EVE Search - [Issue] T1 Components

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] T1 Components

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.07.13 10:21:00 - [1] So far, we have had a few hints towards this. But I think this is worth possibly raising as an issue for itself. I have had countless requests for creating T1 components, in the same way we have T2 and Capital components. It would create a very interesting market and add a much needed level of complexity. So the request is that CCP should simply make T1 components. It's my hope that CCP can tell us if it's likely or if it's a "dream" of theirs. If we get enough support for this issue, I will be bringing this up at soonest possible meeting. (1-2 weeks from now)
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.07.13 11:05:00 - [2] Fully supported. T1 Components would be the first step into industry for the new player and module construction could then require appropriate skills to manufacture, similar, but lower to T2 modules. Then not every numb nut with a BPC and some reprocessed loot can build their own battleships. Industrial players might finally get some more appreciation. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Ivena Amethyst	Posted - 2008.07.13 14:16:00 - [3] I think t1 components would be nice, but there would probably have to be some changes made to the slots, so that thousands of manufactureing jobs for t1 componens don't flood the slots just to build some frigates in order to not make building (t1)modules/ships -'cause its not very hard with current mechanics since it can be done by a minute old player- more difficult/time cunsuming/and so on maybe building a ship from components would cost less minerals then building from monly minerals (due to RP stuff like componets have more optimized ways of being manufactured and assebled) "in the future" using less or more then standard(=what it says on the bp) number of a two given components could build pre-customized ships, finding out if a different combination will yield a working ship could be done through a new "invention" where you would research a bp to find a new possible combination and get a bpc with these numbers eg: fewer armor plates alowing more shield emitters = less armor and more shield hitpoints and shorter recharge fewer armor plates alowing more thusters = higher base speed but less armor hp less thrusters alowing more armor plates = more armor hp less agility and base speed or something...
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.07.13 17:04:00 - [4] I do support ships being constructed from components, I do not support items being constructed from components. Items should be the low-end for industrialists, requiring no real skills to construct. Also, the components should be split across at least three different types of differentiation, to allow industrialists to specialize, and provide the much-vaunted economies of scale to industry. Have components for each of the races(much like the Carbides in T2), each of the ship sizes(size-based hardpoints, etc. - also, one "power core" per MW would nicely cover this role), components that vary based on the ship's role(drone bays, EW modules, that kind of stuff), and universal components(computers, engines, etc.). You'll have to make the prices low and the volumes high on some of these components, especially the universal ones, but that's easy enough to do. Basically, take a mix of the way things are done for capital ships and T2 stuff, and adjust it so that frigates don't go up in price and battleships don't go down(or vice-versa, of course). As long as it's done right, this could be exactly what higher-end industrialists have been looking for. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Tarminic 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.07.13 17:54:00 - [5] Anything that helps the T1 industry sounds good to me. ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3)
John Pierpont	Posted - 2008.07.13 18:09:00 - [6] Edited by: John Pierpont on 13/07/2008 18:09:26 Not in support of this. All we need is another way to fill up all my build slots requiring me to log in multiple times during the day to finish each step needed to build a battleship for a corp mate. Isn't it bad enough for t2 manufacture/invention to require 15 steps to get to an end product? This will only provide more cost to the consumer, due to the extra work needed by the builders & cost of the new component BPO's. It will also mean more BPO's to research ME/PE on, less open build slots to make stuff with since they're being used to make the t1 components, etc. Having components for Capital Ships & freighters is where I draw the line for t1 build jobs. The protocloak components are bad enough, and I don't want to see every t1 module take 5 days to build a batch of from scratch.
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2008.07.13 19:40:00 - [7] All it would serve to do is run newer players out of the market. I'd much rather have the ability to choose who can buy my products than to have to build a bunch of components just to build something else. I did that in SWG in the original release and CU, there it had a function in the quality of the components affected the quality of the final product. Here it would only serve as a time sink because every rifter, retriever, raven, etc is just like every other out of the box. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Shey Navarr Noir. Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.13 20:18:00 - [8] Edited by: Shey Navarr on 13/07/2008 20:18:17 Originally by: Abrazzar T1 Components would be the first step into industry for the new player Originally by: Mecinia Lua All it would serve to do is run newer players out of the market. I think Mecinia is correct on this one. If I am reading right what is wanted here is creation of more barriers for the production of T1 items. Correct me if I'm wrong but this means mid-level or higher producers would have the training to actually create and sell most T1 product. Why would those same T1 producers not simply create their own components rather than purchase them from new players? Just as in the capital ship market; those with the means to produce volume cap ships already have the means to produce the components. This would greatly reduce the production opportunities for new players and discourage entry. Less competition is not a good thing.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.07.13 20:29:00 - [9] Originally by: Shey Navarr Edited by: Shey Navarr on 13/07/2008 20:18:17 Originally by: Abrazzar T1 Components would be the first step into industry for the new player Originally by: Mecinia Lua All it would serve to do is run newer players out of the market. I think Mecinia is correct on this one. If I am reading right what is wanted here is creation of more barriers for the production of T1 items. Correct me if I'm wrong but this means mid-level or higher producers would have the training to actually create and sell most T1 product. Why would those same T1 producers not simply create their own components rather than purchase them from new players? Just as in the capital ship market; those with the means to produce volume cap ships already have the means to produce the components. This would greatly reduce the production opportunities for new players and discourage entry. Less competition is not a good thing. This is why I say it should be limited to ships. Leave gear(and ship components) to the newbies, make full-blown ships the province of more experienced industrialists with large BPO portfolios. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Shey Navarr Noir. Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.13 21:01:00 - [10] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto This is why I say it should be limited to ships. Leave gear(and ship components) to the newbies, make full-blown ships the province of more experienced industrialists with large BPO portfolios. This would be better than all T1 items needing components but my argument remains. Large BPO portfolios coupled with experience and lower production costs means the mid-level producers will not need new players to produce components. They would produce a cheaper, more competitive product by creating the components themselves. Note that I'm not necessarily against this idea. More complexity is a good thing and makes the game more enjoyable. I just wonder if this will make things more complex...or if it will make things more exclusive?
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.07.13 21:29:00 - [11] Originally by: Shey Navarr Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto This is why I say it should be limited to ships. Leave gear(and ship components) to the newbies, make full-blown ships the province of more experienced industrialists with large BPO portfolios. This would be better than all T1 items needing components but my argument remains. Large BPO portfolios coupled with experience and lower production costs means the mid-level producers will not need new players to produce components. They would produce a cheaper, more competitive product by creating the components themselves. Note that I'm not necessarily against this idea. More complexity is a good thing and makes the game more enjoyable. I just wonder if this will make things more complex...or if it will make things more exclusive? Frankly, there should be a bit of exclusivity to industrial operations. You shouldn't be able to do L5 missions on a trial account, either. That sounds banal, but it's a pretty accurate reflection of T1 manufacturing at present. Get Industry 5, PE 5, and AMP 4, and you pretty much never again have to put a skill point into production again, unless you want to go T2. That's way too easy. You should need more skills, more money, and more effort in order to become a top-tier industrialist. Also, a mid-range producer, like someone trying to make cruisers from minerals, would still need a pretty big pile of BPOs to do it. Some of them would be cheap - the generic modules especially - but the cruiser-scale component BPOs would be at least 10 million, and some of the role-specific ones would be even more expensive. Plus, production lines start to be an issue. If you have more than 10 components needed for a ship, and you would, one character couldn't keep a full production line going, and you'd have to outsource. Some will outsource to alts, of course, but there'll still be a market for all the components - the low-end modules old industrialists don't want to bother with, and the high-end modules the newer industrialists can't afford BPOs for. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2008.07.13 21:33:00 - [12] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Shey Navarr Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto This is why I say it should be limited to ships. Leave gear(and ship components) to the newbies, make full-blown ships the province of more experienced industrialists with large BPO portfolios. This would be better than all T1 items needing components but my argument remains. Large BPO portfolios coupled with experience and lower production costs means the mid-level producers will not need new players to produce components. They would produce a cheaper, more competitive product by creating the components themselves. Note that I'm not necessarily against this idea. More complexity is a good thing and makes the game more enjoyable. I just wonder if this will make things more complex...or if it will make things more exclusive? Frankly, there should be a bit of exclusivity to industrial operations. You shouldn't be able to do L5 missions on a trial account, either. That sounds banal, but it's a pretty accurate reflection of T1 manufacturing at present. Get Industry 5, PE 5, and AMP 4, and you pretty much never again have to put a skill point into production again, unless you want to go T2. That's way too easy. You should need more skills, more money, and more effort in order to become a top-tier industrialist. Also, a mid-range producer, like someone trying to make cruisers from minerals, would still need a pretty big pile of BPOs to do it. Some of them would be cheap - the generic modules especially - but the cruiser-scale component BPOs would be at least 10 million, and some of the role-specific ones would be even more expensive. Plus, production lines start to be an issue. If you have more than 10 components needed for a ship, and you would, one character couldn't keep a full production line going, and you'd have to outsource. Some will outsource to alts, of course, but there'll still be a market for all the components - the low-end modules old industrialists don't want to bother with, and the high-end modules the newer industrialists can't afford BPOs for. Shey is correct, its how it was in SWG too. You make your own components, only if you feel up against the wall to get something done do you consider buying components from someone else because it is always cheaper to maker your own. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.07.13 23:24:00 - [13] Isn't it a bit silly to add in some trivial barriers to tech level 1 production in the game now? The game has been going for over 5 years now. As someone above said, most people have industrial characters already at max skill so adding in a few new skills will only mean that every industrial tech 1 producing character will train them up and then their will be no barriers again. The only people this really nerfs are new players and why should they be nerfed. Also this added "complexity" just brings about a lot of boring, menial, uninteresting work for large tech 1 producers. It is tech 1 items, it is not meant to be complex and was meant for anyone to get into fairly easily. To the issue of complexity, how would components be complex at all? Let's say you get the materials for a component and plug them into a BPO....how is that different from getting minerals and plugging them into a BPO to make a tech 1 item? It isn't complex, it is just another long, boring step. To a builder it isn't anymore complex, just what do you need to buy to make X item. What problem is this solving? I know a lot of builders want barriers to tech 1 production. But is this good for the game or good for them? Simply speaking, having barriers means less people possible producing which naturally reduces your competition. Tech 1 items, however, are supposed to be easy to produce and rapidly available as well as cheap and easy to manufacture. I see a bunch of builders whining about how they should be making X% profit and there is too much competition, but I don't see how that is an issue, espeically for a playstyle that has zero risks. And finally, please prove your points or show there is a problem and how your solution would make the game better, rather than "I want this plz CCP giev me". Hell I would like a hurricane with 15 turrets, make it so! -- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Gunny Fisher VentureCorp Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2008.07.13 23:42:00 - [14] Originally by: Mecinia Lua Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Shey Navarr Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto This is why I say it should be limited to ships. Leave gear(and ship components) to the newbies, make full-blown ships the province of more experienced industrialists with large BPO portfolios. This would be better than all T1 items needing components but my argument remains. Large BPO portfolios coupled with experience and lower production costs means the mid-level producers will not need new players to produce components. They would produce a cheaper, more competitive product by creating the components themselves. Note that I'm not necessarily against this idea. More complexity is a good thing and makes the game more enjoyable. I just wonder if this will make things more complex...or if it will make things more exclusive? Frankly, there should be a bit of exclusivity to industrial operations. You shouldn't be able to do L5 missions on a trial account, either. That sounds banal, but it's a pretty accurate reflection of T1 manufacturing at present. Get Industry 5, PE 5, and AMP 4, and you pretty much never again have to put a skill point into production again, unless you want to go T2. That's way too easy. You should need more skills, more money, and more effort in order to become a top-tier industrialist. Also, a mid-range producer, like someone trying to make cruisers from minerals, would still need a pretty big pile of BPOs to do it. Some of them would be cheap - the generic modules especially - but the cruiser-scale component BPOs would be at least 10 million, and some of the role-specific ones would be even more expensive. Plus, production lines start to be an issue. If you have more than 10 components needed for a ship, and you would, one character couldn't keep a full production line going, and you'd have to outsource. Some will outsource to alts, of course, but there'll still be a market for all the components - the low-end modules old industrialists don't want to bother with, and the high-end modules the newer industrialists can't afford BPOs for. Shey is correct, its how it was in SWG too. You make your own components, only if you feel up against the wall to get something done do you consider buying components from someone else because it is always cheaper to maker your own. It worked in SWG becuase you could customize items on build. It encouraged specialization. I went to one weaponsmith for T21's, one for Flamethrowers, one for FWG5's, ect. I don't know how it would work in Eve, every Moa that comes out of the factory slot is exactly the same. customization happens AFTER the build. This was not the case in SWG, my components were customized on build, the weapon was customized on build, it was customized after build, with slices, and with weapon powerups.
Gabriel Darkefyre Crystal Ship	Posted - 2008.07.14 00:27:00 - [15] Yes, something many of the guys here are missing is that although an established Industrialist might be able to build components better themselves it will tie up several of their precious Manufacturing Job Slots in order to be a one man band. This idea therefore encourages the formation of proper supply chains in order to produce finished products. The way I see it, newbie builders will be running these component jobs in order to produce components that the more experienced builders need for their jobs thus keeping the experienced builders slots available to react better to changing market forces. Ideally these components would have an extremely low material/time cost per unit thus negating the need to tie up research slots for these parts. For example, you could have:- Framework (0.01m3 each):- (Produces 40 per run) Material cost:- Tritanium 4 Time to build:- 1 Minute Now, for example, a Shuttle BP will change from the current requirement of 2500 Tritanium to Framework: 250 (4 Tritanium Each) Plating: 300 (5 Tritanium Each) This will have the knock on effect of reducing the Research Requirements to have a perfect ME Print of a given BPO (with this example from ME 500 down to ME 30) thus relieving some of the pressure on the Empire Research Slots.
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2008.07.14 01:19:00 - [16] Originally by: Gunny Fisher It worked in SWG becuase you could customize items on build. It encouraged specialization. I went to one weaponsmith for T21's, one for Flamethrowers, one for FWG5's, ect. I don't know how it would work in Eve, every Moa that comes out of the factory slot is exactly the same. customization happens AFTER the build. This was not the case in SWG, my components were customized on build, the weapon was customized on build, it was customized after build, with slices, and with weapon powerups. It worked to a degree in SWG, but the part that made it work they are not considering. In order to make the components idea work you need a system like SWG had. Where each component is researched and there is a difference based on materials. Then they are combined for an end product that is unique. I was a long time crafter in SWG until the NGE. Sadly EVE's system does not provide the necessary quality of goods that SWG had. I'd like to see such a system, but giving just t1 components for the sake of it in EVE without adding in all the other complexities just creates a barrier for new players, and does not promote market health or cooperation. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Crumplecorn Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.14 02:12:00 - [17] T1 construction, for ships in particular, is far too simple compared to its capital and T2 cousins. Turn it into a real profession. And maybe help keep the "minerals I mine myself are free" lot away from the market - DesuSigs
agrajag119 Sev3rance	Posted - 2008.07.14 03:20:00 - [18] I'll attack this issue from another angle. T1 components could effectively allow for mineral compression. This would add huge amounts of actually interesting possibilities to the process. I don't support the idea of adding any barriers to t1 production. I'll say that flat out. The t1 market is where people cut their teeth on production, and it works fairly well in its current incarnation. To implement components for t1, while not adding barriers, the build times for the end products need a look. The total time to build an item shouldn't increase with the addition of components. Drop the end product time to factor in how long it takes to cook its components. To get this to work ccp would have to make t1 components essentially replace minerals for all non-t2 items. That means we'd be looking at a two-patch process before this idea could be completed. The first patch would introduce the BP's for the components. Then after a giving people time to research and build up a supply of components ccp could make the actual change. Releasing it as a one-shot deal would be disastrous for a few weeks.
Robert Rosenberg Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.07.22 07:15:00 - [19] This idea is just as good as removing tech 1 loot from the missions. These two changes in synergy would be the best thing that ever happened to the EVE market.
Terrigal	Posted - 2008.07.22 12:06:00 - [20] La Vista if youÆre going to nerf industry by making it so it takes years for new players to compete, just say so ? IÆll quit now
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.07.22 12:09:00 - [21] Originally by: Terrigal La Vista if youÆre going to nerf industry by making it so it takes years for new players to compete, just say so ? IÆll quit now What is your point? This is not a nerf. The exact point is that things like modules and ammo should stay as they are, build by minerals. But ships and the like, should be using components, just like T2 are now.
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.07.22 13:57:00 - [22] Originally by: LaVista Vista It would create a very interesting market and add a much needed level of complexity. MY GOD NO! WHY? We already have: 7 minerals. 37 Salvage components 35 T2 building components ?? Capital Ship Components ?? T2 Capital Ship Components ?? Moon Minerals ?? Simple Reactions ?? Complex Reactions 12 Advanced Materials 17 Datacores 12 Decryptors 200+ T1 base items + meta items. ??? COSMOS items, BPCs, rare BPCs, ect ect ect that's left flagging untouched. 7 Ice based fuel products 40+ Commodities WHY WHY WHY do we need another much needed level of complexity??? Isn't Eve the most complex damned crafting system in the MMOG world *as it is already*??? NO. I can't say it loudly enough.
Alz Shado Ever Flow	Posted - 2008.07.22 16:46:00 - [23] Only if this is accompanied by -CCP removing pre-built "named" T1 modules and making rats drop BPCs for them instead. -Reprocessed unnamed T1 mods, instead of returning minerals, would offer the T1 components used to make the Named variations. -Manufacturing named T1 modules would require the appropriate BPC, requisite T1 components (depending on their Meta level, the better the good the more components it requires), as well as current unnamed T1 mineral amount for that module. //// ---------=== []= ---------=== \\\\ Rifter(RedBad) "Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand
Hilder G.E.A.R.	Posted - 2008.07.22 16:54:00 - [24] I think this is an interesting idea.
Windjammer Gallente	Posted - 2008.07.22 17:18:00 - [25] No support. The current situation is ideal for new industrialists. Building a shuttle or T1 frigate from minerals is a source of fun and pride for new industrialists. It's baby industrialists first significant step. "I'm flying a ship I built myself". Adding another layer of complexity to the process is not a way to encourage those new to the manufacturing process. If the proposal is to have CCP "simply make the T1 components", how is this different from what is already done? CCP makes the asteroids from which the minerals are obtained. People can either mine the ore, purchase it or purchase the refined minerals to build a T1 ship. I may be missing something here, but that seems to be to be identical to people purchasing T1 components to build a T1 ship. Also, if the T1 components are purchased from an NPC entity, then you've put a nerf into the player driven aspect of the economy. If the desire is for complexity? Right now complexity is broken down into steps of increasing complexity. T2 ships provide plenty of complexity. If that's still not enough for you, there's always freighter construction and if even that's not enough, there's capital construction and if you're really a masochist there's super capital's. Windjammer
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2008.07.23 10:11:00 - [26] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Terrigal La Vista if youÆre going to nerf industry by making it so it takes years for new players to compete, just say so ? IÆll quit now What is your point? This is not a nerf. The exact point is that things like modules and ammo should stay as they are, build by minerals. But ships and the like, should be using components, just like T2 are now. The reason is it requires more skills and more bpos. Thus it serves as a barrier for anyone wanting to break into the field, whether a new player or someone who's done something else for a while and decides to try it out. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Dihania Gallente SniggWaffe	Posted - 2008.07.23 10:39:00 - [27] I don't get it how you guys come up with such things. It is just as if you had an idea but never think about all the factors ever. Missing the big red sign in the middle of the road much ? Thumbs down. [hr] Sniggwaffe is recruiting
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.07.23 14:35:00 - [28] Originally by: Dihania I don't get it how you guys come up with such things. It is just as if you had an idea but never think about all the factors ever. Missing the big red sign in the middle of the road much ? Thumbs down. Which big red sign would that be? Your opinions are far more useful to us if you explain what they are. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.07.23 16:28:00 - [29] I support, but only if you remove T1 items as loot.
Caractacus Potts	Posted - 2008.07.23 16:33:00 - [30] supported, and would do so again and again
Lieutenant Isis Gristle Industries	Posted - 2008.07.23 17:53:00 - [31] Yes, please. This will add much needed complexity and realism to T1. For those whining about having to actually do work to build t1 ships and mods: Just buy the components off the market directly. This will allow newer players to build components and sell them to older players who don't wish to bother. For those complaining that their slots will be clogged: I recommend that many more slots be added to lowsec stations. This will give industrialists (of which I am one) a reason to go to lowsec.
Pwett QUANT Corp. QUANT Hegemony	Posted - 2008.07.23 18:01:00 - [32] Originally by: Kazzac Elentria I support, but only if you remove T1 items as loot. _______________ Pwett CEO, Founder, & Executor <Q> QUANT Hegemony
Finraer Caldari M.A.D.	Posted - 2008.07.23 20:11:00 - [33] It's an intriguing idea but my fear would be the effect on prices and ship production profit. Let's say, for sake of example, a producer buying minerals and building a ship looks to make 10% profit on mineral costs to sell the ship. Now, let's add in an initial producer, producing components from minerals that are then used to build a ship. Either: - one producer does the whole process himself and sells for 10% above mineral cost; or - a producer produces components, seeking a return above mineral cost, and a producer produces a ship from components, seeking a return above component cost. In the first case, one guy still does it all and all the new idea has added is another step in a producer's processes that isn't particularly exciting. In the second case: - if the ship price and the mineral costs remain the same, the two producers will each receive a reduced profit (if shared equally, it reduces production profit down to 5% on materal costs); or - ship prices rise by 10% (broadly) to mean production remains as profitable as ever. I am not convinced the balance of the market is such that prices would simply rise by 10%. I suspect that, in practice, there would be a small rise, since there will always be a number of producers willing to do the whole lot themselves and provide downward pressure. The result would be that: - Starting producers and producers not running the whole process would suffer reduced profits from component/ship manufacture - Producers with sufficient infrastructure in place to run the whole process themselves will see more profits coming their way. I'd vote no on that basis. I do like the idea of adding complexity to the production path (I am a producer myself) but I don't think this is the way to do it. Fin http://thesurrealist.co.uk/monster?def=Finraer
Letrange Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2008.07.23 21:12:00 - [34] Should have been there from the beginning.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.07.23 21:24:00 - [35] Originally by: Finraer I do like the idea of adding complexity to the production path (I am a producer myself) but I don't think this is the way to do it. How do you add complexity to production if you keep the one-step path of "minerals plus blueprint equals spaceship"? ------------------ Fix the forums!
procurement specialist	Posted - 2008.07.23 21:31:00 - [36] i support. i support the removal of named items from loot and the replacement with components to keep minerals from ratting/missions ok. i support as a step in implementing meta bpos for all non-faction gear to be player made as well.
Finraer Caldari M.A.D.	Posted - 2008.07.23 23:23:00 - [37] Edited by: Finraer on 23/07/2008 23:24:14 Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Finraer I do like the idea of adding complexity to the production path (I am a producer myself) but I don't think this is the way to do it. How do you add complexity to production if you keep the one-step path of "minerals plus blueprint equals spaceship"? Short answer - not this way, as I stated and for the reasons that I stated. :) I think you may have misunderstood my statement (my own fault as I wasn't clear enough)- in my opinion, the career path of a producer needs more complexity (I referred to this as the "production path") - this does not need to equate to adding steps to the existing production process. In fact, I think that adding a new "first step" to the existing production process is going to cause more harm than good. My argument is that, as far as I see it: - the proposal is likely to make production less profitable for new players and not exactly encourage them into production as a result (new producers can aways build modules - do they really need a new barrier to entry to producing ships and the option to build components at what I think will be lower profit?); on the other hand - the proposal means that existing experienced producers will be buying components to build ships rather than buying minerals to build ships - now that's not exactly enhancing their game play either. As an example of what I think is a much better suggestion - another thread has suggested introducing an advanced form of tech 1 production to get higher meta level modules with use of skills and possible other components. This adds something to the production path and is far more worthy of support. I am sure that there are other suggestions that have been made or could be arrived at that add a new feature to explore and make production as a career more complex. Adding an extra step that potentially harms the smaller producer isn't the way to do it. Fin http://thesurrealist.co.uk/monster?def=Finraer
Icarus Starkiller	Posted - 2008.07.23 23:42:00 - [38] Dumb idea, I don't support this at all. Not only will it drive new players away from production (because new players will not have access to researched BPOs, so will be forced to buy it all. They can't research them as there is no research in empire for a new industrialist unless they own a POS) but it will add another layer of time into ship production that is simply not needed. Leave things as they are, they're plenty complicated enough as is. - Life is pain...anyone who says differently is selling something.
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.07.24 08:25:00 - [39] Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 24/07/2008 08:26:11 I'd really like to see this in. One really big issue that this strikes me as causing is a problem with T1 ship insurance. It's currently the case that we can't insure T2 ships because of the T2 component market. You can't pay out an accurate insurance on mineral value when the minerals aren't the base cost, the components are, and those components are player-driven. Thus either T1 components are provided straight by NPCs, in which case what was the point, or we have to change insurance. Originally by: Icarus Starkiller Not only will it drive new players away from production (because new players will not have access to researched BPOs, so will be forced to buy it all. They can't research them as there is no research in empire for a new industrialist unless they own a POS) but it will add another layer of time into ship production that is simply not needed. Rubbish. I'm a new industrialist, and it didn't put me off at all. A typical wait time on an ME slot is about 20 days. In that time I've mined, built, PvPed, done a fair amount of real life work, it's not a big deal. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties...
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.07.24 12:37:00 - [40] Originally by: Astria Tiphareth One really big issue that this strikes me as causing is a problem with T1 ship insurance. It's currently the case that we can't insure T2 ships because of the T2 component market. You can't pay out an accurate insurance on mineral value when the minerals aren't the base cost, the components are, and those components are player-driven. Remove insurance and remove T1 loot saved for named items. Let the market, be a true market.
Venkul Mul	Posted - 2008.07.24 13:55:00 - [41] Edited by: Venkul Mul on 24/07/2008 14:00:23 I don't totally like this idea, but industry need to be made better, so I will support a throughout restructuration of industry and mining. If that is done I will even support the removal of T1 loot from missions. So tentative support for a complete overhaul of industry and mining. Originally by: Alz Shado Only if this is accompanied by -CCP removing pre-built "named" T1 modules and making rats drop BPCs for them instead. -Reprocessed unnamed T1 mods, instead of returning minerals, would offer the T1 components used to make the Named variations. -Manufacturing named T1 modules would require the appropriate BPC, requisite T1 components (depending on their Meta level, the better the good the more components it requires), as well as current unnamed T1 mineral amount for that module. Good idea with the exception of the BPC dropped from rats. They could drop "damaged" versions that you need to repair, but how often you run around with BPC in your cargo? A occasional BPC that a special rat was carrying is ok, even if I would prefer them to drop from structures in exploration sites, but it becoming a everyday event is absurd.
Lieutenant Isis Gristle Industries	Posted - 2008.07.24 17:45:00 - [42] Originally by: Icarus Starkiller Dumb idea, I don't support this at all. Not only will it drive new players away from production (because new players will not have access to researched BPOs, so will be forced to buy it all. They can't research them as there is no research in empire for a new industrialist unless they own a POS) but it will add another layer of time into ship production that is simply not needed. Leave things as they are, they're plenty complicated enough as is. I actually see this as a way to make getting into production easier. Beginners will now only have to buy a small handful of BPOs that are much cheaper then a ship BPO. Even buying a simple cruiser BPO is out of the question for beginners, were as buying a few cheap component BPOs then selling them to the bigger builders. You seem to forget that these components could be bought and sold on the market. One person doesn't (shouldn't) need to do it all on their own. If a beginer wishes to build his own ship, then he could buy a BPC and then buy the components off the market or use his own BPO library, much like it already happens.

Pages: 1 2 :: [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.