EVE Information Portal

Adding data interfaces as a consumable, so each invention job requires two data core types and a data interface specific to the type of BPC/relic being invented/reverse engineered, would be a better option for improving the value of exploration.

Then remove data cores from exploration, since most exploration ships have small holds. Thus data cores come from the folks wandering around their local research agents, while data interfaces come from exploration (or rather the components for data interfaces come from exploration).

This opens up the option for station owners to buy research agents in much the same way as teams. Post a bid for an agent, they will move to your station and live there for a production period of a week/month/whatever, with the owner getting a split of the ISK cost of purchasing data cores. If a station is destroyed, or an agent is not bid for, that agent simply becomes unavailable for the remainder of the current production period.

Removing data interfaces and reducing the demand for data cores by ~50% hurts two professions at once.

Great job here, however; if your intent was to shift many of the inventions to be more intuitive with the race that uses them and the weapon type, why were railguns shifted away from electromagnetic physics and Caldari, the technology they actually use, and the race that they are styled for, to plasma physics and Gallente instead, when Plasma is a blaster element and gallente ships are not tailored for railguns?

1st of all, with all of you nice Industry Change Graphs, I'm missing one Major Graph => The Changes of how much more isk all those changes cost us e.g. ME/PE/Copy/Invention Costs. WHO the F*** is spending for an Aeon PE+6 (12%) 1,5 bil isk ???

2nd Why the F*** are Inventions take so much longer than post patch, 37 Mins vs 8,xx Hours for an Scorch L Invention ???
Im running out of T2 BPCs, because the Production is that Freaking Fast, i thing you have to Fix that a bid, Less Invention Time More Production Time.

3rd To: Science field changes for Invention and Tech II manufacturing, Since when are Railguns Plasma Weapons, a Railgun is a Magnetic driven Gun, so changes from Elect.Magnetic to Plasma Physics make no real sense. This and others too. Please do here an Review.
Railgun Wiki

4th The changes on the Sin (Mechanical Engineering to High Energy Physics) also make no sense, why i don't need Mechanical Skills to Build an Ship? As additional Skills High Energy Physics make sense, because the Sin is an T2 Ship with need more requirements than an T1 Version.

5th Why the hell is the Chance Formula that different from T2 to T3? Base Chance CR (new) T2 = 37,5% vs T3 = 61,5%, seems to me a bid unbalanced.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=372926&find=unread

Crosposting this as your changes here affect future changes that have been spoken of by CCP devs.


So with the changes RE is now being merged into invention they have made further worrying changes to subsystem reverse engineering.

The new change is you will be able to select the subsystem directly and not the random chance it is currently. While short term this is great as there will be no wastage involved with reverse engineering unprofitable subsystems long term it worries me.

Long term we were told by devs that when they are looking at the T3 rebalance their ideal outcome would be rebalancing susystems so that all subsystems become useful unlike their current form. The changes to reverse engineering do not really go hand in hand with what we understood to be their future plans.

It was my understanding that T3's are after recons in the rebalance cycle so T3's should be getting looked at either now by developers or very soon behind the scenes.

So should we start to worry or should we have the dreaded T3 debate now so we don't get a Hyperion level patch we all hate?

Should i right click trash the ******* hundreds of unprofitable T3 Subsytem BPC's i have?

Not exactly stoked about the new changes.

My experience:

Limitless Invention / Stackable jobs:
I made the EFFORT to set timers to redo my invention jobs once every hour and a half, compared to the average Joe beside me, who did NOT put effort into it. He felt it was too much of a chore, and did not want the hassle of logging in every so and so to repush the buttons. Granted, my work allows me to run EVE, and redo the process.

The rewards I get are more T2 BPCs than Joe, and as a result, I also get to produce more products than he does, yielding me better profits, because by the same virtue, I also get to reclick the manufacturing jobs at the same rate.
Joe on the other hand could only make a batch's worth of profit, because he did not put in effort.

But this stackable invention thing isn't as much of a deal than the one below, because I know that even if Joe invents 24/7 non stop, his profit bottleneck will be from manufacturing. As long as you don't make production jobs stackable, I'm still good.

Non-binary outcomes:
It's a change from the usual 1/0 output, which is welcoming, but the varied ME/TE results on the BPCs will sorely mess up any manufacturers plan of action. You don't know what to expect until the job is complete, and with the results, calculating exactly how much materials to bring will be troublesome. Some people approach industry with a huge stockpile of materials. But others also do things JIT way.
That was ME. As for TE, same situation, with my skills staying static, the only variable to completion time is the TE of the BPC. With varied BPC TEs, it will mess up any industrialist's production pipeline. You might have jobs completing minutes earlier than the others, and if someone wants to run at full capacity, it's more of a hindrance.
Not to mention, this change will not affect those who "set it and forget it", since they run a normalized sort of timeframe. And for those who run things like I mentioned above, it'll mess things up. So why introduce this varied BPC outcome?
Consistency is perhaps an industrialist's best friend. And speaking for myself, I prefer to know that my BPCs after cooking, is a ME-2 TE-4 BPC.
If someone wants a better ME or TE, go plug in a decryptor... It's what they were made to do.
By doing this we still achieve consistency. We will know with probability 1, that any successful invention will yield ME/TE of those specific values.


My suggestion is to get rid of the added bonus ME/TE additions, and replace them with the exact things from the failure bonuses. Exceptional successes could return your datacores, or part of the batch, and so on...
Or introduce new decryptors which grant those little minute bonuses. That can be your SINK which counteracts the return of the datacores... perfect for those individuals who prefer the added ME/TE bonuses.
The important thing here is, there is consistency.

Things I like:
1. Being able to install multiple invention runs. Thank you CCP.
2. Making science skills more equitably useful
3. Rationalisation of Invention with RE - but please rename "Invention" to "Upgrade", "Customise" or some-such.


Things I don't like:
1. The pathetic impact of skills on chance for success. 40% to 50% for 15 levels of skills? Gimme a break! 30% to 60% would be better.
2. Are CCP freighter-haters? On top of their wonderful recent "rebalancing" comes a reduction to invention chance. If CCP want industry to spread across EVE then they should make Freighters and Jump Freighters as cheap as chips. This would help industry logistics and increase ganking targets - a win-win for everyone!

Things not mentioned:
1. Will there be any changes to the time and cost of invention and RE? I personally disliked what Crius did to the time and cost of research. The time and money needed to get the last couple of ME and TE are, for many items, ridiculous. There is now a significant time/ISK barrier facing new industrialists wanting to compete with established industrialists. I believe this will discourage the growth of the industrialist community .

An opinion that I assure you is not shared by everyone. RNG makes things far more interesting and thus less dull and repetitive.

wrongo

intel spends billions on chip manufacturing and there's still quite a random element factoring into if an individual chip works (and what it can be binned at) from an existing line of chips being manufactured

like they'll make a whole batch of haswell chips, then have to test each one to see which work, then what to bin each one as ('better' chips are just the ones that binned better, not a separate line of chips)

Meta items in mod inventions MUST STAY.

1. it adds a competitive edge. if you can find cheap meta items to increase your chances, you're cutting costs over your compeition. It's nice to have an edge that doesnt require buying a team (most people who invent, invent dozens of types of things, a team usually covers 1 group).

2. There are hundreds, HUNDREDS of meta items on market that have a value just below their mineral value, if you KEEP META items in invention, it gives them a place to go--other than reprocessing. This is good for both miners, and the savvy invention specialist.

3. Nothing adds success like a meta item, as EASY as it does.

I know that it's 'confusing' when it comes to things that are not mods, but the interface could make it so that the option to input a meta item doesnt even appear on the things that cant be effected by them (ships, rigs, etc).

but PLEASE keep the meta items for mod invention.

i'm begging!

(and i dont use them that often either, but i LIKE to, when i can get 50% more invention success for 40k a job (when the datacores are 400k) ... that's like getting a free batch of runs, for 400k!

keep the meta items!

To all those decrying the loss of meta items in invention, fear not -- there are plans to make them matter more in the future. Your mission scavenging businesses are going to get a shot in the arm.