| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Efa Morgan
   |
Posted - 2008.06.02 16:12:00 -
[61]
agreed
|
namelessclone01
blackbox ops
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 18:28:00 -
[62]
lots of ideas here..
i fully support some of them, i'm strongly against some others, and neutral towards the rest. oh.. and some of them are too vague.
so what should i do?
since you are sponsoring the whole list anyway, you probably don't need any votes ;p
there are more ideas that i support though.
but here are just some negative points:
Remove the 10% bid increase on auctions.
- this would turn auctions into 0.01 isk race, as is the case with the current market orders.
Corporation wide evemail box, for people outside the corporation to contact a corporation, without contacting one specific person.
- more opportunitites for spammers?
ME/PE research on BPCÆs
- no, no, no, please, no. as much as i would like to be able to research a cheap copy, i feel it would break the whole BPO system. after all, it's perfectly logical that a copy comes with restrictions, including ME/PE.
also this idea contradicts with your previous statement of "increased barriers to entry", which itself is too vague.
Items variation
- an excellent and long-coveted proposition in itself, but i suspect that the design and programming efforts needed for its implementation would be enormous. in the current state of Eve, it's just another 'bling' idea, on par with platenary interaction or painting your ships.
that being said, the majority of your points would have gotten my vote if you needed one ;)
|
Scetrov
OcUK
Overclockers Podpilot Services
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 18:53:00 -
[63]
Thank You for putting this together LaVista, the inclusion the ability to buy from specific vendors on the market would be a huge advantage and I wholeheartedly support this. Current system is a bit like not being able to target individual ships - which would make no sense.
|
OV Marius
Core Antum
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 22:05:00 -
[64]
I fully support this! We science and industry people need more love 
|
Martosh Toma
Fraction Investment
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 22:57:00 -
[65]
Sorry cannot pledge my support
I agree with another poster that contracts can deal with buyimng from a specific purchaser. (this one point prohibits me from agreeing as I consider the other things i disagree with as minor)
what I would like to see and is not in the document is the power for the seller to ajust pricing based on standing, basicly 2 settings on a specific sell order being (as you may, for example, want to limit sales to enemies in low sec or .0 but not in empire):
- a % surcharge for each full point of standing below #value#
Example: add 10% for each point below +5
- do not sell to standings below #value#
Example: do not sell below -5.5
|
Rouque Vanderbuilt
Nuts and Bolts
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:02:00 -
[66]
/signed
|
Sir Arland
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:16:00 -
[67]
|
Titus Lewis
Suddenly Successful
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 09:56:00 -
[68]
Agree completely. |
DarVellon
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 10:29:00 -
[69]
Edited by: DarVellon on 03/06/2008 10:31:16
Market
òSeller column in market
I love most of the idea's so, on the whole this definitly has my support.
But, is the item mentioned above translated as 'Showing the name of the seller' I question it's validity.
Market should be economic PvP only.
By being able to determine who the actual seller is you bring politics and/or opinions in to play. Then motives like the sellers standing to you or your corp or even your own 'reputation' start to out weigh economic descisions. Imagine being a famous pirate (who everyone hates) and trying to sell stuff.
As a result everyone will use an non-allied, unknown alt to sell their stuff, resulting in the whole point being useless anyways.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 10:51:00 -
[70]
Are you suggesting that you are going to table 60 issues for the agenda (as all your list are seperate issues, not one) and discuss them all in the CSM meeting?
Some of these will have far-reaching in-game implications, which are not for the greater good. They need to be discussed, each in turn, and then voted one seperately. I'm sure CCP wants 60 individual issues to respond to from one meeting...oh, but then you are not going to discuss issues in meetings anymore, since the discussion happens via the threads right?
Lumping many issues together masks some important ones which are good ideas that should be put forward to CCP. However, I stand by my earlier post elsewhere regarding the role of the CSM- it is not a game development group!
Each player is only allowed to post one topic- why should it be any different for CSM members (if, indeed, you subscribe to the school of thought that CSM members should be proposing anything)?
Arithron
|
|
|
Cpt Fina
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 11:23:00 -
[71]
 Originally by: namelessclone01
ME/PE research on BPCÆs
- no, no, no, please, no. as much as i would like to be able to research a cheap copy, i feel it would break the whole BPO system. after all, it's perfectly logical that a copy comes with restrictions, including ME/PE.
also this idea contradicts with your previous statement of "increased barriers to entry", which itself is too vague.
Very good point. One that I missed due to being overly optimistic of the implemention of new industrial content.
I fear that alot of aye-ayers here are blinded by the type of suggestion and don't take a closer look at what is suggested.
I retract the vote I never managed to cast in the first place.
|
Ren Adal
Duct Tape Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 14:56:00 -
[72]
full support
|
Sarah Tuttle
Plato Academy
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 15:15:00 -
[73]
Sarah Tuttle
My Eve Site |
TheBlueMonkey
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 16:16:00 -
[74]
I'm somewhat for and somewhat against (can't please everyone all the time)
I like the idea of setting up a pos and then renting it out to the genpop.
The bpc model works fine as is, under no circumstances should it be changed to allow any research on bpcs.
A niggle in the back of my mind wants to be able to reverese engineer bpc's to get a decent bpo on the cheap or reverse engineer named mods to get a bpc\bpo but that's just greed driven and shouldn't be noted.
Same goes for an item duplication skill
I digress
I want the whole of science and industry to be made ALOT more complicated, I've already been through my ideas before so I'll not do it again here.
the more complex the better for me :)
--
If there's no profit to be made you need to travel further afield.
|
Orchid Ix
X-ile
Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 16:28:00 -
[75]
/signed
--
Sig Under Construction |
SencneS
Rebellion Against big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 18:32:00 -
[76]
I support all of these. There is a large thread full of ideas on the Market Discussion forum, that LaVista Vista narrowed down to the select group of important issues.
I doubt CCP could/would make all these changes but the like the idea of giving CCP a list of what we want most and let them pick and choose which ones they would be willing to fix.
Any one of these changes would improve market/industrialism in EVE, I can only hope they do at least one of them.
Amarr for Life |
Cailais
VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:03:00 -
[77]
Supported.
C.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 07:21:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Arithron on 04/06/2008 07:22:51
Quote:
I support all of these. There is a large thread full of ideas on the Market Discussion forum, that LaVista Vista narrowed down to the select group of important issues
If you read the information regarding how the CSM works and topics for discussion, you will see clearly the following:
1. All topics have to be presented HERE, in this forum, for a period of 7 days before being able to be discussed/voted on by the CSM.
2. Each player is only allowed to present ONE issue- here, 60+ issues are being presented together. I see no mention of a CSM member being exempt from this one topic limit. They can support as many issues as they like. However, each issue on the PDF and start of this thread needs to be proposed on the thread by a different player, discussed for 7 days etc.
The purpose of seperating them all out is clearly there are some issues that are not in the interests of the industralist player. Having them all voted on together just doesn't make sense, and is not what the CSM council was designed to do.
Take care,
Arithron
|
Karanth
Eve's Brothers of Destiny
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 11:03:00 -
[79]
All of those things are parts of one issue: Science and Industry. Presenting just one tiny part would be useless, and while fixing one thing wouldn't hurt, it wouldn't do what LVV is trying to do.
Support.
|
winthrowe
Node Alpha Defense Research
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 22:57:00 -
[80]
|
|
|
Takimi Star
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 23:40:00 -
[81]
I support most of the items listed in the PDF...
|
Somatic Neuron
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 11:06:00 -
[82]
Support
---------- |
Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 15:27:00 -
[83]
While I support the inititive to improve industry and trade, I think that too many things are bundled into this thread to effectively discuss all of the suggestions.
I would like to see seperate threads for key areas: ie a thread for the proposed improvements to contracts seperate from the proposed changes to market mechanics.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 17:29:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Arithron on 05/06/2008 17:28:58
These are all one issue? I count 60+ issues here! They all are in the Science and Industry scope, but thats are far as the connection goes...
Are you seriously suggesting that it is alright to bundle a heap of issues together under one tenious connection, such as POS warfare/Pirate Ganking/Aggro timers/Killrights/Black ops because they all fall under the scope of PvP?
They need to be seperated so we can discuss the pros and cons of each one and inform the CSM reps of the arguments, especially as only a few of them have industry/Science leanings of any degree.
Take care,
Arithron
|
Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 23:02:00 -
[85]
Items that appear to be fine as listed:
ò Public production and science
ò Ability to contract shares
ò The ability to bid on auctions in different region
ò Increased dividend amount
The others need further development. These two I think are in the most need of further discussion.
Originally by: LaVista Vista
òAbility to buy from specific sell order
LetÆs take market PvP to the next level!
Out of your list, this item stikes me as being an odd one out.
I fail to see how this would take market PvP to the next level.
With combat PvP the objective is simple: kill the other guy before he kills you.
With market PvP the objective is also simple: offer the best price in that location.
If you remove that victory condition, what is the new victory condition for market PvP? Originally by: LaVista Vista
òItems variation
Increasing variation and allow for new markets to form, would increase the depth in eve. Why is everybody flying the very same raven? ItÆs nonsense!
What exactly do you suggest that we do about it? What would vary between different Raven's? Having lots of otherwise identical products on the market would not improve the market. What would drive demand for these superfisial variations? You can already sell customized Raven's (ie with rigs) via contracts, but there seems to be comparitively little demand in contrast with the standardized Raven. For a most wanted feature, this one is poorly defined.
|
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 11:35:00 -
[86]
/Signed
|
Unknown Killer
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:38:00 -
[87]
/signed
|
Arondor
Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:58:00 -
[88]
would split this up into a few sections to get more support.
Also I think the time may be here where we can get rid of NPC run manufacture and research slots and create a facility in POSs that can work as you describe, possible small towers in high sec? or even no npc manufacturing and research in low sec, create a player run economy here
|
Tiger313
313th Squadron
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 02:17:00 -
[89]
I endorse this proposal :) |
Rat Scout
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 04:46:00 -
[90]
99% agreed
All but the tech 1 loot removal seems logical to me.
Instead of removing tech 1, remove named tech 1 and integrate named module production somehow in to invention or production from the tech 1 bpo's.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |