Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Phi Untar
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 23:04:00 -
[181]
Hello.
Ill caveat this, Im not a manufacturing expert.
Seems to me that there is alot of rage (deservedly, or not) about T1 drops.
To keep all pleased, why don't we change the drops to the equivalent base isk value low end salvage, with the option of actually salvaging the wreck to get more. If salvaging the wreck, the low end stuff gets sucked in too.
The missioner can store alot more "isk per M3" that way, and manufacturers get lots more salvage to work with.
More salvage in the market, no T1 from missioners, no mineral flood from missioners.
Missioners still get the occasional meta item, same as now.
The only ones that "suffer" here are ninja salvagers, and that's alright, they can still salvage a wreck, just not loot the low end salvage.
|
Loney
CyberDyne R-D
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 02:39:00 -
[182]
1. More comprehensive BPO/BPC tracking and managing tools.
2. Make more defined roles for manufacturing/research/etc in corporations hangers/ POSs.
3. Increasing the item database limit on TRITANIUM piles and Shares dividends (along with everything else i guess) would be nice form the 2.1xxxx billion to something a bit higher or perhaps and EVEN number like 3b or 5b?
thats all i can think of right now... ..
Check out our Website in game or out!
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 02:43:00 -
[183]
Edited by: Adunh Slavy on 22/09/2009 02:44:29
Originally by: Sungas
As opposed to what some here suggest.
Don't remove T1 drops. ... time into scrap metal processing ... Skill investement should have a corresponding reward.
That's a good point. I wonder if the corresponding bid wars that might occur to purchase T1 for the purpose of refine would offset the ISK loss to those who do not have scrap processing. It would not however help the miner community as the minerals would still exist. Perhaps if the component construction model were adapted, as has been suggested a few times in this thread, then the numbers can be smoothed a bit more in that additional horizontal layer and the benefit of that could be shared with both miners and preprocessors.
Too, there could be additional uses to scrap processing that do not yet exist, something that could come out of Dust514, although what, I'ven't a clue. :)
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
Ukucia
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 17:50:00 -
[184]
Originally by: Sungas Edited by: Sungas on 21/09/2009 18:03:39 As opposed to what some here suggest.
Don't remove T1 drops.
Make the solution like anything else in game.
Reward time invested in skills. If a player opts to invest time into scrap metal processing instead of mining, then give them the appropriate reward for doing so.
If anything, provide more penalty for reprocessing T1 drops if skill investment is not made.
Skill investement should have a corresponding reward.
Who do you think buys the vast majority of T1 drops?
It's the folks with high scrap metal processing, who are buying the items for less than mineral value and selling the minerals.
The problem is there's so many T1 drops, there's no way for a budding manufacturer to make any T1 items and sell them for a profit.
|
Angelica Khan
Gallente Opus Legion
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 12:40:00 -
[185]
As much has already been said, i support the following major features:
* More ships. Simple enough. More ships to fly = More ships blown up. Everyone happy.
* Remove ordinary arch asteriod sites. Make them at random positions through exploration, thus holding bigger asteriods, and please make them look like real asteriod fields.
* Remove T1 drops from NPC and missioning. This is really intresseting, when a explosion occurs, why does modules survive? Go out and blow up your car and try to see if anything survives. Its silly actually, in the contrast, just up the bounties a bit and leave missioning as one profession, and mining as one aswell. To be honest, i feel that mining vs missioning is to unbalanced since mining gets ore which refines to minerals vs missioning were you get bounties, mission rewards and bonuses, salvage and finally t1 items. This is the only point were i point the fingers, and say, its to unbalanced.
* Research Towers for standings. Why should this be granted to missioners alone? I read about higher cost for starbase charters, but dont think it would solve the issue( no offense ^^ ) but rather some contract/rent solution were standings could be one component out of several others, to a equation to get a final renting cost.
* Mining profession marker. Perhaps a bit slighty of topic, and also a bit dull ^^ but anyway, i would like to see tools to be able to group a collection of miners together into one unit and properly display this, also works for combat pilots. This i think would benefit for that group, to see, we belong to eachother( okey sound a bit gay but bare with me here ^^ ) i think it would create a better sence and feeling for squads, wings and even fleets. Could make a simple tool as the corporation logo and make some sort of logo for the squad/wing/fleet. I hope the general idea has been pointed out ^^
* Manufacturing Tools. Make the in-game interface better for manufactures, i support batch inputs as well for invention. Build in calculations tools to better and more efficient to see how ones industry is going, could work on individual level aswell as corporation and even alliance level.
To look into the future, i want love to see( merely ideas and no need to go clanking down ^^):
* Full scale planetary interaction/harvesting. A way to find planets in some size variaty that are practically just gas/metal planets with no life support. Would require a different and seperate skill set than regular industry but with atleast some common entry point. T4 perhaps? Be able to link production on individual level( someone in corp is crazy enough to risk it, or as a corporation or even alliance ) Yes its many crazy talks here, but brainstorming is funny ^^ *Does not need to be 3D and out-of-pod walking* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "..Fear only fear itself.." |
Nidhiesk
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 17:29:00 -
[186]
Ok, I didn't read all the post but if its been said before Im sorry.
- manufacturing named items. - less blueprints for the same type of item (ie: rigs, we got triple now..there needs to be a limit somewhere) - make the asteroid shoot me, I will get my combat ship ready and shoot all asteroids in space. this will be a great way for me to mine - ^ I'm dead serious, i want asteroids to shoot me so I can get minerals...current mining system is boring (maybe not related but it is somewhat..you need mins to produce anyway)
|
Ahro Thariori
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 18:24:00 -
[187]
* make it so that we can at least repackage 0/0 (unresearched) BPOs. Since the introduction of Invention I am piling 0/0-BPOs, and they are really hard to sell as virtually no one ever checks the contracts for them. (btw: increase the 14d max on contracts to 90d). Example: Prototype Cloak BPO (NPC price 90M) sells packaged on the Jita market for up to 125M (convenience markup) but on contracts in Jita not even for 80M (no-one-is-checking markdown). |
Kalpaks II
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 19:47:00 -
[188]
Originally by: Ahro Thariori Edited by: Ahro Thariori on 17/09/2009 19:03:27
Feature request: remove unnecessary clicks from the Science & Industry interface.
Let me expand on that: - at a station with lots of empty slots, why do I have to select one of those explicitly? The distinction isnt meaningful, all I'm interested in is an empty slot or one with the least time on. Same goes for slots within a lab at a POS. So instead of forcing me to select it explicitly let me just select the station/lab and select the least queued slot for me.
Signed - look at use cases: if I am at a POS and I want to say invent on a BPO parked savely at an NPC station I have to manually change the range drop down box from station to current solarsystem every time. It's just one click but it gets stupid rather quickly. Either change the standard setting - or if this standard is required for another use case - make standard range selector in the drop down box configurable
- make everything batch; if I want to do 10x Improved Cloak invention from ten 1-run cloak BPCs utilizing ten Interface Alignment Charts, dont let me go through the tiresome interface 10x times. Allow me to select 5x BPCs, right-click Invention, select the lab (not the slots), warn me if there's not 5 empty slots, let me select the Decryptor, etc. pp. and be done for after the second iteration. - Or even better - Allow me to select 10x BPCs, right-click Invention, ask me to select several labs until the selected labs combined have enough slots for the 10 jobs (but also show me the value of the largest queued slot and allow me to select an additional lab to reduce this number).
|
Bill Poster
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 08:55:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Shoogie
2) Please let me disable the popup box to tell me "Warning, the line you selected is in use. Would you like to queue up your job after this one finishes?"
Try double clicking the assembly line instead of single click + use button.
|
A Ingus
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 15:39:00 -
[190]
Biggest thing to me as an inventor is:
Increase the base ME on all invent jobs. Or at least on ship invent BPCs. The way things are now there are many ships that are simply uneconomical to invent and manufacture. The BPOs owners of those ships have a huge advantage with reduced build costs because their BPOs have so much better ME.
You supposedly wanted invention to replace the BPO lottery and BPO holding. There is no way to compete with the BPO ME advantage for some ships. This is very pronounced at the Command ship level where a large number of tech II components are required for each build. The effect of any ME advantage is quite exaggerated at that level.
Increasing the availability of tech II components, lowering the price of tech II components, reducing the total build components required, while reducing the overall manufacture costs and eventual sale price, will not ameliorate the very wide ME advantage BPO holders have. Fix this situation please.
|
|
Max Essen
Gallente Bison Industrial Inc
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 00:58:00 -
[191]
My 2 cents worth. As I have just finished reading this entire thread, I have my personal "Top 10" well ... 11 items I would strongly support.
1. T1 Module Manufacture. Remove NPC drops of T1 Meta 0 loot. This will make manufacture of T1 more viable.
2. ORE Transport. A transportation optimized varient of the Orca as a mid-level cargo and/or ship transporter. [side note: Always thought the Orca should have been an ORE ship.]
3. Corp Production Request Queue. Place for corp members initiate a building request that would show up on a "corp building plan" interface that CEO/Dirs could prioritize.
4. Covetor Skill Reduction. Revisit the 18 hour training gap between Covetor and Hulk. This will make the Covetor a viable ship again.
5. ORE Control Tower. Ore refine and Manufacture bonus. Perhaps even allow the ORE towers to refine in 0.5+ systems? [hearing the screams already]
6. Hanger and Wallet Divisions. Add 3 of each please.
7. Personal Hanger Array. 10-20% of a POS Corp hanger anchored by a corp-member (new permission to allow) inside the POS shields but not within 10km of tower. Access is only to person who anchored. Can be removed by said person or CEO/Dirs.
8. POS Fuel Pellets with appropriate BPO. Please.
9. ORE T3 Exhumer. I would pay some serious ISK for one. As far as "Devs have already stated that the Hulk is the pinnacle of mining (in terms of maximum ore extraction)." Well, all things change and nothing is impossible.
10. Secure Corp BPO Library. Can be shared (by permissions) to corpmates without this clunky locking the BPO mechanism.
11. Reduce HiSec POS Standings Requirements by 66% while doubling the "charters" required. As corp standing increase, reduce the charters required.
|
Sungas
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 03:03:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Ukucia
Originally by: Sungas Edited by: Sungas on 21/09/2009 18:03:39 As opposed to what some here suggest.
Don't remove T1 drops.
Make the solution like anything else in game.
Reward time invested in skills. If a player opts to invest time into scrap metal processing instead of mining, then give them the appropriate reward for doing so.
If anything, provide more penalty for reprocessing T1 drops if skill investment is not made.
Skill investement should have a corresponding reward.
Who do you think buys the vast majority of T1 drops?
It's the folks with high scrap metal processing, who are buying the items for less than mineral value and selling the minerals.
The problem is there's so many T1 drops, there's no way for a budding manufacturer to make any T1 items and sell them for a profit.
You didn't address the reward for investing in scrap metal processing. Do you suggest the skill should be worth nothing? I have a counter proposal using your mindset.....make the mining skills worth nothing instead.
|
foobarx
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 11:12:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Ahro Thariori * make it so that we can at least repackage 0/0 (unresearched) BPOs. Since the introduction of Invention I am piling 0/0-BPOs, and they are really hard to sell as virtually no one ever checks the contracts for them. (btw: increase the 14d max on contracts to 90d). Example: Prototype Cloak BPO (NPC price 90M) sells packaged on the Jita market for up to 125M (convenience markup) but on contracts in Jita not even for 80M (no-one-is-checking markdown).
You should be able to repackage any BPO into its 0/0 packaged version.
|
Ancy Denaries
Caldari The Confederate Navy Forever Unbound
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 13:12:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Abrazzar Here, have some stuff about mining.
Abrazzars mining overhaul and Nyphur's Mining MK II are two VERY good reads when it comes to stuff that can be made for mining. READ it and understand it. Please, you owe us that much. ----- Why doesn't anyone ever read the forums before posting? EVE is a game of adaptation and planning. Adapt or die. |
foobarx
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:03:00 -
[195]
Originally by: A Ingus Edited by: A Ingus on 24/09/2009 15:46:43 Biggest thing to me as an inventor is:
Increase the base ME on all invent jobs. Or at least on ship invent BPCs. The way things are now there are many ships that are simply uneconomical to invent and manufacture. The BPOs owners of those ships have a huge advantage with reduced build costs because their BPOs have so much better ME.
CCP supposedly wanted invention to replace the BPO lottery and BPO holding. There is no way to compete with the BPO ME advantage for some ships. This is very pronounced at the Command ship level where a large number of tech II components are required for each build. The effect of any ME advantage is quite exaggerated at that level.
Increasing the availability of tech II components, lowering the price of tech II components, reducing the total build components required, while reducing the overall manufacture costs and eventual sale price, will not ameliorate the very wide ME advantage BPO holders have. Fix this situation please.
People who have T2 ship BPOs paid untold billions for them. CCP has already reduced those BPOs to a fraction of their original value. Do you really think it's fair to do it again? CCP did get rid of the BPO lottery, but as far as I know they never intended to shaft all the existing BPO holders like that.
In any event you seem to believe invention will become more profitable if inventors can compete on more even terms with BPO holders. But it isn't true, and for proof you need only look at T2 ships that never had BPOs. The reason invention isn't profitable is it has low barriers to entry, and there will always be people who do invention without considering whether or not it's profitable. Every couple days there's a thread on this forum that goes something to the effect of "I just invented ten Claymore BPCs. Why can't I sell them for a profit?"
|
Roland Grey
Gallente Nexus Aerospace Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 17:09:00 -
[196]
* BPO/BPC differentiation. Everyone seems to concur.
* Different mining ships - some variant on how there is no "best" PvP ship, make it the same with mining ships.
|
Shoogie
Galactic Research Mining and Manufacturing
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 03:32:00 -
[197]
Originally by: Bill Poster
Originally by: Shoogie
2) Please let me disable the popup box to tell me "Warning, the line you selected is in use. Would you like to queue up your job after this one finishes?"
Try double clicking the assembly line instead of single click + use button.
...
Oh my God.
I've been cursing that popup box for 3 years now.
THANK YOU!
|
Xessej
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 04:14:00 -
[198]
As a solution to the t1 loot drops from rats problem for manufacturers. I suggest getting rid of intact modules period except for faction and officer rats.
Instead I suggest that rat loot should consist of non mineral, and not reprocessable, items that would be required for building of meta 1 to 4 items. BPC's for said items could drop as rat loot as well or be produced by some sort of invention process.
This would solve the problems of most t1 items being pointless to manufacture and also open up a lot of niches for manufacturers.
BTW this is not my idea, I read it somewhere else and cannot find the original post. I also only scanned the last few pages of this thread so if the idea has been suggested already my apologies.
|
Voda Nardu
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 04:43:00 -
[199]
1. Science and industry looking Corp logos. Skulls glore but not much industry looking
2. Bigger science and industrial empire use ships. Would like a couple mire high slits on the Orca too.
|
Ten Bulls
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 04:46:00 -
[200]
Originally by: Kennys Zombie
-Ability to rent lab slots to public
And the ability for corp members to use lab slots from their personal hanger rather than only the corp hanger.
Sometimes i wouldnt want to trust every corp member with my expensive bpo.
|
|
Ten Bulls
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 04:55:00 -
[201]
Remove all T2 BPO's or somehow make it more expensive than invention.
To maximize enjoyment and fairness there needs to be a level playing field, there cant be whilst T2 BPO's are fixed, the last remenents of the T2 lottery need to be purged from the galaxy.
Better ownership mechanics, a way of renting/leasing my stuff (t1 bpo, ship whatever) to another player, allowing collateral to be required (like it can be required for courier contracts). Renting/Leasing might encourage more sharing of stuff within a corp as it would require total trust of the individual, maybe collateral could be paid by the corp.
|
TR1 MASTER
Enterprise.
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 14:28:00 -
[202]
i'd like to be able to have more than the max 10 / 11 if you take Addvance Mass Prodution skill to lvl 5 manufacturing jobs allowed per charater, i dont mind if i have to train a new skill as long as its not as bad training time wise as getting from lvl 4 to 5 AMP per each extra manufaturing job i can do.
|
Sorgenbinder
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 17:20:00 -
[203]
One improvement I would love to see is to have my own buy and sell orders highlighted in the Market page, and be able to access and modify them from there instead of having to go through the Wallet page. That would halve the time I spend monitoring my trades.
Plus having some distinction between BPOs and BPCs in Assets lists would be a huge boon.
|
Sorgenbinder
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 17:27:00 -
[204]
Oops, thought of another...
Enabling a system whereby you can set a "home" station for your buy orders. I don't know if I'm odd this way (hell, I'm odd many other ways...) but if I want to place a load of remote buy orders, more often than not I want to place them all at the same station. Having to manually choose the station for each individual order is a true pain in the posterior.
|
Sorgenbinder
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 17:33:00 -
[205]
And also...
A facility to disable the prompt box which pops up when you set a buy order with a low price, asking to confirm the price. It happens so often that I just click it automatically: it doesn't prevent me making mistakes, it just annoys the hell out of me.
|
Ukucia
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 01:51:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Sungas
Originally by: Ukucia
Who do you think buys the vast majority of T1 drops?
It's the folks with high scrap metal processing, who are buying the items for less than mineral value and selling the minerals.
The problem is there's so many T1 drops, there's no way for a budding manufacturer to make any T1 items and sell them for a profit.
You didn't address the reward for investing in scrap metal processing. Do you suggest the skill should be worth nothing? I have a counter proposal using your mindset.....make the mining skills worth nothing instead.
My point was that no change was necessary, because people are already doing what you suggest.
And the current situation makes the skill investment in producing T1 items worthless, and that is greater than the investment in reprocessing T1 items.
|
Crocodylus Porosus
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 13:06:00 -
[207]
Edited by: Crocodylus Porosus on 27/09/2009 13:10:13 Edited by: Crocodylus Porosus on 27/09/2009 13:09:03 Edited by: Crocodylus Porosus on 27/09/2009 13:06:40
Originally by: Amodeus Dralnalak Mining and Containers
How about a very large anchorable container that can be locked, but which doesn't fit into a normal cargo hold? You have to have a specific type of industrial to carry it as an external container. Basically, the ship is a big engine with a backbone leading to a bridge at the other end. The pod fits in the middle. The ship flies out, drops and anchors the pod, then returns to the station. Later it flies out, picks up the pod, and takes it wherever.
To help balance the use, the pod would not be movable with normal tractors and would have a much shorter lifespan than the secured containers in use now.
There are trucks that basically work this way in the real world, so why not space ships?
Originally by: Kaylee Juuna
Originally by: Amodeus Dralnalak Mining and Containers
Something like this?
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w30/ponchato/UEFT3AirTransport.jpg
I really like this idea, an Orca currently has the pods already on the ship, maybe a T2 variant that can move specialised pods. It would speed up large mining operations. Dropping the pods at a warpin on a belt, haulers warp to it drop of the cargo. The pod-truck comes in to pick up the pods.
The big problem with making this a T2 variant is the obvious costs. 2 billion for something like this? You'd need to haul a lot of ore to breakeven on the investment.
Brings another reason why to have Anchoring V. Pods ought to be targetable by rats, ect
|
Dani SP
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 18:36:00 -
[208]
LMAO the ship on that link made me think of a Rifter...
I honestly think CCP should develop a new miner ship, more powerful than the Hulk. So this wouldn't be the ultimate miner any more.
The new ship would fit 5x Modulated Strip Miner II and be 12k cargohold by default, 3 meds and 3 lows.
Now the important feature: it couldn't enter highsec. So this can only be used in lowsec and 0.0. This would bring an awesome opportunity to lowsec to get more populated and alive, while highsec dwellers would think twice before saying lowsec is useless.
|
Gotrek65
Caldari Shadows.
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 20:47:00 -
[209]
Not sure if this was mentioned yet but..
1. Make implant BPO/BPC so we can make them(saw this in Development/The Drawingboard once)
|
Isk Exstractor
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 21:46:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Swalesey
Also, can roles be set for a person to only be able to cancel/complete there own jobs rather than everyone's in the corp.
I would like to second, third and 1 Trillionth this suggestion. Would be a god send to be able to do this.. Only Directors and above should be able to cancel every corp job going. Not everyone with rights to build for the corp. This would help out with security in a HUGE way. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |