EVE Search - CCP & Industrial Expansions

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Science and Industry

CCP & Industrial Expansions

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.09.11 06:24:00 - [61] Originally by: Iv Dor * Rats shouldn't be using t1 variants of modules, let the industrial players control that market. A rat supposedly has perfect skills, and yet they're using t1 gear? Where you have got that idea? Rats have all levels of skills, from lousy to above player level Quote: If rats are going to stop dropping T1 gear, then perhaps make the skills required for meta 3,4 gear somewhere in between that of a t1 and t2 item. I don't like the idea of blueprint copies of the meta 1-4 items, as it was said before it would be lame that a player's ship drops the modules and an NPC ship drops blueprints? Imagine a new EVE player's reaction to this. No, especially if T1 meta 0 items are removed, meta 1-4 should stay.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2009.09.11 06:57:00 - [62] My ideas: Fix blueprints so that you can have a different icon for BPO vs BPC. This could be done client side, server side, or in some magical world in betwee, doesn't matter. Remove meta-level 0 loot from NPCs. Reduce all drops from NPCs in hisec - the pirates are being reaped daily, they don't have time to get good equipment to their hisec hideaways. Move all asteroids (ores and ice) to exploration sites. [Aussie players: join channel ANZAC]
Zindevar Devetaki	Posted - 2009.09.11 07:11:00 - [63] Edited by: Zindevar Devetaki on 11/09/2009 07:12:35 Ability to share personal blueprints without them being lost in the corp hangar For example, share them from your own hangar or the ability to flag items in the corp hangar as belonging to someone and only that person can remove it (director/CEO could deliver it to the owner also) Ability to research and copy blueprints from personal hangars using corp/alliance slots, taking needed items from personal hangar. Copies delivered to personal hangar. Ability to build with corp blueprints using minerals from your own hangar and using your own wallet. Fix the &*#^$%# blueprint lockdown method, plenty of good ideas on how to do this floating around.
Spacing Cowboy Caldari Rule of Five The Junta	Posted - 2009.09.11 07:30:00 - [64] Keep the T1 drops, but reduce them a bit ( a day / week one player must be able to start up without understanding the market or actually having ISK at all ) Larger deployeble storage for beltmining / anti flipping , a mini-deploy-everywhere-pos would be great, but give it the need to be mounted on a astroid ( to prevent it for being used at gatecamps / station camps ) "pure industrial use only" Give it moderate firepower (anti suicide gank strong) , but don't make it useble as porta-firebase-stations. Or... you could.. :) Don't make them to cheap or easy to get, you have to put in some efford to use the option, but don't make it to complex that only a corp or "100% miner" can use them. Leaving you with a choise between more efford = safe , lazy = unsafe A mini orca as midway between mini-pos , figur a way to use it as mobile exploration base , But able to lock the door so solo use is possible. love the research for LP idea, allowing starting industrials a way to do research without the insane waiting time at npc stations, or having to start a pos/lab Reward ( as in security ) players more who put in efford for safty / mining yield ( hidden belts ) but in return punish the afk miners. Give retrievers more tank, there just to easy to pop, you have no chance to escape trouble. just some brainfarts
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.09.11 08:13:00 - [65] Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 11/09/2009 08:13:33 * 'Fix' Lo-sec ores, they the most useless atm. * To much skillgap from retriever to covetor to low from covetor to hulk. * Gas mining ship . * Minable moon minerals (not automaticated) from somewhere else that static moons. * Reduce clikfest that you need to install multiplay jobs. * ORE tower. * Changing type of stuff that siloses contain shouldn't require Starbase Config role. * Make a diffrence beetwen BPO , BPC.
Thunder Jolt	Posted - 2009.09.11 10:15:00 - [66] Edited by: Thunder Jolt on 11/09/2009 10:23:07 * Make a difference beetwen BPO , BPC * Queueing research in POS (24h to 48h would be nice to avoid logging every 4hours to deliver lowly researched BPO) * Unstacking many items at once (try unstacking 1 unit of 10 units for 150+ bpos...) * Upgradable Advanced / Mobile laboratory (avoid POS spamming) * List number of items when creating/viewing a contract (when right clicking you can get it but creating a contract from scratch doesn't give you the number of items in the contract) * Add Science / Industrial Boosters (for a job or a time frame, like any combat boosters)
Satan's Apostle	Posted - 2009.09.11 10:58:00 - [67] nerf level 4 missions.
Slave 2739FKZ Minmatar	Posted - 2009.09.11 11:06:00 - [68] More stuff (sorry if ghas been said allready): - T2 salvage reaction = only on lowsec or 0.0 - Better POS refining modules for null/low? - Way to gain standing more effectivelly for industrials with given npc corps (no courriers/combat). - Fix boosters! No profitable to run the whole damn proccess right now. - Stackable BPC/BPO; distinction of soem sort (there must some workaround technical issues, keep pushing it). WIS is an expansion which allows EVE players to wear leather and walk around stations. Dust514 is a console shooter/rts which will tie into EVE and affect sov.
Ad Valorem	Posted - 2009.09.11 11:28:00 - [69] As mentioned a few times already, change the interface on manufacturing / invention / research to reduce the number of clicks required to start anything. Seriously its ridiculous that I can't start max number of jobs together if I have all the inputs there. This is the future dammit!
Sim Cognito	Posted - 2009.09.11 11:52:00 - [70] I would like to see our favourite developers deal with the mission loot issue which absolutely destroys mineral prices and miners end up being idiots mining less minerals than those that do missions and reprocess the loot or in other words nerf mission loot/reprocessing of modules

Fitz VonHeise Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.09.11 11:56:00 - [71] A lot of great ideas in here. I would like to add my voice to allowing more people to have corp hanger access at POS's: Seven hangers is just not enough. And in case others didn't mention it this guy has good ideas too: POSs: Flogging the Dead Horse
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2009.09.11 12:11:00 - [72] Originally by: Slave 2739FKZ - Fix boosters! No profitable to run the whole damn proccess right now. Synth might need some looking at. The others are plenty profitable. The problem is the penalties/expensive skill book to reduce said penalties create a hump most players don't want to cross The production process is fine (other than the annoying deal with the reaction interface and not being able to move silos up and down). _____________________________________________ -Sketch, Certified Pharmacist Need a Boost?
Railman Arcteryx Research Army of Darkness.	Posted - 2009.09.11 12:29:00 - [73] My ideas and a some others ideas that i support: pos market Take away mission loot drop and replace it with pure salvage and/or drop named bpc. Let there be ore pos that you can deploy in belts that you have explorde in wh-space with purpose to mine the roides in it, like moon mining but its asteroid mining yee you get the picture BUT this will only work in wh-space. Make it possible to unanchor other corp/alliance/players pos if it's offline or even cooler, If you decide just to shoot it down let there be pos wreck so may I introduce the orca salavger that can only salavge pos and pos modules. Introduce the gas barge. And last I want a remote resistance armor/shield transporter
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2009.09.11 12:30:00 - [74] Edited by: XXSketchxx on 11/09/2009 12:30:47 Originally by: Thunder Jolt * Add Science / Industrial Boosters (for a job or a time frame, like any combat boosters) Love this idea. No reason combat pilots should be the only ones to benefit from illegal narcotics. _____________________________________________ -Sketch, Certified Pharmacist Need a Boost?
Martin Baptiste	Posted - 2009.09.11 12:52:00 - [75] Thanks for bringing this up and bringing it to us. I have only one suggestion and its the one that would have the biggest impact. It's already been mentioned in the thread several times, but I'll add my voice to the call: Eliminate NPC T1 loot drops. Instead, (1) add a chance of getting meta 0 T1 items as salvage along with the normal salvage materials and (2) add meta 1-4 BPCs as mission rewards for agents in the Marketing, Manufacturing, Mining, etc. divisions. This way mission runners can still take in a bit if they go to the trouble to salvage and industrialists can serve as the primary T1 module providers.
Zylawy	Posted - 2009.09.11 13:03:00 - [76] Originally by: Fitz VonHeise A lot of great ideas in here. I would like to add my voice to allowing more people to have corp hanger access at POS's: Seven hangers is just not enough. And in case others didn't mention it this guy has good ideas too: POSs: Flogging the Dead Horse I love that idea too, and have been supporting it for 2 years now. but but its too hard..... now would be a good time for them to implement this.
Slave 2739FKZ Minmatar	Posted - 2009.09.11 13:33:00 - [77] Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: Slave 2739FKZ - Fix boosters! No profitable to run the whole damn proccess right now. Synth might need some looking at. The others are plenty profitable. The problem is the penalties/expensive skill book to reduce said penalties create a hump most players don't want to cross The production process is fine (other than the annoying deal with the reaction interface and not being able to move silos up and down). There is no way enought marke for it, so they need to make them more popular/available. (skillbooks or whatever bottleneck there is) WIS is an expansion which allows EVE players to wear leather and walk around stations. Dust514 is a console shooter/rts which will tie into EVE and affect sov.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2009.09.11 13:39:00 - [78] Originally by: Slave 2739FKZ There is no way enought marke for it, so they need to make them more popular/available. (skillbooks or whatever bottleneck there is) You are mistaking profitability with marketability. If you look closely, I agree that there is a bottleneck in the form of the skillbook and details of the boosters (penalties). You initially referred to the process not being profitable. The process is in fact, quite profitable with the proper investment and research. The problem is marketing the final product. But that has more to do with boosters themselves, rather than the actual booster industry/process. _____________________________________________ -Sketch, Certified Pharmacist Need a Boost?
Vanilla Prime 3M Industries	Posted - 2009.09.11 14:21:00 - [79] Originally by: Zyris Internal Corp Market System - Current stocks off Ships/Modules etc can be seen by corp memebers and were to get them. - Also the ability to request Ships/Modules etc to make it easier to for corp industrialists to produce whats in demand. - Possibly expand to cover alliances as well. This, but for alliance. I'm actually seeding an internal alliance ship market through the use of contracts. It somehow works but need constant watch to refill stock as soon as a ship is bought. Any char can create 500 contracts to corp but alliance contracts are private and so limited to 21 by skills ;(
Grendell Technologies Unlimited	Posted - 2009.09.11 14:42:00 - [80] 1. More corp wallet divisions 2. More corp hangar divisions It's really annoying to have to use multiple corps to get everything seperated and organised. Other then that - Contract API - Seperate roles for labs and factories - Seperate roles for specific POS modules - Seperate the roles for being able to offline and put online pos mods. - Allow multiple identical job input - POS ownership transfer between corps - A hauler with 10,000m3 cargo bay, but with a 2 million ship maintenance bay. So we can haul rigged ships through empire properly. - Allowing market orders to be only viewable by corp or alliance members. - Select all, unstack all.

Daemien Murdoc	Posted - 2009.09.11 14:45:00 - [81] Originally by: Adunh Slavy Itty Bitty Mini POS for personal use - do not require moon, allow to be placed anywhere, just give em a scan sig. This one The usual: One asteroid contains different types of ores. Individual ore extractable by Deep Core Mining and specific crystal. T1 Miners would just strip mine everything. Remove all loot from missions / rats -> buff bounties. And buff/rework salvage/salvaging. Add possibility to "rig" T1 modules to upgrade their meta level.
Grendell Technologies Unlimited	Posted - 2009.09.11 14:48:00 - [82] Forgot to mention removing t1 modules from loot tables, that one is so obvious I didn't even write it in my original post.
Leather Jack	Posted - 2009.09.11 15:13:00 - [83] Originally by: XXSketchxx 9. Remove T1 NPC drops to boost T1 manufacture.
Moon Dogg Gallente The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.11 15:27:00 - [84] Edited by: Moon Dogg on 11/09/2009 15:30:47 Well, here are some of the things I have ranted about to corpies: Reduce POS fueling nightmare Create POS fuel cores for each racial fuel type to replace the laundry list of fuels needed now. Maybe create a BPO of each fuel core that requires all of the former POS fuel types in some quantity to make, as well as ôxö amount of something else. You could even create 10-, 20-, and 30-day fuel core BPOÆs to accommodate needs and budgets. Gas Mining Barge We have a Skiff for Mercoxit, a Mackinaw for Ice, so where is our gas mining Barge? Heck, I would settle for a Mackinaw that is dual-bonused towards either Ice or Gas. Gas Strip Miner If we get the barge for Gas, we need the strips  POS Security Revamp. Make it less restrictive, which will allow individuals to set up their own towers without compromising corporation security access. Is this as simple as classifying the deploy of a tower as ôPersonalö or ôCorporateö, with all Personal towers reverting to a set of permissions as set by the anchoring player, and all Corporate towers reverting to the set corp policies? Anchoring Times A bit long, I think. Is changing it to 1-2 minutes per item too much to ask? edit: I am a bit flexible here. Longer anchoring times make it possible for corps/alliances to respond to hostile towers, which is good for them, bad for the tower owner. Maybe I'll wait until after the sov changes before I start beating this drum too loudly :-p T2 Mining Drones can mine Ice and Gas Well, at least Ice. T2 mining drones and gas clouds that make big BOOMS could make for dead T2 mining dronesà Is this a BPO or a BPC? You know the drill on this one. Everyone wants it to happen. Rigs for Miners Something that increases CPU in exchange for shield recharge, maybe? ********************************** "Burn the land, boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me..."
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.09.11 17:14:00 - [85] Originally by: Martin Baptiste Instead, (1) add a chance of getting meta 0 T1 items as salvage along with the normal salvage materials and (2) add meta 1-4 BPCs as mission rewards for agents in the Marketing, Manufacturing, Mining, etc. divisions. BPC for modules used on the ship is one of the worst immersion breaking idea I have seen. If you really want a industrial phase for meta 1-4 items make the ship drop damaged meta 1-4 items that need repairing (new station/POS service, not the current system). But then if NPC ships stop dropping intact modules (or stop dropping modules at all) you need to do the same thing for players ships. Doing it differently is again immersion braking and very fastidious as you see a disparity in shooting NPC and PC. A NPC ship occasionally and very rarely dropping a BPC is a thing, making it a everyday occurrence is horrible. Even more if you think that BPC aren't stackable. 1 damned item in the hangar for each item dropped by NPC? [shudder]
G'Kar5 Gallente Intaki Research and Manufacturing	Posted - 2009.09.11 17:17:00 - [86] IMHO, the biggest problem with industry right now is the corporate security model. It's really restricts the ability of industrial corps to grow, while maintaining security from corporate thefts. I am not saying we need to get rid of theft, just that we need many more controls such that a person can be granted access to various things at a very granular level. This is a lot of information, so it may not all make sense to the end :( First, I think we need to completely change the access control mechanism. I'm essentially building a unix model for security as it gives us a great degree of flexibility. We need 3 levels of access: Read, Write, Execute. Read is simply query, but not be able to interact in any way, Write is the ability to add/remove items, Execute is the ability to USE an item in some industrial process (ie install a BPO, use materials for a manufacturing job, etc). It is really important to distinguish between these three, as sometimes I want people to be able to just SEE what I have for transparency purposes as opposed to letting them use minerals for a job. Next we need to completely change the ownership model. Every object should have a user and group owner. A user is a character and a group is the one of the old "Titles". A corporation can create as many groups as they want. Hangars will no longer exist as we know them, but simply be a folder (and we can create an arbitrary number of them). For example, a hangar at a office location will be owned (user) by a the CEO character. A starbase module will be owned (user) by the player that anchors it. (If a player leaves the corporation, user reverts to CEO). Each object's group owner shall be their primary group. Group and User owners cannot be changed by anybody except the CEO. If you belong to the user or group of an object, you can edit the access controls for that object (ie set any other group to have read, write, execute) on that object. This means that almost all access control is removed from the current corporation tabs and placed under various objects instead. As far as the hangars go, they are essentially folders. We need to have a user defined number of these. Note these will essentially replace station containers, they shouldn't have a need anymore. The only thing we will need, is the audit capability within a folder. We need logs for maybe 48 hours of ALL changes to the folder, corp theft is fine but we need to know who did it. Sorry CCP, but you'll need some extra storage for the logs. This applies to everything, wallets no longer exist as we knew them but are rather just a new object created by the CEO. There will also be some special objects that are virtual. These would be objects like "Deliveries", Factory Slots, Research Slots, Recruitment, etc. (cont below)
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.09.11 17:19:00 - [87] Originally by: Moon Dogg Anchoring Times A bit long, I think. Is changing it to 1-2 minutes per item too much to ask? edit: I am a bit flexible here. Longer anchoring times make it possible for corps/alliances to respond to hostile towers, which is good for them, bad for the tower owner. Maybe I'll wait until after the sov changes before I start beating this drum too loudly :-p Combat* modules have a shorter anchoring time. Can't see why a industrial module should require more time when the what matter for a defender or attacker in POS warfare is the tower and the guns/hardeners.
G'Kar5 Gallente Intaki Research and Manufacturing	Posted - 2009.09.11 17:27:00 - [88] At this point, I think we have a good model except for one problem. Currently there is no way for groups of people to work in the same corp and share resources without giving up total control of their assets (ie BPOs) to the CEO. This change is a dozy, but I think the "Treaty" model fits well. For this we completely kill alliances as we know them. Corporations can now have a subsidiary. A subsidiary is simply another corporation, think of it as a corp wholly owning another corp. A corp becomes a subsidiary by a corporation share vote, upon a "yes" vote, then parent corp must vote to accept it. A corp can become independent again via another corp vote (of the subsidiary). We can now stack corporations as deep as we want. Each subsidiary has a special group "Name of Corp" that all members belong to and other subsidiaries can grant access to their objects by simply adding access for that group. We now have a nice way for individuals to be in the same corp and maintain 100% control over their own assets while also sharing them (in a controlled way) with others. Alliances as they are today, simply become a corp that has each of its current member corps as a subsidiary, with each CEO getting 1 share of the new parent corporation. We'll also have to do some things like allow non-corp member shareholders to vote and to have a new vote called "accept application" to enable outsiders to force a member into a corp (if its empty as the old Alliance will be). We'll also get new things like a chat channel for each subsidiary. Alliances as they are currently used today will becomes the new treaty system. Its a major change and I doubt CCP can change all this in a few months, but its where I think they should head. The most frustrating thing about industry is wanting to be able to create structure and access control, only to find that it cannot be done. This is the biggest thing holding us back as it forces us to remain fragmented, keep small circles of trust, and generally makes being a CEO difficult.
Kyra Felann Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies	Posted - 2009.09.11 17:38:00 - [89] My main two are: Improve mining. Make it something other than "turn on lasers and then go read a book". The proposed ideas like having to scan or probe for belts all sound good. Nerf mission loot. Remove T1 loot outright. I like the ideas of named meta modules being replaced with something similar to salvage that can be made into named modules. The problems I see with mission loot is that they make it difficult to manufacture T1 items for a profit, and that they lower prices of minerals and thus miner income. IMO, virtually all minerals should come from miners, not mission runners or ratters.
Martin Baptiste	Posted - 2009.09.11 20:14:00 - [90] Edited by: Martin Baptiste on 11/09/2009 20:16:22 Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Martin Baptiste Instead, (1) add a chance of getting meta 0 T1 items as salvage along with the normal salvage materials and (2) add meta 1-4 BPCs as mission rewards for agents in the Marketing, Manufacturing, Mining, etc. divisions. BPC for modules used on the ship is one of the worst immersion breaking idea I have seen. If you really want a industrial phase for meta 1-4 items make the ship drop damaged meta 1-4 items that need repairing (new station/POS service, not the current system). Getting a blueprint as a reward from a science/industrial NPC agent is immersion-breaking? What I suggested was that meta 1-4 BPCs be included as mission rewards, not loot drops from wrecks. Please read more carefully. As for taking modules from destroyed craft, that's perfectly legit, but I think you should have to equip and use a salvager beam to get at them and most NPCs should only drop meta 0 T1 kit.



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.