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

Br0wn 0ps
Posted - 2007.11.19 13:57:00 - [61]
 

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


Make with the numbers, please

Counterparty
Posted - 2007.11.19 15:39:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: Hugh Ruka
the alliances/corps renting research poses.
There is no divine right to immediate access to NPC slots in Eve.

Use the player created lab slots. Players created the rental labs so you don't have to wait until Christmas for a slot, or own your own starbase.

But really if you want to be a Eve scientist, build your own research lab.

Aaron Min
Genco
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.19 17:46:00 - [63]
 

Edited by: Aaron Min on 19/11/2007 17:52:43
Originally by: Aaron Min
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



I am sorry I need to clarify, I had posted that these were all at a 35% success rate. But, they weren't, I forgot we had upped the success rates on our sheets. The frigs are at a 70% success rate, the cruisers are at 50% success.

So unless you plan on doing better then that don't expect cruisers or frigs to be anymore invent able then they currently are. Unless you seed the market with cores or increase the core output of agents so that core prices go down. And you seed the market with decyptors or make finding decyptors so easy that they cost nearly nothing.

Frigs, destroyers and cruisers should have a higher base run result then bc and bs, please. I think modules base runs should be increased from 10 as well. Something like 20 on modules, 5 on frigs cruisers and destroyers, and 1 on bc,bs and higher.

Oh, and t2 rigs need fixing too :). Make it so t2 parts can be built from t1 parts. I know that might not be your department, but its a good idea.


Somatic Neuron
Posted - 2007.11.19 19:54:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Aaron Min
Oh, and t2 rigs need fixing too :). Make it so t2 parts can be built from t1 parts. I know that might not be your department, but its a good idea.


Afraid I am going to have to QFT on this, as I wholeheartedly agree.

Oh, and where are the numbers on the decryptors?

Pitypang
Posted - 2007.11.19 22:54:00 - [65]
 

Dear Dev,

Although I'm very happy to see these briliant changes, I would like to highlight a couple of issues I have encountered or thought about regarding the intended changes.

1) Decryptor chances and ME/PE values
Every EVE use would deduct that with the intended modification the T2 prices will decrease, if do not calculate other changes... see point 2.
According to my expectation after a short price war the T2 modul and ship prices will fall slightly below the invention costs, thanks to the T2 BPO owners oligarchy.

2) New T2 ships and the first T2 capital
The incomming of the first T2 item, in this case ships, will first introduce real competition to the game. My only fear is with the invention of the Jump freighters, and as you have to manufacture them from T2 components, will wrack havoc to the T2 component prices.

If you would please check the daily changes in the supply for the rarest moon materials, plus run a simple SQL query on the current production database to get how many 0.0 and low sec POS is running reactions at the moment and did 1 or 2 months ago, I assume the trend would be quite interesting.

3) Decryptors from Hacking sites to exploration
I just would like to highlight my concern that with the intoduction of this changes you will ensure that not only players, who are capable to login just after the daily scheduled downtime, will be able to profit from the hacking exploration sites.
In contrast to today's situation where anytime you want to go and do the boring hacking excercise, you can go and do it, have a little share of the big pie... but have your little share.

Please do not misunderstand me, I do not want to critize these changes as I welcome them, but I would like to help balance this industrial activity.

Although you have mentioned, that the T2 BPOs won't be removed from the game, I can only think of one kind of a way out from the current economical situation: Named T2 items, only reachable through invention.
But I can only dream of these kind of new toys... at least for another year, I hope.

Yours sincerely,
Pitypang

Br0wn 0ps
Posted - 2007.11.20 13:50:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Br0wn 0ps
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
I'll see about updating the blog with the exact figures for the decryptor attributes.


Make with the numbers, please


Please

Imuran
Zentor Industries
Posted - 2007.11.20 14:41:00 - [67]
 

and what about the Invention implants? Still no indication of anyfix for that useless expensive lump of wire in my head Rolling Eyes

Clerence Thomas
Black Lotus Heavy Industries
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2007.11.20 17:06:00 - [68]
 

Does this mean you're going to adjust the curve to harder for some of the other stuff (i.e. hulk? The markets blumin' flooded...)

El'essar Viocragh
Minmatar
Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik
Posted - 2007.11.20 17:53:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Pitypang
stuff
Your entire post is so completely wrong. Please try to understand the game first and then make suggestions.

Oh, and good job on necro'ing the "all good exploration sites are taken right after downtime" whine. Btw, they are so not true I can't describe it in words.


@ Clerence:

I'd say it is somewhere along these lines:

Tier 1 Frig > Tier 2 Frig > Tier 3 Frig > Destroyer > Tier 1 Cruiser > Tier 2 Cruiser > Tier 3 Cruiser > Battlecruiser > Tier I Battleship > Tier 2 Battleship

Battlecruiser would be about the same chance as all ships right now.
Jump Freighters are seperate because of their copy time.

So Hulk invention will be a bit easier than before, but not as easy as Skiff or Mackinaw.

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2007.11.20 18:29:00 - [70]
 

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

Status report please Cool

Quote:
decryptors ... are still luxury items which are optional to the invention job.

When you're inventing to sell on the open market, decryptors are never a luxury - they are either a necessity or they are irrelevant, since their costs and benefits can be precisely calculated. Saying that they are a luxury to an inventor is equivalent to saying that production efficiency 5 and researched BPOs are luxuries for T1 producers.

The value of a decryptor is typically thought of in terms of the value of the greatest benefit that can be gained from it with any type of job, as evidenced by the grossly inflated prices of the top tier decryptors (which stem from the projected savings from inventing T2 battleships). If you use a decryptor for any sub-optimal job, you're often worse off than if you used no decryptor at all.

Similarly for each item, one can easily calculate which decryptor will provide the best return. So, with a perfect market, there are only ever a handful of items where decryptors are worthwhile - at most 1 per decryptor. These might change from time to time, of course.

Quote:
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.


They're also going to beat the top tier decryptors when inventing jump freighters, at least once the initial buzz has worn off and prices settle down. It'd be nice to know whether you intend for inventors to be able to compete with explorers on ME levels of T2 rig BPCs.

Unscrew Pewlous
Posted - 2007.11.21 06:14:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: El'essar Viocragh
Originally by: Pitypang
stuff
Your entire post is so completely wrong. Please try to understand the game first and then make suggestions.



A rant is just a useless rant unless you back it up with facts.

You, Sir, don't understand the concept of supply and demand and supplychain bottlenecks. If one component in the manufacture of an item is withheld or made rare then the whole system collapses. For the past few weeks, 1 ingredient in the manufacture of ship components has been systematically bought up from every market. This is causing a severe shortage and price spike. With the introduction of the t2 battleships and the further strain on supply that that will entail, the t2 ship building industry in hi sec will come to a near halt as being totally uneconomical and unfeasible. Now how is the original post not appropos to the situation of the eve market and t2 ship building?

And now with the advent of the new dictor, supplies from low sec and 0.0 will have another strain put on it.

Artmedis Valben
Gallente
Posted - 2007.11.21 11:47:00 - [72]
 

orginally by Chronotis:
Quote:
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.


What about the electronic/mech engineering datacore combo inventions like drones?

Would think it better if you reintroduced astronautical engineering, as the new ship mech eng, seeded the skill to couple of dozen new agents from all races (or even better made it so that all current mech eng agents offered astronautic as well), give us 2-3 months to advance notice and no one will complain.

Lil Mule
Posted - 2007.11.21 14:35:00 - [73]
 

Thanks for the info update. I wont co-opt the thread too much but I did want to mention that from the current view point of someone who regularly runs Radar sites - the time invested, and potential ship losses is not worth the results of Radar sites as it stands today (in 0.0). Im hoping the additional drops of Decrytors will assist in this avenue, but not so much that they drive the price down of the decryptors such that it becomes not worthwile to run a Radar site.

At any rate. I understand many people are concerned about T2 BPO's. From reading the post, and if I read between the lines, I think the T2 bpo problem will go away 'shortly' with the addition of T3 items, which Im sure will be done completely by invention. So all of us that are quite unhappy with the current T2 BPO problem, that will go away Im sure in the near future. Again, if I read between the lines, I believe CCP is trying to say that they want to get invention of T2 items done correctly first before moving on to T3 items and their invention.

There is no doubt that the cost of T2 items will drop further, which is one of the current goals of Trinity. I believe they want to put the purchase of T2 items and ships within the reach of the average player base. Previously it was just fine to have expensive T2 items because T3 Im sure was just a lofty dream some where in the future, but they didnt have the player base to support it. Now that the player base is there, T3 items will come out, and they will be about the cost that T2 items were previously. The question is - how do we as inventors, investors and market traders either make money, or not lose money in the months/year to come before T3. I dont know about the rest of you but Ive certainly lost a chunk of change in these market shifts.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2007.11.21 15:10:00 - [74]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 21/11/2007 15:15:17
Originally by: Pitypang
Dear Dev,

Although I'm very happy to see these briliant changes, I would like to highlight a couple of issues I have encountered or thought about regarding the intended changes.

1) Decryptor chances and ME/PE values
Every EVE use would deduct that with the intended modification the T2 prices will decrease, if do not calculate other changes... see point 2.
According to my expectation after a short price war the T2 modul and ship prices will fall slightly below the invention costs, thanks to the T2 BPO owners oligarchy.



Again Crying or Very sad. This refrain is really sad as it make really evident that people don't know anything about market forces. If a item as enough buyers the market price will stay above invention price. If the market is so small that the BPO owners will cover all the demand the competition will push the price below invention cost and only a little above production cost.

I see it perfectly with my 2 ammunition BPO. The barrage are above invention cost (and the price has decreased from a month ago) as the market is lively enough, The quake have so little demand that even at minimum prices they aren't sold for days or wee, to the point that I buld them only occasionally.

Originally by: Pitypang

3) Decryptors from Hacking sites to exploration
I just would like to highlight my concern that with the intoduction of this changes you will ensure that not only players, who are capable to login just after the daily scheduled downtime, will be able to profit from the hacking exploration sites.
In contrast to today's situation where anytime you want to go and do the boring hacking excercise, you can go and do it, have a little share of the big pie... but have your little share.



Another common misconcept: exploration sites aren't spawned at DT, they are spawned as soon as another exploration site despawn.

The current rarity is linked to the bugs on despawning and sites distribution, I had sites spawning immediately after I had completed a previsious site or while I was scanning for a different site, 6-8 hours after DT.

Originally by: Artmedis Valben
orginally by Chronotis:
Quote:
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.


What about the electronic/mech engineering datacore combo inventions like drones?

Would think it better if you reintroduced astronautical engineering, as the new ship mech eng, seeded the skill to couple of dozen new agents from all races (or even better made it so that all current mech eng agents offered astronautic as well), give us 2-3 months to advance notice and no one will complain.


Nice, I like it, much better than retraining alts and corporations (my best corps for Mech engineering don't give electronic engineering).

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2007.11.21 15:23:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Lil Mule
Thanks for the info update. I wont co-opt the thread too much but I did want to mention that from the current view point of someone who regularly runs Radar sites - the time invested, and potential ship losses is not worth the results of Radar sites as it stands today (in 0.0). Im hoping the additional drops of Decrytors will assist in this avenue, but not so much that they drive the price down of the decryptors such that it becomes not worthwile to run a Radar site.

At any rate. I understand many people are concerned about T2 BPO's. From reading the post, and if I read between the lines, I think the T2 bpo problem will go away 'shortly' with the addition of T3 items, which Im sure will be done completely by invention. So all of us that are quite unhappy with the current T2 BPO problem, that will go away Im sure in the near future. Again, if I read between the lines, I believe CCP is trying to say that they want to get invention of T2 items done correctly first before moving on to T3 items and their invention.

There is no doubt that the cost of T2 items will drop further, which is one of the current goals of Trinity. I believe they want to put the purchase of T2 items and ships within the reach of the average player base. Previously it was just fine to have expensive T2 items because T3 Im sure was just a lofty dream some where in the future, but they didnt have the player base to support it. Now that the player base is there, T3 items will come out, and they will be about the cost that T2 items were previously. The question is - how do we as inventors, investors and market traders either make money, or not lose money in the months/year to come before T3. I dont know about the rest of you but Ive certainly lost a chunk of change in these market shifts.


Getting that from someone that must be a distant parent (Mul/Mule Wink) sadden me.

True, removing T2 BPo it will give some inventor better isk, but will kill most T2 diversity as all the low cost items will disappear or reach prohibitive costs.

Look the cost to invent T2 small or medium drones for example, or a multitude of other items. All the items that currently are sold under invention cost are build solely by T2 BPO and the market for them is so small that the demand is fully covered by the BPO.

If the BPO where removed most of them would not be produced as the demand is too low to make them worthwhile. The would simply be replaced by the best named version available.

Venitor
101st LST
Posted - 2007.11.22 03:56:00 - [76]
 

Edited by: Venitor on 22/11/2007 03:57:07
I purchased a while ago a "Draftsman" implant to boost my chances of an invention job succeeding. I learned later that the implants don't work yet, so I petitioned for it to be unplugged until it is working. Now I have an expensive (and useless) implant in my hanger...

Will the "Draftsman" invention implants work in the release of Trinity? Will they be added back into the LP stores?

Kind regards
Venitor
101st Light Strike Team

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2007.11.22 13:43:00 - [77]
 

Decryptor Changes

Going to use Amarr as the example, stating the changed attributes only:

Name : Prob Multiplier : ME Modifier
Formation Layout : 1.1 : +3
Classic Doctrine : 1.2 : +2
Sacred Manifesto : 1 : +1
Circular Logic : 0.6 : -2
War Strategon : 1.8 : -1


Originally by: Artmedis Valben

What about the electronic/mech engineering datacore combo inventions like drones?



They will be looked into as well when the time comes.

Originally by: Venitor

Will the "Draftsman" invention implants work in the release of Trinity?


sadly no, we have multiple issues with these which entail they are not straight forward to fix. They have not been forgotten about.


Dan Treva
Raptor Services LTD
Posted - 2007.11.22 21:45:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Decryptor Changes
Name : Prob Multiplier : ME Modifier
Formation Layout : 1.1 : +3
Classic Doctrine : 1.2 : +2
Sacred Manifesto : 1 : +1
Circular Logic : 0.6 : -2
War Strategon : 1.8 : -1



I think this is definately a step in the right direction for invention finally.

One question though...

Will the modifier of exist bpc's be modifed to the new attributes?

If I invent an Ishtar bpc today, with a -8 ME -3 PE, will it still be that way after the patch or will it revert to the -6 ME -3 PE?

El'essar Viocragh
Minmatar
Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik
Posted - 2007.11.23 00:32:00 - [79]
 

Edited by: El''essar Viocragh on 23/11/2007 04:37:09
Originally by: Dan Treva
If I invent an Ishtar bpc today, with a -8 ME -3 PE, will it still be that way after the patch or will it revert to the -6 ME -3 PE?
Of course, why should it be something else?

Your invention run creates a simple -8 ME database object.

It doesn't store how that object was generated and people that already built the items from these BPCs certainly won't get a components refund either.

El'essar Viocragh
Minmatar
Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik
Posted - 2007.11.23 07:42:00 - [80]
 

Quote:
A rant is just a useless rant unless you back it up with facts.


Point 1) of the post I critizised:
- the cost of t2 was high because of greed and the fact that the production times of t2 BPOs could not keep up with the demand. Thinking that they will now be able to supply the whole market below invention cost is naive. Other than that, BPO owners usually match the invention price so far and try to take every little rise because of sth along the invention chain. More profit.

Point 2) of the post I critizised:
- talking about first true competition, missing the fact that there have already a number of t2 items introduced that are invention only.

Point 3) of the post I critizised:
- just plain simply wrong and missing clue about the mechanics of exploration.
DevPost by CCP Greyscale to back me up

Satisfied?

Ischia
Posted - 2007.11.23 14:01:00 - [81]
 

Edited by: Ischia on 23/11/2007 14:01:17
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

Name : Prob Multiplier : ME Modifier
Formation Layout : 1.1 : +3
Classic Doctrine : 1.2 : +2
Sacred Manifesto : 1 : +1
Circular Logic : 0.6 : -2
War Strategon : 1.8 : -1



Nice; but really all this does is shift the bar slightly. eg. cerberus cost reduced from between 50 and 60m to between 40 and 50m.

Any details on the changed difficulty on frig/cruiser invention?

And I don't suppose you are considering allowing us to research BPC ME/PE?


Dangermouse DM
Caldari
Black River Industries
APEX Conglomerate
Posted - 2007.11.25 19:37:00 - [82]
 

Unless we know exactly what the base chance on inventing a firgate over a battleship is it makes it very difficult to work out what is profitable or not, why fiddle with those numbers at all surely datacore prices make that easier or harder?

Hardigeen
Posted - 2007.11.26 06:58:00 - [83]
 

Edited by: Hardigeen on 26/11/2007 06:58:31
I would like to reitarate the question regarding the supply of the rare moon minerals like Dysprosium. With the introduction of Invention, demand for the moon minerals increased many many times and this is now a problem when it comes to the rarest types. It caused 500% increase in price.

It is obvious that current supply does not meet the demand and I can only imagine what will happen after the next patch when people start producing tech 2 battleships. If you don't change the amount of, for example, Dysprosium in game, you will create a new monoply where only owners of Dysprosium moons will be able to produce some of the components.
Did anyone there thought about this problem down the production chain when you planed Invention and now adding tech 2 battleships and capital ships?

Vitaki
Rens 911
Posted - 2007.11.26 19:33:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: DHU InMe
Where are the complete formula for an invention ?

success rate and ME with:
-skills
-Decryptors
-t1, named module


Ahhhahahaha, thats an awesome joke there dude.

Abinadi
Gallente
Posted - 2007.11.28 18:16:00 - [85]
 

Get rid of T2 BPOs and I'll care.

Artmedis Valben
Gallente
Posted - 2007.11.30 12:17:00 - [86]
 

Edited by: Artmedis Valben on 30/11/2007 12:22:25
New Patch Notes reveal
The chance of inventing ship blueprints of smaller Tech II ship classes has been increased leading to a greater chance of success with frigate, destroyer, cruiser and battlecruiser invention.

Is there anyway of getting a heads up on the number of ship invention classes?
Will there be a seperate base invention chance increase on all of these ships to the same degree? Or can we expect two differing increases to chance, i.e., more base chance increase to small than medium ship classes. What about Industrials and Barges?

Chronotis mentioned:
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.

Will this also affect Industrials will they too be tiered according to size? Can we expect 5 different classes of Invention base chance for ship inventions??? If so please release the info on the base chances as otherwise all estimates for success rates will be very inaccurate until we have done hundreds of invention attempts on each ship size category Sad

As an example:
All frigates base chance = 30%
Destroyers, Blockade Runners, Shiff = 27,5%
Cruisers, Deep Space Transports, Mackinaw = 25%
Battlecruisers, Hulks, Jump Freighters = 22,5%
Battleships = 20%



Corporati Capitalis
Tollan Technologies
Posted - 2007.12.01 10:23:00 - [87]
 

The Citizens demand info about success chance and other invention formulae! Embarassed

Gamer4liff
Caldari
Metalworks
Majesta Empire
Posted - 2007.12.01 16:41:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Abinadi
Get rid of T2 BPOs and I'll care.


Getting rid of T2 BPOS would kill the T2 market at large, there are simply not enough inventors to supply the entire T2 market at reasonable prices. It would be bad for the game.

Seth Quantix
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2007.12.02 11:26:00 - [89]
 

f

Vardemis
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2007.12.03 12:39:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Aaron Min
Edited by: Aaron Min on 19/11/2007 17:52:43
Originally by: Aaron Min
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



I am sorry I need to clarify, I had posted that these were all at a 35% success rate. But, they weren't, I forgot we had upped the success rates on our sheets. The frigs are at a 70% success rate, the cruisers are at 50% success.

So unless you plan on doing better then that don't expect cruisers or frigs to be anymore invent able then they currently are. Unless you seed the market with cores or increase the core output of agents so that core prices go down. And you seed the market with decyptors or make finding decyptors so easy that they cost nearly nothing.

Frigs, destroyers and cruisers should have a higher base run result then bc and bs, please. I think modules base runs should be increased from 10 as well. Something like 20 on modules, 5 on frigs cruisers and destroyers, and 1 on bc,bs and higher.

Oh, and t2 rigs need fixing too :). Make it so t2 parts can be built from t1 parts. I know that might not be your department, but its a good idea.




Your numbers are way off, I am inventing HACs for a long time now, approaching my 1000th invention run overall for them and the complete buildcost, based on sell orders is at least 10m below your numbers.

- Vardemis


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