These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Lighting the invention bulb

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#61 - 2014-09-11 16:37:16 UTC
Altrue wrote:
Interesting changes indeed.

I think however that polishing invention could've been the opportunity to completely remove RNG-based elements, as they provide no benefits to gameplay or enjoyment whatsoever.


You mean to make it easier to exploit?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Lady Zarrina
New Eden Browncoats
#62 - 2014-09-11 16:44:34 UTC
Looks very interesting. All the hard core accountant types will go crazy with the new variability in outcomes, but I personally like it. I gave up long ago trying to track my exact costs for each and every item. And somehow I still seem to make ISK.

And I know I am going to love being able to queue up multiple invention jobs.

EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#63 - 2014-09-11 16:45:13 UTC
Z1gy wrote:
Komi Toran wrote:
Not liking the changes.

In my mind, anything that makes invention harder = good. Anything that makes it easier = bad. There are some exceptions to the rule, but generally, this is where the margins on T2 production come from. So you've got two things that qualify as good here. First, even if it's annoying, is the skill requirement rebalance. I may be sad that my Mechanics V skill won't be all that useful anymore, but eggs and omelets and all that. Second is the meta item removal. Lower chance of invention success means more time to successfully invent.

Now you go and muck it up by raising the invention chance for ships and including the new non-binary success chance. The dev blog states this is "quite needed to counteract the success changes," but it doesn't present any evidence of that assertion. The ability to have multiple invention runs alone could be enough. I find recovering datacores to be questionable, as they long ago lost 90% of their market value. This is just going to hit them again, which is another nerf to data sites.

In short, I was really hoping this was going to go the other direction.


it will hit the R&D agent and the faction warfare farmers hard.


We already got killed when Soundwave declared war on casual players years ago.
My RP agents, which I killed myself to get standings for alts that can't run missions, well, we got hammered by a factor of 80-90% then. I have one char on this account who still has an RP agent working, but have not bothered to cash in, since the RP is essentially worthless.

So any additional changes can't impact RP "farmers" much anymore.
Now, FW folks, they get hammered.
Karash Amerius
The Seven Shadows
Scotch And Tea.
#64 - 2014-09-11 16:48:15 UTC
Data Interfaces being removed and reimbursed is fine. What about the pirate materials found at Data Hacking sites? What happens to the components/materials used to produce Data Interfaces?

Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#65 - 2014-09-11 16:48:24 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
For clarity purposes, Freighters belong in the Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships group for the invention chance, so yes, it's a reduction in success rate.

Because JF invention success is currently too high?

Having lost billions of ISK in a single month of bad luck (not one JF invention success), I'm not looking forward to reduced success. My peers told me I was insane to continue. There comes a point when it is no longer fun though.

Team sniping really needs to be addressed as teams become even more vital.
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#66 - 2014-09-11 16:50:59 UTC
Can we get the multiple invention runs with Oceanus?
That would be a wonderful feature
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#67 - 2014-09-11 16:52:22 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:

Team sniping really needs to be addressed as teams become even more vital.

Agreed -- I'd like to see Vickrey auctions or something similar, that allow for sniping to be mitigated.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Edgar Strangelove
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#68 - 2014-09-11 16:53:43 UTC
Quote:
We are going to remove that chance element out of the system by allowing players to directly select the subsystem output they desire instead of running multiple attempts.


Sweet mother of lasers.
Callic Veratar
#69 - 2014-09-11 16:56:20 UTC
I've been thinking for a while about the decryptor rebalance for a while and have been trying to puzzle out a reasonable system.

The variables that a decryptor modify are very different in value. ME boosts are, by far, to be the most valuable. TE modifications are, in my opinion, mostly useless. There's never been a situation where I need to manufacture something so much sooner that a couple hours will make a difference. Probablility and runs are somewhere in the middle depending on what you're working with.

I'd like to see the decryptors modified to remove penalties. For example, something like this:


  1. +3 ME +2 TE +10% Chance +0 Runs
  2. +1 ME +6 TE +10% Chance +2 Runs
  3. +1 ME +2 TE +30% Chance +2 Runs
  4. +2 ME +4 TE +10% Chance +1 Run
  5. +1 ME +4 TE +20% Chance +2 Runs
  6. +2 ME +2 TE +10% Chance +2 Runs
  7. +0 ME +2 TE +10% Chance +5 Runs
  8. +0 ME +2 TE +50% Chance +0 Runs


Yes, they might be a bit more homogenous, but that's mostly the point. Small variations on 'all good' makes it much harder to pick than just going with a Process decryptor every time. Additional decryptors that modify the chance of getting a non-standard result would also be cool. Some that, on failure, spit out a meta print or reduce (or increase) datacore consumption could also be useful.

The most important thing I see is that a decryptor that lowers ME will *never* be useful except in the most niche of niche circumstances and should be avoided.
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#70 - 2014-09-11 17:00:12 UTC
Karash Amerius wrote:
Data Interfaces being removed and reimbursed is fine. What about the pirate materials found at Data Hacking sites? What happens to the components/materials used to produce Data Interfaces?


They are used in other stuff too. Sssshhhh. Blink

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#71 - 2014-09-11 17:07:40 UTC
Excellent changes.

The Tears Must Flow
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#72 - 2014-09-11 17:11:36 UTC
These changes seem like more 'dumbing down' of the game with a sprinkling of changes that will damage the profitability in some markets & careers. Personally I'd rather keep the interfaces than add 'teams' to the formula but I suppose this falls under the conflict driver rule. The interface change also feels like another nail in the coffin of the backstory and history of New Eden - if you get where I'm coming from. Smile

With the announcement that yet another CCP Dev has been lured to Riot Games I'm starting to wonder if EVE Online will still be around come May 2015 when my next yearly subs are due. It's not the place to say it but fixing nullsec sovereignty should be high on your list before the online figures drop much further.

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#73 - 2014-09-11 17:13:07 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
I've been thinking for a while about the decryptor rebalance for a while and have been trying to puzzle out a reasonable system.

The variables that a decryptor modify are very different in value. ME boosts are, by far, to be the most valuable. TE modifications are, in my opinion, mostly useless. There's never been a situation where I need to manufacture something so much sooner that a couple hours will make a difference. Probablility and runs are somewhere in the middle depending on what you're working with.

I'd like to see the decryptors modified to remove penalties. For example, something like this:


  1. +3 ME +2 TE +10% Chance +0 Runs
  2. +1 ME +6 TE +10% Chance +2 Runs
  3. +1 ME +2 TE +30% Chance +2 Runs
  4. +2 ME +4 TE +10% Chance +1 Run
  5. +1 ME +4 TE +20% Chance +2 Runs
  6. +2 ME +2 TE +10% Chance +2 Runs
  7. +0 ME +2 TE +10% Chance +5 Runs
  8. +0 ME +2 TE +50% Chance +0 Runs


Yes, they might be a bit more homogenous, but that's mostly the point. Small variations on 'all good' makes it much harder to pick than just going with a Process decryptor every time. Additional decryptors that modify the chance of getting a non-standard result would also be cool. Some that, on failure, spit out a meta print or reduce (or increase) datacore consumption could also be useful.

The most important thing I see is that a decryptor that lowers ME will *never* be useful except in the most niche of niche circumstances and should be avoided.



My invention lines with Sabres and Jaguars beg to differ, with Augmentation decryptors dropping them to ME 0.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
#74 - 2014-09-11 17:20:42 UTC
Your blog is well written and very understandable. You clearly stated what still needs to be hashed out and what is likely to be removed. You also clearly addressed the binary success outcome currently used and a good proposed replacement.

I very much like the direction CCP is taking with all things industry: Better visibility in game for the players and better API tools for those that want additional detail. All this leads to good game play.

For those that are concerned for their style of play, remember, when you first started industry you had to learn your current methods. Now, with the benefit of that experience you get to remodel your methods to be even more efficient. CCP is handing you a new puzzle. It is time to play again and not just continue your "virtual job".

CCP please stay the course and keep the game fresh.

+1

Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE

Check out the Eve-Prosper show for your market updates!
ichn
Stoned Clones
#75 - 2014-09-11 17:21:20 UTC
This stuff has potential, but it's still absolutely not worth spending any time on until t2 bpos are nerfed. This would have been the perfect time to do it too.
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#76 - 2014-09-11 17:23:41 UTC
DaOpa wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Panteraa wrote:
Are there plans to change T2 BPO's? I'm not looking for details, I'm just curious if a change is on the timeline.


We are not happy with them in general - what would exactly happen to them and when remains quite undefined for now.



Wow, this is exactly what I dont want to hear - a Undefined answer, no clarity - nothing ..


Keep it simple -

Either totally remove T2 BPO's

or

During Invention, have a rare chance to spawn a BPO instead of a BPC


Other changes that need to happen for industry since the removal of slots is to change the caps on how many jobs you can have ...

Max Level Science / Manufacture Jobs at 11 - to low, update this higher.


I personally would like to see "caps" removed, since there is no more slot limitations.



Why would they tell you what they have in there think tank for T2 BPO's when nothing is set in stone? Lets look at this logically. They say they want to do something, so they have ideas but nothing set. So lets just say one of the ideas is to remove T2 BPO's and compensate somehow, but this is not happening for like a year lets say. But they tell you now, the T2 BPO's market would crash, the T2 market also could crash, as people would stop using the BP's. Then lets say they make some other change and go 'oh we don't need to to that to the bpo's lets do this instead' then you would have a mssive backlash. Or lets say they are going to do something so the BPO' are least effective, so people plan and start hording, only to be told 'no, no we are removing them' backlash.

Its is easier, to deal with back lash when something is set in stone, then to give out details of something that is no where near completion and might change and have to do with the ramification of that. That is one of the things the Jita riots of 2011 were about, CCP said WiS would be one thing, but when they came out they were not. Dust was said to be one thing, and suffered because it wasn;t. It is stupid, illogical, and dumb to tell you what might happen to stuff, in a game where market manipulation and hording happens. Until its set in stone or REALLY close to that. They will address T2 BPO's when they are ready. not before.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
Chjna
the Goose Flock
#77 - 2014-09-11 17:27:35 UTC
The fact that saddens me is that the only industry that have a element of fun, will loose it. (The random in T3 production)


Quote:
Invention is used to obtain Tech II blueprint copies out of Tech I blueprint copies and was introduced to replace the old Tech II blueprint original “lottery”.

Still waiting on it...

Remove T2 BPOs
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#78 - 2014-09-11 17:28:46 UTC
One question:

I do a lot of RE over the years, the images show a remove of Ram chips, but no actual info on that. Are you removing the use of RAM from the RE process?

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#79 - 2014-09-11 17:46:08 UTC
Tzar Sinak wrote:
For those that are concerned for their style of play, remember, when you first started industry you had to learn your current methods. Now, with the benefit of that experience you get to remodel your methods to be even more efficient. CCP is handing you a new puzzle. It is time to play again and not just continue your "virtual job".

Meh. I'll be honest: I'm selfish and lazy. I like to do things other people aren't because that's often where you get the most ISK for the minimum of effort. Before Apocrypha, I ran radar sites in low-sec, because no one did them. Then Apocrypha hit, everyone did them, and I moved on.

I am aware that my preferences will often run counter to CCP's goal. While I was disappointed to see everyone in a battleship running sites I used to have all to myself, CCP was thrilled with the increase in activity. It's the same thing here: I don't necessarily like that there are more people inventing in Eve, but CCP is going to be thrilled with it, and I cannot say they are wrong. But, I would still appreciate some concession, and that is slow invention down so that this industrial ecosystem can more easily support the influx of new players.
Sir SmashAlot
The League of Extraordinary Opportunists
Intergalactic Conservation Movement
#80 - 2014-09-11 17:52:36 UTC
I am thrilled that industry is continuing to receive love from CCP and I look forward to these invention changes.

However, I would strongly urge that CCP begins communicating that there is Null sec/SOV changes in the works if there are any. Flashy new mechanics add little value to industrialists if they are selling into a congested market.