| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Yon Krum
Sigillum Militum Xpisti
    |
Posted - 2008.07.01 11:55:00 -
[31]
First, I'd like to echo the OP in this regard. Consider this general agreement on most points.
As a personal aside on industry, I have to wonder why it is that, despite having an expensive business education, myself, the business side of EVE is the least appealing? I think this is because the whole thing is teflon-coated: you cannot get any traction to enable the usual tools--like the "5Ps"--work for you. It is PURE logistics, which is only fun for a short while, until you start counting your time spent.
On to suggestions:
Meta-construction is probably the most-interesting idea I've seen put forward, or thought of myself, for EVE, ever. It's so obvious that I'm sure virtually every player has come up with it. The balance challenge is huge, yes, but at the same time your developers have to balance a design when they're coming up with it. I assume they do something like "calculate a value of advantages and disadvantages vs baseline" to come up with a total ship stats score... or, you use darts.
You could solve a heck of alot of problems by enabling the building of meta-items (T1+1, +2, etc.), constructed via the assembly of "parts" dropped from wrecks in liew of usual loot. Said Parts (capital P) would assemble much like rigs do into ship components that would then be built into a base blueprint (a Kestral, say, or T1 rocket launcher) to modify base attributes in some controlled fashion. You would result in, with the right components, a Kestral with slightly reduced mass, or the coveted "Arbelest Rocket Launcher".
Parts would recycle into minerals in line with what would normally drop from a ship, thus avoiding breaking the current market too badly.
Ideally, you could link invention to this by the creation of BPCs for a particularly modified product. Best would be for the specific combinations that result in a given meta-product be randomized somewhat by user account. Why? Because otherwise you end up with no discovery in-game after about 3 days (everything goes on the web).
There's alot that could be done with such a system, to create customized products to exactly suit the needs of buyers and add plenty of interesting "fiddle bits" to industry.
--Krum
|
Wannabehero
Caldari
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2008.07.01 16:44:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Yon Krum
*snip*
Ideally, you could link invention to this by the creation of BPCs for a particularly modified product. Best would be for the specific combinations that result in a given meta-product be randomized somewhat by user account. Why? Because otherwise you end up with no discovery in-game after about 3 days (everything goes on the web).
*snip*
If I understand what Yon Krum is getting at correctly he is onto a sweet idea. Some sort of real research and discovery for the players, where you have to actually experiment with putting different meta-invention parts together until you randomly achieve a successful meta-BPC, and having variations in the formula for different accounts so players must keep their own databases.
Possible there could be some basic formula that each meta-item would follow, where to get a specific meta level 4 item you will always need a number of parts A and B and one of (C or D) but the actual numbers of these parts would vary for each player account.
Maybe you could spend RP with research agents to have them assist you in inventing meta-BPC's. Spending RP with the agent could possibly allow them to narrow down the range, or identity, of one of these components for you. The level of the research agent might be able to link into the level of meta they are able to help you research. The field of the research agent might also have to share one of the fields associated with the item being meta-invented, or maybe just receive a bonus if it is a shared field.
In any case, anything to enrich the industry side of EVE is welcome.
--
Don't harsh my mellow |
Nukleanis
Falcon Advanced Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 11:07:00 -
[33]
Why not use the existing research facilities to produce meta blueprints? So you could research not only material efficiency or time efficiency, but also meta level.
The research could require skills / components or both, and if implemented could use a system similar to training skills. So say meta level one would take only a couple of days to research, meta two a week, etc...
 |
Yon Krum
Sigillum Militum Xpisti
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 11:58:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Wannabehero
If I understand what Yon Krum is getting at correctly he is onto a sweet idea. Some sort of real research and discovery for the players, where you have to actually experiment with putting different meta-invention parts together until you randomly achieve a successful meta-BPC, and having variations in the formula for different accounts so players must keep their own databases.
You've accurately deciphered the idea. The point would in fact to end up with a system of invention--specific to each account and skills, and therefore not the linear process of reverse-engineering that "Invention" currently is.
It would need to permit small, but still meaningful changes using a sufficiently broad spectrum of "meta loot" to avoid having one specific item or another become prohibitively expensive. "Meta" mods to modules with few statistics would probably be harder than, say something like a ship, which has a huge list of characteristics.
In any event, account (or character, even) specific recipe BPCs would have to hinge on some value that is calculated and handled solely server-side, since the last time a game tried this (Asheron's Call, fyi) the formula was *****ed in weeks and a tool made to work around it for players.
Sad, really, for something with great potential.
In any event, anything that actually enables some uniqueness to "product" would be a quantum-leap forward.
--Krum |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 13:06:00 -
[35]
I think the ideas are quite sound, but not all of them.
F.E. the t1 loot from missions runners is used as a mineral income. If they are selling it too cheap, just buy and melt it and you are getting minerals below market prices. So I do not see that as a problem.
Meta level manufacturing could work like invention for T1. F.E. you are able to produce a higher meta level item and specialisation skills increase your success rate. The difference will be that you won't produce and intermediate item (like the t2 BPC) but already the finished item.
Chronotis: You can still implement a component ship system. F.e take a Raven:
1. basse hull component with slots fixed, however there are meta level modifiers for shield HP, armor HP, hull HP, resists, capacitor etc.
2. engine component - raven engines that can have meta level modifiers for speed
3. sensor component - lock range, resolution, sensor strength
etc. I hope you get the picture. The complete Raven can only be assembled from Raven components where the key factors are fixed in each component and some are variable through invention like process. This way you can keep balance in check while providing a variety of options for manufacturers to specialise in. Even the t2 manufacturing skills can be reused
Of course you could still build the old non-meta raven without hassle through the already existing t1 BP.
It would reprocess to the plain t1 raven materials.
--- SIG ---
CSM: your support is needed ! |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 13:08:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Nukleanis
Why not use the existing research facilities to produce meta blueprints? So you could research not only material efficiency or time efficiency, but also meta level.
The research could require skills / components or both, and if implemented could use a system similar to training skills. So say meta level one would take only a couple of days to research, meta two a week, etc...
^^^^ this is what I was trying to get to :-)
--- SIG ---
CSM: your support is needed ! |
Nukleanis
Falcon Advanced Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 14:40:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Nukleanis on 02/07/2008 14:42:18
EDIT: I suck :)
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 14:05:00 -
[38]
Very good discussion so far, it is particularly interesting to see generally positive feedback on meta manufacturing as a method of allowing a greater product range and pseudo customization through choice of adding optional components to the job to change the end product into something better at an opportunity cost of mass volume production of standard products against luxury ones.
We certainly feel the focus should be jointly on commodity market anonymous sales and equal if not more important emphasis on allowing corporations to advertise their brand and services and offering a form of customer loyalty in the way NAGA corporation did for example.
Allowing you to promote pricing schemes, discounts, limited time offers and so on and also have a good way in which you can build for demand from your customers orders like a true shop. If we can find a good way to do this from overhauling and adding to contracts to a brand new service, we are certainly looking seriously at this and was something discussed at the CSM.
Nukleanis, interbus options are possible and being explored, but a delivery service is something that may more better handled in the hands of the service providers as part of their package perhaps.
|
|
El'essar Viocragh
Minmatar
Meltd0wn
Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 14:29:00 -
[39]
We simply all want to have our own secret coke formula :)
The idea with the character id is tricky, but interesting.
But as long as there is a reliable way to produce small quantities supported by the market (instead of flooding it to even the odds -> invention) this would be a very interesting addition.
--
[17:47] <Mephysto> its dead, jim |
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 15:15:00 -
[40]
On refining:
This is going to sound remarkably simple, but couldn't you just mark all products with the efficiency level they were produced at, then you cannot get out what was not put in while allowing for a greater variance in manufacturing efficiency.
Nice to see some of the ideas that are being considered, meta-manufacturing sounds like it has a lot of potential (esp. t2 meta) and it's good to see the distant hopes and dreams such as custom ship construction.
|
|
El'essar Viocragh
Minmatar
Meltd0wn
Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 01:44:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
This is going to sound remarkably simple, but couldn't you just mark all products with the efficiency level they were produced at, then you cannot get out what was not put in while allowing for a greater variance in manufacturing efficiency.
To store per-item attributes like damage or the skill level at which it was produced, it has to be, as CCP calls it, singleton. Meaning unpackaged, non-stackable. Every such item has its own database entry with all its attributes, while a stack of 5000 tritanium is just one item entry with a quantity and item type.
So to make your idea come true, it would either require a complete overhaul of the database layout or the removal of everything refineable from the market to contracts only.
And now I'm off preparing for the wrath of righteous fury from PrismX in case I got that database thingy wrong....
--
[17:47] <Mephysto> its dead, jim |
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 04:17:00 -
[42]
I knew I sounded too easy.
|
Naate
Minmatar
Science and Accounting
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 04:15:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Naate on 06/07/2008 04:26:11
If we can get the powerful shop/market interface as mentioned earlier in the thread which is capable of searching for a particular item type and then finding all its variants as well, then I would like to see a stat mutator system in play.
That is, if I make say, a 1mn Afterburner, and it has (for simplicities sake) just the stats of it's speed boost and its grid requirement to fit, and lets say these base values are 120% speed and 20 grid to fit.
Those values should be able to mutate within a set range, with lesser skilled characters having a weighting towards the lower end. Vice versa, highly skilled characters having a weighting towards the higher end.
Lets say that the 120% base speed has an allowed variance of +/- 15%, meaning it has an effective result range of 105% to 135%.
Lets say that the grid has an allowed variance of +/- 2 grid, meaning it has an effective result range of 18 to 22.
Now lets say we have a classically trained industrialist (that is, just to PE5), they have an adjusted base (or simply a weighting towards this base) of 110% speed (as opposed to 120%) with a +/- of 5%, giving them only a range of 105%-115%.
An up to date character, trained in full with the advanced skills (along the lines of Ricdic's request) may have an adjusted base of 130%, with a +/- of 10%, giving a potential result range of 120%-140%.
Repeat with grid, and all the other stats that items actually have.
This allows CCP to carefully monitor the allowed variances in stats forgoing most balance issues, and allows producers who invest in the time and money to learn the required skills to produce premium products and a price to match.
We already have the capability of comparing products along these lines (item compare view), and if it was built into the new market UI allowing us to select the stats we care about, and then rank by these stats (just like the market can currently rank by price, jump distance, etc) it would not be difficult to browse based on our tastes.
This is not to say I'm against the idea of meta-manufacturing or ways to more directly impact the outcome of our products, but I think that stat mutation should be at least given some consideration. :)
---
Take care,
-Naithin (Naate),. |
Letrange
Minmatar
Chaosstorm Corporation
Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 07:11:00 -
[44]
gah, late in finding this but:
Meta Items: YAY!!!!
Removal of T1 Loot: YAY!!!!
/me swoons
Now onto the other stuff:
I think part of the issues we're all meandering out way towards is the fact that there is very little on the manufacturing side that involves a lot of overhead to setup. One thing I would like to see is an increase in usage of POS's for manufacturing. A few thoughts:
1) you guys seem to be inching away from the current POS=Control thing for system sovereignty. This will have the predictable effects on the economy if ever the mechanism changes and one of the big isk sinks for alliances goes away.
2) we need some form of manufacturing scale savings (currently doing 1 run or doing 100 runs works out to be about identical in costs).
3) we're looking for some barriers to entry without totally screwing over the newbies.
This got me thinking:
We need some way to make POS based manufacturing attractive when compared to station manufacturing. Since the T1 manufacturing modules do work it would be a question of making them more attractive than the manufacturing slots in empire (probably by messing with the station manufacturing costs - it's supposed to represent labor for crying out loud, it should be expensive). This would cause a lot of investment of the isk supply in infrastructure which would also be vulnerable to attack. The reward: more efficient (cost wise - not mineral usage wise) manufacturing but riskier: the infrastructure is vulnerable. The advantage of this is that it keeps the POS isk sink in the game (the potential sovereignty changes look like they could remove it). It also puts POS management firmly in the hands of people prepared to handle it - industrialists. It would also complicate item pricing but hey, we're industrialists, we live for complications.
|
Carniflex
Caldari
Fallout Research
Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 11:39:00 -
[45]
While idea of giving POS manufacturing some additonal role in proposed scheme is interesting it's also worth remembering that this is highly inconvinient, as one needs the materials at tower location. If it would be possible to use POS factories similar way to in station ones (ie, all materials in some relatively safe hangar, not over 10 different arrays in space) I would think that POS manufacturing would also be more popular.
There was a while ago in market discussions relatively interesting discussion about removing all 'loot drops' from NPC's and replacing them with meta item BPC's and/or specific 'manufacturing modulators' that can be used in production to make those meta items. Propably something like there is in the proposal in more refined form. In my opinion that thread had few more elegant solutions in it than this current proposal. Unfortunately I seem to be unable to find the relevant link at this moment to point at that thread.
If POS production is given significant role it would also make sense to allow usage of POS facilities from personal hangars of pilots. If not cross-corp (altho that would for sure allow some interesting ecenomiks) then at least in corp, as if you have several intependet producers it might get somewhat messy, if they have to share some hangars kepping track what belongs to who. Afterall, not all corps are communist, but there is relatively many with more 'personal wealth makes wealthy corporation' kind of attitude.
If possible then avoiding randomness in production part of the process would be also good, as every part with propablities increases entry barrier into that section, bcos of the need to produce in high enough volumes to 'average out' streaks of possible bad luck. It is enough to keep the randomness part within blueprints / materials section (like in invention, where it is random if you get the print, but production part is certain after you already have the print). Some system similar to current decryptors would be good compromise in my opinion, where you can add some 'gadget' to affect some stat on the item in question that would allow limited number of possible permutations thus still allowing some balancing (altho it would be more complex to do) on the modules.
 |
Goti Evans
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 12:17:00 -
[46]
Ok how does this Sound?
We allow the Construction of meta Items there are 2 or more skills that effect this though.
1 a skill that alters the effficancy of building a meta item of this type (the meta items use materials found from drops)
2 A skill that lets you build one adtional meta level up per level (small issue in that there are only 3 levels curently above meta 1)
3 posibly another skill that counter acts the addtional time delay incured when building a higher quality item.
introduction of some T2 Meta Levels (or perhaps just open the way for Faction level?) T2 meta's would use common moon material reactions wich should help (marginaly) with the mud issue.
I would love to see ships that can be customised as indicated - it would be well worth getting over the technical issues but perhaps introducing some meta ships would be an adquate holder.
|
Letrange
Minmatar
Chaosstorm Corporation
Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 02:51:00 -
[47]
The POS manufacturing being slightly more inconvenient doesn't bother me actually, so long as it's more isk efficient than high sec slots. The convenience and lack of risk of station slots should be penalized by being less isk efficient than riskier methods of manufacture.
|
Zanquis
Caldari
Universal Exports
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 20:22:00 -
[48]
I totally understand what your saying and I fully agree, I am happy you have taken the time to think this through using knowledge of economics and marketing in order to make the ideas sound.
I myself am a professional in the field of marketing and understand economics well. For this reason I have gained interest and have a business selling trade materials in eve using an industrial alt.
I need to comment on a few things though in order to hopefully refine these ideas further!
On Removing T1 loot from loot drops:
I support your reasoning behind this but I think that just removing this would be a bad idea and have a negative impact on the economic inputs (customer income mainly) and fun factor of the game (less fun if there is no variety). Therefore I propose a change to the loot system...
*T1 loot drops should be replaced by "Damaged" versions of the T1 product they normally would have dropped. This Damaged loot is more common, would be lighter, and serve the same purpose to people who collect it as the T1 loot did before. Effectivly, the T1 loot would be replaced with "Sell Loot" which makes input from ratting on the economy easier to control for CCP and opens up the T1 base item market as a new economic opportunity.
*Damaged Items can then be reprocessed for minerals or used in "Reverse engineering" to create a "schematic"
*Reprocessing damaged items will yield minerals as before, however only common materials such as Tritainium and Pyerite will be yielded. This creates an economic price cap on the two base minerals of EVERY ship but leaves all other minerals typically mined by serious miners entirely out of the equation and will not effect their prices.
On Product improvements through skills:
This is a very valid idea but I must object to the idea of reducing costs because while this works in real life, in eve where most people have little business experience it will simply lower prices without increasing profitability. I know very few eve business people who actually track their costs when building a product to ensure they are making a decent profit, fewer who then link that to time spent. Fewer still check to make sure that the product they want to produce will sell for more profit then the sum of all its parts if sold individually. I have time and time again seen people produce ships and sell it at market value when they could have made more money just filling buy orders for the minerals that went into producing that ship.
The idea of having progressive skills to allow industry to specialize is however a very strong idea which needs to be implemented in order to bring the economics of eve to a new level. I would suggest creating a consignment system in order to facilitate this, more about that to come in the following post
New Idea: Reverse engineering
This new skill path allows you to take "Damaged" loot such as "Damaged Angel Heavy Missile Launcher" and use your related scientific skills in that technology type in order to have a chance at creating a "Schematic" which can then be used by the Invention process to have a chance at producing a T1 faction BPC. Reverse engineering is similar to refining minerals as you select a stack of damaged items and select "Reverse engineering". Each damaged item type will have a required quantity for reverse engineering for each schematic created (since they are damaged you need a bunch of them to reverse engineer so that each part of the item can be reverse engineered, they can't all be damaged in the same place!).
Once you have the Schematic you can attempt to invent a T1 faction variant using a T1 BPC, a schematic instead of Datacores, and a T1 base item as inputs. If successful you will have a limited run T1 Faction BPC which can then be used to produce the faction item you where lucky enough to invent.
CONTINUED NEXT POST...
********************************************
CEO of CSS Ltd.
 |
Zanquis
Caldari
Universal Exports
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 21:12:00 -
[49]
NEW Idea: Consignment Market
This would be a new market for unique items which are produced by industry, and faction loot. Looking similar to the standard market in layout, its main changes are how it categorizes items, and displays information about them.
The left window would be used to choose what kind of item you are searching for similar to the main market. However it will filter down to general item types at most. For example say your looking to sell a "Zippy's 10MN Micro Warp Drive" which is a unique item you created. This item is classified as a Microwarp drive so if you where looking to find a unique MWD on the market and others like it you would from the left menu select "Ship Equipment -> Propultion -> Microwarpdrives -> 10MN" and this would call up a list of all unique 10MN microwarpdrives in the region. The information displayed will be displayed in a chart which has multiple columns. The first column is name of item, second is price, third is quantity, fourth is location, and the last 3 column's are the values of the top 3 attributes important to that item category. For example on a microwarpdrive the top 3 can be Activation cost, Speed Bonus, and thrust. If the customer would like to learn more about this product, they can click show info and see the full information window on the product.
The consignment market would allow for sell orders only since products are few and unique, and you can sell these products any place with a market.
********************************************
CEO of CSS Ltd.
|
Zanquis
Caldari
Universal Exports
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 21:23:00 -
[50]
New Idea: Product Tweeking
This is basically advanced manufacturing which is very skill intensive and specialized. The basic idea of this would be that you can modify up to 3 attributes on any product you manufacture in an attempt to create a customized item which is better then the base item in any one or more of the 3 areas you can effect. However in order to tweek the product you need to have the ability to construct the T2 versions of that product, and have the skills required to tweek each area of improvement. Each area of improvement will have its own set of one or more skills which effect the chance and magnitude of the improvement of that attribute. In order to produce the item you must have the appropriate BPC (tech 1 or 2) and identify which attributes you wish to tweek, and how much you wish to tweek it, and what quantity you wish to attempt to tweek.
To begin you have a 20% base ABSOLUTE failure rate when building a tweeked item, and that chance can be reduced through skills. There is also a Tweeked failure rate which is the ratio of successful tweeks to failed tweeks you produce if the job is successfully produced. Each failed tweek will result in an untweeked item being produced, while the successful tweeks will result in a unique set of items which bear your name and have the attributes tweeked. The Tweeked
Absolute Failure rate: Base 10% modified by skills and number of runs attempted. This is the chance the entire production run will fail and produce nothing. This is checked only once and increases by 2% for each additional run. Therefore if you attempted to produce 10 unique MWD's your absolute failure rate is 10+(10*2)= 30% before your skills are taken into account.
Tweek Focus: When you tweek multiple attributes you have the ability to increase the chance you have to score your maximum possible increase for this attribute based on your current skills at tweeking that attribute. So if your current skills at tweeking MWD velocity bonus would allow you to give a 10%-30% bonus to MWD speed, adding more focus to this attribute will increase the chances you will score near the 30% bonus at the sacrifice of all other tweeked attributes. You have the OPTION to choose one focus when your tweeking multiple attributes, and it will double the chance of scoring in the top 30% of your potential but will decrease it by half for the other two attributes.
Tweek Success Rate: This is base 10% and is modified by skills, focus strength of each attribute tweek, and the number of attributes tweeked. This success rate will effect the total number of successful runs in tweeked manufacturing run. So if you attempted to build 10 tweeked MWD's and your success rate is 20% then you will end up with 8 regular product and 2 uniquely tweeked products. In the event the number of tweeked or regular items produced from the run is less then a whole, the odd run will use these Tweek Failure Rate as a chance to produce a tweeked item. Your total success rate is divided by the number of attributes tweeked, so the more attributes you tweek the smaller the chance you have to succeed.
When a unique product is created in this way it will assume the name of the person who created it as a prefix to the natural name of that product type. For example if your name was Extractor Bill and you had created a unique 10MN Microwarpdrive then it would be called "Extractor Bills' 10MN Microwarpdrive" and appear on the CONSIGNMENT market as listed in my last post. If successful you likely have some normal 10MN Microwarpdrives which where not successfully tweeked and you will need to sell normally. This process is time consuming and will drasticly increase the time it takes to manufacture products in a scale similar to copying blueprints. It might take a month to create 5 tweeked Caracal's for example.
This would give acvanced crafters opportunity to have a competitive advantage, and add variety to the market.
********************************************
CEO of CSS Ltd.
|
|
Jethro Amar
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 13:37:00 -
[51]
Any 'tweaks' are very risky to put into the game. Because of multiplicative nature of attributes it would be possible to tweak 1 of ships attribute several times.
Example:
5% tweaked on ship base speed
5% tweaked on mwd speed boost
5% tweaked on nanofiber
5% tweaked on overdrive
These little tweaks give 21% total to speed. And there's nothing to stack-penalize this easily.
Obviously it's not just speed. Think of summarized bonus if you change (even so slightly) ship's weapon bonus, weapon itself, ammunition and damage mods.
|
Carniflex
Caldari
liquids and aqueous solutions
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 21:08:00 -
[52]
A long while ago there was idea bounced around about different 'quality' materials, where material quality 'modulates' end product parameters. It's hard to implement ofcource as it would be stepping on the database toes (meaning either more items in there or in worst case big pile of singletons).
It would fit in well with some ideas bounced around for mining reform (removal of static belts and different quality minerals in exploration belts) and depending on it's implementation would allow some limited number of possible configurations and/or making sure that FOTM solutions will be expencive.
As far as 'hammering' one attribute (like speed) goes in this modification scheme it would ofc need some new stacking penalty. Easiest solution in my opinion would be to make those gadgets (quality minerals, modulators, something else that makes those modifications) count as stacking flags. For example if you pimp your speed at every level available then if they all would share the same flag (on hull, module(s), rigs, etc) then they would get some extra stacking dumped on them to keep the end parameter within acceptable limits.
Balancing would be harder to do for sure whatever way it would be implemented, but if it's possible to estimate maximum possible effect when putting every possible modification towards something it's still not totally unreasonable to chek against extreme configurations and assume that anything inbetween would be balanced enough to not break the game.
|
Lo Lightshard
Insurrection Inc
HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 05:37:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Lo Lightshard on 09/07/2008 05:41:26
I support the elimination/reduction of T1 loot drops, although it would effectively destroy the reprocessing businesses it would promote mining which I think needs a bump.
I'm not sure I like meta item manufacturing; you've got to give the mission runners something and, as a manufacturer, do I really need the complexity introduced by four additional grades of item between T1 and T2?
Skills at the higher level, in my opinion, don't work so well if they are "increase efficiency by x% per level" as this effectively makes the distinction between specialists and everyone else just x% -- the hump being level V so the assumption is most will train to IV. What works better is the on/off system seen in T2 ship construction: I can't build HICs because they require cruiser construction V which I'm reluctant to train ATM -- in the ship profitability list these are high up (yes, I know they also have no T2 BPO but it would be good to have a look at T2 ship profitability and the ship construction level required to produce them).
An idea to indirectly differentiate product would be some kind of "repeat buyer" system that allows a producer to set up tiered discounts dependent on the number of ships bought per player/corp/alliance. I love the idea of billboard adverts if there was product differentiation.
On logistics, one barrier to sales I have is that I can't fly all the ships I can manufacture so I either need to haul them or sell them where they are built. Higher end ships are quite big and some kind of ship compression or "pre-packaged" state would be good so we can more safely move a BS through lowsec or 0.0 in a blockade runner (you can already put a Hulk in a blockade runner) or pack a few more in a freighter.
Also loved the idea of mutually exclusive ME/PE/Run increase implants for invention.
Edit: and please, please, please streamline the interface.
[IMA6E REMOVED] |
Carniflex
Caldari
liquids and aqueous solutions
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 10:37:00 -
[54]
Some of the good modification ideas were presented in that old invention overhaul thread also, before the invention ended up as it is today. I don't have link to that thread either at hand, but I think it was stiky in this section for a while so not that hard to find.
One of those I quite liked was 'points' based system, where every item has certain amount of 'construction points' and manufacturer would be able to arrange them as he pleases (within some reasonable limits) and ofcource there would be dimishing returns (ie. you have some sliders, that start at 'zero' and can be moved +/- X ticks to either way and every tick away from zero will yield/consume one more point than last one). Actual mechaniks of how those points are implemented (be it then just slider you can drag around or some specific materials you apply to move those sliders in positive or negative directions) is not that important, I just liked the relative simplicity of that proposal while still allowing reasonable amount of freedom.
|
Isobel Mitar
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:18:00 -
[55]
Some comments to the ideas by CCP Chronotis earlier. In general, nice stuff. Great that you're thinking about this side of the game. 
Meta manufacturing:
Being able to construct named variants with additional materials and skills sounds like a nice addition to the T1 production tree; I like this idea.
If this gets implemented, it is likely to increase the availability and lower the price of certain high-demand named items, particularly ones that are better than T2 variants (such as 1600mm RT plates or Hypnos multispectral ECM), require long long training times to use T2 (such as Arbalest cruise launchers) or with critical fitting requirement differences.
It would also affect the people currently making their isk from trading named items.
Changing loot drops:
This would certainly affect the demand for T1 items, but also the available mineral supply to build them. I believe for most players older than first few months majority of the loot (except for choice items) currently gets recycled either by themselves or by the loot buyer - if the mission runner even bothers to gather the loot in the first place.
Introducing barriers of entry:
Reducing build times by additional skills will affect most the market of products where factory time is the profit bottleneck - where traded volumes are largest and build times longest (and incidentally, also needed capital smallest, making it most likely entry point for new producers): Namely, ammo. Is this intentional?
Bit beside the subject, but: I personally do not advocate hard barriers of entry to a field. I believe one of the strengths of Eve as a game is that a new player with low-SP character can often with short training time start to add real value when working together with higher-SP characters in many different fields. (tackling in pvp, looting and salvaging in pve, hauling, market orders in trade and so on)
Shopfronts:
How would this be implemented? Alternate system to market and contracts? Modification of contracts system? Additional filters to already-existing market UI?
"The go to guys for all your product needs" is already happening in Eve to some extent with IG/OOG applications and tools; I know of several ordering systems in addition to the one my corporation runs.
As a side note: I do not believe shopfronts will affect the trade hub situation. Difficulty of logistics is what makes customers (and producers) go to market hubs - who wants to fly around gathering their purchases bit by bit? Tweaking the UI goods are sold with won't make moving goods any less a bottleneck and timesink.
Some ideas:
Being able to fiter market by option "within x jumps from a certain place" (not necessarily the place you currently are in) would be nice when trying to buy a set of items.
Eve could use more tools to help players (producers and customers) to build delivery services for goods, and making shipping a more competitive way of earning your isk. The current mechanism (hauling contracts) isn't working very well, partly because of UI issues.
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
The Elliance
Delta.Green
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 19:04:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 10/07/2008 19:06:07
Originally by: Jethro Amar
Rigging could rejuvenate production if it was more popular. For many ships rigs are useless, as they double the price of the ship but don't give double survivability. For T1 hulls it's sometimes 30M hull (fully insurable, so basically free for pvp), 20M fit and 30M rigs. Not practical at all. I'd rather like some 'low-grade' cheap rigs to put into cheap hulls or make rigs hullsize-based.
There was a thread a while back on this to request the introduction of sized rigs. Basically, the idea was that since rigs are only possess a feasible cost/benefit ratio on T2 cruisers and battleships that there should be a way to produce smaller rigs, using fewer components, for smaller ships. My take on the idea was Battleship = 1, Cruiser = .5, Frigate = .25 the cost, while calibration would be inversely proportional: Battleship = 10s, Cruiser = 100s, Frigate = 1000s. Smaller rigs would require more calibration, preventing their fitting for cheap on larger ships.
For unique manufacturing, rigging is definitely the way to go: You can produce or buy the standard T1 item, then run it though a simple manufacturing cycle or "plug in" the additional script to make it a specific meta. The only caveat with this is that to offer additional uniqueness to the market, would it be best to separate named loot drops and player made meta items, or should it be the same? Introducing manufacture of current meta items wouldn't add any real differentiation to the mix.
------------------------
Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Clansworth
Burning Sky Labs
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 10:53:00 -
[57]
META-Manufacturing:
I like it. To keep the missioners happy, perhaps instead of the rats dropping Named modules, they instead drop a similar run proportion of Named item BPC's, along with specialized (factionized?) meta-build components. After stabalization, supply of named modules would still be affected by loot-tables, but the added production steps would stabalize the market and provide more oppurtunities for smaller scale operations. These meta-bpc's would use the base meta-0 item, and a collection of the meta-components, to produce a meta-x item. This would allow small timers to still make the meta-0's, while more dedicated people could buy those meta-0's, and make the 'modified' versions.
POS Manufacturing:
Currently, POS manufacturing does offer advantages over station, but mostly in production time. The trade-off is the royal PITA it is to sit in the POS and operate it. The solution I see would be to be able to designate a structure (a specic array, or hanger) as the 'parts bin'. This would allow you to choose this as the input location, vice having to move input materials to the specifi array. This could also lend well to using supply chain management to start jobs remotely in your POS arrays. This would eliminate a lot of the PITA factor of POS manufacturing, and bring their productivity advantages to the forefront.
New Prospector Class |
Mika Meroko
Minmatar
Crayon Posting Inc
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 10:59:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Mika Meroko on 11/07/2008 11:05:09
the way I see it, the easiest way to go is with meta manufacturing and "customized" modules (which ironicly, will already be made in the database....)
IE:
make new entries in DB for the T1 medium laser (small):
for:
-Master grade Medium Laser: (small FIXED bonus on everything....)
-Overcharged Medium Laser: (small FIXED bonus on dmg... and FIXED penalty on cap use....)
-...
you see where I am going with this...
yeah... in a sense is creating MORE metas... but I can see it not being overkill on the database than truely "custom" modules...
PS: SWG's crafting system (pre-NGE) was nice...
but I feel sorry for the dev who have to balance it in eve....
and the dev that need the maintains the database....
Originally by: CCP Atropos
I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears.
|
Sopha Serpentia
Core Dynamics
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 11:54:00 -
[59]
request 1
I love this idea, diversifing and expanding the industry side of the game is only a good thing imho.
request 2
I don't like this idea too much. I wouldn't like to see the removal of loot drops completely, perhaps replace vinilla tech 1 items with a bunch of meta 0 tech level 0 named items that arn't manifacturable and are considerably worse to one degree or another.
That way tech 1 items sold by players are actually desirable as the only place to get them would be from buy orders, just like tech 2, this still leaves cheapskate players the choice of going out and "making do" with whatever the find on belt rats.
Actually I think the Dev in charge of industry mentioned this idea on a live dev blog, anyway I think crappy meta 0 items in loot tables would be a good thing.
Also you hit upon and issue with tags. YES more tags please ccp.
request 3
Another good idea, can only help the market as far as I can see and give player more ownership over thier products.
|
Caractacus Potts
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 22:37:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Sopha Serpentia
request 2
I don't like this idea too much. I wouldn't like to see the removal of loot drops completely, perhaps replace vinilla tech 1 items with a bunch of meta 0 tech level 0 named items that arn't manifacturable and are considerably worse to one degree or another.
That way tech 1 items sold by players are actually desirable as the only place to get them would be from buy orders, just like tech 2, this still leaves cheapskate players the choice of going out and "making do" with whatever the find on belt rats.
Actually I think the Dev in charge of industry mentioned this idea on a live dev blog, anyway I think crappy meta 0 items in loot tables would be a good thing.
Also you hit upon and issue with tags. YES more tags please ccp.
/agree to more tags
How about instead of crappy tech 0 meta 0 gear, we just get broken modules from wrecks instead? Things like "damaged 250mm railgun" that aren't usable by players, but can refine into similar minerals as the module from which it was based? Mineral supply/mineral income from missions remains the same and the occasional usable T1 gear and high meta-level gear could still drop, keeping things interesting.
Good idea? Bad idea?
|
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |