Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente TarNec Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 07:17:00 -
[1]
Just finished listening to an old podcast with Athre, Shar, and LVV.
I thought it might be relevant to bring up the topic of the title again.
I recently wrote a rather (tl;dr) list of suggested mechanics and ways to think about what could be a solution to many of our wanted changes.
For the peer reviewers (tl;dr)
My main idea stems from a revamping of the standing system, and as such I think it touches upon something that could benefit us a lot.
My suggested idea on tradewars is to add a feature using the standing system. It would work somewhere around the following:
The standing slider impact
When a buy or sell order is concluded the popup would show the ID of the client and your standing situation. This would then be adding or subtracting a percentage rebate or toll on the purchase. The slider should go from something like -10 being full block (Boycutt) through +98% toll, to neutral, and +10 being 100% free. The option should be a feature you selected in the standing setting. So when setting a standing towards someone you checked of a tradewars box.
When your trading under this new system you should alway get the client ID prior to confirmation, but only if you have standing set toward the person. Thus neutral standing means you remain anonymous. This would give us the benefits of both sides. There would be the option of using intermediaries. The players would ofc have the option of negating even this by setting standing towards npc corps.
In addition as claimed in the long linked post I think its seriously needed that ccp gave us a better functioning standing system along the lines I describe. So there would be a transperency option, and so people would know who actually like them, and can return the favor..
- Money is Love - Sometimes it just gets bend the wrong ways.
Feed your Brain:
Innovation Thread |
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 07:31:00 -
[2]
Edited by: YouGotRipped on 04/05/2009 07:33:23
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania and so people would know who actually like them, and can return the favor..
hahah
If you want to make out with someone there are better ways to do it (contracts). However if you want to hinder someone they will just buy from the competition or using alts.
Black Sun Empire |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 07:45:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 04/05/2009 07:51:46 As long as people can use anonymous alts to trade (and they already do), there won't be much point to any such system. The only way to exclude alts of your enemies would be to set a penalty for everyone except those who already have good standings from you, and that would exclude such a large part of the market that it would seldom be worthwhile except by prior arrangement with the buyer. And then you might as well use contracts.
Also, I believe CCP explicitly stated that such a feature would wreck the performance of the market, and refused to even consider implementing it when the idea was last raised by the CSM.
Here's the link. --- 20:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule |
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 08:06:00 -
[4]
Edited by: YouGotRipped on 04/05/2009 08:08:57
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
And then you might as well use contracts.
Also, I believe CCP explicitly stated that such a feature would wreck the performance of the market, and refused to even consider implementing it when the idea was last raised by the CSM.
Here's the link.
And my idea is screwing up the market how?
Black Sun Empire |
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente TarNec Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 08:49:00 -
[5]
As already mentioned alts would not be able to resolve everything..
Where would your alt be? I could set neg standing to npc factions, to atleast get anice markup extra trading with skinjumpers and noobs..
If you did intercorp stuff using middlemen that could be datamined and have consequences..
So I dont see the flaw in this..
Also I am not sure it should be such a huge load since ID of trader is already in there, so this would just extend the calculations needed for things like broker fee and tax..
If those already cause to much load then why not exchange it for this system?
- Money is Love - Sometimes it just gets bend the wrong ways.
Feed your Brain:
Innovation Thread |
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 08:53:00 -
[6]
Edited by: YouGotRipped on 04/05/2009 08:54:45
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania As already mentioned alts would not be able to resolve everything..
Where would your alt be? I could set neg standing to npc factions, to atleast get anice markup extra trading with skinjumpers and noobs..
So I dont see the flaw in this..
You can't set negative standings for all the alphanumeric combinations out there.
Ta gueule!
Black Sun Empire |
Ricdic
Caldari Tleilex Developments Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 08:57:00 -
[7]
It wouldn't work.
The current market takes the lowest available sell order.
Lets say I have arb siege launcher on market
Current Price - 1m each
I set a sell order to 500k each with a markup of 500% for anyone not blue to me. Suddenly no-one can buy arb siege as i have locked everyone out of the market, they have to buy at my price.
The only way this would work would be if you could buy from specific orders. That would require a major workup of the Eve market systems and would mean more DB strain (people clikcing various orders trying to find which are of their allies).
If you want to do the warfare do it this way. Set a courier delivery to your BoB enemy outpost with decent reward and sufficient collateral. Then use a covops trade alt to get into that system or region.
Then sell the items at massive marked up prices (ie tier 2 battleships at 130m). If it's a poorly stocked station with a decent amount of residents they will have no choice but to buy your overpriced wares or build their own stocks to counter your prices. |
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente TarNec Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 09:20:00 -
[8]
@YGR
Well would be faction, alliance, corp standings ofc. So no need for that many changes.
@ricdic.
Thanks for reminding me of that nice flaw of the system. ofc that would need to be the first order of business to remove that one. The anonymity would still be there when relation is neutral though. I know this might be a complex and maybe straining solution.. I just thought that hardware keeps improving, so why not consider what to use the extra capacity for. Thankfully we arent running on the same code and hardware as back in 2004.
- Money is Love - Sometimes it just gets bend the wrong ways.
Feed your Brain:
Innovation Thread |
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 09:30:00 -
[9]
Edited by: YouGotRipped on 04/05/2009 09:34:30
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania @YGR
Well would be faction, alliance, corp standings ofc. So no need for that many changes.
Oh god, I give up. Caleb how about my proposed changes to the contracts system?
Black Sun Empire |
Trading Bunnz
Equatorial Industires Dark Taboo
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 09:37:00 -
[10]
Quote: ...so why not consider what to use the extra capacity for...
How about...
- Reducing lag - improving fleet fights - speeding up the existing market screens - fixing Sov mechanics
...and thats without taking any time to think. FRPB Shares in Default |
|
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente TarNec Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 09:50:00 -
[11]
@YGR
Contract system is a whole topic in itself, but agree that it needs a bit of rethinking also.
Especially on features and UI side. Searching and sorting, and related issues..
@TB Well the loading of market screen must be an auto refresh issue. That should be something to get rid of. No auto refresh, only forced refresh. Might also have the minute traders and the "normal" traders not butt heads.
A system like the proposed would get rid of the 0,01 isk wars so a lot of updates and market load would go POOF. OFC those living of of this "exploit" might not like the idea.
I am not a coder but I dont think fleet fights and market servers load are linked.
Well a tradewars and market impact might be beneficial to the political scenario, and thus warrenting the SOV issue even more in the long run..
This is about more influence and choice to the players, the result would be more interaction and interdependencies, and thus better business , better politics and more metagame PVP.
- Money is Love - Sometimes it just gets bend the wrong ways.
Feed your Brain:
Innovation Thread |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 10:14:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania
Thanks for reminding me of that nice flaw of the system. ofc that would need to be the first order of business to remove that one
No way.
That feature is a core aspect of our current market. It's how stock-markets works in real life and makes it's efficient.
|
Vested Interest
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 11:50:00 -
[13]
It's not a flaw. It's a core design principle.
|
Nial Naor
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 02:55:00 -
[14]
Anyone thinks we should unleash Caleb on the real economy?
|
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente TarNec Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 05:34:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Nial Naor Anyone thinks we should unleash Caleb on the real economy?
Ok I will bite a little..
How is it me being wrong? So RL dont have embargoes, and methods to avoid traing with opponents, or any other passive and direct economic aggression?
Sorry but have you any idea what market and politics are?
- Money is Love - Sometimes it just gets bend the wrong ways.
Feed your Brain:
Innovation Thread |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |