These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Ship Painting Pilot Program

First post First post First post
Author
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#561 - 2014-03-08 02:06:44 UTC
If it is going to cost more than 10% of the ships hull value; this project will fail miserably.

Only a tiny fraction of ships that will be put in harms way will be painted resulting in little to no movement. Ships that will not see real combat will get the one paint job and that's it. Again, no movement.

Lower the price CCP if you remotely desire this to see real use.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#562 - 2014-03-08 02:11:38 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Quote:
The material requirement of that blueprint copy is a ship hull of the type you want to paint, so make sure that’s in the same place you want to start the painting process... Pop the blueprint copy into a manufacturing slot (right click, Manufacture) and after a short while you can Deliver your shiny new ship.

Question: Does this have to be a repackaged hull? If so, it completely defeats the purpose of painting existing ships...


In Rubicon 1.2, yes it has to be a repackaged hull. Yes, it means you will either not paint a fitted ship, or simply replace the rigs because you will lose them when repackaging the ship.

However if you read the dev blog you will see that they clearly state that this implementation is a case of testing the waters with the minimum amount of effort possible. If the feature proves popular, they'll start work on the "real" implementation. The current implementation is simply a known scope of work with an easily managed budget. The "real" implementation will likely take significant developer resources, so they need to be sure that the financial cost can be recouped.

A reminder to all that during the Incarna fiasco, CCP managed to wrangle a concession from the CSM that it is fine for CCP to sell vanity items as extras above the cost of subscription. Since ship skins are clearly a vanity item, the cost for them will come from outside the subscription of the game. This is why CCP are trialling the Aurum pricing.

Remember to leave your feedback about the pricing, and especially whether you perceive a difference between a custom ship skin that you'd use as flair for a PvP ship, or bling for a PvE ship. I suspect most people would want custom paint jobs for their PvP ships to fall in the same price range as the hull or the modules they typically use on that hull.

Do not be surprised if CCP decides that custom paint jobs are only going to be for the super space-rich, and view vanity items only as a means to draw ISK out of the game economy, or dollars out of the real world economy. While we would all love different "tiers" of ship skins, to suit every level of life expectancy from disposable faction warfare frigates through null sec doctrine fleets through mission boats and super capitals, CCP may have different ideas.

For me, the differing levels of "life expectancy" fall roughly into these bands:

  1. A few minutes (typical FW frigate zerg fleet)
  2. A few hours (typical cruiser fleet)
  3. A few days (low sec ratting ship)
  4. A few weeks (blockade runners, covert ops, stealth bombers, carriers, dreadnoughts)
  5. "Until I mess up" (black ops, faction battleships, super capitals)


I would imagine that custom skins could be developed to fit that scale, starting with simple two-tone paint jobs at the "few minutes" level, which you can buy and apply to every ship you fly. This would be a similar mechanic to a golden pod where the implant changes the colour of every ship you board, but is limited to two- or three- tone paint jobs that simply alter the colours of the existing skins. Perhaps a corporate "implant" could add the corporation (and alliance?) logo to every ship, based on the defined decal location of that ship.

At higher life-expectancy bands I'd imagine more complex paint jobs such as dazzle, digital camo, jungle camo, all the way through to high detail pain work with trim, racing stripes, and perhaps "metallica teeth" or "hello kitty" logos.

I imagine "bling" skins could operate similar to a rig, being a permanent fixture to one ship. The "bling" skin would override a "implant based" paint job: rather than flying corporate colours you would be flying your own personal polished/brushed platinum CNR.

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#563 - 2014-03-08 02:13:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Marlona Sky wrote:
If it is going to cost more than 10% of the ships hull value; this project will fail miserably.

Only a tiny fraction of ships that will be put in harms way will be painted resulting in little to no movement. Ships that will not see real combat will get the one paint job and that's it. Again, no movement.

Lower the price CCP if you remotely desire this to see real use.


Bling fit mission boats get blown up all the time. Then the same pilots will be flying a bling fit mission boat very soon after. There will be movement in bling skins, regardless of how expensive they are. 35B Paladin and 45B CNR kills tell you this is the case, and you already know it to be true.

edit:

In the monetisation of all the F2P games I've read about, there is the concept of a "whale". This is a person who will throw money at the game in order to get some sense of being "better" than other people playing the game.

"Look! I have two cows to click and you don't!"

I have no qualms about CCP milking cows. As you have seen in this thread, people have volunteered to spend billions of ISK on skins for ships which they expect to be flying for a significant period of time. There is no reason a skin shouldn't cost as much as the hull. Having said that, it would be nice if some crumbs could be dropped from the table of the super-space-rich elite, so that us common mortals could fly into combat flying aliastra derpatrons without significantly raising our FW ship budget.

Don't get stuck in the way of thinking about ship skins as "it has to be one size fits all." I have outlined one crazy idea in my previous post, i.e.: an implant to set a custom colour scheme for all my ships, a paint-rig to change the colour of specific ships.
stoicfaux
#564 - 2014-03-08 02:14:34 UTC
How ship painting should feel.



Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#565 - 2014-03-08 02:21:11 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Altlama Hunskaya wrote:
I feel this is good idea and that it could really add something to the game. To me CCP role is to bring us the tools and not to do some painting job release set …



In a close future in local chat you could read "see i did buy that really well known player paint for my ship this guy is an artist ..."

again it is not CCP role to burn time in doing painting. In a longer term orther things like the customs you own ... could also be painted.


Here is what is happening, broken down into simple steps:


  1. CCP wants to determine whether the feature is worth working on at all. Is it just a small portion of the player base interested, or are there enough people interested to make it worth the effort of reworking the graphics engine to display custom skins on spaceships?
  2. CCP wants to determine exactly what burden custom graphics will place on user's systems. There's no point doing the work of custom ship skins only to find that we melt players' GPUs (remember what happened in Incarna, nobody enjoyed their computer spontaneously combusting)
  3. Once CCP have determined that the feature is worth implementing, and that it won't deleteriously affect your gameplay, they can then start the process of producing the backlog of custom skins that the art team have waiting
  4. Once the CCP-originated skins have started entering the game, I'm sure we can convince CCP to allow individuals to submit designs, using a similar process to alliance logos



As if multiple threads over the years with near unanimous support (except for the ones who wished that CCP Art department would do Modular POS or get rid of gas clouds first) were not indication enough...

You do remember how the test server feedback for WiS feature very explicitly said do not make it mandatory, CCP agreed with that (That they wouldn't make it mandatory to use) and they did anyway?
How when there was a graphics problem they (CCP) claimed it was only a small portion of the player base with older machines that were having issues?
How after it was demonstrated on higher end machines they claimed it was a fluke and not something they could fix?
How it took weeks to actually get CCP to solve the problem by not forcing people to use it?

I am guessing you forgot all about this.

Producing the backlog in what format? specialty ships? or customizable skins for existing ships? One is good one is bad, and implementation is the crux of the matter, not the coloring of the ships, everyone wants that last part.

... you are sure you can do what with whom? test server feedback on important issues, like Unified Inventory, WiS, Faction Warfare overhaul (exploits) had all fallen on mostly deaf ears, you really think that you can convince them to do something here? where they don't have the pressure of CSM and a very irate player base talking about completely broken mechanics that affect the rest of the game everywhere that CCP is even talked about? That's kind of funny.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#566 - 2014-03-08 02:33:13 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
As if multiple threads over the years with near unanimous support (except for the ones who wished that CCP Art department would do Modular POS or get rid of gas clouds first) were not indication enough...


I feel your pain. I want POSes fixed more than anything else in the game. You'll note that my Twitter icon is "POS #smallportion".

Kusum Fawn wrote:
You do remember how the test server feedback for WiS feature very explicitly said do not make it mandatory, CCP agreed with that (That they wouldn't make it mandatory to use) and they did anyway?


You remember that CCP updated the Jita memorial to commemorate the rage?

You remember the apology from Hilmar?

You remember two successive CSMs saying that CCP has very much learned from Incarna, and is still recovering?

I am guessing you forgot all about this.

Kusum Fawn wrote:
Producing the backlog in what format? specialty ships? or customizable skins for existing ships? One is good one is bad, and implementation is the crux of the matter, not the coloring of the ships, everyone wants that last part.


CCP has been leaking custom ship colours for some time. There are custom ships skins for most of the NPC corporations: if not ready to roll, at least in the final stages of development.

You do not have enough evidence to claim that "everyone" wants custom ship colours. Seriously, the forums represent a tiny portion of the player base. Even if everyone on the forums agreed that ship skins are a good idea, you don't know that this is representative of the whole population the forums are a self-selected, especially vocal portion of the community.

If you recall the presentations about monetisation that were being flung around during the Incarna period, you'll remember the one about "Battlefield Heroes" where the people on the forums were almost unanimous in their statements that "P2W would ruin the game". But when P2W came along (i.e.: "Power Items") everyone bought them, and the more vocal critics were amongst the biggest spenders.

Now flip that around: if the forums are almost unanimous in the demand for ship skins, how does CCP know that ship skins are worth investing the developer time into before they go spending :18 months: of developer time on a feature that turns out to be a flop? Ship skins might not be as massive an undertaking as Incarna was, but from the tone of the devblog you can tell that CCP is convinced that ship skins are not a simple undertaking. I imagine they have a mechanism in mind, and are likely to tell us (once this experiment is successfully concluded) that proper ship skins will take N months. I wouldn't be surprised if N was in the order of 9-18 months.

Now go back and read my post that you were ever so hasty to criticise. With awareness of the fact that CCP can learn from their mistakes, do you understand what I'm saying now?
Oraac Ensor
#567 - 2014-03-08 02:40:57 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
You do not have enough evidence to claim that "everyone" wants custom ship colours. Seriously, the forums represent a tiny portion of the player base. Even if everyone on the forums agreed that ship skins are a good idea, you don't know that this is representative of the whole population the forums are a self-selected, especially vocal portion of the community.

If that were true then no consumer or political survey ever conducted would have any value.
Ghostnite24
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#568 - 2014-03-08 02:46:24 UTC
I was interested until I saw it required Aurum... I think I will pass but I was really hoping to get a hello kitty paint scheme just to be funny... Tired of having to pay for schemes that may not last. Id like to have seen it turn out like the character custom design. I do like the designs you have shown to us, but I really do not like the fact that it requires Aurum. If you change it I would be more then happy to support the decision and be excited to put on paint schemes on my ships.
Zappity
Exit-Strategy
Unchained Alliance
#569 - 2014-03-08 02:50:38 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
If it is going to cost more than 10% of the ships hull value; this project will fail miserably.

Only a tiny fraction of ships that will be put in harms way will be painted resulting in little to no movement. Ships that will not see real combat will get the one paint job and that's it. Again, no movement.

Lower the price CCP if you remotely desire this to see real use.

Exactly. The cost relative to a fit PvP hull clearly aims this feature at PvE and collector crowd. This means that there may be an initial flurry of activity and then no further turnover because the ships will not be destroyed.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#570 - 2014-03-08 02:52:33 UTC
Marcus Gideon wrote:
As far as server overhead, it shouldn't be any worse than it is now. When 2 ships meet in space, the server says "Hey you, you see a Drake in space". All it would have to do is say "Hey you, you see a purple Drake in space". And your game client would go "Oh, ok... lemme dig up the Drake model I was going after to begin with, but I'll render it purple this time." There's no extra stress on the servers, just a little extra work for your GPU.

All this whining "Oh we can't do that, it'll slow down the servers" is a bunch of BS. And all the "time and effort" their wasting in trying to make new models of different varieties, is equally unimpressive.


Did you read the dev blog?

The Dev Blog wrote:
How does graphical load scale when the GPU has to render painted hulls?


It's not server load they're worried about.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#571 - 2014-03-08 02:54:40 UTC
Oraac Ensor wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
You do not have enough evidence to claim that "everyone" wants custom ship colours. Seriously, the forums represent a tiny portion of the player base. Even if everyone on the forums agreed that ship skins are a good idea, you don't know that this is representative of the whole population the forums are a self-selected, especially vocal portion of the community.

If that were true then no consumer or political survey ever conducted would have any value.


Surveys are random samples of a population.

The forums for a game are not a random sample of the population. Assuming that the forums are representative of the population is like assuming that everyone in the Gold Lounge is representative of people travelling by air.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#572 - 2014-03-08 03:06:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Zappity wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
If it is going to cost more than 10% of the ships hull value; this project will fail miserably.

Only a tiny fraction of ships that will be put in harms way will be painted resulting in little to no movement. Ships that will not see real combat will get the one paint job and that's it. Again, no movement.

Lower the price CCP if you remotely desire this to see real use.

Exactly. The cost relative to a fit PvP hull clearly aims this feature at PvE and collector crowd. This means that there may be an initial flurry of activity and then no further turnover because the ships will not be destroyed.


Did you know that some players use pirate faction frigates, cruisers and battleships in PvP? Yes, they really do!

Just because you can't afford to throw billion-ISK hulls into PvP doesn't mean that everyone is space-poor. Don't expect that you know how much people are willing to spend on bling.

Here is a kill involving a Machariel as the victim and a Stratios as the attacker: https://zkillboard.com/detail/37314157/

Now sure, you have every right to claim that pirate faction ships are "better" than their empire counterparts, but given that I can barely afford to lose a few frigates a day in PvP but these people are throwing super-expensive ships into combat on a regular basis, it is not conceivable that some people will want to throw bling into the fight too? Some of them might want to do it for fancy screenshots. Some people might want ship skins just so they look cool in a fleet of custom painted AFK T2 sentry assist dominixes.

Custom ships skins aren't here to please everyone. They are here as an offering from CCP to those with the space-cash to make CCP happy. Ship skins are the new monocle.

We can simply sit here telling CCP that we would like some cheaper skins for our poor people's ships, but what value are ship skins for everyone, when the point of selling custom ship skins is to give people bragging rights?

So stop being poor, and you'll get ship skins too!

(PS: this post is baseless speculation mixed in with a teensy bit of trolling)
Oraac Ensor
#573 - 2014-03-08 03:06:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Oraac Ensor
CCP Phantom wrote:
With this pilot project we would like to see if you are interested in ship skin paint, figure out the demand and if we should go ahead and spend more time in developing a full ship paint project.

But that is exactly what the pilot project will NOT tell you.

The only concept which the pilot is assessing is how many players are willing to buy a paint job costing 16 times the price of the hull to which it is applied. That is a totally different issue.

If you dropped the price to 10% of what is currently suggested the take-up would obviously increase vastly and I would bet that your income from the scheme would be immensely greater.

But the bottom line is that this is entirely the wrong way to assess the demand for this feature. The right way would be a player survey, sent by e-mail to every customer, asking questions like:

Would you like to choose your ship colour?

Would you want the choice to be

a) applicable to individual ships,

or

b) applied to all your ships?

Are you willing to pay for this feature?

If the above answer is 'yes', what payment method would you prefer? (Followed by a list of options.)

What percentage of the cost of a typical T1 hull would you consider fair? (Using any appropriate conversion from the chosen payment method.)

Etc, etc.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#574 - 2014-03-08 03:18:26 UTC
Oraac Ensor wrote:
If you dropped the price to 10% of what is currently suggested the take-up would obviously increase vastly and I would bet that your income from the scheme would be immensely greater.


What if …

Did you know that studies of app pricing on the Apple iTunes App Store have found that there is roughly a hyperbolic curve defined by price vs demand? That is to say that you can sell one copy of an app for $50, and if you drop the price to $5 you will sell … ten copies. This means you have the same income, but more than ten times the support costs.

CCP is clearly choosing to put their money on the "one expensive copy" table rather than the "ten cheap copies" table. If their concern is the GPU load of the client's computer, doesn't it simply make sense that you would start that way rather than having people complain that their GPUs are melting on launch day?

What if custom tones (i.e.: simply adjusting the colours of the existing ship skins without changing any detail) were easily accomplished by just twiddling a number for each ship in a scene? What if you deployed this ship skin idea for everyone, and then found out that half the video cards in existence can't handle more than a few dozen ships rendered with this style of colouring due to some bug in the drivers or a fault in the graphics pipelines, or aliens?

Releasing to an exclusive clientele to start with achieves a number of things: one, it gets CCP's new feature into circulation with a very slow ramp-up so CCP will have plenty of time to address any issues as they come up. Two, it allows the "snobby elite" players to lord it over the paupers for a few months while CCP sorts out the backend engineering, gathers feedback on GPU load and graphics glitches (because there will be bugs, there always are). Three, it builds anticipation for everyone else as CCP starts indicating their revised intentions for pricing (if that pricing is revised at all).

Oraac Ensor wrote:
But the bottom line is that this is entirely the wrong way to assess the demand for this feature. The right way would be a player survey, sent by e-mail to every customer, asking questions …


An alternative would be to spitball the idea internally. Then consult with the CSM to see if they have any better ideas. Then open the discussion up to a wider set of players through some kind of interactive medium where people can post questions and discuss options. Which would be something like this forum thread.

Email surveys are so Twentieth Century.
Zappity
Exit-Strategy
Unchained Alliance
#575 - 2014-03-08 03:19:18 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
If it is going to cost more than 10% of the ships hull value; this project will fail miserably.

Only a tiny fraction of ships that will be put in harms way will be painted resulting in little to no movement. Ships that will not see real combat will get the one paint job and that's it. Again, no movement.

Lower the price CCP if you remotely desire this to see real use.

Exactly. The cost relative to a fit PvP hull clearly aims this feature at PvE and collector crowd. This means that there may be an initial flurry of activity and then no further turnover because the ships will not be destroyed.


Did you know that some players use pirate faction frigates, cruisers and battleships in PvP? Yes, they really do!

Just because you can't afford to throw billion-ISK hulls into PvP doesn't mean that everyone is space-poor. Don't expect that you know how much people are willing to spend on bling.

Here is a kill involving a Machariel as the victim and a Stratios as the attacker: https://zkillboard.com/detail/37314157/

Now sure, you have every right to claim that pirate faction ships are "better" than their empire counterparts, but given that I can barely afford to lose a few frigates a day in PvP but these people are throwing super-expensive ships into combat on a regular basis, it is not conceivable that some people will want to throw bling into the fight too? Some of them might want to do it for fancy screenshots. Some people might want ship skins just so they look cool in a fleet of custom painted AFK T2 sentry assist dominixes.

Custom ships skins aren't here to please everyone. They are here as an offering from CCP to those with the space-cash to make CCP happy. Ship skins are the new monocle.

We can simply sit here telling CCP that we would like some cheaper skins for our poor people's ships, but what value are ship skins for everyone, when the point of selling custom ship skins is to give people bragging rights?

So stop being poor, and you'll get ship skins too!

(PS: this post is baseless speculation mixed in with a teensy bit of trolling)

I am definitely not poor. You need to think in terms of total number of painted hulls lost, not isk value of ships lost to get a better understanding of turnover.

Sure, some people spend a lot on their PvP ships. But they are a small fraction relative to total ships lost.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#576 - 2014-03-08 03:21:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Janden Rynd wrote:

If that were true, then they would have learned:

1. Do not roll something out in an unfinished state; a small sample of what could be will never get the same reception as the finished product.
With the Incarna expansion they over-promised and grossly under-delivered. I'd much rather they promised a little, and then delivered over and above the promise.

Quote:
2. People generally don't like the NEX store, especially when it's used as a blatant cash grab offering items of disproportionate value to the cost.
The NEX store is tarnished. It's initial release was, as you say, a blatant cash grab; the greed is good leak, the unanswered "gold ammo" questions and the ill considered $1000 pants dev post didn't help the situation much.

It's about time it was rehabilitated, it needs cheaper goods and ship skins could be the ideal way of doing so. The entry price point has to be right if they are to succeed, especially as skins look like they're going to be destructible, unlike monocles and clothing, which are harder to destroy than devships.

Personally I don't like Aurum as a currency or even an idea, but as pointed out by both devs and posters, you'll be able to obtain ship skins by other means such as LP and eventually the market. Availability wise that'll put them in the same situation as clothing, you don't have to buy from the NEX.

T'amber Demaleon wrote:
Well, would you look at that.
Who would have thought?
Welcome back, you should now start pestering CCP by sending them all your ship art and ui concepts Twisted

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Oraac Ensor
#577 - 2014-03-08 03:21:37 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
The forums for a game are not a random sample of the population.
Of course they are. How could they not be?

Mara Rinn wrote:
Assuming that the forums are representative of the population is like assuming that everyone in the Gold Lounge is representative of people travelling by air.

That is a ridiculous, arrogant and unsustainable comparison.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#578 - 2014-03-08 03:23:44 UTC
Oraac Ensor wrote:
CCP Phantom wrote:
With this pilot project we would like to see if you are interested in ship skin paint, figure out the demand and if we should go ahead and spend more time in developing a full ship paint project.

But that is exactly what the pilot project will NOT tell you.

The only concept which the pilot is assessing is how many players are willing to buy a paint job costing 16 times the price of the hull to which it is applied. That is a totally different issue.

If you dropped the price to 10% of what is currently suggested the take-up would obviously increase vastly and I would bet that your income from the scheme would be immensely greater.

But the bottom line is that this is entirely the wrong way to assess the demand for this feature. The right way would be a player survey, sent by e-mail to every customer, asking questions like:

Would you like to choose your ship colour?

Would you want the choice to be

a) applicable to individual ships,

or

b) applied to all your ships?

Are you willing to pay for this feature?

If the above answer is 'yes', what payment method would you prefer? (Followed by a list of options.)

What percentage of the cost of a typical T1 hull would you consider fair? (Using any appropriate conversion from the chosen payment method.)

Etc, etc.

8mill is not a crippling amount of isk, after all, you aren't spending much of anything on the hull in the case that the skin costs more. In the other 4 cases it costs much less than the hull price. Also, no, asking people what they want will not reflect results as accurately as simply placing them out there. Putting your test case out there will always yield more accurate results and reach a wider sample than a survey will.
Oraac Ensor
#579 - 2014-03-08 03:26:43 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
If it is going to cost more than 10% of the ships hull value; this project will fail miserably.

Only a tiny fraction of ships that will be put in harms way will be painted resulting in little to no movement. Ships that will not see real combat will get the one paint job and that's it. Again, no movement.

Lower the price CCP if you remotely desire this to see real use.


Bling fit mission boats get blown up all the time. Then the same pilots will be flying a bling fit mission boat very soon after. There will be movement in bling skins, regardless of how expensive they are. 35B Paladin and 45B CNR kills tell you this is the case, and you already know it to be true.

edit:

In the monetisation of all the F2P games I've read about, there is the concept of a "whale". This is a person who will throw money at the game in order to get some sense of being "better" than other people playing the game.

"Look! I have two cows to click and you don't!"

I have no qualms about CCP milking cows. As you have seen in this thread, people have volunteered to spend billions of ISK on skins for ships which they expect to be flying for a significant period of time. There is no reason a skin shouldn't cost as much as the hull. Having said that, it would be nice if some crumbs could be dropped from the table of the super-space-rich elite, so that us common mortals could fly into combat flying aliastra derpatrons without significantly raising our FW ship budget.

Don't get stuck in the way of thinking about ship skins as "it has to be one size fits all." I have outlined one crazy idea in my previous post, i.e.: an implant to set a custom colour scheme for all my ships, a paint-rig to change the colour of specific ships.

I was surprised to read this, in view of your earlier comments about multi-run BPCs.
Oraac Ensor
#580 - 2014-03-08 03:35:42 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
8mill is not a crippling amount of isk,
On a 500k hull? Of course it is - unless you're one of EVE's mega-rich.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Also, no, asking people what they want will not reflect results as accurately as simply placing them out there. Putting your test case out there will always yield more accurate results and reach a wider sample than a survey will.
It would show what is the best method to put out to trial, instead of the misconceived shot-in-the-dark we have in this pilot.