open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Adding Variety to the Market Through A New Invention Mechanic
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.05.01 16:11:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Tarminic on 01/05/2008 16:15:31
Recently I read Lavista Vista's Reflections on the State of the Economy Part 2 and he suggested that competition needs to become more dynamic than it currently is - different corporations should be able to produce items of different quality and build a brand identity. How do we do this?


Create a new invention mechanic! let's call it something neat, like "Progressive Invention" This mechanic requires the following items:
1. A Tech 1 Ship Blueprint
2. X Number of a certain datacore (X is dependent on ship size)
3. X Number of a certain other datacore (X is dependent on ship size)
4. One research database of the appropriate corporation
5. One Ship interface of the appropriate type

Using this mechanic, the result of the invention will be:
1. Either the original ship blueprint (failed)
OR
2. A modified blueprint with one additional static bonus applied to it (successful)

The static bonus applied to it will depend upon the datacores used and the research database used.

These bonuses will be applied directly to the BPO, but will not be without any drawback. Each bonus will either:
1. Increase the requirements of one or more player-produced construction material (Trit, Mexalllon)
2. Introduce one or more new player-produced construction components (Melted Capacitor Consoles, Alloyed Tritanium Bars)

Examples (Raven):
Modification: +5% Damage to Cruise Missiles
Drawback: +25% Required Nocxium
Datacores: Rocket Science, Caldari Starship Engineering
Research DB: Lai Dai Corporation

Modification: 5% To Shield Resistances
Drawback: +25% Required Tritanium
Datacores: Hydromagnetic Physics, Caldari Starship Engineering
Research DB: Ishukone Corporation

Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.05.01 16:13:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Tarminic on 01/05/2008 16:13:04
Edited by: Tarminic on 01/05/2008 16:12:52
Why Player Produced Components
Since player-produced components are much more volatile than static components, it adds an additional dimension to production because the cost of manufacturing that version of the ship will vary depending on the market. For example: It may not be profitable to produce a ship with a 25% increase in required Tritanium right now, but that blueprint might be useful in the future if Tritanium prices drop.

How CCP Can Implement This without Exploding the Database
This is actually surprisingly simple! Each blueprint has 4 attributes added to them (applied universally to all blueprints) - modification1 through modification4. Each of these attributes will correlate with an entry in a database table of modifications - if there are no modifications present, the default would be -1 or another ID that would indicate that there is no modification applied. All manufactured items will also have the modification1 to modification4 attributes and reference the same database table. The table in question would contain the bonus applied and the requirement. There will be another SQL subquery that will be made but the overall entries in the bonus database will only be around a thousand so access times will be fairly small (comparatively).

I Buy Ships - How Will This Benefit Me?
You'll have more options when making ship purchases - by paying an additional cost you can get a ship with a small additional bonus to suit your needs. Want your raven to do more damage? Spend some extra ISK and purchase one with a 5% modification to missile damage. This will also help bridge the gap between T1 ships, Faction ships, and T2 ships by allowing you to pay a premium for better functionality other than the 400-1000% markup for faction ships or the 500-2500% Markup for T2 ships.

I Sell Ships - How Will This Help Me?
You'll have more means by which to compete other than selling your ships at the best market and having the best-researched BPO. In addition to building a brand by creating customized versions of ships, you'll have to make a decision regarding the demand for said ship vs. the increased cost of producing it. Basically, more choices, but better choices. And if you don't want to think that much, just keep doing what you're doing now.

How Will This Be Represented in the Interface?
This is a bit more complex, but I believe that we can create an additional market tab that will be used specifically to display modified ships. In addition to displaying ships in a sequential list or through Icons, it would display the additional bonus. I suck with UI design, however, so I'd leave this to those better qualified than myself.




TL;DR Version
Using invention, we can create different versions of ships that will have additional benefits but additional construction costs that will vary based on market conditions. This makes industry more interesting, gives players more choices, and helps bridge the gap between the low cost of T1 ships and the high cost of T2/Faction ships.

Feedback is appreciated, as always!

Robert Rosenberg
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2008.05.01 16:14:00 - [3]
 

I am hesitant to give T2 ships a fifth bonus, and in addition to that this is something that puts T2 BPO-holders at a large advantage over inventors (unless you meant BPC modification too)

Grarr Dexx
Amarr
Kumovi
The G0dfathers
Posted - 2008.05.01 16:15:00 - [4]
 

While the blueprint database part will not explode through your so-called 'solution', have you thought of the actual item/ship database parts? Adding up to four variations of each ship AND item will be fatal for the database.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.05.01 16:17:00 - [5]
 

I fully approve this service/product! Cool

Lord Haur
Amarr
Grim Determination
Posted - 2008.05.01 16:18:00 - [6]
 

How are you supposed to quickly tell the difference between a normal Raven and, sya, the Lai Dai one unless the name is something like Lai Dai Issue Raven? Show info? but that would take too long/be extra lag in fleet fights...

Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.05.01 16:19:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Robert Rosenberg
I am hesitant to give T2 ships a fifth bonus, and in addition to that this is something that puts T2 BPO-holders at a large advantage over inventors (unless you meant BPC modification too)

This would be for T1 ships only - anything else would create additional balancing headaches in my opinion.

Originally by: Grarr Dexx
While the blueprint database part will not explode through your so-called 'solution', have you thought of the actual item/ship database parts? Adding up to four variations of each ship AND item will be fatal for the database.

I believe that you can use the same method for packaged and unpackaged items that I used for blueprints. Each packaged or unpackaged ship would have the 4 modification attributes that would either be null or have an ID of the upgrade/modification table. Of course, I don't know CCP's data structure so I can't be sure..

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2008.05.01 16:30:00 - [8]
 

I like the idea, but see a few problems/issues....

1. The market would need to be remade. Currently there is one of each type meaning the market is big, but easy to navigate. If there are seven-eleventy types of each ship type (and maybe modules too), it's going to be much harder.

2. I don't like it that there's no risk involved in doing this. How about the blueprint actually 'degrading' in approximately half the 'BP changed' cases?

3. In general it is not good to just make things better in a game as it causes feature inflation. Before something like this is done all T1 items should be 'reduced' in capabilities so the overall effect is null. Otherwise you'll just make ISK-making easier as ships are 'better' (ie. tanks missions better, mines more ore.... whatever...).

4. You didn't come right out and say so, but what is your opinion on doing this multiple times on one BPO? Personally I'd think that to be way too powerful.

Lord Haur
Amarr
Grim Determination
Posted - 2008.05.01 16:37:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Lord Haur on 01/05/2008 16:37:15
This could be implemented as a way of making limited-run BPC's of named items. I'm thinking maybe using the same requirements for all named items, but the chance of creating the new BPC is different, maybe 50% for no change, 20% for meta 1, 15% for meta 2, 10% for meta 3 and 5% for meta 4? Also, these new blueprints should have increased material costs (maybe increased skill costs too), and perhaps the ME and PE are reset to zero. What do you guys think?

DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
Posted - 2008.05.01 16:45:00 - [10]
 

True variety will happen when ship classes stop being so similar to one another, not by including more ships and more bonuses.

Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.05.01 17:16:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
1. The market would need to be remade. Currently there is one of each type meaning the market is big, but easy to navigate. If there are seven-eleventy types of each ship type (and maybe modules too), it's going to be much harder.

Agreed.

My line of thinking is that there would be an additional tab specifically for modified items to keep them from absolutely breaking the current market interface - possibly a different window that you could expand when you selected a different ship. To be honest, I wasn't really thinking much about the interface when I developed this idea. It's definitely a problem that will need to be solved.

Quote:
2. I don't like it that there's no risk involved in doing this. How about the blueprint actually 'degrading' in approximately half the 'BP changed' cases?

There's just as much risk in this as there is in Invention - you need the initial investment of the Research Database, plus the datacores for each attempt. Keep in mind that the R. DB + the datacores does not give you an automatic success. In fact, I'd say that the chances of success should be much lower than with ship invention. Obviously any numbers we're talking about would be subject to balancing.

Quote:
3. In general it is not good to just make things better in a game as it causes feature inflation. Before something like this is done all T1 items should be 'reduced' in capabilities so the overall effect is null. Otherwise you'll just make ISK-making easier as ships are 'better' (ie. tanks missions better, mines more ore.... whatever...).

I don't think this is an issue. Why?
T2 and Faction ships are already superior to T1 ships in most respects, but at a much, much higher cost. Currently the progression is:
T1 Ship for X isk
Faction Ship for 10X ISK
T2 Ship for 5X-25X ISK

These modified T1 ships will never be better than their T2 or faction counterparts, but they will bridge the gap between them instead of going from a 100 million ISK Raven to a 600 million ISK Navy Raven (just an example), they'll have an alternative that is slightly better but not overpowered for it's cost.

These modified ships should never be superior to faction or T2 ships in ability, and they should never be superior to T1 ships in their cost vs. benefit.


Quote:
4. You didn't come right out and say so, but what is your opinion on doing this multiple times on one BPO? Personally I'd think that to be way too powerful.


Well, that depends. I think that it would be more interesting to allow several bonuses to be added on, but there would obviously have to be some kind of limit - 4 modifications as the highest.

Remember that these bonuses wouldn't be 5% per racial ship level, they're 5% static bonuses. Therefore, even if you had 4 modifications to increase damage the best you would get out of it is 20% better damage, at 2-4 times the base cost of the T1 ship.

Thanks for the input. Smile

Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.05.01 17:45:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Lord Haur
How are you supposed to quickly tell the difference between a normal Raven and, sya, the Lai Dai one unless the name is something like Lai Dai Issue Raven? Show info? but that would take too long/be extra lag in fleet fights...

You would be able to see the information under the attributes tab - that would list the bonuses.

But more importantly, should this information be readily apparent? I don't see it as being any different than not being able to determine whether a ship is rigged or not without using a ship scanner. That's just my opinion, however.

Blue Disk
Posted - 2008.05.02 03:44:00 - [13]
 

I think they should do this, but introduce it subtly. Don't tell anyone. Just maybe make a pirate drop an item nobody has heard of, and let that be a hint of what is required to build this component. Then maybe make a news item about some new inventions and drop a few hints. Make people explore, make the items add intrigue and curiosity to what someone might be equipped with.

Thanos Draicon
Wolf Pack Mentality
Blood and Steel
Posted - 2008.05.05 13:28:00 - [14]
 

I've been ordered to bump this. Very Happy

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.05 14:02:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 05/05/2008 14:09:24
I would much rather have more faction ships[and have them more available], but these limitations could really work fairly decently. As well, since the drawbacks could all be on the production side you've only got the extra bonuses to contend with and the extra stuff could all be lost to the void when refining.

Very good, especially if the bonuses are kept few and low.

ed: i would say that if you were able to add bonuses you should not be able to add the same bonus or same type of bonus 4 times.[as well i might cap at 2 bonuses].

This is because some things will start adding up much differently. E.G. 4x modified resistance rokh would have +38% resist all. A 4x modified optimal apoc would shoot 75km with pulse lasers before tracking mods. As well it creates large scale balance changes which may or may not be good, so keeping the numbers very low is a much better idea.

Tac Ginaz
Gallente
Liberation Army
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:05:00 - [16]
 

All you need to do is copy STAR WARS GALAXIES pre-CU crafting system.

Adapted to EVE it'd be like:

Character has research/invention skills and production skills. Let's say he is building a snowball launcher and wants to make snowball tech2 as well.

To craft the snowball tech 1, he gathers the resources needed. Water, liquid nitrogen, metal scraps. First, he must make a BPC.

When he puts the bpo into the invention slot and the resources, there are 'optional' materials he can add. The materials are rat-dropped data-cores and burnt-out items (from salvage) These materials come in different qualities... from poor quality to excellent quality.

Player adds the optional materials to the system. The next screen gives the player the option of assigning 'points' to the item's attributes.

Power Grid
CPU
Refire Rate
Ammo Capacity
Ammo Type (aka can load T1 or T2 ammo)

Based on the quality of the optional materials and the player's own skill at research/invention, the output will be a NAMED snowball launcher tech 1...the computer will name it according to the TWO attributes it had the most improvement on by the optional materials.

For example, if player put all points to launcher could fire T2 ammo and had a higher refire rate, it'd be 'Advanced Automatic Launcher' .. if put points on ammo load and power grid it'd be 'High Capacity Efficient Launcher'

By mixing his player skills with loot items, the player turns out a BPC that he can make a hundred or so such items of. Like in star wars galaxies, many players will eventually settle on their 'specialty' items because they alone know the 'mix' of resources and the appropiate invention skill point allocation to create a specific item.

But that is not all. Once the BPC is created, the player can then add ANOTHER level of improvements in the PRODUCTION of the item.

When putting the item in the production slot, he has additional 'optional' items.

The production line optional items do not affect the attributes of the finished product, but it will affect the AMOUNT and TIME of the output. Again, the optional items used here are drops from the game, they are not harvestable.

So a player can add Gas-Cloud Fumes drop item to the production to increase the speed the item is produced.. or Nanite Assemblers to increase the # of items built (from say 100 which is base BPC max production to 150).


Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Eclats de verre
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:40:00 - [17]
 

Ship modification at building time could be done at this cost :

-Loosing a rig slot
-A mineral cost (basic minerals, T2 components or salvage stuff, we don't care, just some price comparable to rigs) increased of 20M but no insurance cover for this.

Then, it's a kind of pre-rigged ship with a lower bonus but no drawback.

The normal but rigged ship would have same cost, better improvement, but suffer the malus.

I guess it could be ok, just have to see if calibration has to be reduced?

Thanos Draicon
Wolf Pack Mentality
Blood and Steel
Posted - 2008.05.06 12:55:00 - [18]
 

Bumping this for Tarminic. Smile

Raven Timoshenko
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.05.06 13:12:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Raven Timoshenko on 06/05/2008 13:20:57
Might I suggest a possible solution? Instead of having multiple variants and thereby exploding the DB, what you do is research a specific bonus say 5% additional damage to hybrid turrets. - it would be like a BPO - lets call it a Schematic upgrade.

Now in order to firstly create a Schematic upgrade you naturally have to have the relevant skills and the needed materials data cores etc.

You then do the research and this produces the one time use BP that you combine with a ship. The produces a modified ship which will have higher values, skill relevance not withstanding.

These Schematic Upgrades can also then be sold on the market, where players can purchase them and apply them to their own ships, provided they have the relevant mats.

This is a rough idea but you get the picture - it adds an additional dynamic without necessarily increasing the DB exponentially.

Repackaging the ship however, removes the upgrade.


Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Eclats de verre
Posted - 2008.05.06 13:37:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Eleana Tomelac on 06/05/2008 13:38:49
Originally by: Raven Timoshenko
Edited by: Raven Timoshenko on 06/05/2008 13:20:57
Might I suggest a possible solution? Instead of having multiple variants and thereby exploding the DB, what you do is research a specific bonus say 5% additional damage to hybrid turrets. - it would be like a BPO - lets call it a Schematic upgrade.

Now in order to firstly create a Schematic upgrade you naturally have to have the relevant skills and the needed materials data cores etc.

You then do the research and this produces the one time use BP that you combine with a ship. The produces a modified ship which will have higher values, skill relevance not withstanding.

These Schematic Upgrades can also then be sold on the market, where players can purchase them and apply them to their own ships, provided they have the relevant mats.

This is a rough idea but you get the picture - it adds an additional dynamic without necessarily increasing the DB exponentially.

Repackaging the ship however, removes the upgrade.




It looks like a rig...

Whatever the system is made in, the DB behind doesn't have to follow the exact invention/industrial process. At the end, it can still be small in the DB, the issue is not there.

The real question is how far Chronotis wants to go in the industry revamp? He posted something here.

Xiu Dan
Gallente
Hell's Boundaries
Posted - 2008.05.06 13:40:00 - [21]
 

Database nightmare.

Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Eclats de verre
Posted - 2008.05.06 13:45:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Xiu Dan
Database nightmare.


A so huge thing against the idea...

What if we... Propose ideas and let the guys at CCP designing the database decide?

Variety is good, I hope we get some!

Raven Timoshenko
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.05.06 13:57:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Eleana Tomelac

It looks like a rig...

Whatever the system is made in, the DB behind doesn't have to follow the exact invention/industrial process. At the end, it can still be small in the DB, the issue is not there.

The real question is how far Chronotis wants to go in the industry revamp? He posted something


The point here is that the bonus will scale by the ship skill, which is what I think the OP wants.

Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2008.05.06 14:10:00 - [24]
 

Variations that enable you to do some of your own branding or choices sound an excellent idea. As others have already discussed, the devil is in the details of making it balanced and keeping it simple.

Some points to consider:
  • Any bonuses must all be useful to someone, or everyone will just use the 'best' bonus in their modified blueprint.

  • Bonuses should ideally not compete directly with rigs (almost impossible) or less ideally, confer some benefit that rigs can't (or less drawbacks etc.)

  • As Goumindong pointed out, bonuses should probably not be stackable to any extent sufficient to be unbalancing.

  • At the moment true invention applies to an awful lot of T1 BPOs - whilst I agree that limiting this new modifying process to ships is probably easy, it begs the question where should you draw the line? Ammo that can be subtly longer range or more damage? Could T2 Invention also benefit from this mechanic, producing T2 subtly modified BPCs?

I do love the notion of, to pick a ship & corp names at random, Apocalypses produced by Dynatech Industries Inc are leaning towards armour tanking with some armour bonuses, vs Apocalypses produced by CorpTech are tending towards sniping with some range or damage bonuses (corp names intended to be fictional).

Thanos Draicon
Wolf Pack Mentality
Blood and Steel
Posted - 2008.05.06 16:16:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Xiu Dan
Database nightmare.

He just explained how you could do it without creating big problems for the database...Laughing

Natsume Chidori
Posted - 2008.05.06 16:26:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Natsume Chidori on 06/05/2008 16:33:23
Edited by: Natsume Chidori on 06/05/2008 16:32:50
Hey guys - Tarminic posting on a friend's account (Don't worry, he gave me permission Wink).
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth
  • Any bonuses must all be useful to someone, or everyone will just use the 'best' bonus in their modified blueprint.


  • This is a difficult thing to figure out honestly. With any change to a stat, there will always be a "better" and a "best" version of some kind. I don't think we should try and force people into just one of three or four bonuses because it also makes it easier to produce a useful/most useful version, lowering the barrier to entry (which is something I want to keep fairly high).

    Quote:
  • Bonuses should ideally not compete directly with rigs (almost impossible) or less ideally, confer some benefit that rigs can't (or less drawbacks etc.)


  • See above. Probably not possible, though one potential drawback of these additions could be less calibration points.

    Quote:
  • At the moment true invention applies to an awful lot of T1 BPOs - whilst I agree that limiting this new modifying process to ships is probably easy, it begs the question where should you draw the line? Ammo that can be subtly longer range or more damage? Could T2 Invention also benefit from this mechanic, producing T2 subtly modified BPCs?


  • For right now I'm only considering how this system would work with ships. However, it's entirely possible that this system could be applied to items just as easily, but I'm not tackling the specifics of how that would work.
    Regarding T2 invention, I don't think this mechanic should be capable of being used on T2 ships. It creates another level of balancing concerns and gives T2 BPO-holders too much of an advantage as you need a BPO in order to have a chance of creating a modified version.

    Quote:
    I do love the notion of, to pick a ship & corp names at random, Apocalypses produced by Dynatech Industries Inc are leaning towards armour tanking with some armour bonuses, vs Apocalypses produced by CorpTech are tending towards sniping with some range or damage bonuses (corp names intended to be fictional).

    That's part of the idea, yeah. Smile

    Regarding database issues...yeah, please read my entire post. I just explained how this could be done without creating database problems. Rolling Eyes

    MasterDecoy
    Gallente
    The Scope
    Posted - 2008.05.07 07:21:00 - [27]
     

    an idea goum likes - you don't see that everyday Very Happy

    bump

    Thanos Draicon
    Wolf Pack Mentality
    Blood and Steel
    Posted - 2008.05.07 13:48:00 - [28]
     

    Bump!

    Thanos Draicon
    Wolf Pack Mentality
    Blood and Steel
    Posted - 2008.05.07 20:41:00 - [29]
     

    Another bump for tarm.

    000Hunter000
    Gallente
    Missiles 'R' Us
    Posted - 2008.05.07 22:02:00 - [30]
     

    tar, allthough this idea is pretty complex and would prolly upset the market quite a bit, i think it is a wonderfull idea.

    mebbe just the ability to switch the bonus of the ship to something else instead of adding bonusses.


    Pages: [1] 2

    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