Test Server Feedback

It is not a requirement. It sure makes it harder if you don't have it at V and you lose out on some profits, but it is not required. Of course, if you are not fully skilled in that area, you cannot expect to make profits with Jita Sell Order minerals, nor Jita Buy Order minerals. Hence, the lack of skill, which everyone of us has had in the past, requires you to think, rather than just get candy handed to you.

I just had a quicky on EVE-Cost with a ME50 Apoc (replace with random stuff. Apoc just was interesting because it's profitable atm) with ME V and ME IV, and the profit difference between the two is of course the 5%, which resulted in a profit per run of 8.2M with ME5 and 200k with ME IV with Jita Buy Order minerals, so even with ME IV you get a tiny profit out of that. And if go collect your minerals in border regions with buy orders well below Jita, you can turn an Apoc into a lot more money, even with ME IV. Naturally, you have to compare and put more effort into getting your profits if you lack skills. If I remember it right, this always has been used to be the case in EVE.

I am looking forward to what you make of it, though.

Make it a team bonus bonus then. If that does not break everything else.

+5-+25% more bonus from teams.
If the choice "team yes/no" is situational and not always "yes or you are dumb", then such a bonus will not be a "requirement".

1. ->learn basic industry
2. ->try out teams
3. ->specialize on those situations

If anything, then chars without the skill will be not/less competitive in situations where there is a massive use of teams.
As they are designed to be the "pull" element, this should happen in the places that are going to be production hubs. I imagine more advanced/specialized producers hanging out there and generally a higher level of competition.
The skill might be less powerful in less busy areas that are dominated by the "push" part of the production costs.

Does that make any sense? :-D

I could see this going the same direction as fleet bonuses. Adding a manufacturing forman to the mix and an in system manufacturing bonus. Material / time / chance for tech II based on skills and foreman level.

Then change the power level...

Material Efficiency is an "obvious" skill, both in how it works (less skill means more waste) and why it is there (we've all wasted materials when starting to do something and become more efficient with experience).

ME is a useful skill, especially between rank IV and V, in that it differentiates the hobbiest producer from the industrialist.

It's an "added choice" skill, where people can either spend extra training time or more time sourcing cheaper minerals instead. Or buy more expensive blueprints with higher intrinsic ME. Or, come Crius, manufacture in a POS.

And it scales well -- the player dipping his toe into industry will (should?) be making things -- ammo, frigates, etc -- where the absolute value of any wastage is easily recovered with a couple of missions. The industrialist with a Capital factory would have to work a little harder :-) -- or train up his ME skill. But then, someone who is specialising in industry should have to specialise in their skills -- and ME I-V takes less time to train than, say, a current "perfect" hi-sec refiner needs to regain his specialty come Crius.

2% wastage per level should do it. 10% is of little consequence to someone knocking out a few rounds of ammo or some frigates for himself or his corp mates, especially compared to all the other inefficiencies in that scenario. Less than two days' training sees you at ME III, and 4% wastage is easily coverable by smart material sourcing and/or clever selling. And those wanting to a billion ISK of materials a week, or even a day, have surely chosen to become a "specialist" in Industry -- and another 15 days training should almost be a *requirement* to compete.

And perhaps most importantly... Changing a "5" to a "2" in various places should be a lot simpler and less error prone than stripping out one skill and replacing it with another that acts as a similar differentiator between amateur and pro but in an entirely different way :-)

Punkturis just fixed this internally, it should now be recognized as a "small class"; it's not a "frigate" because that's only for T1 frigates, which the Venture is but the Prospect isn't.

Makes more sense to me to leave it as small class, considering you wouldn't call a stealth bomber a frigate, or an interceptor a frigate, even though thats what their hull was built out of. 'Small class' seems apt enough.

I have noticed some inconsistencies with the BPO mapping:

On TQ i used to have a T2 PBC of "Capital energy discharge elutriation II" at ME0 and PE0. On sisi i got the same PBC with ME +9% and TE +18%.

However, material costs of building it on TQ is lower than on SISI: 22/55/55 vs 28/69/69 for the Current Pump / Interface Circuit / Micro Circuit materials.

Iv noticed the same problem with all my T2 BPCs.

Is this a bug, or by design?

Also a Small Proton Smartbomb II used to be ME -4 and PE-4 and now it is ME +6% TE and +14% The old version of it used Mex/Morph/Nocx/Zyd + Plasma Pulse generator + the T1 version (81/3/6/6 + 4 + 1). Now it uses only Morph/zyd + Plasma Pulse generator + T1 mod (3/4 + 6 + 1)

I dont understand the consistency of the mapping at all.

So, basically the descriptors are almost useless on cirus?

there is any plan to buff the descriptors effects? otherwise you just killed the exploration minigame

Tnx for the reply =)

I asked the same question. Here is the answer:

That doesn't make sense. The TQ decryptor reduces the material requirements from 200% of base to 100% of base. On Sisi I would expect the decryptor reduce the material requirements from 100% of base to 96% of base. Therefore the TQ build cost of 100% of base should be slightly more than the Sisi build cost of 96%.

But then you (CCP) increased the base costs on Sisi. Presumably you increased base build costs so that TQ ME-4 is equivalent to Sisi ME2%. Which should make Davy's ME+9% BPC have a slightly lower build cost than the "normal" ME+2%, which, again, should be equivalent to TQ ME-4 build cost. That isn't what we are seeing. We are seeing substantial across-the-board increases in build costs on Sisi (22 to 28 is a 27% increase, 55 to 69 is 25%).

MDD