These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Invention updates in Phoebe

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
#61 - 2014-10-30 17:41:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Lil' Brudder Too
Capsups wrote:
Dev blog wrote:

Blueprint copies will be reimbursed at a static price.


Does this mean all current T3 BPCs will be reimbursed into ISK? If that's the case, could you guys elaborate on what this price is and how it was/will be calculated?

I almost want to bet it will be based on the new market value that will be slightly *scewed* come tuesday...

-edit-
I see you aren't taking feedback anymore on this as you have just published the patchnotes for tuesday...nice to see you being very community orriented and only giving us 2 hours to state our opinions on this big change before you lock it in stone....when we've been begging for you to respond in the feedback thread for MONTHS!!!!

New Icon SiSi feedback thread that got wholly ignored!

An example of that a good ship icon set looks like.
Guttripper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#62 - 2014-10-30 17:45:41 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:
I thought the racial decryptors added a nice cultural and sci fi variety rather than needless complexity.


As per usual it's over-simplification that is more the problem. Some of the new names being used to rename modules such as 'ample' are just plain ghastly.

I still hope they are only placeholders until someone from the writing staff is free to go over the modules and add more lore appropriate names.

Doubt that will happen... CCP changed them over the years since they thought (new) players were too dumb to right click on a module while the old lore names of said modules just stalled their brain processes.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#63 - 2014-10-30 17:48:40 UTC
Lil' Brudder Too wrote:
Querns wrote:
Lil' Brudder Too wrote:
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Milla Goodpussy wrote:
zero compensation for folks who leveled up to distance themselves from newbs.


Actually, the compensation would be 4% TE per skill that you have at 5 that a noob would have at 1.

Yes, because that will lead to more iskies when we usually only have jobs running for 8 hours a day anyways....yep, sounds about right.

Run longer jobs. With invention batching, there's no excuse!


Okay, and exactly how am i supposed to run 'longer jobs' if i can only run the max 10 runs off each copy to begin with?

I didn't say "run longer jobs of the same thing you're building now." Not everything has such a short build time. If your barrier is length of jobs, switch to something that takes longer, like ships instead of modules.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#64 - 2014-10-30 17:57:18 UTC
Lil' Brudder Too wrote:

Okay, and exactly how am i supposed to run 'longer jobs' if i can only run the max 10 runs off each copy to begin with?

Then you're making modules, and the entire discussion of the ship skills is irrelevant to you. So why on earth are you whining about it?
Shaera Taam
Khanid Prime Free Irregulars
#65 - 2014-10-30 18:05:09 UTC
as a part-time industrialist, the changes represented here are for-the-most-part good, and seem fairly balanced. Yeah, sure, there will be market changes and different requirements for building pretty much everything.

i dont care.

these changes affect everyone evenly, even if not everyone has the same skill sets built up. that's fair.

that's what i care about. fairness.

if your skillset is greatly impacted and you think you have a legitimate ( ie you can work out the math and prove it ) concern, go ahead and bring it to their attention. but dont go on crying and carrying on with it. that only makes you look childish.

Thus Spake the Frigate Goddess!
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#66 - 2014-10-30 18:13:54 UTC
thanks CCP for devalueing my invested skill-time into all-V science skills Evil
Psyrelle
Perimeter Provisions
#67 - 2014-10-30 18:14:12 UTC
Shaera Taam wrote:
as a part-time industrialist, the changes represented here are for-the-most-part good, and seem fairly balanced. Yeah, sure, there will be market changes and different requirements for building pretty much everything.

i dont care.

these changes affect everyone evenly, even if not everyone has the same skill sets built up. that's fair.

that's what i care about. fairness.

if your skillset is greatly impacted and you think you have a legitimate ( ie you can work out the math and prove it ) concern, go ahead and bring it to their attention. but dont go on crying and carrying on with it. that only makes you look childish.


The only thing i'm really mad about is the dropping of stuff in favor of something else and me losing 25%+ invention chance cause they decide to remove meta level items in invention without compensating. Actually they are decreasing the chance across the board.

And with the fact that the market is ****** up already due to reprocess changes I will barely be able to keep profit on what I do.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#68 - 2014-10-30 18:15:44 UTC
regarding the multiple outcomes removal , i thought making things unpredictable was the point?
at least thats what seagull has been saying lately

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#69 - 2014-10-30 18:18:31 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
thanks CCP for devalueing my invested skill-time into all-V science skills Evil

Uh, all fives in science skills just got a LOT more important. They shifted the contribution to invention success chance heavily in favor of skills. You are in a much, much better place post-Phoebe.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#70 - 2014-10-30 18:18:50 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
regarding the multiple outcomes removal , i thought making things unpredictable was the point?
at least thats what seagull has been saying lately


"This chance-based activity should be predictable enough that it doesn't inconvenience people who do it in bulk"

Roll
Banko Mato
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#71 - 2014-10-30 18:19:04 UTC
Why does it have to be yet another TE bonus? We got more than enough of that with the (Advanced) Industry skill(s) already...
How about considering something along the line of what I proposed in the invention bubble thread a while ago?
Tl;Dr:
Make the skills intended for TE bonus instead provide a small (fraction of a single percent per skill level) ME boost, that accumulates with all skills required for a blueprint. When chosen correctly the resulting ME bonus would be small enough to not represent a barrier of entry, but still big enough to have a nice impact for the serious producer (2 to 3 ME for a max bonus on a blueprint is just in the range of average specialized teams, so should not break anything).

Apart from that the changes look good to me ;)
Sam Spock
The Arnold Connection
#72 - 2014-10-30 18:47:51 UTC
My market speculation crystal ball is telling me that this may make some T2 items go up in price a little due to the decreased chances of success. Less T2 BPOs=less production=less supply.

I was looking forward to the variable outcomes though. I do exploration as my main activity so finding cool things appeals to me.

Teams could have been used to help fill in the lack of meta module use for invention chances so I am sad to see that left out.

Not sure what this will do to the decryptor market as a whole but the more expensive racial versions are about to crash. Anyone who had Arbelest Light Missile Launchers in their hanger before the last patch can tell you what that is like.



Giving you Inconsistent grammar, speilling and Punct-uation since 1974!
Sam Spock
The Arnold Connection
#73 - 2014-10-30 18:51:40 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
regarding the multiple outcomes removal , i thought making things unpredictable was the point?
at least thats what seagull has been saying lately


"This chance-based activity should be predictable enough that it doesn't inconvenience people who do it in bulk"

Roll



Just had a crazy idea about this: What if you make the multiple outcomes be opt-in? And make them give a slightly lower chance to get the standard output if they chose that option? That way those that want predictability can get it and those that want some Wow with their invention can get that too.

Giving you Inconsistent grammar, speilling and Punct-uation since 1974!
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#74 - 2014-10-30 18:52:07 UTC
Now this my come as a shock but did you consider them datacores at all?

You those thingies that look like a bottle of some sort that agents give you one per day.

By all means carry on and when datacores become a problem, don't come back to me so I can rub that into your nose and I say I told you so (again).

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#75 - 2014-10-30 19:01:08 UTC
Querns wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
thanks CCP for devalueing my invested skill-time into all-V science skills Evil

Uh, all fives in science skills just got a LOT more important. They shifted the contribution to invention success chance heavily in favor of skills. You are in a much, much better place post-Phoebe.


but its now mostly rank1's
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#76 - 2014-10-30 19:02:38 UTC
Quote:
Added Compact mode to the Industry window so that players can now minimize the top half of the window as they browse their blueprints. It is not possible to submit a job in this view, but double clicking a blueprint will expand the visualization area to allow you to do so


:happysun:

CCP you really should be advertising this more it sounds like a great change.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#77 - 2014-10-30 19:04:42 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Now this my come as a shock but did you consider them datacores at all?

You those thingies that look like a bottle of some sort that agents give you one per day.

By all means carry on and when datacores become a problem, don't come back to me so I can rub that into your nose and I say I told you so (again).



You mean the things which mostly come from faction warfare, in return for LP?

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#78 - 2014-10-30 19:13:41 UTC
Sam Spock wrote:
Just had a crazy idea about this: What if you make the multiple outcomes be opt-in? And make them give a slightly lower chance to get the standard output if they chose that option? That way those that want predictability can get it and those that want some Wow with their invention can get that too.

It's quite simple: If the multiple outcomes option provides better profit over the long term than the single outcome, then the multiple outcome option is the only one that matters. If the single outcome option provides better profit over the long term than the multiple outcome option, then that is the only option that matters. If they're both exactly the same, then it's a pointless diversion of resources for CCP to do it.

It's a bad idea, and was repeatedly explained why it was a bad idea in the original dev blog thread. It's rather funny hearing people yelling that "CCP doesn't listen!" when this change shows they did.
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#79 - 2014-10-30 19:22:13 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
Now this my come as a shock but did you consider them datacores at all?

You those thingies that look like a bottle of some sort that agents give you one per day.

By all means carry on and when datacores become a problem, don't come back to me so I can rub that into your nose and I say I told you so (again).



You mean the things which mostly come from faction warfare, in return for LP?


hope you're being sarcastic steve.. seriously.. you are aware that folks do play the R & D agents missions.. grind up standings to use a better agent to spend their RP"s on datacores for specific sciences. right? right??

a very slow passive grind 100 RP - 1 datacore varying in science skill. more skill level you have.. the more RP's the agents provide you day to day.. there was not even a slight mention of it.. they once thought about removing it.. now I don't know what they'll do..guess it fits in the "we'll come back to it in the future" statement they love to use like nanite paste!!!!!

I think the dev completely over looked that.. I think he forgot all about it.. seems ccp spreads their limited resources around so much that things get overlooked.. and decides to just steamroll on in.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#80 - 2014-10-30 19:29:15 UTC
Milla Goodpussy wrote:

hope you're being sarcastic steve.. seriously.. you are aware that folks do play the R & D agents missions.. grind up standings to use a better agent to spend their RP"s on datacores for specific sciences. right? right??

a very slow passive grind 100 RP - 1 datacore varying in science skill. more skill level you have.. the more RP's the agents provide you day to day.. there was not even a slight mention of it.. they once thought about removing it.. now I don't know what they'll do..guess it fits in the "we'll come back to it in the future" statement they love to use like nanite paste!!!!!

I think the dev completely over looked that.. I think he forgot all about it.. seems ccp spreads their limited resources around so much that things get overlooked.. and decides to just steamroll on in.

you mean the passive free income that was deliberately nerfed by shifting the primary source of datacores to fw with the explicit goal of nerfing the passive income from completing the R&D grind once?