Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Azmodeus Valar
Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2009.09.11 21:08:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Swalesey
Decent corporate bpo/bpc library in game. As previously said, the interface for checking out blueprints is not great. improving this and the corp roles system for hanger access and how you can use a blueprint in a station would be great.
Been able to use a corp bpo locked in a hanger, and having the output and drop been a player's hanger would be great. Also, can roles be set for a persn to only be able to cancel/complete there own jobs rather than everyone's in the corp.
Setting seperate access for different corp hanger arrays/labs on a pos. Maybe an option to make an allowed list for each hanger in it's options, so members can ahve personnal hanger space on a pos then stuff doesn't get mixed up.
Don't make this a Buff industry, nerf everything else operation. Mke doing industrial tasks easier through the interfaces. Please look at the corp roles system to make it more user friendly and to make it easier to set up how you want it. current interface is not great. That'ds be my no 1 request.
As the person in charge of setting up access for 1000+ new players (and spies) while trying to have it in some way secure, these features would encourage me to buy a year supply of beer for the dev that implements them.
|
Alexeph Stoekai
Stoekai Corp
|
Posted - 2009.09.11 21:30:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Alexeph Stoekai on 11/09/2009 21:34:44
Originally by: Sidrat Flush
Why does manufacturing have to be such a click fest? Could it not be possible to highlight a group of blueprints and then enter their related activity and number of runs?
+1
The manufacture and invention experience is terrible. There must be a hundred ways to improve it, but the greatest fix would be to remove the need to click a million time to install your daily jobs. Allow us to manage the installation of several blueprints at the same time.
Also, however inconceivable it might be to actually have implemented, I want to see the ability to rent out industry slots on POSes to the public. -----
|
Signore Kaeota
Caldari Caelum Incognitum
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 04:52:00 -
[93]
Sorry if it's already been said, but I really don't want to read through 4 pages.
Mission loot, mission loot, insurance, and mission loot.
Anything I missed? Did I get mission loot?
Oh, and this f*cking time flux. make it one minute if you MUST have it.
|
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 05:30:00 -
[94]
Nerfing lvl 4 mission loot will have an immediate effect on the supply of minerals, Trit will go beyond 4.5 if CCP nerfed drops. To force people to stop hugging lvl 4 missions, as if there is no tomorrow, ccp need to nerf the reward from these missions. They want people to go to 0.0 but don't want to give them a reason to do so. It's stupid and it's been said repeatedly for years. CCP have already, several times, nerfed mission loot but, as long as they don't nerf the bounty rewards nothing will change.
|
Signore Kaeota
Caldari Caelum Incognitum
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 06:31:00 -
[95]
Edited by: Signore Kaeota on 12/09/2009 06:34:37 This is true, but my suggestion wasn't to get people to stop missioning, it was to prevent them from providing 40% of the minerals - especially those highend mins like zydrine and megacyte -- these should ONLY be accessable from low / null sec.
EDIT: Just to add: any upwards price trend nerfing mission look has on minerals would be a good thing, as it would subsequently nerf insurance - and to top it off mining might, MIGHT, be able to compare to missioning for a change.
But yes, system belts and all those other things (sorry bad memory) are good ideas as well.
just to reiterate (cause I know someone's gunna say this) I don't want mining to be 'the best' way to make isk in high sec, I just want it to be ROUGHLY equal to missioning (even if we compare it to missioning before the LP rewards! I mean, they DO take more risks)
|
Padrfe
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 06:32:00 -
[96]
If mining lasers seem to atomize the rock before pulling/reflecting it back to your ship. Via some sort of beaming/tractor technology. Then can we get a matter transfer device? If the transmitter is a high slot item and the receiver is also a high slot item it would allow multiple miners to "beam" their ore directly to an industrial command ship rather than rely on the orca/rorq to tractor the can or for an indy to trundle around an collect it all. Distances you could maintain beam cohesion could be based on skill level, along with any material lost in the transfer. If I were mining in space this is a technology I would want to look into.
But then again, I just want to bolt 2 hulks together at the frame and see what that does.
Just my two cents.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 06:49:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Martin Baptiste 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.
Your idea is even worse than what I misinterpreted.
What is your idea, then, 1 BPC every mission? of 1 random module?
From 0 isk value for a meta 1 75 mm railgun to several teens of millions for multi run 425 railgun prototype.
Check the number of modules, multiply for 4 levels of metaitems and see how often a decent BPC will came from the agent as a mission reward and where the decent metamodules will go.
And that wonderful reward would be an addition to the normal reward or as a substitution, so that you will nerf mission reward even more?
If instead you mean it as a LP reward it is even worse. People will pick only the good version and we can remove meta 1-3 items from the game.
Either way you will reduce mission reward by 50% at least and print a lot of useless BPC.
Note that it will require to rewrite all the mineral content of the metaitems or they will require less minerals to build than T1.
|
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 08:00:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Signore Kaeota Edited by: Signore Kaeota on 12/09/2009 06:34:37 This is true, but my suggestion wasn't to get people to stop missioning, it was to prevent them from providing 40% of the minerals - especially those highend mins like zydrine and megacyte -- these should ONLY be accessable from low / null sec.
High-ends are nearly exclusively mined, even the Drone Regions don't put a lot of high-ends into the market. If you look at the dev blog you're quoting you will see you're wrong. Trit, pye and mex are the main mineral mission runners are responsible for and it wasn't 40, from what I remember it was 60 but I could be wrong. I think they are responsible for less than 2% of all Megacyte and Zydrine.
|
Vhiskey
Caldari Imperial Forces
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 09:17:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Super Whopper and it wasn't 40, from what I remember it was 60 but I could be wrong.
it was 40% and it was ALL loot. that includes the drops in the drone regions and all other loot
|
Marara Kovacs
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 09:33:00 -
[100]
Just one idea id like to see, ability to have more corp hangars... for a research corp, which needs a couple of hangars for corp needs, having only like 3 or 4 hangars available for people touse with their own bpo stock is just painful... People want some security for their bpo's, the only realistic security, and that isnt great, is to have a hangar to yourself...
So, ability for corps to hire more hangar divisions please...
|
|
Slave 2739FKZ
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 09:40:00 -
[101]
Originally by: XXSketchxx
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.
You're right, and that's what I mean. In the end what matters is they do them interesting so more industrialists can bother with making them. 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. |
Signore Kaeota
Caldari Caelum Incognitum
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 10:24:00 -
[102]
Edited by: Signore Kaeota on 12/09/2009 10:31:08
Originally by: Vhiskey
Originally by: Super Whopper and it wasn't 40, from what I remember it was 60 but I could be wrong.
it was 40% and it was ALL loot. that includes the drops in the drone regions and all other loot
ahh, thanks. I read it once and never again, explains why I quoted the wrong figure >.> still too high in my opinion, but drone regions has nothing else so... *shrugs*
Originally by: Super Whopper High-ends are nearly exclusively mined, even the Drone Regions don't put a lot of high-ends into the market. If you look at the dev blog you're quoting you will see you're wrong. Trit, pye and mex are the main mineral mission runners are responsible for and it wasn't 40, from what I remember it was 60 but I could be wrong. I think they are responsible for less than 2% of all Megacyte and Zydrine.
Yes, I'm aware high ends are mainly mined, my issue there is they should be exclusively mined (once again, drone regions pose an issue here). But yes, lower ends are refined more than anything by missioners, but this is still an issue. I can't be assed to dig up the dev blog (namely because it's been about a month since I've bothered reading them and have forgotten where to go... my bad?), but even if only 30% of the lower end minerals are provided by mission runners, that's still about 25% too much. why? because they get: Bounties, Mission rewards, LP rewards - all of that on top of the minerals... I think the total isk / hour ratio for l4s is something like 5 times higher than that of a high sec miner... if it was 1.3, or heck, even twice as high, it probably wouldn't be such an issue, but 5 times? I'm sorry, especially when that cuts into the miners profits, there's an issue there in my opinion.
As with so many of my posts, I must add a disclaimer: I did not mean to sound condescending, or in any other way insulting; I'm just naturally an a.s.s... sorry.
|
Magellan Drake
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 11:21:00 -
[103]
A sollution for making low and med ore proffitable is adding unique materials yield for each and adding items that can be crafted from these.
Apart from that I cant realy see any way to make it worth it except for making them all the same or without making something else less profitable.
Like say making it possible to create t2 components from mining different ores as a alternative to moon mining,however that would make ice mining and moon profit collapse.
|
Swalesey
Prosperity Through Violence
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 12:00:00 -
[104]
aWhen repackaging a load os modules in a station, AHaving it say an item is damaged out of you 2000 items, and just not reapckaging any is so annoying.
Can it not repackage all the items that are not an issue and have a list x,y and z were not repackaged due to module damage.
Refining all modules etc, same thing
This type of container can not go into that kind of whatever. the rest of the stuff can though so why not put all in, cept what couldn't go in. So annoying having to juggle things when the drag and drop interface is not the best anyway.
I think a lot of what I have seen in this thread is about an interface overhaul to make things easier to do. Blueprints, pos labs, corp roles and hanger access etc.
|
Lui Kai
Better Than You
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 13:12:00 -
[105]
Edited by: Lui Kai on 12/09/2009 13:12:05 +1 to icon differentiation for BPCs vs BPOs.
+5 to systemwide belts. ----------------
|
Silmai
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 14:15:00 -
[106]
- Corp shop fronts
- Address causes of below cost sales of ships and modules
- Faction standings are a mind numbing grind .. to easy to loose, too hard to get back. This affects the ability to anchor pos' in high sec
- Flatten the distribution of ores - allow high value ores to be found in high sec. Does it make sense that the major factions would allow all their strategic resources to be available only in player owned space ?
- Allow naming of corp offices.
- On player manufactured goods allow for the manufacturer to set a minimum sec level that can use the item.
|
Martin Baptiste
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 14:36:00 -
[107]
Quote: What is your idea, then, 1 BPC every mission? of 1 random module?
From 0 isk value for a meta 1 75 mm railgun to several teens of millions for multi run 425 railgun prototype.
Check the number of modules, multiply for 4 levels of metaitems and see how often a decent BPC will came from the agent as a mission reward and where the decent metamodules will go.
And that wonderful reward would be an addition to the normal reward or as a substitution, so that you will nerf mission reward even more?
I can't claim to know how to balance the idea in terms of making a "fair" reward for every L1-L5 agent in the game, but a 2-3 run meta 1-2 BPC for a L1 courier/mining mission doesn't sound too far out of bounds. Perhaps they could be implemented as the bonus reward for the last mission in a series. We see this in COSMOS agents already. The BPC's value would obviously increase with agent level and mission difficulty, and the normal ISK rewards would still be there in part. I do understand the challenge of balancing the idea, particularly as a reward BPC's value would fluctuate with the price of minerals and demand for the product, but is that not a more interesting and dynamic system than what we currently have?
Quote: Either way you will reduce mission reward by 50% at least and print a lot of useless BPC.
Why would the mission rewards be reduced as a result? The idea is to relocate the supply of meta 1-4 items from loot drops to industrialist players. There are plenty of newer pilots who would probably love to fill that niche and would find even an obscure meta 2 item worth the effort of manufacture and sale. If nothing else, it gives those pilots more/something else to do.
Quote: Note that it will require to rewrite all the mineral content of the metaitems or they will require less minerals to build than T1.
Probably, but I thought this thread was intended to discuss ideas for industrial-focused expansions, not quick fixes.
|
Rotti
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 14:50:00 -
[108]
Ok
One way as temporary solution to T2 BPO's advantage and the increase in costs for inventor is to actually tweak decryptors to give a decent ME on the print. ie best run decryptor gives ME 0 best ME decryptor gives -4 or -5 ME but only one run. Demand for R64 Moon mats would drop straight away and would be a quick if temporary solution to this problem, also put inventor more on par with BPO holders.
Also I would like to see remote move allowed at POS's annoy that you have to fly there to get stuff for your corp mates.
I want fuel pellets for POS's jesus balancing the fuel is a real pain
|
Imuran
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 16:17:00 -
[109]
- Ability to view POS hangers remotely
- BPC Information in API
- BPO Information in API
- View contents of remote containers
- Move stuff in and out of remote containers
- Major overhaul of S&I UI many ideas in thread
- Ability to use BPOs in hanger and materails in corp hanger and vica versa
- Fuel pellets for POS nice idea - maybe manufacture them from the goods in small/medium/large sizes
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 16:47:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Rotti Ok
One way as temporary solution to T2 BPO's advantage and the increase in costs for inventor is to actually tweak decryptors to give a decent ME on the print. ie best run decryptor gives ME 0 best ME decryptor gives -4 or -5 ME but only one run. Demand for R64 Moon mats would drop straight away and would be a quick if temporary solution to this problem, also put inventor more on par with BPO holders.
Also I would like to see remote move allowed at POS's annoy that you have to fly there to get stuff for your corp mates.
I want fuel pellets for POS's jesus balancing the fuel is a real pain
Are you aware that ME for T2 has a real influence over price only for ships?
ME for modules change only the asteroid minerals content, a minimal part of the production cost.
A useful change for T2 production would be to have different decryptors for modules, ammunition, an ship class.
That would allow different characteristic for each kind of decryptors.
For example module decryptors could give a +100%/+400% number of runs (so +10/+40 runs for max run BPC) and +10/+0 PE, with no increase in chance of success (it is already high) and no ME increase (almost meaningless for the production cost of modules).
Frigate decryptors could give a +0/+10 runs spread with good PE and passable ME bonus and appropriate increases of chance of success.
Cruisers +0/+4 run but better ME levels and higher success modifier.
Battleship high ME levels an chance of success but only 0-1 extra runs.
These are only examples but I hope the idea is clear.
|
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 17:04:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Martin Baptiste
Quote: What is your idea, then, 1 BPC every mission? of 1 random module?
I can't claim to know how to balance the idea in terms of making a "fair" reward for every L1-L5 agent in the game, but a 2-3 run meta 1-2 BPC for a L1 courier/mining mission doesn't sound too far out of bounds. ecc. cut short for space
1) you remove loot for combat mission and ratting and add a "compensation" for courier missions. Notice a problem there?
2) the above would make named modules a rarity and probably the province of macro haulers. No good.
3) get to your production/invention hangar, open all the BPC containers and drop them on the hangar floor. That is what you wish for mission runners. Note too that BPC can't be sold on the market, so new players would have items that are useless for them (1 contract till you train up and an extra mandatory skill) while contracts will be flooded.
4) I don't recall the exact number of modules in game, but they are at least 300. Multiply for an average of more than 3 version in the meta 1-4 range. We get at least 1.000 different BPC. Try to think how often the players will get "exemplar 30 of the same useless BPC" and how often thy will receive something useful.
5) you are advocating a double increase in building slot usage, once for meta 0 modules and then for meta 1+ modules. You really think that new players incapable of putting up a industrial POS would find open slots for production without a long waiting queue?
|
Komi Toran
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 17:05:00 -
[112]
Let's see... try to mention stuff that isn't here...
Make contract sorting possible, especially for blueprint originals. Could even make a blueprint original contract its own, special contract type, so you won't have to worry about those database problems that currently screw up the BPO/BPC icon thing.
Remote operation skills at level 5 should be worth something. Maybe get rid of the region restriction?
Streamline the blueprint lock-down procedure. Right now, if my corp gets a new blueprint, in order to lock it down we must first set-up a job to unpack it. Then, we need to initiate the vote. Then, a vote must be cast, which involves looking at a screen that can have dozens of other lock-down votes, organized with no rhyme or reason. This made the release of the 1.5 patch both a day of celebration and despair, as I had to do this for a lot of the new rig BPOs.
|
MightyRhinox
Minmatar Rhinox Heavy Industries Twilight Military Industrial Complex Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 17:49:00 -
[113]
Originally by: This NameTaken
How about a way to tell bpc's from bpo's without opening the darn things up?
You can already through the science and industry panel.
|
Ronucti
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 19:46:00 -
[114]
What about controllable Asteroid Belts?
-Make Permanent Belts that re spawn every 2 or 3 DT's -These belts are scanned out -Allow them to have a tower anchored to it -Allow that tower to fit POS modules so its more like a factory
-0.0 and WH space ONLY
OR
Little mining outposts! yes its the idea that one dude made to be able to have your own little asteroid home <---- PLEASE DO THIS
|
Martin Baptiste
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 19:57:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Venkul Mul 4) I don't recall the exact number of modules in game, but they are at least 300. Multiply for an average of more than 3 version in the meta 1-4 range. We get at least 1.000 different BPC. Try to think how often the players will get "exemplar 30 of the same useless BPC" and how often thy will receive something useful.
5) you are advocating a double increase in building slot usage, once for meta 0 modules and then for meta 1+ modules. You really think that new players incapable of putting up a industrial POS would find open slots for production without a long waiting queue?
Alright, I follow you on these points. How about instead of meta 1-4 BPCs being created and given as mission rewards, we give out meta 0 BPCs as rewards and add a new production mechanic to the game? Say... you can opt to pour in an extra amount of materials and/or time when setting up a T1 manufacturing job that will give you a percentage chance of producing an item of unknown higher meta level (with the chance of getting a meta 4 far smaller than a meta 1). Or that percentage could be based on a new skill (maybe req. Mass Production 5 to train and improves the chance by 3-5%/level).
At the same time, reduce (but not eliminate) loot drops, particularly the likelihood of finding meta 3 and 4 loot.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 20:55:00 -
[116]
Adding a chance based mechanic in the manufacturing process?
Facepalm
No thanks.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 22:06:00 -
[117]
Here, have some stuff about mining. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Amarth necron
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 22:12:00 -
[118]
"Invention Luck or unlucky report on invention. You made now 10 inventions 4 where successfully in total you made this year 200 inventions on this item and you have 102 successful invention runs.
Invention chance report tool (When invention this item your chance is 49 %)"
I will have to second scouters ideas. This would be a welcome addition for invention, not having to go in completely blind.
System wide belts, and 'roids with more than one ore isnt a bad idea either.
|
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 22:31:00 -
[119]
Edited by: Barbara Nichole on 12/09/2009 22:32:59
- Add more mineral types and uses for them.
- Add a pos module for combining minerals and creating alloy then add more ways to use alloy.
- Add covert miner that drills into asteroids of size to work and hide in them.
- Add salvager drones.
- Add a solar collection sytem for plasma or star dust. Will need new star mining exhumer allowing this. Add uses for these materials.
- Whereas multi-ore asteroids will either cause a hassle with mining crystals or make them obsolete, introduce blasting into the game to blow asteroids into their component single ore asteroidal types.
- Add mining op tools for tracking participation, and sorting ore, or isk.
- Remake the ingame calculator so that the size scales.
- One more high slot for the orca.
|
Bel Amar
Amarr Children of Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 23:32:00 -
[120]
Some ideas are mine, some are stolen from elsewhere in this thread that I like.
Batch Install - Invention/Manufacturing/copying/everything. Let the computer pick the best queues for me if there are queues.
Introduce low end (ie cheap) decryptors usable in module invention
Introduce /slight/ random alterations to BPC stats when using a decryptor.
Turn on the ability for alliance/corps to rent out their POS slots to the public
Popup notification about the ideal me level when someone tries to research to a higher level at a public lab
Turn Meta 1-4 drops in to BPCs or a new type of damaged item that needs industry to repair and reduce Meta 0 loot drops (though do not eliminate them).
Automatically set production off bpcs to be the number of runs on the bpc.
A search box for the blueprints screen (like the one we already have on assets windows).
Differentiate BPCs and BPOs! I need to be able to tell at a glance which is which
Add ore holds to barges and exhumers.
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)
Skillgap from retriever to covetor is too big and the gap from the covetor to hulk is too small
Contract API
Reduce POS fueling nightmare
T2 Mining Drones can mine Ice and Gas
Anchoring a POS in high sec shouldn't be all or nothing. Alter charter costs based on standings and the sec system, and let people choose whether or not it's worth the cost
Remove the need to anchor a POS on moons. Stick a <insert number>AU limit from nearest planet instead so people don't dump them in deep safes. Maybe make them warpable with a hit from the directional scanner, as they can currently effectively be found this way by poining your directional scanner at a moon
Salvager drones
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |