Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aphrodite Skripalle
Galactic Defence Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 08:14:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Aphrodite Skripalle on 18/11/2010 08:28:01 Nothing in reality will last forever. If you repair something, it will not be new. If you use it often it will wear out. The older it gets, the more rusty and broken it will become. After some (long) time you need to replace it.
Put a timer on ships and items, when they are used. Make a repair in station not 100% so that its new, make it something below 100% so that after some time you want to get a new ship, if you can afford it.
This will boost the market, this will generate a logical isk sink.
|
Whaddahell
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 08:29:00 -
[2]
sounds logical.
perhaps you should propose numbers though. perhaps there should be different quality repair stations that repair it better or worse changing the life expectancy?
|
Gallians
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 08:54:00 -
[3]
Very No.
This idea is bad and you should feel bad.
|
SkinSin
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 08:55:00 -
[4]
Not supported. I don't want to have to buy a new ship after (for example) 60 days because it aged and is thus less effective.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 08:57:00 -
[5]
Terrible idea. This would literally kill 0.0. Every "so often" you would have to completely replace dozens upon dozens of infrastructure and CSAA pos including the CSAA itself which costs billions to replace. Not to mention supercaps would eventually have to be replaced. This would be an incredible bane on all but the richest Eve players. I happen to be one of those rich ones so this wouldn't really hurt me beyond the annoyance of producing ship after ship that takes MONTHS to build nearly endlessly to keep the ONE im using "repaired" but it would destroy the Eve economy
|
Aphrodite Skripalle
Galactic Defence Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 10:23:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Aphrodite Skripalle on 18/11/2010 10:26:43 Edited by: Aphrodite Skripalle on 18/11/2010 10:22:56
Originally by: SkinSin Not supported. I don't want to have to buy a new ship after (for example) 60 days because it aged and is thus less effective.
If you dont use the ship, it shouldnt age. The timer only should count while you are using it. Maybe a counter who counts how many hits you got or anything what dont cause lag.
Of course people wont like the idea, to buy a new ship after a while using it. Nobody likes that really. Nobody wants to become older in real life, too. We love the idea of being undestructable, immortal, never losing anything because of aging, cumulate isk easily...
.. just it doesnt work that way. Economy needs aging, thats why mother nature let you die after a reasonable time to free up place for something new.
And of course, small tech I ships are aging faster then big expensive or tech II or tech III ships. Its all matter of numbers, scaleable. Of course you can repair ships, but every time you need a repair, the ship looses a bit of its shinyness and becomes older. You can still use it, repair it again and again... but one day you want a new one.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 11:59:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Aphrodite Skripalle Edited by: Aphrodite Skripalle on 18/11/2010 10:26:43 Edited by: Aphrodite Skripalle on 18/11/2010 10:22:56
Originally by: SkinSin Not supported. I don't want to have to buy a new ship after (for example) 60 days because it aged and is thus less effective.
If you dont use the ship, it shouldnt age. The timer only should count while you are using it. Maybe a counter who counts how many hits you got or anything what dont cause lag.
Of course people wont like the idea, to buy a new ship after a while using it. Nobody likes that really. Nobody wants to become older in real life, too. We love the idea of being undestructable, immortal, never losing anything because of aging, cumulate isk easily...
.. just it doesnt work that way. Economy needs aging, thats why mother nature let you die after a reasonable time to free up place for something new.
And of course, small tech I ships are aging faster then big expensive or tech II or tech III ships. Its all matter of numbers, scaleable. Of course you can repair ships, but every time you need a repair, the ship looses a bit of its shinyness and becomes older. You can still use it, repair it again and again... but one day you want a new one.
So you want to present a concept to put into the game that even you yourself admit no one wants for...what?
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Green-Core The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 13:23:00 -
[8]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
So you want to present a concept to put into the game that even you yourself admit no one wants for...what?
Trolling and attention whoring? That's my theory anyway. --Vel
|
Lykouleon
Trust Doesn't Rust
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 15:11:00 -
[9]
Back in my day, we didn't have fancy-schmancy "warp drives" or "jump gates." I remember when I had to travel from Amarr to Jita up-hill both ways, in the snow, with nothing but a snickers bar and a...
okay, seriously, just no.
Quote: Lord Makk > Our pilots are masochist buttjockey
|
Aphrodite Skripalle
Galactic Defence Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 16:15:00 -
[10]
My proposal will solve lots of problems eve has now. There will be a logical and fair isk sink. The more you have, the richer you are the more isk you will have to pay, so noobs without isk wouldnt get a big drawback, because the cost for the aging of eg. a rifter would be marginal and affordable.
Pvp player who often loose their ships anyway, wouldnt feel bad with aging. But players with fully overpimped ships cant fly their marauders or supercapital forever. Just an example: I am playing eve for many years now. I have one faction fitted marauder, which i am flying now for more then 3 years. I can do level IV missions with this ship with marginal isk. Even when i fall asleep during a mission, the tank saves me and it happened that i warped back to a station with 5% in hull, burning .. i just press the repair button and my ship is brandnew again. I have the feeling that this is wrong.
Aging will boost market and i am pretty sure, builders and industrials gonna like that idea. Its an isk and mineral sink, the eve economy really needs.
|
|
Biocross
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 16:34:00 -
[11]
No, the Eve economy doesn't need this. When there is hyper inflation (there isn't any now), then say that it needs something like this. But still not this because aging is the worst concept of this type you could bring into the game.
If you take a look at markets, most things sell at very little profit over their production cost, and inflation on most things (other than Plex) is minimal.
Eve has an excellent system for stabilizing market prices, its called "station traders". And an excellent ISK sink: "People who hoard their isk". Sure, it doesn't get rid of the isk for good, but it does take it out of the system. Since EVE is limited by skill points in which ships one can fly, regardless of wealth, even the very rich have a very strict limit on how much of that wealth they can use for anything practical anyway.
This means that traders already keep isk out of the system and prices low, and thus even though the amount of isk is expanding, its not creating pretty much any problems.
Your proposal would destroy accumulated wealth for no practical benefit and effective detriment: People would quit en masse.
So very no.
|
Cid SilverWing
|
Posted - 2010.11.19 05:16:00 -
[12]
This would completely ruin the economy. Unsupported.
|
King Rothgar
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2010.11.19 05:34:00 -
[13]
I like this idea. It will hurt everyone but it will do so fairly. One of the most common complaints about eve is it's becoming capitals online. Power creep is a universal problem in every persistent game I've seen. The solution is wear and tear though I've never seen it implemented except in some single player games (STALKER comes to mind).
Adding it would force many people who can just barely afford to field capitals to downgrade to BS's, it will force BS's down to BC's and so on. Why is this a good thing? Well how many t1 cruisers do you see running around in "proper" fleets? My guess is not many. I certainly don't see them. T2 yeah, faction yeah, t3 yeah but not plain vanilla cruisers. The same is true for frigates. About half the ships in game are virtually unused because everyone is too rich to be bothered with them. But if a few extra isk sinks like wear and tear and ideally crews as well are added, then suddenly the smaller and weaker ships become more appealing.
I think it's good for game play even if everyone's e-peen shrivels up because of it.
Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig. |
Valeriene
|
Posted - 2010.11.19 10:33:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Valeriene on 19/11/2010 10:38:19 this isnt a good idea imo i like many others out there still do a lot of mining and having to replace expencive ships like mining and industrial ships isnt my idea of fun id end up with a stuck in the mud feeling in the game and would then just lose interest and besides isnt the armour and hulls of ships supposed to have nanites in them wouldnt they keep the ship looking new ?
plus on a side note what about those who live inside worm holes ?? having to take down a pos all its equipement and getting it out of a wh so you could repair it would be a major pain something i wouldnt want to do personally :(
|
Ryan Starwing
Gallente Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2010.11.19 12:01:00 -
[15]
Sounds like a nerf to acive armor tanking, and what prevents you from slapping on a armor/hull repper and repairing to prevent these penalties if you dont. I feel that it is better to say in the future you can get 100% repairs.
tldr:Not Supported
PS:CCP make active hull tanking useable but slightly inferior to other types of tanking please. Seriously though do it. |
LordElfa
|
Posted - 2010.11.19 20:28:00 -
[16]
I'm not against this idea if it was handled more delicately. Just having random non combat repairs pop up from time to time would be interesting as long as they weren't like every day or ridiculously expensive.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.11.20 05:09:00 -
[17]
im in the same boat as the previous poster tbh... aging is a part of life. And as someone said... we capsuleers are immortal because we transfer our consciousness to other newer bodies. you've read it in the chronicles and the published novels of Eve life. so long as its handled delicately then i would be up for it. the idea that higher tech level equipment/ships etc... age slower is a sound idea with logical thought behind it. im not suggesting t1 ships become gritty and unusable in a matter of months. just stagger certain qualities of the ship against its level of use.
heres a lil scenario that can offer some interesting side effects:
1)Each ships systems run at peak efficiency when bought brand new. 2)10% degradation on systems due to continual use over a period of 12 months for a t1 ship for example. 3)use of the ships systems incurs a slight but increasing penalty to that system (fly around a lot = slight loss in max speed) 4)high sec systems would have faction run repair facilities in stations continually maintaining your ship. 5)Quality of the maintanence will depend on your standings. 6)Repair facilities in 0.0 will operate in the same manner. 7)ships being sold as used will create another layer of trade. 8)used ships will allow easier transition of game elements for newer less wealthy players. 9)used sales would be done under contracts as faction ships will soon be sold in the market tool.
i know a major balance issue will need to be resolved otherwise people will just buy used ships rather than buying new ones. so appearance and quality of maintanence will play a large factor. as well as combat effectiveness
as far as i can see there are positives and negatives. but implemented gingerly and adjusted over time it could add something cool to eve without wrecking anything. CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2 |
Fuyu'no Kiri
|
Posted - 2010.11.22 05:24:00 -
[18]
Ok, sorry to ruin the good moods here, but that's simply not being realistic. What's proposed wouldn't "solve" much.
TQ's DB has just undergone a major upheaval where item's identifiers went from 32 to 64 bits apiece. That means there was need for room for more than 4.3 billion stacks(*) of this and that. Then we ask for a new stat on ships? Maybe modules too? Even if they account to a mere quarter of the 4.3B items (a single asteroid is an item, after all, and I'm sure at least a few of us are still trying to cover tristram with gold over ;) In the really happy hypothesis that the proposed stats can hold within 4 ints, that's adding at least 4TB to the DB (may easily be tripled or quadrupled depending on the views). Not to mention the pair of months to implement the structural modifications to the data model, still not taking into account developping the actual game mechanics in the first place.
And that would just be for the DB. Next in line comes the cluster load. I don't know, but I read here and there that SOLs can already have a hard time in case of big engagements. Do you want to add up to that with a mechanism that will have to keep track of a lot of things?
Besides, we're talking of a system oriented towards really-long-flown ships only. The vast majority of ships in the game, I believe (I may be wrong), get blown long before insurance expiration delay. (Now that would be some things to ask for some QEN: what percentage of ships are insured, how many insurance contracts outlive their 12 weeks...)
(*) By the way, how do you propose to impact repackaging stuff, if you can't bring it back to pure mint condition?
As you might say, those are not in any case good reasons per se to reject the proposal. They're just part of the reasons why it would be "quite impractical" to set up (did some people before me mention customer's dissatisfaction? ;-P )
On the other hand, I think we can perfectly contend with "indefinite & perfect rejuvenation" of our beloved gear.
Some might not have seen the olden days when things were made to last, but it's even rumored that there once were people that erected buildings that would do really well even after 25 hundreds of years ;) The fact that we've been raised in a society, the ecomics of which somehow govern that it is more profitable to induce people to replace their stuff every so often, doesn't make it any kind of some universal rule, don't you think? ;)
Then there's this magical utopia of technological progress: we (in real life) are already on the verge of being able to re-grow organic structures for replacement and stuff. Why should it be more difficult for mechanical parts? Things that we design and manufacture and, as such, understand inside-out. How it is done I don't care, and if you do you'll have to tell me about nitrogen and oxygen tanks in every ship too, and that would just be an appetizer ;-P
One step further: I disagree that higher-tech stuff should wear out less than common stuff, for at least two reasons. High-tech stuff is more refined than plain stuff, that's part of what makes it more powerful, but also comes at the price that it can be broken by a grain of sand where it would have taken a full stone otherwise (eg "tin barbs" on miniaturized solderings). That's it for ideology. Now for economics (as in PvP), having the feature weight more on tech1 stuff would be like imposing a tax on noobishness.
|
Black Dranzer
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.11.22 05:48:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Aphrodite Skripalle Nothing in reality will last forever. If you repair something, it will not be new.
This is true.. except spaceships aren't just one thing.
Take my computer. It's a case from 7 years ago, a DVD drive from 5 years ago, a motherboard, RAM and CPU from 2 years ago, and a PSU and HDD from about 4 months ago. I'm using a version of windows I bought about 6 years ago. My speakers are as old as the case, and my LCD, that's maybe a year and a half old. A while ago my graphics card from maybe 2 years ago bit the dust. Soon I'm getting a new one, but I'll still hang on to every other part of my computer.
After that I'll probably replace the motherboard, CPU and RAM. Then maybe the DVD drives. Depends how long they all last. The case will probably eventually get replaced. I need new speakers.
This is my computer, less than one m^3.
How many parts do you think my 600m long hulk has in it?
|
Lemmy Kravitz
Rebirth.
|
Posted - 2010.11.22 08:32:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 22/11/2010 08:32:22 meh..
I support this half way. I say ships degrade if you have to repair while in structure. everytime you repair in structure -.1% get's knocked off all the ships stats. until it hits a maximum of -99%
You can get rid of this negative and "Overhaul" the ship back to 99% at overhaul facilities for 50% of the cost of the ship. or at player owned overhaul facilities that use 50% of the materials needed to build the ship.
If your ship manages to hit 0% it just falls apart and you get 1 tritanium from the "ship scrapping service" ------------------------------------------------- "Vae Victis" -Brennus |
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2010.11.22 09:42:00 -
[21]
Do want, if ships stored in hangars wouldn't suffer ageing. Only equipment in use should age.
What kind of figure we're talking about here anyway?
Complete replacement after 1,000 hours usage? (a year has 8,760hrs) For example.. you pilot a hulk 6 hours a day, every day.. 166.7 days later (5.5 months) you would need a new one/complete repair. If you play on weekends.. maybe roaming in a fleet for 10 hours total each.. that's 100 weekends or nearly 2 years.
Can we weave ship-crews into this somehow? New Eden needs a Public Feature/Idea/Bug-Tracker |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.11.22 13:06:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Aphrodite Skripalle Edited by: Aphrodite Skripalle on 18/11/2010 08:28:01 Nothing in reality will last forever. If you repair something, it will not be new. If you use it often it will wear out. The older it gets, the more rusty and broken it will become. After some (long) time you need to replace it.
Put a timer on ships and items, when they are used. Make a repair in station not 100% so that its new, make it something below 100% so that after some time you want to get a new ship, if you can afford it.
This will boost the market, this will generate a logical isk sink.
It will not generate a isk sink, it will generate a material sink making the old ships useless.
Buying stuff from another player don't remove isk from the system (beside the station tax), it move isk from player a wallet to player B wallet.
So the effect of your idea would be a strong push for inflation, with an increase in value of minerals (as you need more of them to replace the ships).
Same thing for "items" (modules, drones, probes, ecc., maybe even implants I suppose).
Beside that keeping track of the "wear and tear" of every item in EVE would slow down the database even after the upgrade it has received.
|
Dlardrageth
ANZAC ALLIANCE IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.11.22 18:45:00 -
[23]
Hm, what about character aging then? Thinking of it...
"My 10 foot beard > your shaved noob chin, dude!"
|
Nathan derWeise
|
Posted - 2010.11.24 13:07:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Nathan derWeise on 24/11/2010 13:08:46 Edited by: Nathan derWeise on 24/11/2010 13:07:15 By the way, aging is already implemented in using mining crystals. Its just a logical extension to more items and can be greatly balanced out by numbers. This way it wouldnt ruin the game at all, its completly in the hands of the developers to do this right. Only problem is you have to trust them, so they dont mess it up completly. It also can be fixed during every downtime, if something is going wrong. And yes, why dont people become older ingame ? You can always jump into a new younger clone.
|
Gallion
|
Posted - 2010.11.24 13:13:00 -
[25]
Im not sure about this one. cause Technically our Characters are just clones we're bio-creations and were in a sense created to be. +1 anyway
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.11.24 13:14:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Nathan derWeise Edited by: Nathan derWeise on 24/11/2010 13:08:46 Edited by: Nathan derWeise on 24/11/2010 13:07:15 By the way, aging is already implemented in using mining crystals.
It is not ageing. It is usage wear. In game mining crystals and laser crystals are ammunitions and are consumed. they use a slightly different mechanics from other ammunitions but the end reasoning is the same, you use your ammunitions to get a result and doing that you consume them.
Note that you can use stripminers without crystals and they will never wear out.
|
Jaari Val'Dara
Caldari Atomic Zeppelins BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2010.11.24 14:17:00 -
[27]
No, if I wanted to play reality I'd look out the window. It would simply create meaningless money and time sink.
|
Aphrodite Skripalle
Galactic Defence Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.11.24 14:43:00 -
[28]
Well, this is a simulation. I think its a good way to make it as realistic as possible. It should be logic and somehow "right", still its fiction and of course most mechanics of eve are completly unrealistic.
One of my friends would like to add something to this idea:
They should be a different racial bonus to aging or wearing, however you want to call this. Amarr ships for example are slow, so they have a bonus on aging. Minmatar ships, because they are fast and fragile will age a bit faster. Obviously their construction is not that sturdy as other races are. The other races are just in between. Some will be easier to repair, others more difficult, so aging can be controlled by high level mechanic skills or specialized Stations, like the amarr stations, where you have bonus on building ships can probably help an old ship with doint some "restauration"... just some ideas how this feature can be implented in many different ways.
|
Magnus Orin
Minmatar United Systems Navy Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.11.24 18:18:00 -
[29]
Think of the planes and boats we use today on earth.
Most of them have very long services lives. Here in Canada (laugh it up) we have a fleet of CF-18s from 1980. Theses are 30 year old fighter planes that are just being replaced through the next 10 years.
I'd assume that our ships and equipment in Eve, receives the same maintenance and care our earthly CF-18s received, or even more.
This maintenance and care is abstracted for good reason.
1) The economic difference between the Interstellar Credit, and planetary monies (this maintenance would only cost fractions of an ISK)
2) This micro management would simply not be fun for the player. I don't want to return to an account that has been inactive for over 200 days (which I just have) and have to spend a bunch of time and isk repairing all my ships. Sarcasm - Because i'm too far away to strangle you. |
Uronksur Suth
|
Posted - 2010.11.24 23:12:00 -
[30]
No.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |