Originally by: Nadarius Chrome

---

I wouldn't get my hopes up too far. CCP appear horrendously out-of-touch with true industrialists.

---

Originally by: Clair Bear

---

0. Ability to use substitute materials when building.

---

Originally by: Clair Bear

---

1. Being able to tweak attributes on manufactured goods, even a little.

---

Originally by: Clair Bear

---

2. A signature or watermark on a good indicating the origin when examined(optional)

---

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.

---

Originally by: Clair Bear

---

4. Way more than 80 slots to ignore contracts from scammer wannabe copycat alts. Ignore contracts by character age.

---

Originally by: Clair Bear

---

5. Ability to filter by blueprint original or copy, number of runs, ME, PE. Filter by attribute, actually.

---

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!

---

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!

---

Originally by: Kwint Sommer

---

You'd be better off by simply eliminating it from drops.

---

Originally by: Martosh Toma

---

CCP have stated they are going to provide options for production of meta level 1 trough 4 items.

---

Originally by: Nadarius Chrome

---

I'll wait for some confirmed features before I let myself hope for anything useful.

---

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria

---

...where is Akita when you need him to prove the point again.

---

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: 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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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: LaVista Vista

---

Originally by: Kwint Sommer

---

You'd be better off by simply eliminating it from drops.

---

This ^

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

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.

---

Originally by: Macon Squaredealer

---

Okay, I don't post a lot, but over the years one thing really stands out for me - NPC provided items - I've always hated them. Anything magically being offered for sale by NPC's both takes away from my game immersion, and could potentially be used for infinate mineral creation, as shuttles used to be. I want to see Eve be as much of a player created universe as possible. If it's at all possible, let us build it - not CCP, and let the laws of supply and demand set the price.

For those items that don't currently have BPO's available, create them and allow the industrialists to build the items for the community instead of having them provided by NPC's. Secure containers for example, POS's, lab's, POS weapon systems, many things are currently magically available for us to buy that we can be building if the BPO's were available.

Long term, I dream of an Eve with player owned facilities (mines, factories, farms) that produces everything else we use (for example, the currently NPC provided trade goods) but that's so far away I don't want to even go there yet

---

Originally by: Macon Squaredealer

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

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.

---

Okay, I don't post a lot, but over the years one thing really stands out for me - NPC provided items - I've always hated them. Anything magically being offered for sale by NPC's both takes away from my game immersion, and could potentially be used for infinate mineral creation, as shuttles used to be. I want to see Eve be as much of a player created universe as possible. If it's at all possible, let us build it - not CCP, and let the laws of supply and demand set the price.

For those items that don't currently have BPO's available, create them and allow the industrialists to build the items for the community instead of having them provided by NPC's. Secure containers for example, POS's, lab's, POS weapon systems, many things are currently magically available for us to buy that we can be building if the BPO's were available.

Long term, I dream of an Eve with player owned facilities (mines, factories, farms) that produces everything else we use (for example, the currently NPC provided trade goods) but that's so far away I don't want to even go there yet

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

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.

---

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)

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.

---

Originally by: Raaz Satik

---

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.

---

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

---

You may also want to look at market refresh options for another minor improvement and easing some pain there currently on sisi.

---

If discussion is still ongoing about this wonderful idea (lord knows where it came from ) but may I suggest that each window pane be refreshed separately? A refresh button for Sellers and a separate one for Buyers. This would help speed people along their way and I think help on database load.

Hmmmm, maybe not actually with the filtered dataset. Not a database expert anymore.

To Shar -verb:
 1 - To say what you mean.
 2 - To say what it means.
 3 - To say something mean.

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

---

Hopefully soon enough, we can talk about some of the features of Midas with you and indeed we hope to run some of the ideas past you

---

Originally by: Ricdics

---

[
I want my corp to be able to trade together (rather than having 1 character only). It's incredibly annoying not being able to update a fellow director's corporate sell or buy order or even cancel it.

I would hope something trivial like this makes it into release.

---

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

---

Chiming in here with a reminder of my usual disclaimer when I talk about ideas on the forums. Nothing is set in stone with regards to what makes it into the production pipeline and the final cut for a future patch. I love discussing features and ideas suggestions like this one with you but do not take that discussion as gospel that something will happen in a future release.

---

Originally by: Treelox

---

Originally by: Ricdics

---

[
I want my corp to be able to trade together (rather than having 1 character only). It's incredibly annoying not being able to update a fellow director's corporate sell or buy order or even cancel it.

I would hope something trivial like this makes it into release.

---

I am all for modifing orders, of other corp m8s sell/buy orders. Not so sure about canceling though, I would think for OPSEC that should be something only a director or CEO should be able to do, or make them individual roles.

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

I still think, at least from my point of view(Which is obviously obscured) that removing T1 loot is an obvious thing to do for a major expansion like MIDAS. And based on all I have heard, while there's a few down-sides to removing T1 loot, it seems like there could easily be an agreeable compromise. Just think about all the competition all the rogue drones get for their alloys. They should have absolute monopoly

---

Originally by: Karanth

---

Originally by: Treelox

---

Originally by: Ricdics

---

[
I want my corp to be able to trade together (rather than having 1 character only). It's incredibly annoying not being able to update a fellow director's corporate sell or buy order or even cancel it.

I would hope something trivial like this makes it into release.

---

I am all for modifing orders, of other corp m8s sell/buy orders. Not so sure about canceling though, I would think for OPSEC that should be something only a director or CEO should be able to do, or make them individual roles.

---

What about cutting out the middleman, and making the trade slots owned by the corp, sort of like contracts? Apply trade skills aside from the ones that give slots to any trade made on behalf of your corp.

---

To Shar -verb:
 1 - To say what you mean.
 2 - To say what it means.
 3 - To say something mean.

To Shar -verb:
 1 - To say what you mean.
 2 - To say what it means.
 3 - To say something mean.

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: Treenara Mazouk

---

That's sounds very interesting. Brings the level of realism one notch higher. I'm wandering though what would happen to those remote agents in lowsec which do not see a high enough traffic to partake in such an exchange. Though you could set it up so that depending on his available loot, the agent could give out specific missions that would either see loot being given to him or loot being given by him. If he starts to run low on loot himself, he dispatches the next few missions as "get me some loot".

Interesting indeed.

LaVista Vista and others, what do you think?

---

Originally by: Shar Tegral

---

Originally by: Amrumm

---

For the ingame browser, add a setting which only reveals pilot/corp/alliance name. This would make it easier to replace our cumbersome wtb/wts alliance mailing lists with a website.

---

This has long been possible. In fact I'm running a small website (built by Murton) that pulls alliance/corp/personal information from each in game visitor. If that person, or his corp, or his alliance, is on the permitted list, he gets access. To autoprune people out, if they leave corp/alliance, the website requires an in game visit every 2 weeks, period.

And this kind of thing has been possible for many years now.

---

Originally by: Ricdics

---

(after the three Swedish girls in the bathtub ofc)

---

To Shar -verb:
 1 - To say what you mean.
 2 - To say what it means.
 3 - To say something mean.

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 ....

---

To Shar -verb:
 1 - To say what you mean.
 2 - To say what it means.
 3 - To say something mean.

To Shar -verb:
 1 - To say what you mean.
 2 - To say what it means.
 3 - To say something mean.

Originally by: Shar Tegral

---

Originally by: Treelox

---

and yes I am a harsh critic, deal with it.

---

IF that makes you a harsh critic, what am I when I said as much before the good Doctor showed up.

---

To Shar -verb:
 1 - To say what you mean.
 2 - To say what it means.
 3 - To say something mean.

Originally by: Macon Squaredealer

---

Long term, I dream of an Eve with player owned facilities (mines, factories, farms) that produces everything else we use (for example, the currently NPC provided trade goods) but that's so far away I don't want to even go there yet

---

To Shar -verb:
 1 - To say what you mean.
 2 - To say what it means.
 3 - To say something mean.

Originally by: Midas Man

---

Not sure if it viable but an idea from an old game may be a good solution.

All NPC stations supply things but also demand things.

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: Treelox

---

Just a footnote to your above response. I swear Dr.E has been present at every industry trade show this summer season. At least ever industry website seems to have refered to a talk he gives at each show this summer.

---

To Shar -verb:
 1 - To say what you mean.
 2 - To say what it means.
 3 - To say something mean.

Originally by: Banni Vinda

---

Originally by: Treelox

---

Just a footnote to your above response. I swear Dr.E has been present at every industry trade show this summer season. At least ever industry website seems to have refered to a talk he gives at each show this summer.

---

He will also be talking next month at Austin GDC. This isn't a PR talk/conference, it is an game-development industry talk. Given by the industry, aimed at the industry. CCP is amongst the show's exhibitors (Booth #600 IIRC, just next to Valve's).

---

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: SencneS

---

...

---

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria

---

In any event, the main goal of removing T1 loot is not to make T1 a boon industry but more to balance out the flaws in the mineral layout and the growth of risk/reward between empire and null sec.

---

Originally by: Treelox

---

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria

---

In any event, the main goal of removing T1 loot is not to make T1 a boon industry but more to balance out the flaws in the mineral layout and the growth of risk/reward between empire and null sec.

---

That really depends on the perspective of the person calling for this "nerf".

---

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria

---

True, but you have to admit that it does have many other positive ramifications for the entire game. I mean its not the end all be all, since nothing will be. But it is a step in the right direction.

---

To Shar -verb:
 1 - To say what you mean.
 2 - To say what it means.
 3 - To say something mean.

Originally by: Treelox

---

Instant gratification sadly is something that many people hope for in this game, and one thing I have learned in eve is there really isnt such a thing.

---

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria

---

IMHO alternative mats (in the proper ordering) is a key secondary change in along with loot removal and drop rate changes that'll help bring a little more balance to the current equation.

---

Originally by: Treelox

---

Once again, I must say this, cause I am sure someone will get their undies in a twist. I am all for some form of "alternate materials" construction, but at the current time I cant see a way that it could be introduced without either killing off huge sectors of the trade market, causing more lag (db being over burdened), or providing a potential Philosopher's Stone, that would be prone to serious explotation.

---

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria

---

I think the easiest fix would be to have an inherent loss built into reprocessing. Have the base reprocessing rate on an individual item level/type/size whatever you want and try to set the level below the 'Philosophers Stone' scenario you pointed out.

---

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria

---

Or remove high ends from the reprocessing equation all together, and then at that point the focus becomes on mex and the only mineral we'd have to worry about.

---

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria

---

And instead of allowing alternate mats at the point of construction. Place it before and add another manufacturing step. BPOs that allow specific amounts of one mineral to be processed into another.

---

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria

---

Add however many layers of complexity you want to the situation, such as only doable in a POS station, lengthy build queue, etc...

---

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria

---

*edited cause I can't close a tag to save my life this morning

---

Originally by: Treelox

---

We already have an inherent loss built into the current reprocessing formula. Increasing it much further will annoy a large ammount of players. Not saying this is wrong, but the rabble rabble factor can be high on the list for something not to change.

---

Quote:

---

caffine is your friend, my brother.

---

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria

---

Yet problem is when mixed with booze they sorta negate each other

---

Originally by: Ricdics

---

1) What do you want implemented with this project?

---

Originally by: Joss Sparq

---

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!

---

Originally by: Level4

---

2) the orca ( as some mini-freighter that can use jetcans )

---

Originally by: SencneS

---

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.

---

Originally by: Salpad

---

Many tech 1 modules had their volume drastically increased a few months ago, in order to nerf mineral compression, but that change had unintended consequences for mission looters, and therefore I and some others (not sure how many) have been asking or tech 1 drops to be removed from the rat loot generation tables, so that only named, tech 2 and faction/officer modules can ever be found in wrecks.

---

Originally by: Salpad

---

A few more skillz related to trading and contracts could also be nice.

---

Originally by: Salpad

---

Also make another skill that increases the max size of issued Contracts in terms of the number of different items that can be included. At no skill, a maximum of 2 types of items (say one ship and X launcher modules), then increase by 50% for eac skill level.

L0 2 items, L1 3 items, L2 4 items, L3 6 items, L4 10 items, L5 15 items

---

Originally by: Amrumm

---

Originally by: Shar Tegral

---

Originally by: Amrumm

---

For the ingame browser, add a setting which only reveals pilot/corp/alliance name. This would make it easier to replace our cumbersome wtb/wts alliance mailing lists with a website.

---

This has long been possible. In fact I'm running a small website (built by Murton) that pulls alliance/corp/personal information from each in game visitor. If that person, or his corp, or his alliance, is on the permitted list, he gets access. To autoprune people out, if they leave corp/alliance, the website requires an in game visit every 2 weeks, period.

And this kind of thing has been possible for many years now.

---

'Trusted site' also reveals your current location and corp roles, which I'd rather keep confidential (and yes, I know about locator agents).

---

Originally by: Nadarius Chrome

---

Originally by: Salpad

---

Many tech 1 modules had their volume drastically increased a few months ago, in order to nerf mineral compression, but that change had unintended consequences for mission looters, and therefore I and some others (not sure how many) have been asking or tech 1 drops to be removed from the rat loot generation tables, so that only named, tech 2 and faction/officer modules can ever be found in wrecks.

---

So your response to a mission loot nerf is to further nerf mission loot?

---

Originally by: Salpad

---

Originally by: Nadarius Chrome

---

Originally by: Salpad

---

Many tech 1 modules had their volume drastically increased a few months ago, in order to nerf mineral compression, but that change had unintended consequences for mission looters, and therefore I and some others (not sure how many) have been asking or tech 1 drops to be removed from the rat loot generation tables, so that only named, tech 2 and faction/officer modules can ever be found in wrecks.

---

So your response to a mission loot nerf is to further nerf mission loot?

---

Tech 1 modules are wortless anyway. All they do is take up space in my salvage destroyer's cargo hold.

---

Originally by: Carniflex

---

There has been ideas bounced around to drop BPC's instead of meta modules (as people cry about being unable to sell their T1 modules), but BPC's dont stack and there is 1000 item limit per hangar, reworking entire T1 production to be similar to T2 - ie needing components (but that would mean even more alts would be needed to produce something to make in addition to stuff also components) etc, etc. I think there was separate thread about mission loot a little while ago with several dev responces and all.

---

Originally by: Salpad

---

Originally by: Joss Sparq

---

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!

---

Many tech 1 modules had their volume drastically increased a few months ago, in order to nerf mineral compression, but that change had unintended consequences for mission looters, and therefore I and some others (not sure how many) have been asking or tech 1 drops to be removed from the rat loot generation tables, so that only named, tech 2 and faction/officer modules can ever be found in wrecks.

---

Originally by: Ceola Tyn'VileAlot of the arguments I seen is this thread against the removal of Tech 1 modules were assuming that all meta 0-4 drops be taken out. That is not they case as it should just be meta 0 that does not drop. Mission runners could still get just as much loot if meta 1 stuff dropped in it's place.[/quote

---

Yes, of course. I'm only against meta 0. Not named stuff.

Although to be honest, named stuff is a bit of a bother, because I never seem to be able to learn which named stuff is good (i.e. meta 4, perhaps meta 3) and which is garbage. So I have a huge stockpile of stuff in Jita that I don't know what to do with.

--
Salpad

Originally by: Salpad

---

Yes, of course. I'm only against meta 0. Not named stuff.

Although to be honest, named stuff is a bit of a bother, because I never seem to be able to learn which named stuff is good (i.e. meta 4, perhaps meta 3) and which is garbage. So I have a huge stockpile of stuff in Jita that I don't know what to do with.

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

There's a Community petition category??

---

Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro

---

If it takes the same amount of effort to make something as it does now, then the degree of opportunity for industrialists will be the same. I'm in favour of requiring components (several tiers of them, in fact) to build most things, without increasing the number of build slots per character.

---

Originally by: Frenden Dax

---

My heart hopes that people aren't that stupid, but my experiences thus far suggest otherwise.

---

Originally by: Chomin H'ak

---

(Why you gotta add extra u's, like to colour and armour?

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

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

---

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.

---

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: 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)

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.

---

Originally by: Chomin H'ak

---

(Why you gotta add extra u's, like to colour and armour? Do you know how screwed up I was as a kid cause of that crap?! I wouldn't let a guy bring in +5 Armour of Colour in my campaign cause I thought they cheated and wrote the magazine article themselves (I was young and REALLY weird, sue me). Dern English and their... uh, English...)

---

Originally by: Lord Fitz

---

Originally by: Chomin H'ak

---

(Why you gotta add extra u's, like to colour and armour? Do you know how screwed up I was as a kid cause of that crap?! I wouldn't let a guy bring in +5 Armour of Colour in my campaign cause I thought they cheated and wrote the magazine article themselves (I was young and REALLY weird, sue me). Dern English and their... uh, English...)

---

Extra u's ? That's how they're spelt, for those countries that speak English.

---

Originally by: Alz Shado

---

Really?

Does every suggestion for "fixing" the economy have to translate into industrialists becoming the Wal-Marts of Eve? Once their small-time NPC competitors are gone, the world will be a much brighter place because someone with a dozen alts is selling 1mn Afterburners and Small shield extenders at 20% more then they're worth now?

I mean, Really?

That the best fixes you can come up with are more skills, that will only take existing industrialists a month out of being in the same position they're in now, and give newbies one *more* month of catching up to do? The only ones who would profit from this are the skillbook manufacturers (hint: they're ALL NPCS!)

C'mon, Really?

The Miners don't like T1 reprocessors because they compete with them, and yet the best mining corp in EVE can't compete with a sweatshop in some asian basement running a cadre of hulks 23/7. The producers don't like T1 loot drops because they keep the volume high enough for the resale margins to revolve around mineral rates, which keeps regional variance of prices low and yet lowsec still starves for anything resembling a market hub?

Oh Really?

Market resellers think that the magic pill to solving all of their margin issues will be fixed if they can change the price dependent on standings, and yet don't consider for a moment what a single neutral alt will do if that's the keystone to the whole fix. Or if you're competing with a blue? And yet, they'll ALL still find themselves sitting in Jita, leapfrogging one another every five minutes.

REALLY!

The fixes to the industrial "Issues" which seem to be plaguing the old billionaires club have less to do with the underlying system then the do the tactics they have at their disposal. The facts are that any barriers to entry in industrialism will be overcome shortly, breaking the whole system anew. So, how do you "fix" a system that's natural equilibrium is below their comfortable profit margins?

Variation, innovation, specialization, and risk.

Variation - Allow industrialists to create something unique, with customized strengths and weaknesses. Look to the Booster template for how benefits and drawbacks can be implemented.

Innovation - instead of removing/cutting back on T1 loot drops, instead make named goods drop as BPCs in highsec. This will limit the straight-to-market or reprocessing value of these items, but still provide a revenue stream for mission runners and marketeers, as well as boost demand for minerals. In lowsec, named goods might drop as completed modules but damaged. Faction spawns can be more frequent, but similarly drop BPCs requiring high level skills to produce.

Specialization - Why do I need individual skills to train up each race's ships, but one 'Frigate Construction' skill builds them all? And why should all the ships end up being the same, no matter who produces them? Specialization skills tied in with an individual's race (only Minmatar can learn Minmatar Battleship Specialization, for instance) that can boost the stats of their produced ships a percentage point or two per level.

Risk - Put more benefit to production in unsafe areas, not less. Add Stations that specialize in production that give speed or efficiency boosts in .4-.0 systems. Alliance controlled Faction Outposts that can be upgraded to offer true production capability far from empire, that can offer on-demand production from anyone as long as a BPO is (permanently) installed at the station, with a cost tree that starts at the minimum minerals required for production and ends at whatever you think is obscene.

Don't be so narrow-minded that nerfing others is your best hope of seeing some small benefit for yourselves. Instead, look to the future, add MORE options and MORE possibilities. T3, Named T2, Customization, Set Bonuses, there's so much more to the future of industry than "NERF LOOT"

---

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: Mephie

---

Just to chime in with a bit of feature creep:

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.

---

Originally by: Treenara Mazouk

---

Indie/Freighter ship would indeed be a wonderful addition for us Industrialist.

---

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.

---

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: Treenara Mazouk

---

Edited by: Treenara Mazouk on 19/09/2008 17:15:59

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.

---

By posts about it, do you mean here on theis thread, or from what you've read here and there? Where?

---

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: Treenara Mazouk

---

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

---

Got a link to that Kazzac?

---

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria

---

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: Professor Leech

---

Edited by: Professor Leech on 12/10/2008 22:59:57

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria

---

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

---

If rat loot was a separate economy or involved in a separate mini profession that would be substantial improvement.

Minerals from mining, rat loot components and salvage being 3 distinctly separate processes would be good. Then npc convoy raiding could be improved to involve the new profession. Instead of dropping npc trade goods (isk faucet) they could drop rat loot components.

This would also be the boost miners are after as mining would be required to obtain minerals (rather than all the other sources). Edit: with exception of drone alloys (but drones drops could be made into a completely separate system (not just faction drones)).

---

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?

---

Originally by: Shar Tegral

---

So is there still any rumors about when an industry patch is going to be released??

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

There's a Community petition category??

---

Originally by: SencneS

---

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.
...
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.

---

Originally by: Raaz Satik

---

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.

---

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria

---

And instead of allowing alternate mats at the point of construction. Place it before and add another manufacturing step. BPOs that allow specific amounts of one mineral to be processed into another.

Add however many layers of complexity you want to the situation, such as only doable in a POS station, lengthy build queue, etc...

---

Originally by: CornerStoner

---

Just add this pseudo industrial expansion to CCPs long list of Customer Relations blunders. I guess they thought the Orca and some changes to transports were industry expansions.

---

Originally by: Brock Nelson

---

Well, ever since they nerfed ghost training, I don't think so.

On the other hand, I was watching the QR's teaser video and I was very interested in the market ticker at the bottom of the video. Anybody already suggested that or is something like that not being considered?

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

Originally by: CornerStoner

---

Just add this pseudo industrial expansion to CCPs long list of Customer Relations blunders. I guess they thought the Orca and some changes to transports were industry expansions.

---

Stop being such a troll already.

CCP already admitted that they dropped the industrial part about the expansion.

I did talk to a few devs at fanfest. They suggested they might do all the industry stuff March 2009. They already have quite a bit of stuff which is almost ready to ship, so it might just go into the next big expansion(March).

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

Stop being such a troll already.

CCP already admitted that they dropped the industrial part about the expansion.

---

Originally by: CornerStoner

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

Stop being such a troll already.

CCP already admitted that they dropped the industrial part about the expansion.

---

I missed that. Could you steer me to where they admitted that? <no sarcasm>

I actually like this expansion and what I saw from the Fanfest videos the March expansion looks good too. Lets hope they put away the nerf bat and add content instead.

---

Originally by: Kwint Sommer

---

I'm a bit ticked at how casually and quietly they dropped the industrial stuff which is ironic because I think it was the right call. Performance should be a priority, over everything. As overdue as this stuff is, performance improvements are more so and more needed. My big issue is not with it getting put on the back burner but the total failure of their PR regarding it. We shouldn't have to have a friend who talked to some devs in Iceland just to get even the vaguest of an idea when we'll see it implemented.

---

Originally by: Clair Bear

---

Originally by: Raaz Satik

---

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.

---

This does not need to happen serverside. The server can serve up the same old list it always does, together with some attributes on the item which describe the price modification % for high, neutral and low standings. Your client would then apply the modifications before display, and sort on the columns you specify as primary and secondary sort orders before displaying. Done.

---

Originally by: ShardowRhino

---

Ore compacting ,modified industrials.

---

Originally by: Salpad

---

Market Order durations could also be nerfed. This is an old idea of mine which I don't think I've mentioned.

Start by reducing the maximum duration of all Buy and Sell Orders from the current 90 days and to a maximum of 12 days. Then remove the duration-renewal that happens when you change the price of a Buy or Sell Order. The original duration should remain as a hard limit.

Then introdue a new skill that extends the max duration of Market Orders by roughly 50% per level.

L0 12 days
L1 18 days
L2 27 days
L3 40 days
L4 60 days
L5 90 days

That's one more way for serious traders to have an edge over dabblers; Our Buy and Sell Orders will last longer.

---