These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Player Driven Research Economy
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
#1 - 2012-06-27 17:50:27 UTC
With the coming rework of POSes, I'd like to propose that CCP also include the ability to make Mobile Labs available to all (rather than simply to members of your Alliance). In addition to this, I would like to propose that they close all NPC Science Slots (Copying, Invention, Material Research and Time Efficiency Research) and allow a Player-Driven Research Economy to develop.
Doctorkaba
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2012-06-27 17:59:11 UTC
i agree, this would be helpful

Want some pvp help? Like to fly small and fast frigates? Then join the in game channel Tenori_Tigers!

Davion Falcon
Those Once Loyal
#3 - 2012-06-27 18:09:24 UTC
Supported.

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise. Never forgotten, never forgiven.
Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
#4 - 2012-06-29 15:56:41 UTC
No one else can see the potential in this? Can any of you imagine the Wardec campaigns that would clear entire high-sec systems of Towers to make room for Lab Farms?

Even beyond that, it is yet another thing transferred from NPC control to PC control, I'd think we'd all be for less NPC in our Sandbox.
Nomistrav
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-06-29 17:45:34 UTC
Make T2 blueprint copies available on the market, as well as contracts, and I'll support this. Not that I'm in hi-sec that often anyway.

+1.

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama
Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
#6 - 2012-06-30 22:30:06 UTC
I could support that, so long as the seeded T2 BPCs were each as costly as the relevant T1 BPO (at least in the case of most BPCs) as well as of a worse quality than achievable by Invention (i.e. -5/-5 at best). This would prevent Invention from being affected much by the availability of the seeded T2 BPCs.

Might also be a good time to rework Invention as well. I think we can all agree that you should be able to achieve repeatable, reliable results with high enough skills. IMHO, successes should increase the likelihood of success for Inventing that particular item in all jobs installed after that success. Failure should too, though to a lesser degree. After working with the same items long enough, you should essentially be guaranteed a success, the variable should be to what degree the Invention job was successful.
Davion Falcon
Those Once Loyal
#7 - 2012-07-01 03:26:32 UTC
An interface for selling T2 BPC's, sure, I could get behind that (why one wouldn't want to build said items with the BPC is beyond me), but seeding actual T2 BPC's? No.

I do not agree with the first statement in your second paragraph, Alaekessa. Invention already has "reliable" results over a sufficiently large sample (ie, several hundred invention runs), I don't see a reason/need to change it.

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise. Never forgotten, never forgiven.
Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
#8 - 2012-07-01 04:24:50 UTC
I was thinking that seeding trash T2 BPCs would help mitigate people crying about not being able to afford Invention slots. Pirate

As far as the topic of reworking Invention goes, the process annoys me to no end. If I've already figured out the method to manufacturing T2 425's, why should I need to figure it out again and again? Why can't I just use the same schematics I've already succeeded with to repeat the success to some varying degree?
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#9 - 2012-07-03 18:57:01 UTC
Actually a while ago I kind of posted the same idea with a bit more detail
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1235772#post1235772

Still a good idea though,

Also you could also move public manufacturing slots to POS modules too.

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#10 - 2012-07-03 23:29:45 UTC
Alaekessa wrote:
I was thinking that seeding trash T2 BPCs would help mitigate people crying about not being able to afford Invention slots. Pirate

As far as the topic of reworking Invention goes, the process annoys me to no end. If I've already figured out the method to manufacturing T2 425's, why should I need to figure it out again and again? Why can't I just use the same schematics I've already succeeded with to repeat the success to some varying degree?



I figure what you're doing is the following. which needed some background to:


The blueprints are not a literal set of instructions. They're a cartridge (yes, blow on your BPO before you insert it) that you insert into the control station of the manufacturing arrays.

The ability to copy it is written into the software that controls the cartridge (which is both hardware and software. self wiping if tampered with)

Copies are onto blank cartridges (1 isk is a lot. so assume you get a lot for them. And you can reuse them.). These are /less/ well secured.

The invention process is breaking into the software and making changes, without the hardware detecting it and purging everything(a failed run).

Also explains why copies are run limited. Smile




Now, CCP, make this a chronicle! Blink

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#11 - 2012-07-06 21:49:44 UTC
Yes this would be very helpful if limited to player owned stations or with higher values on player owned stations, but also change that ridiculous player owned station refining model would be a great improvement for null sec industry.

Isn't this game supposed to be player driven content? -this needs balance.

brb