These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Remove repacking?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#1 - 2014-11-25 17:04:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Amarisen Gream
Hello CCP and Capsular's,

The other night, I was thinking that it would be nice to see some additional changes in-game mechanics.

Point 1: Remove repacking from the game.

Why? I believe if CCP is able to code or willing to change it this could just ease up some in-game life stuff.

How? How will players be able to move their ships around

Introduce a Ore Industrial that specializes in moving ships.

Name: Tug-boat (Maintains feature where only ammo/drones/charges can be in ship cargo bays)
Role: Moving battlecruiser sized hulls and smaller ships.

If we used the current "repackaged volume" we could set the number of ships it could move.

for example with Ore Industrial I-V the ships could move (updated numbers)
Frigates - 6-12-18-24-30
Destroyer - 3-6-9-12-15 (one half the number of frigates)
Cruiser - 1-3-4-6-7 (one quarter the number of frigates) [this needs some work to make it worthwhile
Battle Cruiser - 1-2-3-4-5 (one sixth the number of frigates)


How will we transport Battleships and Industrials?
An additional ship would take this place or leave it to the Bowhead

Now for the fun part
Introduce the ability for ships with current SMA to allow players/pilots to "dock" with the ship. Then the "mothership" could warp/gatejump/wh or whatever form of travel they want and take the whole group with them.

i.e.
Orca
Replace SMA with 10 Docking Bays (limited to Cruiser sized hulls or smaller)
This would allow an Orca pilot to fleet up with some friends and travel as a whole to their location.

Rorqual
Replace SMA with 15-20 Docking Bays (limited to BC/Industrials or smaller hulls. Might restrict that more)
This would only matter if the Rorqual is ever updated to where it is was "wise" or had to be use it in an belt.

Bowhead
Replace SMA with 10 Docking Bays (limited to BS, Industrial and smaller)
Just think of the ability for an Incursion fleet to dock up in their Bowhead to travel a long way and ether remain docked up in the Bowhead for travel or travel in a different ship to aide in travel.
Image the look on gate campers when that Bowhead they just attack deploys BSs and Logi.

* Include changes to Carriers, Supers and other ships with SMAs. Change POS SMA rays to Docking Bays and limit number of ships based on size.

** This Docking Bay would have no limit on what is inside they docked ships bays.

*** This is a first pass on the idea.

Contrastive feed back required!

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
Vadeim Rizen
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2014-11-25 17:17:19 UTC
So, you want to remove repackaging ships from game?

I was going to try to come up with a witty response as to why this is stupid, but i'm not witty.

No.
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#3 - 2014-11-25 17:30:57 UTC
Vadeim Rizen wrote:
So, you want to remove repackaging ships from game?

I was going to try to come up with a witty response as to why this is stupid, but i'm not witty.

No.


I'd prefer to just remove repacking all together and for everything, and make hauling/size changes along with it.

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#4 - 2014-11-25 17:32:37 UTC
Amarisen Gream wrote:

How? How will players be able to move their ships around

Introduce a Ore Industrial that specializes in moving ships.

Name: Tug-boat (Maintains feature where only ammo/drones/charges can be in ship cargo bays)
Role: Moving battlecruiser sized hulls and smaller ships.

*pinches nose*
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=384682&find=unread

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#5 - 2014-11-25 17:33:26 UTC
Amarisen Gream wrote:
Vadeim Rizen wrote:
So, you want to remove repackaging ships from game?

I was going to try to come up with a witty response as to why this is stupid, but i'm not witty.

No.


I'd prefer to just remove repacking all together and for everything, and make hauling/size changes along with it.

why?

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#6 - 2014-11-25 17:40:47 UTC
Repackaging does have a purpose to lessen load on the database. Repackaged items are no longer individual entries but truncated placeholders for items. So they take up less space in the database. Assembled items have all the attributes in the database as they are required for use within the game mechanics and need updating and calculating within these. Thus they use up more space in the database.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Mehrune Khan
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2014-11-25 17:43:56 UTC
They would need to drastically increase the cargo size of all industrials to make up for it. Otherwise traders would be flying bigger ships to the trade hubs and flying shuttles back. Think of all that extra running around.

I don't have anything against repackaging ships. Considering that spaceships would be mostly empty space inside it makes sense that you could tear them down to make room and build them back up someplace else.
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#8 - 2014-11-25 18:29:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Amarisen Gream
First and foremost! Thank you for the feed back.
And this is a place to hash things out to see if or why it would be an improvement.

Abrazzar wrote:
Repackaging does have a purpose to lessen load on the database. Repackaged items are no longer individual entries but truncated placeholders for items. So they take up less space in the database. Assembled items have all the attributes in the database as they are required for use within the game mechanics and need updating and calculating within these. Thus they use up more space in the database.



Just for argument sake.
A database is just 0s and 1s. The difference is how it connects to other aspects of the code.

When it comes down to databases the repackaged ship and unpacked are each their own. 1 and 1. By, eliminating one of the versions (packaged) you decrease the number of database entries.
Now with EVE. Taking all items you can repackage (minus containers - they can be special) your talking about hundreds if not thousands of Database entries (CSM Summer Summit report said by the time they get done with changes to modules, we'd see about 200-300 less items in game) . If you removed the "packaged" version from the database, you would in effect reduce half the database. Smaller database normally means you have faster response times when processing information, as there is less to look through.
Now I could see your point if there was a performance difference between the two versions, and it would have to be something major. As with the current and continually progressive improvement of coding languages, OSs, hardware and such, the two database entries could have totally different effects when comparing them among a broad range of hardware and software options.

>>sorry if my thought process is a little messed up. getting tired<<

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#9 - 2014-11-25 18:33:13 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Amarisen Gream wrote:

How? How will players be able to move their ships around

Introduce a Ore Industrial that specializes in moving ships.

Name: Tug-boat (Maintains feature where only ammo/drones/charges can be in ship cargo bays)
Role: Moving battlecruiser sized hulls and smaller ships.

*pinches nose*
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=384682&find=unread



If you had read my post, I include the Bowhead.

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#10 - 2014-11-25 18:36:03 UTC
Amarisen Gream wrote:
First and foremost! Thank you for the feed back.
And this is a place to hash things out to see if or why it would be an improvement.

Abrazzar wrote:
Repackaging does have a purpose to lessen load on the database. Repackaged items are no longer individual entries but truncated placeholders for items. So they take up less space in the database. Assembled items have all the attributes in the database as they are required for use within the game mechanics and need updating and calculating within these. Thus they use up more space in the database.



Just for argument sake.
A database is just 0s and 1s. The difference is how it connects to other aspects of the code.

When it comes down to databases the repackaged ship and unpacked are each their own. 1 and 1. By, eliminating one of the versions (packaged) you decrease the number of database entries.
Now with EVE. Taking all items you can repackage (minus containers - they can be special) your talking about hundreds if not thoughts of Database entries. If you removed the "packaged" version from the database, you would in effect reduce half the database. Smaller database normally means you have faster response times when processing information, as there is less to look through.
Now I could see your point if there was a performance difference between the two versions, and it would have to be something major. As with the current and continually progressive improvement of coding languages, OSs, hardware and such, the two database entries could have totally different effects when comparing them among a broad range of hardware and software options.

>>sorry if my thought process is a little messed up. getting tired<<



Yeah, it's more than a little messed up.

Let's call a repackaged rifter identity X. EVERY single rifter that is repackaged is in the eyes of the server, X. One base entry for all of them, with each packaged rifter pointing to that same definition X.

Now each assembled rifter has to have it's own identity. It has to have a decription telling the server what it is, who owns it, and if it is insured, among other things. Now EACH and every assembled rifter has to have it's own separate entry with that information, it's own identity.

Every packaged rifter is database entry X, but no assembled rifter can share the same reference point that way with another assembled rifter.

TLDR: It really doesn't work the way you are thinking it does.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#11 - 2014-11-25 18:44:43 UTC
And the market?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#12 - 2014-11-25 18:57:09 UTC
Read the stickies and you'd know they are (finally) releasing a ship that can move packaged ships.

As for why packaging is necessary, it's because certain attributes are necessary to define an item.
Say you have 4 unpackaged MWDs. a database listing is something like this:
Mwd 1: 0% damaged
Mwd 2: 0% damaged
MWD 3 0% damaged
MWD 4: 0% damaged

when you package it it becomes
MWD x4
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#13 - 2014-11-25 19:09:41 UTC
Xindi Kraid wrote:
Read the stickies and you'd know they are (finally) releasing a ship that can move packaged ships.

Finally? We have freighters for a lot years now. Do you mean unpackaged?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2014-11-25 21:35:48 UTC
Amarisen Gream wrote:
First and foremost! Thank you for the feed back.
And this is a place to hash things out to see if or why it would be an improvement.

Abrazzar wrote:
Repackaging does have a purpose to lessen load on the database. Repackaged items are no longer individual entries but truncated placeholders for items. So they take up less space in the database. Assembled items have all the attributes in the database as they are required for use within the game mechanics and need updating and calculating within these. Thus they use up more space in the database.



Just for argument sake.
A database is just 0s and 1s. The difference is how it connects to other aspects of the code.

When it comes down to databases the repackaged ship and unpacked are each their own. 1 and 1. By, eliminating one of the versions (packaged) you decrease the number of database entries.
Now with EVE. Taking all items you can repackage (minus containers - they can be special) your talking about hundreds if not thousands of Database entries (CSM Summer Summit report said by the time they get done with changes to modules, we'd see about 200-300 less items in game) . If you removed the "packaged" version from the database, you would in effect reduce half the database. Smaller database normally means you have faster response times when processing information, as there is less to look through.
Now I could see your point if there was a performance difference between the two versions, and it would have to be something major. As with the current and continually progressive improvement of coding languages, OSs, hardware and such, the two database entries could have totally different effects when comparing them among a broad range of hardware and software options.

>>sorry if my thought process is a little messed up. getting tired<<


The data stored is just 0's and 1's...any real database is way more than just the stored data. How you access the data is vastly important. The packaged items are 1 item in a standard list, each packaged item you own will be a link to that single item(with it's definition). Very easy to index and quick to retrieve.

Every unpacked item will need it's own entry most likely in a child table that contains the specific current attributes of that item. If you removed packaging you would remove very few rows from an already relatively small table and make every item be instantiated in what was the child table vastly increasing the storage as each entry now needs to hold the base defition of the packaged item too.

Note:increased storage may not be an issue depending on storage of data and how you access it since correct indexing would mean only retrieving the data rows required. It very much depends on the data, available storage and the whim of the DBA providing the data model on any given day!
Arctic Estidal
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2014-11-25 22:29:31 UTC
I think I can summarise your idea.


"I want to implement a new idea! Yeah!

But for this idea to be attractive and provide a benefit, I need a significant feature in the game to be removed. There is no reason to remove the feature, removing the feature will hurt game play, but I want my idea supported."


I think that is a good summary of the conversation you had before you posted this idea. So NO this shouldn't be supported.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#16 - 2014-11-25 23:25:44 UTC
ummm, so op, instead of conveniently selling off several mods by repack and drop on market (or fill buy order) you want to make several contracts? You see, repacking also is for this.


Do a damn how the hell did I get 200 mods I don't need spring cleaning and there you are making worst case 200 contracts if you used them just once. As the only short cuts you have are common multi-item contracts. Like say the wolf gun pack and put 4 small AC's or Arty in the pack. Or the drake tank pack, 2 lse 1 invul 1 racial hardener.


Then there's me having to look up these items market price and seeing if a good deal. Or me going screw it...I can just buy off market to save a few clicks anyway. Tl;DR...you won't be selling mods very well potentially, I tbh only look at ships on contracts. And that's only to see what deal I get on rigs.

With contract scams like the make 100 item contract that looks goods but they bury the scam deep and you are overpaying for something at some point..I just avoid the whole mess really for item contracts, especially bulk ones. 5 seconds of right click from market vice 100 market searches for price a much better use of my eve time imo.
Sigras
Conglomo
#17 - 2014-11-25 23:26:14 UTC
You have no idea how databases work do you? The "repackaged " status of items allows the server to treat each repackaged item as a basic object with the default values. This is why you cant repackage damaged items and why ships lose their name when you repackage and unpackage them.

Getting rid if repackaging would massively increase the size of the database because you would have to store all of the attributes for all of the items individually.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#18 - 2014-11-25 23:34:37 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Amarisen Gream wrote:
I'd prefer to just remove repacking all together and for everything, and make hauling/size changes along with it.

why?

^^ This.

Why should the system be changed to the way you are proposing? I don't see any benefit to it... only extra clutter that will be tedious to deal with.

How did you Veterans start?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#19 - 2014-11-26 00:28:41 UTC
So....OP? Given that modules need to be repackaged in order to actually sell them, how do you propose the market work?

Even if you remove that restriction, are you seriously suggesting that selling the loot from a destroyed frigate should require someone to train several levels of market skills?
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#20 - 2014-11-26 01:43:48 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
So....OP? Given that modules need to be repackaged in order to actually sell them, how do you propose the market work?

Even if you remove that restriction, are you seriously suggesting that selling the loot from a destroyed frigate should require someone to train several levels of market skills?


Magic LolLolLolLol

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
12Next page