These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Callic Veratar
#101 - 2014-09-11 19:17:02 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
My invention lines with Sabres and Jaguars beg to differ, with Augmentation decryptors dropping them to ME 0.

probag Bear wrote:
The rise of Augmentation and its dethroning of Symmetry begs to differ with you.

Also, TE and Runs are very easily merged together into a single attribute. If you operate in a field where datacore costs are minor, you can also merge in +% chance, and the only attributes you're finally left with are +ME and Optimal SSlot/MSlot Ratio Modifier.


There's still the perception of only one best option (whether Symmetry or Augmentation or Process). Much in the way that the Hulk used to be the only barge ever, then the Mackinaw, it'd be nice to have a spread so it's not everyone running on couple decryptors.
Het Silenius
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2014-09-11 19:18:46 UTC
Am I blind, or is the New Module Skill graphic missing AC/arty and rockets/missiles?
Charlie Firpol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#103 - 2014-09-11 19:18:50 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Charlie Firpol wrote:
Zappity wrote:
What gameplay does multiple outcome tiers add? This SEEMS like good gameplay (more choices etc) until you realise that EVE industry is not 'crafting' but rather batch manufacturing. All that matters is the long term average.

Remove RNG and focus on more ways to modify that long term average. RNG just adds another calculation to a spreadsheet without adding gameplay. People doing high throughput invention won't even read the outcomes but just work on the average.

Also, I think we need some more detail on meta module tiericide now.


Thw worst thing that can happen to you is, you will have left over materials. There is no negative ME randomness. Is that such a problem? oO


It actually is a big problem because it piles up and without a lot more effort involved in including the left-over materials into new production batches, they continue piling up. It's already a problem now as I currently run a couple of T2 component productions for my subsequent T2 ship production. The thing that happened now is that I have loads of materials left over, both for the T2 components as well as finished components from the ships. And this is very irritating.


Lets make a deal:

I will happily take every left overs from your production and you just contract them to me, okay? I will even do it totally for free!

The Butcher of Black Rise - eve-radio.com
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#104 - 2014-09-11 19:20:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Bugsy VanHalen
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Querns wrote:
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
Well, for the most part things look very good.

But the changes to base invention chance have me very confused.

Freighters are currently grouped with frigates and destroyers with a base of 30%.

The new invention chances do not list "Freighters" specifically, but I assume they will fall under Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20%". Although they are NOT listed as capital industrial ships in the market tree. If they are, that will be a huge negative impact for jump freighters, are they not expensive enough already?

This title just seems odd to me, as there are no other ships in this catagory with a T2 variant. the only "capital" ship industrial or otherwise with a T2 variant is freighters>>Jump freighters.

Also this one"All Battleships, Industrial Command Ship have 25%"

What industrial command ships are there? The ORCA is the only one I can think of as the Roqual should fit under the capital industrial ship catigory with the freighters. However neither the ORCA or the Roqual blueprints can be invented from, so the invention chance does not apply to them.

Why list ships here that do not have a T2 variant that can be invented? Should we expect T2 ORCA's, Roquals, Dreads, and Carriers, coming so that these new invention chances would have something to be applied to?

I kinda doubt they are specifically planning new T2 ships as a result of this change. Listing the chances like this just lets them have that work done now in case they want to do it later, if at all.


Yep, that's why we wanted to keep the groups vague, in case we want to add something in the future.


The issue is the groups are not exactly vague, it is the fact that specific ship types are listed as having an invetion chance of success, while there is no T2 BPC that can be invented from those ship classes. How can you have a 20% chance of getting a T2 Capital BPC that does not exist?

For example;
I could say, forget jump freighters, I am going to switch to inventing industrial command ships. they have a 5% higher invention chance.
What do you mean I can not invent for industrial command ships, the developer blog says I can... ... Well if the BPC's and T2 variants do not exists why did the dev blog specifically list them?

or

Sweet according the the latest developer blog we can now invent for capital ships, T2 dreadnaughts and carriers, woot woot...

my point is, this is not vague it is flat out wrong. It will create a lot of confusion, which I am sure was not the intent. If we ever do see T2 Capitals, it will not be anytime soon. The ones we have, have not even had their teiricide pass yet. So why lie to players by specifically listing them as having an invention chance, when there is no intention of them ever being available for invention.

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.


Seriously?? Jump freighters are already stupidly expensive, and invention attempts are already very expensive just due to volume of data cores, and time required to produce T1 BPC's. I build Anshars, I have dificulties as it is getting T2 BPC's. Do we really need the price of these jumping to over 10B isk putting them even farther out of reach for newer players? They are already one of the most expensive ships, beat out only by super capitals. And they are already Double to triple the cost of other jump capable capital ships.

Freighters and jump freighters do not belong in this same catagory as combat capable capital ships. They can not be armed, they can not be properly tanked. If there was other T2 Capital ships, such a low invention cost would make them so expensive, they would not be worth using.

A roqual is a capital industrial ship, a true capital. it has a worthy tank, and can not enter high sec. A freighter, or even a jump freighter is not a true capital. the have a stupidly low tank for their size and cost, and are essentially high sec industrial ships. At least they have been balanced as such. They should also be treated as such for invention purposes, and currently are. There is no need for that to change.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#105 - 2014-09-11 19:35:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
looks good to me so far.

a few comments:
- i hope you will also try to reinburse the Data Interface BPCs somehow, since i bet there are more BPCs around then the actual interfaces
- what happens with the resources used for those Data Interfaces? The value of those was already very low
- lore/naming: i hoped you would take a look at the big picture and rename the whole thing. I mean why do you have to invent something every time before you build it? How often has the wolf been invented already? This never made any sense to me. Call it upgrade/specialization process (USP?) or similar... good scifi should be believable and make sense

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#106 - 2014-09-11 19:43:07 UTC
Are you planning to rebalance the R&D agents, as well - in terms of what datacores are available from each agent and the distribution of agents across regions?

I took a quick look at the proposed datacore changes for the ORE ships, from Mechanical Engineering to Laser Physics. The one problem that I see is that Laser Physics datacores are primarily available from agents in Amarr Empire space, whereas the Gallente Starship Engineering datacores (assuming ORE ships still require Gallente Starship Engineering datacores) are primarily available from agents in Gallente Federation space.

In order to farm both types of datacores, you'd need to have access to both Amarr and Gallente R&D agents, which means more grinding of standings - a rather tedious activity.

It is likely that other proposed datacore changes will have similar repercussions.
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#107 - 2014-09-11 19:50:04 UTC
Ok you guys are on this "Balance" kick that I don't see as a good thing. I've witnessed the attempts at balance ruin games in the past and there is no need for it here. Data cores are gotten by players who can pick and choose which cores they research so if some get used more than others it's not a problem.

As far as merging T2 and T3 invention I've done a fair amount of T2 invention and have never Reverse Engineered anything. Maybe that is due to my extreeme distaste for the whole concept of the skill point loss potential of flying T3 ships maybe it's because of the differences that you described here. All that I can say is I started playing this game the day before RE was introduced and I've never even seen the UI for it.

I'm very curious you mention Tech 2 capitals and capital industrials does that mean we will see more than just jump freighters in the future?

Want to talk? Join Cara's channel in game: House Forelli
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#108 - 2014-09-11 19:53:42 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Charlie Firpol wrote:
Zappity wrote:
What gameplay does multiple outcome tiers add? This SEEMS like good gameplay (more choices etc) until you realise that EVE industry is not 'crafting' but rather batch manufacturing. All that matters is the long term average.

Remove RNG and focus on more ways to modify that long term average. RNG just adds another calculation to a spreadsheet without adding gameplay. People doing high throughput invention won't even read the outcomes but just work on the average.

Also, I think we need some more detail on meta module tiericide now.


Thw worst thing that can happen to you is, you will have left over materials. There is no negative ME randomness. Is that such a problem? oO


It actually is a big problem because it piles up and without a lot more effort involved in including the left-over materials into new production batches, they continue piling up. It's already a problem now as I currently run a couple of T2 component productions for my subsequent T2 ship production. The thing that happened now is that I have loads of materials left over, both for the T2 components as well as finished components from the ships. And this is very irritating.

you're now dealing with a new problem normal businesses have to deal with: put the effort into just-in-time logistics, or invest some capital in parts sitting around

sounds like a positive change requiring more tradeoffs and thinking to me

for example the poor will strive to maximize just-in-time while the superrich, like me, will invest some capital into lowering the effort involved
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#109 - 2014-09-11 19:55:00 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
My invention lines with Sabres and Jaguars beg to differ, with Augmentation decryptors dropping them to ME 0.

probag Bear wrote:
The rise of Augmentation and its dethroning of Symmetry begs to differ with you.

Also, TE and Runs are very easily merged together into a single attribute. If you operate in a field where datacore costs are minor, you can also merge in +% chance, and the only attributes you're finally left with are +ME and Optimal SSlot/MSlot Ratio Modifier.


There's still the perception of only one best option (whether Symmetry or Augmentation or Process). Much in the way that the Hulk used to be the only barge ever, then the Mackinaw, it'd be nice to have a spread so it's not everyone running on couple decryptors.

each one still has a role (and in many situations the best one can shift for the same item, like when you want to get lower margins for faster production because you have the capital to support that, or you want higher margins with lower production because you are capital-limited and can't have as much in build at once)
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#110 - 2014-09-11 20:11:03 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
what's this about inventing capital industrial ships now?



I think it was another slip up cause the author isn't aware that rorqual is a T1 capital industrial ship.

more proof they do not really play indy at all.. lol

unless................. RORQUAL IS GOING T2?????? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#111 - 2014-09-11 20:14:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Retar Aveymone wrote:
you're now dealing with a new problem normal businesses have to deal with: put the effort into just-in-time logistics, or invest some capital in parts sitting around

sounds like a positive change requiring more tradeoffs and thinking to me

for example the poor will strive to maximize just-in-time while the superrich, like me, will invest some capital into lowering the effort involved


This IS JIT... I don't pre-produce my components; this is supposed to be exactly the number of components that are supposed to be required for the items I want to build after the production of the components. And still, I have left overs.

--

Sizeof Void wrote:
Are you planning to rebalance the R&D agents, as well - in terms of what datacores are available from each agent and the distribution of agents across regions?

I took a quick look at the proposed datacore changes for the ORE ships, from Mechanical Engineering to Laser Physics. The one problem that I see is that Laser Physics datacores are primarily available from agents in Amarr Empire space, whereas the Gallente Starship Engineering datacores (assuming ORE ships still require Gallente Starship Engineering datacores) are primarily available from agents in Gallente Federation space.

In order to farm both types of datacores, you'd need to have access to both Amarr and Gallente R&D agents, which means more grinding of standings - a rather tedious activity.

It is likely that other proposed datacore changes will have similar repercussions.


What's wrong with a bit of mission running? Do you suggest that I should have access to all L4 R&D agents of all races when I have access to one race? If you need these data cores, you have 1 or 2 R&D agents for both empires and run their 1 mission daily. Where's the problem? And to get to L4 standing, you run some Distro missions. Where's the problem? This is EVE, a game supposed to be long-term, not a short-lived Angry Birds joke!
Besides, most Data Cores come from FW in any case...

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.
Patrick Yaa
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#112 - 2014-09-11 20:31:42 UTC
Why not wait with this change for the introduction of the rebalanced meta modules and thei blueprints?

Then you could try to work towards a t2 blueprint, but with the chance that if you fail, you get a meta mod BP. you can ofc also work towards a meta mod BP from the beginning and have higher chance.

In the end this might turn out to be that you have all skills to V= the chance to get a meta mod is 100% if you work directly towards it, but only a 60%, whatever chance to get a t2 BP with the chance to get at least a meta BP.
hope this doesn't sound too confusing?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#113 - 2014-09-11 20:35:03 UTC
Fap fap fap.


That is all.
Qmamoto Kansuke
Killing with pink power
Penguins with lasorz
#114 - 2014-09-11 21:10:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Qmamoto Kansuke
Installing multiple invention runs at once instead of installing the same invention every hour over and over.

PLEASE MARRY ME NOW!

I've just decided to continue my subs thanks CCP i can't wait for the new changes.
Lucy Sue
Hebi Co.
#115 - 2014-09-11 21:23:21 UTC
Regarding the skills in the past when skill requirements have been changed it had been done in a way so that people who could do it before at a certain level could do it after at the same level. For example ships and drones. With the changes outlined in this blog it would force us to train skills to reach that same level as before, are any skills going to be raised to compensate?
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#116 - 2014-09-11 21:39:19 UTC
Atossa Exior wrote:
Quote:
All Battleships, Industrial Command Ship have 25%
Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20%


So confirmed T2 version of orca and rorqual?

And T2 Versions of all other Capitals, like T2 Archon ...
... If they mean with Capitals CAPITALS SHIPS (Caps, Supers, Titans) Lol
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#117 - 2014-09-11 21:46:50 UTC
Karash Amerius wrote:
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
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


The storyline gear is miniscule as far as production goes. I admit to not being an industrialist...maybe there are more uses?


The storyline & COSMOS modules will be rebalanced probably this year or early next year at the latest. Logically speaking and given that there are limited quantities available I would expect them to have higher stats than T2 modules plus less CPU/PG requirements.

" 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. ' .
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2014-09-11 21:46:50 UTC
This sounds really good! I'm looking forward to these changes.

Just 2 things:

1. "allow players to start invention with multiple runs"
Will this yield multiple BPCs or BPCs with more runs? (Please let it be more runs)

2. "We are aware that Tech III subsystems are not all equally valuable right now, which is why we may iterate on their material composition to counteract these changes if needed."
Do NOT do this before fozzie and rise do a balancing pass on them!
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#119 - 2014-09-11 21:49:44 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Fade Toblack wrote:
Querns wrote:
Considering that "Battleship Construction" is being transformed into "Advanced Battleship Construction," that'd be impossible. :V


Ah in that case, CCP need to improve the confusing image I linked, because it still lists "Cruiser Construction" as a pre-req for "Advanced Battleship Construction". Roll


Yes, those should be "Advanced Battleship Construction" and "Advanced Cruiser Construction" on the screenshot Oops

Why are you renaming it, if there is no other Skills comming for normal BS/CR Constructions?
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#120 - 2014-09-11 21:50:48 UTC
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Querns wrote:
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
Well, for the most part things look very good.

But the changes to base invention chance have me very confused.

Freighters are currently grouped with frigates and destroyers with a base of 30%.

The new invention chances do not list "Freighters" specifically, but I assume they will fall under Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20%". Although they are NOT listed as capital industrial ships in the market tree. If they are, that will be a huge negative impact for jump freighters, are they not expensive enough already?

This title just seems odd to me, as there are no other ships in this catagory with a T2 variant. the only "capital" ship industrial or otherwise with a T2 variant is freighters>>Jump freighters.

Also this one"All Battleships, Industrial Command Ship have 25%"

What industrial command ships are there? The ORCA is the only one I can think of as the Roqual should fit under the capital industrial ship catigory with the freighters. However neither the ORCA or the Roqual blueprints can be invented from, so the invention chance does not apply to them.

Why list ships here that do not have a T2 variant that can be invented? Should we expect T2 ORCA's, Roquals, Dreads, and Carriers, coming so that these new invention chances would have something to be applied to?

I kinda doubt they are specifically planning new T2 ships as a result of this change. Listing the chances like this just lets them have that work done now in case they want to do it later, if at all.


Yep, that's why we wanted to keep the groups vague, in case we want to add something in the future.


The issue is the groups are not exactly vague, it is the fact that specific ship types are listed as having an invetion chance of success, while there is no T2 BPC that can be invented from those ship classes. How can you have a 20% chance of getting a T2 Capital BPC that does not exist?

For example;
I could say, forget jump freighters, I am going to switch to inventing industrial command ships. they have a 5% higher invention chance.
What do you mean I can not invent for industrial command ships, the developer blog says I can... ... Well if the BPC's and T2 variants do not exists why did the dev blog specifically list them?

or

Sweet according the the latest developer blog we can now invent for capital ships, T2 dreadnaughts and carriers, woot woot...

my point is, this is not vague it is flat out wrong. It will create a lot of confusion, which I am sure was not the intent. If we ever do see T2 Capitals, it will not be anytime soon. The ones we have, have not even had their teiricide pass yet. So why lie to players by specifically listing them as having an invention chance, when there is no intention of them ever being available for invention.

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.


Seriously?? Jump freighters are already stupidly expensive, and invention attempts are already very expensive just due to volume of data cores, and time required to produce T1 BPC's. I build Anshars, I have dificulties as it is getting T2 BPC's. Do we really need the price of these jumping to over 10B isk putting them even farther out of reach for newer players? They are already one of the most expensive ships, beat out only by super capitals. And they are already Double to triple the cost of other jump capable capital ships.

Freighters and jump freighters do not belong in this same catagory as combat capable capital ships. They can not be armed, they can not be properly tanked. If there was other T2 Capital ships, such a low invention cost would make them so expensive, they would not be worth using.

A roqual is a capital industrial ship, a true capital. it has a worthy tank, and can not enter high sec. A freighter, or even a jump freighter is not a true capital. the have a stupidly low tank for their size and cost, and are essentially high sec industrial ships. At least they have been balanced as such. They should also be treated as such for invention purposes, and currently are. There is no need for that to change.


The Orca & Rorqual are due to both be rebalanced very soon. This dev blog gives you the hint that there will be T2 versions of both ships released as well. On the proviso as usual that if you use this information to speculate it may not turn out as you think.

" 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. ' .