These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Industrial Ideas and request - edited

Author
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#1 - 2016-02-17 09:18:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Amarisen Gream
Point One:
(this might be an OCD request)
I would like to see the merger of the BPOs when it comes to items/modules which have different sizes (Small, Medium Large) but belong to the same family. These merged BPOs would gain an option in the OUTCOME box to pick the size type the player is looking for.
Type of BPOs Torrent Ammo, ABs, MWDs, Rigs and others having different size types.

Why change what isn't broken? To me it comes down to cleaning things up. By merging the small-medium-large size variant BPOs we reduce the over all number of BPOs that populate the DB and market

ABs go from 3 to 1
MWD go from 3 to 1
Hybrid ammo goes from 24 to 8
Laser crystals goes from 24 to 8
Projectile ammo goes from 24 to 8
Etc.

The price change to buying these new BPO bundles should fall in between the current medium and large price points.
Does this effect me? Yes and no, as my core character build is as an industrial toon I already own the different size module BPOs (in some cases I own multiples of the same BPO). What this does for me is gives more more function from BPs I already own.

Does it hurt the new bro with higher introduction cost: I say no, as they already start with 500k SP. they got basically got a 2 week head start compared to when I made this toon when it comes to SP.

Point Two:
Merge the modules which have similar function (Sensor Arrays, and Sensor Boosters) and create a new item type that can be placed in ether low or medium slots. With the effect/stats of the module changing depending on where it is placed.
Why? I feel that merging these modules and providing alternate stats/effect depending on the placement of the module could simplify some things.

If you are not aware, March is a major teiricide for modules. CCP is merging ECCM and Sensor modules together. I believe the ECCM and Sensor thread alone talks about removing nearly 100 modules from the game.

What this idea does is this: You take something like the Sensor Booster and Sensor Array, each has say 10 variants. Make a new module that has different PG/CPU and differing effects/stats depending on what slot it is in. This takes 20 modules types down to 10.
Give this same treatment to Tracking Computers/Enhancers, Omnidirectional Computers/Enhancers, Missile Guidance Computers/Enhancers. If each group has 10 modules, that makes a total of 60 modules (80 if you count our sensor modules) and takes that down to 30 (40 including our already counted sensor modules) modules.
That is 40 fewer items to populate in the market.
40 fewer items to clutter our hangers
40 fewer items to sit in rat loot tables
etc.

Point Three:
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/eve-online-sso-and-what-you-need-to-know/

For important reasons, I have linked the SSO dev blog.
What I want to request is this! I would like for CCP to add in the ability to control the start, stop, complete functions of the industrial window, so that they can be used through 3rd party apps.

As I am a fan and user of the iOS App Neocom, I decided to check something.
A few patches back, CCP added the means for players to pull and push ship fittings via the API and SSO. I started up NEOCOM, went to the fittings and tapped "browse in game fits" from there I logged in. And could see my saved fits. It was really nice.
Now take that function and give industry like manner treatment.

Now, from my understanding, a website/application that wants to use the SSO has to adhere to CCP and be registered so they can receive the certificate.
By making these industrial API calls only work when connected via SSO they add a means to counter bots.
If the CCP security team checks these applications from time to time or have players report them, they can see if the appicstion/website provides any "automation" which would be a violation of the SSO agreement, thus killing the certificate for that site/application and preventing bots. CCP can then go and do more to punish people who used the app/site and the developer.

The issue isn't if people will bot, we know there are people who do. What matters is, can there be a security function put into place that chops off the offenders heads.

TL:DR
Reduce item DB/Market Items by merging modules/ammo of different sizes into a single BPO with the ability to select which size in the OUTCOME.

Reduce the number of modules by merging the types that have medium slot modules and low slot. E.g. Sensor boosters and sensor arrays

Provide API backed by SSO security calls that allow control over the industrial processes.

"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

Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#2 - 2016-02-17 10:55:38 UTC
point 1 - why? having different sizes works quite well atm, I think

point 2 - no module has an identical version that works in 2 different types of slot, they might have a similar module that works in a different type of slot, but never identical

point 3 - how does this prevent or hinder bots?

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#3 - 2016-02-17 14:14:54 UTC
So if i just want to make small afterburners, i have to buy the obviously more expensive bpo that builds them all?

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#4 - 2016-02-17 14:21:55 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
So if i just want to make small afterburners, i have to buy the obviously more expensive bpo that builds them all?


1MN AB cost 64k isk.
10MN AB cost 322k ISK
100MN AB cost 1,612k ISK.

far from breaking the bank. if they where merged and had a price of say 500k isk. You can kill a single rat and get 1 million isk.

"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

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#5 - 2016-02-17 14:45:23 UTC
Amarisen Gream wrote:
far from breaking the bank. if they where merged and had a price of say 500k isk. You can kill a single rat and get 1 million isk.

At the other end of that spectrum is the new player killing a single rat and getting a few thousand ISK.
So new player want to start small in their industrial adventures now has to work roughly 7.8 times as long to buy into that first PO. And yet as you point out older characters effectively see no change in how long it takes them to earn the ISK to buy your new and improved BPO. Sounds like a terrible idea to me so I say

-1
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#6 - 2016-02-17 14:48:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Amarisen Gream
Donnachadh wrote:
Amarisen Gream wrote:
far from breaking the bank. if they where merged and had a price of say 500k isk. You can kill a single rat and get 1 million isk.

At the other end of that spectrum is the new player killing a single rat and getting a few thousand ISK.
So new player want to start small in their industrial adventures now has to work roughly 7.8 times as long to buy into that first PO. And yet as you point out older characters effectively see no change in how long it takes them to earn the ISK to buy your new and improved BPO. Sounds like a terrible idea to me so I say

-1


As a new player I could make a million isk, by just mining in a venture for like 5 minutes.

And if they haven't changed it much. the starter missions net you what, 100 million if you do all 6 professions?

Lets go into a little more detail

When i started EVE back in 2013. Trit was 3 - 3.5 (4.0) ISK a unit. Now it runs like 5.5 - 6 ISK per unit.
BPO prices haven't gone up in price at all. nor have taxes. or any other NPC based cost.

So the value of trit is nearly twice what it used to be, so i think that helps a little for when the new player wants to invest in that half a million ISK BPO.

"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

Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
#7 - 2016-02-17 15:06:20 UTC
Point 1:
Why? As in what purpose does this serve?

As of right now, I can make the 3 sizes at the same time, because I have three different BP's. In your proposal, I would be slowed down quite a bit, unless I wasted oodles of ISK and time making BPC's first.

Point 2:
I think this would actually cause more confusion than it might alleviate.

Point 3:
Already asked, but I'll echo it: How does this stop/hinder botting?

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."

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#8 - 2016-02-17 15:48:57 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
1 and 2 don't seem to be solving any problem you've been able to articulate. They seem like the product of some sort of second-hand OCD.

It's not your database. How many typeIDs exist are ****-all concern of yours.

3 is revolting, and trivially enables what would effectively be legal botting.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Iain Cariaba
#9 - 2016-02-17 16:02:13 UTC
Amarisen Gream wrote:
Point One:
I would like to see the merger of the BPOs when it comes to items/modules which have different sizes (Small, Medium Large.) With an option in the OUTCOME box to pick the size type I am looking for. e.g. Torrent Ammo, ABs, MWDs, etc.
Why would I like to see this? First and foremost, fewer items over all in the database. Which means fewer database names/numbers to call when opening the industrial window or market. To me, having a BPO for an item that has three different sizes is sort of redundant. And though it adds some extra thought as players will need to remember to set the OUTCOME. Overall IMO it simplifies the system.

It doesn't work that way. The engines on this are not simply scaled up versions of the engines on this. While mechanically similar, they use completely different components, and usually completely different materials.

Secondly, while this suggestion would decrease the number of item entries in the database, it would also increase the complexity of the database, while doing very little to decrease the overall size. The size of a database is not the number of entries, but the data in the various fields of those entries. This data would not magically go away, but would simply migrate into new fields.

Amarisen Gream wrote:
Point Two:
Merge the modules which have similar function (Sensor Arrays, and Sensor Boosters) and create a new item type that can be placed in ether low or medium slots. With the effect/stats of the module depending on where it is placed.
Why? I feel that merging these modules and providing alternate stats/effect depending on the placement of the module could simplify some things. It just to me, seems like a logical choice to help clean up some space.

Those items have similar function, not identical function. Again, you don't seem to understand how databases actually work. The data within each entry doesn't go away. You're also overlooking the fact that Sensor Boosters and Signal Amplifiers don't actually perform identically SeBos are active modules, provide more scan res bonus than SigAmps, and can be scripted. SigAmps provide additional targets, have reduced scan res bonus, are passive modules, and cannot be scripted. There's just no way to merge those two modules without a total rewrite of the database, and possibly core coding.

Amarisen Gream wrote:
Point Three:
I would like to see more API control for industrial players.
It would be nice to have the ability to start, stop, complete jobs via third party Apps via the use of the CREST API.
To help prevent the hi-jacking or abuse, maybe make it so it requires a SSO log-in. Which then means that if a player shares his account info with another player they are in violation of the End User Agreement/Terms of use stuff.
By requiring the SSO, the player is by all sense of the word, logged in. And then through the CREST API, they could start, stop, complete industrial jobs. This would not allow for asset management. or any other function that should be done while logged into the game.

So, you want to try to stop bots by giving them even more tools to bot with? How does this even make sense to you? There's already numerous third party applications that have triggered events based on data provided by APIs. The only thing that keeps these third party apps from becoming bots is the inability to effect the game without being logged in. Your suggestion breaks this, thus further enabling bots.
Iain Cariaba
#10 - 2016-02-17 16:07:27 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
3 is revolting, and trivially enables what would effectively be legal botting.

I brought this up to my 63 year old crack head neighbor (yes, I'm serious here). With a whopping 6 months of bash scripting experience, and zero actual EvE experience, he came up with a couple different ways to totally automate industry with OP's idea.
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#11 - 2016-02-17 16:45:07 UTC
Gadget Helmsdottir wrote:
Point 1:
Why? As in what purpose does this serve?

As of right now, I can make the 3 sizes at the same time, because I have three different BP's. In your proposal, I would be slowed down quite a bit, unless I wasted oodles of ISK and time making BPC's first.

Point 2:
I think this would actually cause more confusion than it might alleviate.

Point 3:
Already asked, but I'll echo it: How does this stop/hinder botting?

Gadget


Point 1: Lets see - buy more than one BPO.

Point 2: Not really - low slot = passive. medium = active. You reduce a lot of these has a med slot version that does this, or does that with a script. or a low slot just is just passive.

Point 3: How do you stop bots? The hope is that by using the SSO, and this prevents people from taking all their corp mates production/research slots. Will it prevents bots, it hard to say. If there was a way to limit to only having one SSO login from an application at a time. it would mean the bot has to log on, do the job. and then log off to log into the next.

"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

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#12 - 2016-02-17 17:22:33 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Amarisen Gream wrote:


Point 1: Lets see - buy more than one BPO.


Now you're right back where you started as far the industry window list population goes. So you've accomplished nothing except adding an additional click to the job installation task.

Quote:

Point 2: Not really - low slot = passive. medium = active. You reduce a lot of these has a med slot version that does this, or does that with a script. or a low slot just is just passive.


I remember you, now. You're the, "I don't know anything about programming, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night and we need a 64 bit client because reasons," person, right?

What do you imagine the functional benefit of this to be? How does it "simplify things" or "clean up some space", as you've suggested? Why do you imagine there is a need to "help clean up some space"?

Module scripts weren't added to accommodate anyone's senseless neurosis about "THE DATABASE" - they were added for gameplay balance reasons. Those modules used to just do both things far better than they do, now, without a script. Now they can do one or the other very well, or both comparatively poorly.

You're basically inventing problems that don't actually exist, on the spot, for your "suggestion" to solve.

Quote:

Point 3: How do you stop bots? The hope is that by using the SSO, and this prevents people from taking all their corp mates production/research slots.


Is this an actual problem right now? I've never heard of anyone who gave a single **** about this before. Again, this concern seems to be manufactured for the explicit purpose of trying to justify your bad suggestion.

Quote:
Will it prevents bots, it hard to say.


No, it isn't hard to say. The whole point of a writable API is to enable automation.

You literally suggested, "Make an interface for botting plz."

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2016-02-17 19:44:14 UTC
And all I want is BPC's to become stackable...
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#14 - 2016-02-17 19:53:50 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
And all I want is BPC's to become stackable...


Er... every BPC is a unique item with unique stats. That's pretty infeasible. Not impossible, but at best you would only be able to stack them while they're identical (down to the number of runs remaining). I'd feel fairly confident in saying there's no way this would actually be done.

A far more reasonable implementation (which still isn't going to happen) would be to add a BPC combination job type that takes two BPCs with identical ME and TE and combines their runs into a single output BPC.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Geopoly
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2016-02-18 04:37:37 UTC
I remember a CEO of an industrial corp wrote a very long post on this topic.
Basically if you sum his post, it comes down to:
- EVE doesn't have a good way to let mining ops work well to be managed by 1 person;
- EVE doesn't have a way to manage collective production, provide security, split income etc;
- being an indy corp CEO is extremely frustrating and unrewarding activity.
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#16 - 2016-02-18 08:54:53 UTC
I have attempted to make updates to my OP.

As it is improbable to counter every type of issue with any idea presented I have tried my best (which won't be good enough for the die hard trolls)

But I have this to say - New Eden has so much potential for what players can do while in-game and while out.
You will always find people who abuse features or exploit errors.

Yet, industry in this game is years and a long way from being what it should be.
Does the current version work, why yes it does. But can it be made better, always.

If you are not a fan of change - please go covert to being a Quaker or Amish - as they seem to be stuck in the 1690s (nothing against ether group, I had many Amish neighbors growing up. Generally very nice people.)

"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

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#17 - 2016-02-18 16:20:13 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Amarisen Gream wrote:


If you are not a fan of change - please go covert to being a Quaker or Amish - as they seem to be stuck in the 1690s (nothing against ether group, I had many Amish neighbors growing up. Generally very nice people.)


This is funny, because your understanding of the tech involved is roughly on par with the Amish. Roll

Disliking your particular suggestions and disliking change are entirely different things. Conflating them is profoundly ignorant.

Quote:

Now, from my understanding, a website/application that wants to use the SSO has to adhere to CCP and be registered so they can receive the certificate.
By making these industrial API calls only work when connected via SSO they add a means to counter bots.
If the CCP security team checks these applications from time to time or have players report them, they can see if the appicstion/website provides any "automation" which would be a violation of the SSO agreement, thus killing the certificate for that site/application and preventing bots


Explain how anyone is going to check an application that is only accessible at ::1.

There is absolutely no way they are going to allow API writes to gameplay systems. They allow it for ship fittings and contacts because that is strictly a convenience, and offers no benefit without logging in via the Eve client.

Disallowing API writes IS the security function.


Quote:

If you are not aware, March is a major teiricide for modules. CCP is merging ECCM and Sensor modules together. I believe the ECCM and Sensor thread alone talks about removing nearly 100 modules from the game.


Did you actually read the reasoning behind that change?

It's 100% gameplay reasons. ECCM as a standalone module offers poor value: If you don't encounter ECM (or aren't doing some probe-resistance shenanigans), it does very little for you.

It has nothing to do with item count reduction, which seems to be your sole concern for some nebulous reason.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/