Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Atossa Exior
The Back Yard Twilight Federation
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:18:00 -
[31] - Quote
Quote:All Battleships, Industrial Command Ship have 25% Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20%
So confirmed T2 version of orca and rorqual? |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
731
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:18:00 -
[32] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Just as a note to people about Meta Items:
Module Teiricide is coming. All meta items will be useful (or removed if there's no way to have them being useful in comparison to other meta levels)
Don't have a timescale.
BFD CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
832
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:18:00 -
[33] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:Sure there was a surge of industry after the patch - people shut down weeks prior in order to not get raped over in the market after the changes. Show a graph of previous 6 months if you want cred CCP.
Going back 2 years and redrawing the same graph tells the same story. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
740
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:21:00 -
[34] - Quote
I'm kind of curious how you plan to refund interfaces, considering how stupendously worthless all the non-ship ones are. Not that it'll be much of a deal as the only people with any real amount of interfaces will be people betting on you over-compensating, but it'll be an interesting puzzle. What compensation do people need for a worthless item? |
Z1gy
Vindicator Corporation
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:23:00 -
[35] - Quote
if i choose to do a what is the correct term - a continuous 30 runs invention using the new system - is each run success being calculated separately or in batches?
Coz as some of the poster have said - once you run enough large sample - eventually the success rate wont matter as much for some of the items.
|
probag Bear
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:25:00 -
[36] - Quote
And on another topic:
The random element in Reverse Engineering is currently the only thing that's keeping it an interesting, profitable, and balanced market.
- Interesting: Players are given a stimulating problem to solve.
The calculations that determine what's optimal to Reverse Engineer are more complex than those needed for, say, invention. Yes, there are still algorithms that spell out the optimal course of action letter by letter. But they are more difficult to reach, and for some reason they are not shared with the public.
- Profitable: Capable players profit greatly, while incapable players lose money.
Probably due to the above point, profits tend to be high in Reverse Engineering. Running off of 12 characters, I can make a direct profit of ~3-4bil in ~5 hours (3 sessions of S&I, so ~47 minutes of actual playtime), buying directly from sell orders and dumping onto buy orders (no extra time spent babysitting market orders). I can only do this once every three weeks, sure, due to the low demand for T3 subs. But the fact that potential profit rises higher every week as long as I don't crash the market shows that players with better scripts receive greater rewards. Which is one of the fundamental tenets of Eve.
- Balanced:
"We are aware that Tech III subsystems are not all equally valuable right now" is a massive understatement.
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
832
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:25:00 -
[37] - Quote
Z1gy wrote:if i choose to do a what is the correct term - a continuous 30 runs invention using the new system - is each run success being calculated separately or in batches?
Coz as some of the poster have said - once you run enough large sample - eventually the success rate wont matter as much for some of the items.
Each run will have their success calculated separately. CCP Nullarbor //-áExotic Dancer-á// DEVGIFS |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:31:00 -
[38] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Querns wrote:Very glad to see meta items and data interfaces being removed from the invention process.
A question (if it can even be answered at this point): how will decryptors affect the new non-binary success chance? Since the non-binary success chance will be affected by anything that affects invention chance. Thus, decryptors with a high chance bonus may be worthwhile to use to try and get an exceptional result. However, as mentioned in the blog, we'll need to make sure Decryptors are properly balanced not to break things in the new system. So, the chance for each type of successful result would be increased at the same time?
E.g. (with fake numbers): I have a 50% chance to invent normally, with a 30% standard, 10% good, 7% great, and 3% exceptional. I add a decryptor that changes my success chance to 75% -- would that change my success "bands" to 45% standard, 15% good, 10.5% great, and 4.5% exceptional? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
222
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:32:00 -
[39] - Quote
Not liking the changes.
In my mind, anything that makes invention harder = good. Anything that makes it easier = bad. There are some exceptions to the rule, but generally, this is where the margins on T2 production come from. So you've got two things that qualify as good here. First, even if it's annoying, is the skill requirement rebalance. I may be sad that my Mechanics V skill won't be all that useful anymore, but eggs and omelets and all that. Second is the meta item removal. Lower chance of invention success means more time to successfully invent.
Now you go and muck it up by raising the invention chance for ships and including the new non-binary success chance. The dev blog states this is "quite needed to counteract the success changes," but it doesn't present any evidence of that assertion. The ability to have multiple invention runs alone could be enough. I find recovering datacores to be questionable, as they long ago lost 90% of their market value. This is just going to hit them again, which is another nerf to data sites.
In short, I was really hoping this was going to go the other direction. |
Z1gy
Vindicator Corporation
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:36:00 -
[40] - Quote
Tech 3 hull manufacturing - will you guys reducing the skill from racial starship engineering 5 to 1 as it requisite skill to build them?
i know for the subsystem you need jury rigging 5 as a requisite to build them
thanks |
|
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
731
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:36:00 -
[41] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:Sure there was a surge of industry after the patch - people shut down weeks prior in order to not get raped over in the market after the changes. Show a graph of previous 6 months if you want cred CCP.
Going back 2 years and redrawing the same graph tells the same story.
"show" CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Z1gy
Vindicator Corporation
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:38:00 -
[42] - Quote
Komi Toran wrote:Not liking the changes.
In my mind, anything that makes invention harder = good. Anything that makes it easier = bad. There are some exceptions to the rule, but generally, this is where the margins on T2 production come from. So you've got two things that qualify as good here. First, even if it's annoying, is the skill requirement rebalance. I may be sad that my Mechanics V skill won't be all that useful anymore, but eggs and omelets and all that. Second is the meta item removal. Lower chance of invention success means more time to successfully invent.
Now you go and muck it up by raising the invention chance for ships and including the new non-binary success chance. The dev blog states this is "quite needed to counteract the success changes," but it doesn't present any evidence of that assertion. The ability to have multiple invention runs alone could be enough. I find recovering datacores to be questionable, as they long ago lost 90% of their market value. This is just going to hit them again, which is another nerf to data sites.
In short, I was really hoping this was going to go the other direction.
it will hit the R&D agent and the faction warfare farmers hard. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1517
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:38:00 -
[43] - Quote
The announcement of chained invention runs makes me both scared and excited. It's probably gonna crush the margin without a significant increase in invention times (takes longer the more runs are chained together.
Other than that, sad to see meta loot gone, it was never a good feature, but always a nice twist.
I like the new partial failure thing.
And I really wonder what I should speculate on :D Build your empire ! Start today ! Rent Space in Perrigen Falls and Feythabolis Contact me for details :)
|
Zimmy Zeta
Lisa Needs Braces.
47208
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:41:00 -
[44] - Quote
I like the new non-binary invention outcomes, makes it a little more interesting.
One thing I always wanted since I started with invention was to have the option to deliberately spend additional datacores for a slightly improved invention chance, maybe this could be implemented, too?
Also glad to hear that you are going to take another look at decryptors... some of them feel just incredibly useless to me, a rebalancing would be really appreciated. I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
|
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
200
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:44:00 -
[45] - Quote
Any chance you can make all the pictures of the module group in the blog be the same module/market group for those who have zero previous experience in industry/science? Would simplify things's fantastically. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3696
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:46:00 -
[46] - Quote
Querns wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Querns wrote:Very glad to see meta items and data interfaces being removed from the invention process.
A question (if it can even be answered at this point): how will decryptors affect the new non-binary success chance? Since the non-binary success chance will be affected by anything that affects invention chance. Thus, decryptors with a high chance bonus may be worthwhile to use to try and get an exceptional result. However, as mentioned in the blog, we'll need to make sure Decryptors are properly balanced not to break things in the new system. So, the chance for each type of successful result would be increased at the same time? E.g. (with fake numbers): I have a 50% chance to invent normally, with a 30% standard, 10% good, 7% great, and 3% exceptional. I add a decryptor that changes my success chance to 75% -- would that change my success "bands" to 45% standard, 15% good, 10.5% great, and 4.5% exceptional?
Yes. Granular outcomes are based on the standard chance to succeed. If standard chance goes up, so does the others as you explained. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:48:00 -
[47] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: How about breaking it down showing how much was done in high sec pre and post Crius. Or how many characters are doing industry today (and not 1 week's worth to test out the new system), as opposed to 1 year ago, and where they are located. Maybe that would explain the drop in the PCU.
They actually did this during the Alliance Tournament -- during a break between fights, CCP Greyscale showed some charts with industry breakdown before and after Crius along highsec / lowsec / nullsec lines. There wasn't much change -- both sides showed 80-85% highsec, 15-20% nullsec. (I don't recall the exact amount, sorry.) Total job count increased in highsec's favor very slightly ( < 1% ) and total job minutes increased in nullsec's favor very slightly ( < 1% ).
Incidentally, despite having access to superlative facilities in nullsec, I'm doing all of my manufacturing in highsec, because, surprise surprise, nullsec's shipping costs make my particular industry a non-starter. I'm turning over hundreds of billions of isk a week and pocketing 5-10% margin for my troubles. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
DaOpa
Static Corp
38
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:49:00 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Panteraa wrote:Are there plans to change T2 BPO's? I'm not looking for details, I'm just curious if a change is on the timeline. We are not happy with them in general - what would exactly happen to them and when remains quite undefined for now.
Wow, this is exactly what I dont want to hear - a Undefined answer, no clarity - nothing ..
Keep it simple -
Either totally remove T2 BPO's
or
During Invention, have a rare chance to spawn a BPO instead of a BPC
Other changes that need to happen for industry since the removal of slots is to change the caps on how many jobs you can have ...
Max Level Science / Manufacture Jobs at 11 - to low, update this higher.
I personally would like to see "caps" removed, since there is no more slot limitations.
DaOpa's EVE Fansite ||Wormhole Database / Wormhole Systems Lookup Tool ||Live Streamer at twitch.tv/daopa |
Fade Toblack
Per.ly The 20 Minuters
72
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:51:00 -
[49] - Quote
On the skill changes, http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66476/1/Newskillreq2.png - it would make more sense for "Advanced Battleship Construction" to have "Battleship Construction" as a pre-req rather than "Cruiser Construction".
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 15:53:00 -
[50] - Quote
Considering that "Battleship Construction" is being transformed into "Advanced Battleship Construction," that'd be impossible. :V This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Fade Toblack
Per.ly The 20 Minuters
72
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:01:00 -
[51] - Quote
Querns wrote:Considering that "Battleship Construction" is being transformed into "Advanced Battleship Construction," that'd be impossible. :V
Ah in that case, CCP need to improve the confusing image I linked, because it still lists "Cruiser Construction" as a pre-req for "Advanced Battleship Construction". |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
1042
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:04:00 -
[52] - Quote
Well, for the most part things look very good.
But the changes to base invention chance have me very confused.
Freighters are currently grouped with frigates and destroyers with a base of 30%.
The new invention chances do not list "Freighters" specifically, but I assume they will fall under Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20%". Although they are NOT listed as capital industrial ships in the market tree. If they are, that will be a huge negative impact for jump freighters, are they not expensive enough already?
This title just seems odd to me, as there are no other ships in this catagory with a T2 variant. the only "capital" ship industrial or otherwise with a T2 variant is freighters>>Jump freighters.
Also this one"All Battleships, Industrial Command Ship have 25%"
What industrial command ships are there? The ORCA is the only one I can think of as the Roqual should fit under the capital industrial ship catigory with the freighters. However neither the ORCA or the Roqual blueprints can be invented from, so the invention chance does not apply to them.
Why list ships here that do not have a T2 variant that can be invented? Should we expect T2 ORCA's, Roquals, Dreads, and Carriers, coming so that these new invention chances would have something to be applied to?
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:07:00 -
[53] - Quote
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:Well, for the most part things look very good.
But the changes to base invention chance have me very confused.
Freighters are currently grouped with frigates and destroyers with a base of 30%.
The new invention chances do not list "Freighters" specifically, but I assume they will fall under Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20%". Although they are NOT listed as capital industrial ships in the market tree. If they are, that will be a huge negative impact for jump freighters, are they not expensive enough already?
This title just seems odd to me, as there are no other ships in this catagory with a T2 variant. the only "capital" ship industrial or otherwise with a T2 variant is freighters>>Jump freighters.
Also this one"All Battleships, Industrial Command Ship have 25%"
What industrial command ships are there? The ORCA is the only one I can think of as the Roqual should fit under the capital industrial ship catigory with the freighters. However neither the ORCA or the Roqual blueprints can be invented from, so the invention chance does not apply to them.
Why list ships here that do not have a T2 variant that can be invented? Should we expect T2 ORCA's, Roquals, Dreads, and Carriers, coming so that these new invention chances would have something to be applied to?
I kinda doubt they are specifically planning new T2 ships as a result of this change. Listing the chances like this just lets them have that work done now in case they want to do it later, if at all. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3696
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:10:00 -
[54] - Quote
Fade Toblack wrote:Querns wrote:Considering that "Battleship Construction" is being transformed into "Advanced Battleship Construction," that'd be impossible. :V Ah in that case, CCP need to improve the confusing image I linked, because it still lists "Cruiser Construction" as a pre-req for "Advanced Battleship Construction".
Yes, those should be "Advanced Battleship Construction" and "Advanced Cruiser Construction" on the screenshot |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3696
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:13:00 -
[55] - Quote
Querns wrote:Bugsy VanHalen wrote:Well, for the most part things look very good.
But the changes to base invention chance have me very confused.
Freighters are currently grouped with frigates and destroyers with a base of 30%.
The new invention chances do not list "Freighters" specifically, but I assume they will fall under Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships have 20%". Although they are NOT listed as capital industrial ships in the market tree. If they are, that will be a huge negative impact for jump freighters, are they not expensive enough already?
This title just seems odd to me, as there are no other ships in this catagory with a T2 variant. the only "capital" ship industrial or otherwise with a T2 variant is freighters>>Jump freighters.
Also this one"All Battleships, Industrial Command Ship have 25%"
What industrial command ships are there? The ORCA is the only one I can think of as the Roqual should fit under the capital industrial ship catigory with the freighters. However neither the ORCA or the Roqual blueprints can be invented from, so the invention chance does not apply to them.
Why list ships here that do not have a T2 variant that can be invented? Should we expect T2 ORCA's, Roquals, Dreads, and Carriers, coming so that these new invention chances would have something to be applied to?
I kinda doubt they are specifically planning new T2 ships as a result of this change. Listing the chances like this just lets them have that work done now in case they want to do it later, if at all.
Yep, that's why we wanted to keep the groups vague, in case we want to add something in the future.
For clarity purposes, Freighters belong in the Capitals and Capital Industrial Ships group for the invention chance, so yes, it's a reduction in success rate. |
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1278
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:22:00 -
[56] - Quote
Interesting changes indeed.
I think however that polishing invention could've been the opportunity to completely remove RNG-based elements, as they provide no benefits to gameplay or enjoyment whatsoever. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
51
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:33:00 -
[57] - Quote
When do I get to invent with an industrial command ship BPC and what will it do?!?! :-D |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
149
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:34:00 -
[58] - Quote
Hmmm
As far as I know industrial command ship and Capital Industrial Ship do not have a T2 version, yet are specifically listed
Spoiler alert maybe with some rebalancing?? Fozzie said Rorqual rebalance coming soon?? |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
184
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:35:00 -
[59] - Quote
Kynric wrote:Are there any plans to add value to data sites to compensate for the loss of data interface related drops?
Since the exploration mini-game was introduced the selling price of those interface BPCs is miniscule. Remember when the ship ones sold for 120 million ISK each ? Or was it 150 million ISK each - I forget. Admittedely those were silly prices but after the mini-game it went completely the other way. |
Qoi
Exert Force
95
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 16:35:00 -
[60] - Quote
The multiple invention runs change was long awaited and will do very crazy things to the market
Will Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II still be the only blueprint with a default number of 20 output runs on invented blueprints? http://eve-industry.org |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |