| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aero089
Exiled.
The Kadeshi
0
   |
Posted - 2012.04.02 18:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
TL;DR: The destroying of rigs makes it very difficult to relocate staging points and consolidate pilot assets. Not destroying rigs = more fights, straightforward market, member satisfaction
PROS
- Corporations and alliances can move around more freely; makes it easier to get into PvP action. Less boring logistical work
- Ships, modules and rigs can be seeded back into the market in the place people tend to look for them
- Stockpiling becomes viable => more ISK poured into the marke
- Freighters become more useful, used more, therefore empire wars have a bigger purpose (though easily circumvented with alts
- Lower hesitation to deploy battleships
CONS
- Less demand for rigs => less production => higher rig prices (not necessarily a bad thing
- ??
As the CEO and main logistical overseer in my corp; I've for a long time struggled with the moving around of the 'war chest' of my corporation and its members. Like now, we're looking around to deploy in different areas to be able to find some fights, using carriers to move ships. In a current scenario, I'd have to spend upwards of 45 million per round trip to move four battlecruiser hulls. A fairly hefty price
The other option is the use of a freighter, which at lvl 5 can hold a maximum of 937.5km-¦ (roughly 4 BC hulls in courier form). This is still a pretty high number if you consider that in packaged form, it's only 15km-¦, as opposed to 216km-¦ in full form
Evidently, this makes logistics an unnecessary nightmare, while we only want to have good fights without having to worry about keeping strict rules about how many ships to bring, and making it risky to assemble/fit ships knowing that they will add to the volume that will inevitably need to be moved again.
Though a new shiptype can be introduced with a large ship hangar (sans jumpdrives) to tackle the logistical issue alone; I think the merits from removing rig destruction completely weigh heavier. I also think that code-wise, this is the easiest and most effective implementation.
Like this if... well... you like the idea or at least agree that there's too many negative effects imposed by rigs. If you disagree, give thought-through and constructive critiscism please. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
520
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 19:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
Aero089 wrote:Evidently, this makes logistics an unnecessary nightmare, while we only want to have good fights without having to worry about keeping strict rules about how many ships to bring, and making it risky to assemble/fit ships knowing that they will add to the volume that will inevitably need to be moved again.
^^ This pretty sums up the reason I am against your proposed change. It is SUPPOSED to be a hassle to move your equipment around... especially if you have added the extra "edge" to your ships (which rigs pretty much are... an "edge" that is relatively cheap and more widely available compared to other options).
It's already too easy to move around and project power to different locations within a relatively short period of time. The only saving grace is that it is a tedious chore to perform said "power projection" due to "little things" like rigs and ammunition.
"Just because I seem like an idiot, doesn't mean I am one."
~Unknown |
Pisov viet
Kaesong Kosmonauts
Test Friends Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 19:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
Quote:Less demand for rigs => less production => higher rig prices (not necessarily a bad thing
Soooo
Lowering the demand incrase the prices?
You better start running, the invisible hand is going to slap your ass. |
Welsige
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 19:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
Pisov viet wrote:Quote:Less demand for rigs => less production => higher rig prices (not necessarily a bad thing Soooo Lowering the demand incrase the prices? You better start running, the invisible hand is going to slap your ass.
Well, at first due to installed production and stocks the price will go down, but if the activity goes low volume low price for long, it might become less attractive to builders and the offer will also decrease, wich could either balance it out or put the prices even higher, or lead even to unavailability of some less demanded mods.
~ 10.058 ~
Free The Mittani |
Aero089
Exiled.
The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 19:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
Welsige wrote:Pisov viet wrote:Quote:Less demand for rigs => less production => higher rig prices (not necessarily a bad thing Soooo Lowering the demand incrase the prices? You better start running, the invisible hand is going to slap your ass. Well, at first due to installed production and stocks the price will go down, but if the activity goes low volume low price for long, it might become less attractive to builders and the offer will also decrease, wich could either balance it out or put the prices even higher, or lead even to unavailability of some less demanded mods.
Lower volume trades are more prone to market manipulation. If you know you'll not sell as much volume as before, you'll want to raise the prices to compensate for the loss of net profit. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1265
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 20:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
Rigs are cheap compared to everything else you put on this ships. Consider them disposable and trash a few for your convenience.
It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1265
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 20:06:00 -
[7] - Quote
Also, this:
Aero089 wrote:Less boring logistical work
Equals "even easier force projection."
It's too easy to move large quantities of stuff into a fight on short notice right now. Let's not make that even easier.
It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Cyprus Black
Golden Shellbacks
Surely You're Joking
173
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 21:32:00 -
[8] - Quote
Aero089 wrote:CONS
- Less demand for rigs => less production => higher rig prices (not necessarily a bad thing
- ??
Destruction drives the EvE economy. If rigs aren't getting destroyed, there will be less demand. Less demand means less production and higher prices. You seem to already have this principle down.
However you missed something important. Higher rig prices means less players are able to afford to use/lose them. Remember when there was only one rig size? Yeah, It was very common to see rigs costing more than the fitted ship itself. CCP changed it into various sizes to make rigs available and affordable for EVERYONE, not just the rich with disposable income.
Non destructible rigs is a bad idea all around.
(plus I have a substantial market investment in rigs so I'm biased)
You wouldn't complain about needles when you get a tattoo.
So why would you complain about PvP when you play EVE? |
mxzf
Shovel Bros
1136
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 23:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
Aero089 wrote:I want to completely change the way Rigs work and make them the same as modules because I'm too lazy to move my ships individually and too cheap to buy replacement rigs
Well, get over yourself. Rigs were intentionally made to be destroyed when the ship is repackaged, it wasn't a mistake on CCP's part, it was a design decision. |
Aero089
Exiled.
The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 00:18:00 -
[10] - Quote
mxzf wrote:Aero089 wrote:I want to completely change the way Rigs work and make them the same as modules because I'm too lazy to move my ships individually and too cheap to buy replacement rigs Well, get over yourself. Rigs were intentionally made to be destroyed when the ship is repackaged, it wasn't a mistake on CCP's part, it was a design decision.
POS modules taking forever to online were also by design initially. Just because it was introduced in a gimped form doesn't mean that it has to stay that way. |
|
|
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies
Fidelas Constans
436
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 00:33:00 -
[11] - Quote
Aero089 wrote:Welsige wrote:Pisov viet wrote:Quote:Less demand for rigs => less production => higher rig prices (not necessarily a bad thing Soooo Lowering the demand incrase the prices? You better start running, the invisible hand is going to slap your ass. Well, at first due to installed production and stocks the price will go down, but if the activity goes low volume low price for long, it might become less attractive to builders and the offer will also decrease, wich could either balance it out or put the prices even higher, or lead even to unavailability of some less demanded mods. Lower volume trades are more prone to market manipulation. If you know you'll not sell as much volume as before, you'll want to raise the prices to compensate for the loss of net profit.
You forgot to finish the math problem.
The market crashes AFTER prices go up....because there is no demand at that point.
In other words..your full of #### in economic terms....but everyone knows that.
Not supported.
I may not like it...but the reasoning is valid as to how it works now.
I'd rather support ships that are equiped to tarnsport ships more easily..without breaking the game.
================
Get PAID FOR SPAM!
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152 |
mxzf
Shovel Bros
1137
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 01:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
Aero089 wrote:mxzf wrote:Aero089 wrote:I want to completely change the way Rigs work and make them the same as modules because I'm too lazy to move my ships individually and too cheap to buy replacement rigs Well, get over yourself. Rigs were intentionally made to be destroyed when the ship is repackaged, it wasn't a mistake on CCP's part, it was a design decision. POS modules taking forever to online were also by design initially. Just because it was introduced in a gimped form doesn't mean that it has to stay that way.
POS modules were changed to their current state because the long anchor/online process didn't really do anything but make it a headache for people to set up POSes. Now that POS anchor times no longer have any real impact beyond being a headache, there is no need for them to take a long time to set up. However, in the past, POS timings used to matter more because they were how sov was controlled and how long it took to set up a POS in a hostile system had an impact in sov warfare.
However, your proposal would have a significant impact on market dynamics and ship fitting, turning rigs from a unique type of ship modification that you have to put some thought into and live with into just another module slot on your ship.
See how different the two situations are? |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies
Fidelas Constans
438
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 01:23:00 -
[13] - Quote
mxzf wrote:Aero089 wrote:mxzf wrote:Aero089 wrote:I want to completely change the way Rigs work and make them the same as modules because I'm too lazy to move my ships individually and too cheap to buy replacement rigs Well, get over yourself. Rigs were intentionally made to be destroyed when the ship is repackaged, it wasn't a mistake on CCP's part, it was a design decision. POS modules taking forever to online were also by design initially. Just because it was introduced in a gimped form doesn't mean that it has to stay that way. POS modules were changed to their current state because the long anchor/online process didn't really do anything but make it a headache for people to set up POSes. Now that POS anchor times no longer have any real impact beyond being a headache, there is no need for them to take a long time to set up. However, in the past, POS timings used to matter more because they were how sov was controlled and how long it took to set up a POS in a hostile system had an impact in sov warfare. However, your proposal would have a significant impact on market dynamics and ship fitting, turning rigs from a unique type of ship modification that you have to put some thought into and live with into just another module slot on your ship. See how different the two situations are?
Add to that...the pos timers didn't adversely damage the market either.
Granted they changed the fuel process...but that was for the better IMHO...and if anything made the market healthier.
================
Get PAID FOR SPAM!
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152 |
Aero089
Exiled.
The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 01:26:00 -
[14] - Quote
The POS example was the first to come to mind and I agree that sovereignty changes softened the necessity for those timers, though I still don't consider my rig change proposal to be as significant as people say.
In its current form, I don't think many rigs are destroyed aside from the ship actually blowing up and I really don't think the market will change much from it. The exorbitant examples given in previous posts do not seem plausible as rig manufacturing costs remain the same.
Sure, prices will inflate somewhat due to slightly lesser rig wasting on the consumer end, less demand, less production and thus less market competition (I don't even think there will be much delay between making the change and the market stabilising afterwards.
I propose to make them the same as modules because currently, they are stored in the game as such, act as such and for that reason, are easy to fix as such.
Perhaps I'm completely missing something, but I don't see these doom scenarios people are talking about already. Look at your ship fittings and how often you switch these up. I don't know about you guys, but once fitted I hardly ever change even a single module throughout its lifespan.
Heck, if what you're saying is true and people do destroy rigs so often, indicating a need to change things up, wouldn't we see an increase in demand as to have spare fitting sets for a given ship?
There is one argument that I can understand, and that is power projection. I find this hard to predict and I can theorycraft a long way, both ways. In one, bigger alliance capable of throwing isk around can already run capital transport trains and already do so. In the other, this would enable smaller alliances to do the same and make PvP more accessible to all. |
Aero089
Exiled.
The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 01:28:00 -
[15] - Quote
Thoguh really, three or four battlecruisers per carrier/freighter is very, very low freight capability don't you think? |
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
451
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 05:28:00 -
[16] - Quote
no, salvage prices for many rigs are already dirt cheap. |
Samillian
Moonshine Industries
The Last Chancers.
110
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 10:23:00 -
[17] - Quote
Not supported.
Logistics and power projection are far to easy these days already, an Alliance can deploy in an extremely short time at extraordinary distances as it is. Plus if your deploying to attack a target you should be at risk from guerrilla and harassing tactics rather than have a nice easy ride into enemy territory. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
245
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 11:34:00 -
[18] - Quote
It can be argued that everything CCP has done to make logistics easier in this game has had the effect of making the game worse. |
admiral root
Red Galaxy
Persona Non Gratis
48
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 12:04:00 -
[19] - Quote
Two or three years ago, there was a dev post saying that they were looking at making it easier to move rigged ships. Is this still in the backlog, or was it quietly dropped? |
Aero089
Exiled.
The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 22:27:00 -
[20] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Two or three years ago, there was a dev post saying that they were looking at making it easier to move rigged ships. Is this still in the backlog, or was it quietly dropped?
Bloody well wish they would implement it, really. With the current fuel costs, I can save myself time by just insuring every ship and blowing them up. The cost of insurance is the same as the cost of the more popular rigs when destroyed, as is the cost of fuel. |
|
|
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures
BLACK-MARK
94
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 00:14:00 -
[21] - Quote
To much fail economics, price of rigs is determined by
,,
,
,,.
...
...
VALUE OF MATERIALS THEY ARE MADE FROM, SALVAGE!
Surplus of materials for rigs, not being used (not trashed) means,..... they cost less.
If people make less then the prices for rigs will still go down,, maybe even more because less rig manufacturers burning into supply of salvage.
|
Jalmari Huitsikko
draketrain
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
58
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 16:12:00 -
[22] - Quote
get money and buy new rigs
|
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic
Tragedy.
1496
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 13:08:00 -
[23] - Quote
Kills an ISK sink. Not supported. What I would support however, is making all modules work like rigs in that they are destroyed if removed. The only way to get them off the ship once placed on would be for that ship to be destroyed and the module drop as loot or perhaps salvage instead.
EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
173
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 23:01:00 -
[24] - Quote
I disagree. The rigs are ok as they are, but players needs some better options (that don't involve millions of mining skills) to haul assembled ships around.
http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
Kitt JT
League of Non-Aligned Worlds
Nulli Secunda
37
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 16:34:00 -
[25] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:Kills an ISK sink. Not supported. What I would support however, is making all modules work like rigs in that they are destroyed if removed. The only way to get them off the ship once placed on would be for that ship to be destroyed and the module drop as loot or perhaps salvage instead.
Rigs are in no sense an isk sink. An isk sink is something like taxes, or npc sell orders, where isk is actually removed from game. Rig destruction and ship destruction do not remove any isk from the game, in any way. |
Duvida
The Scope
Gallente Federation
60
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 21:48:00 -
[26] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:I disagree. The rigs are ok as they are, but players needs some better options (that don't involve millions of mining skills) to haul assembled ships around.
This would be nice. More options, more variety... and for those that are into such activity, a chance for a nice, fully assembled $6 billion isk mission ship to drop when they ganked the carrying ship?  |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
187
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 22:03:00 -
[27] - Quote
Duvida wrote:Tobiaz wrote:I disagree. The rigs are ok as they are, but players needs some better options (that don't involve millions of mining skills) to haul assembled ships around. This would be nice. More options, more variety... and for those that are into such activity, a chance for a nice, fully assembled $6 billion isk mission ship to drop when they ganked the carrying ship?
I think CCP should introduce a (racial) transport ship that is tooled towards moving assembled ships. Perhaps a small BS-sized 'industrial' with about 150k to 200k m3 hangar space for explorers and WH people that like to 'live out of a suitcase'. And a larger orca-sized one with about 500k to 750k m3 hangar for frontline re-shipping and bulk transportation.
Both with a good tank and enough defenses to handle some tacklers.
Added to this CCP should remove the lead plates around the corp and ship hangars in ships that disable scanning, and make it so the contents show up on the killmail and the insurance isn't voided when transported ships blow up.
http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
24
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 18:23:00 -
[28] - Quote
Repackaging ships with rigs.
(Why CCP no improve Shareholding?):
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=71032#post71032 |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
125
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 15:22:00 -
[29] - Quote
Welsige wrote:Pisov viet wrote:Quote:Less demand for rigs => less production => higher rig prices (not necessarily a bad thing Soooo Lowering the demand incrase the prices? You better start running, the invisible hand is going to slap your ass. Well, at first due to installed production and stocks the price will go down, but if the activity goes low volume low price for long, it might become less attractive to builders and the offer will also decrease, wich could either balance it out or put the prices even higher, or lead even to unavailability of some less demanded mods.
We already have that I think.
@Shah Fluffers, or in response to him at least: Power projection being bottlenecked by Rigs is something I wouldn't have considered an issue. In my view, logistics for one person to move things around is already a pain in the arse without adding Rigs to the equation.
What really happens is people either get annoyed and repackage the ship anyway-destroying the rigs-or it sits in some station for ages waiting to be moved. Generally, Medium or smaller, it gets repackaged; at least thats been my experience. That doesn't mean you go out and buy rigs either.
Actually I think the opposite is true: You decide not to bother buying rigs for larger ships anymore unless they're cheap and easily aquired. That means no Trimarks, Shield Extenders, or anything on the high end of rediculously expensive.
Being able to repackage rigs would actually increase the market for these things and put more in the game. As it stands, there really doesn't seem to be enough salvage to make all rigs viable for manufacture, and quite often the market is bare of a number of varieties for various reasons.
Given what I've seen with rig production, I don't believe it would hurt at all to make them repackageable.
Turn WiS into wIN! ..make all the characters Nude. |
Cyprus Black
Golden Shellbacks
Surely You're Joking
182
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:24:00 -
[30] - Quote
This "proposal" has already been struck down by reason and common sense. Why do people continue to post here?
You wouldn't complain about needles when you get a tattoo.
So why would you complain about PvP when you play EVE? |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |