Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Amarisen Gream
Ark University ArK Alliance
56
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:04:56 -
[1] - Quote
Hello CCP and Capsular's,
The other night, I was thinking that it would be nice to see some additional changes in-game mechanics.
Point 1: Remove repacking from the game.
Why? I believe if CCP is able to code or willing to change it this could just ease up some in-game life stuff.
How? How will players be able to move their ships around
Introduce a Ore Industrial that specializes in moving ships.
Name: Tug-boat (Maintains feature where only ammo/drones/charges can be in ship cargo bays) Role: Moving battlecruiser sized hulls and smaller ships.
If we used the current "repackaged volume" we could set the number of ships it could move.
for example with Ore Industrial I the ships could move Frigates - 48 Destroyer - 24 (one half the number of frigates) Cruiser - 12 (one quarter the number of frigates) Battle Cruiser - 7 (one sixth the number of frigates)
Each level would increase the frigate limit by 6 and the other numbers would adjust accordingly. So at level Ore Industrial V Frigate - 72 Destroy - 36 Cruiser - 18 Battle Cruiser - 12
How will we transport Battleships and Industrials? An additional ship would take this place or leave it to the Bowhead
Now for the fun part Introduce the ability for ships with current SMA to allow players/pilots to "dock" with the ship. Then the "mothership" could warp/gatejump/wh or whatever form of travel they want and take the whole group with them.
i.e. Orca Replace SMA with 10 Docking Bays (limited to Cruiser sized hulls or smaller) This would allow an Orca pilot to fleet up with some friends and travel as a whole to their location.
Rorqual Replace SMA with 15-20 Docking Bays (limited to BC/Industrials or smaller hulls. Might restrict that more) This would only matter if the Rorqual is ever updated to where it is was "wise" or had to be use it in an belt.
Bowhead Replace SMA with 10 Docking Bays (limited to BS, Industrial and smaller) Just think of the ability for an Incursion fleet to dock up in their Bowhead to travel a long way and ether remain docked up in the Bowhead for travel or travel in a different ship to aide in travel. Image the look on gate campers when that Bowhead they just attack deploys BSs and Logi.
* Include changes to Carriers, Supers and other ships with SMAs. Change POS SMA rays to Docking Bays and limit number of ships based on size.
** This Docking Bay would have no limit on what is inside they docked ships bays.
*** This is a first pass on the idea.
Contrastive feed back required!
xoxo
Amarisen Gream
|
Vadeim Rizen
Doughboys Snuffed Out
94
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:17:19 -
[2] - Quote
So, you want to remove repackaging ships from game?
I was going to try to come up with a witty response as to why this is stupid, but i'm not witty.
No. |
Amarisen Gream
Ark University ArK Alliance
56
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:30:57 -
[3] - Quote
Vadeim Rizen wrote:So, you want to remove repackaging ships from game?
I was going to try to come up with a witty response as to why this is stupid, but i'm not witty.
No.
I'd prefer to just remove repacking all together and for everything, and make hauling/size changes along with it.
xoxo
Amarisen Gream
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
7089
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:32:37 -
[4] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote: How? How will players be able to move their ships around
Introduce a Ore Industrial that specializes in moving ships.
Name: Tug-boat (Maintains feature where only ammo/drones/charges can be in ship cargo bays) Role: Moving battlecruiser sized hulls and smaller ships.
*pinches nose* https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=384682&find=unread
"I'm also quite confident that you are laughing
and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers."
=]I[=
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
7089
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:33:26 -
[5] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote:Vadeim Rizen wrote:So, you want to remove repackaging ships from game?
I was going to try to come up with a witty response as to why this is stupid, but i'm not witty.
No. I'd prefer to just remove repacking all together and for everything, and make hauling/size changes along with it. why?
"I'm also quite confident that you are laughing
and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers."
=]I[=
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
5269
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:40:47 -
[6] - Quote
Repackaging does have a purpose to lessen load on the database. Repackaged items are no longer individual entries but truncated placeholders for items. So they take up less space in the database. Assembled items have all the attributes in the database as they are required for use within the game mechanics and need updating and calculating within these. Thus they use up more space in the database.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
Mehrune Khan
Viziam Amarr Empire
19
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 17:43:56 -
[7] - Quote
They would need to drastically increase the cargo size of all industrials to make up for it. Otherwise traders would be flying bigger ships to the trade hubs and flying shuttles back. Think of all that extra running around.
I don't have anything against repackaging ships. Considering that spaceships would be mostly empty space inside it makes sense that you could tear them down to make room and build them back up someplace else. |
Amarisen Gream
Ark University ArK Alliance
56
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:29:35 -
[8] - Quote
First and foremost! Thank you for the feed back. And this is a place to hash things out to see if or why it would be an improvement.
Abrazzar wrote:Repackaging does have a purpose to lessen load on the database. Repackaged items are no longer individual entries but truncated placeholders for items. So they take up less space in the database. Assembled items have all the attributes in the database as they are required for use within the game mechanics and need updating and calculating within these. Thus they use up more space in the database.
Just for argument sake. A database is just 0s and 1s. The difference is how it connects to other aspects of the code.
When it comes down to databases the repackaged ship and unpacked are each their own. 1 and 1. By, eliminating one of the versions (packaged) you decrease the number of database entries. Now with EVE. Taking all items you can repackage (minus containers - they can be special) your talking about hundreds if not thousands of Database entries (CSM Summer Summit report said by the time they get done with changes to modules, we'd see about 200-300 less items in game) . If you removed the "packaged" version from the database, you would in effect reduce half the database. Smaller database normally means you have faster response times when processing information, as there is less to look through. Now I could see your point if there was a performance difference between the two versions, and it would have to be something major. As with the current and continually progressive improvement of coding languages, OSs, hardware and such, the two database entries could have totally different effects when comparing them among a broad range of hardware and software options.
>>sorry if my thought process is a little messed up. getting tired<<
xoxo
Amarisen Gream
|
Amarisen Gream
Ark University ArK Alliance
56
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:33:13 -
[9] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Amarisen Gream wrote: How? How will players be able to move their ships around
Introduce a Ore Industrial that specializes in moving ships.
Name: Tug-boat (Maintains feature where only ammo/drones/charges can be in ship cargo bays) Role: Moving battlecruiser sized hulls and smaller ships.
*pinches nose* https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=384682&find=unread
If you had read my post, I include the Bowhead.
xoxo
Amarisen Gream
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
664
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:36:03 -
[10] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote:First and foremost! Thank you for the feed back. And this is a place to hash things out to see if or why it would be an improvement. Abrazzar wrote:Repackaging does have a purpose to lessen load on the database. Repackaged items are no longer individual entries but truncated placeholders for items. So they take up less space in the database. Assembled items have all the attributes in the database as they are required for use within the game mechanics and need updating and calculating within these. Thus they use up more space in the database. Just for argument sake. A database is just 0s and 1s. The difference is how it connects to other aspects of the code. When it comes down to databases the repackaged ship and unpacked are each their own. 1 and 1. By, eliminating one of the versions (packaged) you decrease the number of database entries. Now with EVE. Taking all items you can repackage (minus containers - they can be special) your talking about hundreds if not thoughts of Database entries. If you removed the "packaged" version from the database, you would in effect reduce half the database. Smaller database normally means you have faster response times when processing information, as there is less to look through. Now I could see your point if there was a performance difference between the two versions, and it would have to be something major. As with the current and continually progressive improvement of coding languages, OSs, hardware and such, the two database entries could have totally different effects when comparing them among a broad range of hardware and software options. >>sorry if my thought process is a little messed up. getting tired<<
Yeah, it's more than a little messed up.
Let's call a repackaged rifter identity X. EVERY single rifter that is repackaged is in the eyes of the server, X. One base entry for all of them, with each packaged rifter pointing to that same definition X.
Now each assembled rifter has to have it's own identity. It has to have a decription telling the server what it is, who owns it, and if it is insured, among other things. Now EACH and every assembled rifter has to have it's own separate entry with that information, it's own identity.
Every packaged rifter is database entry X, but no assembled rifter can share the same reference point that way with another assembled rifter.
TLDR: It really doesn't work the way you are thinking it does. |
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
994
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:44:43 -
[11] - Quote
And the market? |
Xindi Kraid
Priano Trans-Stellar State Services Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
828
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 18:57:09 -
[12] - Quote
Read the stickies and you'd know they are (finally) releasing a ship that can move packaged ships.
As for why packaging is necessary, it's because certain attributes are necessary to define an item. Say you have 4 unpackaged MWDs. a database listing is something like this: Mwd 1: 0% damaged Mwd 2: 0% damaged MWD 3 0% damaged MWD 4: 0% damaged
when you package it it becomes MWD x4 |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
994
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 19:09:41 -
[13] - Quote
Xindi Kraid wrote:Read the stickies and you'd know they are (finally) releasing a ship that can move packaged ships. Finally? We have freighters for a lot years now. Do you mean unpackaged?
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
788
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 21:35:48 -
[14] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote:First and foremost! Thank you for the feed back. And this is a place to hash things out to see if or why it would be an improvement. Abrazzar wrote:Repackaging does have a purpose to lessen load on the database. Repackaged items are no longer individual entries but truncated placeholders for items. So they take up less space in the database. Assembled items have all the attributes in the database as they are required for use within the game mechanics and need updating and calculating within these. Thus they use up more space in the database. Just for argument sake. A database is just 0s and 1s. The difference is how it connects to other aspects of the code. When it comes down to databases the repackaged ship and unpacked are each their own. 1 and 1. By, eliminating one of the versions (packaged) you decrease the number of database entries. Now with EVE. Taking all items you can repackage (minus containers - they can be special) your talking about hundreds if not thousands of Database entries (CSM Summer Summit report said by the time they get done with changes to modules, we'd see about 200-300 less items in game) . If you removed the "packaged" version from the database, you would in effect reduce half the database. Smaller database normally means you have faster response times when processing information, as there is less to look through. Now I could see your point if there was a performance difference between the two versions, and it would have to be something major. As with the current and continually progressive improvement of coding languages, OSs, hardware and such, the two database entries could have totally different effects when comparing them among a broad range of hardware and software options. >>sorry if my thought process is a little messed up. getting tired<<
The data stored is just 0's and 1's...any real database is way more than just the stored data. How you access the data is vastly important. The packaged items are 1 item in a standard list, each packaged item you own will be a link to that single item(with it's definition). Very easy to index and quick to retrieve.
Every unpacked item will need it's own entry most likely in a child table that contains the specific current attributes of that item. If you removed packaging you would remove very few rows from an already relatively small table and make every item be instantiated in what was the child table vastly increasing the storage as each entry now needs to hold the base defition of the packaged item too.
Note:increased storage may not be an issue depending on storage of data and how you access it since correct indexing would mean only retrieving the data rows required. It very much depends on the data, available storage and the whim of the DBA providing the data model on any given day!
|
Arctic Estidal
Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club
16
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 22:29:31 -
[15] - Quote
I think I can summarise your idea.
"I want to implement a new idea! Yeah!
But for this idea to be attractive and provide a benefit, I need a significant feature in the game to be removed. There is no reason to remove the feature, removing the feature will hurt game play, but I want my idea supported."
I think that is a good summary of the conversation you had before you posted this idea. So NO this shouldn't be supported.
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
541
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:25:44 -
[16] - Quote
ummm, so op, instead of conveniently selling off several mods by repack and drop on market (or fill buy order) you want to make several contracts? You see, repacking also is for this.
Do a damn how the hell did I get 200 mods I don't need spring cleaning and there you are making worst case 200 contracts if you used them just once. As the only short cuts you have are common multi-item contracts. Like say the wolf gun pack and put 4 small AC's or Arty in the pack. Or the drake tank pack, 2 lse 1 invul 1 racial hardener.
Then there's me having to look up these items market price and seeing if a good deal. Or me going screw it...I can just buy off market to save a few clicks anyway. Tl;DR...you won't be selling mods very well potentially, I tbh only look at ships on contracts. And that's only to see what deal I get on rigs.
With contract scams like the make 100 item contract that looks goods but they bury the scam deep and you are overpaying for something at some point..I just avoid the whole mess really for item contracts, especially bulk ones. 5 seconds of right click from market vice 100 market searches for price a much better use of my eve time imo. |
Sigras
Conglomo
981
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:26:14 -
[17] - Quote
You have no idea how databases work do you? The "repackaged " status of items allows the server to treat each repackaged item as a basic object with the default values. This is why you cant repackage damaged items and why ships lose their name when you repackage and unpackage them.
Getting rid if repackaging would massively increase the size of the database because you would have to store all of the attributes for all of the items individually. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
6615
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 23:34:37 -
[18] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:I'd prefer to just remove repacking all together and for everything, and make hauling/size changes along with it. why? ^^ This.
Why should the system be changed to the way you are proposing? I don't see any benefit to it... only extra clutter that will be tedious to deal with.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
"How did you veterans start?"
|
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2999
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 00:28:41 -
[19] - Quote
So....OP? Given that modules need to be repackaged in order to actually sell them, how do you propose the market work?
Even if you remove that restriction, are you seriously suggesting that selling the loot from a destroyed frigate should require someone to train several levels of market skills? |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
479
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 01:43:48 -
[20] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:So....OP? Given that modules need to be repackaged in order to actually sell them, how do you propose the market work?
Even if you remove that restriction, are you seriously suggesting that selling the loot from a destroyed frigate should require someone to train several levels of market skills?
Magic
signature
|
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2001
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:02:35 -
[21] - Quote
Why? I believe if CCP is able to code or willing to change it this could just ease up some in-game life stuff.
like?
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Areen Sassel
40
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:12:18 -
[22] - Quote
Sigras wrote:You have no idea how databases work do you? The "repackaged " status of items allows the server to treat each repackaged item as a basic object with the default values. This is why you cant repackage damaged items and why ships lose their name when you repackage and unpackage them.
Go the other way. When an item is undamaged and of a type (not a ship, etc) that can always be repackaged without consequences, it repackages any time it's placed in an item hangar. Hides most of the hassle (undamaged items can just be sold, stacked, etc) and keeps as much stuff as possible in the server-efficient state. |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
668
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 05:20:53 -
[23] - Quote
Areen Sassel wrote:Sigras wrote:You have no idea how databases work do you? The "repackaged " status of items allows the server to treat each repackaged item as a basic object with the default values. This is why you cant repackage damaged items and why ships lose their name when you repackage and unpackage them. Go the other way. When an item is undamaged and of a type (not a ship, etc) that can always be repackaged without consequences, it repackages any time it's placed in an item hangar. Hides most of the hassle (undamaged items can just be sold, stacked, etc) and keeps as much stuff as possible in the server-efficient state.
Or they could not. There's really no good reason to remove the option to have your stuff in an unpackaged state. In 99.9% of the time, it simply doesn't matter. It might be slightly more efficient overall if it were packed, but for your average player, it's like improving the gas mileage of your car by removing the hood ornament.
Soo..... people using the metric system. Do you use the term gas mileage or is there some metric equiv? Just total out of the blue question here, but I'm rather curious but too lazy to google it. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
788
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 11:30:45 -
[24] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Areen Sassel wrote:Sigras wrote:You have no idea how databases work do you? The "repackaged " status of items allows the server to treat each repackaged item as a basic object with the default values. This is why you cant repackage damaged items and why ships lose their name when you repackage and unpackage them. Go the other way. When an item is undamaged and of a type (not a ship, etc) that can always be repackaged without consequences, it repackages any time it's placed in an item hangar. Hides most of the hassle (undamaged items can just be sold, stacked, etc) and keeps as much stuff as possible in the server-efficient state. Or they could not. There's really no good reason to remove the option to have your stuff in an unpackaged state. In 99.9% of the time, it simply doesn't matter. It might be slightly more efficient overall if it were packed, but for your average player, it's like improving the gas mileage of your car by removing the hood ornament. Soo..... people using the metric system. Do you use the term gas mileage or is there some metric equiv? Just total out of the blue question here, but I'm rather curious but too lazy to google it.
Packaged item storage isn't about improving response times for the average player but for the server as a whole. Average player will have 1- several thousand of each item depending on what it is. Server side there are gazillions of items. Imagine if we suddenly had to store the details of each piece of ammunition instead of a reference to the standard object?
In answer to you 'gas' question here in the UK it's miles per gallon. And we use petrol and diesel, occasionally LPG and more rarely Kilowatt hours :D |
Samillian
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
651
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 13:54:05 -
[25] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote:Why? I believe if CCP is able to code or willing to change it this could just ease up some in-game life stuff.
Not only do I not see why this is needed I really cannot fathom how this change is supposed to "ease up some in-game life stuff". If anything this proposal would make life far more pointlessly awkward for just about everyone in New Eden.
Not supported.
NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
|
Areen Sassel
40
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 15:51:47 -
[26] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Or they could not. There's really no good reason to remove the option to have your stuff in an unpackaged state.
Imagine the corresponding opposite change; if it became necessary to unpack modules before fitting them, rather than the situation at present where that is done automatically. To unpack drones before launching them.
That would be maddening.
There's a like amount of irritation to be saved if modules go into the state where they can be sold and stacked automatically. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
543
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:01:42 -
[27] - Quote
Anhenka wrote: Soo..... people using the metric system. Do you use the term gas mileage or is there some metric equiv? Just total out of the blue question here, but I'm rather curious but too lazy to google it.
probably not much here since an American living in japan for quite a while but I I still use the term mileage but have bought gas by the liter for my car that reads km's and I use km's as a term for distance a lot. Not much help since some American terms die hard i know lol.
I do use metric for everything else which gets confusing on stateside visits. Why the US stays they way they do...no f'ing clue. Based on 10. none of the pint, quart, ounces pounds, etc crap based on fractions....life much easier.
I could ask the wife (japanese) but probably be bad to wake her up to ask an off the wall question like that lol. |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
669
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:17:10 -
[28] - Quote
Areen Sassel wrote:Anhenka wrote:Or they could not. There's really no good reason to remove the option to have your stuff in an unpackaged state. Imagine the corresponding opposite change; if it became necessary to unpack modules before fitting them, rather than the situation at present where that is done automatically. To unpack drones before launching them. That would be maddening. There's a like amount of irritation to be saved if modules go into the state where they can be sold and stacked automatically.
Except that as you have to unpack modules to use them, the game simply does it for you when you attempt to fit them.
You MUST unpack to fit, so there's no reason not for the game to automatically unpack and fit when you tell it to fit a mod.
But you DON'T have to have the modules in your hangar in any particular state. For those who want their modules packed, it's a simple Ctrl+A -> repack away.
I prefer having the mods in my hangar in both states. It easily shows me wha mods I placed in there since the last repack cycle.
Say I'm shuffling fits around on an apoc, looking for say... oh megapulses. Now I just removed a rach of tachs, dumping them in my hangar, but didn't like the pulses, so I look back to hangar for tachs.
There's 8 unpacked, unstacked tacks staring me in the face, easy to pick out of a hangar. Tada, convenience!
There are also times when moving mixed cargo to several locations that I will simply keep all the mods going to one place unpacked, and all the mods going somewhere else packed, without ******* around with containers.
Now the proposed auto repack is a fine idea I guess, but it needs to be an optional opt in, not an enforced absolute. |
Tabyll Altol
Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two
53
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 16:19:46 -
[29] - Quote
See non improvement for the game.
-1
|
Areen Sassel
40
|
Posted - 2014.11.27 16:52:22 -
[30] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:I prefer having the mods in my hangar in both states. It easily shows me wha mods I placed in there since the last repack cycle.
That hadn't occurred to me (I use containers extensively, so anything in the main item hangar is in transit), but it's a good point. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |