These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Winthorp
#161 - 2014-09-12 10:26:51 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


Zifrian wrote:
2 - Costs of T3 items are primarily determined by Melted Nanoribbons and one or two polymers. Will you adjust the salvage drop rates (maybe this should have been done with the WH updates) or readjust the requirements so that there is a more dynamic market for building T3? After you dumb this down and combine it with invention, the market is going to tank and cease to be specialized. Can you make some sort of adjustments to ensure that doesn't happen as badly?


We will adjust salvage requirements if we think it's needed yes.



So you would just change more of WH space income to suit an industry change after the backlash you received for no consultation with the WH space community about Hyperion.

I support Hyperion changes but can you not see the anger when we had no consultation with the changes yet for industry and Null sov future changes there is so much advanced warning and consultation?
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#162 - 2014-09-12 10:31:03 UTC
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
[quote=CCP Ytterbium][quote=Querns][quote=Bugsy VanHalen]Comments.


Jump Freighters are insanely powerful with their jump drive capability and should not be even remotely close to easy to build. Besides, it currently makes little sense for them to be easier to invent than Tech II Cruisers, Battlecruisers and Battleships.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#163 - 2014-09-12 10:38:30 UTC
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.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#164 - 2014-09-12 10:50:22 UTC
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.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#165 - 2014-09-12 10:54:33 UTC
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
Once again another excellent round of changes from the peeps at CCP and CSM making a great indy game even better. I particularly love the multiple invention runs and think the scaling levels of success are a great idea.

I have to points that I would love to see included in the final shape of these changes.

#1 - skills. NOBODY trains invention skills to 5. going from 4 to 5 only gives a half a percent greater chance of success. Skills should play more of a factor. Even if you're perfect skills you only get a 50% chance of success for a module. If you're skills are at 2 you get a 40% or so. I personally think a character with skills at 5 should have well over a 50% chance of success. And skills at 1 shouldn't get you much at all. Can you adjust that formula?


Invention skills are a fine line to walk upon. Make them too valuable and they'll become a mandatory requirement for everyone to use before starting Invention, just like the old Production Efficiency skill used to force people to wait a bunch of weeks before profiting in Industry.

As we mentioned in the blog however, those numbers are not final - we can always increase the value of skills up if needed, but we would like to avoid massive bonuses here Blink
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#166 - 2014-09-12 11:07:38 UTC
Quartermaster Wild wrote:
4) Could the size of datacores be decreased from 1.0m3 to something more reasonable (0.3m3?), in order to encourage Exploration to look at datasites, in order to increase market fluidity?


The other changes you mentioned aren't that easy to come up with, but this we could do during a lunch break P Sounds like a good idea, we'll discuss this internally.

Quartermaster Wild wrote:
Questions:

If ships, say, will need Mechanical Engineering and some other Science skill (Quantum Physics etc), does this mean that the Racial Starship Engineering skills will be made useless? If so, what will occur with the SP invested in those skills?


We are not touching Racial Starship Engineering skills, so no need to worry about those Smile.

Quartermaster Wild wrote:
What is driving the change away from Meta items as optional ingredients? I really dislike the Teams approach, as the system as currently implemented can effectively render whole areas non-optimal for smaller players / people just starting out. Relatedly, does the removal of the usage of meta items in this manner indicate a possible future module tieracide?


The biggest problem with Teams right now is Team sniping, which we are aware of and need to fix. Below are some reasons why we hate Meta Items in Invention with deep raging intensity right now:


  1. It's a mess to use and predict depending on the module type. The mechanic doesn't not apply to ships.
  2. We have Dr. Evil plans for meta item themselves, but we don't want to spit the beans until our Dev Blog on that one is ready to go P Long story short, the new meta item scheme will not be compatible with its current implementation in Invention when we're done with them.
Noriko Mai
#167 - 2014-09-12 11:16:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Noriko Mai
If we will be able to install multiple invention runs. Will the cost (according to the changing system cost index over time) be calulated every time a new run starts automatically or will it be the same for all invention runs in a "batch"?

"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
Quartermaster Wild
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#168 - 2014-09-12 11:20:00 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Quartermaster Wild wrote:
4) Could the size of datacores be decreased from 1.0m3 to something more reasonable (0.3m3?), in order to encourage Exploration to look at datasites, in order to increase market fluidity?


The other changes you mentioned aren't that easy to come up with, but this we could do during a lunch break P Sounds like a good idea, we'll discuss this internally.

Quartermaster Wild wrote:
Questions:

If ships, say, will need Mechanical Engineering and some other Science skill (Quantum Physics etc), does this mean that the Racial Starship Engineering skills will be made useless? If so, what will occur with the SP invested in those skills?


We are not touching Racial Starship Engineering skills, so no need to worry about those Smile.

Quartermaster Wild wrote:
What is driving the change away from Meta items as optional ingredients? I really dislike the Teams approach, as the system as currently implemented can effectively render whole areas non-optimal for smaller players / people just starting out. Relatedly, does the removal of the usage of meta items in this manner indicate a possible future module tieracide?


The biggest problem with Teams right now is Team sniping, which we are aware of and need to fix. Below are some reasons why we hate Meta Items in Invention with deep raging intensity right now:


  1. It's a mess to use and predict depending on the module type. The mechanic doesn't not apply to ships.
  2. We have Dr. Evil plans for meta item themselves, but we don't want to spit the beans until our Dev Blog on that one is ready to go P Long story short, the new meta item scheme will not be compatible with its current implementation in Invention when we're done with them.


Many thanks for your time and response CCP Ytterbium, I'm looking forward to the changes.
Sheeana Harb
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#169 - 2014-09-12 11:37:59 UTC
Hello,

I would like to provide feedback specifically to a multiple invention outcome feature:

This change will make it harder to buy larger amounts of materials for T2 manufacturing. Before if I had 80 T2 BPCs all with ME2, I knew I could open one said BPC in the industry UI, select 10 runs and then start buying materials x 80 and it would all match up afterwards. After the change I will likely end up with a portion of BPCs with different ME so I will need to either buy extra mats (if the BPCs I'm buying from is with lower ME) or go through the buying process twice or deal with the fact that I bough redundant mats.

Having an ingame shopping list tool would be very valuable.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#170 - 2014-09-12 11:39:31 UTC
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.

Say I wanted to invent 90 ishtars, I would calculate the amount of materials to produce them using the best value racial decryptor (3 run) and invest in buying those component materials. I would then proceed to have my characters do as many invention jobs as necessary to get the 30 runs (i.e. 30 successful operations).

Now, by throwing more randomness into the fire, I'm not sure what I need without going through, checking every single blueprint and adding them all up, grouping them, calculating them all in turn and then merging the results back together.

I love the idea that failure does not have to consume all of the datacores, but dislike all the extra calculator work that can only be known once the invention jobs have completed.

I could of course save the extra components for a later build, but that then adds more leg-work by having to factor that in when building the next round of materials.

This is my only concern too. It makes it even more difficult to calculate with having so many different outcomes.

Now, what would be cool, would be if we could invent meta blueprints, with the T2 blueprint being the highest outcome, and meta versions ranging down. Perhaps we could even have special decryptors which allow us a chance at inventing faction bpcs.

That would make this gameplay change fun and interesting.

Right now, all it is going to do is add a lot of extra maths and make our spreadsheets even more unwieldy than before for very little improvement in actual gameplay.
Moloney
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#171 - 2014-09-12 11:42:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Moloney
"Please remember all of this is subject to change until deployed and that Market speculation is done at your own risk."

Let me translate that for you:

"Please remember that we will likely **** it all up and ignore you when we are done." - or have you kicked Fozzie out already?

[With complements - the wormhole community.]
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#172 - 2014-09-12 11:45:13 UTC
Ai Sekana wrote:
2. Random outcome form invention feels more like a "middle finger" than anything else. This will not add anything of worth to the equation aside from overcomplicating it. This will NOT bring choices. To be perfectly honest with you CCP aside from choosing what to manufacture there are no real choices in Industry. Anything is predictable and scalable in long term. Your new formula will just require readjusting to the existing calculations and in the end for the middle and big industrials it will sum up to the same result where the little guys will lose money or will even quit, because of the extra logistics and planning required.


Echoing this while it is still hopefully on the drawing board for CCP. I think this change is not going to go down well, and actually is more head ache inducing than adding any type of fun gameplay.

If we get actually get different modules from an invention run though, that would be more interesting.
Moloney
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#173 - 2014-09-12 11:53:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Moloney
Is it not the purpose of a sand box to provide options?

Having subsystems that are currently not popular is a fact of the current game mechanics and meta.

Add more features to the sandbox where the currently unused subsystems would excel. Don't remove them. Don't change the build cost for systems that are not popular.

When something else changes and suddenly a previously unpopular sub becomes popular... What, are you going to rebalance their cost again!?

Can we have some foresight instead of the usual underdesigned short sighted quick fixes you usually come up with please?
Erikku Leonhart
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#174 - 2014-09-12 11:58:30 UTC
Hello Mr ccp Guy thank you for all your hard work i was just wondering about somethig in that dev blog of yours, you see, i saw that you said t2 Capital and t2 Indutrial capital ships have a 20% reserch chance and i was well....Wondering if thats something you can confirm if not could you be botherd for a moment to say so it really is kill me as a miner main, one of the few might i add that doesnt multibox XD i would be really excited about t2 caps :D that are not jump frieghters
BooomBox
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#175 - 2014-09-12 12:06:56 UTC
Hello, CCP Ytterbium.
Would you be so kind to make a clarification on second skill for t3 hulls invention.
According to dev blog the second skill is changed for t2 ships according to their role.
Will Plasma physics remain the second invention skill for t3 hulls invention?
Cheers
Juliette Asanari
Voodoo Children
#176 - 2014-09-12 12:09:45 UTC
With the removal of the Data Interfaces, the materials required for those (e.g. Auxilliary Parts) will only be useful for building storyline modules, thus rendering them completely worthless (as opposed to marginally useful now) - additionally, they have a volume of 1m3 (and usually only get aquired from exploration sites).

I'd like to see a pass on that, either a reduciton in size or another use for them (exploration loot could use a pass in general, finding a site with 1 metal scrap and 2 carbon is not fun.)
SpacePhenix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#177 - 2014-09-12 13:21:23 UTC
I know & understand that you have tried to improve the game. But honestly most of us feel like you have been changing too many things too fast. Personally I think it has been a really bad idea! For example, now for us to make any different type or types of outcomes with the invention blueprints, it is becoming increasingly difficult for us to change the outcome to what we would like it to be, as we now no longer have the option to do so. The Advanced industry was already hard enough for the more experienced players to calculate, you can only imagine how hard it would be for less seasoned players. Before you released the summer patch you made it harder & since you have released this summer patch you have once again made it even harder to use. By the way this is also the same summer patch that you all promised not to change at this year’s CCP Fanfest! An industrialist needs to have numbers that he or she can rely on! That means that he or she would only keep one type of blueprints outcome. Now with being able to have multiple different outcome blueprints, will only result with the contract market overflowing with a lot of “BAD” blueprints!

As for the system tax it has been a bad move on your behalf & to be honest with you it is stupid. The system tax need to be fixed, changed or better yet it should be removed completely. The system tax increases way too fast especially when you compare it to the system tax cool down time. There are some players who are not interested in going to wormhole, low sec or 0.0 stupid political space... You have completely destroyed the industry part of the game for those players... This game is not only played by gamers who like to shoot at other players... Some players just like to hang out in High Sec space flying their nice spaceships. Are they not allowed to have a little income to do so?? From my point of view it seems like you are favoring a certain group of players & not worrying about the many other groups of player within this game.
I hope that you take this seriously & I hope that you will address some of our/ my concerns about the issues I have addressed with you.

SpacePhenix
Gynax Gallenor
Conquering Darkness
#178 - 2014-09-12 14:30:52 UTC
Sheeana Harb wrote:
Hello,

I would like to provide feedback specifically to a multiple invention outcome feature:

This change will make it harder to buy larger amounts of materials for T2 manufacturing. Before if I had 80 T2 BPCs all with ME2, I knew I could open one said BPC in the industry UI, select 10 runs and then start buying materials x 80 and it would all match up afterwards. After the change I will likely end up with a portion of BPCs with different ME so I will need to either buy extra mats (if the BPCs I'm buying from is with lower ME) or go through the buying process twice or deal with the fact that I bough redundant mats.

Having an ingame shopping list tool would be very valuable.


It'll make it harder, but I don't think by a huge amount.

For large scale operations like the one you are describing, the Law of Large Numbers is going to be your friend. As you run more and more invention jobs, the expected outcome is going to get more and more certain, so you will end up being able to come up with a reasonably accurate estimate of all the different BPC types you have.

This assumes you aren't changing things, and teams/decryptors etc stay the same, of course, but even allowing for that would be very doable.

It is definitely more complex, but I think it is of the 'good' variety, cos it will reward people willing to think about what they are doing and putting the spade work in, as well as requiring reasonably active monitoring for shifts in market prices.

I definitely agree on the shopping list. I know jEveAssets has one, but I have found myself very poor at properly using it.

Fly Reckless, cos flying safe is no damn fun!

http://flyreckless.com/newsite/
Gynax Gallenor
Conquering Darkness
#179 - 2014-09-12 14:35:15 UTC
Zifrian wrote:
Thanks for the devblog.

Two questions/issues:

1 - With Battleship construction, right now it provides no bonus to production but is required at different levels to build higher level items. While I'm not really OK with allowing anyone who trains a skill to level 1 to build more advanced items than people who make the decision to train that skill for no other reason than to build those advanced items,

- What bonus will Advanced ship construction skills have to want to raise them to level 4 or 5?
- If you do not provide a bonus, then what purpose does a level 4 Advanced ship skill have in this new system and will you reset these skills for all players?

2 - Costs of T3 items are primarily determined by Melted Nanoribbons and one or two polymers. Will you adjust the salvage drop rates (maybe this should have been done with the WH updates) or readjust the requirements so that there is a more dynamic market for building T3? After you dumb this down and combine it with invention, the market is going to tank and cease to be specialized. Can you make some sort of adjustments to ensure that doesn't happen as badly?

A final reaction: while the tiered level of invention success and failure looks good and all, it's just going to muck up any sort of industrial planning. If that's what you want to do, fine but most people don't run an invention job without trying to figure out if it's worth their time over the long run. Also, people usually don't run one or two invention jobs, they do 100's. But you know this. I'm not convinced on this change really.

Thanks


I think the T3 market will not be healthy till they rebalance all the subsystems and the material inputs for them, rather than Reverse Engineering itself.

Fly Reckless, cos flying safe is no damn fun!

http://flyreckless.com/newsite/
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#180 - 2014-09-12 15:44:44 UTC
For the ship construction skills, 1% te is basically useless. Te bonuses need to be bigger than that or they're just consumed in the time between finishing and logging in.