| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Seb Balaak
   |
Posted - 2008.05.24 23:00:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: LaVista Vista
First draft, just listing all the issues and things that needs a look at.
Here
Just had a look, it's quite a long list, I hope you will concentrate on just a few ones and present/discuss them in more detail to/with the CSM (like the skills, what kind of skills, etc.). The ones that are easiest for CCP to implement should be a priority I guess.
The longer the list, the less anyone will be interested to look at it, either in the CSM, or CCP. |
Tasko Pal
Heron Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 02:05:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Seb Balaak
Originally by: SencneS
Edited by: SencneS on 22/05/2008 15:29:52
Meant to get to this yesterday but found myself with the kids :)
1) A new column in the Market called "Seller" - Can list name, corp, or alliance I really don't care.
2) When click on an order and select buy - I want to buy from that person, not from the cheapest at the station.
3) Introduce discounts and surcharges according to personal standing for personal orders, Corporate standing for Corporate orders.
These three things would take market PVP to a whole new level, because lets face it, with 0.01 being one of our only few options for hard core market PVP, it needs a buff.
There's a reason why you can't exactly see who the bidders and sellers are in real life exchanges (and other rules/laws in place). I won't go into details but suffice it to say it will turn the market into chaos and ruin EVE-playability for the largest portion of eve-players and will only benefit a few (those with connections) for a short period of time (until the market is so chaotic it will destroy itself).
In short - a VERY VERY bad idea from an economic point of view (coming from a 12-year long options/futures trader)
OTOH, we're hiding relevant market information. I've actually participated in a market (did pretty well too) where the buyers and sellers of each transaction are public information. It's reciprocal information release though I imagine in practice everyone with serious money will trade behind proxies. Much as they do now in Eve.
And I don't get the hyperbola about the "chaos and ruin". If in the real world, every trade had to be publically identified with the people making the actual trade decision, trade would still go on. The need for the market didn't go away and traders still need to make ends meet. Even if every trade and book order I made is public information (and the whole world has incentive to study my every move because I'm such an awesome trader  ), there are all sorts of relatively cheap strategies for diluting these effects. For example, you have a legal license to pump and dump via feints.
Finally, we need to consider that while there are disadvantages to revealing trader information, there are also collective benefits. Knowing who is trading what makes the markets considerably more efficient.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 03:07:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Seb Balaak
The ones that are easiest for CCP to implement should be a priority I guess.
I agree here, what we should do once the list is finalized down to the "What would be best" you should look at what CCP may already have tried to implement.
For example - Public POS's - Everything about the POS setup and science and industry SCREAMS this was once an idea they had and coded parts into the game to accommodate it. There for this would seem like a great choice to push for.
The other things to push for would be simple buffs or nerfs where the actually functionality doesn't change just the numbers - Much like the 1.1 material penalty, (Again with the POS  )
Although I would simply LOVE out right LOVE T1 loot drops removed, I fear it would never happen. For a few reasons, the main one is simply because you'd have mission runners and ratters whip you into submission over it. The second would be the utter lack of demand for T1 non-named items.
I assume you mean remove the T1 but leave the named items drops. This would have to be the way it is. If you do that you'd see a drastic drop in loot in missions, or a massive influx of named items on the market.
Like I said, I'd LOVE this since my corp is aiming toward a T1 mega store but honestly I think CCP would rather give us Personal high sec Outposts then remove loot drops.
Amarr for Life |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 04:51:00 -
[94]
Originally by: SencneS
For example - Public POS's - Everything about the POS setup and science and industry SCREAMS this was once an idea they had and coded parts into the game to accommodate it. There for this would seem like a great choice to push for.
I think public lab slots is going to be a non-starter. It may have been on the agenda for development but so was the ambiguous "Personal" facilities option as well. Both Public provided and the "Personal" facility option are like the human appendix. Vestigal and, at some future date, likely to be removed. I'm still going to scream for fees, from pos slots or even public facilities, be payable directly from the corp members wallet. I'm tired that I have to give wallet access to people that have limited access in most other regards. That's just one complaint, the other side of it is that a POS costs fuel to run and I have little or no way of figuring out what each of us use up in the way of the corporate facilities. Allowing pos labs to go public would be ... a huge complication to the overall economy. That is why I think it will be a non-starter. Because of how huge it will be - just think it through.
To Shar -verb:
1 - To say what you mean.
2 - To say what it means.
3 - To say something mean. |
Saladin
Eternity INC.
Project Alice.
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 06:49:00 -
[95]
I agree with Shar - focus on the ones with most likely chance of success
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 18:00:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Both Public provided and the "Personal" facility option are like the human appendix. Vestigial and, at some future date, likely to be removed.
Allowing pos labs to go public would be ... a huge complication to the overall economy. That is why I think it will be a non-starter. Because of how huge it will be - just think it through.
I know where you're coming from
Here are a few complications I've considered when making it go live.
1) Massive increase in Demand for Fuel
2) Massive database entries and corps deploy as many as they can.
3) Alliances start to feel the pressure of increased fuel costs since they have to fuel POS that give them nothing but Sov.
4) Massive price wars happen in a single systems so even more database entries are made on changes
5) War Decs become more prevalent as larger corporations war dev 1 and 2 man corps to destroy their operation.
6) Could potentially see large migration from 0.0 to empire which is the exact opposite of what CCP want.
This is just to name a few.
Where I am coming from is "This is game is a sandbox, well almost." It's time for CCP to stop stunting the growth of complete player owned and operated industrialism in EVE. CCP need to cut the umbilical cord, remove NCP research and production slots, make it Player based.
The above issues would be around for a while but it would eventually level out. I do still think the reward and benefits of the change far out way the complications. As most complications would die out and become non-issues any more.
Some of the benefits I see is.
1) MASSIVE increase secondary market IPO strategies.
2) A form of complication not seen in EVE yet.
3) Massive ISK sink while everyone sets up POS networks
4) Ongoing elevated ISK sink
5) Prices of Items go up due to the cost of manufacturing (Assuming they also remove NCP slots)
6) No more 1-2 man research corps. You'd need to be larger conglomerates of corps like ZZZ or large groups of corporations joining forces to defend their assets.
7) A much much larger distribution of manufacturing and research. Spreading the player base out more.
For pretty much every reason you can list why it shouldn't be done there is a reason why it should.
Oh I agree if this did take place it would be chaos for a while, but imagine the goodness at the end of the tunnel.
Lastly I don't think CCP sees these as an appendix, I think they know there is a can of worms to be had when they turn it on.
After all they do have this - From "The Drawing board"
Originally by: CCP
Individual Player Structures (aka "Housing")
Allowing individual players to buy, anchor and maintain their own housing module would enrich the EVE universe and serve as an easy bottom rung on the Starbase-ownership ladder. This could of course open up a whole can of worms, so weÆre proceeding with caution here.
Amarr for Life |
Ramblin Man
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 20:28:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Ramblin Man on 25/05/2008 20:29:37
Just fyi, I'm spidering through the thread and building a compilation of original posts.
- Broken down into the three criteria from the op
- Poster's original words only
- Includes links back to the original post
- Chief organization performed has been to associate posts talking about the same thing
Should be a nice cheat-sheet alternative to sifting back through the thread.
Welcome to the dark side old friend. .Shar
Where we hate people through words. |
Narkie
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 21:17:00 -
[98]
Allow me to sort my damned market orders by region! please! I hate not knowing what market orders are occuring within what region. It really becomes confusing when running 300 orders
|
Ramblin Man
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 22:10:00 -
[99]
Done.
I figured it'd be easier for lavivi to hack something down if it was already partially organized.
[PDF Up @ EveFiles]
Short summary:
- Everybody wants tradeable shares or a share market
- Lots of people are making suggestions about market / trading / industry endgame (or lack thereof)
- A fair number of people want an insurance revamp, dividend extension (amount, item expansion), publicly available POSs, destructible shares, or/and improved interfaces (particularly sorting)
- A few people are interested in POS 'streamlining' (Jennine Tyler's phrase, not mine  ), courier contracts, a public evemail for corporations, and auto-NAV generation
- Finally, there's also 'made by ___', API, intelligent search, and share transfer log
PS: Also, out of 4,066 of your words... quite a few were misspelled. C+ at best. 
PPS: If you put in the effort, then no one whose opinion counts can say you didn't try, LVV. Ignore the whiners.
Welcome to the dark side old friend. .Shar
Where we hate people through words. |
Rysith
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 23:55:00 -
[100]
Another really nice thing would be a lightweight client that could handle everything that you can do from inside a station. I've got a laptop that isn't terribly happy with running the graphics, but if all I want to do is log on, change some orders, and make sure that everything is running smoothly I don't need to undock or see the pretty graphics. |
Bel Amar
Interslice Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 12:11:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Seb Balaak
Edited by: Seb Balaak on 24/05/2008 12:45:50AND change the market system in such a way that the volume of a transaction is divided equally amongst orders listed at the same price, I believe market behaviour will change a lot and people will be more inclined to list prices at certain levels without undercutting every 5 minutes.
Amen! Even if they're dished out randomly from a pool of items available at a given price in a given location, it would at least make mutual co-operation an option amongst sellers, whilst still not stopping the undercutter from getting an advantage.
It creates an environment where a duopoly can benefit the sellers at the disadvantage of the buyers, whilst at the same time letting a cut throat seller force a price war if he doesn't want to "play nice" with the other sellers.
I'd kill to something like this in place
|
Salarc
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 19:37:00 -
[102]
We need to make it so people can't overbuy someone by .01 isk...
Every time I log on and find out 25 people have overbought me by .01 isk it makes me cry.
|
Roguehalo
RH Ship Brokers
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 19:52:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Salarc
We need to make it so people can't overbuy someone by .01 isk...
Every time I log on and find out 25 people have overbought me by .01 isk it makes me cry.
Whenever you're crying you're losing
The idea is for YOU to make other traders cry
|
Astorothe
Aperture Science Industries
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 04:55:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Rysith
Another really nice thing would be a lightweight client that could handle everything that you can do from inside a station. I've got a laptop that isn't terribly happy with running the graphics, but if all I want to do is log on, change some orders, and make sure that everything is running smoothly I don't need to undock or see the pretty graphics.
I'm pretty sure CCP will never allow direct manipulation of the game through anything other than the full client.
|
Ava Santiago
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 05:07:00 -
[105]
Multiple player wallets. Players need a way (Aside from forming a solo corp) to keep track of various ventures.
Concord doesn't provide consequences. Concord provides insurance payouts. |
Jackie Fisher
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 08:09:00 -
[106]
Ability to limit your own maximum individual payment size.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 08:50:00 -
[107]
Second draft is here. Only stuff I did was to take the issues I found would be easiests, yet make the biggest difference.
I will probably post this thing on the CSM forum tonight, so we can see how much support there is to this.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 10:37:00 -
[108]
One last idea from me, a golden oldie in fact. Could we have an export button at the bottom of the price history table display? This was one of the many export features long asked for as well as the wallet. IMHO this is not an API feature though, I can't see how that'll be helpful.
In essence, since the data is sent to our clients (any way) it would be nice to have the data exported for whatever analysis or record keeping we should want to do. I believe that it would actually reduce the load as my own behavior patterns are to check price histories and sometimes I have to go back and review the data again (thus sometimes causing a cache refresh). By exporting it out I would not need to do this.
In closing, CCP sends us the data any way. Empower us with the ability to save it. (Besides my fingers are just plain tired from type-transcribing data when I should need it.)
To Shar -verb:
1 - To say what you mean.
2 - To say what it means.
3 - To say something mean. |
Seb Balaak
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 12:22:00 -
[109]
I would absolutely love the idea above, then I can really get to work. |
Letrange
Chaosstorm Corporation
Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 12:48:00 -
[110]
Here's a suggestion for the loot issue:
1) get rid of generic tech 1 drops.
Everyone seems to suggest that one, but I got to thinking, it would be much better if there was more industry between the loot and the usable components. This got me thinking.
2) instead of dropping named items drop named item BPCs or better yet drop mashed up named units that need some other industry skill to make them usable. You could even make this very interesting since you could make these refine into LESS minerals than the full module - thereby reducing the influx of minerals onto the market from loot, but still allowing named modules.
Dropping named item BPCs would be the easiest to implement. Developing a new skill set that allows repairing of damaged named modules in some maner would probably be more dificult from the game design perspective but would make things more interesting.
The whole point is to put the industrialist in the loop between loot and usable modules - like we are for the rigs.
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 12:52:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Letrange
Here's a suggestion for the loot issue:
1) get rid of generic tech 1 drops.
Everyone seems to suggest that one, but I got to thinking, it would be much better if there was more industry between the loot and the usable components. This got me thinking.
2) instead of dropping named items drop named item BPCs or better yet drop mashed up named units that need some other industry skill to make them usable. You could even make this very interesting since you could make these refine into LESS minerals than the full module - thereby reducing the influx of minerals onto the market from loot, but still allowing named modules.
Dropping named item BPCs would be the easiest to implement. Developing a new skill set that allows repairing of damaged named modules in some maner would probably be more dificult from the game design perspective but would make things more interesting.
The whole point is to put the industrialist in the loop between loot and usable modules - like we are for the rigs.
I like that idea. Coupled with manufacturing, POS changes, and specialized skill sets I could see vast areas of market and industrial creation each with it's own unique revenue streams and sinks. |
Blazing Fire
Interstellar Operations Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 14:28:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Letrange
Here's a suggestion for the loot issue:
1) get rid of generic tech 1 drops.
Everyone seems to suggest that one, but I got to thinking, it would be much better if there was more industry between the loot and the usable components. This got me thinking.
2) instead of dropping named items drop named item BPCs or better yet drop mashed up named units that need some other industry skill to make them usable. You could even make this very interesting since you could make these refine into LESS minerals than the full module - thereby reducing the influx of minerals onto the market from loot, but still allowing named modules.
Dropping named item BPCs would be the easiest to implement. Developing a new skill set that allows repairing of damaged named modules in some maner would probably be more dificult from the game design perspective but would make things more interesting.
The whole point is to put the industrialist in the loop between loot and usable modules - like we are for the rigs.
I dream about this 
Blazing Fire
CEO
Interstellar Operations Incorporated
Corp web site
Recruitment
Looking for PvPeers in 0.0 space
Looking for Hulk and Mackinaw pilots. We pay for the Ore
Services
[Service] Killboard hosting
[Service] Forum hosting
[Service] Web site hosting
[Service] Obelisk for rent
[Service] Alliance Creation |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 15:31:00 -
[113]
I'd like to be able to modify my order directly from the market screen. Sure, an extra click or two is no big deal, but when it's done hundreds of times a day for months on end...
|
Lt Graco
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 15:51:00 -
[114]
Originally by: SencneS
1) A new column in the Market called "Seller" - Can list name, corp, or alliance I really don't care.
2) When click on an order and select buy - I want to buy from that person, not from the cheapest at the station.
3) Introduce discounts and surcharges according to personal standing for personal orders, Corporate standing for Corporate orders.
Quote:
Sorry, can't read through this whole thread. I love this. Anything to personalize the marketing of your product would be amazing.
I do not believe that "economy of scale" would be a great idea for all products though. New players need the chance to break into the production world as well as you older players. There are already disadvantages due to a lack of training that puts a large crimp on our ability to compete profitably.
|
Brisco Smiley
Peppermint Bay Trading Company
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 17:56:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Kaldira
1. Reactivate the development on the API - its a very useful tool and is missing information.
^
|
Amaandia
Third Return Inc.
Blue Sun Trust
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 20:39:00 -
[116]
Would be nice if the coporation contracting system got fixed, so you can accept courier contracts on behalf of corporation, and not have to have a corp hangar at each station in region, when using regionwide buyorders.
|
Conscious
Haru Chai
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 00:13:00 -
[117]
1) Ability to filter by location, allowing only stations that meet the parameters to be viewed.
2) Be able to set the screen/market refresh rate. Getting tired of always having delays every time I'm trying to scroll through and update market orders.
--------------------------------------------
Eve Tools - Alliance Tracker
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 07:34:00 -
[118]
Everybody should post here.
|
Lt Graco
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 18:52:00 -
[119]
You need to break these down into seperate issues.
I support anything that adds the ability to market your product as a brand (i.e. the listing of sellers in the market details and the ability to buy, or sell!!, to the individual of your choice) Greater variation in production materials, variable equipment penalties for lower grade production methods, equipment "useful lives" based on BPO/BPC quality....all of these and much more could be used to personalize products and allow players to build brands based on exceptional quality for higher cost or lower quality for lower cost. Again...almost anything that allows branding is good.
I cannot support the barriers you propose. These stink of elite protectionism. Removing T1 drops, putting in mechanisms that would provide greater benefits for large producers, attempting to screen out part-time producers...purely beneficial to the larger players in the industrial world.
Since I cannot support all of this I choose not to support any of it and would urge others to reconsider their support. This is the equivalent of a bill in congress with everything and the kitchen sink thrown in under the flag of a popular cause.
Those of you who mission / rat / pew pew / explore etc. Please take the time to think about what their "barriers" would do to your ability to take what you have earned and create something valuable. Those of you who save up salvage through three weeks just to be able to throw up one valuable rig will find yourself priced out of the market with your only option being to sell your salvage on a market that now has a demand dominated by a few of these colluding elites.
"Economies of Scale" already exist in EVE but are conveniently ignored by those who would benefit from CCP introducing new (unnatural) mechanics that would allow them to gain simply from being "larger". Contract systems are already in place, the ability to convo the CEO of a mining corporation is already there. Want better deals because you use alot of mins? Then get off your backside and make it happen instead of asking CCP to do it for you.
Why should a brand new player not be able to purchase a Tungsten S BPO and a mining frigate and begin to compete with you? Because you've been doing it longer? Then you have all the advantage you need to win. If you let that newbie win, or a mission runner selling loot drops win, or a ratter selling rigs win then it's because you were too lazy to beat them.
Industry is much tougher PVP than almost any other found in EVE. The PVPers in the industrial side of EVE should be proud of the fact that the open system allows new players to fight their way to the top one little win at a time...not look to CCP to give them greater advantage.
|
Lt Graco
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 19:44:00 -
[120]
Edited by: Lt Graco on 28/05/2008 19:50:29
Not true at all. Before calling someone's idea idiotic you should read and understand their entire post. The player with experience in the game already has a huge advantage...as they should. If they choose not to use it then it's their own fault.
EDIT = Taking your 1 month combat PVPer example...if an experienced fighter runs out in an interceptor thinking he should beat that 1 month old in the kestrel he might, highly doubtful, but he just might get a surprise. Why? He was lazy and took something for granted that he shouldn't have.
As I said Industrial PVP is damned hard....why try to make it so easy?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |