These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Blueprint data adjustments thread

First post First post
Author
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#201 - 2014-05-29 12:45:07 UTC
Having perused the new proposed blueprint file, it becomes inescapable to come to the conclusion that the approach that CCP is taking to solve the click fest that invention is by simply extending the time it takes to invent. Instead of using a technology solution like stacking, a bureaucratic solution has been proposed.

Still, it also remains clear that CCP looks at the industry problem from the perspective of the small scale producer who now and then dabbles in industry as the frame work proposed falls apart when you look at industry from a large scale. Is nobody at CCP doing some kind of analysis what happens when people not build one carrier or other capital at a time, but five, ten, twenty? What happens when you don't build 10 or 20 T2 Sentry Drones, but hundreds or thousands per day?

Disappointing to say the least.
mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#202 - 2014-05-29 14:51:58 UTC
You seem to be operating under the flawed assumption that this is it for invention changes when it's been said many times over that a full rework for invention is still coming after Crius. The purpose of these changes is on the first page of the thread, if you would be so good as to educate yourself. I would note they while it has not been mentioned, these changes also have the upsides of a) closing the competitive gap between T2 BPOs and invention and perhaps more significantly and certainly more importantly b) placing a greater emphasis on the higher skill parts of invention (the actual inventing) as opposed to the copying. After all, specialization should be rewarded.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Lady Gwendolyn Antollare
Federal Logistics Initiative Conglomerate
United Interests
#203 - 2014-05-29 16:06:01 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

Following on from the discussion in the devblog thread here, I've decided it's probably time to create a proper thread to discuss revisions to blueprint data, rather than continuing it at the tail end of a 60+ page thread.


Here is the situation:
- What we are talking about is any "static" blueprint data, eg times and materials for different job types, plus the max runs attribute
- We are already going to have to change every blueprint in the game, and to this end have tools set up so that any systemic change to existing numbers takes a couple of minutes to implement, provided it's doing math based on other attributes that are in the same data or otherwise easily available
- We do have our fingers in the industry code right now, so small changes to eg formulas are on the table if we can justify them; larger sweeping changes are *not* on the table
- We are erring on the side of maintaining the current balance for things that are not on our list of goals (below), but we are happy with any reasonable balance disruptions in pursuit of those goals
- We are erring on the side of preserving the status quo in invention over preserving the status quo for T2 BPOs; note that, as previous point, we are not specifically targeting T2 BPOs in any particular way
- We are expecting to mechanically rework invention following the Crius release, so we do not want to create wasted work by making too many changes to it for Crius
- Simple things that make industry better are very much in our ballpark!

Specific goals we are currently pursuing:
- We would like to make copy times consistently lower than build times, so building from copies is the optimal play (dovetails with our starbase changes, for example)
- We are rebasing invention TE/ME values to all be positive or 0 at all times, removing negative ME/TE from invention outputs, as this solves a number of issues with removing extra materials
- We would generally like all blueprint data to follow a coherent pattern; we're still discussing how far we would like to take this
- For at least non-invention blueprints, we are reviewing max run numbers to alleviate issues in certain areas eg cap construction, nanite paste
- We need to deal with the interaction between the first point on this list, Gallente Outpost copy-time bonuses and T2 BPOs
- Removal of waste necessitates an increase in all manufacturing costs
- Removal of negative TE/ME probably requires an increase in T2 build costs to balance out component demand before and after

Specific changes I am looking at making right now:
- Copy time to 80% of build time base; TE and skills mean it works out slightly faster copying than building
- Setting rank to equal size*metalevel; rank is defined in this devblog, and I will explain "size" below
- Possibly changing build times to be a function of rank; otherwise modules and charges (among other things) may need to break the copy/build paradigm to avoid a big nerf
- I'm considering changing invention times so that build time is generally twice copy+invention, to maintain balance across character manufacture and research slots; this also has the advantage of giving invention time a clear driving force
- As above, normalizing max run count on things that aren't invented from to make them less tedious to build from in some cases


So, with all that said... discuss, and also suggest! We're looking for two things in this thread: discussion of things proposed in this post, and also suggestions for other things we could do to improve the overall blueprint dataset or elements thereof. If there's something in the way the numbers relate to each other, either generally or for specific products, that's always bothered you, please explain it in this thread and we'll look at changing it :)

Things we would prioritize if we were making suggestions in this thread, in descending priority:
- Explain what the problem is, and why. This is the most important thing for us as developers: to understand what you're trying to solve
- Explain a simple, clear solution - preferably one that doesn't require code changes :)
- Give specific examples and/or numbers!


Thanks,
-Greyscale



SIZE:
1 - frigate/destroyer modules (power draw between 2 and 34)
2 - cruiser/battlecruiser modules (power draw between 35 and 299) and all "unsized" modules (power draw below 2)
3 - battleship modules (power draw between 300 and 4999)
4 - capital modules (power draw above 5000)
20 - frigates
30 - destroyers
40 - cruisers
50 - battlecruisers
60 - battleships
200 - most capitals
400 - supercarriers
600 - titans

Still working out how this will apply to eg structures, it shouldn't be hard, it just needs the math doing :)


wow once again Greyscale pounds a game aspect into the ground with the nerf hammer. "We want to make industry fun!" Ha!

Nerfing Hisec has never fixed Losec or Nullsec

Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#204 - 2014-05-29 16:25:46 UTC
mynnna wrote:
You seem to be operating under the flawed assumption that this is it for invention changes when it's been said many times over that a full rework for invention is still coming after Crius. The purpose of these changes is on the first page of the thread, if you would be so good as to educate yourself. I would note they while it has not been mentioned, these changes also have the upsides of a) closing the competitive gap between T2 BPOs and invention and perhaps more significantly and certainly more importantly b) placing a greater emphasis on the higher skill parts of invention (the actual inventing) as opposed to the copying. After all, specialization should be rewarded.


Having 20+ characters that can do invention with at least 4s, but mostly 5s in the relevant skills where I invent, I still fail to see the reward. Maybe I am just really bad at this game. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last time.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#205 - 2014-05-29 18:16:31 UTC
Quote:
Still, it also remains clear that CCP looks at the industry problem from the perspective of the small scale producer who now and then dabbles in industry as the frame work proposed falls apart when you look at industry from a large scale. Is nobody at CCP doing some kind of analysis what happens when people not build one carrier or other capital at a time, but five, ten, twenty? What happens when you don't build 10 or 20 T2 Sentry Drones, but hundreds or thousands per day?


wait, they just reduced the clicks necessary to perform that task by about 98% and you complain about nerfing large scale invention businesses ?

lol
mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#206 - 2014-05-29 18:41:30 UTC
Theng Hofses wrote:
mynnna wrote:
You seem to be operating under the flawed assumption that this is it for invention changes when it's been said many times over that a full rework for invention is still coming after Crius. The purpose of these changes is on the first page of the thread, if you would be so good as to educate yourself. I would note they while it has not been mentioned, these changes also have the upsides of a) closing the competitive gap between T2 BPOs and invention and perhaps more significantly and certainly more importantly b) placing a greater emphasis on the higher skill parts of invention (the actual inventing) as opposed to the copying. After all, specialization should be rewarded.


Having 20+ characters that can do invention with at least 4s, but mostly 5s in the relevant skills where I invent, I still fail to see the reward. Maybe I am just really bad at this game. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last time.


Aight, so I have to spell it out for you. That's fine. The reward is that with an emphasis on invention rather than copying, you are (going to be) on a higher footing with 20+ invention characters than someone who has five invention characters being fed by 15 copy alts.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#207 - 2014-05-29 20:45:19 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Theng Hofses wrote:
mynnna wrote:
You seem to be operating under the flawed assumption that this is it for invention changes when it's been said many times over that a full rework for invention is still coming after Crius. The purpose of these changes is on the first page of the thread, if you would be so good as to educate yourself. I would note they while it has not been mentioned, these changes also have the upsides of a) closing the competitive gap between T2 BPOs and invention and perhaps more significantly and certainly more importantly b) placing a greater emphasis on the higher skill parts of invention (the actual inventing) as opposed to the copying. After all, specialization should be rewarded.


Having 20+ characters that can do invention with at least 4s, but mostly 5s in the relevant skills where I invent, I still fail to see the reward. Maybe I am just really bad at this game. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last time.


Aight, so I have to spell it out for you. That's fine. The reward is that with an emphasis on invention rather than copying, you are (going to be) on a higher footing with 20+ invention characters than someone who has five invention characters being fed by 15 copy alts.


I don't know why you bother. At this point we should just have an black obelisk and ape graphic for these threads.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Ronny Hugo
Cyno Inc. Reactions
Goonswarm Federation
#208 - 2014-05-29 22:23:10 UTC
Money Makin Mitch wrote:
Just flat-out remove the T2 BPOs or seed them on market. Compensate owners with a bunch of copies. They've had more than enough time and opportunity to capitalize off their originals already. Further compensation is not needed as the values of T2 BPOs are due to the Greater Fool theory in action.

The greater fool theory states that the price of an object is determined not by its intrinsic value, but rather by irrational beliefs and expectations of market participants. A price can be justified by a rational buyer under the belief that another party is willing to pay an even higher price.Or one may rationally have the expectation that the item can be resold to a "greater fool" later.

Simply put, some people might lose isk because they speculated on the prints gaining in value without end - that is their own fault and such greed should not be rewarded.


I fully support this, assuming it is done right. Removal of T2 BPOs, not sure what compensation might be, but its sure not going to be a cash prize.
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#209 - 2014-05-29 22:54:33 UTC
Some people are happy and content with halfway measures, incomplete features, compromises that just perpetuate a poorly thought through design that falls apart when brought to its logical conclusion. Considering that it will be at least another five years if not more, judging by history, that someone will look at industry again, I'd rather have this done right.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#210 - 2014-05-29 23:40:00 UTC
have you read the part where greyscale said that an overhaul of invention is planned for a post-crius release ?

have you also read the part where greyscale said that this is supposed to be a band-aid solution until then ?
Theng Hofses
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#211 - 2014-05-29 23:52:41 UTC
I have, but I am old enough to know that temporary solutions more often than not become permanent. I have seen this movie before and it doesn't end like you think it does.
mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#212 - 2014-05-30 06:19:23 UTC
Cool - if you're so confident, how about a bet that you're wrong. Ten billion isk? Hundred billion isk? What's your wager?

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#213 - 2014-05-30 07:39:36 UTC
I believe Chribba runs an escrow service for stuations like this.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Aluka 7th
#214 - 2014-05-30 08:22:06 UTC
Please focus on blueprint stats. This is the time where you can help CCP to not overnerf your BPO or overbuff BPO of you competition :P
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#215 - 2014-05-30 08:45:05 UTC  |  Edited by: probag Bear
probag Bear wrote:
If I have enough time, I actually have the proper code scaffolding to go in, get volume/day data for decryptors, T2 items, everything, assume that decryptor effects are staying the same but just scaling up from -4/-4 base to 0/0 base, and come up with a proper estimate of how decryptor demand would change.


Does anyone want this at this point? I've been away for a couple of days now, I see a new version that looks good (perhaps too good), and others seem to have already thrown the raw numbers into scripts to get readable data out there. I just already have code written up to do the above and some other things, if anyone wants more data and doesn't want waste time writing code themselves.
Sigras
Conglomo
#216 - 2014-05-30 10:05:35 UTC
Im not sure if this is the correct thread to put this in, but it does have to do with blueprint adjustments...

If the plan really is to change invented BPCs to a base ME 0 PE 0 and increasing the base materials to compensate then all of the decryptors are getting a fairly large nerf.

Take the "Process" decryptors for example, they provide +3 ME +3 PE to the outcome BPC. Right now that reduces your build materials by around 20% because of the way negative ME is calculated, after the change, because of the way positive ME is calculated, that same decryptor will give you a 3% discount to build materials.

A different example would be the "Augmentation" decrpytors which give you -2 ME. You would think these would be better off but they are actually also adversely effected. Currently they increase your build cost by about 13.3% (20% of the base "perfect" materials) after the change they will still increase your build cost by 20% of the base "perfect" materials, but remember your base is much higher so that actually ends up costing you more.

Is this an intended result or an unfortunate side effect?
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#217 - 2014-05-30 10:27:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Carniflex
Few points that pop into my mind:

(1) Would it be feasible to make the BPC ME/PE level (or more precisely the new equivalents of these) to affect the invented BPC corresponding stats? I do understand that proper invention overhaul is scheduled for some later date but it would give a reason to use researched BPO for making BPC's for invention as opposed to just grabbing ME 0 one on a whim.

It would allow people who commit to something properly some edge. Ofc one would need to cap the max at 10 to keep things more or less intact. What this would allow is a bit more maneuvering room for different decryptors, say, with highly researched starting BPC's but items where material cost is substantial compared to invention cost it might make (or it might not) sense to use some other decryptor than just max ME one.

(2) Is there any plans to change invented BPC run amount in this overhaul? At the moment one uses either 1 run or max run BPC's for invention, anything else works as 1 run BPC. Perhaps it would be possible to make any other run counts for the starting BPC's to count as well? Just 1 run or max run is a bit .. well .. boring and there is no meaningful decision to be done at the moment in this regard. Some items are always using 1 run BPC's and some other always max run BPC's.

(3) Is it possible to lift the 1000 item limit per hangar for BPC's? Perhaps make similar BPC's stack at least? While I am not inventor it is somewhat annoying and I am running into this limit on regular basis. If you do not want to mess with the hangar floor stuff at the moment then perhaps a special "BPC" container might be possible without number limit or with a very very high limit?

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#218 - 2014-05-30 11:21:29 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Jehan Athonille wrote:
Feedback to Greyscale’s blueprints_public_draft_2.csv

I felt it was necessary to create an alt to write this post. I’ll explain why in the end of my post, so that we can get started with the actual suggestions.

The Exhumers rank is set to the same as T2 cruisers to rank 400. This has a large impact on the Skiff and Mackinaw BPO’s production output. The Skiff BPO’s production output is cut in half. My suggestion is to set the ranks to

Ship – rank – old build time – new build time
Hulk – rank 400 – 120000 – 120000
Mackinaw – rank 300 – 80000 – 90000
Skiff – rank 200 – 60000 – 60000

This will almost preserve the current build times. That way the Skiff and Mackinaw BPO’s are not getting a large nerf on top of the huge nerf coming from the invention buff.

If you don’t want them to have different ranks, I suggest that all 3 exhumers get rank 300, to achieve a middle ground around the current build times.

Wow, just noticed that you doubled all the ranks for T2 ships in draft_3. That certainly do not give the same throughput as it does today. I hope that is a mistake.

CCP Greyscale wrote:

- We would like to make copy times consistently lower than build times, so building from copies is the optimal play (dovetails with our starbase changes, for example)


In the blueprints_public_draft_2.csv file all T2 BPO copy times are set to 3 times the build time and max-run of 1. I do not understand why T2 BPO’s should be exempted from the general rule of a copy time that equals the build time, so that it is feasible to build from copies in a POS. Since it will no longer be possible to remote build from BPO in a POS it seems fair that you instead can make a copy in roughly the same time frame and build from the copy instead in the POS. The max-run of 1 also makes it very difficult to produce from copies. Why is this new limit necessary?

The player that bought an expensive high-end T1 BPO can produce copies from the BPO in roughly the same time it takes to build the items and use the copies in a pos and that way keep the BPO safe in a station. On the other hand a player that decided to buy a T2 BPO can not use that method in practice because of the high copy time and max-run limit of 1. Why this discrimination? My suggestion is simple: Keep the copy times consistently lower than build times on all blueprints and restore the max-run values for T2 blueprint . If the outpost bonuses has something to do with this then my suggestion is to make the outpost research/copy bonuses apply to T1 blueprints only.

CCP Greyscale wrote:

- We are erring on the side of preserving the status quo in invention over preserving the status quo for T2 BPOs; note that, as previous point, we are not specifically targeting T2 BPOs in any particular way


The invention buff where invented BPC’s get ME 0 - 4 is a massive nerf to all T2 BPO’s. You write that this change is not intentionally targeted at nerfing T2 BPO’s. To counter balance this just a little bit, I suggest that the new blueprint data for T2 BPO’s are chosen friendly towards the player base that owns these kinds of blueprints. 

I am hoping to get a reply from Greyscale on these points.

I wrote:

I felt it was necessary to create an alt to write this post. I’ll explain why in the end of my post...


As one or two of you might have guessed by now (except, I hope not, that you jumped right to the end of my post to read this) I own some T2 BPO’s myself. I have played eveonline for several years, and I always found that the T2 blueprint originals were the most interesting aspect of this game. I would probably have stopped playing eve long ago without this game content. It is not very interesting to right click in the market browser and select buy on a blueprint. The task of getting a good T2 BPO is a hunt in competition with other players that often got my heart pumping faster. It is also a large achievement because you need to invest a large sum of ISK in a T2 BPO. It makes a purpose for grinding. Many players goal is to get into a super capital. That is not for me.

Alright, back to the alt thing. Reading these devblog threads, it feels like manufacturer using T2 BPO’s are subject to a witch hunt and the balancing team is playing along. My request is simply that you take a balanced view on both professions and consider both inventors and T2 BPO manufacturers instead of nerfing the value of T2 BPO’s that has taken years to achieve.

Hmm, didn’t I forget something.


- Exhumers. They're all cruiser-sized because they have a cruiser sig radius :) Under the old balance where they were scaling in power I'd agree they should probably be ranked differently, but as they're currently balanced to be traded off against each other, I'd prefer to keep them even. If you've got a strong argument as to why having them be cruiser-sized is problematic, I'd be happy to hear it :)
- T2 copy times. On my to-revisit list, I just haven't got to them yet :)
- T2 BPO proxy-nerf. The changes are not explicitly targeted at T2 BPOs, but we're also not currently minded to do anything to prop up the value of T2 BPOs given that we're contemplating significant changes to them in the future anyway.

Aluka 7th wrote:
Could some one please explain me what is the problem with T2 BPO and Galente/Caldari outpost copy time bonus?
Not sure I get it Sad


If copy time comes down to below 2.5x build time, with the 0.4x copy speed multipliers on Gallente outposts it becomes a throughput buff to T2 BPOs, which is not something we want to happen right now as we'd prefer more rather than fewer markets to be priced by invention rather than BPOs.

[quote=Throwaway Sam Atild][quote=CCP Greyscale]

The suggestion to try and normalize job lengths around play sessions (4-6 hours or 20-24 hours) is a very good one, and exactly the sort of "next steps" balancing I was hoping to get out of...
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#219 - 2014-05-30 11:26:56 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Since I forgot to post these, the new numbers. Corrected some errors in my sheet along the way as well, so these should be more accurate.

Mining Crystals: Just over an hour (-99%, lol)
Drones: Light Drones 1.74 Hours (-64%), mediums 3.48 hours (-30%), large & sentry: 5.3 hours (+1%)
Small rigs: 2.7 hours (-66%)
Frigate modules: 4.45 hours (-30 to -35%)
Medium rigs: 5.56 hours (-65%)
All small ammo: 7.29h (unchanged)
Large rigs: 8.34h (-74%)
Medium/cruiser modules: 9.82h (+25% to +50%, depending on module)
Capital rigs: 10.9h (-83%)
All medium ammo: 14.57h (+24%)
Large battleship guns: 14.71h (+66%)
Other large modules: 16.01hh (+80% to +130%)
All large ammo: 21.78h (+6%)
Frigate hulls: 48.6 hours (+12% to +21% depending on class)
Interdictors: 85.59 hours (+55%)
Cruiser, Transport & Exhumers: 95.8h (Blockade Runners +5%, DSTs -11%, Recons -4%, Logistics +5%, Hictors -7%, HACs -11%. Exhumers vary from +55% to +93%)
Command ships: 135.72h (-11%)
Tech II BS: 175.23h (-11%)
Jump Freighters: 2527h (105.3 days, +72%)


OK, cool. Crystals need fixing. I think drone times need to come up a bit. Rigs are kinda broke. I'm pretty happy with how the modules are scaling. Ships look reasonable to me. Medium ammo is a weird quirk but I'm not inclined to change it right now.

Firvain wrote:
There is some variance in the capital ship component BPO's

most are at 60 while a few are at 4.

these are at 60:

Capital Propulsion Engine Blueprint
Capital Turret Hardpoint Blueprint
Capital Sensor Cluster Blueprint
Capital Armor Plates Blueprint
Capital Capacitor Battery Blueprint
Capital Power Generator Blueprint
Capital Shield Emitter Blueprint
Capital Jump Drive Blueprint
Capital Cargo Bay Blueprint
Capital Drone Bay Blueprint
Capital Computer System Blueprint
Capital Construction Parts Blueprint
Capital Siege Array Blueprint
Capital Launcher Hardpoint Blueprint

while these are at 4:

Capital Doomsday Weapon Mount Blueprint
Capital Ship Maintenance Bay Blueprint
Capital Corporate Hangar Bay Blueprint
Capital Jump Bridge Array Blueprint
Capital Clone Vat Bay Blueprint


Yup, they need revisiting. I think I got halfway through doing that and then changed my mind about stuff :P

Theng Hofses wrote:
Having perused the new proposed blueprint file, it becomes inescapable to come to the conclusion that the approach that CCP is taking to solve the click fest that invention is by simply extending the time it takes to invent. Instead of using a technology solution like stacking, a bureaucratic solution has been proposed.

Still, it also remains clear that CCP looks at the industry problem from the perspective of the small scale producer who now and then dabbles in industry as the frame work proposed falls apart when you look at industry from a large scale. Is nobody at CCP doing some kind of analysis what happens when people not build one carrier or other capital at a time, but five, ten, twenty? What happens when you don't build 10 or 20 T2 Sentry Drones, but hundreds or thousands per day?

Disappointing to say the least.


What would you suggest? I know it's easier just to say :ccp: and then run off, but in this thread we are solving problems :)

Lady Gwendolyn Antollare wrote:

wow once again Greyscale pounds a game aspect into the ground with the nerf hammer. "We want to make industry fun!" Ha!


Same question: what changes to the plan do you suggest?

Sigras wrote:
Im not sure if this is the correct thread to put this in, but it does have to do with blueprint adjustments...

If the plan really is to change invented BPCs to a base ME 0 PE 0 and increasing the base materials to compensate then all of the decryptors are getting a fairly large nerf.

Take the "Process" decryptors for example, they provide +3 ME +3 PE to the outcome BPC. Right now that reduces your build materials by around 20% because of the way negative ME is calculated, after the change, because of the way positive ME is calculated, that same decryptor will give you a 3% discount to build materials.

A different example would be the "Augmentation" decrpytors which give you -2 ME. You would think these would be better off but they are actually also adversely effected. Currently they increase your build cost by about 13.3% (20% of the base "perfect" materials) after the change they will still increase your build cost by 20% of the base "perfect" materials, but remember your base is much higher so that actually ends up costing you more.

Is this an intended result or an unfortunate side effect?


Yup, decryptors are kinda whacked after this change, and will likely get changed further in a follow-up release. We're currently leaning towards accepting that the balance will be off for a few months and fixing them properly as part of comprehensive invention changes rather than trying to band-aid the stats now, mainly because we're not confident of enough time to do a proper balance analysis and we don't want to have some end up brokenly good in the short term.

[quote=Carniflex]Few points that pop into my mind:

(1) Would it be feasible to make the BPC ME/PE level (or more precisely the new equivalents of these) to affect the invented BPC corresponding stats? I do understand that proper invention overhaul is scheduled for some later date but it would give a reason to use invented BPO for making BPC's for invention as opposed to just grabbing ME 0 one on a whim.

It would allow people who commit to something properly some edge. Ofc one would need to cap the max at 10 to keep things more or less intact. What this would allow is a bit more maneuvering room for different decryptors, say, with highly researched starting BPC's but items where material cost is substantial compared to invention cost it might make (or it might not) sense to use some other decryptor than just max ME one.

(2) Is there any plans to change...
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#220 - 2014-05-30 12:01:43 UTC
If you want ideas for future adjustments to invention, consider adding invention job time as a new decryptor stat.

So inventing a Kronos might take 75 hours baseline (public station) but 100 hours with Symmetry or 25 with Accelerant.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com