These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Allow repackaging of BPOs and crystals
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
mkint
#21 - 2017-02-22 02:51:26 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
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.

You keep making assumptions that any idea as presented in F&I would get absolutely no game design done on it, and would be implemented in either the most complex or most simplistic way possible, whichever's worse. F&I is not the Jr Game Designers subforum. They will NEVER implement any feature exactly as presented by players. The value of this section is to give the devs a seed of an idea that they could then iterate on.

It would be reasonable in this case that a "best contract price" column would only cover region as the market does. It would be reasonable that it would show the entire contract price, as someone *could* sell a rigged ship for a reasonable price and that would be worthwhile to know. But game design is not my job. It's not your job, or if it is, it's not your job at CCP. Those details wouldn't be up to either of us. The key point would be a contract price shown in the market window itself to increase visibility and traffic to the contract system, which doesn't sound unreasonable to me. And I think it's far more reasonable than what the OP's asking for, even though that's not terribly unreasonable itself.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Survik Gaterau
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2017-02-22 08:49:25 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


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.

Please, stop babysitting players. This game is unique with its punishing mechanics. If somebody ctrl+a over entire inventory its his problem. CCP can fix this once, but if player does it several times then sorry, dont be stupid. But removing mechanics to keep players safe? No, no and no.

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.

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.

I can agree that contracts need complete rework. Right now, to be able to put up ~250 contracts i need alt corporation, 5 alts with director roles and both contracting and corporation contracting to IV. I can put more (!) items on market with one trained alt in trading. Not mentioning that i can put item on market for 90 days and only for 14 days on contracts. So no, there is no way how to get around contracts (based on how they work) to make them comparable with market. Also, for us traders its better to put 10/20 BPOs that can sell over unresearched BPOs that will stay forever on contracts. Or 2 weeks bcs of limits, right.

There are way more problems with contracts that we have to deal with. Not just "visibility".
Trespasser
S0utherN Comfort
#23 - 2017-02-22 17:30:57 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
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.



its because years ago when crystals first came out they were able to be refined and not like the 50% refine we have on mods today.. but as good as the old system allowed.

People were able to reprocess almost dead crystals and get almost the same amount as it took to build them.

This was abused of course and it didn't take long for CCP to put a stop to it.
Cade Windstalker
#24 - 2017-02-22 18:08:49 UTC
mkint wrote:
You keep making assumptions that any idea as presented in F&I would get absolutely no game design done on it, and would be implemented in either the most complex or most simplistic way possible, whichever's worse. F&I is not the Jr Game Designers subforum. They will NEVER implement any feature exactly as presented by players. The value of this section is to give the devs a seed of an idea that they could then iterate on.

It would be reasonable in this case that a "best contract price" column would only cover region as the market does. It would be reasonable that it would show the entire contract price, as someone *could* sell a rigged ship for a reasonable price and that would be worthwhile to know. But game design is not my job. It's not your job, or if it is, it's not your job at CCP. Those details wouldn't be up to either of us. The key point would be a contract price shown in the market window itself to increase visibility and traffic to the contract system, which doesn't sound unreasonable to me. And I think it's far more reasonable than what the OP's asking for, even though that's not terribly unreasonable itself.


I'm aware of all of this, I just don't think that having CCP try to filter out the mess of possible contract options to display a "best price" on the market is a good move. There are tons of edge cases and anything CCP chooses to do here, in large part because it would massively increase the visibility of any contract that can get that spot, will have a pretty big impact on how people post contracts.

I'm saying it's better to leave the whole messy area alone and just make it easier to find an item that's on the market in contracts.

Also, personally, I think the performance of the market UI is bad enough right now without having it also try to query and filter the contracts database as well, but that's me.

Survik Gaterau wrote:
Please, stop babysitting players. This game is unique with its punishing mechanics. If somebody ctrl+a over entire inventory its his problem. CCP can fix this once, but if player does it several times then sorry, dont be stupid. But removing mechanics to keep players safe? No, no and no.


This isn't removing anything, you're asking for something to be added, and it's not even a mechanic it's a UI change.

The role of the UI should be to translate the player's intent into action. A UI that has a high chance of something going hilariously wrong in a way that ruins someone's game experience isn't a UI, whether it's in Eve Online, World of Warcraft, or Microsoft Excel.

In this case I'm objecting to your proposed change which would, for the vast majority of industrialists, only open them up to a UI risk that wasn't present before.

Survik Gaterau wrote:
I can agree that contracts need complete rework. Right now, to be able to put up ~250 contracts i need alt corporation, 5 alts with director roles and both contracting and corporation contracting to IV. I can put more (!) items on market with one trained alt in trading. Not mentioning that i can put item on market for 90 days and only for 14 days on contracts. So no, there is no way how to get around contracts (based on how they work) to make them comparable with market. Also, for us traders its better to put 10/20 BPOs that can sell over unresearched BPOs that will stay forever on contracts. Or 2 weeks bcs of limits, right.

There are way more problems with contracts that we have to deal with. Not just "visibility".


That's because contracts are inherently more expensive in system resources than Market Orders. They're not meant to be something you use the same as market orders, to put up hundreds of contracts for tons of different things, they're meant to be more niche than that.

The BP issue is essentially a confluence of edge cases where there are a fair number of an item that isn't easily sold, can't be repackaged, and therefore has to be sold through contracts where as most other things can at least be repackaged or are sold more readily even on Contracts.
Previous page12