open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Blog, Chronotis on Invention in Trinity
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2007.11.17 18:27:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 17/11/2007 18:36:30
Originally by: Ol' Delsai
Originally by: AZON21AUG

Give us the information we need to know to make intelligent decisions about our businesses, and stop keeping it only available to the Devs.


Ouch, businesses ??? Are we talking about the same thing, a GAME ?? you know the kind of thing you play to entertain yourself...

well, IMHO, it's part of the game to try and find the effects of somme odd components found in some hidden pirate facilities that has been named "decryptors"
It's also part of the game to have a game of invention to produce Tech 2 ships and modules... that would not be funny to have them all in the market as is at a fixed a price (and there will bee much much less player in EVE it that was the cased)

So please, all of you, think and take some distance before biting




Ok, then for the same logic, why give out the effect of the modules? mix and match them again, remove any hard data (even those in show info on the ship).

Find out what every module do the hard way, more fun for you.


To repeat it:

hard numbers not vague announcement

that why the blog about economy was good and this one is practically nothing.


If you (CCP) haven't jet decided the final stat say that, but we need to know what the decryptors do and possibly the true effect of the metamodules.

A fairly extended test with the metamodules has me convinced that for the modules with a low number of different modules, where the level 0 metamodule is usable, using a level 0 metamodule as a negative effect (about 10% less success) care to confirm that? and it work so for ships too?

Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
Posted - 2007.11.17 19:42:00 - [32]
 

Making all EvE items a Commodity FTL.
- FTL in decreasing strategic spending for corps and alliances
- FTL in increasing in Grind
- FTL in making EvE a population driven competition
- FTL in decreasing differentiation of pilots ability/power
- FTL in homogenising markets






CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2007.11.17 20:42:00 - [33]
 

I'll see about updating the blog with the exact figures for the decryptor attributes.

Points to remember about decryptors is they are still luxury items which are optional to the invention job. They are also not created nor distributed equally so the current best one the 'war strategon' version for eg, will still be the best one for both probability and a decent amount of runs but will still be the rarest of the lot.

With these changes, the more common ones have uses, with for example the 'formation layout' version being very useful for rig invention where the greatest costs come from the manufacturing requirements rather than the invention costs and the much lower Material Level will reduce manufacturing costs significantly.

The three middle tier decryptors are a balance between success chance, Material Level and runs and most useful for module, drone and charge invention.

But in general, they are all boosted slightly with respect to probability multiplier and material level multiplier, with the main change being the material level modifier lowering the negative ML range from invented items significantly and the rarest decryptor giving a much more certain chance of success than previously.


Scimon Tinker
Posted - 2007.11.17 21:00:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Scimon Tinker on 17/11/2007 21:02:32
so the 3 changes to invention in trinity are

1) Decryptors moving to exploration
2) Decryptors being "rebalanced"
3) Ability to chose which variation

are any of the other issues with invention going to be addressed ? or are CCP happy with the rest of invention ?

Once again, Many Thanks
Mikal Drey

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2007.11.17 21:02:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Helison

Ship invention: Can you tell us how much the chances have been boosted? Will the chances for Exhumers invention remain the same?
Why do you think BS invention should have a lesser chance, but use much more datacores etc.?



The change is really about simulating the complexity of the ship classes which increases with size. As such the intention is the tier their success rates accordingly. A frigate should be a much simpler machine and design to understand than a black ops battleship for example.

With mining barges, they have been teired according to their size. So a skiff and a mackinaw will have a greater base chance of success than a hulk.



Quote:
What about chances for mechanical engineering datacores?


No changes coming in Trinity 1.0 with these. I did mention in a previous post that we were looking first at changing all modules using mechanical engineering to electronic engineering. But nothing in set in stone with that.

Quote:
What about jump freighter invention?



As Nozh mentioned, inventing jump freighters, especially with the good high probability decryptor will have a high chance of success. Making both the time and revenue investment overhead more predictable. However given the number of idle freighter blueprints out there and the lead time needed for bpc copy, the time investment is less of an issue in our eyes for a ship that will provide so many advantages and can be operated in almost absolute safety.

My next blog on invention will look at the invention system as a whole and table some of our ideas for evolving it to the next level and as such I do not want to speculate too much here on the wider issues raised with invention other than say they are being continuously discussed internally.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.17 21:07:00 - [36]
 

Thanks for the clarity on the invention issues and decryptors!

Can you confirm that Tech 2 BPO's (unaltered) will still be in-game after Trinity expansion?

Cheers,
Arithron

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2007.11.17 21:11:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Arithron

Can you confirm that Tech 2 BPO's (unaltered) will still be in-game after Trinity expansion?



they are unchanged, if we ever did change those, they would get a long and very well explained blog on why and how, well in advance of such a huge change.




Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.17 21:23:00 - [38]
 

Many thanks for taking time to answer questions on a Saturday night, when there are other things you could be doing that are more fun....

Arithron

Aelena Thraant
The Executives
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.17 21:39:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Aelena Thraant on 17/11/2007 21:39:20
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

As Nozh mentioned, inventing jump freighters, especially with the good high probability decryptor will have a high chance of success. Making both the time and revenue investment overhead more predictable. However given the number of idle freighter blueprints out there and the lead time needed for bpc copy, the time investment is less of an issue in our eyes for a ship that will provide so many advantages and can be operated in almost absolute safety.



So are you saying that copy time for freighter bpos is not going to be reduced from the 4-6 weeks it currently is?

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2007.11.17 21:46:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Scimon Tinker
Edited by: Scimon Tinker on 17/11/2007 21:02:32
so the 3 changes to invention in trinity are

1) Decryptors moving to exploration
2) Decryptors being "rebalanced"
3) Ability to chose which variation

are any of the other issues with invention going to be addressed ? or are CCP happy with the rest of invention ?



you forgot that smaller ship class invention is getting a little easier Wink

We are much more happier with invention than the lottery. However we would not be talking about evolving and improving the system both from a player and economic standpoint if we were satisfied with it completely. The beauty with Eve is we can continuously iterate and improve systems over time.

As I mentioned, my next invention blog will look at invention from the top down and the areas we will focus on in the future and talk about some of the changes we are considering.

Helison
Gallente
Times of Ancar
Posted - 2007.11.17 22:18:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

The change is really about simulating the complexity of the ship classes which increases with size. As such the intention is the tier their success rates accordingly. A frigate should be a much simpler machine and design to understand than a black ops battleship for example.

With mining barges, they have been teired according to their size. So a skiff and a mackinaw will have a greater base chance of success than a hulk.


Please donīt use different base-chances for each type of ship, this will make predictions very difficult. Now we have a quite large sample of done inventions on which we can calculate our chances for profit. With this change we will lose our old data and it will get quite difficult to get new data, specially for the expensive items like command ships, BS or jumpfrighters.
You could also give us the numbers for the different base-chances of the different ships, but I donīt really hope for it.




Vala Morgan
Posted - 2007.11.17 22:49:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Vala Morgan on 17/11/2007 22:59:18

Originally by: CCP Chronotis


Points to remember about decryptors is they are still luxury items which are optional to the invention job.


Dear Dev, do you realise inventors can NOT compete with t2 ship BPO owners without the use of decryptors. Hence above statement is FALSE. Decryptors IS NOT a luxury, it is a necessity in t2 ship invention (especially versus bpo owners).

Question ONE: Do you think I am wrong in my above statement?

Question TWO: Once the mechanisms of invention-ONLY ships have been established, would you analyse its effects and dynamisms onto Eve? And maybe RE-consider if t2 bpo should still be the inventors's bane? Or maybe not remove the t2 bpos, simply allowing inventible ME/PE level 0 OR allowing the t2 invented bpcs to be ME/PE researched to level 0?

Question THREE: Do you believe weapon and ammo inventions are working as intended i.e costs and runs of invented t2 bpcs (versus bpo owners)?

Question FOUR: Will the NEW decryptors be competitive against exploration-t2 rig BPCs?

It is in my opinion that inventors can only truely PVP for the inventable-ONLY t2 mods/ships. Agasint BPO owners, inventors are ONLY preventing t2 cartels and monopolies and their EXORBITANT prices (LOL at their pre-invention philosophies: 'IF you cant afford it, DONT buy it' ... greedy sc*m bags...). THANKS YOU CCP for inventions.....



Jehovah Cooper
H A V O C
Posted - 2007.11.17 22:57:00 - [43]
 

Good changes; I think recons and HACs are still a little too expensive and I was worried about them going up due to inventors switching to the new ships for awhile to cash in on all the initial enthusiasm.

But, I'm concerned that addressing the blueprint bottleneck is only part of the solution. The real bottleneck now are the high-end moons especially dysprosium and promethium. There are very few of these at any given time that aren't being mined, so higher prices will not create more supply. What are the plans to ensure we don't have another artificial population limit like that of the T2 BPOs before?

Goberth Ludwig
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.11.17 23:39:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Jehovah Cooper
What are the plans to ensure we don't have another artificial population limit like that of the T2 BPOs before?


Whining. It never failed us.

- Gob

Corporati Capitalis
Tollan Technologies
Posted - 2007.11.17 23:55:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Helison
Decryptors: How about you give us any numbers on them? Invention is a business and not Las Vegas. We have to calculate which decryptors we shall use.



Yes please! Lack of base success chance information FTL. Lack of skill success chance modifiers information FTL.

Other than that, love the changes, especially the increased chance of success for the various ships. Embarassed

Oh, and my badger thanks you for the increased ME modifiers! No more weekly hauling of T2 components from Jita. Embarassed

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.11.18 01:26:00 - [46]
 

A rough "success chance" display (very low/low/below avg/avg/above avg/high/very high) would be a lot of help.
ALSO, including decryptor info (that is already published via data export) in the decryptor showinfo would be a good idea.

Dark Matter4
Posted - 2007.11.18 02:48:00 - [47]
 

Will we ever see ME, PE and Number of runs on the BPC used for an invention job affect those same attributes of the invented BPC?

Currently it seems as tho something like a ME 100, PE 100, 1500 run BPC gives the same invented end result as if you were to use a ME 0, PE 0, 1 run BPC.

Was just thinking that since a BPC of higher quality takes much more time to produce to be used with invention, shouldn't it also give better results?

Blazde
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.11.18 03:31:00 - [48]
 

Telling the masses the popular rigs to invent ftl, there goes my profit Razz

AZON21AUG
Posted - 2007.11.18 03:47:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
I'll see about updating the blog with the exact figures for the decryptor attributes.


Looking forward to seeing this info in the updated blog.

Riley Craven
Caldari
Raata Invicti
Reckoning.
Posted - 2007.11.18 04:59:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

a ship that will provide so many advantages and can be operated in almost absolute safety.


See, here is where the problems start. When people can question whether its in their best interest to use a dred or a rorq instead of a JF then obviously the advantages of using one versus the others is not such an absolute... which is all you devs seem to deal in these days. (See any of the threads in game dev about what I am talking about)

The real problem most people have with the carrier nerf in relation to this is that you guys dont seem to have done any real numbers or math to back your statements up. For example have any of you considered what it would cost for two haulers, that could fit in a carrier, to use a POS network vs using just a carrier? For some reason my guess is no.

I for one would be at least a little more comfortable with the changes if you guys had actual well thought out reasons to back up game changes as massive as these other than "carrier != hauler".

Players dont blow flames on you because you change things, they do it because you leave them in total darkness up until the change and they are the ones that bare the brunt of the changes, not you.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2007.11.18 06:54:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
I'll see about updating the blog with the exact figures for the decryptor attributes.



Thank you. I think that any of us get that they can be not jet definitive.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2007.11.18 07:05:00 - [52]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 18/11/2007 07:07:53
Originally by: Vala Morgan
Edited by: Vala Morgan on 17/11/2007 22:59:18

Originally by: CCP Chronotis


Points to remember about decryptors is they are still luxury items which are optional to the invention job.


Dear Dev, do you realise inventors can NOT compete with t2 ship BPO owners without the use of decryptors. Hence above statement is FALSE. Decryptors IS NOT a luxury, it is a necessity in t2 ship invention (especially versus bpo owners).

Question ONE: Do you think I am wrong in my above statement?

Question TWO: Once the mechanisms of invention-ONLY ships have been established, would you analyse its effects and dynamisms onto Eve? And maybe RE-consider if t2 bpo should still be the inventors's bane? Or maybe not remove the t2 bpos, simply allowing inventible ME/PE level 0 OR allowing the t2 invented bpcs to be ME/PE researched to level 0?

Question THREE: Do you believe weapon and ammo inventions are working as intended i.e costs and runs of invented t2 bpcs (versus bpo owners)?

Question FOUR: Will the NEW decryptors be competitive against exploration-t2 rig BPCs?

It is in my opinion that inventors can only truely PVP for the inventable-ONLY t2 mods/ships. Agasint BPO owners, inventors are ONLY preventing t2 cartels and monopolies and their EXORBITANT prices (LOL at their pre-invention philosophies: 'IF you cant afford it, DONT buy it' ... greedy sc*m bags...). THANKS YOU CCP for inventions.....



Sigh.

Said a lot of times, but really someone don't want to get it:

removing the T2 BPO will not increase the inventors profit margin in the module currently build with invention, will only rise the cost of the module currently not worth inventing to prohibitive levels.

Really you think that light drones at 800K will sell easily?

And the worst competition are still the people that think that datacores are free, not BPO owners. In RL they will go bankrupt and out of the market but in EVE is not possible to get bankrupt.

Originally by: Jehovah Cooper
The real bottleneck now are the high-end moons especially dysprosium and promethium. There are very few of these at any given time that aren't being mined, so higher prices will not create more supply. What are the plans to ensure we don't have another artificial population limit like that of the T2 BPOs before?


Better ME is a step in the right direction to reduce that problem.

Fantome
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.11.18 11:44:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Fantome on 18/11/2007 11:52:49
Nice updates, thx Chronotis for it.

What about the ability to get decryptors in 0.0 exploration ?
Could we get more detail about skills lvl related to invention and sucess rate ?

Thx.

Helison
Gallente
Times of Ancar
Posted - 2007.11.18 13:34:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Fantome
Edited by: Fantome on 18/11/2007 11:52:49
Nice updates, thx Chronotis for it.

What about the ability to get decryptors in 0.0 exploration ?
Could we get more detail about skills lvl related to invention and sucess rate ?

Thx.



You can already get decryptors in 0.0 exploration (radar sites), but their dropping chance is quite low.

El'essar Viocragh
Minmatar
Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik
Posted - 2007.11.19 00:05:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: El''essar Viocragh on 19/11/2007 02:14:48
Nice blog Chronotis.

- smaller ships will be easier to invent than bigger (general rule)
- frigs, destroyers and cruisers will be easier than (specific information)

So, in conclusion, BCs will stay at the 20% base chance they have right now and BS will be below that?

Jazmyne Lee
Posted - 2007.11.19 03:45:00 - [56]
 

I have all the skills needed to build min ships start to finish. R&D agents for both datacores needed and bpo's of all the ships i wish to make most of my ME is 45.

BUT and this is a BIG BUT, the cost in making a smaller t2 ship forgetting the chance to get a bpc is to high. i have never gotten a fail and never used decryptors maybe lucky i only made about 4 bpc's of ships then throw it in.

At the time now this could of some what changed but the datacores and all the datasheets plus it's a neg in the ME/PE and on top of that without decryptor or something to boosted the amount of runs it's just a wast ends up costing more, some times 15% more then just buying the dam thing.

so not about chance that upset me with invention it was i go throw all that and get one **** run and was just a was if it was maybe 4 or 5 runs then i can make some money, but for now i will keep building t1 cruisers and stuff till such time as you make it work right. do something like buy up all the t2 bpo's PLZ it's stuffing invention.

Aaron Min
Genco
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.19 05:01:00 - [57]
 

Edited by: Aaron Min on 19/11/2007 05:03:27
Muninn 80,358,069.57
Vagabond 79,218,646.17
Scimitar 67,387,632.97
Wolf 18,795,783.49
Jaguar 18,795,783.49
Cheetah 18,167,202.29
Stilleto 18,293,636.69
Mastodon 52,848,480.97
Claw 18,113,236.69
Sleipnir 141,388,333.17
Huggin 73,321,551.97
Rapier 73,321,551.97
Claymore 135,748,733.17

These are the invention costs of a fully researched base bpo (that doesn't effect invention costs of course, but the end build price is effected slightly), it calculated with 35% success rate, which for the most part is not true of ships. It also takes into account the use of the assembly instructions decyptor, as we inventors know, currently there is really only one decyptor that gets used in ship invention.

So, in the past t2 was a money machine, and that was in part because of the monopoly that bpo owners had, but it was also semi justified because of the amount of work involved in producing t2, there should exist a higher payout, but now we can see same striking problems in the ship (small and large) invention vs the bpo owners. It was said that inventors would never be able to compete with bpo owners, which is fine, but the difference is staggering and the work involved in inventing is much higher.

Getting a claymore out of a cyclone invent means you can't even make back the cost. All frigs and destroyers are not worth inventing, Most cruisers are not worth inventing. I know all the races have similar numbers and it is worse for the races that don't have a stellar pvp ship that is a cruiser or larger.

As devs I am sure the actually prices don't matter to you, but it should. Price indicates demand, if a ships prices is low its because it isn't as popular and thus isn't produce as much, so the bpo owners compete with each other but inventors have no place. My real concern is that a new layer of complexity was added to t2 production , but the profit margins have been reduced. Just like lvl 4 missions take longer then lvl 3 , they also pay out more. This doesn't apply to all t2 invention production, but for many items produced through invention the extra work,time and complexity results in worse or no profits. Just doesn't seem right.

I hope the changes you are making help with this, but I find it unlikely that it is enough. Honestly it doesn't matter the success rate, the lower the success rate the more expensive the items become, producers will just fold that cost onto consumers. So for the new stuff it really isn't that big of a deal. But of course that doesn't make invention available to the casual gamer as was the original intention.

Honestly seeding the market with t2 is a good idea imo, and it should be seeded at some 100%-150% markup, that way there exists a base price from which builders use to determine their own markups, and set a market standard, then inventors and builders can undercut the market and provide better prices for capsuleers every where.

Just my thoughts on the subject. I am looking forward to seeing how the changes improve the current invention system. I am very happy about the addition actually being able to choose what I invent... no more claymores that are totally worthless, and thank goodness I can get broadswords instead of muninns 100% of the time.

Aeryn Davenport
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Sturmgrenadier Syndicate
Posted - 2007.11.19 08:02:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
I'll see about updating the blog with the exact figures for the decryptor attributes.

Points to remember about decryptors is they are still luxury items which are optional to the invention job. They are also not created nor distributed equally so the current best one the 'war strategon' version for eg, will still be the best one for both probability and a decent amount of runs but will still be the rarest of the lot.

With these changes, the more common ones have uses, with for example the 'formation layout' version being very useful for rig invention where the greatest costs come from the manufacturing requirements rather than the invention costs and the much lower Material Level will reduce manufacturing costs significantly.

The three middle tier decryptors are a balance between success chance, Material Level and runs and most useful for module, drone and charge invention.

But in general, they are all boosted slightly with respect to probability multiplier and material level multiplier, with the main change being the material level modifier lowering the negative ML range from invented items significantly and the rarest decryptor giving a much more certain chance of success than previously.




At the moment decryptors are not a luxury for ship invention, they are a necessity. The cost, combined with the insignificant amount runs and low base success rate, make it completely unfeasible to invent ships without using decryptors. I hope this is what you are trying to address with the changes.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2007.11.19 08:27:00 - [59]
 

Want to do something for invention ?

ADD FREAKING COPY SLOTS !!!

The queues are ridiculous. Basicaly without a research POS, one has very slim chance to ever see a free slot before next year christmas.

That's not even for invention. Any production in empire is almost impossible without either access to a research POS or some of the alliances/corps renting research poses.

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2007.11.19 10:41:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Want to do something for invention ?

ADD FREAKING COPY SLOTS !!!

The queues are ridiculous. Basicaly without a research POS, one has very slim chance to ever see a free slot before next year christmas.

That's not even for invention. Any production in empire is almost impossible without either access to a research POS or some of the alliances/corps renting research poses.


WTF?

There're plenty of UNUSED copy slots in high sec, because CCP doesn't get the copy-slot-alliance-sharing on POSes right!



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only