These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ramman K'arojic
Lone Star Warriors
Brave Collective
#201 - 2014-09-12 23:57:44 UTC
Re:

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.


This is wrong; backwards and it doesn't encourage people to be specialists manufacturers. I understand the strategic objective is make the game more playable (less hurdles) as an entry point - by reducing the skill requirements across the board in all areas; but this doesn't reward people who have already specialized or who want to..

I am guessing that 99% of all corporations / individuals don't have the resources to chain multiple battleship T2 constructions; thus this "Time Efficiency" is worth nothing to 99% of us.

My proposal is why not give a small like 0.5% discount in material requirements (rounded down) per level after level 2 has been trained. e.g In your SIN example in the blog would become Ion Thruster 225 less (0.5 x 4= 2%) at L5 i.e 221 at battleship construction level 5.

Similar treatment could be applied to Cruiser and Frigate construction; however given there are less components in Frigs and Cruiser (i.e it only applies after the 100 quantity for each single component required) the benefit to the build is reduced thus the impact to industry as a whole is minimal.

Thus the question Is it worth spending ~35 days training to save 4 Ion Thrusters per SIN made - only the die hard / dedicated industrial individual would be able justify.



Ramman
Paynus Maiassus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#202 - 2014-09-13 01:39:00 UTC
CCP Ytterbaum, thanks for taking the time to engage so many posts directly in this thread.

I have to say, I complained about projects being released or not released without a chance for engagement and feedback and the next thing you know, a thread appears about something 'not' coming in Oceanus but is a big project that could use some transparency, namely this invention thread. Over time I just get more and more impressed with how CCP operates.

About the skills, I understand the concern of making level 5 mandatory. Up to you guys and the CSM in the end I guess. However, in the thread I noticed a couple of other comments about skills not being important enough in addition to mine and I noticed that my post got 4 likes (a personal record for one of my posts). So I guess, just keep in mind that it seems like some others think skills could be given more of a role. Just something to think about. Invention skills are definitely not a major broken feature of the game but I do think they could be looked at. The distribution of skill requirement changes are spot on and excellent. I was just commenting on the overall skill effects.

I'm sure whatever you guys come up with in the end will be great and if there's no changes I don't think anyone is going to rage quit. But please do ponder the idea of changing the percent chance of success and giving skills a greater role.

This invention update is going to be great. Thanks for the thread and the feedback and the good ideas.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#203 - 2014-09-13 02:49:26 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Are you out of your mind? Shocked

The "reduced demand for data cores" does absolutely not hurt me. It only makes my life easier as I don't need to look for as many in data sites any more and can life my the ones I find in data sites longer, as well as of those I get from my research agents. Moreover, how much more cumbersome and tedious do you want to make Invention with consumable interfaces? The components for these interfaces are what clutters the holds of exploration ships (if you decide to grab them in the first place), not the minuscule amounts of data cores.


Removing data cores from exploration would free up more cargo capacity for interface components, right? Then there's just that minor issue of the sheer volume of those components: 36 Positron Cords contribute to making a device. Each cord is 1m3 and the device itself is 1m3. Even if the data interface was 10m3, the components that go into it don't need to be bigger than 0.1m3.

Datacores are already available through FW, so there's really no reason to also have them available through exploration. Making data cores bulky increases the hauling work required to pick them up from agents and deliver them to market. Their 1m3 size is just fine.

I'd really like CCP to reconsider the removal of data interfaces. Convert them to consumables to support Exploration. I end up leaving behind most of the components at present since they just aren't worth the hassle of picking up.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
#204 - 2014-09-13 02:55:41 UTC
Max Kolonko wrote:
Lil' Brudder Too wrote:
[quote=CCP Phantom]

Third, so....the teams to 'manipulate inputs'....if that means datacore amounts....you do realize that most small items only require 2 datacores to invent. So in order to manipulate that figure with a % discount....you are going to need more than your token 1-3%'s that you are typically using for "build" teams.



But now You will be able to run batch jobs of those. So the reduction will actually kick in :)

Yes....2% of 20 units is still....carry the 0..subtract the...oh wait...20 units. will be a great discount for batch jobs.... (assuming they cap the invent batches to 10, 2 datacores x 10 runs x .98 = 20 datacores)

New Icon SiSi feedback thread that got wholly ignored!

An example of that a good ship icon set looks like.
Odoya
Aeon Abraxas
#205 - 2014-09-13 04:29:54 UTC
Magic Crisp wrote:
Sentient Blade wrote:
He's the problem I see. You're making it progressively more complicated to run calculations and analysis on what is necessary to produce, this punishes people willing to make the time investment to work things out properly.



Except for the statistical analysis for planning the production batch's cost ahead, the other things you mention here can be pretty much handled. We have assets API to take the remnants into account.


I'd rather see a smaller bump to the base success rate than a variety of possible success outcomes. Even IF the change can be accounted for by more programming and outside the game analysis, such effort leads away from enjoyable game play, not towards it. I've spent more time re-working spreadsheets to be competitive than I have flying a ship. It's fun in its own way but it won't make this aspect of the game more interesting or attractive for newer players. A similar type of logic was used to revamp ME/PE etc. Invention and production should be intuitive enough for people who are not mathemagicians.
Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
#206 - 2014-09-13 07:32:01 UTC
Quote:
Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20%


Do I detect a hint of future fun things?
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#207 - 2014-09-13 14:21:54 UTC
Odoya wrote:
Magic Crisp wrote:
Sentient Blade wrote:
He's the problem I see. You're making it progressively more complicated to run calculations and analysis on what is necessary to produce, this punishes people willing to make the time investment to work things out properly.



Except for the statistical analysis for planning the production batch's cost ahead, the other things you mention here can be pretty much handled. We have assets API to take the remnants into account.


I'd rather see a smaller bump to the base success rate than a variety of possible success outcomes. Even IF the change can be accounted for by more programming and outside the game analysis, such effort leads away from enjoyable game play, not towards it. I've spent more time re-working spreadsheets to be competitive than I have flying a ship. It's fun in its own way but it won't make this aspect of the game more interesting or attractive for newer players. A similar type of logic was used to revamp ME/PE etc. Invention and production should be intuitive enough for people who are not mathemagicians.


To add to Odoya's point, anyone not doing 100 runs of something but still more then one bpc's worth of ships has a much larger burden of out of game calculations to run and a much more involved process of materials gathering. While this is not necessarily a problem, it meas that small manufacturers get a much larger shaft then someone sinking several tens of billions into materials purchasing every week.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#208 - 2014-09-13 17:28:33 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Lucy Sue wrote:
Regarding the skills in the past when skill requirements have been changed it had been done in a way so that people who could do it before at a certain level could do it after at the same level. For example ships and drones. With the changes outlined in this blog it would force us to train skills to reach that same level as before, are any skills going to be raised to compensate?


The ship tiericide caused us to delete old generic Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills and replace them with new ones, which is why we had to add and refund those skills to the players.

This change is just shuffling tech II skill requirements for science skills around - your existing skills won't lose value, they'll just allow you to invent / manufacture other types of items you originally aimed for. As such there is no plan for skills to be manually raised or reimbursed. That is why we wanted to bring this blog early on to give you time to adapt and train skills needed back up.

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
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#209 - 2014-09-13 17:39:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Red Bluesteel
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Arronicus wrote:
Great job here, however; if your intent was to shift many of the inventions to be more intuitive with the race that uses them and the weapon type, why were railguns shifted away from electromagnetic physics and Caldari, the technology they actually use, and the race that they are styled for, to plasma physics and Gallente instead, when Plasma is a blaster element and gallente ships are not tailored for railguns?


Ah, that's a good question we asked ourselves during design.

We had to strike a balance between clarity and racial composition as it not possible to have a 100% perfect system here. You see, not only we had to make sure each science field was relatively well distributed among others, but also that one particular race wasn't too much over-represented over the others as well. Point is, Caldari already is the main Invention / Tech II manufacturing race needed for all missiles and a bunch of shield / electronic modules - as such we had to be careful on how many modules they'd be used for.

Besides, it makes sense for all Hybrid turrets to use the same racial requirement for consistency purposes (especially since we haven't forgotten about the need to iterate on Industry certificates after this is done). We also would not take it for granted that Gallente ships are not tailored for railguns.

Then Spread out the Missiles to the other Races belong on there Main Damage Types, but let the Science type be the Same.

Same thing for the Rail Guns, let the Main Science type the same and only just change the Race behind.
Because a Rail Gun isn't an Blaster driven Gun it's an Electromagnetic driven Gun. Wiki: Railgun
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#210 - 2014-09-13 18:03:42 UTC
Red Bluesteel wrote:
1st of all, with all of you nice Industry Change Graphs, I'm missing one Major Graph => The Changes of how much more isk all those changes cost us e.g. ME/PE/Copy/Invention Costs. WHO the F*** is spending for an Aeon PE+6 (12%) 1,5 bil isk ???

Still want to see these Graphs of the New Isk Sinkhole you have turned the Industry in to.
Frug Pock
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#211 - 2014-09-13 19:08:23 UTC
Great idea (lots of irony included!!!)

Having spend a long time training to be perfect at ship invention, you come up with the splendid idea that I should spend even more time. Great, Im really looking forward to that.

Honestly: The latest changes took away more and more of my motivation to even get online.
Sheeana Harb
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#212 - 2014-09-13 20:16:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Sheeana Harb
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.
Beta Maoye
#213 - 2014-09-13 22:42:28 UTC
I want to add one more level of fun to invention. The outcome of exceptional success level is further divided into four categories. Let's say 99% of exceptional success will be a standard exceptional success which gives a Meta 5 bpc with ME2 and TE3 bonus. 0.6% of exceptional success will be a wonderful success which gives a random Meta 6-7 bpc. 0.3% of exceptional success will be an incredible success which gives a random Meta 8-10 bpc. 0.1% of exceptional success will be a marvelous success which gives a random Meta 11-14 bpc.

At 50% rate of success, the chance to get Meta 5 with ME2 and TE3 will be 2.475%. The chance to get Meta 6-7 will be 0.015%. The chance to get Meta 8-10 will be 0.0075%. The chance to get Meta 11-14 will be 0.0025%.

I think the chance is small enough to discourage meta bpc farming. The above "big prizes" will make invention much more unpreditable and enjoyable.
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#214 - 2014-09-14 01:48:48 UTC
Beta Maoye wrote:
I want to add one more level of fun to invention. The outcome of exceptional success level is further divided into four categories. Let's say 99% of exceptional success will be a standard exceptional success which gives a Meta 5 bpc with ME2 and TE3 bonus. 0.6% of exceptional success will be a wonderful success which gives a random Meta 6-7 bpc. 0.3% of exceptional success will be an incredible success which gives a random Meta 8-10 bpc. 0.1% of exceptional success will be a marvelous success which gives a random Meta 11-14 bpc.

At 50% rate of success, the chance to get Meta 5 with ME2 and TE3 will be 2.475%. The chance to get Meta 6-7 will be 0.015%. The chance to get Meta 8-10 will be 0.0075%. The chance to get Meta 11-14 will be 0.0025%.

I think the chance is small enough to discourage meta bpc farming. The above "big prizes" will make invention much more unpreditable and enjoyable.

Yeah Nice, i want an Meta 14 Ishtar... *ironic off
Beta Maoye
#215 - 2014-09-14 03:47:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Beta Maoye
Red Bluesteel wrote:
Yeah Nice, i want an Meta 14 Ishtar... *ironic off


It will just pick a random item from the existing item set. One may argue he don't want to get a Gistum A-Type Shield Booster when inventing a Ishtar. I just want to add a very small chance to get a surprising reward from routine invention process. One will still get a Ishtar 99.9% in case of success in invention.
Veinnail
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#216 - 2014-09-14 05:07:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Veinnail
First, I think the dust has settled and the community is generally happy with the results of Crius.

[this is if we ignore the massive isk sink that you've dumped on us, sell plex bros, sell plex]



About these notes.

1. Yes, I agree with the skill requirement changes for certain items/ships, follow through with a solid iteration.
a. perhaps a third skill for the various ships. mechanical and starship seem realistic.
b. I don't agree with the ECM modules being for each race. I believe Caldari invented ECM and produced all of it. (lol)
2. Dynamic invention results seems like an awfully volatile idea. You do realize this is already tedious?
a. Please don't vary too widely here. if you have something like a +-5 swing, we're all going to be crying.
b. Is this focused solely on ME, TE or both?
3. Thank you for opening the window to queued invention runs.
a. As a producer my reaction is to like this. I do see this as a future hazard, a market flood mechanism.
Aineko Macx
#217 - 2014-09-14 13:26:55 UTC
I'm not too keen on the outcome tiering. It does nothing but increase complexity (again). Over enough attempts the same average (statistical) output can be achieved just as well with the current binary outcome.

So just to confirm, within a success or failure, the tiers will occur with the following probabilities (from most frequent to rarest): 65%, 20%, 10% and 5%, yes?

iveeCore 3.0: The PHP engine for industrial activities and CREST library
Parisma Calles
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#218 - 2014-09-14 17:56:06 UTC
I have a couple of questions about removing the Data Interfaces coming from an exploration point of view.

1. Will data sites be dropping anything new to make up for removing the blueprints and materials for building the data interfaces or will they only be dropping Datacores, skillbooks, and decryptors now?

2. The dev blog said that the Data Interfaces people now own would be "reimbursed", how exactly?

Thanks.
Mr M
Sebiestor Tribe
#219 - 2014-09-14 21:30:44 UTC
I'd like to see some actual Critical failures. Like Jita collapsing in on it self.

Share your experience

Write for the EVE Tribune

www.eve-tribune.com
Chacho Baggins
#220 - 2014-09-15 01:41:49 UTC
While you are working on invention can you help clarify the system. Can you list on ammo charge T1 blueprints what the T2 variant will be? And/or put what the T2 blueprint is invented from.

If you want to invent Spike ammo you need to know what it is, look it up out of game, ask someone who knows, or guess based on the pictures. With missiles Scourge becomes T2 Scourge which is easy to figure out but Antimatter to Void isn't straight forward.

Thank you