|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page | |
| Author | Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
 Pran Thea    |
Posted - 2003.07.27 00:08:00 -
[61] This seems to be the post that everyone is reading, so I thought I would copy my comments from the earlier linked post. --- 1) Our current training is based on Real Time not Game Time, so product life should be based on Real Time not Game Time. So, if you store your ship and equipment for xx days and come back, expect to have to do some major repairs and/or replacements. 2) Base product life should be 30 days. After this, there should be a percentage chance every 24 hours of requireing repair or replacement. If repair need adds up to 100% the product needs replacement. I suggest starting chances at: Replacement 1% chance, 50% repair at 5% chance, 25% repair at 10% chance. 3) Either factor product reliability into one of the existing research skills, or create a new one. Each level adds 5 days to the base life of the product and reduces the percent chance of failure by 5% (10% chance of 25% repair becomes 9.5% chance at level 1). 4) Any loot collected has been through the explosion of the ship it was attached to. Therefore, its base life should be no more than one third that of a manufactured product (10 days life and 3 times the chance of brakedown). 5) Finally, the reverse engineering skill should allow ANY looted product to eventually be manufactured. Thus creating a stable and reliable alternative to pirate loot, while providing this high quality equipment to the masses that do not wish to go hunting in 0.0 sectors. By implementing this, you allow manufacturing corporates to determine if they wish to sell cheap or quality products and allow the consumer to make a similar decision. Several places have talked about corporates wanting to 'brand' their products, this is the ideal vehicle for that to happen. Oh, and one more thing. I believe that as Concord takes the lives of its pilots very seriously, it would implement a quality control system on ships such that there is no built in redundancy. It is only the fitted modules that can fail. Of course, if your shield booster failed in the middle of a battle, your ship might not survive, but that is another matter all together.  ========================================== The only good slave is an ex-slave trader. |
 Pran Thea Minmatar Brutor tribe |
Posted - 2003.07.27 00:08:00 -
[62] This seems to be the post that everyone is reading, so I thought I would copy my comments from the earlier linked post. --- 1) Our current training is based on Real Time not Game Time, so product life should be based on Real Time not Game Time. So, if you store your ship and equipment for xx days and come back, expect to have to do some major repairs and/or replacements. 2) Base product life should be 30 days. After this, there should be a percentage chance every 24 hours of requireing repair or replacement. If repair need adds up to 100% the product needs replacement. I suggest starting chances at: Replacement 1% chance, 50% repair at 5% chance, 25% repair at 10% chance. 3) Either factor product reliability into one of the existing research skills, or create a new one. Each level adds 5 days to the base life of the product and reduces the percent chance of failure by 5% (10% chance of 25% repair becomes 9.5% chance at level 1). 4) Any loot collected has been through the explosion of the ship it was attached to. Therefore, its base life should be no more than one third that of a manufactured product (10 days life and 3 times the chance of brakedown). 5) Finally, the reverse engineering skill should allow ANY looted product to eventually be manufactured. Thus creating a stable and reliable alternative to pirate loot, while providing this high quality equipment to the masses that do not wish to go hunting in 0.0 sectors. By implementing this, you allow manufacturing corporates to determine if they wish to sell cheap or quality products and allow the consumer to make a similar decision. Several places have talked about corporates wanting to 'brand' their products, this is the ideal vehicle for that to happen. Oh, and one more thing. I believe that as Concord takes the lives of its pilots very seriously, it would implement a quality control system on ships such that there is no built in redundancy. It is only the fitted modules that can fail. Of course, if your shield booster failed in the middle of a battle, your ship might not survive, but that is another matter all together. ========================================== The only good slave is an ex-slave trader. |
 T'el'Alana Luathin |
Posted - 2003.07.27 17:21:00 -
[63] Are you kidding me? This is a horrible idea! This is a game, treat it as thus. Modules and ships should not have an almost 'rent' like usage, where after some amount of time they expire, it's just not good sense. However, I'm all for taxation for services. I think it's ok that manufacturing is high-priced, and gives diminishing returns the more the market saturates. This just means that a balance will be reached where manufacturing corps must keep other manufacturers in check, and a balance point where people are buying as much as they are destroying (and this of course waggles up&down depending on wars and such). I think that taxing for services should be what a new and old player are wasting money little by little. T.L. -- always look on the bright side of the cloning facility. |
 T'el'Alana Luathin |
Posted - 2003.07.27 17:21:00 -
[64] Are you kidding me? This is a horrible idea! This is a game, treat it as thus. Modules and ships should not have an almost 'rent' like usage, where after some amount of time they expire, it's just not good sense. However, I'm all for taxation for services. I think it's ok that manufacturing is high-priced, and gives diminishing returns the more the market saturates. This just means that a balance will be reached where manufacturing corps must keep other manufacturers in check, and a balance point where people are buying as much as they are destroying (and this of course waggles up&down depending on wars and such). I think that taxing for services should be what a new and old player are wasting money little by little. T.L. -- always look on the bright side of the cloning facility. |
 Trixxy |
Posted - 2003.07.27 23:30:00 -
[65] Edited by: Trixxy on 27/07/2003 23:31:42 T'el'Alana Luathin said: This is a game, treat it as thus. Modules and ships should not have an almost 'rent' like usage, where after some amount of time they expire, it's just not good sense. Too right this is a game. It is, however, a game that has at its heart a free-market and player-driven economy. The concern, however, is that if the economy is in fact flawed in some fundamental way, the long-term appeal of the game would suffer. So the suggestions are to try put some balance into the economy. They are not a way to punish anyone, or prevent people from doing things. All they are doing is implementing a degree of control on conspicuous consumption. i.e. The more you use stuff, the higher the overall cost to you to do so. This is a very basic fundamental to economics and life in general. What is NOT good sense is the fact that you are able to fly endless distances, fight endless battles, mine endless ore and manufacture endless items with no degradation or equipment failure at all. What's not good sense is the fact that you have a vast supply of material to create new items, but you don't have any means (other than wars) to ensure those items are used up - thereby leading to stagnation. Stagnation = boring = lost players = more boring = poor future for the game that Eve is wanting to be. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain. |
 Trixxy Gallente The Chaos Fellowship |
Posted - 2003.07.27 23:30:00 -
[66] Edited by: Trixxy on 27/07/2003 23:31:42 T'el'Alana Luathin said: This is a game, treat it as thus. Modules and ships should not have an almost 'rent' like usage, where after some amount of time they expire, it's just not good sense. Too right this is a game. It is, however, a game that has at its heart a free-market and player-driven economy. The concern, however, is that if the economy is in fact flawed in some fundamental way, the long-term appeal of the game would suffer. So the suggestions are to try put some balance into the economy. They are not a way to punish anyone, or prevent people from doing things. All they are doing is implementing a degree of control on conspicuous consumption. i.e. The more you use stuff, the higher the overall cost to you to do so. This is a very basic fundamental to economics and life in general. What is NOT good sense is the fact that you are able to fly endless distances, fight endless battles, mine endless ore and manufacture endless items with no degradation or equipment failure at all. What's not good sense is the fact that you have a vast supply of material to create new items, but you don't have any means (other than wars) to ensure those items are used up - thereby leading to stagnation. Stagnation = boring = lost players = more boring = poor future for the game that Eve is wanting to be. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain. |
 orrin |
Posted - 2003.07.28 19:29:00 -
[67] If the point of this post is how to restore the profitability of production, these ideas will fail badly. Why? Because a very important factor is missing. And that factor is money supply. No matter anything else that may be done, prices will not increase if money supply does not increase. Money is added to the eve economy only when minerals/goods are sold to npc's, agent mission awards are paid or bounties are paid when killing npc pirates. Any player to player interaction merely shifts the money supply around, it will have no effect on increasing or decreasing money supply. Money sinks (i.e. transactions that take money out of the game) will reduce money supply and therefore reduce that amount of money that a player can spend. Adding fuel costs, repair costs or anything else that forces money to be spent on npc's will reduce the money supply. Do producers really think the general price level for goods will increase if there are more money sinks? I think not. While I agree that the poster has identified some acute demand side problems, demand is only a part of the economic picture. Money supply is key as well. Sadly, I am not enough of an economist to offer any real solutions. Orrin |
 orrin |
Posted - 2003.07.28 19:29:00 -
[68] If the point of this post is how to restore the profitability of production, these ideas will fail badly. Why? Because a very important factor is missing. And that factor is money supply. No matter anything else that may be done, prices will not increase if money supply does not increase. Money is added to the eve economy only when minerals/goods are sold to npc's, agent mission awards are paid or bounties are paid when killing npc pirates. Any player to player interaction merely shifts the money supply around, it will have no effect on increasing or decreasing money supply. Money sinks (i.e. transactions that take money out of the game) will reduce money supply and therefore reduce that amount of money that a player can spend. Adding fuel costs, repair costs or anything else that forces money to be spent on npc's will reduce the money supply. Do producers really think the general price level for goods will increase if there are more money sinks? I think not. While I agree that the poster has identified some acute demand side problems, demand is only a part of the economic picture. Money supply is key as well. Sadly, I am not enough of an economist to offer any real solutions. Orrin |
Evee |
Posted - 2003.07.30 11:40:00 -
[69] Orrin, I do believe that the point of Trixy's post has missed you. Money is in plentiful supply, It doesn't grow on trees but it certainly is available to anyone who wishes to sit with there mining lasers pointing at a rock for some time. or those that loot the spawning pirates in the belts. Your point about the NPC controled stations being money sinks is valid. But as soon as player stations start appearing then money paid for the services will be kept within the player base. For a player driven economy to work there needs to first be a reason to provide services / goods. with the absence of a false NPC demand - perishable items and a cost to travel is one way of ensuring that. Love it or hate it - it's what this game NEEDS to ensure a free flowing and progresive economy. |
 Evee Gallente Aliastra |
Posted - 2003.07.30 11:40:00 -
[70] Orrin, I do believe that the point of Trixy's post has missed you. Money is in plentiful supply, It doesn't grow on trees but it certainly is available to anyone who wishes to sit with there mining lasers pointing at a rock for some time. or those that loot the spawning pirates in the belts. Your point about the NPC controled stations being money sinks is valid. But as soon as player stations start appearing then money paid for the services will be kept within the player base. For a player driven economy to work there needs to first be a reason to provide services / goods. with the absence of a false NPC demand - perishable items and a cost to travel is one way of ensuring that. Love it or hate it - it's what this game NEEDS to ensure a free flowing and progresive economy. |
Griss |
Posted - 2003.07.30 13:39:00 -
[71] just thought i would plunk down my ideas and thoughs on this. acording to a chat log resently posted on eve-i.com tech 2 items will take more then just the base min's to manufacture they will also require componets (looks like they took a page from the building in earth and beyond on this one) and tools. hopefully this will add a bit more to the economy and with the research state federation research facility up and running it seems that tech 2 may not be that far off. secondly i hate to sound like a warmonger here. but if a major war/wars where to break out. demand for every thing would go through the roof. as players would end up loosing a lot of ships and valuble mods in the resulting fire fights. how ever i must ask this question. why should the devs help us out of mess we have goten our selfs in to? ------------------------------------------------ nomad, vagabond, call me what you will. |
 Griss Caldari Fusion inc |
Posted - 2003.07.30 13:39:00 -
[72] just thought i would plunk down my ideas and thoughs on this. acording to a chat log resently posted on eve-i.com tech 2 items will take more then just the base min's to manufacture they will also require componets (looks like they took a page from the building in earth and beyond on this one) and tools. hopefully this will add a bit more to the economy and with the research state federation research facility up and running it seems that tech 2 may not be that far off. secondly i hate to sound like a warmonger here. but if a major war/wars where to break out. demand for every thing would go through the roof. as players would end up loosing a lot of ships and valuble mods in the resulting fire fights. how ever i must ask this question. why should the devs help us out of mess we have goten our selfs in to? ------------------------------------------------ nomad, vagabond, call me what you will. |
Drewbicus |
Posted - 2003.07.30 16:39:00 -
[73] TelAlana: The point is that, as manyposters have mentioned, part of the game is a free market economy. As a person fairly well versed in economics, I can promise you that infinite supply coupled with continually dropping demand produces economic disaster. Basically, since mining and trade runs and recycling loot provide an infinite supply of money, but goods never decrease in value, eventually the end result will be that everyone has everything and enough money to replace everything they own without fail. In other words, nothing will have any value because everyone will have as much of anything they desire as they wish. Imagine it in real-world terms: Say everyone has as much money as he wants and can buy anything, and that nothing ever gets worn out, no one needs to eat, sleep, clothe himself, have water or needs health care. No one ever gets old or dies. If you have infinite money, what is a fair price for someone to charge you for a Honda Accord? The answer is "anything the seller wants to charge." Do not take that to mean I am saying the seller can charge as high as he wants. It also means he can sell for as low as he wants. Money does not matter in this example. Say he charges you a trillion dollars. So what? You have infinite money. It means nothing. He could go to the store and find someone asking a trillion for a loaf of bread. By corollary, he could have asked you for only one dollar for the car. When he goes to the store and someone tries to sell him a loaf of bread for a trillion dollars, will he think "Oh, I can't afford that because I did not turn enough profit when I sold the car?" No, he also has infinite money. when money is in infinite supply, the price of anything is meaningless. To be sure, it will take some time to reach that point, but that is the absolutely inevitable conclusion of having infinite supply of everything and no degradation of anything. My corporation is at that point now. We all have the ships we want, the gear we want, and money to burn after that. If one of us loses a ship, all we need to do is go buy another one. We literally have no further economic need and no reason to go out and get more money. That brings me to Griss's post. IF the problem were one of our own making, I would say we should have to dig ourselves out of it. It is NOT of our making, however, CCP designed the game with a basic economic flaw. That means that in the long term, the main economic motivator disappears over time. |
 Drewbicus |
Posted - 2003.07.30 16:39:00 -
[74] TelAlana: The point is that, as manyposters have mentioned, part of the game is a free market economy. As a person fairly well versed in economics, I can promise you that infinite supply coupled with continually dropping demand produces economic disaster. Basically, since mining and trade runs and recycling loot provide an infinite supply of money, but goods never decrease in value, eventually the end result will be that everyone has everything and enough money to replace everything they own without fail. In other words, nothing will have any value because everyone will have as much of anything they desire as they wish. Imagine it in real-world terms: Say everyone has as much money as he wants and can buy anything, and that nothing ever gets worn out, no one needs to eat, sleep, clothe himself, have water or needs health care. No one ever gets old or dies. If you have infinite money, what is a fair price for someone to charge you for a Honda Accord? The answer is "anything the seller wants to charge." Do not take that to mean I am saying the seller can charge as high as he wants. It also means he can sell for as low as he wants. Money does not matter in this example. Say he charges you a trillion dollars. So what? You have infinite money. It means nothing. He could go to the store and find someone asking a trillion for a loaf of bread. By corollary, he could have asked you for only one dollar for the car. When he goes to the store and someone tries to sell him a loaf of bread for a trillion dollars, will he think "Oh, I can't afford that because I did not turn enough profit when I sold the car?" No, he also has infinite money. when money is in infinite supply, the price of anything is meaningless. To be sure, it will take some time to reach that point, but that is the absolutely inevitable conclusion of having infinite supply of everything and no degradation of anything. My corporation is at that point now. We all have the ships we want, the gear we want, and money to burn after that. If one of us loses a ship, all we need to do is go buy another one. We literally have no further economic need and no reason to go out and get more money. That brings me to Griss's post. IF the problem were one of our own making, I would say we should have to dig ourselves out of it. It is NOT of our making, however, CCP designed the game with a basic economic flaw. That means that in the long term, the main economic motivator disappears over time. |
 Trixxy |
Posted - 2003.07.30 19:23:00 -
[75] On Orrin's post: Another point you missed in my post was that I was proposing that PLAYERS provide the service of fixing items, not NPCs. This is not a money sink, but an economic injection. Besides, reducing the amount of cash in the game increases its value. Inflation arises from too much money swilling around, which has the impact of devaluation of the currency - result - you pay more for something of the same fundamental value. Infinite source of money, along with limited sinks for that money will eventually have the result that the money becomes worthless. Believe me, this makes a very flawed economic model. As this game is largely based around economics, the fundamental model has to be solid (and complex) enough to stand the test of time and keep player interest. The other point to item degradation is that it introduces a COST OF LIVING in the game. Without a cost of living, making money is for free. Whether you're good or bad at it, you'll still make it - just at different rates. In a real economic model, however, if you are too inefficient, you need to sell your goods for more than people are willing to pay to simply break even. This means efficiency is required to get ahead, as opposed to simply patience. Thanks for the support of many of the posters - it seems these ideas are certainly gaining some momentum  . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain. |
Trixxy Gallente The Chaos Fellowship |
Posted - 2003.07.30 19:23:00 -
[76] On Orrin's post: Another point you missed in my post was that I was proposing that PLAYERS provide the service of fixing items, not NPCs. This is not a money sink, but an economic injection. Besides, reducing the amount of cash in the game increases its value. Inflation arises from too much money swilling around, which has the impact of devaluation of the currency - result - you pay more for something of the same fundamental value. Infinite source of money, along with limited sinks for that money will eventually have the result that the money becomes worthless. Believe me, this makes a very flawed economic model. As this game is largely based around economics, the fundamental model has to be solid (and complex) enough to stand the test of time and keep player interest. The other point to item degradation is that it introduces a COST OF LIVING in the game. Without a cost of living, making money is for free. Whether you're good or bad at it, you'll still make it - just at different rates. In a real economic model, however, if you are too inefficient, you need to sell your goods for more than people are willing to pay to simply break even. This means efficiency is required to get ahead, as opposed to simply patience. Thanks for the support of many of the posters - it seems these ideas are certainly gaining some momentum . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain. |
 D'ren |
Posted - 2003.07.31 04:02:00 -
[77] Not to be an ass, but I did post something like this idea about a month ago: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=11930 |
 D'ren |
Posted - 2003.07.31 04:02:00 -
[78] Not to be an ass, but I did post something like this idea about a month ago: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=11930 |
Trucker |
Posted - 2003.07.31 09:05:00 -
[79] It's already been acknowledged that many of Trix's ideas have already been mentioned in other threads (yours amongst them D'ren). The thing is, D'ren, that you mention only the need for item repair. This is only 1 aspect of Trixxy's original post. To summarize, she suggests: * Item repair * Chance of partial or complete item failure dependent on use, requiring items to eventually need total replacement after too much use - regardless of their state of repair. * Item Quality as a further factor to determine price. * A cost of operating (through need for fuel and/or energy) * Facilitation of services by players in the economy (so not all services like repairs, etc are done by NPCs - players will compete with NPCs for these). * A number of good standalone ideas in the services section. I also prefer the concept of item repair being based on usage, and not time. This has more of a ring of realism, and does not punish people who unavoidably need to stay away from the game for long periods. It is also self-balancing. The more you items you use, and the more advanced the items, and the more you use them, the more you pay. Meaning established players don't have any real advantage over starter players, as they would pay in proportion to their item quantity and level. So the fact that D'Ren and others have posted some of these ideas previously strengthens the fact that these ideas are good ones. The nice thing is that in this thread they are all in the same place - so can draw attention that much more. |
 Trucker Amarr |
Posted - 2003.07.31 09:05:00 -
[80] It's already been acknowledged that many of Trix's ideas have already been mentioned in other threads (yours amongst them D'ren). The thing is, D'ren, that you mention only the need for item repair. This is only 1 aspect of Trixxy's original post. To summarize, she suggests: * Item repair * Chance of partial or complete item failure dependent on use, requiring items to eventually need total replacement after too much use - regardless of their state of repair. * Item Quality as a further factor to determine price. * A cost of operating (through need for fuel and/or energy) * Facilitation of services by players in the economy (so not all services like repairs, etc are done by NPCs - players will compete with NPCs for these). * A number of good standalone ideas in the services section. I also prefer the concept of item repair being based on usage, and not time. This has more of a ring of realism, and does not punish people who unavoidably need to stay away from the game for long periods. It is also self-balancing. The more you items you use, and the more advanced the items, and the more you use them, the more you pay. Meaning established players don't have any real advantage over starter players, as they would pay in proportion to their item quantity and level. So the fact that D'Ren and others have posted some of these ideas previously strengthens the fact that these ideas are good ones. The nice thing is that in this thread they are all in the same place - so can draw attention that much more. |
 D'ren |
Posted - 2003.07.31 18:05:00 -
[81] Edited by: D'ren on 31/07/2003 18:20:07 I completely agree that Trixxy's post is an extension and enlargement of the ideas I and others discussed. I'm delighted that the idea of adding some urgency to the game's central premise, i.e., making money, is finally receiving some attention. I especially like the idea of having specialized players perform maintenance, adding another sector to the fledgling economy. Just to be clear, I did have some ideas about how to alleviate the negative effects of time if it were employed instead of use. If I may paraphrase myself: 3) People's interest in a game can wax and wane; what if I walk away for a month and come back to find myself penniless, drained by maintenance costs? This one is problematic, but I think it could be avoided by implementing a stasis/asset freeze option at logout generally or in specific stations. That is, you would be able to logout just as you do now, which allows your skills to train in your absence, orders to be filled, and the proposed maintenance costs to continue accruing, or you could choose to put your character in stasis and freeze your assets, blocking skill advancement, order fulfillment, and maintenance charges. There are a variety of other potential ideas that would have similar effects:
|
D'ren |
Posted - 2003.07.31 18:05:00 -
[82] Edited by: D'ren on 31/07/2003 18:20:07 I completely agree that Trixxy's post is an extension and enlargement of the ideas I and others discussed. I'm delighted that the idea of adding some urgency to the game's central premise, i.e., making money, is finally receiving some attention. I especially like the idea of having specialized players perform maintenance, adding another sector to the fledgling economy. Just to be clear, I did have some ideas about how to alleviate the negative effects of time if it were employed instead of use. If I may paraphrase myself: 3) People's interest in a game can wax and wane; what if I walk away for a month and come back to find myself penniless, drained by maintenance costs? This one is problematic, but I think it could be avoided by implementing a stasis/asset freeze option at logout generally or in specific stations. That is, you would be able to logout just as you do now, which allows your skills to train in your absence, orders to be filled, and the proposed maintenance costs to continue accruing, or you could choose to put your character in stasis and freeze your assets, blocking skill advancement, order fulfillment, and maintenance charges. There are a variety of other potential ideas that would have similar effects:
|
 Cencid |
Posted - 2003.08.01 02:52:00 -
[83] I would like to make a point that other's have hinted upon, but no one has really nailed. Trix's suggestions would fix another game flaw as well as the economy. Many have stated that Frigates will eventually become extinct. Under the current economy, they are correct. There is no tactical advantage of using Frigs over Cruisers. In time, there will be no finacial advantage. When everyone can afford the big bad ship they want, you will not see any small ships in the game. If it is expensive to deploy big ships, then you would not use your BS for mining. Properly balanced, it would be more profitable to use Frigs and Indis. You would also not use big ships for long range recon or pleasure cruising. It is not a perfect fix since people could still mass resorces and bring a BS per person into a fight rather than being forced to use a balance of ships, but at least Frigs would not disapear from the game completely. Also, no one has mentioned the time it would take for maintanance to be done. I would expect that a BS would be in upkeep for at least a couple days out of every month, for example. These are things that WILL need to be fixed, but we also have to be careful on how realistic we make things. If the game is just like RL, then why do we play? |
 Cencid |
Posted - 2003.08.01 02:52:00 -
[84] I would like to make a point that other's have hinted upon, but no one has really nailed. Trix's suggestions would fix another game flaw as well as the economy. Many have stated that Frigates will eventually become extinct. Under the current economy, they are correct. There is no tactical advantage of using Frigs over Cruisers. In time, there will be no finacial advantage. When everyone can afford the big bad ship they want, you will not see any small ships in the game. If it is expensive to deploy big ships, then you would not use your BS for mining. Properly balanced, it would be more profitable to use Frigs and Indis. You would also not use big ships for long range recon or pleasure cruising. It is not a perfect fix since people could still mass resorces and bring a BS per person into a fight rather than being forced to use a balance of ships, but at least Frigs would not disapear from the game completely. Also, no one has mentioned the time it would take for maintanance to be done. I would expect that a BS would be in upkeep for at least a couple days out of every month, for example. These are things that WILL need to be fixed, but we also have to be careful on how realistic we make things. If the game is just like RL, then why do we play? |
Pran Thea |
Posted - 2003.08.03 03:42:00 -
[85] I could not believe this topic had slipped to page 3! ========================================== The only good slave is an ex-slave trader. |
Pran Thea Minmatar Brutor tribe |
Posted - 2003.08.03 03:42:00 -
[86] I could not believe this topic had slipped to page 3! ========================================== The only good slave is an ex-slave trader. |
 Yggdrassil |
Posted - 2003.08.03 11:03:00 -
[87] Good ideas, most of them :) Just want to suggest one change, though. If you add fuel need to starships - imagine how many petitions there'll be about ppl stuck due to no fuel... And how about those that enjoys going 30-40 jumps away from closest station? A possible solution is that you have to pay a fee to the goverment based on your ships size - perhaps a "green" fee because your ship produces waste that has to be cleaned - or whatever. Bigger ship=more waste=higher fee. The fee should be based on USE though. A ship parked in a hangar doesn't pollute anything... Also - item "tear-down" should in my opinion be based on use - not time. I would really hate coming back from my 1 month vacation - unable to do repairs - to find my ship broken down, and half the modules too... Perhaps one way to do it is to give let items efficiency go down after some time. The new power diag functions at 100 %, while it after a month only functions at 90 % - thereby loosing 10`% of it's effect? And to be able to sell these partially function item on the market - so that those with the right skills might be able to buy them, fix them and sell again at a higher price? And/or having ppl able to do this renting a slot at a station to do those repairs to get it up to 100% functionality. Requiring i.e. level 5 mechanic, level 5 electronic and level 1 item repairing? Yggdrassil |
 Yggdrassil Amarrian Missionaires |
Posted - 2003.08.03 11:03:00 -
[88] Good ideas, most of them :) Just want to suggest one change, though. If you add fuel need to starships - imagine how many petitions there'll be about ppl stuck due to no fuel... And how about those that enjoys going 30-40 jumps away from closest station? A possible solution is that you have to pay a fee to the goverment based on your ships size - perhaps a "green" fee because your ship produces waste that has to be cleaned - or whatever. Bigger ship=more waste=higher fee. The fee should be based on USE though. A ship parked in a hangar doesn't pollute anything... Also - item "tear-down" should in my opinion be based on use - not time. I would really hate coming back from my 1 month vacation - unable to do repairs - to find my ship broken down, and half the modules too... Perhaps one way to do it is to give let items efficiency go down after some time. The new power diag functions at 100 %, while it after a month only functions at 90 % - thereby loosing 10`% of it's effect? And to be able to sell these partially function item on the market - so that those with the right skills might be able to buy them, fix them and sell again at a higher price? And/or having ppl able to do this renting a slot at a station to do those repairs to get it up to 100% functionality. Requiring i.e. level 5 mechanic, level 5 electronic and level 1 item repairing? Yggdrassil |
 Trixxy |
Posted - 2003.08.04 08:54:00 -
[89] Some nice ideas there Yggdrassil - well along the spirit of my original suggestions. Maybe some enhancements though: I see what you are saying about fuel, but I would still prefer the means of powering ships being a saleable commodity (such as, errr, fuel) as this provides another injection into the economy, as well as another source of good Corporation conflict (if a monopoly can be established a-la OPEC for example). My suggestions for the problems you raised: Fuel/power only applies to conventional thrust and module use. Hyper-space taps into the energy contained in the dark matter which makes up 90% of the Universe (and the pity is that this dark matter cannot be adequately harnessed for conventional thrust). So the more you go around under conventional power, and the more you use modules (for combat, mining, etc) the higher your 'running costs'. You'll never truly get stuck as you can always warp to the nearest station or stargate. Once there, if you are out of fuel, you have to pay a 'towing fee' to get you near enough to dock or jump. If you plan your fuel consumption poorly, you need to pay the price. This gives a more interesting aspect to trading as well - requiring you to plan around your fuel needs too. Of course margins may need to be tweaked to allow trading to remain viable in the face of these running costs. It's really the 'free money' of mining that needs to be targetted. Solution: Modules requiring high CPU, Cap and Power needs (Weapons, mining lasers, afterburners, MWD) chew fuel, while conventional engines can be far more fuel-efficient. So traders and explorers aren't unduly punished, while 'conspicuous consumers' such as miners, pirates and other active combat-related roles will have significantly higher running costs. P.S.) Perhaps fuel can be 'mined' from certain planets and require refining, to make it a saleable player-traded commodity, as well as being available from NPCs (at inflated priced, of course). On the module degeneration idea: The intention was always to make it use-based, and not time-based. I'm not a believer in punishing people who are unable to play the game for a while. This also makes operating costs higher for people who are mass-users of equipment, so is self-regulating. On the repair idea - I like it - as it fits in with my services-based economic injection idea. The provisio: To repair an item of low durability would require raw material (or parts which need raw material to manufacture). The purpose of the suggestion in the first place is to inject a further, and ongoing need for using raw material in order to boost demand to be more in-line with supply. So obviously it would be cheaper for someone of the right skills to repair rather than replace, but minerals will still be needed. P.P.S) I still feel the subject of fuel, while having great potential, may be a difficult one to balance and get right, so I would prefer emphasis placed on the item repair / degradation / quality and the services aspect of the economy to start). . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain. |
Trixxy Gallente The Chaos Fellowship |
Posted - 2003.08.04 08:54:00 -
[90] Some nice ideas there Yggdrassil - well along the spirit of my original suggestions. Maybe some enhancements though: I see what you are saying about fuel, but I would still prefer the means of powering ships being a saleable commodity (such as, errr, fuel) as this provides another injection into the economy, as well as another source of good Corporation conflict (if a monopoly can be established a-la OPEC for example). My suggestions for the problems you raised: Fuel/power only applies to conventional thrust and module use. Hyper-space taps into the energy contained in the dark matter which makes up 90% of the Universe (and the pity is that this dark matter cannot be adequately harnessed for conventional thrust). So the more you go around under conventional power, and the more you use modules (for combat, mining, etc) the higher your 'running costs'. You'll never truly get stuck as you can always warp to the nearest station or stargate. Once there, if you are out of fuel, you have to pay a 'towing fee' to get you near enough to dock or jump. If you plan your fuel consumption poorly, you need to pay the price. This gives a more interesting aspect to trading as well - requiring you to plan around your fuel needs too. Of course margins may need to be tweaked to allow trading to remain viable in the face of these running costs. It's really the 'free money' of mining that needs to be targetted. Solution: Modules requiring high CPU, Cap and Power needs (Weapons, mining lasers, afterburners, MWD) chew fuel, while conventional engines can be far more fuel-efficient. So traders and explorers aren't unduly punished, while 'conspicuous consumers' such as miners, pirates and other active combat-related roles will have significantly higher running costs. P.S.) Perhaps fuel can be 'mined' from certain planets and require refining, to make it a saleable player-traded commodity, as well as being available from NPCs (at inflated priced, of course). On the module degeneration idea: The intention was always to make it use-based, and not time-based. I'm not a believer in punishing people who are unable to play the game for a while. This also makes operating costs higher for people who are mass-users of equipment, so is self-regulating. On the repair idea - I like it - as it fits in with my services-based economic injection idea. The provisio: To repair an item of low durability would require raw material (or parts which need raw material to manufacture). The purpose of the suggestion in the first place is to inject a further, and ongoing need for using raw material in order to boost demand to be more in-line with supply. So obviously it would be cheaper for someone of the right skills to repair rather than replace, but minerals will still be needed. P.P.S) I still feel the subject of fuel, while having great potential, may be a difficult one to balance and get right, so I would prefer emphasis placed on the item repair / degradation / quality and the services aspect of the economy to start). . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain. |
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page | |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page | |
| Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,03s, ref 20250914/2126 EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP. |
| 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. |