These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#221 - 2014-09-15 07:46:45 UTC
The concern over the disparity in use causing a disparity in the market is a bit odd IMHO. Disparity in demand in the market is an incentive to suppliers and, with Datacores having shifted (at least somewhat) to gun-mining, allows supply to shift. My impression is that Mechanical Engineering Datacores being highest demand means that they also have the greatest potential for oversupply - available from all of the FW LP Stores and with more characters "subscribed" to its R&D Agents...

On an unrelated note - please ensure that everything requires at least one "practical"* science skill.
If a specialist in High Energy Physics and a specialist in Plasma Physics get together the likely outcome is a formula rather than a blueprint; if you want a real output then you need an engineer.

*Science skills can easily be separated into Theoretical and Practical sciences: Simply, any skill with Physics or Science in the name can be classed as Theoretical while everything with Engineering in the name becomes Practical.
Remember that, while it could easily be viewed as the epitome of Rocket Science, the Saturn V had millions of components and could easily be described as the most complex mechanical device ever built.
Sael Va'Tauri
Morgan Industry
Silent Infinity
#222 - 2014-09-15 16:50:22 UTC
I skipped a few pages of this thread, but I didn't see this suggestion in the first 6 pages.

The current suggestion for output BPC is random. Why do this? How about we change it so it involves input variables, thus requiring player skill to be successful at industry.

For example:

there are currently 4 levels of success:

Standard
Good
Great
Exceptional

and the inventor can't control that. How about this:

To yield a standard BPC, change nothing.

Now, lets let the inventors take a little more risk to try to get a better BPC. Invention success could be less at each level, which is offset by the new feature of recovery of datacores.

For example:
To yield a good BPC, require 1 extra data core of each type (total 3 each), and raise required science skills be at level 3. base chance of success 25%, modified by skills. Add a 15% chance of "minimal" failure where only no datacores are consumed.

To yield a great BPC, require 2 extra data cores of each type (total 4 each), and raise required science skills be at level 4. Base chance of success is 15%, and add a 25% chance of "minimal" failure where only 1 datacore of each type is consumed.

To yield exceptional BPCs, require 3 extra data cores of each type (total 5 each) and raise required science skills to be at level 5. Base chance of success is 10%, with a 30% chance of minimal failure where only 2 datacores of each type are consumed.

A new skill could be introduced that would slightly increase the chance of minimal failures, or reduce the number of datacores consumed in each instance.

This approach would put the power in the hands of the inventors. Spend more time and more risk inventing for better BPCs, or take the safer approach and spend fewer datacores for less profit.
Sheeana Harb
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#223 - 2014-09-15 20:02:21 UTC
Sheeana Harb wrote:
Red Bluesteel wrote:

It still remains a waste of time.

Especially for people who learned the skills for just this item you are now changing. These people are now be forced to learn one or two more skills, your are seriously kidding?

This are 16-32 days loss of time that I have planned for other skills and that's a damn unacceptable loss in game time which costs me my real money. Evil


I also am not happy with the fact that a skill I trained to level 4 will loose it's value (TE as consolation prize isn't enough, since most of us can't chain T2 battleships to benefit from it).
The skill change CCP is planning equals me just NOT having a skill in training for two weeks while still paying for the game. And that's unacceptable.



To follow this idea up, Advanced ship manufacturing skills could affect, in a small way - 1 maybe 2 percent per level - chance of an exceptional (as well as great and good) result of an invention. That way it would still be useful for specialized characters while not providing 'mandatory' bonuses.
Sheeana Harb
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#224 - 2014-09-15 20:03:07 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:

  • 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.

    • Honestly I would much rather prefer if an extraordinary invention result would affect number of runs on the output T2 BPC rather than ME/TE.
    So I wouldn't need to deal with a material difference when buying in batches while still keeping the excitement of a lucky invention result.
    Banko Mato
    Republic University
    Minmatar Republic
    #225 - 2014-09-15 23:14:29 UTC
    Hopefully this hasn't been addressed in the last few pages i only skimmed over:

    Do ppl asking for chances on T2 BPOs as invention outcome even realize what utter nonsense they are wishing for?
    Even with a typical "epic drop" chance of 0,000xxxxxxx1% it would only be a matter of large enough quantities and/or time till major manufacturers could shift their entire production to well researched T2 BPOs and thus become independent of further invention work (I'd like all my jobs being done from T2 BPOs, but it's still stupid and doesn't help the general T2 BPO issue.... not...one...bit).

    While the idea might sound nice for about a fraction of a femtosecond, it can never ever make it to being considered even remotely reasonable or "good"....

    Regarding the general direction of the invention changes: me gusta Big smile


    (even if it means i have to adjust my programs...again Cry)
    Kaydar ArX
    Sisters of EVE - Origins
    The Initiative.
    #226 - 2014-09-16 07:51:01 UTC
    Sheeana Harb wrote:


    Honestly I would much rather prefer if an extraordinary invention result would affect number of runs on the output T2 BPC rather than ME/TE.
    So I wouldn't need to deal with a material difference when buying in batches while still keeping the excitement of a lucky invention result.


    Well, having a chance to increase the number of runs on the output T2 bpc is quite similar to increasing the InventionSuccessChance%.
    Jeann Valjean
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #227 - 2014-09-16 14:19:41 UTC
    Just read the dev blog, and while I like most of the changes I have to put a strong "no, please no" on introducing varying outcomes for invention (the example in the post were outcomes ranging from "exceptional success" to "critical failure" with differing ME/TE levels).

    This is introducing more complexity when your original goal was to reduce complexity. This complexity takes the form of unknown material costs and wasted TE. Let's look at these issues one at a time:

    Unknown materials

    Scenario: I want to manufacture 200 medium armor rigs. I know what decryptor I'll use and thus know exactly how much material the completed rigs will need, because the ME is consistent. I calculate my costs and profit, and buy the materials for invention *and* place buy orders for the manufacturing materials. By the time my buy orders are filled, my invention has completed and I start manufacturing.

    With the proposed changes, now I have 4 possible ME outcomes on a successful invention. I can no longer calculate my profits or materials needed prior to finishing all my invention. Either I have to a) invent everything before buying manufacturing mats because I don't know ME, or b) *guess* what the materials needed will be if I want to buy mats while invention is running.

    In a nutshell, right now I control both my time and my profitability. The proposed changes force me to either value my profits or my time. That's not a choice that adds value to EVE, it's one that takes value away.

    Wasted TE

    Speaking of time, when I start a manufacturing run I know exactly how long it will take to invent and manufacture those 200 rigs because I'm using Y decryptor, my invention chance is Z and I'll be using X characters with W lines to manufacture. If CCP changes TE possible values on invented items, I'm not going to say "Oh boy! I have 190 BPC's with 8 TE, and 10 have 10 TE and they'll go 2 hours faster! I'm going to log in just to retrieve those 10 items that finished first and [deliver them to market / start new jobs]!!!" No, I'm going to log in to grab my items when the last one finishes.

    If the new system gives me "bonus" TE on some of the BPC's, that's going to be wasted on me and anyone else who runs any more than ahandful of manufacturing lines. When you introduce a mechanic that'll be immediately ignored, that's unneeded complexity.
    Suzuka A1
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #228 - 2014-09-16 17:11:55 UTC
    Quote:
    "Stay tuned for more and expect threads to appear on the “Features & Ideas Discussion” to discuss specific points mentioned in this blog with time."


    I had no idea this thread existed and nor did I EVER THINK TO LOOK FOR IT because I was constantly checking the features and ideas section...since the dev blog said to.

    Why is this thread not linked in the dev blog?!

    Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H  What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626
    Suzuka A1
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #229 - 2014-09-16 17:23:19 UTC
    As someone with about 2,000 runs worth of Data Interface BPCs I would really like to know if I need to rush to build them all (it would take me about 55.5 days to build all of them, math below) to have them properly reimbursed. It's nice they are being removed since 20 hour build times are absurd, but I'm just worried I am about to be completely screwed over.


    Math:
    (~2,000 runs / 9 slots) * (20 hrs/run - (20*0.7) null sec speed bonus) = 1333.33hrs

    1333.33 hrs / 24 hrs/day = 55.5 days (assuming no downtime) on my only active account

    Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H  What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626
    Steve Ronuken
    Fuzzwork Enterprises
    Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
    #230 - 2014-09-16 19:54:55 UTC
    Jeann Valjean wrote:
    Just read the dev blog, and while I like most of the changes I have to put a strong "no, please no" on introducing varying outcomes for invention (the example in the post were outcomes ranging from "exceptional success" to "critical failure" with differing ME/TE levels).

    This is introducing more complexity when your original goal was to reduce complexity. This complexity takes the form of unknown material costs and wasted TE. Let's look at these issues one at a time:

    Unknown materials

    Scenario: I want to manufacture 200 medium armor rigs. I know what decryptor I'll use and thus know exactly how much material the completed rigs will need, because the ME is consistent. I calculate my costs and profit, and buy the materials for invention *and* place buy orders for the manufacturing materials. By the time my buy orders are filled, my invention has completed and I start manufacturing.

    With the proposed changes, now I have 4 possible ME outcomes on a successful invention. I can no longer calculate my profits or materials needed prior to finishing all my invention. Either I have to a) invent everything before buying manufacturing mats because I don't know ME, or b) *guess* what the materials needed will be if I want to buy mats while invention is running.

    In a nutshell, right now I control both my time and my profitability. The proposed changes force me to either value my profits or my time. That's not a choice that adds value to EVE, it's one that takes value away.

    Wasted TE

    Speaking of time, when I start a manufacturing run I know exactly how long it will take to invent and manufacture those 200 rigs because I'm using Y decryptor, my invention chance is Z and I'll be using X characters with W lines to manufacture. If CCP changes TE possible values on invented items, I'm not going to say "Oh boy! I have 190 BPC's with 8 TE, and 10 have 10 TE and they'll go 2 hours faster! I'm going to log in just to retrieve those 10 items that finished first and [deliver them to market / start new jobs]!!!" No, I'm going to log in to grab my items when the last one finishes.

    If the new system gives me "bonus" TE on some of the BPC's, that's going to be wasted on me and anyone else who runs any more than ahandful of manufacturing lines. When you introduce a mechanic that'll be immediately ignored, that's unneeded complexity.



    Well, you have to 'guess' what the outcome will be right now. After all, you can't be /certain/ what the outcome will be, wrt the number of successes.

    Oh, you say you can, because of the law of big numbers? Still applies. Over the course of a large number of runs, the numbers of each type of success will tend to the percentage values.

    And if you start from the pessimistic standpoint, that you'll not get any ME bonus, you're not going to be short on materials.

    Oh, and 3 possible options. basic ME, +1 and +2. TE has no effect on materials required.

    Woo! CSM XI!

    Fuzzwork Enterprises

    Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
    Jeann Valjean
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #231 - 2014-09-16 20:22:39 UTC
    Steve Ronuken wrote:
    And if you start from the pessimistic standpoint, that you'll not get any ME bonus, you're not going to be short on materials.

    Oh, and 3 possible options. basic ME, +1 and +2. TE has no effect on materials required.


    Well that's a disappointing response.

    Wrt ME: now everyone will have various amounts of leftover materials. Sure you can say, "well you can use those for the next run" but the bottom line is, it's now one more thing to keep track of. Added complexity without need.

    About TE: I didn't claim it had an effect on materials. I said, pretty clearly, that a TE bonus is meaningless because it won't affect any industrialist's behavior. In which case it's, again, adding unnecessary complexity.

    Try focusing more on "how can we make the system better?": instead of "how can we replace convoluted mechanics with different convoluted mechanics?" Isn't the whole revamp about improving the NPE anyway and making the system more intuitive? If the CSM/CCP thinks they need to replace one set of confusing concepts with a different set of equally unnecessary changes, that's not exactly marching toward your goal.
    BraiZure Harloon
    Imperial Shipment
    Amarr Empire
    #232 - 2014-09-17 07:57:12 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    "Finally for Tech II manufacturing we are bringing all “Construction” skill requirements to 1 instead of having arbitrary restrictions to 4 or 5. To compensate, we are giving a bonus for training those skills, like a Time Efficiency reduction.

    Please For the love Frig construction V don't. That is the worst possible thing I've ever seen. If you must change it, change it to something usefull like an ME buff for all Small ships advanced or not. I hate that what your are suggesting is making a lvl 5 skill never mater at all unless I own a BPO.

    I am OK with the removal of those interfaces I love hacking empty cans nothing is more rewarding than going through the scanning and hacking process for an empty can. We need more of those. Oh we could substitute them with more carbon and hydrogen batteries.
    GreasyCarl Semah
    A Game as Old as Empire
    #233 - 2014-09-17 14:44:57 UTC
    BraiZure Harloon wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    "Finally for Tech II manufacturing we are bringing all “Construction” skill requirements to 1 instead of having arbitrary restrictions to 4 or 5. To compensate, we are giving a bonus for training those skills, like a Time Efficiency reduction.

    Please For the love Frig construction V don't. That is the worst possible thing I've ever seen. If you must change it, change it to something usefull like an ME buff for all Small ships advanced or not. I hate that what your are suggesting is making a lvl 5 skill never mater at all unless I own a BPO.

    I am OK with the removal of those interfaces I love hacking empty cans nothing is more rewarding than going through the scanning and hacking process for an empty can. We need more of those. Oh we could substitute them with more carbon and hydrogen batteries.


    I have to agree, this is absurd. Why not just remove the skills from the game completely?
    MrWalter White
    Breaking Bad Corp
    #234 - 2014-09-18 02:51:43 UTC
    for some of us - getting a better TE does not matter much in term of playing behaviour! why you asked , it is because we log in after we finish our Rl job obligation so some of the TE changes does not matter much.

    and if you wanna change TE to affect why not change it to affect base on what type of stuff being build - giving a TE bonus that would shave few minutes on a ammo time is less useful compare to a TE bonus that affect the build time on larger item like t2 siege/triage mod

    now for the ME bonus - that would change the profit

    i rather have higher level skill affect the ME rather than TE
    Steve Ronuken
    Fuzzwork Enterprises
    Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
    #235 - 2014-09-18 09:10:54 UTC
    Skills will not affect ME. Because the moment you have ME being affected, the skill becomes one required at 5. Like Production Efficiency was. CCP have stated in another thread that they do not want skills to be like that.

    Woo! CSM XI!

    Fuzzwork Enterprises

    Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
    Banko Mato
    Republic University
    Minmatar Republic
    #236 - 2014-09-18 10:15:13 UTC
    Steve Ronuken wrote:
    Skills will not affect ME. Because the moment you have ME being affected, the skill becomes one required at 5. Like Production Efficiency was. CCP have stated in another thread that they do not want skills to be like that.


    Unless the bonus is kept small enough to not be a world changing matter between say level 3 and 5, but high enough to grant some little extra profit. For example a mere 0.x per level with a reasonably small x might still work without making the skill mandatory for everyone. A bonus of 0.3 ME per level would result in a total bonus at max level that resides just between other modifiers like decryptors or pos arrays, while still not being in the dimension provided by specialized teams.

    And yes, like others have already pointed out, there is no reason to move the skills to a TE bonus, UNLESS ofc that bonus becomes large enough to be a real influence (in which case the same argument about being required at 5 can be made...).
    Red Bluesteel
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #237 - 2014-09-19 02:02:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Red Bluesteel
    Banko Mato wrote:
    Steve Ronuken wrote:
    Skills will not affect ME. Because the moment you have ME being affected, the skill becomes one required at 5. Like Production Efficiency was. CCP have stated in another thread that they do not want skills to be like that.

    And yes, like others have already pointed out, there is no reason to move the skills to a TE bonus, UNLESS ofc that bonus becomes large enough to be a real influence (in which case the same argument about being required at 5 can be made...).

    How much more influence in time efficiency you need?

    When i see at all the changes in Industry with the past few Game Downgrades we have already an F*** up of the whole system.

    Building is fast as Hell, e.g. Scorch L from 11d16h to 21h (@Pos) ...
    The Dark Side of the Medal is, that all the other stuff now take Ages, like Inventions, for T2 Scorch L BPCs from 37m to 9h (@Pos) ...

    A TE Bonus is utterly useless smaller than BS size Productions and other non Ship/Module/Ammo Productions.


    CCP acts like Blizzard, they do not see what their changes cause at the end of the tunnel, they ruin a great game.
    BraiZure Harloon
    Imperial Shipment
    Amarr Empire
    #238 - 2014-09-19 02:07:25 UTC  |  Edited by: BraiZure Harloon
    Steve Ronuken wrote:
    Skills will not affect ME. Because the moment you have ME being affected, the skill becomes one required at 5. Like Production Efficiency was. CCP have stated in another thread that they do not want skills to be like that.

    Then don't change the requirements for Construction skills. Keep them at 4 and 5 respectively. Having a skill that I trained to 5 that all of a sudden has little to no effect on play at all is pointless. Its bad enough that the skill changes for invention require me to change my invention lines or train skills. The TE bonus will only benefit folks with T2 BPOs that can queue several runs at the same time. Don't change it.
    Rek Seven
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #239 - 2014-09-19 13:08:59 UTC
    Am I understanding right that the manufacture of T2 items may require different skills after the update?

    ... So the invention alt that I trained to make a specific item might no longer be able to make that item? Straight

    The wishlist is pretty much complete...
    Abrazzar
    Vardaugas Family
    #240 - 2014-09-19 13:11:46 UTC
    I'd like to be on record regarding the varying degrees of invention success, that I would really not want differing ME and PE values. You will only end up with a batch of jobs that need more or less materials and/or end at different times, making the whole workflow a complete mess.

    Please try to find something else, even if it's just returned datacores.

    Sovereignty and Population

    New Mining Mechanics