open All Channels
seplocked Science and Industry
blankseplocked All that is MANUFACTURING ...
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

MOOstradamus
Posted - 2003.06.17 20:39:00 - [1]
 

Simple ideas to consider ...

All Blueprints (even Originals) should expire - whether this be after a preset number of items produced or a time limit is a minor detail.

The number of Blueprint copies made from an original must be limited.

Rental of Factory Slots should not only be expensive (market forces driven) but limited in number at the very least to the Mass Production skill per person.

Manufacturing of ships should not take mere minutes (for Frigates) or a few hours (for Cruisers). These are significant game items so please can we have them feel like it again and require not only an appropriate amount of resources for such a major project but also involve a significant production time factor as well.

The ability to remote cancel factory rental would be warmly welcomed too or at least an e-mail inquiry from the Station owners, after a predetermined length of inactivity, asking whether or not the slot is still required.


Radical/Complex proposed change:

Instead of periodic rental (daily/weekly etc ...) how about rental per batch or project respectively. This way the facilities are only out of reach to others whilst they are actually in use. Pricing of goods would certainly be influenced by such a scheme and fees could either be mysteriously set in stone (as they are now) or perhaps based on a percentage of the value of the BP end product +/- various SEC status and faction rating modifiers. It all depends on how complex you want the system to be ...


Edited by: MOOstradamus on 21/06/2003 20:58:21

MOOstradamus
Posted - 2003.06.18 18:12:00 - [2]
 

* BUMPing *

*EDIT: A reminder for people such as VAMPIRE below *

" Ideas to consider ... "

I appreciate the personal attack btw and might I add, also the excellent job you did of explaining and reasoning your own point of view ...

Furthermore ships that already exist won't change and hence everyone who has a BP for one (well the top Frigates and Cruisers at least) has nothing to fear in the future. There is no Punisher mkII etc ...

And finally - are these the same market planners/DEVs that allow a few, albeit talented, solo players to earn in excess of 100 million ISK a week that you have so blindly/unquestionably put your faith in ??


Edited by: MOOstradamus on 19/06/2003 09:53:22

Vampire
Posted - 2003.06.18 18:53:00 - [3]
 

Posting the all BP should have an expiration date, and that we should lenghten the time requirment for building ships is all well and good, but If you are going to post such a game impacting suggestion, how about throwing in some friggen type of resoning behind it. Our would you expect us all to take your word as absolute? I would argue that there is no reason to have BP expire, the products themselves are not permenant and as new BP's hit the games economy there will be a period where few have the BP and can make a killing in the market. The same item's BP will become more commonplace and the price will drop, and finally become an item built for marginal profit. Does this sound strange, or unusual? Could it possible be that this occurs in the Marketplace all the time? NO WAY! Perhaps the designers of this vast global market placed in the world of EVE forsaw this, or perhaps you did not.

Vultan
Posted - 2003.06.18 21:23:00 - [4]
 

Sorry Moo, I have to say that a time limit on BPs would not have a desired effect on the economy that I would want to see.

Since I do not do a lot of manufacturing, a few things, I was not aware that ships took mere minutes or a few hours. I have noticed that what I do build seemed to be not what I was expecting in terms of time but I'm such a minor player in it I did not think it through.

Having had it pointed out to me now I have to say, "Are the Devas NUTS!" Time is a huge factor in economies. Will I suppose that it was some bad idea that sounded good at the time kind of thing. I'm sure it's one of those things that will never be brought into line. *sigh*

Remote canceling of any rental would be a good thing. They may one day get around to it. I wish they had a Deva page for what they are working on/priority.

MOOstradamus
Posted - 2003.06.20 12:43:00 - [5]
 

* BUMPing *


Edited by: MOOstradamus on 20/06/2003 12:43:04

White Dwarf
Black Knights
Posted - 2003.06.21 11:09:00 - [6]
 

I would like to add my 2 cent on this matter.

I would really hate to see BP's expire. Maybe even copies, but I would find it annoying to have a BP worth 100 Million disappear after a few months. Just because we built a fleet of 10-20 ships from it.

The slot Rental I agree with you that it should be limited to the single char's or the Corps. total able to controled slots.

The problem with ship building has never been the time but the minerals to build them for instants a Moa Cruiser would need 30 fully loaded Indys (with a Cargo hold of 3636 m) of ore, to make it. It then takes 3 hours to build. this means that a rather small division of a corp. has to mine for atleast a day, find rare ore and refine all of this. Before one of the members can set the production in motion. Same goes for most ships even frigates take some time to get the minerals for. But they take at the lowest I have seen with level 5 industry at least an hour on average 1-2 hours. Yes these things might not be alot for the ships but they keep the game fairly fast paced and the prices lowered. Which most people like that fact, if I could only produce 2 Frigates a day I would make sure that I make atleast twice what I do today, its that simple. If your aim is to make the prices increase this would diffently do it.


Jojin
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2003.06.21 15:04:00 - [7]
 

BLUEPRINTS:
I agree the number of blueprint copies should be limited. This is relevant by watching the trade channel and having seen physical commodity demands drop and become supplemented by purchasing blue print copies. Also, from a financial and human work effort perspective, if you want to make a profit and are patient, just put in the blueprint and start coping it. Then you have a permanent income source, which requires no real effort on your part. In fact creation of an alternate character to do the copies would be even better.

Now from a single person perspective it is quite lucrative, but those who profit from manufacturing will not like this as it raises their competition quickly and at less cost. So they see the only option is to join into the reproduction wave. Pretty soon, we have everyone making copies where there role of being the builder becomes somewhat obsolete as their profit margin is so low, it is no longer enjoyable to play. Instead everyone is their own builder, with a few exceptions.

Add upon this, the possibility of exiting blueprints being enhanced, and it is a critical business decision. For example one must then consider does he/she make the maximum number of copies of the blue print at this point, or save the slots for later after the blueprint is upgraded in tech levels. This way, those in desperate need of a financial boosting can choose to sell their copies for immediate gains and those who prefer to wait will also have gains as their blueprint (through research time and manufacturing) has evolved to a new level and copies at this level are worth much more. Again though, the decision to wait or to cash in on what they have exists.

In summation, I believe it would be beneficial to all in the long run to limit the number of copies a blueprint can produce in its lifetime. If this limitation is very low (3-5 range), then the need for copy destruction will not be required as there will still be a finite number and with research upgrades, copies will become obsolete themselves.

MOOstradamus
Posted - 2003.06.22 22:14:00 - [8]
 

* BUMPing *

Alvin
Posted - 2003.06.23 02:16:00 - [9]
 

Factories need not be rented by the person that uses them. At worst, the limit should be based on the sum of manufacturing skills available in the corporation, not the one character.

And you really need to allow a few more for growth, and perhaps some for mobility.

I'm more in favor of geometrically increasing prices forcing people to limit themselves rather than a hard-coded limit.


Falnaerith
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2003.06.23 07:49:00 - [10]
 

How would you limit the # of slots for rent if the person is in a default corp, ie a school one, with almost unlimited slots b/c of the amounts of people in them?

Falnaerith
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2003.06.23 07:56:00 - [11]
 

One example of the exploit of that idea is leaving your corp, buying the slots, then re-joining.

Darklogan
Posted - 2003.06.23 23:42:00 - [12]
 

From what i know there should be since the beginning a limit to number of copies but it never worked.

3 type of bp: originals, copy 0 and copy 1.

The first are droped, the second are bought on market, the third are made from the first 2.

The difference between this kind of bp should be that from original can be made how many copy 1 I like and the first one will be a copy 0.
The copy 0 can be used to make 3 copy 1.
Copy 1 are the normal copy which can be used only to produce.

I think that if they finally make work this it is enaugh to balance bp diffusion.
Limit the number of ship/item from a bp is not necessary.

MOOstradamus
Posted - 2003.06.25 12:45:00 - [13]
 

* BUMPing *

Ulendar
M34t p0p s1ckle Manufacturing
Privateer Alliance
Posted - 2003.06.26 11:10:00 - [14]
 

Ive also heard nothing but the fact that unlimited copys were never ment to be...ive also heard that the developers did this to kickstart economy in EVE..

I think the kickstart in now over and that now the economy is starting to fail because of the unlimited copying of bp's.

I think copy should be limited to 10 orso copy of the original. Also research should me more valued. That way bp copys become less valuable.

Lets face it...the main reason why anyone would like an original now is because you can make back 10 times its worth be copying it!

MOOstradamus
Posted - 2003.06.27 18:54:00 - [15]
 

* BUMPing *

Relic
Posted - 2003.06.29 22:49:00 - [16]
 

"economy is starting to fail because of the unlimited copying of bp's."

The only thing failing in the economy is the ablity for builders to maintain masive profit margins on the items they build. For example the Rupture needs about 4.2M of minerals at current market prices, but builders seem to feel that the original 10M+ prices are "fair" prices. So apart from suppy and demand, what other factors control its price. For the buyers of these ships they want the price as low as possible - after all it is them who want to buy the ships and maybe lose them.

Any 'controls' on BP copying will result in more original BPs being placed into the market in the first place. Also there is a maximum number of customers in this game so a limited market. Even if there were just 100 rupture BP's available, if used 24x7 by their owners the total market could own a ship each in 2 weeks.

Relic

Jojin
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2003.07.01 03:54:00 - [17]
 

I agree the abundance of blueprints is not the sole factor in the degrading of the market. In fact the market is changing to handle the over abundance of blueprints in circulation. Now, for many players, the cost efficient choice would be to purchase the blueprint over the purchasing the product. This way they can produce as many of the product as they like at the lowest possible cost.

Continuing down such a road, will only lead the elimination of the builder market and the economy will be mineral based. Given sufficient time, it would not be impossible to consider the elimination of blueprints altogether. A new system could be implemented where any player just takes ISK or minerals to a factory, dumps them in a pushes the button for item of choice and out pops the product.

The market will adapt to the situation, the real question is do we wish to have such a change occur or do we want to ensure there is a role for everyone to play and keep things diverse. If this is what is desired, then something needs to be done about the abundance of blueprints. Additionally, even more needs to be done to make it so everyone is not qualified to produce all products just by inserting a blueprint and sufficient minerals.

Balan Nadeer
Amarr
Murkon Prime Interstellar Productions
Posted - 2003.07.02 16:00:00 - [18]
 

The problem is not the number of ships or other items that can be produced from a BP, it is that there is no entropy in the game. Things should wear out and when damaged beyond a certain point not be able to be repaired and never repaired to 100%. Each time it is repaired the item should degrade further. This way everything will need to be replaced eventualy.

Dianabolic
Reikoku
Posted - 2003.07.03 12:13:00 - [19]
 

Original BP's should never wear out, in the world of eve surely they would be in a digital format that would never degrade?

Copies, on the other hand, would be issued by the original owner and THEY should be able to set limits on its durability.

ie 10 products or 3mths, whichever is sooner.

MOOstradamus
Posted - 2003.07.04 23:07:00 - [20]
 

* BUMPing *

Doppelganger
Gallente
Warspite Developments
Posted - 2003.07.05 17:28:00 - [21]
 

I think that more individuality between BPs is needed...

EG, a character with 5 EE levels should be able to do SOMETHING to a BP that would give it, say, 5% more power through their understandig of electronics. Or someone with lots of gunnery could give it better tracking speed by suggesting to someone a better placement for turrets. The differences would be minimal (at most 5->10% max) but could be cumulative (eg more than one special ability) so at some point you would have to pay a premium for a "X brand" ship or a copy of their most excellent blueprint.


 

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