These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

RE changes, Paging Corbexx and the new guy.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Winthorp
#21 - 2014-09-12 08:26:52 UTC
Asayanami Dei wrote:
Winthorp wrote:
Asayanami Dei wrote:


Such is the development process.
I imagine things will be much more clear after the summit next week.


Considering it has already been stated that the majority of the summit will be concerning sov null i wouldn't hold your breath.

https://i.imgflip.com/85j5j.jpg


Are you that mad i said you should resign that you fail to even discuss a serious issue?

I understand NDA but that is not the issue here and you are just being a giant ****.
Maduin Shi
MAGA Inc
#22 - 2014-09-12 09:01:53 UTC
I did hear from Fozzie amongst the wormhole podcasts that some kind of nerf to armor tanked proteus fits is "a safe bet". I'll pull up that podcast and listen to it again to confirm. Can't remember if he was talking about subsystems generally or about the Proteus in particular (or both).
Asayanami Dei
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#23 - 2014-09-12 09:06:35 UTC
Given that the schedule of the summit has not been posted your assumptions are far fetched to say the least.
Like i say, there will be more to discuss after the summit.

I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I--THE CAPACITOR IS EMPTY

Youtube: /asayanami

Twitter: @asayanami

wormholefundamentals.com
Jessica Duranin
Doomheim
#24 - 2014-09-12 09:07:24 UTC
Winthorp wrote:
My logic is this change to RE dos not go hand in hand with them making every subsystem usefull in the future and there is now concern that won't happen.

Given how the last wormhole changes worked out I would honestly prefer if CCP wouldn't touch T3s at all.
Enthropic
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#25 - 2014-09-12 09:16:18 UTC
excuse my ignorance, but may I ask if the mass-based wh spawn distance changes are also going to be a topic for the CSM summit? Also, where can the meeting minutes be found? I look here, but that only goes back to 2012..
https://community.eveonline.com/community/csm/meeting-minutes/

I know, wrong thread, sorry
Maduin Shi
MAGA Inc
#26 - 2014-09-12 09:16:21 UTC
Jessica Duranin wrote:
Winthorp wrote:
My logic is this change to RE dos not go hand in hand with them making every subsystem usefull in the future and there is now concern that won't happen.

Given how the last wormhole changes worked out I would honestly prefer if CCP wouldn't touch T3s at all.


Yeah. But they're gonna. Ugh
Loki O'Grady
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2014-09-12 10:11:39 UTC
Winthorp wrote:
Asayanami Dei wrote:


Such is the development process.
I imagine things will be much more clear after the summit next week.


Considering it has already been stated that the majority of the summit will be concerning sov null i wouldn't hold your breath.


Considering that CCP have moved to ten releases per year and the summits remain at two per year, wouldn't it be fair to assume that this next summit will cover more than just what will be in Oceanus?
Winthorp
#28 - 2014-09-12 10:17:48 UTC
Loki O'Grady wrote:
Winthorp wrote:
Asayanami Dei wrote:


Such is the development process.
I imagine things will be much more clear after the summit next week.


Considering it has already been stated that the majority of the summit will be concerning sov null i wouldn't hold your breath.


Considering that CCP have moved to ten releases per year and the summits remain at two per year, wouldn't it be fair to assume that this next summit will cover more than just what will be in Oceanus?


When did i say the summit will be all about Oceanus? Sure just make stuff up....
Winthorp
#29 - 2014-09-12 10:18:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Winthorp
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


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.





So this change we should just ignore this as i guess RE changes won't affect WH space at all. Roll
Loki O'Grady
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2014-09-12 10:49:50 UTC
Winthorp wrote:
Loki O'Grady wrote:
Winthorp wrote:
Asayanami Dei wrote:


Such is the development process.
I imagine things will be much more clear after the summit next week.


Considering it has already been stated that the majority of the summit will be concerning sov null i wouldn't hold your breath.


Considering that CCP have moved to ten releases per year and the summits remain at two per year, wouldn't it be fair to assume that this next summit will cover more than just what will be in Oceanus?


When did i say the summit will be all about Oceanus? Sure just make stuff up....


Okay, fair enough. The point I was (poorly) attempting to make was that all the previous summits have been about both what's coming up next and also what CCP have planned for further down the track. So even if fixing sovnull is a priority, there is bound to be plenty of discussion unrelated to that goal.
Borsek
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#31 - 2014-09-12 11:31:56 UTC
"Decryptors will affect Tech III blueprints. We will most likely tweak decryptor attributes in the process to balance their gameplay value."

Also most of my useless 14M SP in science will be less useless, seeing how I still probably won't be using it. One of these days imma retire to k-space and start up a t3 business. Probably right before the market for t3s crashes horribly.
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2014-09-12 12:56:00 UTC
Winthorp wrote:
Icarus Able wrote:
How do they not go hand in hand? Making all the subs useful and being able to choose the sub you make have no connection...


/Sigh... OK.

The change is made from short term goals due to the heavy whining from people that make subsystems and continually get subsystem BPC's that never get built due to the profit margins, so this change is a play to that so they can avoid unprofitable susbs.

If in the future there was changes to subsystems so they are all useful then this change wouldn't be needed as the builder would be happy with a variable chance based system.

See my concern now? Short term this change suits me greatly, long term it leads towards they either havn't spoken with other CCP teams that would be working on T3 changes now or in the future or the future changes just won't be happening.

EDIT: Further more the profitable subsystem market will crash even further from their low % profit margins due to the easy accessibility of the desired subsystem BPC of choice. I guess i will just stick to hulls after changes http://i.imgur.com/Jt7IjUg.png but then so will other people.

The changes seem like they haven't been thought through well.


You left out the part where reverse engineering stuff will most likely drop in value since you need less of it due to being able to pick which subs you want. while this isnt a huge income source for w-space its another small nerf.

I've already raised these issues.

Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#33 - 2014-09-12 13:07:19 UTC
Winthorp wrote:
Asayanami Dei wrote:


Such is the development process.
I imagine things will be much more clear after the summit next week.


Considering it has already been stated that the majority of the summit will be concerning sov null i wouldn't hold your breath.


not sure where this is from, but there is 20 plus topics and only 2 specifically on nullsec.

Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Winthorp
#34 - 2014-09-12 13:34:45 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
corbexx wrote:
not sure where this is from, but there is 20 plus topics and only 2 specifically on nullsec.





CCP Fozzie wrote:
since we expect that 0.0 space will feature prominently in this summit’s CCP-CSM discussions.


For this upcoming CSM summit we are planning to discuss in detail a set of significant, specific and targeted changes that we hope to release in late 2014, as well as the concepts and prototypes that we are developing for more far-reaching changes in 2015. We are confident that the multiple nullsec sessions that we have scheduled for this summit will be extremely valuable.



This kind of leans towards you would be talking about a year worth of nullsec changes that will take a considerable amount of the discussion time up.

I never said there wouldn't be other things on the agenda, *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

Edit: The deleted personal attack was not directed at any of the two quoted posters, but rule breaking none the less. ISD Ezwal.
Angie Chatter
#35 - 2014-09-12 13:48:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Angie Chatter
Winthorp wrote:

They are also adding decryptor usage and a 40% reduction in RE % rates you can expect your current cheap T3 costs to change.


mhh, a ~40% chance reduction, while being able to select the resulting sub, results in reduced RE cost. Nearly 75% of all groups have only 2 "good" subs and the rest have either just 1 or 3.

Examples:

NOW:

two "good" subs per group: 82% x 50% = 41%
one "good" sub per group: 82% x 25% = 21%

NEW:
82% - 40% = 42%

So we get a 1% gain compared to the common two "good" subs groups case and a 21% gain in the rarer 1 "good" sub scenario. This is even without taking the new Decryptors into account.

So this change will actually lower RE cost across the board, especially for Caldari subs, since the expansive racial interface will be gone.

On the other hand RE cost for most subs make up only about 5-20% of the total costs, so given those numbers mainly the subs in the "one good per group" will maybe drop by 1-5m.

For T3 hulls, this change will actually increase RE cost, but hulls have very low RE cost anyway around 2.5%, so i expect no change at all in this case.


just my 2 cents
MooMooDachshundCow
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2014-09-12 13:49:59 UTC
So, this change that allows people to pick what BPC they get will mean in the short term that prices for relics will drop even more. This is unfortunate, because WE'VE REACHED THE POINT WHERE THERE IS NO REASON TO HACK DATA CANS and relics will be the next to go. Nobody will hack anything except the abandoned talocans because everything else will be worthless. People who are shooting for the BPC's will be able to harvest their own since there will be very little waste.

The bottom drops out of the market AND people will have no reason to mess with 10% of their content (the hacking cans thing is already bad gameplay but now it will be unprofitable as well).

So, being able to pick subsystem BPC that drops would be OK if all the subs were actually useful which as stated they are not ATM. Look for covert/nulli subsystems to drop in price along with the most commonly used subs.

CCP had better balance this stuff out quickly lest they further degrade the quality of gameplay.

Yeah, well, it's just like my opinion, man.
Louis Catcher
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2014-09-12 13:50:46 UTC
[/quote]

You left out the part where reverse engineering stuff will most likely drop in value since you need less of it due to being able to pick which subs you want. while this isnt a huge income source for w-space its another small nerf.

I've already raised these issues. [/quote]

I think that is quite a big nerf towards (again) smaller entities and lower class wh.

This will probably affect nrbs aswell since the manufacturing requirements would decrease. Which means that no only did they increase risk but they will lower the reward.

Hopefully ccp goes through these processes very carefully, you recon they qould when there r so many space sim concurrence on the horizon
Winthorp
#38 - 2014-09-12 13:51:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Winthorp
Angie Chatter wrote:
Winthorp wrote:

They are also adding decryptor usage and a 40% reduction in RE % rates you can expect your current cheap T3 costs to change.


Your math is off, a ~40% chance reduction, while being able to select the resulting sub, results in reduced RE cost. Nearly 75% of all groups have only 2 "good" subs and the rest have either just 1 or 3.

Examples:

NOW:

two "good" subs per group: 82% x 50% = 41%
one "good" sub per group: 82% x 25% = 21%

NEW:
82% - 40% = 42%

So we get a 1% gain compared to the common two "good" subs groups case and a 21% gain in the rarer 1 "good" sub scenario. This is even without taking the new Decryptors into account.

So this change will actually lower RE cost across the board, especially for Caldari subs, since the expansive racial interface will be gone.

On the other hand RE cost for most subs make up only about 5-20% of the total costs, so given those numbers mainly the subs in the "one good per group" will maybe drop by 1-5m.

For T3 hulls, this change will actually increase RE cost, but hulls have very low RE cost anyway around 2.5%, so i expect no change at all in this case.


just my 2 cents



The below is from the devblog, i honestly am to lazy to math that up. maybe i have misinterpreted that and missed something but i read that as 40% drop in RE success rates?







That means a 20% chance drop when inventing Tech II Blueprint copies if you were using a Meta 4 item, and approximately 40% chance drop when inventing Tech III blueprint copies with maximum skills. While that is quite a lot in practice, this is not set in stone yet and we have a lot of changes coming in to mitigate that.

We are compensating the success chance decrease by:

Having Decryptors now affect Tech III blueprints as well, allowing you to impact their ME and TE levels.
Having Teams affect Invention ME and TE inputs, which can shave Datacore costs down.
And more importantly, by the changes that are explained below, so we encourage you to keep reading.
Winthorp
#39 - 2014-09-12 14:03:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Winthorp
What i find of concern also is that if they see the subsystem market depress which i think it clearly will without a subsystem rebalance then they are more then happy to just mess with Melted Nano Ribbons drop rates.

Will they even look at the consequences of this good or bad to WH player income or just how the HS industrialist is concerned, who they have just done the RE rework for. And to mess with the MNR's drop rate to fix a subsystem slump will artificially affect T3 hull prices.
Ahost Gceo
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2014-09-12 14:28:03 UTC
I better see some fantastic developments on the side of CCP come this summit, because the CSM reps already have the points and suggestions to be made that would make for vast improvements in the game in many respects.

Put shortly, I have confidence in the CSM because they too are players and get to deal with the effects of the changes CCP makes. But CCP has to put stock in what the CSM says and act on it.

T3 subsystems and their limited practical variety are a big factor in their market value. Most important is the combat meta in k-space, which now revolves heavily around drone boats, ability to disengage at a moment's notice, and in particular, Ishtars. T3s have never really been effective as kiting ships and are something used when getting into a nitty-gritty fight. This has to change first if demand for T3s is going to increase, and it is going to happen through changing of current subsystems and diluting of drone boat abilities to the point where for most fights you HAVE to commit and lose a ship.

CCP ignore me please, I make too much sense.
Previous page123Next page