isn't that already true? That is mostly the way it should be. The randomness aspect is one way to balance this. However, it should not be mandatory to devote a tremendous amount of time to produce positive results. Ideally this would be a background activity that you could engage with every now and then.

The 2 key principles that maybe need to be emphasised are 'Meaningful Choice' and balancing 'Risk vs Reward'.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#7 - 2015-08-31 01:46:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Mercer Nen wrote:

Honest question, how does the current manufacturing & research system prevent monopolies?



They face the same flat chance of success everyone else does. and once installed that job is in the RNG's hands.


the scheme presented...lets have research corp based. Its now running 24/7. Shifts stoke the fires get better returns.

this cuts out the independents who we can assume sleep say 6-8 hours, work/school 8 hrs. Usually back to back....so a straight 14-16 hours gone there alone. Lets have them have kids. Its not like you can fire it up in the morning between bed and work. YOu are doing the daily get the kid(s)s out of the bed things. Which is odd....my 5 year old will fight us every damn weekday morning for wake up to go to daycare. Sat and sunday though.......0630 start time to day he has no issues getting up all by himself and is in our face bright and early. You know...the 2 days it be nice to sleep in and can they don't want to. Welcome to kids.

It also be cutting out the non-international corps. Put more simply....the non 0.0 blob ones as 0.0 tends to actively attract all 3 time zones more readily. I often see smaller crews prefer if not say "our" time zone only outright for whatever reason.


Larger crews also have the worker bees to feed this as just another thang. They have them in place now....POS slaves. Always felt bad for these people. Hours burned maintaining POS'. this would be mere minutes to an already crappy day. POS slave detail was something I went out my way to avoid at any rate lol.....
Lugh Crow-Slave
#8 - 2015-08-31 08:39:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
CCP overhauled manufacturing already and they did it in a way to remove complexity

and although i do not personally agree with the change the current system is much better for eve than the one you are suggesting

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Mercer Nen
Summicron Holdings
#9 - 2015-08-31 09:56:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Mercer Nen
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
CCP overhauled manufacturing already and they did it in a way to remove complexity

and although i do not personally agree with the change the current system is much better for eve than the one you are suggesting

To be clear:
1. No proposed changes to any existing systems (i.e. manufacturing)
2. New method for creating blueprints (implants only)

I agree that the complexity level needs to be managed, but the idea would be that in general, you shouldn't have to do a lot of work outside of game to use this system. And that would be regardless of whether you are using the simple, passive mode of this new process, or the more interactive method.

The UI should give you all the information you need in a clear and intuitive way. Adding the element of choice during a process, does add to the overall complexity of a system, but it doesn't necessarily create a system that is complex to use. The hacking mini game is an example where ccp added choice and complexity, without burdening the player with overly complex interactions. Even the loot spew wasn't complex. It was annoying and not fun, but I wouldn't categorise it as complex.