EVE Search - [Issue] Science & Industry, secondary market

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Science & Industry, secondary market

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.28 07:27:00 - [1] Issue: PDF. This list was put together by the market discussion crowd. Science & Industry needs a bit of love. We have so many unresolved issues, which we want to have a look at. Why it needs attention: Because this economy, which CCP is so proud of, relies on science & industry. Not only is there some issues with the gameplay part of the game, the secondary market is dying at present. This needs some help. How to fix it: We have made a comprehensive list of things which we would like to see fixed. A "Most wanted" list was also included. If these issues could be fixed, it would go a VERY long way. Side effects: This could be a small essay. There will be some, but only for the greater good. Impotance level: Extremely high. The secondary market and S&I have been largely ignored, despite some fundamental problems. I will accept more ideas for this PDF, which will be shipped off to CCP as a part of our agenda(I'm sponsoring this issue), if it gets a majority vote on the council as well. So if you have more ideas, please post here, and I will add them over a few versions.
steejans nix 0beron Construct	Posted - 2008.05.28 07:33:00 - [2] Edited by: steejans nix on 28/05/2008 07:34:59 Support, industry and mining definatly need some love, all the shiney stuff seems to go in other directions. * edit to actually tick the support box !
Yokan Daifuku Omen Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.28 08:10:00 - [3] Edited by: Yokan Daifuku on 28/05/2008 08:10:29 Specific sell order selection came up in a recent Role Playing issue with Ishukone Aide. It would have been better for Ishu. to use their own agents rather than the market, oh well. I don't know the RP motivation for this though, since SCC is a part of CONCORD and the presumed anti-discrimination nature of the open market is part of what makes it work. All other Ideas are good, publically rentable POS slots are a great IDEA too. *Edit: grammar and clarity. ---- Yo-con Die-foo-koo
Pizi	Posted - 2008.05.28 08:21:00 - [4] Edited by: Pizi on 28/05/2008 08:23:22 great =) one thing i really wantet is restart jobs and renew contract lets say you copy 20 BPC of an item and 1 want another 20 just let me restart the job with the same settings with one click same for contracts and up the limit for max copy to 40 or 50 (i know they limit it for performance reasons, but 20 is a bit low ) _______________________________________________ Mining Crystal II BPC Pricelist EVEpedia[Deutsch]
Scagga Laebetrovo Delictum 23216 San Matari.	Posted - 2008.05.28 09:07:00 - [5] There are quite a few good ideas in that pdf, but also several which I don't think are that good. It's not possible for me to give support as I don't agree with every single one of the propositions. San Matari Official forums
Ishina Fel Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2008.05.28 09:08:00 - [6] The problem I have with this portfolio is that for every three suggestions I like, there is one that I don't agree with. But okay, I'll give my tentative support here. It might be better to split up large portfolios of suggestions into a couple separate blocks in the future, though.
Sir Substance	Posted - 2008.05.28 09:27:00 - [7] adobe is saying your file is damaged Vista. would you care to post a text version?
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.28 09:30:00 - [8] Edited by: LaVista Vista on 28/05/2008 09:30:29 Most wanted òPublic production and science slots through a corporation POS. Due to the big lack of ME slots in empire, it would open increase the barrier to entry for private persons to conduct ME research on their blueprints, without joining a research alliance. òBuff assembly arrays. There is already a fuel cost on a POS. Why should we be penalized with 1.1 material factors?! The 1.1 modifier is a bit too harsh. ItÆs already an increased barrier to entry, that we have to deal with flying to the POS and having to make sure the cache is refreshed, so we can even start our jobs. Give us a reason to use POS for these things, just like the laboratory arrays are now. òAbility to buy from specific sell order LetÆs take market PvP to the next level! òAbility to contract shares Pretty simple. Let us take shares into item exchanges and auctions. It would be a big buff to the secondary market! òThe ability to bid on auctions in different region Having to fly to another region, just to bid on an item, is not fun. òRemove the 10% bid increase on auctions. Sometimes itÆs just not suitable for some items. Lets remove this. òRemove the courier contract limits(100 items, 120k m^3) Sometimes, you want to have more than 100 items or 120k m^3 moved. Having to do a good 6 contracts, just in order to fill a whole freighter up, is not good. òShare transfer log Really long due. This would allow so many scenarios, also in regards to the secondary market and API. òIncreased dividend amount In this day and age, 2-3 billions isnÆt a lot. LetÆs be able to pay out trillions. òStock exchange(Maybe per faction) Another secondary market buff. We have no secure way of trading stocks in near real-time. This would be a big help. òThe ability for a special role to outsource certain jobs(Science and industry jobs) to members, with a potential reward In order to allow production corporations, we need a way which secures both the contractor and the peon, so that they can carry out jobs for the corporation, make some isk and help the corporation meet its goals, without having to expose themselves to danger. òMore science and industry slots per character, more specialization in general With +5 implants, the time it takes to train in order to even build T2 items and invention in general, this is a negligible barrier to entry. LetÆs make us able to specialize more, so that our skills makes a difference beyond having Production Efficiency 5. òThe ability to do batch science and industry jobs and remembering our selections Putting in 10 jobs, one at a time, is really dull, especially with the inherited delay there is on some of the steps. ItÆs also real dull to have to set the same options time and time again. Please remember the options we select, and give us an option for the interface to select the installations with the least waiting time. òIncreased barriers to entry(Economics of scale, increased means for distributor- and supplier-agreements) Due to the extreme growth of the player base, itÆs time for these things. Increasing interaction between corporations and helping both small and large corporations, with increasing competition by the economics of scale, would take the industrial aspect of eve to a whole new level! òMore long-term industrial goal Yeah, we need more goals. The only real ôend-gameö goals we have at present, is capital ship production, which is not viable as much anymore. òFix the ôAskHasBogusQuantityö bug, its long due. Thanks Bug are annoying. Especially when we are given skills to allow remote buying and selling, but we often faced with this annoying bug. Hopefully it isnÆt too much to ask for. 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! Lets tweak them a bit.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.28 09:33:00 - [9] POS òPublic production and science slots through a corporation POS. òPrivate jobs in corporation POS òBuff assembly arrays. There is already a fuel cost on a POS. Why should we be penalized with 1.1 material factors?! òAllow battleship production in empire pos Market òSeller column in market òAbility to buy from specific sell order òReworked graph system to show market statistics òOrdering orders(Orders tab) by region Contracts òAbility to contract shares òBatch contracts òThe ability to bid on auctions in different region òDutch auction option òSort courier contracts by size òFuture contracts òRemove the 10% bid increase on auctions. òRemove the courier contract limits(100 items, 120k m^3) Shares/Corporations òShare transfer log òIncreased dividend amount òStock exchange(Maybe per faction) ò(Bug) Double vote implantation bug òNAV Estimation based on wallet and items in public corporation òCorporation wide evemail box, for people outside the corporation to contact a corporation, without contacting one specific person. òAbility to choose the corporation wallet after engaged vs. prior òShare split between private and public(Non-voting shares too) òBonuses to HQÆs, like delivery methods(See outsourcing ideas) òThe ability for a special role to outsource certain jobs(Science and industry jobs) to members, with a potential reward Skills òScrap metal reprocessing skill subset òMore science and industry slots per character, more specialization General òInterbus courier òRemove all NPC sold modules but civilian items(Remove reprocessing for civilian items) òRework insurance to reduce the isk faucet. òThe ability to do batch science and industry jobs òIncreased barriers to entry(Economics of scale, increased means for distributor- and supplier-agreements) òIncrease the need for people to interact with other corporations òRemove T1 loot drops òMore long-term industrial goal òRemove insurance on suicide ganks òME/PE research on BPCÆs òFix the ôAskHasBogusQuantityö bug, its long due. Thanks òBuy order range shouldnÆt depend on autopilot settings (WTF?!) òItems variation API òMore APIÆs! òConfigurable API keys òFix the S&I API data.
Sir Substance	Posted - 2008.05.28 09:37:00 - [10] i support: ò Ability to buy from specific sell order LetÆs take market PvP to the next level! this one, because it will make .01isk snping a less valid tactic. ò The ability for a special role to outsource certain jobs(Science and industry jobs) to members, with a potential reward In order to allow production corporations, we need a way which secures both the contractor and the peon, so that they can carry out jobs for the corporation, make some isk and help the corporation meet its goals, without having to expose themselves to danger. this one, because it just makes sense. ò More science and industry slots per character, more specialization in general With +5 implants, the time it takes to train in order to even build T2 items and invention in general, this is a negligible barrier to entry. LetÆs make us able to specialize more, so that our skills makes a difference beyond having Production Efficiency 5. this one, because it makes me sad that i got PE5 months ago, and haven't trained a new industrial skill level since then. ò Increased barriers to entry(Economics of scale, increased means for distributor- and supplier-agreements) Due to the extreme growth of the player base, itÆs time for these things. Increasing interaction between corporations and helping both small and large corporations, with increasing competition by the economics of scale, would take the industrial aspect of eve to a whole new level! this one, because it means that people wont be able to just "do industry on the side for a bit of cash". its a profession, not a job on the side. ò More long-term industrial goal Yeah, we need more goals. The only real ôend-gameö goals we have at present, is capital ship production, which is not viable as much anymore. this one, because its so god damn true. ò Fix the ôAskHasBogusQuantityö bug, its long due. Thanks Bug are annoying. Especially when we are given skills to allow remote buying and selling, but we often faced with this annoying bug. Hopefully it isnÆt too much to ask for. this one, because every time i see it, my eye twitches.

Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.05.28 12:12:00 - [11] /signed on all of it
Athre The HIgher Standard	Posted - 2008.05.28 13:10:00 - [12] I support the needed industry changes
Snowmore Tosco Troopers LTDA	Posted - 2008.05.28 13:40:00 - [13] Much needed review of an essential game concept.
Block Ukx KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2008.05.28 13:41:00 - [14] We definitely need a stock exchange. BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk
Bokkie	Posted - 2008.05.28 13:49:00 - [15] /signed
BRUCELLA 2 Horizon Fontaine Blanche House of Mercury	Posted - 2008.05.28 13:52:00 - [16] signed HFB, a la decouverte des nouveaux Mondes. Brucella 2.CEO Adjoint. http://hfb.eve.free.fr
Finedele Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.05.28 14:04:00 - [17] i support this!
Letouk Mernel	Posted - 2008.05.28 14:05:00 - [18] Edited by: Letouk Mernel on 28/05/2008 14:05:49 Maybe I don't know so let me ask this: what POS component/module can I use to recycle loot, like I can do in an Empire station? Cause I can't find one. I can refine ore, but not loot. Add a module please.
RaTTuS BIG	Posted - 2008.05.28 14:28:00 - [19] Especially the remember the settings I last used for this BPO for building \| Science -- BIG Lottery, BIG Deal, InEve
NightmoonEagle Matari BackBone	Posted - 2008.05.28 14:42:00 - [20] I'm going to go this bit by bit. Much I do not agree with, some I do. Originally by: LaVista Vista Most wanted òPublic production and science slots through a corporation POS. Great idea, lets also make it so that public income can be directed to any of the 7 divisional wallets, not just Master. Originally by: LaVista Vista òBuff assembly arrays. There is already a fuel cost on a POS. Why should we be penalized with 1.1 material factors?! Most of the Assembly arrays used in Empire space do not carry this 1.1x modifier you speak of. Component Arrays are the only ones I've come across to carry it. Can you explain which others do? Originally by: LaVista Vista òAbility to buy from specific sell order Excellent idea. We can do this already, though. Use the Detail page. Originally by: LaVista Vista òAbility to contract shares As in, contract shares in my corp to another player? I'm pretty sure there is a way to transfer shares to another character using the Corporate Window. Originally by: LaVista Vista òThe ability to bid on auctions in different region Why bother regionalising contracts at all then. Originally by: LaVista Vista òRemove the courier contract limits(100 items, 120k m^3) Got to agree here, the limitation is awkward. However, it is understandable, too. 120k m3 is the size of a General Freight Container. Originally by: LaVista Vista òShare transfer log òIncreased dividend amount òStock exchange(Maybe per faction) I'm not really sure where you are going with this, but a Stock Exchange for EvE would be a terrible server strain. I hate to think what Jita would be like with one. One thing you might want to add to this, though, is the nullification of shares held by people who shouldn't have said shares. Originally by: LaVista Vista òThe ability for a special role to outsource certain jobs(Science and industry jobs) to members, with a potential reward Another set of roles to completely baffle even the most experienced of CEOs, and to cause permissions headaches that take months to iron out. No thanks. Originally by: LaVista Vista òMore science and industry slots per character, more specialization in general Ok. What Production Efficiency lvl5 has to do with how many slots you can use STILL has me baffled. The max slots you can use is 11, not 10. And that means 10 build slots AND 10 research slots. You want the headache of trying to manage more than that, bring on the skill names! Originally by: LaVista Vista òThe ability to do batch science and industry jobs and remembering our selections Once upon a time, before Trinity, you could select "User defined setting" in your S&I window, and it really would remember your settings. Perhaps suggesting this be fixed would be easier than making it a new function. Batch jobbing, may help some, may be a nightmare for others, depends on implementation. Originally by: LaVista Vista òIncreased barriers to entry (Economics of scale, increased means for distributor- and supplier-agreements) You seem to be pushing this "new level" of Industry pretty hard. What is it? The level of server strain you wish to enforce? Allowing for Distributor/supplier agreements sounds like a wonderful idea, do you know what it means, and how would you implement it? Originally by: LaVista Vista ò More long-term industrial goal "end-game"? EvE has no "end game" goals. In industry, it is not just about going further, it is about going better. with Faction Warfare just around the corner, Industrial Corporations will be pushed to their limits to provide ships for their militia. Industry is about survival through the rough times, the rough times are just ahead. Originally by: LaVista Vista ò Items variation If everyone fit their Raven the same way, I'd agree. But a ship is fitted for the role each player makes for it. A base item is required, and too much variation would be server-load hell. NightmoonEagle Director of Research Director of PoS Management Matari Backbone

Mr Horizontal KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.28 14:59:00 - [21] /signed. Agreed on all counts. Director \| www.eve-bank.net
Piitaq 19th Star Logistics	Posted - 2008.05.28 15:16:00 - [22]
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2008.05.28 15:35:00 - [23] I would love to see a boost to science and industry, and I think that most of your suggestions would do much in that direction. Supported. ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.81 (Updated 4/8)
Gilbo	Posted - 2008.05.28 15:46:00 - [24]
Sir Javelin	Posted - 2008.05.28 15:47:00 - [25]
AbdullahAhmed	Posted - 2008.05.28 17:06:00 - [26] Signed and Supported
Kasarandon Suzaku Enterprises	Posted - 2008.05.28 17:06:00 - [27] /signed Science and Industry needs a thorough look at and discussion.
Jacque Custeau Knights of the Minmatar Republic	Posted - 2008.05.28 17:10:00 - [28] Originally by: NightmoonEagle Most of the Assembly arrays used in Empire space do not carry this 1.1x modifier you speak of. Component Arrays are the only ones I've come across to carry it. Can you explain which others do? All the Advanced Assembly arrays do. Its not enough that someone pays for fuel, that the arrays only come with a single slot, they also have a material modifier of 1.1. Added to that, for the duration of the manufacturing job you are at risk from attacks until the job ends. I can see no further justification for the material modifier increase. Other arrays get the time bonus without a material penalty. -------------------
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.28 17:33:00 - [29] /signed for everything except items variation(this is what rigs are for) and removal of insurance(the "isk faucet" effect doesn't seem to be having a negative impact). ------------------ Fix the forums!
Nariana Verex Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.28 18:01:00 - [30] I like a good portion of these ideas; and of the ones I am not, I feel neutrality towards. So I bestow a thumbs-up. Do the right thing. Don't leave shuttles in space.

Shey Navarr Core Element	Posted - 2008.05.28 18:09:00 - [31] Edited by: Shey Navarr on 28/05/2008 18:09:08
Pirc Balar	Posted - 2008.05.28 18:09:00 - [32] As a newer player I thought I'd offer my view of a few of the items in the pdf. Public production and science slots trough a corporation POS. - Really like this idea, but have concerns about player interaction. Having to fly to another region, just to bid on an item, is not fun. - Seems to me that opening bids among regions would just let those with the most resources more easily assume control over auctions. Remove the 10% bid increase on auctions. - Seems reasonable, but similar concern as above. More science and industry slots per character, more specialization in general - with standard and advanced skills the number of slots currently seems reasonable; could you describe scenarios in which more slots are needed? - specialization with penalties might work well With +5 implants, the time it takes to train in order to even build T2 items and invention in general, this is a negligible barrier to entry. LetÆs make us able to specialize more, so that our skills makes a difference beyond having Production Efficiency 5. - This seems overly biased toward the long term player. The ability to do batch science and industry jobs and remembering our selections - Great point Remove T1 loot drops - where is this idea coming from? More long-term industrial goal - all for it *Remove insurance on suicide ganks - again, where is this idea coming from? TLDR version: Do we really want people sitting in stations conducting all their business? Some great economy/industrial/production ideas here, but can some one offer a view of suicide ganking that doesn't involve removal of insurance (costs based on sec status)?
Ankhesentapemkah Aliastra	Posted - 2008.05.28 18:15:00 - [33] Not too happy with the removal of T1 loot as hardly anyone manufactures them because hardly anyone buys that kind of c--- for any other reason than to recycle it. Rest of the document is quite solid and covers a lot of issues on my agenda as well! --- Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
Amaandia Third Return Inc. Blue Sun Trust	Posted - 2008.05.28 19:00:00 - [34] 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.
Lt Graco	Posted - 2008.05.28 19:06:00 - [35] 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.
Khwalik Ghetto Kings	Posted - 2008.05.28 19:11:00 - [36] /signed
Mr McCargo Garoun Investment Bank	Posted - 2008.05.28 20:05:00 - [37] Originally by: NightmoonEagle Originally by: LaVista Vista òAbility to buy from specific sell order Excellent idea. We can do this already, though. Use the Detail page. No, you can't, actually. You always buy from the lowest seller. It doesn't matter which sell order you buy from. It's difficult to believe that so many people don't know that. Anyways, something to add to the market interface: you should be able to make out your order amongst others in the market screen (by highlighting it in blue, for example, as the buy orders you can fill, are green), and be able to click on your order and modify it directly instead of switching between the wallet and market screen. This would make order modification a lot more convenient. - Mr C
Xaryus	Posted - 2008.05.28 21:21:00 - [38] More variation to different aspects of eve can only be good for the game. Agree with almost everything in the document. -- Everyone is someone elses wierdo.
Silvercloud	Posted - 2008.05.28 21:29:00 - [39] Edited by: Silvercloud on 28/05/2008 21:29:17 /signed
Tarun Thred Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.28 21:36:00 - [40] Signed. I have followed the secondary market for a couple of years now with the intention of one day playing the stock market. Just at the point that I had enough isk that I couldn't utilize it myself without spending more time trading than I wanted to the market fell flat on it's face tt

Conscious Haru Chai	Posted - 2008.05.28 22:19:00 - [41] 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
NightmoonEagle Matari BackBone	Posted - 2008.05.29 00:54:00 - [42] Originally by: Mr McCargo Originally by: NightmoonEagle Originally by: LaVista Vista òAbility to buy from specific sell order Excellent idea. We can do this already, though. Use the Detail page. No, you can't, actually. You always buy from the lowest seller. It doesn't matter which sell order you buy from. It's difficult to believe that so many people don't know that. ... For this scenario to work, as you mention above, one MUST be in a station where there are multiple orders (i.e. a market hub such as Jita). And yes, under these circumstances, purchasing at a higher rate will fulfill lower orders first. However, this is NOT always the case, Buying from a station you are NOT at, where there is only ONE sell order, fulfills that particular sell-order. NightmoonEagle Director of Research Director of PoS Management Matari Backbone
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.05.29 07:10:00 - [43] Originally by: NightmoonEagle Originally by: Mr McCargo Originally by: NightmoonEagle Originally by: LaVista Vista •Ability to buy from specific sell order Excellent idea. We can do this already, though. Use the Detail page. No, you can't, actually. You always buy from the lowest seller. It doesn't matter which sell order you buy from. It's difficult to believe that so many people don't know that. ... For this scenario to work, as you mention above, one MUST be in a station where there are multiple orders (i.e. a market hub such as Jita). And yes, under these circumstances, purchasing at a higher rate will fulfill lower orders first. However, this is NOT always the case, Buying from a station you are NOT at, where there is only ONE sell order, fulfills that particular sell-order. Well yes, but fixing the issue would remove the 0.01 isk dances in large market hubs. --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !
Mia Den	Posted - 2008.05.29 07:24:00 - [44] /signed
Serenity Steele Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information	Posted - 2008.05.29 08:00:00 - [45] It's a very nice summary of a whole lot of separate issues, many of which overlap with other issues in the Assembly Hall. Please break down into separate posts so each can be discussed in detail.
Cergorach The Helix Foundation	Posted - 2008.05.29 23:13:00 - [46] Some of these proposed changes I support, some I don't. Please split them up in seperate issues. If you collect into one proposal a hundred issues and one is a deal breaker, you won't find suport for the whole proposal.
Gotrek65 Industrial Warlords Dominatus Phasmatis	Posted - 2008.05.29 23:44:00 - [47] Maybe while they're at it they can fix the asteroid belts make it harder for macro miners and ore more plentiful.... /signed
Jareck Hunter Academy of Decadence Hereticus Aegis Communis	Posted - 2008.05.29 23:47:00 - [48] Some Ideas need some more work on them, but if only some get attention from ccp, it would be fantastic^^
Rho'varo Diversified Operational Services	Posted - 2008.05.30 00:05:00 - [49] Sorry, LaVista Vista, but I can't support this topic as a whole. I definitely like many of the ideas, but I have concerns about some others. Two in particular that I'm concerned about are: Originally by: LaVista Vista Ability to buy from specific sell order Buying from specific preferred suppliers is already possible via Contracts (public or private, personal or corporate) for situations where this is particularly important. Where it is not so important, I would prefer to see the anonymous magical forces of supply and demand set prices, rather than politics. Originally by: LaVista Vista The ability to bid on auctions in different region I consider the division of the EVE universe into Regions important (i) as an aid to the perception of galactic scale in the universe, and (ii) as a necessary limiting factor on the quality of market information and the efficiency of the markets (including the Contracts market). I think that the current compromise of allowing the creation of Private contracts across regional boundaries is acceptable. I understand that regionalisation is also important for CCP system performance reasons as well, and while that is also significant, it is not my primary reason for supporting it. Features & Ideas: Winding Up Learning Skills
Czanthria Ad Astra Vexillum	Posted - 2008.05.30 04:47:00 - [50] -- Knowledge is Power!

Omber Zombie Frontier Technologies	Posted - 2008.05.30 06:34:00 - [51] yarr ---------------------- CSM 08 Blog \| 1st Campaign Vid
herot Fortunis - Redux	Posted - 2008.05.30 19:50:00 - [52]
Cpt Fina Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2008.05.31 22:52:00 - [53] Edited by: Cpt Fina on 31/05/2008 22:53:29 Vista, you don't increase competition with barriers to entry as you claim in the pdf. You decrease it. The reason why people want barriers to entry is often because they have problems with making any profit on a fully competitive market. Introducing barriers to entry will insure that there is profit to be made, for a select few. The increase in barriers leads down the road of monopoly power and deadweight losses. Some would consider this bad for a market but I support the idea from a gameplay POW. Edit: how do I vote?
Jowen Datloran Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.06.01 10:44:00 - [54] This side of EVE could really do with some new content and improvements. ---------------- Mr. Science & Trade Institute
Spoon Thumb Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.01 11:40:00 - [55] The Eve economy is just not realistic because there is no product differentiation aside point of sale and price But allowing people to make their own custom modules and ships is a can of worms, not least because it has the potential to cause an explosion in the number of items in the items db Thus I think your list is good, but isn't going to fix the fundamental problem
Andrea Griffin	Posted - 2008.06.01 15:06:00 - [56] I have no experience with the industry side of Eve. That said, anything that will make their lives easier sounds good to me; it can only lead to lower prices. (o:
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.06.01 15:41:00 - [57] Supported. -------- Ideas for: Mining Clouds
Zeknichov Dark Prophecy Inc. Insurgency	Posted - 2008.06.02 15:30:00 - [58]
Patri Andari	Posted - 2008.06.02 15:56:00 - [59] Edited by: Patri Andari on 02/06/2008 15:56:40 I have one tiny edit request: Originally by: LaVista Vista Skills òScrap metal reprocessing skill subset òRemote Scrap metal reprocessing òRemote refining òMore science and industry slots per character, more specialization General òInterbus courier òRemove all NPC sold modules but civilian items(Remove reprocessing for civilian items) òRework insurance to reduce the isk faucet. òThe ability to do batch science and industry jobs òIncreased barriers to entry(Economics of scale, increased means for distributor- and supplier-agreements) òIncrease the need for people to interact with other corporations òRemove T1 loot drops òMore long-term industrial goal òRemove insurance on suicide ganks òME/PE research on BPCÆs òFix the ôAskHasBogusQuantityö bug, its long due. Thanks òBuy order range shouldnÆt depend on autopilot settings (WTF?!) òItems variation Not sure if you already had those in mind as a subset. Having to travel across the region to refine ore or reprocess makes little sense. It lessens the value of being able to remotely install a manufacturing job. Nice work Patri
Lahtia	Posted - 2008.06.02 16:06:00 - [60] All agreed.

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. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alz Shado Ever Flow	Posted - 2008.06.13 16:02:00 - [91] /Signed, for most of these I know it's probably late, but here are some other suggestions for features I've been hoping to see but don't hear others asking for: -Ability for CFOs/Jr. Accountants to modify orders submitted for corporations -Skills to meter the extent of the "Market History" that's visible at a time (Lv1: 1 week --> Lv5: 1 year) -New revenue streams from services currently run by NPCs or would improve PvP/PvE - repair stations, clone vats at POSes, toll jumpbridges, "Wingman" Automated fighter-assignment vending machines, etc -T2 Named loot BPCs dropped in 0.0, specced somewhere between T2 and Faction gear and requiring T2 components and salvage to build -Speaking of, Salvage/Tractor Drones! -And FINALLY: a capital ship that allows for sales of goods directly from it's cargohold, with appropriate standings filters etc. T1 loot drops are more important to the economy that most industrialists will ever admit -- they allow for a secondary mineral stream that doesn't involve shooting rocks for long hours. Changing this system would have very dire consequences for anyone but the hardcore miners and macroers which are already too populous in the game. //// ---------=== []= ---------=== \\\\ Rifter(RedBad) "Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand
Mazzarins Demise	Posted - 2008.06.13 16:18:00 - [92] While I agree that Science and industry definitely needs a boost and I like some of these ideas, I really do not like many of them. Sorry.
Alvar Kesh	Posted - 2008.06.16 10:06:00 - [93] /signed
ishkabibble Black Avatar Lost Sheep Domain	Posted - 2008.06.19 03:51:00 - [94] /signed NYC gets Rick Roll'd
Senisran Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2008.06.19 07:21:00 - [95]
Gieron Middleton and Mercer LLP The Volition Cult	Posted - 2008.06.19 12:41:00 - [96] Not that I understood all of that. But I agree with anything LaVista says. That's why I voted for him.
redCube	Posted - 2008.06.22 09:59:00 - [97]
Eanok Equitus Nosferatum Praetorians	Posted - 2008.07.01 12:15:00 - [98] Agree with several of the points, not all. support to get them all discussed anyway.
Emicia Jarh Cosmology	Posted - 2008.07.01 15:44:00 - [99] good ideas...
Psychotic Penguin BLACK-FLAG	Posted - 2008.07.01 16:35:00 - [100] ____________________________________________________ Reality is for those who have no imagination.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

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.