Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Maintenince?

Pipe Dream CCP did had but feasbility verses reality made it impossible.

They would have loved to kept all the old ships looks from previous editions and only the new ships got the new designs.

The way the items database works would mean this idea would not work.

One word - Repackaging.

This is why we dont have the ability to leave a ship-builder tag on a ship etc.

While I do like the idea of having a ships graphical 'look' change over time, I think having ships performance degrade over time would not be good for the game. It also penalizes people for managing to not get their ships blown up.

Also what if a ship was barely used. You then penalize people for having ships in hangars not doing anything.
I have an assult ship parked in low or 0 sec, that I use once every 4 months (or longer) to run pirate arc missions. With your idea, this ship would be worse every time I flew it......

I'm pretty sure that despite blowing up on two seperate ocasions, the Space Shuttle never showed any signs of "old age". So, no. No Aging for Space Ships, since they should be, and are, high-maintenance vessels that constantly need looking after. Battle damage on the other hand, that disapears as you repair, is another story altogether.

2 things:
1. Make PvE combat less of a joke and introduce even the remotest hint of risk to missions/incursions (other than players).
2. Promote more PvP - it's pretty efficient at increasing the turnover rate for ships, plus you get glorious explosions in the process.

If you're looking to stimulate the demand for ship/module construction, I think the first place to look is find a way to make people less risk averse in EVE.

lol - someone watches too much of the wrong type of sci fi.... Note: I do, too, so don't take this as an insult.

Nanobots are an interesting future tech, but highly problematic for use in environments subject to high-energy particles, such as in nuclear reactors or in space.

Take a look at the old reactors used in the first-generation US nuclear submarines. There is simply no way to repair such a unit, due to the fact that exposure to hard radiation for a prolonged period has damaged the actual metal and rendered it extremely brittle. Nanobots would not be able to repair such damage, and would themselves probably be destroyed by the residual radiation from the containment system.

But, if you can extract the high-energy photons and inject them into the dilithium matrix, you might be able to get the warp drive back online, and slingshot yourself around the sun and back to the future....

Again, off topic, but fun.... :)

Hmm.... interesting point. But, not necessarily a show stopper.

Currently, the database already has to maintain unique data for every assembled ship - stuff like the name of the ship and the amount of unrepaired damage. So, you could change the code to treat packaged ships as assembled ships and add the new fields to support age and lifetime. This would also allow you to add the ship builder tag feature, too.

This idea would have been problematic when the database was using 32-bit item ids, but, now, it might be feasible.


Actually, I'm not much interested in making the ship's look change over time - that is much more difficult to support than a change in data stats.


First off, you could control the amount of degradation vs. time. It does not need to go from 0% degradation to 100% degradation in a week - it could be much more gradual, allowing for perhaps a 1-2% degradation over a month. That's not enough to make it into "I'm instantly dead when I undock", but enough to tweak the odds slightly when matched against a newer version of the same ship. Rifter vs. rifter becomes a bit more interesting.

Second off, folks should indeed be penalized for keeping hundreds of unused ships in their hangers. It clutters the database and there should be some incentive for people to take those old ships out and get them blown up, or recycled. And, yes, I'm one of those folks, too - so I'm including myself in this argument.

Third, keep in mind that this change would affect all players, so you can't really argue that you are penalizing one player and not another.

Overall, I just happen to think this change would make the game more dynamic and less static.

More thought - more clarification.

When a ship is initially built and packaged, it would not age, can be stacked with other packaged ships, and can be sold on the market.

After you assemble the ship, the aging process would start and you'd no longer be able to package the ship. You would have to sell this ship on contract, and transport it unpackaged, just as with rigged ships.

This is somewhat similar to BPOs, so the mechanisms must already exist in the codebase. Once you've researched a BPO, you cannot repackage it, stack it with other BPOs, or sell it on the market. Each researched BPO is unique and must have its own unique entry in the database.

I think so too. EVE's ships life expectancy is low already, lets not make it even lower.

*Takes six month hiatus from EVE*

*Comes back*

Oh look, all my ships are useless now. ****.