These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Meta Module Production idea
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ivan Malik
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2016-05-26 22:54:55 UTC
A dev recently made reference to making it possible to build meta 1-4 modules (I can't remember where, so if someone could link the source that would be awesome) I have had an idea kicking around in my head for a while about this exact thing, but I'm not sure how it would affect things like mission running. I figured I'd throw my hat into the ring so to say and see what the community thinks. Before I start I have never done invention, so things might be wrong.

My idea is pretty simple, when running invention instead of just getting a failed result there is a chance that a meta module is produced.

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is kind of a threshold that has to be passed on a given invention run, with some rng thrown in. (link) Say I am trying to invent a target painter, and I need to get 100% on the invention chance or else it will fail, but for this particular run I hit an 80%. Right now, I would get nothing for this result, everything I put in to the job would be wasted. What I am proposing is at 80% I would be rewarded with a meta 3 module. Say next run I only hit 40%, then I get a meta 2. (No idea on what percentage would equal what meta level btw) Pretty simple so far.

There are some ways to tweak this as well for more predictable results. Maybe if one of the invention skills are higher than the other, well then a particular stat is increased over the other. So for target painters maybe Electromagnetic Physics affects fitting, while Graviton Physics affects activation cost (no idea here). This would just increase chance at one meta level over the other, kind of fitting into the "roles" idea of meta modules that has come from tieracide. A different route could be chosen for kind of designing what your failure result could be. An option is to add items that affect specific modifiers to the invention process: say for TPs having one item drop from data sites that makes it more likely on failure for a falloff bonus, another would affect the chance for activation cost, etc. This might solve two birds with one stone if these items were added to drops rather than just included in the existing loot tables for data sites. Maybe throwing some salvage into the job would increase a stat on failure, 50 smashed trigger units for a better shot at increasing falloff. There are lots of options already available in game that could be used to customize a failed result.

The part that I can't wrap my head around is how would this affect mission loot. Should this be a source of meta modules in addition to mission loot? If that were the case then the price of meta modules would drop. When I originally thought of the idea, the concept that meta modules increase invention chance was still in the game. This could be added back in with meta modules being producible. This would lower the impact on market prices of the meta variants as many inventors would just throw their failures in for a higher chance the next batch, while still having them be producible in game. Should they be removed from mission drops all together? This would hurt mission running profits, which have been hit recently already. This option might align better with the "everything in eve is produced by the players" which might be what is the driving factor of the dev comment though. Should missions drop the items that allow for a tailored failure result? It's an option, but it is similar to gun mining and kind of is stepping on the toes of data sites which already drop most of the invention stuff. There are plenty of options out there, but the larger ripples in the game's economy are the hard part.

I like to take things from a NPE perspective. If it works for NPE and vets then it is a sound idea.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#2 - 2016-05-26 23:18:35 UTC
Right now, meta capital mods have their own NPC-purchased blueprints. I'd imagine that's the direction we're headed in.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#3 - 2016-05-26 23:40:47 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
Right now, meta capital mods have their own NPC-purchased blueprints. I'd imagine that's the direction we're headed in.


this ccp is testing it on capital ones and if it works it will be moved down to sub caps

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#4 - 2016-05-27 01:22:56 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Zhilia Mann wrote:
Right now, meta capital mods have their own NPC-purchased blueprints. I'd imagine that's the direction we're headed in.


this ccp is testing it on capital ones and if it works it will be moved down to sub caps


Yeay, I always wanted a 3 billion meta 1 mwd. Since the more they cost the gooderererer they are right?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Lugh Crow-Slave
#5 - 2016-05-27 01:28:18 UTC
that kind of losses its effect when the capital ones are no where near that cost...

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Ivan Malik
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2016-05-27 04:12:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Ivan Malik
Zhilia Mann wrote:
Right now, meta capital mods have their own NPC-purchased blueprints. I'd imagine that's the direction we're headed in.


I missed this, I apologize. This is rather unfortunate. It is a very boring way to implement their production. I would like to see them as a more cost effective way to get into invention (meaning not meta 1 production, not mine, build, sell). Meta modules just scream "this is someone tinkering." Just throwing up a BPO doesn't have the same feel.

I see why they are doing this though. It solves some of the issues with mission running/ratting vs producing the modules. I would like to see them just take these drops and replace the reaction products in invention with them. Same invention process, just easier to obtain mats... maybe higher success chance as well. Would provide a nice use for those skills and give a stepping stone into invention/higher levels of production.

I like to take things from a NPE perspective. If it works for NPE and vets then it is a sound idea.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#7 - 2016-05-27 04:15:26 UTC
Wait invention is already cheap to get into....

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Ivan Malik
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2016-05-27 04:17:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Ivan Malik
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Wait invention is already cheap to get into....


Not if you want to actually have vertical integration... you need a pos and moons.

Edit for clarity:

Cheap means more than isk here.

Industrialist make their profit from doing multiple steps of a process. Having new people just buy x off the market produce t2 and sell is a bad mind set to get into and a great way to go broke. The only reason this works for T2 production is the randomness element and the skill investment required to start. There is currently no way to introduce people to the invention process vertically without the pos and moons. For T1 it is easy, mine, manufacture, sell... pray to god that someone doesn't think minerals are free. For T2 there are a lot more steps, many easily accessible. Moons and a pos are not so easily accessible. This provides a halfway point, including most of those steps without the hassle of moons.

It is a missed opportunity that could make things more interesting and go a long way for helping NPE.

I like to take things from a NPE perspective. If it works for NPE and vets then it is a sound idea.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#9 - 2016-05-27 04:40:08 UTC
building something from the ground up is a better way to lose isk. find the spot in the chain that nets the most isk/h and do that the higher taxes have helped make multi step builds a bit more competitive but no where close. besides invention and manufacture of things from invented bpcs are two different things. so it stands invention is cheap to get into all you need is a lab some cores and a bpc

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Ivan Malik
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2016-05-27 05:38:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Ivan Malik
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
building something from the ground up is a better way to lose isk. find the spot in the chain that nets the most isk/h and do that the higher taxes have helped make multi step builds a bit more competitive but no where close. besides invention and manufacture of things from invented bpcs are two different things. so it stands invention is cheap to get into all you need is a lab some cores and a bpc


This is a side topic, but...
Economics does not work like that. If you have access to all of the means of production and are doing the labor yourself you make a profit once the starting overhead is earned back, or the market just does not exist to make the product in the first place. If you have complete vertical integration then every inefficiency save for time is gone. If this is not true, then there is no free market or supply is to high and you should not be in that market. You can potentially lose out on possible profit due to other things being better isk/hr, but if you are not running incursions then isk/hr is not why you are doing it. You are putting more value on your time than a raw isk value.

You made a false assumption that invention only refers to making a t2 bpc. Hence why I clarified the previous post by saying "There is currently no way to introduce people to the invention process vertically" and related it to a t1 production chain. Some people refer to the entire product chain as invention because you can get higher returns manufacturing and creating the bpc yourself.

You are right that on some things it is better to find a niche in the product chain for isk/hr. You are also correct that most people do not produce something long enough to recoup their initial investment. However talk to anyone who does production outside of the core markets and they will tell you to do as much of the process yourself as possible because logistics cuts into profits. Every jump to and from Jita/wherever is potential isk lost, unless you are hauling it yourself which is vertical integration. Taxes have changed, transportation costs have not. The final product has to reflect those transport costs or someone is messing up somewhere.

Also for clarity, I am not saying there is anything wrong with the current invention/production system for t2. I am saying that these two things mesh well together thematically and it is an opportunity to make something more interesting rather than having to rework a bland feature later (taking more dev time), and would work well for NPE as the bar is lower for the production side of "invention."

I like to take things from a NPE perspective. If it works for NPE and vets then it is a sound idea.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#11 - 2016-05-27 05:43:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
your confused on what i mean by lost profit. as that extra time can most offten lead to making less isk than you would have on something else. All isk not gained is isk lost.

invention and production are two different things just because you do them together does not change that. and making everythign instantly accessible to all players just hurts the progression.(however your idea only seems to affect the inventing part so i'm lost here)

right now it is very well balanced

t1 > capital > t3 > t2 each one of these slowly leads into the next in terms of production

t1 teaches you how to build

capital teaches you how to build many parts into one hole

t3 introduces you into reactions

t2 pulls it all together


the way they are doing meta mods is cleaner easier to understand and has added a lot to data sites.(most of the meta mods now drop bpcs there i didn't even know you could by bpos) these were in sore need of this do to the vast value difference between data and relic sites. the more ways these can be made the less value these sites will have

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble