| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
el alasar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
69
   |
Posted - 2011.11.21 18:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
currently meta 1-4 items can only be aquired through looting wrecks (right?). by allowing some new form of research, e.g. research on BPC (yes, not BPO), you could thus enhance a BPC, allowing you to build meta 1-4 items.
this would add another facet to industry players and open up a new way to react to the market. also removing the necessity to grind pve.
more little ideas that need your support:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=261507#post261507
enjoying the order cancellation confirmation? sometimes CCP listens - there is hope after all :)
www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1431503 |
Anshio Tamark
Avitus Lugus
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 09:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
That could actually be interesting, though it'd kill the market horribly. I would probably drop it under Invention, and make it work just like Invention currently does, though I'd probably give it a higher chance of succeeding for low-meta items and a slightly lower chance of succeeding for the meta-4 items, as these tend to be as good as or better than T2 variants.
Currently, I can't see any reason why anyone would want to use a raw-T1 gun or launcher, if they can have the meta-3 or 4 version instead. |
Esunisen
Les Tueurs de Killer
Une Pour Tous
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 10:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
No. Would destroy missioning.
We can manufacture T2 and some faction, that's way enough. |
GavinCapacitor
CaeIum Incognitum
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 15:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
Meta 4, meta 4 everywhere. |
Venus Rinah
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 15:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
GavinCapacitor wrote:Meta 4, meta 4 everywhere.
Potentially removing most T2 off the shelves as people would then buy a likley cheaper Meta 4 produced from just minerals? I say cheaper, as being able to manufacture them will likley drive current prices down and having sufficient volumes that they become a prefernce in a number of cases as they are so close to Tech 2 specs most of the time.
Could also then become a sensible choice when considering the reduced need to apply skilling to gain Tech 2 privaledges as meta 4 is sufficient for needs? |
el alasar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 17:48:00 -
[6] - Quote
thanks for the constructive comments. i updated the main post.
Esunisen wrote:No. Would destroy missioning.
1. that depends - on the cost of the final product / the effort needed to put in into getting a meta x item.
2. why should you be required to do pve first place? many people feel it is a stupid grinding of static content. and most people currently missioning dont even do it for the loot but usuallly for the isk/LP/bounties OR the standing. (standing system would benefit from changes, but that is another topic).
more little ideas that need your support:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=261507#post261507
enjoying the order cancellation confirmation? sometimes CCP listens - there is hope after all :)
www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1431503 |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
85
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 18:42:00 -
[7] - Quote
With a change like this, I would like to see missions lose 80-90% of module drops in favour of Metal Scrap, Salvage, or Drone Goo style loot. Rather than merely requiring more minerals to make a meta items, special loot can be added. Ideally refinable salvage with special components that can be used to make meta gear.
At the same time, I'd like to see Storyline BPs updated to use something that's not sleeper/mag site gear. Some of those modules require 200M of material to build for worse performance than a Meta 1 equivalent. (Rigs could also fall under a similar system.) |
Obsidiana
White-Noise
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 22:00:00 -
[8] - Quote
This was planned originaly in Eve. That is why "Duplication" and "Reverse Engineering" were skills. They have since been removed. Since the drop rates have made them abundant, there is no need for them.
Not a a bad idea, though. In fact, CCP had intended to do that originally.
http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Duplicating
http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Science_skills_overview
|
GavinCapacitor
CaeIum Incognitum
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 08:14:00 -
[9] - Quote
el alasar wrote:thanks for the constructive comments. i updated the main post.
with:
el alasar wrote:balancing will be hard as some meta 4 items have the same attributes as the meta 5 variant at reduced fitting cost, while other meta 5 items actually offer higher bonuses...
Do not understand, after posting that, how you cannot see why your idea is so terrible.
No one would buy T2 (in several cases), because it is strictly worse (in said cases). Everyone use/makes/buys meta4 for those items. No one trains the skills for T2 versions. Invention on those items is worthless. Huge loss of demand for T2 moon mats (and corresponding price implosion).
Your idea is badbadbadbadbad. |
Esunisen
Les Tueurs de Killer
Une Pour Tous
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 09:08:00 -
[10] - Quote
el alasar wrote:1. that depends - on the cost of the final product / the effort needed to put in into getting a meta x item.
2. why should you be required to do pve first place? many people feel it is a stupid grinding of static content. and most people currently missioning dont even do it for the loot but usuallly for the isk/LP/bounties OR the standing. (standing system would benefit from changes, but that is another topic).
If nobody looted items, you'd find nothing except meta 0, T2 and faction in market.
Mission for isk -> these people buy all their stuff in market/contracts
Mission fo LP -> these people buy faction items or BPCs and won't even look for a meta 4
Mission for standing -> needed to have better refines rates and jump clone, but what else ?
When i (rarely) go on a mission, i kill all, including LCO, and salvage/loot everything, including roids if i have time. Cuz i don't care about ISKs. I build everything i can, that's all.
60k players, 60k ways to play 
meta 4 have only one bonus: they use less CPU than T2, this is usefull when you're short, i.e. i use 4 meta 4 SPR on my Gila cuz there's not enough CPU and they have the same stats as T2.
Now researching a BPC to get a meta4 BPC, why not, but runs/me/pe should be affected just like T2 BPCs
Don't get me wrong, i like this idea, but it must be tweaked not to collapse EVE's economy |
Ismaus Taeus
Machaira
Redneck Rage
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 09:15:00 -
[11] - Quote
Why not just make a new Meta series for Tech 2s.
That would provide some competency for Tech 1 Meta 4 lovers. |
el alasar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
73
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 21:48:00 -
[12] - Quote
GavinCapacitor wrote:el alasar wrote:balancing will be hard as some meta 4 items have the same attributes as the meta 5 variant at reduced fitting cost, while other meta 5 items actually offer higher bonuses... Do not understand, after posting that, how you cannot see why your idea is so terrible. No one would buy T2 (in several cases), because it is strictly worse (in said cases). Everyone use/makes/buys meta4 for those items. No one trains the skills for T2 versions. Invention on those items is worthless. Huge loss of demand for T2 moon mats (and corresponding price implosion).
you missed the important part of that paragraph: "actually i would like to see this made consistent throughout all modules...."
this means that balancing could mean
- building meta 4 will be more costly than meta 5
- meta 5 bonuses could be always higher than meta 4
- meta 4 and 5 could always get equal attributes but meta 4 at reduced fitting cost
probably even more ways. price and reward in terms of needed skills, bonus and fitting costs need to be checked for all items. and if its not made consistent (changing module attributes), then it can still be done on BPC-base for every item.
i would appreciate if you pointed out which things you feel need to be changed addtionally to this "new" research idea, so that as a whole it becomes balanced. this would serve this thread more than saying you dont like it in its current form. i believe eve is about complexity and options and i feel we need much more of that...
and regarding the moon mats. nobody has said that a meta 4 item BPC could not require any. maybe the need for them increases with higher meta levels? all subject to design and balancing.
more little ideas that need your support:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=261507#post261507
enjoying the order cancellation confirmation? sometimes CCP listens - there is hope after all :)
www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1431503 |
el alasar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
73
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 22:16:00 -
[13] - Quote
Esunisen wrote:meta 4 have only one bonus: they use less CPU than T2, this is usefull when you're short, i.e. i use 4 meta 4 SPR on my Gila cuz there's not enough CPU and they have the same stats as T2.
you mean all meta 4 have as only difference less CPU? this is not true. it is just all random. some examples:
a) reactor control unit: bonus 10%, 16CPU --> 15%, 20CPU
b) medium shield extender: 900HP, 5m, 28MW, 25CPU --> 1050HP, 7m, 31MW, 34CPU
c) shield power relay: 24%, 16CPU --> 24%, 22CPU
d) 10MN AB: 8GJ,126%, 50MW, 25CPU --> 8.8GJ, 135%, 55MW, 25CPU
e) shield flux coil: 25%, 16 CPU --> 30%, 22CPU
more little ideas that need your support:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=261507#post261507
enjoying the order cancellation confirmation? sometimes CCP listens - there is hope after all :)
www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1431503 |
el alasar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
109
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 16:00:00 -
[14] - Quote
bump
check the moderated little ideas/10000 papercuts/low hanging fruit article!
comment, bump(!) and like what you like:
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Little_things_and_ideas_-_low_hanging_fruit_-_10000_papercuts |
Prizon
Delfus Inc.
HumAnnoyeD
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 16:39:00 -
[15] - Quote
Esunisen wrote:No. Would destroy missioning.
We can manufacture T2 and some faction, that's way enough.
Hardly enough...
As a manufacturer inventor i would relish the idea of manufacturing the meta lvls not for profit mind you, but for my corpies and the thrill.
If a meta lvl module is needed to make the bpc and this module is consumed in the procces
where would you get the module in the 1st place?
I think that missioning won't be destroyed either; just redefined.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power.
Cascade Imminent
153
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 17:08:00 -
[16] - Quote
Meta 1-4s use to be valueless when they were common, and under the current system are a source of ISK available to low-level ratters and missioners. Not supported. |
el alasar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
110
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 17:22:00 -
[17] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Meta 1-4s use to be valueless when they were common
as stated earlier, the cost would depend upon balancing - how many ressources are needed for production and how long research would take.
check the moderated little ideas/10000 papercuts/low hanging fruit article!
comment, bump(!) and like what you like:
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Little_things_and_ideas_-_low_hanging_fruit_-_10000_papercuts |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |