These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
HarlyQ
harlyq syrokos investment station
#141 - 2014-09-12 01:49:54 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.


Even I know how much ccp HATES the t2BPO's if you have not figured that out **** outta luck man. If you want clarity I HOPE THEY DELETE THEM OUTTA GAME!!!! :) mainly so I can read your tears about unsubbing because they took out a broken item. Also you should not ask for things that are not going to happen.
Enhala
Ephemerid
#142 - 2014-09-12 02:18:35 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
For ships you always needed the Mechanical Engineering skill, that is going to change depending on the role of the invented ship.


You make this change the day after I train Mechanical Engineering to 5?

Was it something I said?
Alexis Nightwish
#143 - 2014-09-12 02:44:25 UTC
Came hoping T2 BPOs were being removed, left disappointed again.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
#144 - 2014-09-12 03:02:19 UTC
CCP Phantom
[* wrote:
The use of meta items will be removed from Invention, instead of meta items you will be able to use Teams in Invention.

  • Invention results will be non-binary, with some good luck to get an extra boost of ME/TE or,with only a little bad luck you will receive back some datacores used in the invention.

    • Ummm, have you actually tried invention since Crius....the use of meta items has already been removed....

    Second point....so when i get a set of invented BPC's, i'll now have a plethora of variants that i now have to add all the different materials together, that will all take different times to build....how is this better? This is WAAAY more complicated.

    Third, so....the teams to 'manipulate inputs'....if that means datacore amounts....you do realize that most small items only require 2 datacores to invent. So in order to manipulate that figure with a % discount....you are going to need more than your token 1-3%'s that you are typically using for "build" teams.

    New Icon SiSi feedback thread that got wholly ignored!

    An example of that a good ship icon set looks like.
    khaip ur
    Pator Tech School
    Minmatar Republic
    #145 - 2014-09-12 03:10:45 UTC
    Lil' Brudder Too wrote:
    CCP Phantom
    [* wrote:
    The use of meta items will be removed from Invention, instead of meta items you will be able to use Teams in Invention.

  • Invention results will be non-binary, with some good luck to get an extra boost of ME/TE or,with only a little bad luck you will receive back some datacores used in the invention.

    • Ummm, have you actually tried invention since Crius....the use of meta items has already been removed....



    The item slot has only been removed on ships as far as I can tell because your only option a meta 1 item did nothing to improve the success chances. On items where loot variants exists you have the option of including items items for meta level.


    My question is if reverse engineering and invention are to be combined does that mean reverse engineering will be available at npc stations?
    Utremi Fasolasi
    La Dolce Vita
    #146 - 2014-09-12 03:39:08 UTC
    I like having the racial interfaces as a catalyst for invention. They add sci fi flavor.
    Tzar Sinak
    Mythic Heights
    #147 - 2014-09-12 05:01:48 UTC
    Upon reflection there seems to be a very interesting opportunity here. It is stated that data cores are to be reviewed and rebalanced. May I suggest that a new "wild card" series of data cores also be created. The type of data core that gives massive
    advantages to those must succeed jobs.

    These wild card data cores will need to be rare and thus very valuable. People will want these at almost any cost. Where will these be found? Only one place, data sites. Rare, elusive, significant impact on job success/efficiencies and expensive. A must have item but difficult to find.

    Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE

    Check out the Eve-Prosper show for your market updates!
    Max Kolonko
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #148 - 2014-09-12 05:56:10 UTC
    A few questions:

    1. So now we will be able to run multiple inventions from a blueprint with more than one run remaining. But will we be able to run multiple reverse from a stack of relics?

    2. Will teams affect price of running reverse job only (which right now at least where I do it is as close to zero as possible) or also chance of success?


    3. I like the concept of random better results (+x/+y blueprints). But for large scale industrialist it require even more book-keeping than before. My spreadsheet will just get THAT much more complicated to accomodate for diffrent numbers of diffrent blueprints in a total batch of jobs I run. But overall I like the concept :)

    Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
    Max Kolonko
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #149 - 2014-09-12 06:02:36 UTC
    Lil' Brudder Too wrote:
    CCP Phantom
    [* wrote:
    The use of meta items will be removed from Invention, instead of meta items you will be able to use Teams in Invention.

  • Invention results will be non-binary, with some good luck to get an extra boost of ME/TE or,with only a little bad luck you will receive back some datacores used in the invention.

    • Ummm, have you actually tried invention since Crius....the use of meta items has already been removed....

    Second point....so when i get a set of invented BPC's, i'll now have a plethora of variants that i now have to add all the different materials together, that will all take different times to build....how is this better? This is WAAAY more complicated.

    Third, so....the teams to 'manipulate inputs'....if that means datacore amounts....you do realize that most small items only require 2 datacores to invent. So in order to manipulate that figure with a % discount....you are going to need more than your token 1-3%'s that you are typically using for "build" teams.



    But now You will be able to run batch jobs of those. So the reduction will actually kick in :)

    Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
    HelicoBacter
    Pandemic Horde Inc.
    Pandemic Horde
    #150 - 2014-09-12 06:23:48 UTC
    Sentient Blade wrote:
    He's the problem I see. You're making it progressively more complicated to run calculations and analysis on what is necessary to produce, this punishes people willing to make the time investment to work things out properly.

    Say I wanted to invent 90 ishtars, I would calculate the amount of materials to produce them using the best value racial decryptor (3 run) and invest in buying those component materials. I would then proceed to have my characters do as many invention jobs as necessary to get the 30 runs (i.e. 30 successful operations).

    Now, by throwing more randomness into the fire, I'm not sure what I need without going through, checking every single blueprint and adding them all up, grouping them, calculating them all in turn and then merging the results back together.

    I love the idea that failure does not have to consume all of the datacores, but dislike all the extra calculator work that can only be known once the invention jobs have completed.

    I could of course save the extra components for a later build, but that then adds more leg-work by having to factor that in when building the next round of materials.



    this, or give us stacking for same attributes blueprints
    Quartermaster Wild
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #151 - 2014-09-12 07:19:28 UTC
    As someone brand new to invention (first successful batch of T2s invented last night), the things that I would like to see:

    1) Have all BPC's with the same attribute values (Item, # runs, %TE, %ME) stackable.

    2) Make skilling to V actually matter. Everything that I've read prior to getting into invention indicates that of the science skills, the research based ones only should be trained to IV, as V only offers a fractional amount of datacore passive acquisition, and a meaningless percentage increase on success.

    3) I'd also like to see BPC's tradable on the market, rather than in contracts. Alternatively, also give us some Advanced Contracting skills that open more Contract slots, in the same manner as Trade skills add more market order slots.

    4) Could the size of datacores be decreased from 1.0m3 to something more reasonable (0.3m3?), in order to encourage Exploration to look at datasites, in order to increase market fluidity?

    Questions:

    If ships, say, will need Mechanical Engineering and some other Science skill (Quantum Physics etc), does this mean that the Racial Starship Engineering skills will be made useless? If so, what will occur with the SP invested in those skills?

    What is driving the change away from Meta items as optional ingredients? I really dislike the Teams approach, as the system as currently implemented can effectively render whole areas non-optimal for smaller players / people just starting out. Relatedly, does the removal of the usage of meta items in this manner indicate a possible future module tieracide?
    Ai Sekana
    Infinity Works
    #152 - 2014-09-12 07:36:42 UTC
    I like most of the proposed changes, but some of them does not make any sense

    1. Removing interfaces because they don`t do anything and are not even sink for minerals or materials. Ok I can agree with that but when we start removing stuff because of that "thing" lets remove and say RAM that is pretty much the same situation aside from been a very little mineral sink and is more of inconvenience than anything else. Please rethink this. Either make it consistent and remove useless small stuff all over or keep it as it is.
    If you feel that you need to do something about the interfaces just make all of the x100 and use 1 per invention where BPC from data site will provide 2 to 5 runs of 100 interfaces. Make the interfaces even optional item that adds some maybe extra runs or some chance improvements. Reduce the volume of the required materials to 0.01m3 so people actually start looting them and with that you will increase the value of data sites and will not need to remove tons of BPC and interfaces from the game and wonder how to compensate them. Waste not something that you can simply repurpose.

    2. Random outcome form invention feels more like a "middle finger" than anything else. This will not add anything of worth to the equation aside from overcomplicating it. This will NOT bring choices. To be perfectly honest with you CCP aside from choosing what to manufacture there are no real choices in Industry. Anything is predictable and scalable in long term. Your new formula will just require readjusting to the existing calculations and in the end for the middle and big industrials it will sum up to the same result where the little guys will lose money or will even quit, because of the extra logistics and planning required.

    3. Rebalancing decriptors. Ok I am on board with that, but you really need to have a look at the use of decriptors in module invention. I for one invent around 40 different modules and I have never ever used decriptor. They just don`t bring anything to the table. 1% reduce in price for module that cost 300k to produce is not viable option. Extra runs do not cover the cost of the decriptor. All this might be worth it for ships, but please think about the module invention also. Add module specific decriptors - say -50% chance 15 more runs no ME/TE change, so in long term we are getting 5 more runs and the profit of them might cover the cost of the decriptor and even give us some extra buck. I would like to see decriptors that add more runs to the invention BPC so ME and TE modifiers actually matter for the lower tiers.
    Carraig naTairbhe
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #153 - 2014-09-12 08:47:08 UTC
    Situation
    I would like to set an opposing view on data interfaces. I hold the opinion that data interfaces add a nice 'colour' to the game without being overly complex.

    Background:
    I am moving into manufacturing from exploration. I have all these BPCs that I am converting into items where they'll sell for more than the price of the BPC on contract + manufacturing cost. Perhaps it is the throw of the dice but I have a LOT of data interface BPCs that are becoming data interfaces.

    Assessment
    Removing data interfaces will impoverish the game in my opinion. There exist two kinds of complexity in Eve, the kind that gives Eve its hard factor (worth keeping) and the complexity that simply frustrating (worth trimming). Removing this natural segue from exploration to manufacturing appears to me to be removing a complexity of the first kind.

    Recommendation
    If these are removed from exploration they need to be replaced with something else or else the exploration loot tables will become even more repetitive.
    Canenald
    Dreddit
    Test Alliance Please Ignore
    #154 - 2014-09-12 09:00:28 UTC
    When balancing the decryptors, please take into account that you are reducing value of already ****** Data Sites by removing Data Interfaces from the game.

    Maybe it would be a nice opportunity to rebalance Data Sites while you are rebalancing their drops? It would be nice if Data containers could contain multiple decryptors per stack.
    Extractor Bill
    Hynix Galactic Industry
    #155 - 2014-09-12 09:20:56 UTC
    A few things ..


    1. I suggest you revise the output BPC's for T2 invention to make the system easier to understand. The "Negative" ME and TE base outputs for the invention outputs hold no value, and only complicate the process by making you have to calculate additional materials and time, which is similar to the reason for some of changes last patch to T1 BPO's. Similar to how you adjusted T1 BPO's last patch, you should make the base output for invention a BPC with 0 ME and 0 PE, then allow things like team, decryptor, and outcome to modify the result. This would not affect any costs, rather it would allow it to make more sense.
    2. Invention will now have the option of multiple runs. However I do not see the relationship with Decryptors yet in multi run deals. Is it correct to assume that all runs in a job must have the same attributes. Meaning that if I want to attempt to invent a T2 BPC ten times (10 runs), and wish to use a decryptor, then I need to supply 10 decryptors to the job along with at least a 10 run BPC, and other materials proportional to this job.
    3. I highly recommend you provide "diminishing returns" on how chance based bonuses affect your possible results. You should never allow Exceptional or Great success (or any result with a ME bonus) become even somewhat reliable results. When a global bonus is applied to the chance result, I would suggest you either have it sku heavily towards improving the likelyness of a Good or Standard result. Allowing any chance result that affects ME to become even somewhat reliable will create a new "junk' status for T2 BPC's as it would create a new minimum acceptable standard. This also can offer some new gameplay opportunities.
    4. If you do option 3, a new opportunity is to add new gameplay through rare encryptor drops. Perhaps you can have a high risk decryptor that only improves the result of Exceptional and Good success at some sort of additional risk(ex. Higher chance to fail altogether, with the additional failure rate being added to the critical failure, and terrible failure).


    I like how the new system allows for modified outputs with chance adding to the mix. I feel it adds lots more gameplay, and with a variable result you stand a chance to "get lucky" and make lots of isk off your Exceptional and Great results as they are rare, always in demand, and allow you to potentially push your resultant BPC above the former maximum ME potential. This new gameplay is fun, and also encourages invention as a major activity since the result is no longer binary.
    CCP Ytterbium
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #156 - 2014-09-12 09:53:29 UTC
    Sizeof Void wrote:
    Will the T2 mining ships - Hulk, Mackinaw, Skiff - still be considered Gallente, for the purposes of the second Science skill?


    Yes, no changes about that particular point.
    Rivr Luzade
    Coreli Corporation
    Pandemic Legion
    #157 - 2014-09-12 10:03:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
    Mara Rinn wrote:
    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.


    Are you out of your mind? Shocked

    The "reduced demand for data cores" does absolutely not hurt me. It only makes my life easier as I don't need to look for as many in data sites any more and can life my the ones I find in data sites longer, as well as of those I get from my research agents. Moreover, how much more cumbersome and tedious do you want to make Invention with consumable interfaces? The components for these interfaces are what clutters the holds of exploration ships (if you decide to grab them in the first place), not the minuscule amounts of data cores.

    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.
    Rivr Luzade
    Coreli Corporation
    Pandemic Legion
    #158 - 2014-09-12 10:12:48 UTC
    Tzar Sinak wrote:
    Upon reflection there seems to be a very interesting opportunity here. It is stated that data cores are to be reviewed and rebalanced. May I suggest that a new "wild card" series of data cores also be created. The type of data core that gives massive
    advantages to those must succeed jobs.

    These wild card data cores will need to be rare and thus very valuable. People will want these at almost any cost. Where will these be found? Only one place, data sites. Rare, elusive, significant impact on job success/efficiencies and expensive. A must have item but difficult to find.


    So, if these data cores/decryptors (data cores have no impact on the success chance, only decryptors have) are so rare, they will be so expensive that the massively increased cost overshadow the gains (increased success chance) compared to inventions without these decryptors and basically nullify the gain. Pretty pointless.

    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.
    CCP Ytterbium
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #159 - 2014-09-12 10:13:24 UTC
    Zifrian wrote:
    Thanks for the devblog.

    Two questions/issues:

    1 - With Battleship construction, right now it provides no bonus to production but is required at different levels to build higher level items. While I'm not really OK with allowing anyone who trains a skill to level 1 to build more advanced items than people who make the decision to train that skill for no other reason than to build those advanced items,

    - What bonus will Advanced ship construction skills have to want to raise them to level 4 or 5?
    - If you do not provide a bonus, then what purpose does a level 4 Advanced ship skill have in this new system and will you reset these skills for all players?


    To make things clear, we are not removing the skill requirements to build larger ships, we are reducing skill requirements to build ships within each size.

    Ex: training Advanced Battleship Construction will still require Advanced Cruiser Construction 4 which itself requires Advanced Frigate Construction 4.

    Building a Sin however will only require Advanced Battleship Construction 1 instead of 4.

    Bonuses for training Advanced Battleship Construction most likely will be a 1% TE reduction when building Tech II battleships.


    Zifrian wrote:
    2 - Costs of T3 items are primarily determined by Melted Nanoribbons and one or two polymers. Will you adjust the salvage drop rates (maybe this should have been done with the WH updates) or readjust the requirements so that there is a more dynamic market for building T3? After you dumb this down and combine it with invention, the market is going to tank and cease to be specialized. Can you make some sort of adjustments to ensure that doesn't happen as badly?


    We will adjust salvage requirements if we think it's needed yes.

    Zifrian wrote:
    A final reaction: while the tiered level of invention success and failure looks good and all, it's just going to muck up any sort of industrial planning. If that's what you want to do, fine but most people don't run an invention job without trying to figure out if it's worth their time over the long run. Also, people usually don't run one or two invention jobs, they do 100's. But you know this. I'm not convinced on this change really.


    That's a fair point, we'll discuss this internally, thanks for bringing it up Smile
    CCP Ytterbium
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #160 - 2014-09-12 10:18:49 UTC
    Het Silenius wrote:
    Am I blind, or is the New Module Skill graphic missing AC/arty and rockets/missiles?


    This lists only shows modules that change skill requirements. Tech II Projectiles invention and manufacturing requirements stay the same with Mechanical Engineering / Nuclear Physics. Same with Tech II missiles, which are a mix of Plasma Physics and Rocket Science.