| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SO Rider
    |
Posted - 2009.10.18 05:42:00 -
[1]
Edited by: SO Rider on 18/10/2009 05:43:37
per : http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1197746&page=1
I'd like to propose that Orcas carry a "store" such that the mining foreman/director can issue buy orders for certain minerals at certain prices. When the Orca pilot tractor beams a can in, the sale happens automatically.
I think this would really give mining directors a place in the world, make mining more exciting, and help newbie characters make isk more effectively than solo mining. I also think this would increase the new player experience for people who try mining.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.10.18 17:30:00 -
[2]
Fascinating idea, and I like it in principle, but I'm not sure it's workable. Problem is determining ownership of the ore. Jetcans are corp assets, not personal, and multiple people can fill one. Not to mention that when you stack items together, the game forgets their history - there's no way to tell whether half the stack came from you and half from me.
The only way I can even think of to do this would be to have a specialized jetcan that is individual, not corporate, and that gives the person taking from it the option to pay their going rate for it(they wouldn't be forced, of course, since we want to still allow can stealing). That's a complex and ugly solution, but it might do what you want. Still, it sounds like something better done by players than by game mechanics. I'd love it if it worked, but I'm not sure that it really could.
|
SO Rider
|
Posted - 2009.10.18 18:49:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Fascinating idea, and I like it in principle, but I'm not sure it's workable. Problem is determining ownership of the ore. Jetcans are corp assets, not personal, and multiple people can fill one. Not to mention that when you stack items together, the game forgets their history - there's no way to tell whether half the stack came from you and half from me.
In the code, you'd just have to keep the history of ownership of the ore around as long as the container is owned by someone in the corp or fleet.
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
The only way I can even think of to do this would be to have a specialized jetcan that is individual, not corporate, and that gives the person taking from it the option to pay their going rate for it(they wouldn't be forced, of course, since we want to still allow can stealing). That's a complex and ugly solution, but it might do what you want. Still, it sounds like something better done by players than by game mechanics. I'd love it if it worked, but I'm not sure that it really could.
I think keeping the ownership history around as long as the container is owned by the corp/fleet then it shouldn't be a problem. The mining director would be able to set the going rate for each ore based on a contract. Of course, he could set up veld for 4 isk and then when the mining op starts, lower it to 0.0 ... that would still allow cheating. (Btw - I love how we try to design the possibility for cheating into this ... I love eve)
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.10.18 19:41:00 -
[4]
You're saying "put it into the code" like it's easy. Inventory code is complex, well-optimized, and not something you want to mess with unnecessarily. Stacked items don't have histories, they have typeIDs and quantities. To the best of my knowledge, that's it. You want to store more, even in that one narrow case, they have to completely redo how they do all inventory, everywhere. Any time you'd open a container, hangar, cargo bay, whatever, it'd have to get the ownership history on every single stack of everything. The hamsters would be screaming.
It's the same reason that they can't colour BPCs differently than BPOs. It's not that they don't want it to be easy to work with, it's that the server architecture doesn't work well with the proposal, and the proposal isn't important enough to justify rewriting everything, with all the attendant bugs and diversion of dev man-hours.
|
Villian
|
Posted - 2009.10.19 00:50:00 -
[5]
This wouldn't be very workable because there is no way to ensure that anything 'purchased' from the Orca would actually pass to the seller. Market transactions 'delete' items from the hangar of the seller and 'recreate' them into the hangar of the buyers in stations. To use current code the Orca would have to have proprietary hangars for people to access, this suggestion opens itself up to large numbers of market exploits. The market window would need to indicate that the seller's item is floating in an undetermined point in space, on Player X's ship. The sort of transaction you want is probably something that could be handled on a case by case basis between two players that have a modest level of trust between them.
I think the direction that is most likely to get a 'bazaar' ship would be some sort of large ship with dock functionality like a station, that can never itself dock and somehow possesses proprietary hangar space for other players. |
SO Rider
|
Posted - 2009.10.19 01:57:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Villian
Market transactions 'delete' items from the hangar of the seller and 'recreate' them into the hangar of the buyers in stations.
Oh, from your explanation it sounds like their doing a deep copy and then deleting the original ... I can see how that would make this difficult.
Just to be clear. The idea here is that ore is purchased "by" the Orca.
It appears that containers have the concept of owners (really a corp). I was just thinking about how to extend this to the individual items in the container. That would help make this all possible.
The portions of code that defines a target from where a market transaction could occur would have to be modified to include jetcans and the orca's hull. (I assume it would have to be generalized into an interface: IMarketTransactionSource, IMarketTransactionDest or something similiar). That would certainly be some significant changes.
Sure would make for some interesting capabilities for Mining Directors though!!
|
Aion Amarra
Minmatar
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.10.19 08:46:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Aion Amarra on 19/10/2009 08:49:07
Afaik, ownership of specific items is currently handled via what 'location' they are in, a location being a hangar, (assembled) container, (assembled) ship, whatever. Only locations have owners, individual items do not. Especially not item stacks, which have an ID, a typeID, a stacksize (signed 32-bit int, for whatever reason), and a locationID, and nothing else. Afaik, this is all the rows that the generic inventory table contains, everything else is fetched via typeID as soon as you e.g. do a showinfo.
Attaching owner info to item stacks would probably either require a seperate ownership table referencing item IDs (sounds like a hackjob?) or messing with the heavily normalized and optimized inventory table itself. Especially the latter sounds like a major cluster****, and is probably not going to happen for the same reason BPC/BPO seperation is currently not happening, as mentioned above (well, one of the reasons, anyway).
The idea is interesting, but I doubt it's even remotely feasible.
EDIT: For a singleton (not-packaged item), I assume the item being moved is simply a change of it's associated locationID. How movement of stacks is done I do not know. It should be possible to check wether moving a stack from one place to another changes it's itemID, if it does, it's a copy, if it's not, it just had it's location changed. I'm not sure how I'd go about doing this, though.
|
SO Rider
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 03:36:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Aion Amarra
... a stacksize (signed 32-bit int, for whatever reason), ...
signed? I'm sure they had a good reason for it. I wonder how they are using negative values.
Originally by: Aion Amarra
Only locations have owners, individual items do not.
Well the simple answer would be to allow individuals to own a jetcan, etc and then tell people not to jetcan into someone's can ... but that would probably break something else.
Originally by: Aion Amarra
Attaching owner info to item stacks would probably either require a seperate ownership table referencing item IDs (sounds like a hackjob?)
Some people I work with would consider that elegant .... <sigh> It's amazing how much of crafting code is an art (some people just don't have an eye for it)
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 04:46:00 -
[9]
Originally by: SO Rider
Originally by: Aion Amarra
... a stacksize (signed 32-bit int, for whatever reason), ...
signed? I'm sure they had a good reason for it.
Um, you know that it was coded by CCP, right?
|
Aion Amarra
Minmatar
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 13:04:00 -
[10]
I didn't mean it as a hackjob database architecture wise, that's the best way I could think of you could probably implement a system like that without messing with the core inventory table. But it's still problematic.
If you have ownership for every item, it'll create a huge table. (one entry for every item in eve) If you don't, and in -most- cases still use the location system, you'll have reduncancy, which strikes me as 'unaesthetic' in a massively normalized and high-performance database. Either way, each show-info lookup, or any call requiring ownership info will have to involve a join or something of the like of the ownership table, given the item entry and singleton info no longer are enough to tell you everything.
I obviously do not have statistics on how many owner-lookups the current Eve code generates, and how heavy the DB load is in general, but this might potentially create performance issues.
Who knows.
|
|
SO Rider
|
Posted - 2009.10.21 00:29:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Aion Amarra
I didn't mean it as a hackjob database architecture wise,
honestly you're right. Tradeoffs really aren't that cut and dry.
Originally by: Aion Amarra
Who knows.
exactly .....
however, the easy cop-out is that I really don't care. I'm a paying customer so I can just come up with the <insert appropriate adjective> ideas; if/how to implement it is someone else's problem.
|
McFly
C0LDFIRE
|
Posted - 2009.10.21 07:43:00 -
[12]
although an interesting idea, on most mining ops that I've ever seen or organized it's always more advantageous to be paying the miners based on participation, not which roids are close to them.
A good mining outfit would be striping everything in sight, otherwise everyone will be grinding on the same high value rocks, thus wasting cycles. Every cycle should be on adding to the aggregate haul for the organization.
|
ZigZag Joe
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.21 08:11:00 -
[13]
A mobile store (ship) would be interesting but also hard to implement. Perhaps make a POS mod which can have stuff put into it which can be then put on market? Problem then is delivery (delivery probes lol?)
OTOH, POSes would need to be completely renovated before i'd want the devs to even consider putting time on this sort of thing. There was a good thread in features/ideas discussion about this.
|
Iexo Peoa
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 10:44:00 -
[14]
I like this idea... Perhaps have pilots jetcan near the store-activated Orca, right click their can, and set up a sell order, or if all the stuff in the can falls within a buy order from the Orca, the person can right click the can and sell to that order, and then the Orca can tractor it in.
If all else fails, perhaps they could just fly up to the Orca, and open it's market like they would a ship maintanence bay. It would definately improve the newbie mining experience, and give people something to do with Orcas solo, not to mention build a community of small time miners, and small time buyers of their ore.
Or, even an "all of the above" approach... Either way, this would be an awesome feature.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |