| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (10)

Posted: Dec 20th 2009 7:48PM Yoh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Is it just me, or is the disparaging difference between tech 1,2, and 3, a complete cluster-fuck?

Not only do they not work at all similar, but they also have zero basis in reality.
I swear, they couldn't have come up with a more hamhanded system for item creation if they tried.

It's just unnecessarily complicated and confusing, for little other reason then to be complicated and confusing.


And people wonder why I find EVE boring as hell.
Unless you get off on economics that is.


~Yoh

Posted: Dec 21st 2009 6:44AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You have to be aware that T2/T3 really are just convenient phrases to refer to things that are fundamentally different. If you look at the back-story for the T2 stuff it clearly indicates that it's basically just improved tech. For T3 you're looking at completely alien tech so the system is, understandably, very different for it.

That said.. the invention system does suffer from a lot of things that are there more for game balance and to drag folks out into low/null sec rather than as actual integral parts of the 'game reality'
Reply

Posted: Dec 21st 2009 4:15PM Yoh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well I realize that they refer to different technologies, but every time a new tech is introduced, and completely new/arbitrary set of systems to build such tech are also introduced.
As if knowledge can't carry over from one task to another.

This is very wasteful and overly complicated, for little other reason the lore it seems.

Also to be noted, that you never seem to get any better at creating these new kinds of tech, ie, new ways to build the same thing without such a roundabout method.


For example, in reality we don't need a blueprint every time we need to build, say a car. We might need one in the beginning, for the prototype.

But after that you build a factor, which in itself IS a blueprint for building that particular car, among others. From there all you need are the parts, and the parts are made in other factors that use raw materials.
And so on.


When new technology comes along we may have to adopt new ways of thinking and working, but over time we streamline the process and fit it into our infrastructure.


EVE stops at step 1 here.


~Yoh
Reply

Posted: Dec 21st 2009 4:18PM Yoh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Edit: factor = factory, that was where I was going.


Damn massively needs an edit button, come on guys!
Reply

Posted: Dec 22nd 2009 8:37PM Brendan Drain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Tech 2 research used to be identical to Tech 1, except for a few extra skills and material components required. The only difference was the availability of blueprint originals. Where tech 1 ones can be bought on the market, Tech 2 ones were limited to a lottery style system. There were a lot of problems with the lottery, including a case of developer misconduct. But since Tech 2 was intended to be the first entirely player-run market, from blueprints all the way up to minerals and the production chains, they didn't want to just sell the blueprints for ISK. They eventually settled on the completely different "Invention" mechanic as a way to handle the tech 2 market while keeping it player-run.

Looking at it now, research seems worlds apart between tech 1 and 2. But these systems weren't created as they are today. At one point all we had was tech 1. The tech 2 and 3 research systems have been designed, redesigned, changed, updated and modified over the years to reach the point they have today. If they were to completely revamp research now they could possibly make a system whereby research is more congruent between the tech levels but there's no real reason to.
Reply

Posted: Dec 24th 2009 3:41AM Yoh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You make a persuasive argument Brendan, however it failed to address tech 3.

Is tech 2 better then it used to be? Yes, of coarse, I'm not disputing that.
But is it still good?

If it we're just tech 1 and 2, while not ideal, it functions well enough, so it's not all that bad.


However, with the advent of tech 3, it highlights the flaws within the entire system.
With each new level of tech, the industry becomes more and more convoluted, and each being profoundly more difficult to understand let alone perform then the last.

What will tech 4 or 5 look like at this pace? Not logical or simple, that much is certain.


I think the time will come where the system as a whole, would not some much be redesigned, as streamlined, as to be comprehensible to most players, and most definitely at least accessible.

As it stands, tech 1 is overly simple, tech 2 doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it works, and tech 3 is damn near undecipherable.
(any surprise market rates for t3 we're vastly higher then projected likely cost?)


In short after all my bitching. In terms of game design, the system is complicated and messy, and that makes it boring to most.
If they want EVE to grow, the industry has to grow, and it can't do that if most people can't understand it.
Or at least they shouldn't have to take a 6 month correspondence coarse just to figure it out.
Kinda goes against the point of a 'game'.

That's how I feel at least.


~Yoh
Reply

Posted: Dec 24th 2009 11:46AM Brendan Drain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'd have to disagree that Tech 3 research is more complex, it's pretty much the same system as Tech 2 just with different items. I've had some experience with Tech 3 and Reverse Engineering, which I'll cover in next week's column. I also believe that complexity is something which draws people to EVE more than it pushes them away. It's thanks to that complexity and the game designs we currently have that some emergent markets have popped up. Being good at these aspects of EVE isn't just a matter of who has grinded their skills to the maximum level or who has bought the most rare crafting recipes, it's literally restricted only by someone's ability and willingness to learn and figure the markets out. For me, that's a big draw to EVE's sandbox universe.
Reply

Posted: Dec 21st 2009 8:20AM cchance said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
the only thing i see wrong with invention is the fact that BPC's arent researchable (ME and PE wise) i'd love to invent a 100 BPC's and then research up their ME, but alas its not possible.

Posted: Dec 22nd 2009 8:41PM Brendan Drain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They did mention the possibility of this in 2008 and I think that would be fantastic but they never did anything about it. The ME/PE divide is the only thing keeping some BPOs nominally profitable but it's also a point of contention with inventors of low-volume goods where the BPOs are largely sufficient to supply demand. I'd love to see it happen, personally.
Reply

Posted: Dec 23rd 2009 1:24AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For anyone interested in exploring invention, it can actually be much cheaper than using BPOs in T1 production. You can buy low run BPCs on the contract market and also buy datacores (best luck in Jita...) so all you need are the skills trained up enough to have a decent chance of success!

Breaking News

Breaking News

Massively-that-was


Featured Stories

EVE Evolved: The end of EVE Evolved

Posted on Feb 1st 2015 6:00PM

Massively Speaking Episode 331: The long goodbye

Posted on Jan 31st 2015 4:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW