These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Allow repackaging of BPOs and crystals
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Survik Gaterau
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2017-02-19 13:36:38 UTC
This comes with my experience as BPO trader. Selling assembled 0/0 BPOs is almost impossible. Whenever player wants to buy BPO, he will check market, unless he aim for researched BPOs. There is no reason why to disallow repackaging 0/0 BPOs, it only makes trading harder and forcing people to put them on contracts is pointless. I personally propose to only allow repackaging of 0/0 BPOs as allowing all BPOs could lead to significant ammount of mistaken repackaging thus increases ammount of support tikets asking to revert this operation. However repackaging of 1/0 0/2 (etc) BPOs make as much sense as in the case of 0/0 BPOs.

Possibilities are following:
a) Allow repackaging only 0/0 BPOs
b) Allow repackaging all BPOs but request player confirmation in the case of all researched BPOs (unskippable)
c) Allow repackaging all BPOs with confirmation that can be skipped (similar to fitted rigs)

Also worth mentioning is allowing to repackage assembled undamaged laser and mining crystals. For as long as they are not damaged there is no reason why not to allow them to be repackaged.

We have been discussing this on reddit as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/5ih7b6/ccpls_allow_to_repackage_00_bpos/
Survik Gaterau
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2017-02-20 08:38:52 UTC
Any reactions? Big smile
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#3 - 2017-02-20 09:02:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
On the issue of BPOs, a packaged item is only a reference to the type, it's not itself a separate object.

So it has a typeID and only a very basic of properties (eg. Volume).

When something in your inventory is assembled, it then gains its own status as an object. I hope that makes sense.

What that means is that if you were able to repackage a BPO, it would lose all research levels that it has.

For such a small object, it hardly seems worth repackaging.

I suspect, with crystals, it's such an edge case to be able to repackage undamaged/unused crystals, that's it's probably not worth the development time, because most crystals are damaged/used and so could never make use of that facility. So not much return for the time.

Not bad ideas as such, just not much benefit to be gained from their implementation.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#4 - 2017-02-20 10:25:36 UTC
The crystals idea more goes into some way to repair/merge damaged crystals so that you can smush all your 99% damaged crystals together into 1 useful crystal somehow. But that comes up every 6 months here and CCP have never made any ground on it, so I've given up on that ever happening.
GROUND XERO
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#5 - 2017-02-20 11:05:20 UTC
i really like the crystal idea... x items with x % merged or meldet to 100% crystals!

- Maybe it would be an idea like: 10% of XL crystal =100% of L crystal and so on ..... but there is nothing more in eve that i trash on a regular base!



NCPL (Necromonger of new Eden) will make EVE great again!
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#6 - 2017-02-20 14:46:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Don't mind the bpo repacking idea. If you repackage it it loses its research.

The best crystal idea ive seen is that you can reprocess damaged (and only damaged) crystals into 'crystal goo' which can then be used to repair other damaged crystals. The amount of crystal goo depends on the reprocess amount of the undamaged crystal multiplied by the remaining crystal health.

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
Wolfgang Jannesen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2017-02-20 14:49:11 UTC
I don't know about crystal goo or anything like that, but being able to repackage unda,aged crystals would be great. Even giving the ability to reprocess T2 crystals (unless that's just linked to resource processing skills and I'm dumb)
Survik Gaterau
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2017-02-20 15:41:23 UTC
Sorry if it wasnt clear, but i ofc meant that by repackaging the BPO would lose all its research. Thats why i imply that this would most likely lead to more support tickets because of mistaken repackaging. However low lever researched BPOs would be probably better to just repackage and put on the market. Definitely better to lose eg ME7 on small ammo and put it on market BPO then trying to sell it on contracts.
Cade Windstalker
#9 - 2017-02-20 15:45:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Survik Gaterau wrote:
Sorry if it wasnt clear, but i ofc meant that by repackaging the BPO would lose all its research. Thats why i imply that this would most likely lead to more support tickets because of mistaken repackaging. However low lever researched BPOs would be probably better to just repackage and put on the market. Definitely better to lose eg ME7 on small ammo and put it on market BPO then trying to sell it on contracts.


This seems like something that would most likely just result in a lot of frustrated industrialists who accidentally repackage all their maxed BPOs than it would good use by players. Even the relative value of selling a few unresearched T1 BPOs is pretty low on 99% of items, and on the 1% where it's not the BPO is valuable enough on its own that you could probably sell it via a forum post, corp/alliance contract, or just throwing up a contract for a month or two.

IMO the benefits here don't outweigh the negatives or the work required on CCP's part.

Also, for those mentioning crystals being "mashed" together, that doesn't make sense and CCP don't allow that or reprocessing because it would just be abused. This sort of thing was discussed ages back and the general conclusion from CCP seems to be that it would basically just be abused with no real benefit beyond that. Combining 99% damage crystals doesn't make sense, creates a ton of fiddly work for almost no benefit to the player, and reprocessing them would either result in almost no minerals (because 99% damage) or some amount of free minerals if it's not tied to damage amount, neither of which is desirable.
mkint
#10 - 2017-02-20 16:23:59 UTC
While both ideas could be designed to work, is it worth the dev time? It's annoying to have hangars and containers full of possibly expensive stuff that are effectively impossible to sell. But there are a lot more annoying things that CCP is happy to ignore. It would be cool if some dev figures out an easy way to do it in their extra time, but I wouldn't put a whole team on it or anything.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Cade Windstalker
#11 - 2017-02-20 17:08:29 UTC
mkint wrote:
While both ideas could be designed to work, is it worth the dev time? It's annoying to have hangars and containers full of possibly expensive stuff that are effectively impossible to sell. But there are a lot more annoying things that CCP is happy to ignore. It would be cool if some dev figures out an easy way to do it in their extra time, but I wouldn't put a whole team on it or anything.


The BPC repackaging would be incredibly easy since they basically have to actively prevent it now. The problem with this is the potential for people filling up CCP's ticket queue with "RIP 200 days of research, pls fix!"
mkint
#12 - 2017-02-20 18:24:05 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
mkint wrote:
While both ideas could be designed to work, is it worth the dev time? It's annoying to have hangars and containers full of possibly expensive stuff that are effectively impossible to sell. But there are a lot more annoying things that CCP is happy to ignore. It would be cool if some dev figures out an easy way to do it in their extra time, but I wouldn't put a whole team on it or anything.


The BPC repackaging would be incredibly easy since they basically have to actively prevent it now. The problem with this is the potential for people filling up CCP's ticket queue with "RIP 200 days of research, pls fix!"

Restrict it to unresearched BPOs, at least at first for minimal complexity. Doing more would take more dev time, but if it were available for BPs with limited research done, maybe based on research time, that would broaden it while still minimizing GM time. Shoot, maybe tie it in with the existing crimewatch safety system. It looks like the problem the OP is trying to solve is making it easier to liquidate unwanted BPOs, which losing research to be able to sell on the market might be a worthwhile trade off, better than just trashing them.

The crystals might be a little more complicated dev-wise, but since there is a complexity progression in the idea, the basic "repackaging undamage crystals" as a minimum viable product could still be fairly worthwhile use of dev time.

Like I said though, maybe for a dev's extra time rather than a full product feature. Still, both are a better idea than some of the things that devs have wasted their time with already *cough*icons*cough*.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Cade Windstalker
#13 - 2017-02-20 18:31:14 UTC
mkint wrote:
Restrict it to unresearched BPOs, at least at first for minimal complexity. Doing more would take more dev time, but if it were available for BPs with limited research done, maybe based on research time, that would broaden it while still minimizing GM time. Shoot, maybe tie it in with the existing crimewatch safety system. It looks like the problem the OP is trying to solve is making it easier to liquidate unwanted BPOs, which losing research to be able to sell on the market might be a worthwhile trade off, better than just trashing them.

The crystals might be a little more complicated dev-wise, but since there is a complexity progression in the idea, the basic "repackaging undamage crystals" as a minimum viable product could still be fairly worthwhile use of dev time.

Like I said though, maybe for a dev's extra time rather than a full product feature. Still, both are a better idea than some of the things that devs have wasted their time with already *cough*icons*cough*.


Except as soon as you start adding line-item restrictions and checks you increase the risk that something will go wrong and a pilot will lose their assets, in this case time and research level. You also increase the dev time required from just flipping a switch to trying to determine what sort of checks are reasonable and should be allowed, and as soon as CCP allow repackaging of some BPOs why not allow it for all? Well, because of ticket volume and the potential damage to players through UI accidents. It's far harder to accidentally buy and assemble a BPO you don't want than it is to accidentally repackage one you do.

Also tying this into Crimewatch is a terrible idea because then you've created a very real incentive for someone to fiddle with their safety (something you can't even easily do in station right now by the way) and then potentially leave it in a 'bad' state on accident, for reasons other than the desire to shoot someone and get CONCORDed.

Oh and the new icons are actually a good idea, especially when trying to bring in new players and make the game more intuitive to them, and those wouldn't take the same sort of resources or time that programming a new restriction would. Just because you don't personally like or value a feature doesn't mean it's a bad idea or a waste of time.
Survik Gaterau
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2017-02-20 20:36:50 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Survik Gaterau wrote:
Sorry if it wasnt clear, but i ofc meant that by repackaging the BPO would lose all its research. Thats why i imply that this would most likely lead to more support tickets because of mistaken repackaging. However low lever researched BPOs would be probably better to just repackage and put on the market. Definitely better to lose eg ME7 on small ammo and put it on market BPO then trying to sell it on contracts.


This seems like something that would most likely just result in a lot of frustrated industrialists who accidentally repackage all their maxed BPOs than it would good use by players. Even the relative value of selling a few unresearched T1 BPOs is pretty low on 99% of items, and on the 1% where it's not the BPO is valuable enough on its own that you could probably sell it via a forum post, corp/alliance contract, or just throwing up a contract for a month or two.

IMO the benefits here don't outweigh the negatives or the work required on CCP's part.


Sorry, but you are wrong. I have about 3000 BPOs that are simply unsellable unresearched but i can see dozens of them being traded on market every day. Of corse it could lead to some issues as i mentioned above. But we are allowed to trash items, so we should be allowed to repackage them. We are (mostly) adult after all. As a compromise i believe that solution b) would work the best here. That you would be forced to confirm every single researched BPO (with their ME/TE shown) before repackaging.

But benefits, such as that we wont have to stock thousands of trash BPOs, would be good.

Btw: Examples - Astrahus BPO. 8 BPOs has been sold since New Year on Jita market for NPC price (from NPC) and yet, there are always TE14 or whatever BPOs on contracts with price under NPC. I would bet that all of those people would very happily destroy their research and put those BPOs on market. Same can be applied to Drake or Cyclone BPO which research is almost worthless unless its 10/20. From smaller modules i can think about 425mm hybrid (?) gun thats 10/20 for less then NPC price on contracts.
Cade Windstalker
#15 - 2017-02-20 20:48:32 UTC
Survik Gaterau wrote:
Sorry, but you are wrong. I have about 3000 BPOs that are simply unsellable unresearched but i can see dozens of them being traded on market every day. Of corse it could lead to some issues as i mentioned above. But we are allowed to trash items, so we should be allowed to repackage them. We are (mostly) adult after all. As a compromise i believe that solution b) would work the best here. That you would be forced to confirm every single researched BPO (with their ME/TE shown) before repackaging.

But benefits, such as that we wont have to stock thousands of trash BPOs, would be good.

Btw: Examples - Astrahus BPO. 8 BPOs has been sold since New Year on Jita market for NPC price (from NPC) and yet, there are always TE14 or whatever BPOs on contracts with price under NPC. I would bet that all of those people would very happily destroy their research and put those BPOs on market. Same can be applied to Drake or Cyclone BPO which research is almost worthless unless its 10/20. From smaller modules i can think about 425mm hybrid (?) gun thats 10/20 for less then NPC price on contracts.


The difference here though is that you're commonly going to select a lot of things and hit "repackage all" before moving, selling, repairing, or other activities. People very very rarely trash things though, which makes accidents less common or likely to happen. Also the work required on CCP's part to recover trashed items is fairly low, whereas when an item is repackaged it's actually deleted in a *more* final way than trashing because the reference to the item is removed entirely and replaced with a reference to a base template.

To put this another way, is being able to repackage and sell those 3000 BPOs worth more to you than the income you'd lose if your best BPO got repackaged? Top 5 BPOs? I kinda doubt it, personally.

What you're saying here doesn't indicate to me that BPOs never sell on contracts, it's that you somehow have a ton of BPOs you're no longer using (poor planning, some other reason) and you're unwilling to sell off the high value ones and trash the low value ones.

Honestly sounds to me like there's a market opportunity here for someone willing and able to get BPOs like this moved around from those who don't want them to those who do, since any amount of research has at least some value.
Survik Gaterau
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2017-02-20 21:04:12 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

The difference here though is that you're commonly going to select a lot of things and hit "repackage all" before moving, selling, repairing, or other activities. People very very rarely trash things though, which makes accidents less common or likely to happen. Also the work required on CCP's part to recover trashed items is fairly low, whereas when an item is repackaged it's actually deleted in a *more* final way than trashing because the reference to the item is removed entirely and replaced with a reference to a base template.

As said before, being forced to confirm repackaging researched BPOs should be enough

Cade Windstalker wrote:

To put this another way, is being able to repackage and sell those 3000 BPOs worth more to you than the income you'd lose if your best BPO got repackaged? Top 5 BPOs? I kinda doubt it, personally.

Well in this case, id make more by repackaging and selling 3000 BPOs, but i get your point here.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

What you're saying here doesn't indicate to me that BPOs never sell on contracts, it's that you somehow have a ton of BPOs you're no longer using (poor planning, some other reason) and you're unwilling to sell off the high value ones and trash the low value ones.

Honestly sounds to me like there's a market opportunity here for someone willing and able to get BPOs like this moved around from those who don't want them to those who do, since any amount of research has at least some value.

Subcapital BPOs that cost less then 100M is simply not worth trying to sell. Some cruisers are exception from this, but rest isnt. The problem about contracts is
a) their limit
b) their duration
Being forced to trash lets say 2000 BPOs from that pile bcs there is no proper ingame mechanic to deal with them isnt really the right way. And sorry, moving BPOs around simply wont help you. Again, duration of contract wins and so BPO traders are forced to sell only in Jita. Some more fluid BPOs are being sold elsewhere, but this definitely doesnt solve case with partially researched BPOs that has no purpose for living at all.

If i get it correctly, your main issue is that you are worried about players repackaging valued BPOs. Thats why i propose that unskippable window here. If somebody confirm "Do you really want repackage this 10ME 20TE Avatar BPO" then sorry, its that guys problem. Dont play drunken.
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
#17 - 2017-02-21 15:16:15 UTC
GROUND XERO wrote:
i really like the crystal idea... x items with x % merged or meldet to 100% crystals!

- Maybe it would be an idea like: 10% of XL crystal =100% of L crystal and so on ..... but there is nothing more in eve that i trash on a regular base!





repair or merge crystals is a great idea. Especially for undamaged ones.
Cade Windstalker
#18 - 2017-02-21 15:31:14 UTC
Survik Gaterau wrote:
As said before, being forced to confirm repackaging researched BPOs should be enough.

Well in this case, id make more by repackaging and selling 3000 BPOs, but i get your point here.


I can assure you it won't be. People will either disable the popup (or demand they be allowed to) or just click through it and every time this happens with a desirable BP CCP will get a support ticket, something they *really* don't need more of.

Survik Gaterau wrote:
Subcapital BPOs that cost less then 100M is simply not worth trying to sell. Some cruisers are exception from this, but rest isnt. The problem about contracts is
a) their limit
b) their duration
Being forced to trash lets say 2000 BPOs from that pile bcs there is no proper ingame mechanic to deal with them isnt really the right way. And sorry, moving BPOs around simply wont help you. Again, duration of contract wins and so BPO traders are forced to sell only in Jita. Some more fluid BPOs are being sold elsewhere, but this definitely doesnt solve case with partially researched BPOs that has no purpose for living at all.

If i get it correctly, your main issue is that you are worried about players repackaging valued BPOs. Thats why i propose that unskippable window here. If somebody confirm "Do you really want repackage this 10ME 20TE Avatar BPO" then sorry, its that guys problem. Dont play drunken.


Sorry, clarification, moved around as in sold not necessarily physically moved.

So, my perspective on this is as someone who works support for a living. If something in your software, or in this case game, allows someone to accidentally break something (or in this case delete a valuable asset) it will happen. Even in the absence of alcohol or other factors and no matter how many "are you really sure!?!?" warning you throw up in the way.

When something like this occurs you basically have two options, fix it or probably lose the customer. Neither is really desirable here, so the best option is to disallow bad paths in the software as much as possible.

In this case the actual problem is that it's not terribly easy to sell BPs like this on Contracts. This issue could be better solved by adjusting the Contracts system or even just putting a link from the market page called "Search for this Item on Contracts" or something to boost visibility. If, as you say, people are selling BPs for under market value then the issue is one of a lack of visibility not actually the need to repackage things.

Alternatively someone make a third-party site that lets people post up assets they want to sell that aren't sellable through the market, or at least not easily so. Hide location of assets beyond some general indication of 'High Sec, Low Sec, Citadel, Outpost, ect" and let people search around and anonymously connect buyers and sellers for things like partially researched BPs.
mkint
#19 - 2017-02-21 17:17:00 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
In this case the actual problem is that it's not terribly easy to sell BPs like this on Contracts. This issue could be better solved by adjusting the Contracts system or even just putting a link from the market page called "Search for this Item on Contracts" or something to boost visibility. If, as you say, people are selling BPs for under market value then the issue is one of a lack of visibility not actually the need to repackage things.

Reminds me of an idea I posted in a feedback thread a couple years ago when the devs were brainstorming stuff that they never ended up doing with contracts. P

Add 1 more column to the market window for "best price in contracts."

There would still be a use for having at least some method of repackaging things that could otherwise only be trashed, but this would at least ease up some of that pressure, while simultaneously bringing back some of the usefulness of contracts.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Cade Windstalker
#20 - 2017-02-21 19:37:19 UTC
mkint wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
In this case the actual problem is that it's not terribly easy to sell BPs like this on Contracts. This issue could be better solved by adjusting the Contracts system or even just putting a link from the market page called "Search for this Item on Contracts" or something to boost visibility. If, as you say, people are selling BPs for under market value then the issue is one of a lack of visibility not actually the need to repackage things.

Reminds me of an idea I posted in a feedback thread a couple years ago when the devs were brainstorming stuff that they never ended up doing with contracts. P

Add 1 more column to the market window for "best price in contracts."

There would still be a use for having at least some method of repackaging things that could otherwise only be trashed, but this would at least ease up some of that pressure, while simultaneously bringing back some of the usefulness of contracts.


Immediate problem with this, I can immediately troll everyone by doing something like posting 1 Trit for .01 ISK up in a null Citadel. Since contracts are global I can make a mess of this feature for anything that either doesn't have contracts posted or isn't that expensive.

On top of that it doesn't really factor in things like rigged ships or contracts that may contain multiple items.

Just adding a button for contract search would add visibility without the concerns about picking which contract should actually be displayed.
12Next page