These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Crius] Industry Landscape feedback

First post First post
Author
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#161 - 2014-07-01 12:02:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
CCP Greyscale wrote:

At its current TQ power level, it's not a specialization, it's a requirement to be competitive, and it's a completely arbitrary requirement. It's not even interacting with other systems, it's just an artificial wastage that's imposed solely so the skill can take it away again.

We're looking to find a bonus we can give it that's in line with what you'd expect from the skill's attributes. We're not going to make it as powerful as it's previously been. We don't want to give out a refund.


It is not a requirement. It sure makes it harder if you don't have it at V and you lose out on some profits, but it is not required. Of course, if you are not fully skilled in that area, you cannot expect to make profits with Jita Sell Order minerals, nor Jita Buy Order minerals. Hence, the lack of skill, which everyone of us has had in the past, requires you to think, rather than just get candy handed to you.

I just had a quicky on EVE-Cost with a ME50 Apoc (replace with random stuff. Apoc just was interesting because it's profitable atm) with ME V and ME IV, and the profit difference between the two is of course the 5%, which resulted in a profit per run of 8.2M with ME5 and 200k with ME IV with Jita Buy Order minerals, so even with ME IV you get a tiny profit out of that. And if go collect your minerals in border regions with buy orders well below Jita, you can turn an Apoc into a lot more money, even with ME IV. Naturally, you have to compare and put more effort into getting your profits if you lack skills. If I remember it right, this always has been used to be the case in EVE.

I am looking forward to what you make of it, though. Blink

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#162 - 2014-07-01 12:08:35 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
So a refund. Lol

Because everything else would turn it into "a huge accessibility problem for industry". Roll

By the way, since when does CCP think that lengthy specialization is a problem? Roll
If I recall your stance correctly, specialization in mining and reprocessing is supposed to take a lot of time. How is industry different? And do not think about giving me that the ME skill keeps players out of the industry. It is just as essential for the activity as any reprocessing skill in order to be absolutely efficient. Even if you don't have ME V, you can still produce with lots of profits if you buy minerals for cheap prices - and this actually forces encourages players to think about what they do, how they do it and how it's done most efficiently even with lackluster skills. And it shows them that every activity involves effort in EVE.

You want to take that away?


At its current TQ power level, it's not a specialization, it's a requirement to be competitive, and it's a completely arbitrary requirement. It's not even interacting with other systems, it's just an artificial wastage that's imposed solely so the skill can take it away again.

We're looking to find a bonus we can give it that's in line with what you'd expect from the skill's attributes. We're not going to make it as powerful as it's previously been. We don't want to give out a refund.


And yet, in its current TQ implementation the skill is unique in that it benefits both big industrialists and hobby producers (i.e. people who selectively produce to safe cost). Changing it to affecting production times or something similar will only benefit industrialists.

Besides, your skill description (absolute requirement to be competitive/wastage imposed solely so the skill can take it away) kinda reminds me of...learning skills? ;)


Calorn Marthor
Standard Fuel Company
#163 - 2014-07-01 12:40:05 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

At its current TQ power level, it's not a specialization, it's a requirement to be competitive, and it's a completely arbitrary requirement. It's not even interacting with other systems, it's just an artificial wastage that's imposed solely so the skill can take it away again.

We're looking to find a bonus we can give it that's in line with what you'd expect from the skill's attributes. We're not going to make it as powerful as it's previously been. We don't want to give out a refund.


Make it a team bonus bonus then. If that does not break everything else.

+5-+25% more bonus from teams.
If the choice "team yes/no" is situational and not always "yes or you are dumb", then such a bonus will not be a "requirement".

1. ->learn basic industry
2. ->try out teams
3. ->specialize on those situations

If anything, then chars without the skill will be not/less competitive in situations where there is a massive use of teams.
As they are designed to be the "pull" element, this should happen in the places that are going to be production hubs. I imagine more advanced/specialized producers hanging out there and generally a higher level of competition.
The skill might be less powerful in less busy areas that are dominated by the "push" part of the production costs.

Does that make any sense? :-D
Calorn Marthor
Standard Fuel Company
#164 - 2014-07-01 14:39:22 UTC
Calorn Marthor wrote:


If anything, then chars without the skill will be not/less competitive in situations where there is a massive use of teams.
As they are designed to be the "pull" element, this should happen in the places that are going to be production hubs. I imagine more advanced/specialized producers hanging out there and generally a higher level of competition.
The skill might be less powerful in less busy areas that are dominated by the "push" part of the production costs.

Does that make any sense? :-D


Then again...
Do we want the "pull" to be stronger for more experienced players/highly skilled characters?

Thinking about it a bit more I come to the conclusion that maybe it's better the other way around... stronger "pull" for new players to get them into cooperative gameplay (hopefully) and then a stronger "push" for the veterans to populate the quieter areas of space.

That would mean there would be room for a specialization skill that partially negates the disadvantage of not sitting on the biggest blob but favors taking advantage of the cost reduction in sparsely populated areas.

Example: a "default" team bonus when using no other team or a flat additive modifier to the teams bonus (i.e. a 2% ME team becomes a 3% ME team, but a 6% ME team "only" gets 7%). That would reduce the gap between really good and rather average teams for skilled producers.
Angel Bram
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#165 - 2014-07-01 23:03:50 UTC
Calorn Marthor wrote:


Make it a team bonus bonus then. If that does not break everything else.

+5-+25% more bonus from teams.
If the choice "team yes/no" is situational and not always "yes or you are dumb", then such a bonus will not be a "requirement".

1. ->learn basic industry
2. ->try out teams
3. ->specialize on those situations

If anything, then chars without the skill will be not/less competitive in situations where there is a massive use of teams.
As they are designed to be the "pull" element, this should happen in the places that are going to be production hubs. I imagine more advanced/specialized producers hanging out there and generally a higher level of competition.
The skill might be less powerful in less busy areas that are dominated by the "push" part of the production costs.

Does that make any sense? :-D


I could see this going the same direction as fleet bonuses. Adding a manufacturing forman to the mix and an in system manufacturing bonus. Material / time / chance for tech II based on skills and foreman level.
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
#166 - 2014-07-02 17:00:04 UTC
Since their is a goal of making entry into industry easier, could we double, or triple the amount of jobs, research, invention that people can do, that are currently restricted by skills. the limits seem to be somewhat pointless now in some ways. Perhaps 2 jobs per level of skill?

Dero de'Asketh
Heimatar Enhanced Fleet Industries
#167 - 2014-07-07 15:50:11 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
At its current TQ power level...


Then change the power level...

Material Efficiency is an "obvious" skill, both in how it works (less skill means more waste) and why it is there (we've all wasted materials when starting to do something and become more efficient with experience).

ME is a useful skill, especially between rank IV and V, in that it differentiates the hobbiest producer from the industrialist.

It's an "added choice" skill, where people can either spend extra training time or more time sourcing cheaper minerals instead. Or buy more expensive blueprints with higher intrinsic ME. Or, come Crius, manufacture in a POS.

And it scales well -- the player dipping his toe into industry will (should?) be making things -- ammo, frigates, etc -- where the absolute value of any wastage is easily recovered with a couple of missions. The industrialist with a Capital factory would have to work a little harder :-) -- or train up his ME skill. But then, someone who is specialising in industry should have to specialise in their skills -- and ME I-V takes less time to train than, say, a current "perfect" hi-sec refiner needs to regain his specialty come Crius.

2% wastage per level should do it. 10% is of little consequence to someone knocking out a few rounds of ammo or some frigates for himself or his corp mates, especially compared to all the other inefficiencies in that scenario. Less than two days' training sees you at ME III, and 4% wastage is easily coverable by smart material sourcing and/or clever selling. And those wanting to a billion ISK of materials a week, or even a day, have surely chosen to become a "specialist" in Industry -- and another 15 days training should almost be a *requirement* to compete.

And perhaps most importantly... Changing a "5" to a "2" in various places should be a lot simpler and less error prone than stripping out one skill and replacing it with another that acts as a similar differentiator between amateur and pro but in an entirely different way :-)
Galen Achu
Bellerophon Expedition
#168 - 2014-07-09 14:09:14 UTC
The prospect mining frigate is not recognized as either "frigate" or "small class" in the "Teams" tab in the overview window. This does work for the venture mining frigate.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#169 - 2014-07-10 11:10:02 UTC
Galen Achu wrote:
The prospect mining frigate is not recognized as either "frigate" or "small class" in the "Teams" tab in the overview window. This does work for the venture mining frigate.


Punkturis just fixed this internally, it should now be recognized as a "small class"; it's not a "frigate" because that's only for T1 frigates, which the Venture is but the Prospect isn't.
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#170 - 2014-07-10 15:47:38 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Galen Achu wrote:
The prospect mining frigate is not recognized as either "frigate" or "small class" in the "Teams" tab in the overview window. This does work for the venture mining frigate.


Punkturis just fixed this internally, it should now be recognized as a "small class"; it's not a "frigate" because that's only for T1 frigates, which the Venture is but the Prospect isn't.

Then wouldn't it make sense for the "frigate" label to be changed to "T1 frigate" or similar to avoid confusion?

MDD
Arronicus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#171 - 2014-07-10 20:23:25 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Galen Achu wrote:
The prospect mining frigate is not recognized as either "frigate" or "small class" in the "Teams" tab in the overview window. This does work for the venture mining frigate.


Punkturis just fixed this internally, it should now be recognized as a "small class"; it's not a "frigate" because that's only for T1 frigates, which the Venture is but the Prospect isn't.

Then wouldn't it make sense for the "frigate" label to be changed to "T1 frigate" or similar to avoid confusion?

MDD


Makes more sense to me to leave it as small class, considering you wouldn't call a stealth bomber a frigate, or an interceptor a frigate, even though thats what their hull was built out of. 'Small class' seems apt enough.
Grenn Putubi
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#172 - 2014-07-10 23:13:17 UTC
I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but a quick search of the forums didn't come up with anything. I'm also not sure if this is the right thread to ask about this in, but I'll do it anyhow:

Is the 10% NPC tax for manufacturing and refining in stations still avoidable through having high standings with the corp that owns the station?
Captain Davy
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#173 - 2014-07-11 13:10:06 UTC
I have noticed some inconsistencies with the BPO mapping:

On TQ i used to have a T2 PBC of "Capital energy discharge elutriation II" at ME0 and PE0. On sisi i got the same PBC with ME +9% and TE +18%.

However, material costs of building it on TQ is lower than on SISI: 22/55/55 vs 28/69/69 for the Current Pump / Interface Circuit / Micro Circuit materials.

Iv noticed the same problem with all my T2 BPCs.

Is this a bug, or by design?

Also a Small Proton Smartbomb II used to be ME -4 and PE-4 and now it is ME +6% TE and +14% The old version of it used Mex/Morph/Nocx/Zyd + Plasma Pulse generator + the T1 version (81/3/6/6 + 4 + 1). Now it uses only Morph/zyd + Plasma Pulse generator + T1 mod (3/4 + 6 + 1)

I dont understand the consistency of the mapping at all.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#174 - 2014-07-11 13:28:08 UTC
Captain Davy wrote:
I have noticed some inconsistencies with the BPO mapping:

On TQ i used to have a T2 PBC of "Capital energy discharge elutriation II" at ME0 and PE0. On sisi i got the same PBC with ME +9% and TE +18%.

However, material costs of building it on TQ is lower than on SISI: 22/55/55 vs 28/69/69 for the Current Pump / Interface Circuit / Micro Circuit materials.

Iv noticed the same problem with all my T2 BPCs.

Is this a bug, or by design?

Also a Small Proton Smartbomb II used to be ME -4 and PE-4 and now it is ME +6% TE and +14% The old version of it used Mex/Morph/Nocx/Zyd + Plasma Pulse generator + the T1 version (81/3/6/6 + 4 + 1). Now it uses only Morph/zyd + Plasma Pulse generator + T1 mod (3/4 + 6 + 1)

I dont understand the consistency of the mapping at all.


Build cost comparison: yes, this will happen, because the impact of decryptors on build cost is *significantly* reduced currently. On a raw, undecrypted BPC you should be around the same material costs, but on TQ the jump from -4 to 0 is reducing your build costs by ~50%, whereas the same decryptor on SiSi is moving you from 2% to 6% and thus reducing your build costs by ~4%.

On the T1 materials in the T2 smartbomb, yes, they've deliberately all been removed from the T2 items, and replaced with T2 components of roughly equivalent value.
Captain Davy
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#175 - 2014-07-11 13:38:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Davy
So, basically the descriptors are almost useless on cirus?

there is any plan to buff the descriptors effects? otherwise you just killed the exploration minigame

Tnx for the reply =)
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#176 - 2014-07-11 14:34:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Captain Davy wrote:
So, basically the descriptors are almost useless on cirus?

there is any plan to buff the descriptors effects? otherwise you just killed the exploration minigame

Tnx for the reply =)


They are not useless. Blink However, changes to Invention and subsequently decryptors are going to happen when CCP gives Invention some "loves" later this year. If it's something to look forward remains to be seen...

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
#177 - 2014-07-11 15:03:26 UTC
Grenn Putubi wrote:
I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but a quick search of the forums didn't come up with anything. I'm also not sure if this is the right thread to ask about this in, but I'll do it anyhow:

Is the 10% NPC tax for manufacturing and refining in stations still avoidable through having high standings with the corp that owns the station?


I asked the same question. Here is the answer:

Quote:
#13Posted: 2014.07.10 16:54 | Report
Like
Tzar Sinak wrote:
I have been asking this because there is no specific mention of it: Do NPC Corps standings play any part of the manufacturing costs? If yes, we are still tied to the standings grind to minimize costs. If no, we are freed to travel anywhere to use any NPC station because of an across the board equality between NPC corps.

Thanks for the hard work guys.


Standings play no part in new industry cost scaling.
CCP Nullarbor // Exotic Dancer // DEVGIFS

Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE

Check out the Eve-Prosper show for your market updates!

Daenna Chrysi
Omega Foundry Unit
Southern Legion Alliance
#178 - 2014-07-11 15:41:39 UTC
I noticed the planetary interface is getting very little love in crius, would love to get a planetary overview similar to the new industry overview. planet per planet view, with production line visualized. Wouldnt need to be necessary to be able to set production or anything like that, but a quick glance of the state of the production in neat graphical form.

to see if it is necessary to go and whip the workers a bit more =)

MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#179 - 2014-07-11 18:10:57 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Captain Davy wrote:
I have noticed some inconsistencies with the BPO mapping:

On TQ i used to have a T2 PBC of "Capital energy discharge elutriation II" at ME0 and PE0. On sisi i got the same PBC with ME +9% and TE +18%.

However, material costs of building it on TQ is lower than on SISI: 22/55/55 vs 28/69/69 for the Current Pump / Interface Circuit / Micro Circuit materials.

Iv noticed the same problem with all my T2 BPCs.

Is this a bug, or by design?


Build cost comparison: yes, this will happen, because the impact of decryptors on build cost is *significantly* reduced currently. On a raw, undecrypted BPC you should be around the same material costs, but on TQ the jump from -4 to 0 is reducing your build costs by ~50%, whereas the same decryptor on SiSi is moving you from 2% to 6% and thus reducing your build costs by ~4%.

That doesn't make sense. The TQ decryptor reduces the material requirements from 200% of base to 100% of base. On Sisi I would expect the decryptor reduce the material requirements from 100% of base to 96% of base. Therefore the TQ build cost of 100% of base should be slightly more than the Sisi build cost of 96%.

But then you (CCP) increased the base costs on Sisi. Presumably you increased base build costs so that TQ ME-4 is equivalent to Sisi ME2%. Which should make Davy's ME+9% BPC have a slightly lower build cost than the "normal" ME+2%, which, again, should be equivalent to TQ ME-4 build cost. That isn't what we are seeing. We are seeing substantial across-the-board increases in build costs on Sisi (22 to 28 is a 27% increase, 55 to 69 is 25%).

MDD
Alexander McKeon
Perkone
Caldari State
#180 - 2014-07-12 09:50:30 UTC
That figure matches the elimination of the Material Efficiency skill rather nicely. When you look at TQ numbers, you're seeing the effects of that skill I'm sure you have at V. I would hazard a guess that base build costs were scaled properly, but everyone is used to skill effects no longer present. I very much hope that build costs are balanced around that, so we do not see a sudden cost increase.