| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy
Caldari State
135
   |
Posted - 2013.11.14 18:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
This forum scares me. Rightfully so, people will shoot down ideas solely because they can and not on the merits of the idea.
Well...here goes *deep breath in*
(1) I would change the output on jobs. Let them come out at regular intervals while the job is going instead of all at once right at the end. Upsets the balance some, I'm sure, so perhaps make it more expensive to do it.
(2) Quality. If there's anything a crafter wants it is to be able to build a quality item, one that stands above others. It would probably make things pretty messy for the market, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I like creating things, I just wish I could build higher quality items by putting in the extra time and effort. It makes it more enjoyable.
OK, there you go, b******s, bring out your claws and teeth and rip it to shreds. I won't be back to watch you do so, it's too painful to watch a beloved idea be abused so. |
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 19:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:
(1) I would change the output on jobs. Let them come out at regular intervals while the job is going instead of all at once right at the end. Upsets the balance some, I'm sure, so perhaps make it more expensive to do it.
Sounds reasonable, means after 1 production run out of maybe 10 u get it out, would increase the production cost so.
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:
(2) Quality. If there's anything a crafter wants it is to be able to build a quality item, one that stands above others. It would probably make things pretty messy for the market, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I like creating things, I just wish I could build higher quality items by putting in the extra time and effort. It makes it more enjoyable.
Hell no, thats what invention is for. |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
365
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 20:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
0). Welcome to the F&I - place where ideas die, graveyard of threads.
1). sounds reasonable, if you manufacture 100 of an item and it takes 10 min to craft 1 you should get 1 every 10 min until whole job is done.
2) power creep idea, also while in packaged state item is just a generic object - it doesn't have any unique properties. What you are asking for is akin to kill counter for ships or some other information that will be lost once item is repackaged. Also i dont want to see "Somebody's Pure Tritanuim Heavy Pulse Laser II of Damage +5" in EvE.
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
3638
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 20:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
Agree with the others. First idea isn't terrible. Second idea has wide ranging and balance breaking implications.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
351
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 20:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
One of the defining features of the Eve market is that quality does not exist (well it does, but only in services, not in goods). The lack of quality is quite a foundational pillar. Two products are either identical or they're not.
This will not, should not, and cannot change.
Fighting is Magic |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
1861
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 20:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
1) Why not, wouldn't make much difference to people manufacturing for profit though. It's easier to put a job in the cooker and forget about it for a while than to check back all the time.
2) I could see something like that happening, if in production of TI mods you have a small chance of getting a meta mod instead. No better than TII mods though. (Basically nothing that would require CCP to create a new variant of every single mod in game.) |
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
385
|
Posted - 2013.11.14 21:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Agree with the others. First idea isn't terrible. Second idea has wide ranging and balance breaking implications.
Second idea is excellent, but cannot be implemented now. It would have worked very well if it had been a part of EVE's design from day one, but shoehorning it in now would be.. awkward. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
CAStabouts
1081
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 08:17:00 -
[8] - Quote
I'm assuming the first idea is referring to delivering completed runs of a blueprint as they're finished.
So then when I build 10,000 runs of an ammo type I'd get 10,000 individual deliveries of it. |
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
361
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 09:34:00 -
[9] - Quote
I like both your ideas but as has been mentioned above your second one, like individual ship histories would possibly cause load problems. You would also have to take into account the possible balance problems it might produce.
NBSI shall be the whole of the Law |
Jason Itiner
Sectatores Pax
25
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 09:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Regular outputs would be a good thing, especially with obscenely large runs, like ammo, where having a steady flow of stuff is good.
Variable quality would be terrible. First off, lore-wise, CONCORD regulates all production and ensures that all capsuleers have access to the same equipment, hence the centrally produced BPOs/BPCs that always yield exactly the same item, even if it's a jury rigging kit. Secondly, even if CCP were to implement this, due to the open market, pretty soon, the lesser quality items would disappear, and the higher-quality items would take over, and then we'd have the same thing as today. |
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
254
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 11:34:00 -
[11] - Quote
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:(1) I would change the output on jobs. Let them come out at regular intervals while the job is going instead of all at once right at the end. Upsets the balance some, I'm sure, so perhaps make it more expensive to do it.
This is how it actually worked in the beginning. It was changed to current system because it caused too much server load. No idea if currently available server performance would allow this feature to come back. I wouldn't mind if it did.
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:(2) Quality. If there's anything a crafter wants it is to be able to build a quality item, one that stands above others. It would probably make things pretty messy for the market, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I like creating things, I just wish I could build higher quality items by putting in the extra time and effort. It makes it more enjoyable.
For the longest of time I have wanted to make "Sable's" branded ammo. In the attribute tab there would be this line '+5% chance of extra tears'. CCP make it possible!!
You get a +1 from me good Sir.
Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene. |
Liner Xiandra
Sparks Inc
Zero Hour Alliance
239
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 13:10:00 -
[12] - Quote
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:
(2) Quality. If there's anything a crafter wants it is to be able to build a quality item, one that stands above others. It would probably make things pretty messy for the market, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I like creating things, I just wish I could build higher quality items by putting in the extra time and effort. It makes it more enjoyable.
Maybe something for the new POSses;
Items build in empire stations get a -5% durability thing attached (bit less HP/speed/etc of something); Maybe require less materials so effectively cheaper.
whereas build in POS is the quality we're used to now.
I do think however that there can be more variation within a build item; so an item becomes meaningful in its branding.
What makes me want to fly a ship build by Smohq, instead of one build by Liner?
Some customization that will give a benefit for certain situations and/or only certain people.
e.g. alliance member flying a ship that was build by a player from that same alliance -> bonus. |
Lfod Shi
Lfod's Ratting and Salvage
138
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 14:40:00 -
[13] - Quote
I'd love to be able to make custom missiles, then spin them to a high polish for reduced space resistance.
EDIT: I would call them.... bloodclaws!
...end transmission...
GÖ¬ They'll always be bloodclaws to me GÖ˝ |
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy
Caldari State
137
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 19:39:00 -
[14] - Quote
Wow. I came back ready to wince, I got what sounds like a bunch of reasonable replies. I thank the community here for being nice and reasonable.
I can see the arguments against the second idea, they are sound. Still, crafting is more enjoyable when more effort brings a superior product. When people search you out because you don't just slop it together.
No, I don't think this game will ever have that type of crafting. *sigh*. One can dream, though.
Again, thanks to the community for not being mean just for meanness' sake.  |
Eliza Loney
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 19:51:00 -
[15] - Quote
Idea #1) Great idea, love it.
Add some cons to it, add a charge to produce things this way, If I order 100 things and ask for them to be delivered in 100x 1m^3 boxes it will cost more than if it was all in 1x 100m^3 box. Small fee of course but a fee to consider.
Idea #2) Like the thought, random +1,2,3 meta items as the quality goes up will be an incentive for more people o manufacture.
On the other side, add in the corresponding -1,2,3 meta items as the quality goes down.
It could even be based on standing to s certain degree, good standing, better work, bad standing, half-assed junk.
|
Kenneth Skybound
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
70
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 01:50:00 -
[16] - Quote
An increased cost for incremental output would either be too cheap to notice or too expensive to use. Much of industry relies on very tight margins.
Additionally, any kind of reactive time cost isn't entirely feasible as extending the current time would run counter to anyone queued up behind your job.
Instead, it could be possible to set a job up before hand to be modular. Options to deliver every 50%, 20%, 10%, 5% and 2%, chosen when initiating manufacture.
Each option would extend manufacturing time by [deliveries]%, with the 50% option, making two deliveries, only extending the manufacture time by 2%, while the 2% option, making fifty deliveries, would extend the manufacture time by 50%.
Unless CCP want's to mess with rounding, it'd be simple enough to block any job attempts where the delivery option and runs don't match up (eg, 175 could work with 20% but no others; 200 runs would be compatible with all options).
Figure this wouldn't hurt actual profits, would still give a bonus to those who bulk manufacture or babysit jobs and give the flexibility in delivery. |
Sarah Stallman
International Unification
62
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 02:11:00 -
[17] - Quote
Well, there's two ways you could reason it logically as far as incremental production. The wording would certainly imply that when doing batches of multiple runs you do the entire process start to finish on one set, then set the product aside and do another one.
Alternatively, it could be imagined that due to volume constraints, the automated factories reconfigure themselves to perform exactly one function and complete that step on all available materials before reconfiguring for the next step in the process. In that case, the finished products would come pouring in nearly all at once at the very end.
The second option is probably slightly faster than the first, and certainly requires less reconfiguration. So being given the option between the two, where the first costs a bit more and takes a bit more time would make sense. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |