These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Manufacturer's Trademark
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Demyen
Araata-Teiva Kamloss
#1 - 2014-07-25 18:34:00 UTC
Whereas CCP is now doing the research and development work to bring us the long-requested ability to paint pretty colors and patterns onto our Internet spaceships;

Whereas the new SoE ships have lots of little logos of NPC companies painted on them;

Whereas all of these little logos look great and add subtle depth and immersion to the ships and the game;

Whereas Capsuleers manufacture their own Internet space ships;

Whereas real Capsuleer starship manufacturers would certainly want to paint their own logos onto the ships they build, use, and sell;

Whereas I just started a brand new corp for myself, put a lot of effort into my new logo and I think it looks pretty, swell, and super neat-o, and want to share it with the world and I'm sure others would like to as well;



Be it proposed that the speculative future Internet spaceship painting feature, or a post-rollout iteration thereof, or just whenever, include the following:


One to four locations on each ship where a small, unobtrusive corp logo, similar to the SOE ships' NPC logos, may be placed;

The ability for ship builders to choose, before starting a manufacturing run, whether to paint their own corp logo onto said tiny logo-spots;

The manufacturer's logo be permanent, affected by painting by subsequent owners only insofar as such painting might affect the base NPC logos on the ship.

Or by blowing up. Explosions are cool.



tl;dr: Ship builders' Trademarks please
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#2 - 2014-07-25 18:41:21 UTC
Whereas this would play havoc with the item database for a novelty benefit few will care about a week after launch...
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#3 - 2014-07-25 18:51:01 UTC
The problem, as always with idea, comes down to how ships are stored in the game's database.

When ships are packaged, they are just a numerical value. No ID, nothing that sets them apart from every other item of the same type. When a ship is assembled THEN it has a unique ID... but that is again lost as soon as the ship is repackaged.

This is why the "painted ships" are an entirely separate entry on the market. To add something unique to a ship that lasts it's entire life it must be placed in its own "special category." Otherwise, it cannot be traded on the market (the same way BPOs, BPCs, and damaged laser crystals are now... each one has entirely unique stats that will not allow it to stack with other items of the same type).


We can only speculate why the game was designed this way... but I will hedge my bets on limiting database and server overhead.


Gameplay-wise... I do not see the point. Yeah, I guess it can be a point of pride for some builders... but the reality is that very few people care where their ships come from. People like me only care that they are cheap and easy to ship out (which means packaged).

How did you Veterans start?
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#4 - 2014-07-26 09:45:19 UTC
It annoys me to no end when dealerships put their stupid logo on my brand new car. It's my car, if anyone's logo is going to be on it then it should be mine. Why do I want your logo on my brand new ship?

Answer me that and maybe I'll +1 you.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2014-07-26 10:23:34 UTC
There was a similar thread a couple of weeks ago, for some reason I just love the idea - if CCP could find an effective way to solve the database issues.

It would be even more meaningful if industrialists had a way - with relatively large investments - to slightly improve ships. A small bonus to a single attribute - say +5% armor or +5% laser damage - would be small enough to not break balance (I think) but give people a reason to pick and choose one manufacturer's hull over another's.

I don't know, maybe just too complicated - but it seems so awesome in my head. Lol

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Demyen
Araata-Teiva Kamloss
#6 - 2014-07-26 15:33:25 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
It annoys me to no end when dealerships put their stupid logo on my brand new car. It's my car, if anyone's logo is going to be on it then it should be mine. Why do I want your logo on my brand new ship?

Answer me that and maybe I'll +1 you.


Because, just like the small logos on the SoE and many other ships in EVE, it would be small and unobtrusive. Basically just an immersion factor; if you zoom in to your ship real close, you could see it, but otherwise it's barely noticeable.

ShahFluffers wrote:
The problem, as always with idea, comes down to how ships are stored in the game's database.


Well I'm not a programmer, so I don't know how database problems would be solved, nor do I care; that's CCP's job. The point of this post is to make the suggestion and measure interest. If our friendly neighborhood spiderdevs like the idea and see a way to implement it, hooray. If not, that would be too bad, but fair enough.

ShahFluffers wrote:
Gameplay-wise... I do not see the point. Yeah, I guess it can be a point of pride for some builders... but the reality is that very few people care where their ships come from. People like me only care that they are cheap and easy to ship out (which means packaged).


This isn't meant to be a big, useful gameplay feature, and I think thinking that every idea suggested must be *useful* is foolish at best, destructive at worst. SOME of us aren't bittervets yet and still like to think that EVE is real, is a compelling science fiction setting in its own right, that it should behave that way, and that when it's treated in that way, the game is made better. Manufacturers' trademarks would be for immersion and atmosphere only. CCP appear to agree with me, by the way; why else make busier stations sound busier; put Interbus and Kalaakiota branding all up in ISIS; or meticulously add cargo doors, drone bays, sensor suites and the like on their updated ship models, and then label them on the concept art? For example: Astero; Velator. These aren't useful gameplay features, so according to your logic, why bother?

Komi Toran wrote:
Whereas this would play havoc with the item database for a novelty benefit few will care about a week after launch...

ShahFluffers wrote:
This is why the "painted ships" are an entirely separate entry on the market. To add something unique to a ship that lasts it's entire life it must be placed in its own "special category." Otherwise, it cannot be traded on the market (the same way BPOs, BPCs, and damaged laser crystals are now... each one has entirely unique stats that will not allow it to stack with other items of the same type).


http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/ship-painting-pilot-program/

Please reread the sections labelled "Would you like to know more?" and "The future." Not only would the limitations of the current type ID system make my idea impossible, but also the ship painting system that we dream of as well. It's possible, maybe even likely, that the new system could enable manufacturers' trademarks with little to no extra work.

Dream big and don't shoot down ideas just because they're not technically tenable right now. The only question I'm asking my fellow Internet space ship captains is whether or not this would be nice to have.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#7 - 2014-07-26 15:49:33 UTC
Sounds very much like a repost.

I would also wait with all of this until we get the custom-ship-skin feature and see whats possible and what not.

I won't care about a manufacturers logo though, which doesn't mean it couldn't be menti.... well, forget about that, it goes the same way as the 'ship combat history' vanity feature, no use beyond ego stroking and incredible amount of work and server/database strain for nothing.

If they integrate logos for the unpackaged ship though and you could trade/sell logos for certain spots on the skin, hand them out as a producer for free and see if they are getting used or painted over (subsituted). After the skin is done you could have a few slots (like in the fitting window) to place logos.
Demyen
Araata-Teiva Kamloss
#8 - 2014-07-26 15:57:48 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Sounds very much like a repost.



Eh, I searched for similar threads before posting but didn't find anything. If you find one please let me know
Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
#9 - 2014-07-26 15:57:54 UTC
I think I would just be happy with a "Made by Gadget" stamp somewhere on a product. On any item that can be produced.
Seneraios that crossed my mind...


"Hey where'd ya get that T2 DCU?"
"Gadget made it!"
"Well, isn't that swell. I want a Gadget DCU, too!"


"YEAHYAH! Just bought me some Gadget Torps. Let's kill things!"


Le dude scanning ships in Jita...
"Hey, boss. There's a Worm over there ripe for the takin'. Wanna kill it?"
"No."
"Eh? Why not, Boss?"
"'Cause that noob right there is in an Iteron."
"Um, Boss... it's empty."
"So, It's made by Gadget, and I hate that b****!"


Branding is everything, and while a logo might be cute, a name would mean much more, and probably be easier to implement if it were just text.

--Gadget

Work smarter, not harder. --Scrooge McDuck, an eminent old-Earth economist

Given an hour to save New Eden, how would respected scientist, Albertus Eisenstein compose his thoughts? "Fifty-five minutes to define the problem; save the galaxy in five."
Mario Putzo
#10 - 2014-07-26 16:42:06 UTC
Go go Gadget.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#11 - 2014-07-26 20:11:18 UTC
Demyen wrote:
[quote=Alvatore DiMarco]Please reread the sections labelled "Would you like to know more?" and "The future." Not only would the limitations of the current type ID system make my idea impossible, but also the ship painting system that we dream of as well. It's possible, maybe even likely, that the new system could enable manufacturers' trademarks with little to no extra work.

No.

The only technical limitation with ship painting is divorcing the skin from the TypeID. It's a legacy issue, nothing more. Plenty of other games have figured out how to keep skins seperate from the items, and Eve already has the basic infrastructure to support it (assembled ships are their own unique DB entry).

What you basically want to do is throw the distinction between assembled and packaged ship out the window.

And this isn't a case of "dream big." It's a fricken logo that no one will notice. It's not worth the effort to even hold a meeting to discuss it, let alone actually perform the required DB overhaul.
RavenTesio
Liandri Corporation
#12 - 2014-07-26 20:21:23 UTC
There is actually a good few threads on this... and each time I've stepping to explain.

Anyone saying "This is stupid because of the technical limitations", should actually go view some archive Fanfest Keynotes.
CCP have actively said that the ability to provide a feature that adds a signature to an item not only is possible, but actually you use it every single day.

Have you ever had an item that has had damage, and regardless how long it take you to go back to it... it remains in your hanger and / or ship with that exact same damage?

That is because every single item in-game is UNIQUE... sure they are technically just a Type ID number to the base item, but in order to make sure that every anchored item in space, every modules or even every piece of ammo is capable of retaining damage; or being sold by an individual not a Corporation / NPC - there is a system in place to ensure that every single item has unique properties just for that item.

Adding something like "Manufacturered By..." would literally be a case of simply adding a new index to check. And just like Kills or Corporation History that were around prior to the update; they would simply have a 'blank' field.

The reason this isn't a part of the game is because right now, there is absolutely no gameplay or even real vanity reason for it.
A Caracal that I make would be exactly the same to a Caracal anyone else in this thread makes.

So really all you would be doing is adding more fluff information that people just won't care about.
There needs to be some meaningful reason as to why Player X will only boy Corporation Y products, and with the currently industry there is just no reason for that.
Gaijin Lanis
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2014-07-26 20:25:17 UTC
While everyone else seems to be arguing about the coding requirements of such a thing, I'd like to take a more practical approach.

I would consider having someone else's signature on my property a negative selling point. You would have to cut your prices 10-20% to get me to even consider buying anything with someone else's name on it. As I feel that is akin to buying something I know someone else had wiped their ass with. If with-mark and without-mark were both available, you would be locking yourself out of a market and your competitors would likely make more money.

The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#14 - 2014-07-26 20:57:34 UTC
RavenTesio wrote:
TThat is because every single item in-game is UNIQUE... sure they are technically just a Type ID number to the base item, but in order to make sure that every anchored item in space, every modules or even every piece of ammo is capable of retaining damage; or being sold by an individual not a Corporation / NPC - there is a system in place to ensure that every single item has unique properties just for that item.

Will you look at that? I corrected your misunderstanding 10 minutes before you posted.
Demyen
Araata-Teiva Kamloss
#15 - 2014-07-26 21:03:19 UTC

RavenTesio wrote:
So really all you would be doing is adding more fluff information that people just won't care about.
There needs to be some meaningful reason as to why Player X will only boy Corporation Y products, and with the currently industry there is just no reason for that.


That's not the point.

To repeat myself:

This isn't meant to be a useful gameplay feature. Thinking that every idea suggested must be *useful* is foolish at best, destructive at worst.

Yes, it's fluff. Yes, people do care about fluff.

It is okay to care about fluff, and it is okay to not care about fluff.

It is not okay to declare that fluff is *bad* just because you happen to be ambivalent to it. If CCP didn't care about and actively implement fluff, New Eden would be a much less interesting setting than it is.

RavenTesio wrote:
There needs to be some meaningful reason as to why Player X will only boy Corporation Y products, and with the currently industry there is just no reason for that.


No there doesn't. Again, you're missing the point entirely.
Gaijin Lanis
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2014-07-26 21:25:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Gaijin Lanis
Demyen wrote:
Again, you're missing the point entirely.
The point is you want to be able to rub your genitalia on everything you build and have people fly around with your smegma on the crap they buy.

Ya know, to put it bluntly.

Which I can understand. But I'm against this simply because I don't want to have to sift through gallons of smegma'd products to find something buy.

The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all.
Demyen
Araata-Teiva Kamloss
#17 - 2014-07-26 22:04:54 UTC
Gaijin Lanis wrote:
Demyen wrote:
Again, you're missing the point entirely.
The point is you want to be able to rub your genitalia on everything you build and have people fly around with your smegma on the crap they buy.

Ya know, to put it bluntly.

Which I can understand. But I'm against this simply because I don't want to have to sift through gallons of smegma'd products to find something buy.


Cynic.
Gaijin Lanis
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2014-07-26 23:38:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Gaijin Lanis
Demyen wrote:
Cynic.
Only when it comes to other people's smegma.

I mean, its not like a maker's mark could confer any sort of tangible bonus. Therefore it would just be smegma.

The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all.
Demyen
Araata-Teiva Kamloss
#19 - 2014-07-27 16:59:34 UTC
Gaijin Lanis wrote:
Demyen wrote:
Cynic.
Only when it comes to other people's smegma.

I mean, its not like a maker's mark could confer any sort of tangible bonus. Therefore it would just be smegma.



In the real world people and companies who make things put their brand on the things they make. This ranges from large, colorful styling that becomes part of the product's decoration to small, unobtrusive etching or tag. EVE is and should be real, and all I'm arguing for is the conservative side of the branding spectrum.



Your posts have been very self-superior, Mr. Lanis, and it seems you're more interested in waving your own superiosity (in your own words, smegma) around than making a constructive argument. You're welcome to disagree with an idea, and argue against it, but don't insult others on the forum by self-projecting; you have 7500 star systems in which you can show off your wonderful phallus with impunity.
Gaijin Lanis
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2014-07-27 18:58:01 UTC
Demyen wrote:
In the real world people and companies who make things put their brand on the things they make. This ranges from large, colorful styling that becomes part of the product's decoration to small, unobtrusive etching or tag. EVE is and should be real, and all I'm arguing for is the conservative side of the branding spectrum.
In the real world, a maker's mark is a reference to the skill of the maker and the quality of the product. Since that is all uniform in EVE, an entirely new industry system would have to be implemented where the skills of the manufacturer translated to the quality of the product. Which sounds good in theory, but in practice would just mean higher barriers to entry for industry. As "low grade thorax made by [whomever]" simply wouldn't be marketable.

Thus, smegma.

The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all.
12Next page