Originally by: SencneS

---

Originally by: SencneS

---

I post the following as an Individual and not a representative of EBANK, BSA, either of the organization's members or their affiliates.

---

For a start generic T1 loot drops don't effect the generic T1 market, they effect the mineral market. Running a level 4 mission, and collecting the loot with an alt at the same time can get you as much minerals as if that alt sat at belt for the same amount of time.

The Mission runners don't care about generic T1, they reprocess them and sell the minerals, or make their own ammo or whatever. I collected all loot for about 6 weeks, and never reprocessed or sold it, I used some of the good loot. When I wanted some minerals I selected all and reprocessed, 100% reprocess, 0% tax. I had 1.8 billion ISK worth of minerals at Jita BUY prices. (Yeah I was farming missions)

[...]

Someone said "Positive/Negative price changes would be bad, because if they see something for x that is exactly what they want to pay, not all of a sudden pay more." That would not happen if they implemented the change correctly.

If I set you as -10, and place something on the market for 1,000,000. And -10 means I give you a 10% penalty, you will see it on the market for 1,100,000, and not 1,000,000. This would HELP SO MUCH with alliances in 0.0 it's not funny. This is were I came up with the idea a long time ago.

The problem with 0.0 alliances that own stations is the fact that anyone with remote trade skills can use that stations market. So what happens is people fly around in 0.0, buy up popular items at stations not even owned by them. And re-sell them at a higher price.

To combat this alliances start pricing items extremely high. Well think of it this way.

[...]

In empire it plays a much more devious role. If I'm selling something and someone under cuts me by 0.01 isk. I'll buy one of their items and set my standing to -10. So when they look at the market I will be WAY down on their list as the lowest price. Can you say eliminating 0.01 bid wars overnight therefor reducing market lag everywhere it exists. Because that is exactly how people would use it.

Imagine not having to create contracts to sell minerals to manufactures as a miner. Instead you could just put your minerals on the market and set up your deal with the manufacture to give a 20% discount. The market sees Trit for 2.6, but you see it for 2.2. Then you set your manufactured items on the market for whatever and give THEM 20% discount.

The single greatest market PVP expansions is only a standings option away from being added to the game... Too bad CCP will not put the time and effort into adding REAL market PVP like this to the game.

[...]

---

Originally by: Clair Bear

---

Edited by: Clair Bear on 27/08/2008 04:51:21
What I'd like to see:

0. Ability to use substitute materials when building.
1. Being able to tweak attributes on manufactured goods, even a little.
2. A signature or watermark on a good indicating the origin when examined(optional)
3. The ability to set pricing penalties for negative standings and discounts for positive standings. Not an issue in 0.0 and easily circumvented with alts at trade hubs, but still -- every little bit of inconvenience helps.
4. Way more than 80 slots to ignore contracts from scammer wannabe copycat alts. Ignore contracts by character age.
5. Ability to filter by blueprint original or copy, number of runs, ME, PE. Filter by attribute, actually.
6. Filter chat channels by character age and standings.
7. Removal of base loot drops from empire rats. Tweak of drone rats to drop t2 components.

As far as what will be implemented -- duno, probably some fluff to see orders on in-game monitors while ambulating.

---

Originally by: Midas Man

---

...If it was set up a bit like Hardwar ie for a NPC corp to supply an item it first must have been supplied other items.

For exapmple Joint Harvest Corp supply "Heavey Water" but to make heavey water to sell they would need to be supplied with Hydrogen and Oxygen Isotopes.

This hopefully would mean NPC goods could be and item and isk sink.

Now if tech 1 loot was removed and replaced with the building blocks of NPC items, mission runners could still make money from selling to NPC corps or other haulage type players.

I think this would open up many opertunities for new trade/industrials by making the NPC trade goods much more dynamic and profitable. And would offset the loss of income for mission runners due to tech 1 loot removal and would also improve the manufacturing side of the game.

The money for buying good could come from the sales of NPC goods so no new isk is entering the system and the values can be modified at downtime like the current system.

ie NPC corp sells manufactured item C at 1000isk but buys 1 Item A at 250isk and 1 Item B at 250isk. So there would be an overall sink that can easily be modified to combat inflation/deflation.

---

Originally by: Letrange

---

Just a side comment here:

Do any of you find it amusing how CCP likes to make occasionally radical changes to ships and combat, but is scared bloodless by any changes to industry? We've gotten to the point where even the newbie industrialists (and I'm still that) are screaming "Do anything!!!". I mean come on, the Shuttle change and the drone alloy composition change were the last "biggest" changes to Industry. Both of which stabilized after what? a week? Where are the likes CCP Fear and CCP (whichever one tried to introduce the carrier nerf) with their bold ideas for the industrial side?

[...]

Mind you they've done so little for so long most of us will probably greet a modest change as earth shattering .... for about a week ....

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

Originally by: Jackie Fisher

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

Blame the tea-drinkers(People from the UK). They are such hippies

---

How terrible of us English to like words in the English language to be spelt our way.

---

It's also called compensating for a lack of.. well.. force(Military power) to enforce your "proper" language

---

Originally by: Mephie

---

...
As far as ships, I think miners do need a highsec Forman Bonus ship, even if the Orca is more the equivalent of a ORE BC (BC5, Barge5, Logi4(Exhumer4?), 3 warfares, 3% per lvl, maybe a light drone bonus and/or Marauder-like tractor bonus). And for haulers, a ship that fills the enormous gap between Indies and Freighters would be nice.
A ship with honest-to-god salvaging bonuses would be sweet.

...

--Meph

---

Originally by: Letrange

---

Originally by: iskopoly

---

they need to be very careful if they nerf mission loot drops.

I feel mission loot is important and useful for minerals and such. so it should at least be replaced with something of similar value if it is at all.

and for someone suggesting that mission runners would just start running for LP's if drops were removed, you are most likely right. BUT I imagine the LP market would be even more saturated as it already is and LP value would drop even further, thus killing missions even more.

while some might not do very many missions for others it is a very important part of their gameplay.

---

I was under the impression from the posts about this that they would replace the module drops with "stuff" drops. said "stuff" (sorta like salvage) would go into making named modules (metalevel 1 thru 4). This would kill two birds with one stone. Remove the effective minerals drops from the non-hauler rats. Add more for industry to make and sell.

---

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria

---

...

The CSM notes from the meeting indicated that the dev team already had it in the idea bin of removing or lowering loot and changing all T1 manufacturing to require various mats much akin to how salvage operates now..... leaving mins who knows where it wasn't really covered but my guess is it would be adding another layer of manufacturing to the process or changing the process so that it was alternate mats to mins... who knows.

Basically the agreement in the dev team was that to have this set number of mins be able to manufacture EVERYTHING T1 in game was rather absurd given the complexities of every other system

---

Originally by: Kylar Renpurs

---

I know I know, crossposting and all that jazz, but just spotted this one in the S&I area (Linkage).

Wonder if this'll be slated for midas?

---