open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Enhancing Production, Promotion Marketing and Business Relationships
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:26:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Ricdic on 25/06/2008 16:33:48
This is one of the things I have been pushing for as a potential change with CCP. The notion of being a trader, of being known as a good producer and someone who can truly market their product.

Warning : Incredibly long post, gets more to the point towards the end

Not so much that you have the cheapest item. Unfortunately it's rather difficult as generally Eve is a buyer's market. There are very few items compared to players. The market is very static in that it doesn't allow you to see who you are selling too until after the sale has taken place.

This completely removes the customer service experience and is kinda why i have distant hopes for ambulation.

Normally called the 5 P's in marketing/sales are :

* Product,
* Price,
* Place (location),
* Promotion,
* People,


In Eve, very few of these can be used.

Product generally has no ability to be unique or different to another person's product. Once upon a time I would have called T2 unique in this context. An example of unique may be a rigged battleship, or a named/faction item, however due to their rarity and/or inability to be produced (or in rigs case, the cookie cutter only designs) it can be very difficult to run a business focused on these product/s.

Price: I mentioned before with price that it is a buyer's market. Due to there being no rarity in market goods then you can just about guarantee the best possible purchase price on most items you buy. The price changes that occur are related to mineral and moon mineral fluctuations however they generally affect all producers prices, not just individuals. However there are multiple negative ways (imo) that affect this balance. Those would be loot drops and people mining their own minerals to therefore make a higher (perceived) profit.

Place: There is somewhat an ability to run your business using location to your advantage. Obviously selling in a high customer area is one option however you have higher competition (Jita) whilst selling in a lower population area with lesser competition may prove more fruitful (0.0 outpost etc). Whilst you can’t necessarily market your product you can compete with the market.

Promotion. There is very little in the way of promotion of goods available in Eve. The closest we have right now is the WTS forums and some small (barely known by the general population) websites. We want the ability to rent billboard space, to somehow have an option to make our product stand out from the rest not some cluttered forum. I am kinda hoping that Ambulation will really shine here.

People. Our customers, our life-force. There can never be customer focus without the ability to distinguish between your customers. The current market encourages blind purchases. There is no optional shopping. You may be providing income to a warring alliance you are trying to beat by buying off them however it’s impossible for you to determine they are the ones selling too you. For all the promotion in the world you do, someone can go to your station and accidentally buy off someone else. There is currently no way (short of web sites, contracts, and non-market services/transactions) for someone to promote their market product to the general population.

Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:27:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Ricdic on 25/06/2008 16:36:02
Speaking a little more on this. Some people believe

"If you mined it or bought it cheaper off another it shouldn't mean you can sell your product cheaper as you could make those funds off selling the raw product rather than finished".

Now, I agree to a point. However in the real world all businesses look to source the cheapest suppliers in the products they want. Why? Because then they can offer their product possibly at the same price but with improved attributes or in some way superior options.

For example. Mr Whippy (ice-cream truck driving company) buys it's chocolate mixes for $4 a barrel. It can make 40 ice-creams to a barrel. It sells an ice-cream for $1. Therefore it is selling a barrel for $40 or $36 gross profit. However Mr Whippy isn't accounting for advertising, fuel costs, staff salaries and the likes, so let's say the net profit comes out to about $10 a barrel (after costs). Ok, so Mr Whippy finds someone selling the same quality barrel to suppliers at $3 per barrel. He chooses to buy barrels off the new supplier. Now, he could resell those barrels at a 25% mark up at $4 if he wanted.

But of course he likely won't mark up and resell his barrels. He may instead decide to give everyone a chocolate flake on their ice creams at $0.10 per flake. His profit margins have still increased however his item has just become more desirable, and therefore his product quality has increased.

Long story short, there is no way to have such a thing happen in Eve. We can't make our products look better or perform better, or be more aesthetically pleasing. We can't even (sometimes) sell our products at cost price as other people are finding barrels of chocolate mix on the side of the road (loot drops) and selling them as fast as possible for whatever they can get. (part of request #2 further down)

We need ways to make our product unique. We can promote competition but it needs to be on the same level.

Using the Mr Whippy analogy, I can source my prices cheaper off a mining corp of through the use of buy orders. So in Eve supply can be obtained through existing avenues. However leading onto production is an extremely static tree. Tech 1 items have an incredibly bland career path, that being Production Efficiency 5. Mass Production also allows faster production. Within a month you can build with the same level of performance and skill that someone in the production game for years.

This is ludicrous. In RL I would be furious if I had a large scale manufacturing plant and employee’s who had been doing their job for years and years, then a large competitor opens up down the road and his trainee employee’s have the same skills and proficiency as mine. Using another analogy I wouldn’t expect a recently trained bricklayer fresh out of college to be able to build a house with the same efficiency ,quality, and speed as me who had been in the building industry for decades.


Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:28:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Ricdic on 25/06/2008 16:36:45
My proposal has many angles and many options

Request #1

Increase the skill path in Eve for T1 & T2 production. Don’t nerf anything, simply allow higher proficiency in different areas. Allow new skills (just like all the rigging ones) that give minute increases to different areas of ships and modules. For example :


1mn Afterburner I BPO
Manufacturing
Required Skills:
None

Optional Skills:
Astronautics Production
Thruster Technology Production


These skills aren’t required, however a “Show Info” on their skills lists the items having a 0.25% per level reduction in mineral costs. Now, the 1mn AB sells in Jita for 4,499 isk. Assuming that was the build cost and assuming you were specialised in these skills both at Level 5, then you could build your item for 4,386 isk. It’s only a 2.5% reduction in cost however it will add up and become significant if you focus on your specialisation. I would suggest these skills be Rank 2 or Rank 3.

Now, these are just skills for a single item. The skills can benefit multiple different items such as the T2 variant of this item or ships, nanofibers, mwd etc. I think it would actually be quite easy for CCP to implement something like this, as every skill has the same values attributed to it, and every bpo (based on type etc) has different sectors or tertiary production options.

Now, it gets really interesting when looking at things such as ship bpo’s. A battleship for example may have 5 or 10 governing optional skills. Assuming you had all 10 skills at Level 5 this would result in a 25% decrease in mineral cost of the ship which is rather excessive however seems fair for someone who has devoted almost a year of skill training to be able to produce with such proficiency on this ship.

Just like with PvP it really should take someone a decent amount of skill to be able to produce on the same level as someone who has been doing it for years. But the beauty of this setup is that a new person can show up, and only spend a month focusing on proficiency with a very specific item allowing them to capitalise off their chosen area of specialty. That’s really the whole idea of this proposal:

Allowing proper dedicated producers to have proficiency over someone who spent a 20 days training a single skill. Allowing the producers to have the ability to specialise in specific fields.

In RL the guy who builds houses isn’t automatically also a Ferrari builder or able to construct a road. In RL there isn’t one degree that teaches you how to build everything in life. Now I know Eve isn’t RL however it can be governed by similar principles.
Now, this doesn’t nerf the current person with Production Efficiency V. They will still build with exactly the same proficiency as right now. However anyone with specialties/optional skills trained will get a slight upper hand depending on the training they have undertaken.


Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:30:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Ricdic on 25/06/2008 16:37:55

Request #2

My second request would be to remove T1 loot drops from NPC’s. Focus more on tags or some other form of redeemable coupon/item that is resellable. Loot drops of T1 items negatively affect multiple areas of industry:

1) They result in mission runners selling their goods well below cost price
2) This affects both sellers and producers
3) When reprocessing , and selling the minerals this negatively affects the miner industry as it devalues the price of minerals and in turn ore.

I would suggest keeping named and faction loot in the tables. Just remove the T1 loot





Request #3

My third request would be for CCP to look into ways to personalise the ability for traders and salesmen to promote their products. This may be through something simple such as the ability to purchase off a specific order with the seller’s/buyer’s name listed, or the ability to filter your purchasing/selling items to those within certain variables (don’t show if at war) etc. More advanced would be through such uses as billboards, player advertising in-game somehow or even station adverts.

Even a “Notices” section in the station whereby you click and see different special offers and promotions being done by other players in the station. Those selling these products or services would obviously need either good station standing or have to pay a fee (even a recurring fee) in order to place their notice.




Closure

These are a couple of things I have been really hoping CCP might consider so I threw them into a post which I hope at very least gets people thinking on different ways we can improve the industrial aspect of Eve or at least enhance the aspect to allow more depth for those seeking true specialisation abilities. I would love to see some discussions on these points and other related ones. Obviously my ideas aren’t the best ideas.

If you think something should be considered differently please state so and how you believe it could be improved. People who simply state “It won’t work” or “It’s a crap idea” shouldn’t waste everyone’s time postion here without stating an alternative or reasoning behind your opinion.


Please don’t criticize unless you have read the whole post as it devalues your contribution.

Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:31:00 - [5]
 

reserved Cool

Shar Tegral
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:44:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Ricdic
1mn Afterburner I BPO
Manufacturing
Required Skills:
None

Optional Skills:
Astronautics Production
Thruster Technology Production

Here's an idea for you. To counter the cookie cutter syndrome have production incorporate a chance for "named" item creation. The higher the skills, the higher the chance of "named" items being built in your production run. Of course I'd follow this up with the idea of adding some substandard "named" items as well.

Invention is not the only place we can have "chance" outcomes.

Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:48:00 - [7]
 

I did consider something like that Shar however I thought it would then devalue Mission runner's and the named loot drops. We would kinda be taking from one field and giving to another if you know what I mean

procurement specialist
Posted - 2008.06.25 17:12:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: procurement specialist on 26/06/2008 16:05:47
to request #1 this simply means more people will train their alts in the new skills and then lower the price farther from newbies who have only managed to train peV so far setting a new bottom at either the melt item and build new ships for insurance pay out or lowering the floor price even more. Also how will the database track that fewer minerals were used to prevent buildign and refining of items for excess mins by those of us who have trained perfect refining.

request 2 is covered in multiple threads already and i don't want to repeat too much.

request 3 is covered in multiple threads already but i love it too much to leave it alone. I do love the idea of of sell only to corp,alliance,blue though. also a frequent buyer discount amount would be fun. let it display so even if my prices start slightly higher if you want to buy a large amount from me i become cheaper. Enable browse by seller to display everything i have on market if you wish to buy from me. I think it was shot down for db strain however.

to the named item creation request. http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=789258 creat meta bpos and allow these skills to affect creating new items. a main skill that has to be meta level +1 and a secondary skill that has to be to meta level. meta 4 items require primary at V and secondary at 4 so are very skill intensive to build while meta 3 (2nd best) is not terribly more painful. Could use existing skill requirements for t2 items.

post link to a previous thread of mine about altering production for reference.

Ishikari
Posted - 2008.06.25 17:29:00 - [9]
 

I really like the idea of specializing in a particular item type. Ships *should* take longer to specialise then module/module types. Industry really does need a bigger skill set, and these ideas look like a fair way to do just that.
I can forsee the forum whines tho about percieved nerfs to producers, but change always goes over like a lead ballon anyway, so that won't be avoided.

I thought I read somewhere a while back that they wanted to do shops in ambulation. I also was reading that ccp wanted to do sommthing with industry come the next expansion. I hope some of these ideas make it in.. even if they are adjusted a bit.

Sharpclaw
Caldari
Precision Collision
ISK Six
Posted - 2008.06.25 20:46:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Ricdic
Edited by: Ricdic on 25/06/2008 16:37:55

Request #2

My second request would be to remove T1 loot drops from NPC’s. Focus more on tags or some other form of redeemable coupon/item that is resellable. Loot drops of T1 items negatively affect multiple areas of industry:

1) They result in mission runners selling their goods well below cost price
2) This affects both sellers and producers
3) When reprocessing , and selling the minerals this negatively affects the miner industry as it devalues the price of minerals and in turn ore.

I would suggest keeping named and faction loot in the tables. Just remove the T1 loot


It's a crap idea. Okay, got that out of the way... Razz

1) And this is bad how? Some people manufacture with those minerals so it allows them to build cheaper. Others, like myself, reprocess and sell the minerals. More minerals on the market means prices go down and manufacturers can buy their materials cheaper. If mission runners don't know the value of their loot then the only ones they are hurting is themselves, not industry.

2) Fewer minerals on the market will affect sellers and producers. Agreed. Minerals will become a lot more expensive and it will take miners a long time to ramp up and make up the difference. The amount of minerals that would 'disappear' if there were no T1 drops would be staggering. In fact this would be a double hit to mineral prices because not only would we loose the minerals from the reprocessed mods but we would also need huge amounts of minerals to build those same T1 mods to sell on the market, build into T2, etc.

3) It does hurt the miners. However the huge mineral loss from no more T1 loot would force tons of people into doing one of the single most boring activities in this game, shooting a rock with lasers. (The single most boring is shooting ice with lasers.) It's not like there aren't already macro programs out there that plenty of miners already use to make money while they are at work or sleeping, etc.

Mineral prices would jump big time, make production logistics a lot harder, drive up costs on everything, and you would probably see a whole lot less pewpew going on because everything would be more expensive to replace. You've probably forgotten more about Eve industry then I know but I really just don't see any sense in getting rid of T1 loot other then to make miners all powerful. Neutral

Mr Horizontal
Gallente
Posted - 2008.06.26 10:50:00 - [11]
 

On skills

Before I discuss skills specifically, I'd like to add that in addition to current T1 and T2 modules, I'd like to see more racial separation between the modules.

For example, currently MWD's are Minmatar modules, but I think there should be a Gallente, Caldari, Amarr and Minnie MWD, with the Minnie one being the best in this case and the Caldari one being the worst. These would all have the T1/T2 variants and use their specific T2 components required by that race.

Each one of these is affected by a Racial Industrial Specialization skill, and you need to train this to III to build T1 and V to build T2. So for example, to build Minnie MWD I's, you need Minmatar Industrial Specialization III.

Similarly the Starship Engineering skills people already have should have this as a prerequisite to V. This'd mean this skill needs to be introduced prior to a patch requiring it so people requiring datacores won't suddenly have a shortage by not having trained this skill.

Now in addition to this I would make Frigate, Cruiser and Battleship Construction skills all necessary for T1 production first:

Frigate Construction III -> Allow T1 Frigates
Cruiser Construction III (Requires Frigate Construction III) -> Allow T1 Cruisers
Battleship Construction III (Requires Cruiser Construction III) -> Allow T1 BS's

Then For T2 production, then we introduce Specialized Construction skills, whose learning path is a bit like gunnery skills, in that you have to learn the Frigate Specialization skill first before you can do the Cruiser Specialisation skill etc, ie:

Specialized Frigate Construction IV (Requires Frigate Construction V) -> Allow T2 Frigates
Specialized Cruiser Construction IV (Requires Specialized Frigate Construction IV and Cruiser Construction V) -> Allow T2 Cruisers
Specialized Battleship Construction IV (Requires Specialized Cruiser Construction IV and Battleship Construction V) -> Allow T2 BS's

Then we should also introduce a set of Tier 2 skills categorized by market group, for example Mechanic V -> Mechanic Specialization, and Engineering V -> Engineering Specialization.

Modules would require one or two of these skills. For example, T1 MWD's would require Navigation Specialization III, while T2 MWD's would require both Navigation Specialization IV and a secondary Engineering Specialization IV for example.

T2 ships on the other hand, in addition to their specific specialisation skill should also require the 'market group' specialization skills for what the general purpose of the ship would be, as is pretty well defined by their T2 variants.

Now in answer to the production Waste issue, a new skill 'Specialized Production Efficiency' should be introduced that basically allows the large-job wastage issue to be reduced to 0.

So by example, to build a Minmatar MWD I you would need:

Minmatar Industrial Specialization III
Navigation Specialization III

And for an Arbitrator, you would need

Production Efficiency V
Amarr Industrial Specialization III
Frigate Construction III
Cruiser Construction III

Then with the T2 variants, for a Minmatar MWD II, you would need:

Production Efficiency V
Minmatar Industrial Specialization V
Navigation Specialization IV
Engineering Specialization IV

And for a Curse you'd need

Production Efficiency V
Amarr Industrial Specialization V
Frigate Construction V
Specialized Frigate Construction IV
Cruiser Construction V
Specialized Cruiser Construction IV
Engineering V
Engineering Specialization IV
Electronics V
Electronics Specialization IV

Mr Horizontal
Gallente
Posted - 2008.06.26 10:51:00 - [12]
 

Finally, in conjunction with point 3, and as has been mentioned before there should be some form of Manufacture-time rigging we could introduce. As a prerequisite to use this, Jury Rigging needs to be trained to V, and a new skill 'Manufacture Rigging' needs to be trained as high as possible, as well as the skill that currently determines the rig.

Then you can put conventional T1/T2 rigs into the manufacturing process, but the maximum effectiveness of these rigs is halved (or however much game balances requires). These are also affected by ME and Waste, and say you have Manufacture Rigging IV and Astronautic Rigging IV, and put in a Polycarb rig into the production of a ship, which has a base 15% decrease. This is first halved to 7.5%, and then affected by the skill levels. So they'd get (15/20)*(4+4) (the 4's represent the skill level of Manufacture Rigging and Astronautic Rigging), giving only a 6% mass reduction. Stacking penalty also applies when more than 1 rig is put in.

As an additional limitation, T2 rigs can only be put into T2 ships.

On T1 loot being dropped

Couldn't agree more. Keep named and faction modules as drops.

Nothing that can be produced should drop and nothing that drops should be able to be produced.

On Product Differentiation

There have been multiple ideas for this, but branding and a form of rigs that are put into the manufacturing process are the best options. I've already discussed putting rigs into the mix above in point 1.

Branding should simply be the corp logo attached to the side of the ship, with the name of the corp as well.

But it should also be a 'shop' in the market, which is literally just a text area like people's bio. You can then search brands both the conventional way by finding the item (and the brand appears as an extra column in the market browser), or by searching the brand specifically, in which case you'd see the shop 'bio', and a list of all the items and stock they produce underneath.

To set up a brand, introduce a new skill in the Corporation Skills section simply called 'Branding', and in the Trade section have a new skill called 'Brand Awareness' which allows the brand to be visible in Station all the way up to Region wide...

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2008.06.26 14:48:00 - [13]
 

Nice well constructed post! Let's see if my reply can get a good thread going.

These topics were also presented and discussed at the CSM and something that is being discussed internally currently.


Control Over Products

The most common request of industrialists is greater control over their products. Currently that control and flexibility resides with the owner by fitting modules but the possibility of allowing a manufacturer to customize their ships further is a very common request.

The extreme version would be an eve ship creator with the flexibility and power such that the only thing determined from the beginning was the ship hull and everything is blank. You then proceed to add your impulse engine, warp engine, jump drive, reactor, CPU, weapon banks (slots), defensive systems (shield/armour) and so on until you have literally constructed your own new ship.

This version would certainly be the most fun however would also be the most technically challenging solution which makes it unlikely. I cannot speak much about the technical challenges as I am not a programmer. Hellmar touched on this during a live dev blog last year when the question of true ship customization was asked there. From a design and balancing point of view, it would be extremely difficult to ensure that the components of every ships and the bonuses provided were correctly balanced and added up to a combination that makes a reasonably balanced ship.

but there is other possibilities..

One of the ideas we are considering is meta manufacturing. It is something we have talked about before. This relies on CCP authoring the variants in advance but then you would gain the ability to manufacture the meta types of a product.

An example method would be a Mega Pulse Laser I Blueprint. The blueprint would be able to have alternative products, the blueprint could manufacture the four T1 metas such as the Modal Mega Pulse Laser for example. The difference would be a longer build time and requirement for additional components skills or other materials in addition to the T1 build requirements. The new components would come from NPC loot or LP store in the case of faction variants for example and be refinable.

It would also be relatively straight forward for us to then introduce other metas such as T2 metas reliant on advanced components for example by making those meta types as output options on the T2 blueprints.

Would be interesting to see what you all think of meta manufacturing anyway.


The Economy - market, prices, efficiency

It is indeed a buyers market. This very issue was something Hammerhead, EyjoG and myself were discussing this week and what possible options we have in which we can break out of the classic MMO deflationary cycle in a reasonable way or if it is even possible given character advancement and increasing efficiency over time.

There are options we are looking at to affect supply. The first one which would go hand in hand with meta manufacturing would be to remove or reduce completed items from loot and replacing with the components required to build them instead so all or most items would be manufactured. This would certainly work wonders for the T1 market where players starting out have very few opportunities in an already extremely efficient market with generally razor thin margins (though there is many exceptions to this) to try and get a foothold.

The second possible partial solution is something I discussed with the CSM, introducing some barriers to entry. This could be skill based in making manufacturing reliant on skills such as ammo/module/component/frigate/cruiser construction and then adding in additional effects to having those skills such as less manufacturing time per blueprint category rather than what we have now which is only the ability to affect all blueprints.


CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2008.06.26 14:49:00 - [14]
 

Your variation which is greater efficiency by skill is interesting but faces some challenges, namely reprocessing. We cannot currently allow an item to be manufactured more efficiently than the base cost as this is what the type will reprocess to. To allow greater efficiency, we would have to cap reprocessing at 90% of base cost for example or introduce an additional waste margin per blueprint which is only reduced by these new skills. The failings of the current system and problem would be that you could generate materials from building an item efficiently and then reprocessing it to gain more materials than were used to build it.



Visibility, Commodity Market vs Shopfronts

This is something we were debating internally and the merits and drawbacks of each approach. On one hand, an unbiased order matching system for all commodities and their products where you have to compete only through price offering a limited range of products allows for good liquidity and volume trading due to the limited number of products creating a very efficient marketplace has its plus points. It is also bad in that rather than allowing the provision of a service, it forces you to sell products individually and also encourages the creation of marketplaces like jita more since location matters so much being the only other variable to price and volume.

The contracts system whilst functional is far from a marketplace or shopfront service. I would certainly love to see a shopfront webstore type service and advertising service added similar to the likes NAGA use for example and allow corporations to build names for themselves as the go to guys for all your product needs.

Essentially what I am advocating personally and nagging my peers in Game Design for is an ebay style system where you can also setup stores and a basket ordering system would certainly help the pain of shopping for items so you can find and buy multiple items at once.

The question of the commodity market (current market) then in my mind is that it should be only for commodities rather than products. So things like modules and ships would come from a discreet warehouse (which individuals could supply to if like the market now) or shop front based service with a powerful enough search engine and UI which handles searching for archetypes rather than exact products such as a search for a warp scrambler would also search for its variants and so on.

In summary

I like the ideas and we are discussing them internally, whilst each of them like any change carries pros and cons we have to weigh up. It would also be good to have a discussion here about these topics as well.

Kii Ry
Posted - 2008.06.26 15:23:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Your variation which is greater efficiency by skill is interesting but faces some challenges, namely reprocessing. We cannot currently allow an item to be manufactured more efficiently than the base cost as this is what the type will reprocess to. To allow greater efficiency, we would have to cap reprocessing at 90% of base cost for example or introduce an additional waste margin per blueprint which is only reduced by these new skills. The failings of the current system and problem would be that you could generate materials from building an item efficiently and then reprocessing it to gain more materials than were used to build it.




It is certainly nice to see this being looked at and discussed. I just wanted to reply to this point though.

You could include on each object in eve a 'construction efficiency' paramater which is the ratio of 'base cost' to 'real cost' used when building.

If that number is >1 then ignore it (or use it if you like) whereas if it is <1 then you can modify the reprocessing results so you only ever get back the same amount you put in.


To be honest the one area that's crying out for more skills is invention where we really need something, anything, to break the very linear relationship between decryptors.

Essentially everyone who knows what they are doing has a spreadsheet showing the cost of building and inventing a ship. From that you can work out price bands for the decryptors and ships themselves which tells you which decryptor is best to use and what the final build cost is.

That figure is the same for everyone - and there is no way to change it. If there were skills or implants or something that can be used to change things that would open up so many more options.

For example a +2 runs implant, a +2 ME implant or a +4 PE implant all in the same slot - so you have to choose which one you plug in which then changes the decryptors.

How about extremely long training time (the same sort of skill rank as cap ship skills) and expensive skills (with high reqs) that boost the ME and PE.

Invention Metallurgy - Rank 15, +1 ME to invented BPC per level
Invention Research - Rank 15, +1 PE to invented BPC per level

You could even have advanced skills i.e.:

Gallentean Starship Engineering (does as now).
Advanced Gallentean Starship Engineering (req GSE 5, adds +1 to ME of invention jobs requiring GSE)
Mechanical Engineering (does as now)
Advanced Mechanical Engineering (req ME 5, adds +1 PE of invention jobs requiring ME)

Something would be nice :)

Wannabehero
Wayward Ventures
Posted - 2008.06.26 15:59:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

One of the ideas we are considering is meta manufacturing...

An example method would be a Mega Pulse Laser I Blueprint. The blueprint would be able to have alternative products, the blueprint could manufacture the four T1 metas such as the Modal Mega Pulse Laser for example. The difference would be a longer build time and requirement for additional components skills or other materials in addition to the T1 build requirements. The new components would come from NPC loot or LP store in the case of faction variants for example and be refinable.



Yes please. More variety in manufacturing will be most welcomed by all of the eve community I imagine. Manufacturing meta's would be very nice.

My only suggestion would be to not have the same blueprint used to manufacture all the meta levels of a tech 1 item, but instead include new skills in the science tree, similar to invention but without the requirement of datacores or the chance based pass/fail system, that permit characters to convert tech 1 BPC's into meta BPC's, with the build time and efficiency costs determined by the meta level of the item and the specific skills of the 'inventor'.

It might be possible that the type of meta level BPC that you cook up when converting a meta 0 BPC is random, but a successful meta is produced each time with lower chance of production the higher the meta level, but higher level meta production probability could possibly be improved with additional skills. This would introduce another sub-profession to the science field.

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

There are options we are looking at to affect supply. The first one which would go hand in hand with meta manufacturing would be to remove or reduce completed items from loot and replacing with the components required to build them instead so all or most items would be manufactured. This would certainly work wonders for the T1 market where players starting out have very few opportunities in an already extremely efficient market with generally razor thin margins (though there is many exceptions to this) to try and get a foothold.



You have mentioned before in other threads about including an intermediate step to manufacture between minerals and modules/ships, that of construction components. I think this is a wonderful idea and would love to see it implemented.

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

The second possible partial solution is something I discussed with the CSM, introducing some barriers to entry. This could be skill based in making manufacturing reliant on skills such as ammo/module/component/frigate/cruiser construction and then adding in additional effects to having those skills such as less manufacturing time per blueprint category rather than what we have now which is only the ability to affect all blueprints.



More skills to allow specialization is also an excellent idea, one which I believe has been tossed around on these forums for a while. Besides reducing construction time, allow these skills to increase efficiency and thusly profit, as Ricdic suggests. To prevent refinery exploitation, increase the base mineral inefficiency of the blueprint to match the benefit gained from the maximum skill bonus. This would allow specialists to compete more in their niche of the market.


procurement specialist
Posted - 2008.06.26 16:14:00 - [17]
 

post

i think that a barrier to entry into the market is bad. at the same time how do you allow specialists or high sp people to be more effective. The easiest to implement (from my understanding) is the meta bpo variant. Currently it has been mentioned that the item can only be created by 1 blueprint and vice versa so new meta bpos would need to be created. If this was changed where they could be done on the same bpo it would be more ideal.

If components were added to t1 manufacturing requiring new cheap bpos then all the current bpos would need modified. I think this a better long term solution for fun but really I was pretty exhaustive discussing this stuff in my linked post.

Manfred Rickenbocker
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2008.06.26 16:25:00 - [18]
 

Interesting stuff. Ive always thought of this market resembling something as perfect competition: low/no barriers to entry, absolute product catalog, price ruled by supply and demand with few absolute floors and/or ceilings. It is true that the marketplace has become quite complicated for both consumer and producer, and the complexity stems from an over-abundance of supply not due to the actual market mechanisms.

A lot of MMOs handle the price situation using NPC intermediaries and fixed pricing. While this helps remove excess inventory from the world, it also creates monetary supply issues. While this is levied by the fact that you can only sell things for a fraction of the full item price, the over supply issue produces excessive amounts of cash. Luckily money (ISK) isn't the only currency in Eve: minerals are a currency as well since nearly all modules can be refined to base elements. It reminds me of the original Diablo game where you could only hold 5k gold in a single pile. Every game you would end up with a ton of gold littering the ground because you couldn't hold it all. This is how I equate minerals.

The only two processes by which EVE has to remove minerals from the market is through A) waste (refining & manufacturing) and B) item destruction (ship loss, ammunition consumption, trashing). In fact, most every person probably holds more in mineral assets at any given time than the liquid ISK in their wallets. The reason keeping that market from falling apart is people tend to keep spares of everything they can find just in case (a.k.a pack-rat syndrome). I know my hangars across Eve have stuff I haven't seen or used in a good long time. Similar to ISK, there need to be more mineral sinks. Should things degrade from lack of use? How about each item taking damage over time (but never really being destroyed)? Is that fair? That only answers the B) side of the equation and clearly people would become extremely upset if their stuff suddenly disappeared. That leaves the A) side.

Since Eve is a buyers market, people want to buy low cost. This forces manufacturers to try and be as efficient during production as possible: high ME/PE BPOs, waste reduction skills, etc. Clearly, producers would be equally miffed as the pack rats if their manufacturing costs were to suddenly increase overnight (reference the outrage over perfect ME BPOs during last year's expansion). This leaves us with refining.

Introduce more waste into refining. During real manufacturing, things are always permanently changed: burning wood to ash, you cant refine ash back to wood. This way you cant get all the mineral cost back. But wait, this can hurt miners and people out in 0.0! Make refining raw ore perfectly efficient. This should give mineral miners a leg up in the market over mission runners and ratters, but still make those perfect refine skills highly worth it. Psychologically, if you reduce the "unrecoverable" number for modules, module refiners probably wont even notice for the most part. As for 0.0 people, make Empire stations incur the module refining penalty, but player outposts and POS refineries more efficient. In a way, this can encourage more people out of empire for increasing efficiency.

I hate to end with that, but thats pretty much all I can think of for the moment (and Im magically out of post space!).

Stealth Edit: another mineral/item sink I thought of during writing this is the consumption of minerals to repair items. Right now repairing damaged ships and modules is 100% perfect and uses ISK. While a good ISK sink, people might be more inclined to quick-scrap their loose modules for minerals if they can be used for repair. Add in a mineral quote to repair cost and let people choose whether they want to repair using mienrals or ISK. Also give them partial repair options, so they can repair 50% with minerals, and fill in the blanks with ISK.

procurement specialist
Posted - 2008.06.26 16:33:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: procurement specialist on 26/06/2008 16:36:33
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
Introduce more waste into refining. During real manufacturing, things are always permanently changed: burning wood to ash, you cant refine ash back to wood. This way you cant get all the mineral cost back. But wait, this can hurt miners and people out in 0.0! Make refining raw ore perfectly efficient. This should give mineral miners a leg up in the market over mission runners and ratters, but still make those perfect refine skills highly worth it. Psychologically, if you reduce the "unrecoverable" number for modules, module refiners probably wont even notice for the most part. As for 0.0 people, make Empire stations incur the module refining penalty, but player outposts and POS refineries more efficient. In a way, this can encourage more people out of empire for increasing efficiency.


eliminates purpose of refining ore skills except for equipping t2 minin crystals. I would only accept this is empire stations went to 35% refine. also I spent a lot of months training for ark, bis, scrapmetal 5 and the 4% refining implant to be a refining specialist in 0.0. Goonswarm has several who have trained peoople such as myself to do this and we do it professionally for nominal fees. Not a lot of peopel melt their own loot when they know one of us lives around.

Manfred Rickenbocker
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2008.06.26 17:04:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: procurement specialist

eliminates purpose of refining ore skills except for equipping t2 minin crystals. I would only accept this is empire stations went to 35% refine. also I spent a lot of months training for ark, bis, scrapmetal 5 and the 4% refining implant to be a refining specialist in 0.0. Goonswarm has several who have trained peoople such as myself to do this and we do it professionally for nominal fees. Not a lot of peopel melt their own loot when they know one of us lives around.


I thought perfect refine was 5/5/1? Anyway, this wasnt supposed to really affect people out in 0.0, but rather that they should stay the same. We have a few people in our alliance that do the same thing as Im sure every alliance does. The problem of mineral overproduction doesnt come from 0.0 anyway, it comes from empire where there is relatively low risk for high profit. One of the issues discussed by the OP was the lack of unique-ness in the market that helps promote competition above and beyond the penny undercutting that now occurs. To be honest, the only real problem I can see with this is that it will cause an increase in named loot on the market, driving down prices, and making T1 modules look even less attractive than they do now (its common to see T1 mods sell for MORE than named due to manufacturing costs). A question I'd have for Dr. EyjoG is this: what percentage of market minerals come from mining vs. refining?

Another interesting solution comes to mind: low-quality minerals. For example, instead of normal tritanium you get from refining modules, you get low-quality tritanium. Pure minerals would only come from asteroid ore. The use of low quality minerals would have no real impact on the quality of the finished good, however their consumption would be greater and there would be a chance they incur other penalties, such as increased manufacturing time.

CPark Finner
Posted - 2008.06.26 17:24:00 - [21]
 

With regard to specialized items, store-fronts and cottage industry…

Some items, like the ‘Orion’ Tracking CPU I, have plug-in scripts, like the tracking speed script. These enhance a particular attribute of the item’s capability with a corresponding decrease in another attribute of the item. If I understand correctly, they were introduced as a balance / strategic decision modification to the game a while ago. The significance of scripts to this discussion is that at least the outline of a customization mechanism exists for individual items.

Perhaps it could be extended so that characters with appropriate skills could research and build scripts for any characteristic of an item but the item would have a limited number of script slots and the scripts, like rigs and implants, would be destroyed when removed. Or perhaps the script could not be removed at all. Once installed it changed the item forever. Alternatively, it might take a special skill to insert and remove item scripts just as rig usage has requirements.

The script research outcome could be a combination of skill, input materials, a random chance of success and a random magnitude of targeted outcome. Serendipity might also be added – producing an exceptional magnitude of effect or a different effect than expected.

Play balance could be maintained by limits on number of item slots and magnitude of script effects.

procurement specialist
Posted - 2008.06.26 17:44:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
I thought perfect refine was 5/5/1? Anyway, this wasnt supposed to really affect people out in 0.0, but rather that they should stay the same. We have a few people in our alliance that do the same thing as Im sure every alliance does. The problem of mineral overproduction doesnt come from 0.0 anyway, it comes from empire where there is relatively low risk for high profit. One of the issues discussed by the OP was the lack of unique-ness in the market that helps promote competition above and beyond the penny undercutting that now occurs. To be honest, the only real problem I can see with this is that it will cause an increase in named loot on the market, driving down prices, and making T1 modules look even less attractive than they do now (its common to see T1 mods sell for MORE than named due to manufacturing costs). A question I'd have for Dr. EyjoG is this: what percentage of market minerals come from mining vs. refining?


refine and refine effic V gives 99.5% in 50% station. refine V, refine effic V, refine (special) V, and 4% implant give 99.39% refine in 35% stations. :D more specific info now. we are both correct.

Deviana Sevidon
Gallente
Panta-Rhei
Butterfly Effect Alliance
Posted - 2008.06.26 19:47:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Deviana Sevidon on 26/06/2008 19:49:41
An idea that might be a bit radical and hard to balance at the beginning but would research and production a lot more interesting:

Let people make direct changes to BPOs but also limit the amount of changes that can be done. Introduce modificators that could be added to a ship during a research job on the BPO and are later part of the BPO, so that every ship produced from it has the modificators.

Modificators are things that are added to a BPO, that increase some abilities and lower others, while drastically increasing build cost and take a long research time. The modificators are a bit like rigs for a BPO, but cannot be removed once integrated and take a long time to be researched.

Modificator Examples:
Anti-Proton Injectors. A change to the main reactor, so that much of its output is directly brought to the engines. However this comes to the cost, that the energy flow to all other systems suffer from this modification and a critical system failure is likely if the engines are overheated.

Base Speed +30%.
Capacitor Recharge, Shield Recharge, Powergrid -30%.
Additional Heat Generation of all Speed affecting Modules + 500%.
Building costs: +40%


Gravity Lense
An extensive modification of large parts of the ships subsystems, to replace them with focused graviton field generators. These generators do nothing by themselves but provide a powerful boost to certain modules:

Removes one of the ship bonuses and replaces it with a +10% bonus to stasis webifier and warp scrambling modules, for each level of ship skill.
- Additional capacitor consumption of all propulsion jamming modules +150%.
- Increases ship mass +100%
- Additional building cost of ship +350%.


You see the logic here? It is a build in modification of the ships BPO. One thing that would be important is that, the more changes are made to ship design the longer it takes and each mod should increase the research time exponentially. So just piling up changes to a design would be possible but not viable, because changes that would create a super rifter, would also take years of time to research.

This would allow producers to create their own brands of ships. Maybe everyone would just die to get their hands on the new super rifter, or the new breed of anti-nano mallers would be the new top sellers of eve.

This could even be a boost to pirates and mercenaries, when a modified ship can be traced to certain producer corp, then pirates might try to extort the modified BPO from them and as a responce the producers might have to hire mercenaries for protection and a share of their profit.

Wayward Hero
Gallente
Wayward Ventures
Posted - 2008.06.26 20:34:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Deviana Sevidon

*Idea to alter BPO's to change attributes of the manufactured item*



Interesting idea in theory, would require massive analysis for balance, other ideas to allow modification of blueprints to modify the items they produce have been made before.

In general, such changes would be better implemented to BPC's not BPO's, so as to limit availability and increase value through scarcity of these heavyily modified items.

procurement specialist
Posted - 2008.06.26 20:59:00 - [25]
 

Component Freeform = Complete Freeform
Component freeform is a further step past mineral freeform. Using prefabricated components you can design and assemble your own items. Take a Caldari battleship hull and select your bonuses from the list of Caldari battleship racial abilities (ewar per scorpion, guns from rokh, and missiles from raven) and then add turrets and components to taste. At some point you will have diminishing returns as to add more speed would require bigger engines which take power grid away from other systems which requires a bigger reactor which increases ship volume and requires the current armor be spread out over more ship so increasing ship armor plating increases mass once again and you are slower than before you started. Balancing is largely impossible externally in this system. Players will determine the best base builds be it an 8 launcher super raven that moves 2 m/s but has 16k hp shield base or by leaving off almost all shield emitters and armor plates from a frigate hull can make a fantastically fast frigate. After designing said ship players will begin a research job based on the number of components selected to create a new bpc/bpo of their idea.
Pros: complete freedom. Developers no longer have much balance work to do. The players will discover effective counters on their own.
Cons: complete recreation of current system. Not practical in the extreme. Market orders will be a nightmare. No standard fleet will exist except by alliances producing mandatory use bpos/bpcs of the ships they want there people to fly.

i said it in my linked post. It would be horrendous to implement but does offer the most freedom.

SeptimusCurtius Tacitus
Posted - 2008.06.26 21:25:00 - [26]
 

I wondered about producer being able to build meta-level items - why not keep it simple and just have the better combination (read longer to train) the better the meta-item they could produce.
Deviana I like your idea but fear it may be to complicated though it could lead to some interesting 'unique' (and expensive) ships if Wayward Hero has his way and you could only modify BPC's.
My own thought would be slighlty more radical but hopefully simpler.
At the moment all regular 'named' meta items (excluded faction/pirate/officer) are just simple slightly better versions of the previous from T1 until you reach a T1 equivalent of T2 (without the special bonuses).
If EvE is a sandbox why not make the meta item a choice of tactical preference rather than wallet - one type better range (for snipers), one with better tracking, one with better grid/cpu use, one with more damage.
If what you could manufacture is related to skills then you could train skills to produce different metas for your choice of market.
Personally I would like this kind of a meta idea applied to ships as well - one meta with better firepower (one more high?), one with better tanking (one more low/med for armour/shield plus making armour/shield thicker minus gun/missile) and a middle one with better recharges, more grid/CPU, maybe more mids if armour tanker, lows if shield tanker (wildcard setup)
Your ability to build depends on skill - better levels with armour type skills can make 'tanking' metas...

While I really like the idea of 'component freedom' personally I believe right now it would be a nightmare of lag/huge database - thought when the technology matures to a point that the data base could handle it then it should be implemented ASAP. For now generic 'metas' are our best option (read simplest, most realistic with limited resources).

I agree refining from 'built' items whats to be looked at (should not be anywhere near as effient to try and salvage materials from a 'used' machine)
Not sure about stopping T1 drops from missions, maybe just make them rarer or added salvagable minerals/parts instead that can them be sold to make new equiptment (hopefully without denting a mission runners income to much). I doubt an increase in minerals/unknown new materials by salvaging them from wreck would dent a miner’s pocket to much as it is already happening. It may accutally be a solution to the high price of tritanium by increase supply making miner seek rarer ores again (would love to see havestable belts go to being easy to find exploration sites rather than fixed in a system BTW).

As to advertising, CCP already shows faces (with bounties) on the boards so why not company/individual selling goods?
Might be an idea to see if you could change the market to show who is selling/buying (orders) an item and give the option to set bulk buy/return shopper discounts (qudos to someone above that I can't find in all the text!)

But whatever is decided (or not as the case may be) KEEP IT AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE (for a huge number of very wise reasons I will not go into)Very Happy

Feng Schui
Minmatar
Cruor Evertum Dominicus
Posted - 2008.06.28 02:34:00 - [27]
 

I think a step in the right direction, which could be done with a little added code, is in the Ambulation expansion.

Currently planned, so far as I can tell with the little information that has been disclosed, is that the players, corporations, and alliances will be able to rent a room in the station, and set up shop, whether its a bar, hangout, club, whatever.

Anyways, why not also have a store-front that the players could purchase, and sell their goods in there. That way, we have the "store front" everyone is looking for.

Of course, you can just go through the market and purchase directly from the market as well, but eh.. this is a start.

On a side note, is adverts for products. All I see, day in and day out, are the same jpg's on the concord billboards. Why not have an ability to submit a jpg (within dimension and size constraints) through the eve-online website, link it to the API, and each week the "Ad" runs, it costs XXX isk? (It could also be used in ambulation on the TV's within the station).

Of course, there would be station, solar system, constellation, and regional Adverts, all with their different pricing plans.


That'd be pretty cool.

Caractacus Potts
Posted - 2008.06.30 15:02:00 - [28]
 

Loving this thread. Hating it being on page 4 in the forum. So up to the top it goes!

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2008.06.30 17:44:00 - [29]
 

Excellent post OP.

I think the "personalistion" of product is key here. Whilst that might not be possible at the modular level - I certainly think its feasible at the ship level.

Allow manufacturers to create modules through a "graded" BPO - A BPO + basic mineral requirements produces a bog standard, or even sub standard T1 Module. Using better minerals (and possibly other items) creates the meta or named modules. The rarer and more expensive to core ingredients the more expensive and time consuming the item production becomes (diminishing returns) and requires higher skills specific to that module group.

Now allow players to fit those modules onto a ship and 'stamp' that ship with their brand name. e.g "The VITOC MkVIII Arbitrator". The producer can add their own product description and the module load out can be referenced by the purchaser (incl skill requirements). This kind of facility I would suggest wouldnt be 'market based' but by through established retail outlets (perhaps as part of ambulation). So a retailer would need to advertise their latest product via bill boards, station adds etc, and the product bought on site. Such retail sites would operate much like Corp Offices with high rental costs in busy systems (average of player population / time).

Now at the 'pre-stamping' phase with suitable skills the producer can effect the ships attributes (grid, cpu etc) allowing slight variations to the vanilla model. The ship cant fly 'pre-stamped' and once it is the modules are 'locked down': just like rigs but it does allow for a 'better' ship to be produced within boundaries.

So now you have more unique ships - advertisable as such:

"The VITOC Mk VII Arbitrator is customised for optimal performance. Fitted with a state of the art YF-8 MWD and 1600mm steel plate II it also sports no less than THREE Medium diminishing Nosferatu (full specifications provided below). Only available as a limited run bespoke vessel from VITOC Shipyards in Fensi. 17.5m ISK. (Drones not included)".

The ability to modify a specific attribute could lead to 'master craftsmen' emerging - perhaps even selling their services - rather like the sword smiths of the samurai era?

Just some thoughts.

C.


Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2008.06.30 18:28:00 - [30]
 

I'd say go with meta manufacturing, possibly adding more variants at each meta level. It'd be a good start while allowing time for planning greater things.


Pages: [1] 2 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only