These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123
 

RE changes, Paging Corbexx and the new guy.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Asayanami Dei
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#41 - 2014-09-12 14:33:54 UTC
corbexx wrote:


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.


Less reverse engineering jobs will take place because you will be able to pick the outcome but the chance of success is decreased as well. Invention material consumption decrease will hit lower class system most, since higher class residents can still fall back on blue loot, and still have a higher chance of drops of intact loot in comparison.
This will also introduce many new people into the system as it becomes easier, which will at the beginning at least produce stuff with little to no profit, droping the margins lower.
However, we might also see a lot of people hoarding their produced subsystems waiting for the T3 rebalance and obviously price increase.
Anyhow that's my basic understanding of it.

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

Youtube: /asayanami

Twitter: @asayanami

wormholefundamentals.com
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#42 - 2014-09-12 22:10:44 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
I deleted the replies to an edited out part of the quoted post. The edited out part was rule breaking.

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Alundil
Rolled Out
#43 - 2014-09-12 22:16:08 UTC
I don't see this as helping the lower class income potential at all. As I understand things, the prices for sleeper salvage and hacking loot will drop even further as a result of this.

= bad :/

I'm right behind you
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#44 - 2014-09-12 23:22:37 UTC
Winthorp wrote:
Source: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/lighting-the-invention-bulb/

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 Subsystem BPC's i have?

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


the problem with statements like this is it assumes the devs spent time deliberately creating sub-par subsystems for what was at the time their latest 'jesus feature'.

I don't think anyone ever thought they should just create inferior stuff like that, it just ended up that way because of the way the game works. For example if gates just threw you to a random spot in the target system like a giant catapult then having warp speed subs or agility subs makes a lot more sense for travel purposes. If Overheating subs had been designed around burst combat with the highest DPS loadouts available for the ship class then they might be one of the most used solo/small fleet subs instead of literally the least used. If logi wasn't so powerful (or rather if cap stability was significantly harder to achieve) then the RR sub might come in to its own in a t3 fleet.

little things here and there that seem silly in isolated cases but in the overall context of the game there are some design decisions that force the playerbase to behave a certain way, hence gatecamps, hence wardecs, hence sov, hence ragerolling, hence deployable bubbles, hence industry overhaul, hence FW overhaul, hence ship rebalancing and many more hence cases ad nauseum.

the bigger picture is a massive spiderweb of inter-related cause and effect matrices and when designing new things its really rather crucial to consider how the impact of a new introduction will affect every related field. I'm glad to see our modern devs are much more enlightened about this than previous dev teams and I think they cop unnecessarily large amounts of flak for their work when the only answer today is to iterate. Even if CCP is going broke today, it was broke and on the skin of its arse before EVE even launched and with that the game can still be turned around. End game ships like T3's and their production needs the utmost understanding of every other facet of the game before an attempt can be made.

or in the words of the immortal Chairman Sheng-ji Yang

Quote:
Technological advance is an inherently iterative process. One does not simply take sand from the beach and produce a Dataprobe. We use crude tools to fashion better tools, and then our better tools to fashion more precise tools, and so on. Each minor refinement is a step in the process, and all of the steps must be taken.

Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Looking God in the Eye"
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#45 - 2014-09-12 23:31:10 UTC
Alundil wrote:
I don't see this as helping the lower class income potential at all. As I understand things, the prices for sleeper salvage and hacking loot will drop even further as a result of this.

= bad :/


The answer is to increase consumption.

Either you encourage more T3's to die or you increase the cost of making a T3. I'm sure since T3s mostly die unexpectedly in rather rare PVP situations, as opposed to other scenarios, the obvious answer is to increase build costs substantially. Consider how PVE can be run with noone else present and the resources it produces made available. Compare now with a T3 dying which is kind of hard to understand in a L4 environment, rare in lowsec and maybe slightly more common in null. WH space might be the biggest consumers of T3s by weight but who can really say?

Increasing the build costs by say, arbitrarily 400% for a year to eat away those massive stockpile hordes players have had years to accumulate would certainly drive up prices overnight and keep them high. Then when stockpiles start running low you might have a reason for more players to enter WH to start harvesting this now highly sought after resource, the same way Iron ore has been in Brazil and Australia for the last 14 years. While the boom is well and truly over now, the number of successful startup companies that have made coin was immense.
Winthorp
#46 - 2014-09-13 01:30:51 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Winthorp wrote:
Source: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/lighting-the-invention-bulb/

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 Subsystem BPC's i have?

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


the problem with statements like this is it assumes the devs spent time deliberately creating sub-par subsystems for what was at the time their latest 'jesus feature'.

I don't think anyone ever thought they should just create inferior stuff like that, it just ended up that way because of the way the game works. For example if gates just threw you to a random spot in the target system like a giant catapult then having warp speed subs or agility subs makes a lot more sense for travel purposes. If Overheating subs had been designed around burst combat with the highest DPS loadouts available for the ship class then they might be one of the most used solo/small fleet subs instead of literally the least used. If logi wasn't so powerful (or rather if cap stability was significantly harder to achieve) then the RR sub might come in to its own in a t3 fleet.

little things here and there that seem silly in isolated cases but in the overall context of the game there are some design decisions that force the playerbase to behave a certain way, hence gatecamps, hence wardecs, hence sov, hence ragerolling, hence deployable bubbles, hence industry overhaul, hence FW overhaul, hence ship rebalancing and many more hence cases ad nauseum.

the bigger picture is a massive spiderweb of inter-related cause and effect matrices and when designing new things its really rather crucial to consider how the impact of a new introduction will affect every related field. I'm glad to see our modern devs are much more enlightened about this than previous dev teams and I think they cop unnecessarily large amounts of flak for their work when the only answer today is to iterate. Even if CCP is going broke today, it was broke and on the skin of its arse before EVE even launched and with that the game can still be turned around. End game ships like T3's and their production needs the utmost understanding of every other facet of the game before an attempt can be made.

or in the words of the immortal Chairman Sheng-ji Yang

Quote:
Technological advance is an inherently iterative process. One does not simply take sand from the beach and produce a Dataprobe. We use crude tools to fashion better tools, and then our better tools to fashion more precise tools, and so on. Each minor refinement is a step in the process, and all of the steps must be taken.

Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Looking God in the Eye"


To be fair i didn't say they got designed to be **** and i agree this evolved over time due to other factors of gameplay. I don't dare to say i have all the answers as to how they should be either but i will say this, the way to increase their value is not to arbitrarily mess with MNR drop rates to increase their value like they are willing to do it seems.

My hope is this RE patch is a little while off and the CSM can explain to CCP the related outcomes of this change if it isn't introduced at the same time as a Subsystem/T3 rebalance.

When looking at the T3 saga of a re balance they will need to look at all areas of EVE to make them useful and not just WH space i agree with you on that as WH space is a smaller market of consumers to T3's even if they feature heavily in our Meta.
Previous page123