These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Make T2 Invention Interesting: invent NEW variants!

Author
Tubrav Sadarts
Viscous Logistics
#1 - 2013-03-12 21:04:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Tubrav Sadarts
Has anyone else thought, while inventing, "Hey, this 'brand new' t2 projectile turret looks *suspiciously similar* to the one invented by a completely different person with different skills"?

It has always irked me that all t2 producers in the whole EVE universe manage to 'invent' the same bloody item/ship every time. So to fix this, invention should actually be capable of producing different ships for separate inventors. In a nutshell; if someone wants to invent an ultra-fast Crow, they should be able to try. It'll be harder than inventing a standard Crow, but it should be possible.

Basic Idea:
Upon choosing to invent from a t1 BPC, you'd have the choice to go the 'standard' route or to customize your invention. Using the Crow as an example, pretty much all the stats are fair game for changing, except rig slot numbers and high/med/low slot numbers, as well as *numbers* of turret/missile hardpoints.

A Few Details
There would be a hard cap on how much you can try to change a stat (say, 50%). The difficulty of the invention would scale (linearly, or not) with the amount the stat is improved. So, if I wanted to invent a Crow with 50% higher speed, it'd be X% harder to invent (where X would be at least 50). Furthermore, you'd need 50% more of the relevant t2 component (Sustained Shield Emitters, in this case).

So far, so good. But what if I want a decent chance at actually inventing my uber-fast Crow? I could decrease/worsen another stat to compensate for the invention difficulty. So I could decrease my hull HP by 50%, or my cargo capacity, or (for a bizarre reason) increase my mass by 50%. Doing this would reduce the appropriate t2 component cost by 50% as well as cancelling out the invention time penalty for the 50% speed boost.

Now I have a Crow with 50% more speed, and 50% less cargo volume. But I really want it to have 50% more shields too, just in case. Given how the cargo volume decrease negates the speed increase's invention penalty, you'd think that adding 50% shields to this config as adding only the 50% speed increase. But no! If you want to improve two stats, the invention penalty is more severe for the second stat (although not the component cost increase). Let me clarify;

Penalty for improving ONE stat: None
Penalty for improving TWO stats: Stat improvement % x 25%
Penalty for improving THREE stats: Stat improvement % x 50%
Penalty for improving FOUR stats: Stat improvement % x 75%
Penalty for improving FIVE stats: Stat improvement % x 100%

For example, let's assume the invention penalty scales linearly with the stat increase, so 50% more speed makes it 50% harder to invent. With 50% more speed and shields, and 50% less cargo volume, the penalty to invent would be 62.5%. The trick is, if you reduce another stat (say, CPU) by 50%, it only negates the *original* 50% penalty, hence leaving it 12.5% harder to invent. With these numbers it'd be impossible to invent an item/ship with 50% improvements to 5 stats and 50% worsening to 5 stats, because the penalties stack i.e. 0% from the first, 12.5% from the second, then another 25% from the third, 37.5% from the fourth and 50% from the fifth, giving 125% penalty even though five stats have been decreased as much as they can to compensate for the five increased ones.

Note that if you wanted to invent a ship with -50% to 5 stats, and no improvements, you'd reduce the relevant component costs, but you wouldn't increase the invention chance. Worsening stats only increases invention chance when a stat has been increased i.e. they only act as a counter to the higher invention chance of improvements, not as an invention chance increaser themselves.

Now for some Skills!
Rather than introducing new skills, we could just use existing ones. Racial Encryption Method skills would do just fine, and their new abilites would be as such:

L1: Can improve/worsen ONE stat, to a maximum of 10%
L2: Can improve/worsen TWO stats, to a maximum of 20%
L3: Can improve/worsen THREE stats, to a maximum of 30%
L4: Can improve/worsen FOUR stats, to a maximum of 40%
L5: Can improve/worsen FIVE stats, to a maximum of 50%.

To clarify, level 5 would give you the ability to modify 10 stats, but it would have to be 5 being improved and 5 being worsened, no 6/4 split or anything like that.

Turret and Missile Hardpoints, and Ship Role Bonuses
The number of hardpoints wouldn't be modified, mostly because that would be silly, same as with modifying slots. Ship role bonuses are kind of annoying to me in this scenario, but for now I'd say leave them be what they are; modifying them would get ridiculous fast.

Building It

As I mentioned, the t2 components relevant to the stats would be decreased/increased proportional to the stat change. The rest of the blueprint/building process should be pretty much the same; decryptors would still work and do their thing, and the default blueprint copy would have minimum runs and -4/-4 as per usual.

Issues
As always, there are complications, mostly to do with selling the things. As much fun as it would be to be able to sell these on market like any other default item, that would be hilariously broken (invent a -50% to 5 stats Marauder, saving tons in material costs and sell it at a normal price? Profit!). So they'd have to be relegated to contracts, for now. Then there's the question of 'why does my pimped 50% faster Crow look like every other Crow out there?' but that's a whole other can of worms.

tl;dr
Make Invention capable of improving ship/item stats with a substantial invention chance penalty for doing so. Yay for customization!.

Feedback is greatly appreciated; this is a new idea and one which I would love to see in game, but feel free to question/modify the premise to whatever would work best.
ExookiZ
The Dark Space Initiative
Initiative Mercenaries
#2 - 2013-03-12 21:56:01 UTC
I cannot speak for the balance factor, as a 50% increase to virtually anything is probably too high, eve is about tiny 1-5% improvements. I think choosing what you are trying to invent is crucial. I hate the randomization of some things in eve.

But i do like the idea.

Event Organizer of EVE North East

Tubrav Sadarts
Viscous Logistics
#3 - 2013-03-12 22:00:11 UTC
ExookiZ wrote:
I cannot speak for the balance factor, as a 50% increase to virtually anything is probably too high, eve is about tiny 1-5% improvements. I think choosing what you are trying to invent is crucial. I hate the randomization of some things in eve.

But i do like the idea.


Thanks for the feedback Big smile

Maybe 50% is real high, but that's what having racial encryption at level 5 would give you... It could be reduced, have the cap at 37.5% or 25%, whatever works. Don't forget that under this plan, the likelihood of inventing a ship with such a huge improvement (without a corresponding loss to another attribute) would be much smaller than inventing the default ship.
DataRunner Attor
Doomheim
#4 - 2013-03-12 22:55:47 UTC
Only problem with this idea that due to how EVE repackaging and stacking system works, as soon you repackage the ship, the ship gets turned into a 'default' type, so you would lose all those bonuses to your ship.

It why you can't repackage a ship with rigs, that's damaged, and so on.

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.”

Tubrav Sadarts
Viscous Logistics
#5 - 2013-03-12 23:03:25 UTC
DataRunner Attor wrote:
Only problem with this idea that due to how EVE repackaging and stacking system works, as soon you repackage the ship, the ship gets turned into a 'default' type, so you would lose all those bonuses to your ship.

It why you can't repackage a ship with rigs, that's damaged, and so on.


That is very true, but people make ships with rigs work for them i.e. it's still possible to move around a rigged Paladin, it's just slightly less convenient. Maybe if this were actually an in-game feature CCP would deem it necessary to re-jig how repackaging works to accomodate it, who knows.
Pan Dora
Stardust Enterprises
#6 - 2013-03-13 02:51:07 UTC
Tubrav Sadarts wrote:

It has always irked me that all t2 producers in the whole EVE universe manage to 'invent' the same bloody item/ship every time. So to fix this,


Change Feature name from "invention" to something else and problem solved. (refinement? development? cooking?)

Also Its not broken.





-CCP would boost ECM so it also block the ability of buthurt posting.

Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2013-03-13 03:00:23 UTC
Tubrav Sadarts wrote:
DataRunner Attor wrote:
Only problem with this idea that due to how EVE repackaging and stacking system works, as soon you repackage the ship, the ship gets turned into a 'default' type, so you would lose all those bonuses to your ship.

It why you can't repackage a ship with rigs, that's damaged, and so on.


That is very true, but people make ships with rigs work for them i.e. it's still possible to move around a rigged Paladin, it's just slightly less convenient. Maybe if this were actually an in-game feature CCP would deem it necessary to re-jig how repackaging works to accomodate it, who knows.

there is no "re-jigging" how repackaging works. with your proposal, the game would have to create a whole new unique item type for EVERY VARIANT MADE, and each variant would need a unique name/designator to prevent misreads in the database deleting items.

all in all it would be more trouble than its worth in both the short and long term, and would make balancing hell since ther would by definition be no balance, and "unbeatable" fits would eventualy arise, and the only profit left would be in trying to get specific "perfect" variants of the specific modules in those fits, making 90% of the feature useless.
Tubrav Sadarts
Viscous Logistics
#8 - 2013-03-13 03:30:45 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Tubrav Sadarts wrote:
DataRunner Attor wrote:
Only problem with this idea that due to how EVE repackaging and stacking system works, as soon you repackage the ship, the ship gets turned into a 'default' type, so you would lose all those bonuses to your ship.

It why you can't repackage a ship with rigs, that's damaged, and so on.


That is very true, but people make ships with rigs work for them i.e. it's still possible to move around a rigged Paladin, it's just slightly less convenient. Maybe if this were actually an in-game feature CCP would deem it necessary to re-jig how repackaging works to accomodate it, who knows.

there is no "re-jigging" how repackaging works. with your proposal, the game would have to create a whole new unique item type for EVERY VARIANT MADE, and each variant would need a unique name/designator to prevent misreads in the database deleting items.

all in all it would be more trouble than its worth in both the short and long term, and would make balancing hell since ther would by definition be no balance, and "unbeatable" fits would eventualy arise, and the only profit left would be in trying to get specific "perfect" variants of the specific modules in those fits, making 90% of the feature useless.


Ahh right, yes... thanks for explaining that. I guess the variant ships would have to repackage in the same way rigged ships do; they lose the variants and become normal ships.

True that it would make balancing difficult, but people already use EFT to try to find 'perfect' fits for ships with current modules so it's not that new. This just adds an extra layer of customization and, since it's the player making the blueprint copy from scratch, a feeling that they have a chance to come up with something unique.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2013-03-13 03:56:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Nariya Kentaya
Tubrav Sadarts wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Tubrav Sadarts wrote:
DataRunner Attor wrote:
Only problem with this idea that due to how EVE repackaging and stacking system works, as soon you repackage the ship, the ship gets turned into a 'default' type, so you would lose all those bonuses to your ship.

It why you can't repackage a ship with rigs, that's damaged, and so on.


That is very true, but people make ships with rigs work for them i.e. it's still possible to move around a rigged Paladin, it's just slightly less convenient. Maybe if this were actually an in-game feature CCP would deem it necessary to re-jig how repackaging works to accomodate it, who knows.

there is no "re-jigging" how repackaging works. with your proposal, the game would have to create a whole new unique item type for EVERY VARIANT MADE, and each variant would need a unique name/designator to prevent misreads in the database deleting items.

all in all it would be more trouble than its worth in both the short and long term, and would make balancing hell since ther would by definition be no balance, and "unbeatable" fits would eventualy arise, and the only profit left would be in trying to get specific "perfect" variants of the specific modules in those fits, making 90% of the feature useless.


Ahh right, yes... thanks for explaining that. I guess the variant ships would have to repackage in the same way rigged ships do; they lose the variants and become normal ships.

True that it would make balancing difficult, but people already use EFT to try to find 'perfect' fits for ships with current modules so it's not that new. This just adds an extra layer of customization and, since it's the player making the blueprint copy from scratch, a feeling that they have a chance to come up with something unique.

Yes,but the issue comes when you compound any meaningful bonus with the bonus's already available.

the difference in DPS and tank between a ship with all lvl 1 skills and meta 0 fittings, to a ship with all lvl 5 and T2 fittings, is astronomical.

now add another 5-10% onto all those T2 mods, and it compounds into something that can rival an officer fit, and depending on how hard this invention process is (if its too easy or cheap to do, higher tier equipment could become too common) you coudl theoretically do it for les than half the cost of an officer-fit.

it just sems in my eyes this would create an utter nightmare, making all "normal" modules pointless in the eyes of the "numbers-crowd" (which believe me, makes up a phenomenally large portion of both the PvE and PvP crowd).

it just seems, when strictly looking at the numbers, that either the bonuses woudl eb so small, youd be better off buying normal faction or T2 (which would be way mroe common and therefore cheaper on the market), or just that little bit mroe powerful enough that module+skill compounding would push them over the edge.
Tubrav Sadarts
Viscous Logistics
#10 - 2013-03-13 04:05:26 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Tubrav Sadarts wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Tubrav Sadarts wrote:
DataRunner Attor wrote:
Only problem with this idea that due to how EVE repackaging and stacking system works, as soon you repackage the ship, the ship gets turned into a 'default' type, so you would lose all those bonuses to your ship.

It why you can't repackage a ship with rigs, that's damaged, and so on.


That is very true, but people make ships with rigs work for them i.e. it's still possible to move around a rigged Paladin, it's just slightly less convenient. Maybe if this were actually an in-game feature CCP would deem it necessary to re-jig how repackaging works to accomodate it, who knows.

there is no "re-jigging" how repackaging works. with your proposal, the game would have to create a whole new unique item type for EVERY VARIANT MADE, and each variant would need a unique name/designator to prevent misreads in the database deleting items.

all in all it would be more trouble than its worth in both the short and long term, and would make balancing hell since ther would by definition be no balance, and "unbeatable" fits would eventualy arise, and the only profit left would be in trying to get specific "perfect" variants of the specific modules in those fits, making 90% of the feature useless.


Ahh right, yes... thanks for explaining that. I guess the variant ships would have to repackage in the same way rigged ships do; they lose the variants and become normal ships.

True that it would make balancing difficult, but people already use EFT to try to find 'perfect' fits for ships with current modules so it's not that new. This just adds an extra layer of customization and, since it's the player making the blueprint copy from scratch, a feeling that they have a chance to come up with something unique.

Yes,but the issue comes when you compound any meaningful bonus with the bonus's already available.

the difference in DPS and tank between a ship with all lvl 1 skills and meta 0 fittings, to a ship with all lvl 5 and T2 fittings, is astronomical.

now add another 5-10% onto all those T2 mods, and it compounds into something that can rival an officer fit, and depending on how hard this invention process is (if its too easy or cheap to do, higher tier equipment could become too common) you coudl theoretically do it for les than half the cost of an officer-fit.

it just sems in my eyes this would create an utter nightmare, making all "normal" modules pointless in the eyes of the "numbers-crowd" (which believe me, makes up a phenomenally large portion of both the PvE and PvP crowd).

it just seems, when strictly looking at the numbers, that either the bonuses woudl eb so small, youd be better off buying normal faction or T2 (which would be way mroe common and therefore cheaper on the market), or just that little bit mroe powerful enough that module+skill compounding would push them over the edge.


I see your point. Then again, this is just a matter of balancing the whole thing. All the numbers I gave in the OP are theoretical, not fixed. Also to make a module which would rival an officer module (which has improvements to nearly all stats compared to t2/t1) would be phenomenally difficult using this procedure, because the chance of inventing it would be tiny (assuming you're improving 5 stats and not worsening any). Furthermore the higher stats would cost more components, so if it was balanced correctly, you'd end up with a kickass module, but it would've cost you quite a chunk to achieve.

In terms of modules being useless; this is already the case. Nobody in 'the numbers crowd' is fitting anything but t2 at least on their ships, sometimes even faction stuff for webs/scrams on bonused ships. Named items? They're for people who can't use t2 yet. Meta0 items? *Nobody* uses them in serious fits.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2013-03-13 04:11:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Nariya Kentaya
Tubrav Sadarts wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Tubrav Sadarts wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Tubrav Sadarts wrote:


That is very true, but people make ships with rigs work for them i.e. it's still possible to move around a rigged Paladin, it's just slightly less convenient. Maybe if this were actually an in-game feature CCP would deem it necessary to re-jig how repackaging works to accomodate it, who knows.

there is no "re-jigging" how repackaging works. with your proposal, the game would have to create a whole new unique item type for EVERY VARIANT MADE, and each variant would need a unique name/designator to prevent misreads in the database deleting items.

all in all it would be more trouble than its worth in both the short and long term, and would make balancing hell since ther would by definition be no balance, and "unbeatable" fits would eventualy arise, and the only profit left would be in trying to get specific "perfect" variants of the specific modules in those fits, making 90% of the feature useless.


Ahh right, yes... thanks for explaining that. I guess the variant ships would have to repackage in the same way rigged ships do; they lose the variants and become normal ships.

True that it would make balancing difficult, but people already use EFT to try to find 'perfect' fits for ships with current modules so it's not that new. This just adds an extra layer of customization and, since it's the player making the blueprint copy from scratch, a feeling that they have a chance to come up with something unique.

Yes,but the issue comes when you compound any meaningful bonus with the bonus's already available.

the difference in DPS and tank between a ship with all lvl 1 skills and meta 0 fittings, to a ship with all lvl 5 and T2 fittings, is astronomical.

now add another 5-10% onto all those T2 mods, and it compounds into something that can rival an officer fit, and depending on how hard this invention process is (if its too easy or cheap to do, higher tier equipment could become too common) you coudl theoretically do it for les than half the cost of an officer-fit.

it just sems in my eyes this would create an utter nightmare, making all "normal" modules pointless in the eyes of the "numbers-crowd" (which believe me, makes up a phenomenally large portion of both the PvE and PvP crowd).

it just seems, when strictly looking at the numbers, that either the bonuses woudl eb so small, youd be better off buying normal faction or T2 (which would be way mroe common and therefore cheaper on the market), or just that little bit mroe powerful enough that module+skill compounding would push them over the edge.


I see your point. Then again, this is just a matter of balancing the whole thing. All the numbers I gave in the OP are theoretical, not fixed. Also to make a module which would rival an officer module (which has improvements to nearly all stats compared to t2/t1) would be phenomenally difficult using this procedure, because the chance of inventing it would be tiny (assuming you're improving 5 stats and not worsening any). Furthermore the higher stats would cost more components, so if it was balanced correctly, you'd end up with a kickass module, but it would've cost you quite a chunk to achieve.

In terms of modules being useless; this is already the case. Nobody in 'the numbers crowd' is fitting anything but t2 at least on their ships, sometimes even faction stuff for webs/scrams on bonused ships. Named items? They're for people who can't use t2 yet. Meta0 items? *Nobody* uses them in serious fits.

Well, heres another issue that just occurred to me.

how are you going to make these items available on the market?

you cant put them in the amrketplace, sicne that many unique registrations would make the UI unusable, and you couldnt put them in contracts because the sheer number of modules being produced would make finding anything unmanageable.

i really dont mean to play the argumentative "bad guy" here, i just want to point out that while, yes this IS doable, maintaning/balancing it would be development HELL, and CCP gets enough of that as it is.

(lets not forget that the whole reason many faction items and etc were added to the marketplace, was because people couldnt be arsed to dig through contracts all the time that often required them to jump forever, contracts were just a hassle for small-order items)
Tubrav Sadarts
Viscous Logistics
#12 - 2013-03-13 04:31:03 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:

Well, heres another issue that just occurred to me.

how are you going to make these items available on the market?

you cant put them in the amrketplace, sicne that many unique registrations would make the UI unusable, and you couldnt put them in contracts because the sheer number of modules being produced would make finding anything unmanageable.

i really dont mean to play the argumentative "bad guy" here, i just want to point out that while, yes this IS doable, maintaning/balancing it would be development HELL, and CCP gets enough of that as it is.

(lets not forget that the whole reason many faction items and etc were added to the marketplace, was because people couldnt be arsed to dig through contracts all the time that often required them to jump forever, contracts were just a hassle for small-order items)


I know you're not being a 'bad guy', every idea needs to be 'stress-tested' as it were, and this is the stress test of my idea Big smile

Like I said in the 'issues' part of my OP, this is a tough nut to crack. Your example of the faction modules being moved to market from contracts is a good one, and that wouldn't work for these variant ones because there are infinite variations. However, I can think of another item that has nigh-infinite variance; blueprints. There are plenty of those made, and they all have different ME/PE, and they're on contracts. With the invention penalties I can't see the items being invented as frequently as normal t2 items either.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#13 - 2013-03-13 05:41:41 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Tubrav Sadarts wrote:
the chance of inventing it would be tiny (assuming you're improving 5 stats and not worsening any).

Simple to get around; make lots of invention jobs. Easy to do when you have plenty of null-sec space to put up labs.

Tubrav Sadarts wrote:
Furthermore the higher stats would cost more components, so if it was balanced correctly, you'd end up with a kickass module, but it would've cost you quite a chunk to achieve.

Repeat after me; cost is [almost] never a balancing factor... especially when you have lots of ISK and minions to throw around (for alliances, hundreds of millions of ISK is "chump change")

There are many examples in EVE's history that proves this.

Tubrav Sadarts wrote:
In terms of modules being useless; this is already the case. Nobody in 'the numbers crowd' is fitting anything but t2 at least on their ships, sometimes even faction stuff for webs/scrams on bonused ships. Named items? They're for people who can't use t2 yet. Meta0 items? *Nobody* uses them in serious fits.

*snerk*
You need to get out more. Meta items are often used in when they are reasonably available. The only things meta can't truly replace are T2 weapons (as T2 weapons get an extra damage bonus and can use T2 ammo). I'm a big user of using Meta 4 equipment whenever they are cheaper and/or I need more CPU/PG on my ship.


Overall... it's a nice idea but a nightmare to balance. Cost and low creation chances won't stop people from pumping such items out in bulk. And people in EVE have an almost nightmarish ability to find ways to exploit any system (be it mechanics or tactics).
The way your system is set up only serves to widen the gap between older, wealther players and newer, less well off players.

Oh yeah... and this will aid in the concept known as "power creep." And that's bad.
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation
#14 - 2013-03-13 09:23:54 UTC
I like the idea, but think it needs a better implementation... Will think of this later tonight.

I wuld really love to invent t2 like I assemble t3 or something.
Tubrav Sadarts
Viscous Logistics
#15 - 2013-03-15 02:56:13 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Tubrav Sadarts wrote:
the chance of inventing it would be tiny (assuming you're improving 5 stats and not worsening any).

Simple to get around; make lots of invention jobs. Easy to do when you have plenty of null-sec space to put up labs.

Tubrav Sadarts wrote:
Furthermore the higher stats would cost more components, so if it was balanced correctly, you'd end up with a kickass module, but it would've cost you quite a chunk to achieve.

Repeat after me; cost is [almost] never a balancing factor... especially when you have lots of ISK and minions to throw around (for alliances, hundreds of millions of ISK is "chump change")

There are many examples in EVE's history that proves this.

Tubrav Sadarts wrote:
In terms of modules being useless; this is already the case. Nobody in 'the numbers crowd' is fitting anything but t2 at least on their ships, sometimes even faction stuff for webs/scrams on bonused ships. Named items? They're for people who can't use t2 yet. Meta0 items? *Nobody* uses them in serious fits.

*snerk*
You need to get out more. Meta items are often used in when they are reasonably available. The only things meta can't truly replace are T2 weapons (as T2 weapons get an extra damage bonus and can use T2 ammo). I'm a big user of using Meta 4 equipment whenever they are cheaper and/or I need more CPU/PG on my ship.


Overall... it's a nice idea but a nightmare to balance. Cost and low creation chances won't stop people from pumping such items out in bulk. And people in EVE have an almost nightmarish ability to find ways to exploit any system (be it mechanics or tactics).
The way your system is set up only serves to widen the gap between older, wealther players and newer, less well off players.

Oh yeah... and this will aid in the concept known as "power creep." And that's bad.


Thanks for your reply Big smile

I agree with the 'nightmare to balance' part, but really, what isn't these days... and with this system it's less likely you'd end up with a more powerful weapon/ship overall, but just a weapon/ship that's more specialised in one way or another in one of its attributes. I'm not attempting to recreate officer-grade weapons at a POS here, I'm attempting to add a bit of variety. Meta 1-4 items could've been this, where each manufacturer is specialising in one aspect (range, damage, RoF, heat), but no, they're just boring old 'slight improvement over the lower meta'.


Shade Alidiana wrote:
I like the idea, but think it needs a better implementation... Will think of this later tonight.

I wuld really love to invent t2 like I assemble t3 or something.


I'm glad you like it, how do you mean inventing t2 like we assemble t3? Sounds intruiging...
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#16 - 2013-03-15 03:38:28 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Tubrav Sadarts wrote:
I agree with the 'nightmare to balance' part, but really, what isn't these days... and with this system it's less likely you'd end up with a more powerful weapon/ship overall, but just a weapon/ship that's more specialised in one way or another in one of its attributes.

You're talking about Tech 2 ships then. A Tech 2 ship takes a weapon or mod that people are familiar with and boosts them considerably (or at least they are supposed to) to perform well in tactics that said weapons/mods would not normally be able to perform.
However this boost comes at the cost of the ship being lackluster in other aspects.

Example 1: the Omen is effective at using lasers while also having "point defense" abilities via drones. The Zealot takes the Omen's laserboat aspect and specializes it... boosting lasers so they can hit out absurdly far. Meanwhile it gives up its ability to fend off smaller, faster targets at close range by giving up its drone bay.
Example 2: T2 weapons and mods have an advantage over most T1 weapons and mods... however they have a trade off involving higher fitting, skill, and manufacturing requirements (which may force you to make your own trade-offs in other ways to meet those requirements).

Your idea (if I understand it correctly) simply buffs a stat on top of the already existing ones while giving nothing up. All it takes is for one person to find the one desirable stat before it becomes "the one" that everyone must fit. Then nothing will stop players from mass manufacturing it and only it.

Tubrav Sadarts wrote:
I'm not attempting to recreate officer-grade weapons at a POS here, I'm attempting to add a bit of variety. Meta 1-4 items could've been this, where each manufacturer is specialising in one aspect (range, damage, RoF, heat), but no, they're just boring old 'slight improvement over the lower meta'.

Perhaps this is something you should propose then? I wouldn't mind Meta items being looked into and being tweaked around in this fashion. It'd be VASTLY easier to tweak this in the future versus putting it players hands and "hoping for the best."

Tubrav Sadarts wrote:
I'm glad you like it, how do you mean inventing t2 like we assemble t3? Sounds intruiging...

He is probably is referring to how T3 ships can alter their stats around via sub systems and how he desires to be able to do that to T2 ships... something I'm not keen on as then there would be little distinction between T2 and T3.
Tubrav Sadarts
Viscous Logistics
#17 - 2013-03-15 03:52:40 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:

You're talking about Tech 2 ships then. A Tech 2 ship takes a weapon or mod that people are familiar with and boosts them considerably (or at least they are supposed to) to perform well in tactics that said weapons/mods would not normally be able to perform.
However this boost comes at the cost of the ship being lackluster in other aspects.

Example 1: the Omen is effective at using lasers while also having "point defense" abilities via drones. The Zealot takes the Omen's laserboat aspect and specializes it... boosting lasers so they can hit out absurdly far. Meanwhile it gives up its ability to fend off smaller, faster targets at close range by giving up its drone bay.
Example 2: T2 weapons and mods have an advantage over most T1 weapons and mods... however they have a trade off involving higher fitting, skill, and manufacturing requirements (which may force you to make your own trade-offs in other ways to meet those requirements).

Your idea (if I understand it correctly) simply buffs a stat on top of the already existing ones while giving nothing up. All it takes is for one person to find the one desirable stat before it becomes "the one" that everyone must fit. Then nothing will stop players from mass manufacturing it and only it.


...You have a fair point there, although along with their specialization t2 ships become better in general too (higher resists, for one). Again with the t2 weapons/mods, most of the attributes are significantly better than t1, and yes you need more skills to fit them but once you have the skills, it's not a penalty anymore.

It would buff a stat, yes, but if the inventor didn't correspondingly debuff a stat the chances of them actually getting the ship/module with that buffed stat would be rather slim, which, in terms of failed inventions, is giving quite a bit up (especially if these inventions use up far more datacores than normal, to make the whole thing more expensive). Fair point about 'the one', but this already happens with rigs on ships (everyone needs capacitor, so CCCs are real damn popular, and heavily manufactured)...

ShahFluffers wrote:

Perhaps this is something you should propose then? I wouldn't mind Meta items being looked into and being tweaked around in this fashion. It'd be VASTLY easier to tweak this in the future versus putting it players hands and "hoping for the best."


True, it's sort of a back-up proposal if this one fails. If I did propose changing meta1-4 to attribute-focused guns then the drop rates would have to be equalised too, and they'd need to be 'balanced' so the meta4 ones aren't radically better than the meta1... just boosting different attributes.

ShahFluffers wrote:

He is probably is referring to how T3 ships can alter their stats around via sub systems and how he desires to be able to do that to T2 ships... something I'm not keen on as then there would be little distinction between T2 and T3.


Now that would be cool, but with modules. T3 modules. Hmm... (I agree that doing that to t2 ships would render t3 ships null and void).
Sigras
Conglomo
#18 - 2013-03-15 10:15:05 UTC
This is a very interesting idea, but you have a problem with your "downside" mechanic . . . that is that things in eve are cheap, so even if the chance to invent is 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, this is Eve, it still will get invented, and the "perfect item" will be in game; it might be very expensive, but it will be in game.

Expense is not a good balancing factor; we saw that with supercarriers and titans before they got nerfed; just because its super expensive doesnt mean it gets to be super overpowered.

There was a game that took this idea to heart and ran with it. It was called beyond protocol, everything in the game was literally invented from scratch base materials using in game algorithms and manufacturing processes, every custom piece of ammunition fired by every custom gun, on every custom ship powered by every custom engine constructed by custom alloys etc etc etc.

Its not that it was difficult to balance, it was literally impossible. The number of possible combinations was incalculable . . . and thats not something I say a whole lot. You could not balance those modules, the only thing that you could hope for is that the algorithm is well constructed enough to allow players to make modules to counter the potential unbalanced ones that come up.

but T3 modules . . . you have something there; im thinking scripted modules, keeping with the theme of "jack of all trades, master of none"

a warp disruptor that only goes out 20 km that can be scripted to be a 6 km warp scramble
a hardener that gives 45% bonus to a resist and you can swap out scripts on the fly to change which resist gets the bonus
a MWD that you can script to not give you sig bloom and only increase your speed +100% but still takes the cap of a MWD
a SeBo that can be scripted to be an ECCM but isnt as good as either module

Thoughts?
monkfish2345
The Knights of Spamalot
#19 - 2013-03-15 14:00:07 UTC
I think it's an interesting concept.

However I do not think that the variations of an invention should be in the hands of the player this would simply lead to everyone deciding what would be most useful to buff and everyone producing that. (faster interceptors being a prime example)

if instead there was a degree of variance introduced into the invention process whereby a low skilled inventor would perhaps get a 'weaker' version of the ship that a max skilled inventor.

by decryptors etc there could be a certain element of control of the risk taken and the amount of possible variance allowed. but by randomizing what comes out at the end of it all means that the market would become diverse with ships having a range of slight differences and resulting values etc etc.
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2013-03-15 17:10:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Alx Warlord
Awesome concept, although I think it would be good for T3 modules or something like "custom module". Having them changing t2 modules would be something that woul unballance the game...

+1 to this Idea, I'm positive towards everything that brings variety and more freedom tothe game
12Next page