Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Konnore
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.13 16:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
Greetings EVE players and developers
I had an idea, couple of months back, that has to do with manufacturing (and not only)
The first part is not that important, but I believe it has to be done because of the huge gap between T1 and T2 manufacturing; especially the construction of a T1 ship is ridiculously easy! ThatGÇÖs why I suggest of having components as a prerequisite for the building of a T1 ship construction (like Propulsion Systems, Drone Bays, Armor Plates, etc). (I believe this will affect the product price only in the first couple of months)
Now the second part is the most juicy and I believe that it will greatly improve the market interest and it will also stimulate interest among manufacturers and action pilots.
Imagine the possibility of a manufacturer to have a chance of creating a Masterpiece product based on his skills and maybe on the level(?) of his owned BPO. For example, when a Talos comes out of the forge to have the probability (based on skills of the manufacturer and the level of the blueprint) be a quality A, B, C, D or E.
But, why all this about
Of course they will be differences between qualities. Not big, but good enough to drop the product price to Tartarus or raise it up to the skies!
Examples:
Quality C will be the Talos as we know it! Fittings: 1100 PWG, 360 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 1750 / 1890 / 2160 Mobility (max velocity / align): 220 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution): 70km / 210mm Signature radius: 220
Quality B will give a bonus of 1% and will looks like: Fittings: 1111 (+11) PWG, 364 (+4) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 1767 (+17) / 1909 (+19) / 2182 (+22) Mobility (max velocity): 222 (+2) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution): 71km (+1) / 212mm (+2) Signature radius: 218 (-2)
Quality A will give a bonus of 2% and will looks like: Fittings: 1122 (+22) PWG, 367 (+7) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 1785 (+25) / 1928 (+38) / 2203 (+43) Mobility (max velocity): 226 (+6) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution): 71km (+1) / 214mm (+4) Signature radius: 216 (-4)
Quality D will give a negative bonus of -1% and will looks like: Fittings: 1089 (-11) PWG, 356 (-4) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 1733 (-17) / 1871 (-19) / 2139 (-21) Mobility (max velocity): 218 (-2) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution): 69km (-1) / 208mm (-2) Signature radius: 222 (+2)
Quality E will give a negative bonus of -2% and will looks like: Fittings: 1078 (-22) PWG, 353 (-7) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 1716 (-34) / 1853 (-37) / 2118 (-42) Mobility (max velocity): 216 (-4) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution): 69km (-1) / 206mm (-4) Signature radius: 224 (+4)
ThatGÇÖs the central idea and in my head it will only affect ships (modules already got Meta levels)
When a manufacturer create a quality D or E product, he will probably reprocess it, with a cost at his minerals (based on his skills and his standings as it is already) But if he create a quality B or A he will get way more money than the cost of the minerals.
I really hope to find it interesting!
K.
PS. Cause English is not my mother tongue I used a lot the Google translate thingy. Forgive me if there are any spelling craps in there! |
Marijke Mcneely
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.13 17:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
Great idea +1vote i shall say. |
VEND DOUZEN
Caldari State Special Forces
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.13 17:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
A really interesting idea. +1 vote |
Iski Zuki DaSen
Icarus Academy
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.13 18:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
AS an idea it looks interesting more RNG mabey in the manufacturing business and give the industrialists more work to achive "perfection" although in order of the bonuses apllied this could cause imbalance in a just recently "ballanced" T1 ship mabey the Developers should search a bit more about this Idea |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
1492
|
Posted - 2013.07.13 22:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
Seems to add a whole load of needless complexity for no apparent reason. -1 from me. |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 00:41:00 -
[6] - Quote
It kind of screws over gal and min because so many of their ships require extra mats(bane to industry).
It makes the market a pain and gives another holdup to T2 things. |
Doc Buddy
Nomad Mining Company
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 02:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
It is not a bad idea.
It might work better if applied to T2 construction. Then you could bring back T2 BPO and leave the invention function in for the imporvements. Should be only availabe to player corps and have the corps name attached to the hull. Then corps could hire indy alts and make EVE feel even more like work.
And I'm pretty sure I read something simalar on the old forums. Maybe someone can dig it up.
|
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
346
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 03:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
I think Hull Quality Levels would be better, and using EVE's standard 0-5 scale.
The default should be HQ 0, which is a +0% bonus. This way, there's no possibility of producing inferior hulls, only superior hulls.
Each ship type applies its bonuses to certain stats, based on the ship classification, e.g. Attack Ship, Combat Ship, and so forth. CCP already has this classification scheme in place.
The bonus for HQ1 should be 0.5%, not 1%. 1% is far too large. And keep in mind, it shouln't apply to all stats, but only to those stats that are important for that ship's classification. Some applications of the bonus may need to be weighted, e.g. maybe ships of the Brawler line get a x2 weight to the Shield / Armour HP, so that a HQ bonus there is doubled to +1%.
Higher HQ should give bonuses in diminishing returns form, so HQ2 can give a 0.8% bonus, and +1% for HQ3, +1.1% for HQ4 and +1.15% for HQ5. This assumes the effort to get higher HQ is linear, meaning that it requires about twice as much effort (and luck) to construct a Hull Quality 2 ship as a HQ 1 one. If effort is not linear, then the bonuses don't have to utilize diminishing returns, but I still think they need to be smaller than what the OP suggested.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
455
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 06:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
The problem is that this would create considerable market clutter not to mention increase the already considerable knowledge one must have in order to PvP
I too would love a game with a complex crafting system where you output was based on some amalgamation of your skills and a random chance modifier, but that game isnt this game. |
Konnore
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 11:42:00 -
[10] - Quote
The bonuses +1%, +2%, -1%, -2% can be applied in all Tech level ships (without the need of T2 BPOs - maybe some decryptors)
Also the % levels are just examples. CCP will do better math than me of course!
As about the complexity, aggred, but this is a way to imporve fitting with some extra CPU + PWG at the expense of ISKs |
|
Gawain Edmond
Angry Mustellid
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 11:57:00 -
[11] - Quote
i don't like this idea you might as well just buff all ships as any but the best would never be sold and the rest would be worthless also ccp has said no to this idea several times before |
Konnore
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 13:22:00 -
[12] - Quote
Gawain Edmond wrote:i don't like this idea you might as well just buff all ships as any but the best would never be sold and the rest would be worthless also ccp has said no to this idea several times before
Not realy if the possibility of making a quality A hull is less than 3% and a quality B less than 15% |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
410
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 17:16:00 -
[13] - Quote
Gawain Edmond wrote:i don't like this idea you might as well just buff all ships as any but the best would never be sold and the rest would be worthless also ccp has said no to this idea several times before
Oh no, the good stuff would be sold, but chances are what would happen is that for fleet doctrines they'd become the norm and the "normal"/low quality stuff would become market junk that rarely sells or have barely any mark up.
Also, it would need a considerable overhaul of the market as well. You couldn't just list all these different quality ships under the same name otherwise you could seriously gimp the entire market as well (e.g. Akerlof's Lemon model).
Overall, not a fan of the idea. I see it as just adding needless complexity that wont do much since the top quality stuff will become the new default for fleet doctrines.
|
Treis Starbuck
Incompertus Academy
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 19:17:00 -
[14] - Quote
I have seen a similar idea in past, this one is worked well, % bonuses are Ok. I see a boost in marketplace I see also a interest in builders More skills to use, more stanginds to work on. I also believe that the extra complexity is something the fitts in EVE online I don't know about doctrines, but I know that ship replacment progmam will stay at quality C or Meta 0 hulls
If a hull quality C of a talos costs -+80m the quality A with possibility less than 3% will cost as least 1 billion! Probably worth it...
But.. I still believe that will be a pain in the ass for the Devs to make it real...
Sorry Kon, I know you for real bro... but this is something that need a whole expansion to be true! |
Treis Starbuck
Incompertus Academy
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 19:19:00 -
[15] - Quote
+1 |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
1501
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 22:12:00 -
[16] - Quote
Konnore wrote:As about the complexity, aggred, but this is a way to imporve fitting with some extra CPU + PWG at the expense of ISKs
Because implants, rigs and fitting mods don't do this well enough already? |
Kraal Utrecht
Running with Knives Nexus Fleet
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 22:20:00 -
[17] - Quote
-1 When you have a blueprint and highly automated production line the only output you will get is exactly what you are expecting to get according to blueprint. Everything else is a mistake and cannot get past QA, even no matter how superior it would be comparing to original design. |
Konnore
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 23:56:00 -
[18] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Konnore wrote:As about the complexity, aggred, but this is a way to imporve fitting with some extra CPU + PWG at the expense of ISKs Because implants, rigs and fitting mods don't do this well enough already?
That's sounds like: "We already got Hybrids, why do we need Laser??"
Coplexity fitts EVE. but yes you're right! much **** for nothing.! |
DataRunner Touch
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 03:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
Hey, we just might have a problem captain.
Currently the way how Eve stacks items and markets items, a system like this wouldn't beable to be put in play. Currently when you stack an item, all items in that stack have the /Same exact stats/ this is why when you go to repackage a ship, it warns you that rigs will be destroyed, and all items will be stripped from the ship and return to your inventory. So two things will have to happen before they can do a system like this.
Rework the server code to allow for each item in a stack to allow for different degrees of variations. This of course will not only create more server load, but will also take up more space on a server hard-drive/RAM
The second thing that will need to change is how the market works, so not only would CCP have to redesign the market code, but they would most likely also be forced to redesign the market UI. which UI production is a pain in the rear. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |