Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Ricdics
Corporate Placement Holding
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 04:07:00 -
[1]
Hey guys just saw this
Might mean nothing. What would you guys like to see as part of this project if it comes to fruition.
Let's have two questions for fun:
1) What do you want implemented with this project?
2) What do you believe CCP will end up implementing for this project?
Any other discussions on the topic go nuts |
Nadarius Chrome
Celestial Horizon Corp.
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 04:27:00 -
[2]
I wouldn't get my hopes up too far. CCP appear horrendously out-of-touch with true industrialists. They build a ship or two off a looted BPC once in a while and call themselves "multi-talented". I'll wait for some confirmed features before I let myself hope for anything useful.
|
Clair Bear
Coalition of Nations Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 04:49:00 -
[3]
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.
|
Treelox
Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 05:27:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Treelox on 27/08/2008 05:27:52
Originally by: Nadarius Chrome I wouldn't get my hopes up too far. CCP appear horrendously out-of-touch with true industrialists.
Saddly I have to agree with this statement, so often when CCP has billed something as a boon to industrialist/traders. It has been pretty meh. I hope they prove me wrong, but I wont get too excited about anything till things start to hit SiSi. It might just be clean ups and improvements of the S&I window, which while nice, is not something ill cream my jeans about.
---
Also WTH is the need to waste coding time on Certificates? Who needs them, we have limited API, we have ineve, it seems like just some fluff that someone thought would be a good idea.
If you have no idea what certificates are, watch this video, he starts to talk about certs at 2m28s. Certificates seems to be a feature of EA 1.2. After he talks about that, he briefly teases with "midas", but there really arent any details.
---edit1 fixed a broken quote, i goofed --
|
Martosh Toma
Gallente Fraction Investment
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 07:01:00 -
[5]
It was stated in responce to CSM questions on industry improvements that one of the planned features for industry would be metalevel 1 trough 4 production. This is probebly one of the features to be included in midas. Not sure that is something I like personally, but many people responded quite favorably to that bit of information.
Standing based availebility or pricing is somethnig ccp has stated would be difficult to implement nor in line with the broker based market workings. It is something I personally would have liked to see but it is unlikely that it will ever happen.
CCP has already lifted another tip of the veil on how they want to proceed with industry. They seem satisfied with the added complexety when a finished product is build from player produced components (like capitals). I expect all ship production to shift to this type of construction, therefore all ship bpo will be changed and new production parts will be introduced. I hope they will release multible bpo for the components allowing a form of mineral subsitution. However mineral substitution could lead to a form of exploit when you refine goods into different minerals than were originally used in their production. CCP will not track original production minerals (far to complex and performance heavy) so I expect any substitution process will be very mineral inefficient if availeble at all.
Personally I would love to see specialization skills for certain types of production. I am not sure usual small bit of time reduction is a sufficient benefit for such a skill and I understand that any form of mineral creation/duping is to be avoided. So I hope they will increase mineral waste in all production and add skills that help reduce (not remove entirely) this extra waste in their specified area of production. I would love to see this implemented in the form of a skill tree where for instance module production efficiency at 3 or 4 allow you to train weapon production efficiency (which would also allow for weapon type (lazer, missile, hybrid, projectile) production specialization at skill 3 or 4).
Something else I would like to see is an open wholesale market trading items not indevidually but in stacks of a hundred (times the number produced in a single production run). transactions in single items should not be calculated into the wholesale market average price and vice versa. Two more trade skills should be needed to buy (and see the orders) or sell items wholesale.
|
Martosh Toma
Gallente Fraction Investment
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 07:06:00 -
[6]
Certificates can have other uses, provided you can remove them as well.
Since they are not automatically applied you can use them to only provide proof of part of your skillset rather than the entire tree. I see some benefit and oppertunity for treachery in this idear.
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 07:10:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Clair Bear
0. Ability to use substitute materials when building.
Bad bad bad. The whole industry is about logistics. Substituting would be only used in game, if it would be really useful - and that would kill a big deal of the necessary logistics. Which is bad. Diversity is good for Eve.
Originally by: Clair Bear
1. Being able to tweak attributes on manufactured goods, even a little.
If so, only very small changes should be allowed. And that at some cost.
Originally by: Clair Bear
2. A signature or watermark on a good indicating the origin when examined(optional)
Not good. I like the anonymity of the market. I bet those ship inventors/builders certainly also want to stay unknown and not exposed so that they can get wardecced all the time.
Originally by: Clair Bear
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.
Bad idea. If I see an item on the market i want to be able to buy it for that price and not have a sudden penalty to pay. And if it is sorted out on the overview already - buhh for the bad lag. Besides what is the point? Alt trade and all the pentalties are avoided.
Originally by: Clair Bear
4. Way more than 80 slots to ignore contracts from scammer wannabe copycat alts. Ignore contracts by character age.
Again it introduces to much lag. Some api-export is the better idea here I think.
Originally by: Clair Bear
5. Ability to filter by blueprint original or copy, number of runs, ME, PE. Filter by attribute, actually.
Yes, please a filter by bpo or bpc.
|
Ricdics
Corporate Placement Holding
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 07:29:00 -
[8]
Looted items are damaged upon receipt. Makes sense that CCP would implement this. If you blow up someone's ship don't be surprised as you are looting the wreck that you find different levels of damaged modules/items.
Means that the T1 removal from loot drops is not removed, it means that production still remains the most profitable form of income generation over looting (as resellers of dropped loot need to repair their goods before sale) and at the same time it gives L4 mission runners a little nerf making the pirates happy! |
Joss Sparq
Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 09:23:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Joss Sparq on 27/08/2008 09:28:16
Originally by: Ricdics Looted items are damaged upon receipt. Makes sense that CCP would implement this. If you blow up someone's ship don't be surprised as you are looting the wreck that you find different levels of damaged modules/items.
Means that the T1 removal from loot drops is not removed, it means that production still remains the most profitable form of income generation over looting (as resellers of dropped loot need to repair their goods before sale) and at the same time it gives L4 mission runners a little nerf making the pirates happy!
Just glancing over, I have to ask: but are the great majority of mission runners who loot actually going to track the individual repair costs for every single T1 item they have to repair so they can tack it onto the sale price? I doubt it - people are notoriously lazy animals.
EDIT: By the way, is there a popular argument against the removal of "vanilla" Tech I loot drops from the tables? If there is I haven't noticed it and would appreciate hearing it!
|
Midas Man
Caldari Dzark Asylum
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 09:52:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Joss Sparq Edited by: Joss Sparq on 27/08/2008 09:28:16
Originally by: Ricdics Looted items are damaged upon receipt. Makes sense that CCP would implement this. If you blow up someone's ship don't be surprised as you are looting the wreck that you find different levels of damaged modules/items.
Means that the T1 removal from loot drops is not removed, it means that production still remains the most profitable form of income generation over looting (as resellers of dropped loot need to repair their goods before sale) and at the same time it gives L4 mission runners a little nerf making the pirates happy!
Just glancing over, I have to ask: but are the great majority of mission runners who loot actually going to track the individual repair costs for every single T1 item they have to repair so they can tack it onto the sale price? I doubt it - people are notoriously lazy animals.
EDIT: By the way, is there a popular argument against the removal of "vanilla" Tech I loot drops from the tables? If there is I haven't noticed it and would appreciate hearing it!
I believe thats why he states Loot Resellers not mission runners.
Mission runners will generally sell to Buy orders so the reseller will have to repair/sell
|
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari XERCORE
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 10:15:00 -
[11]
You can't sell a damaged item and repairing anything other than a meta 1 item requires a tiny fraction of its resale value so this is just an annoying complication that makes only the sale of vanilla T1 stuff appreciably less profitable. You'd be better off by simply eliminating it from drops.
Purchasing and Shipping Moon Minerals |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 10:38:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer You'd be better off by simply eliminating it from drops.
This ^
|
Martosh Toma
Gallente Fraction Investment
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 11:13:00 -
[13]
I disagree with simply removing t1 drops from loot drops for several reasons
1 I have yet to see proof that these drops do indeed influence module market prices. I am intrested in seeing how many sell- or direct sell- orders for say less than 5 items at once occur monthly compared to the number of normal transactions if this can be tracked. Another possible indicator for this could be significantly lower prices for regional loot when compared to other regions (1 region has a significantly lower price to all others as opposed to just comparing the region with increased supply to the region with increased demand). Personally I think the majorety of mission loot is melted down or sold to scrap buyers who refine it rather than put them on the market (usually there is limited demand for items that have increased drops in that region (for instance, relatively few lazers are used in matari space but they drop plenty and it is the smae for projectiles in amarr space).
2 limiting t1 item sources to player production becomes invalid as CCP have stated they are going to provide options for production of meta level 1 trough 4 items. Or are you looking at eliminating that loot from missions as well?
3 For what I understand of the eve economy prices are in part kept in check by the amount of minerals that enter the economy in relation to the amount of isk that enters it. You are suggesting a change that will cause a huge shift in this balance causing increased mineral prices to a level were there will be more mining and less mission running to restore the balance between materials and isk entering the economy. A guarantee for inflation untill that balance is regained and a new price stability at that new price level.
4 I suspect a not to be underestimated amount of high end mineral demand to be filled from mission loot refining (again, I would love to see figures on this). Expect an increased impact on high sec from .0 politics if this is implemented (In addition even .0 relies in part on ratting minerals for its production and its high end mineral surplus , that is transported and sold in empire).
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 11:15:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Martosh Toma CCP have stated they are going to provide options for production of meta level 1 trough 4 items.
Where did they state that?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 11:47:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Nadarius Chrome I'll wait for some confirmed features before I let myself hope for anything useful.
this, tbqfh
_
SHOPS || Mission rewards revamp || better nanofix
|
Martosh Toma
Gallente Fraction Investment
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 11:48:00 -
[16]
first of all: Responce on CSM issue Also dev response in idears and features later on in the same tread
I admit there is nothing defenite in there, just idears and a general direction, but to me it at least implies that CCP is lookimng in that direction for enhancing pocibilities for producers.
One thing I seem to have missed before is they are looking at replacing (part of?) the current loot with production components if they indeed change t1 manufacturing to that model. This would maintain the mineral balance but would effectively remove loot from the t1 market making at least one production step a requirement for creating a marketeble module (of course components can also be sold directly making the entire market more complex, this does sound intresting to me)
|
Level4
Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 11:59:00 -
[17]
Fishing around on the forum so far ccp has admitted 2 things,
1) availability of a Large ship assembly array to build battleships and freighters at a POS in highsec. 2) the orca ( as some mini-freighter that can use jetcans )
unofficially they did express their desire to improve the amount of clicks you have todo to setup multiple manufacturing jobs.
thats all i could find so far.. I also was wondering what player made certificates would be good for, well since this is the MD section i bet one of you will turn it into some kind of financial certificate..
Join channel Profit
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 13:03:00 -
[18]
Two things which would solve nearly 80% of all industry and market related problems?
Remove loot as drops Allow substitute BPOs for T2 Mats, meaning alternative materials to produce the same thing
...where is Akita when you need him to prove the point again.
I mean there are other little nuance things that we can add, specifically the idea that Ricdic brought up of specialization. Meaning increased training time on the top tier of skills to allow an edge in either alternate mat usage, or increased production efficiency in either mats and time or a combination there of. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 13:20:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Akita T on 27/08/2008 13:21:59
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria ...where is Akita when you need him to prove the point again.
Just use eve-search to link to the megathreads in question
P.S. I have lost faith in CCP as being able to implement a consistent economic simulation, and I frankly got bored blabbing my mouth smashing the keys of the keyboard typing up megabytes of text explaining how things could be done. Maybe later, when I cool off a bit, and RL stops being as hectic as it's been in the recent past, I'll give it another shot.
_
SHOPS || Mission rewards revamp || better nanofix
|
Sophie Daigneau
Risky Advanced Production Enterprises GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 13:21:00 -
[20]
I'd personally love to see something like Racial Construction Specialization. Training it would automatically prevent you from building non-racial modules and ships, but give a large time bonus to building that races stuff. To make it a little more of a barrier, each level should unlock a new class of products to build(yes, you could be locked out of building anything until you've trained it high enough).
I: All T1 modules II: All T1 subcapital ships III: All T2 modules IV: All T2 subcapital ships V: All capitals
|
|
SencneS
Amarr Rebellion Against big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 14:20:00 -
[21]
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)
So don't tell me Collect T1 loot is not enough of an impact to be noticeable. It's there, just it's one of those things that flys WAY under the radar because it's the accepted Norm.
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.
As a seller, I don't have to worry about selling to the enemy. I Could set my alliance as +10 and that +10 means I give a 50% discount. Now I place Ravens on the market for 180mil, meaning to everyone in the region that is not in my alliance see it on the market for 180mil. But my alliance is 90mil.
I don't care if the enemy pay 180mil for my Raven, let em! but I care about my alliance buying my stuff at reasonable prices without some a-hole npc corp hugging alt coming and gobbling up the entire stations supply.
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.
Consider this - Most every retailer in the world has an the RIGHT to refuse service to a customer. Unfortunately in EVE that's just not an option.
Amarr for Life |
Astorothe
Aperture Science Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 14:35:00 -
[22]
I'll gladly welcome anything "industry" related that they add to the game that makes it more interesting and fun to play.
Perth Eve Players | Eve Web Design | Eve on Loconut |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 14:58:00 -
[23]
With the current "oauifikashun" trend CCP seems to have hopped onto, it'll probably look like THIS
_
SHOPS || Mission rewards revamp || better nanofix
|
Arthor Dark
Gallente N.A.S.A. Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 15:11:00 -
[24]
Originally by: SencneS
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.
This will not work, it'll just add another hassle of creating / maintaining a 'fresh' alt that doesn't do any trading so that it would have no -10 standings set by anyone. And would be used to get a 'no standings' view of the market orders. Also, that same person who outbids you by 0.01 could also buy one of your items and will realize that you set your standings to -10, and then could just calculate the price to set accordingly.
It would be a mess.
|
SencneS
Amarr Rebellion Against big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 15:53:00 -
[25]
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.
Originally by: Arthor Dark This will not work, it'll just add another hassle of creating / maintaining a 'fresh' alt that doesn't do any trading so that it would have no -10 standings set by anyone. And would be used to get a 'no standings' view of the market orders. Also, that same person who outbids you by 0.01 could also buy one of your items and will realize that you set your standings to -10, and then could just calculate the price to set accordingly.
It would be a mess.
Sounds like a lot of work for 0.01 isk if you ask me :)
Amarr for Life |
Lexander Morinex
Caldari LDD Investments
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 16:35:00 -
[26]
I take it as almost axiomatic that anything that allow for the cost efficient production of items in the game will result in the glutting of the market. In the real world people have to pay bills, so they pick things that tend to make money or they close shop. No such imperative exists in the game.
The more you let players manufacture, the less you make any of those items worth.
- Lexander Morinex
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 17:28:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 27/08/2008 13:21:59
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria ...where is Akita when you need him to prove the point again.
Just use eve-search to link to the megathreads in question
P.S. I have lost faith in CCP as being able to implement a consistent economic simulation, and I frankly got bored blabbing my mouth smashing the keys of the keyboard typing up megabytes of text explaining how things could be done. Maybe later, when I cool off a bit, and RL stops being as hectic as it's been in the recent past, I'll give it another shot.
Hell I've even given up on linking them, cause like you I'm about done when it comes to having hope at times.
Who knows though...maybe with the CSM bringing attention to things it'll change and just how important some issues are to us players will actually help towards making some positive changes. |
Raaz Satik
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 17:33:00 -
[28]
Originally by: SencneS 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.
The market window in Jita is already almost un-usable it's so slow at times. Imagine how slow it would get if you had to recalculate everyprice in the database for every market price request.
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 18:00:00 -
[29]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Hell I've even given up on linking them, cause like you I'm about done when it comes to having hope at times.
Who knows though...maybe with the CSM bringing attention to things it'll change and just how important some issues are to us players will actually help towards making some positive changes.
At your service o7
What do you wish? Maybe you wish to go over to the CSM forum and start a discussion about this? I will happily support it if it's reasonable
Don't worry LV, we've already hashed over the issues I was referring to many times over again and some of them were already presented for the first meeting. |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 18:06:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Hell I've even given up on linking them, cause like you I'm about done when it comes to having hope at times.
Who knows though...maybe with the CSM bringing attention to things it'll change and just how important some issues are to us players will actually help towards making some positive changes.
At your service o7
What do you wish? Maybe you wish to go over to the CSM forum and start a discussion about this? I will happily support it if it's reasonable
Don't worry LV, we've already hashed over the issues I was referring to many times over again and some of them were already presented for the first meeting.
Good.
There was really a few things which we missed(Like removing T1 loot), But I'm PRETTY sure, based on Chronotis' posts, that they will be removing that anyways.
But I would still be happy to raise more issues from you guys, if something pops up or if you have some awesome idea for a feature which should come true. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |