These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Custom ship paint payment methods discussion thread

Author
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#21 - 2012-02-27 14:51:43 UTC
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
what poll?

True. I stand corrected. Expect some flames though for not even considering ISK and advocating non-destructible "items". EVE is all about ISK and destruction ... it used to be anyway.

As you can buy AUR with ISK, I see no difference between the currencies there except that when you buy AUR you commit to using it for vanity stuff later on... This gives CCP better way to track the amount of real world currency (plex) converted to vanity sales and makes it possible for them to redirect correct amount of development resources to maintain and upgrade that section. In the end it should be self sustaining.

What comes to destructible / non destructible stuff. Yes... in general I am in favour of destructible stuff, but I am willing to bend that vision for greater good if I see some things where it might not be the best approach. However this thread is very open for discussion and my views are by all means not the only ones out here. Feel free to contribute.


This^

People still seem to be having trouble realizing that AUR is simply another way to pay for items with either ISK or CASH. The only difference is that AUR is earmarked for vanity items.

It's not really that hard a concept to grasp people.

For those insisting that player industry be a part of any paint mechanic, check back to the original interviews done during the last alliance tournament. This has always been the ultimate plan. The only bottleneck has been writing and testing the code to make that happen.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#22 - 2012-02-27 14:55:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Ciar Meara
No Aurum/Nex

Roime wrote:
Internet spaceship paintjobs of my dreams:

- designing paintjobs would require skills to be trained
- with cheap, low level skills you could just do one-time designs on your own ships
- with expensive, advanced hi-multiplier skills you could save designs into limited run "paintjob blueprints" to be sold on the market, paintjob runs to be defined by your skill level
- every blueprint would require an npc item, some sort of "ship painter license"
- applying paintjob requires the BP and paint, which is manufactured from gases from new lowsec ladar sites
- every time a blueprint job would be applied to a ship, player would pay a small fee to CONCORD
- no repainting
- paintjob value would be included in killmails
- designing custom paintjobs should have a similar interface like avatar creator (as demonstrated by T'Amber)

- corp and alliance logos would require stupidly high skills and have considerable costs

All ISK transactions. Introduce 7-day Micro-PLEXES, profit.


tl:dr; sink ISKies, give indies new goodies and a tiny trinkle of new in lowsec.


+ standings based (Concord, sarum family, Thukker tribe) based paints earned through Missions, Faction warfare, Incursions, LP store and affect your reception by other factions/races.

change: every time a blueprint job would be applied to a ship, player would pay a small fee to CONCORD Amarr empire, minmatar republic, caldari state, gallente federation.

+ every time a blueprint job would be applied to a ship, the designer would would get a fraction of that small fee. (royalties)

PS: (nano)Paints ingredients could also me manufactured through PI, made in station in ambulation like "paintshops".
(some ingredients would have to be obtained somewhere else (rare))

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]

Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2012-02-27 15:01:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Grey Stormshadow
Ranger 1 wrote:
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
what poll?

True. I stand corrected. Expect some flames though for not even considering ISK and advocating non-destructible "items". EVE is all about ISK and destruction ... it used to be anyway.

As you can buy AUR with ISK, I see no difference between the currencies there except that when you buy AUR you commit to using it for vanity stuff later on... This gives CCP better way to track the amount of real world currency (plex) converted to vanity sales and makes it possible for them to redirect correct amount of development resources to maintain and upgrade that section. In the end it should be self sustaining.

What comes to destructible / non destructible stuff. Yes... in general I am in favour of destructible stuff, but I am willing to bend that vision for greater good if I see some things where it might not be the best approach. However this thread is very open for discussion and my views are by all means not the only ones out here. Feel free to contribute.


This^

People still seem to be having trouble realizing that AUR is simply another way to pay for items with either ISK or CASH. The only difference is that AUR is earmarked for vanity items.

It's not really that hard a concept to grasp people.

For those insisting that player industry be a part of any paint mechanic, check back to the original interviews done during the last alliance tournament. This has always been the ultimate plan. The only bottleneck has been writing and testing the code to make that happen.


Yep... best middle road solution would probably be to sell custom paint job blueprints in NEX store where "reusable" ones would be blue print originals with unlimited runs and "non reusable" would be limited run copies. This way all actual paint jobs would be destructible but the original source could be either permanent or usable only for limited runs.

However corporation/alliance logo is something I would still like to see as permanent after it has been acquired.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest

Lexmana
#24 - 2012-02-27 15:02:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
Ranger 1 wrote:
People still seem to be having trouble realizing that AUR is simply another way to pay for items with either ISK or CASH. The only difference is that AUR is earmarked for vanity items.

Except that when you buy something with ISK you feed another players in-game business.
When you buy something with AUR you only feed CCPs business.

I can't see how AUR is compatible with a player driven market at all, unless you would change it completely and enable a player to pay another player with AUR for goods/services. But I don't see the point since we already have ISK for that. There is no need for AUR.


Edit: Paying ISK to a NPC acts as an ISK-sink and we could use more of these.
Bootleg Jack
ACME Mineral and Gas
#25 - 2012-02-27 15:27:24 UTC
"non-destructable"

No, no way, the ship burns, the paint burns.

Lets not let any more "blessed" items in game, especially on ships.

As far as costing AUR, they should not add to that system in any way unless they plan on finishing WiS, otherwise that is just another dead pointless system.

Also given how easy it is to lose a ship making the paint cost AUR (aka PLEX aka RL $$) is going too far.

I'm an American, English is my second language...

Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2012-02-27 15:28:12 UTC
made changes to the original post based on discussion so far.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#27 - 2012-02-27 15:45:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Lexmana wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
People still seem to be having trouble realizing that AUR is simply another way to pay for items with either ISK or CASH. The only difference is that AUR is earmarked for vanity items.

Except that when you buy something with ISK you feed another players in-game business.
When you buy something with AUR you only feed CCPs business.

I can't see how AUR is compatible with a player driven market at all, unless you would change it completely and enable a player to pay another player with AUR for goods/services. But I don't see the point since we already have ISK for that. There is no need for AUR.


Edit: Paying ISK to a NPC acts as an ISK-sink and we could use more of these.


Valid point, but again only the BPC (template, whatever they end up calling it) should be available for purchase through the NEX... just as BPO's are only available for purchase from NPC's now.

Actual creation of the paint job should be dependent on player industry.

I would also have no problem with NPC corp specific paint scheme templates being available through that NPC corps loyalty point store.

Either way, actual creation should be done through player based industry.

The NEX store and player based industry do NOT have to be mutually exclusive, and in regards to custom painted ships it was never planned to be so.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2012-02-27 15:48:56 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
People still seem to be having trouble realizing that AUR is simply another way to pay for items with either ISK or CASH. The only difference is that AUR is earmarked for vanity items.

Except that when you buy something with ISK you feed another players in-game business.
When you buy something with AUR you only feed CCPs business.

I can't see how AUR is compatible with a player driven market at all, unless you would change it completely and enable a player to pay another player with AUR for goods/services. But I don't see the point since we already have ISK for that. There is no need for AUR.


Edit: Paying ISK to a NPC acts as an ISK-sink and we could use more of these.


Valid point, but again only the BPC (template, whatever they end up calling it) should be available for purchase through the NEX... just as BPO's are only available for purchase from NPC's now.

Actual creation of the paint job should be dependent on player industry.

I would also have no problem with NPC corp specific paint scheme templates being available through that NPC corps loyalty point store.

Either way, actual creation should be done through player based industry.

The NEX store and player based industry do NOT have to be mutually exclusive, and in regards to custom painted ships it was never planned to be so.

Yep... the fact in the is that creating custom paint job for each ship hull takes awful lot work and someone has to pay for it.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#29 - 2012-02-27 15:51:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Let me qualify something, I fully understand why people have it in their heads that paint jobs that have anything to do with the NEX would not include player industry.

CCP planted this seed when they wanted to test the concept of custom painted ships with the Ishukone Scorpion. A lot of fury erupted with people assuming this was the model that CCP intended to stick with, one that excluded player based industry entirely.

Not everyone saw the interview stating emphatically that this was only a test of the paint scheme mechanic, and was not the way these paint schemes would eventually be handled as far as distribution/creation was concerned. Work still had to be done to get the NEX to handle BPC's... or alternatively accept player made ships and/or other materials as part of the "purchase price".

I am sorry, I do not have a link handy to the pertinent part of the last Alliance Tournament videos to point everyone easily in the right direction on this. You'd have to look for the interview with our Scottish Dev (his name escapes me... CCP Flying Scottsman perhaps?).

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2012-02-27 16:41:26 UTC
added some limitations to bpo copying for obvious reasons.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest

Zarian Uphius
Adversity.
Psychotic Tendencies.
#31 - 2012-02-27 16:59:10 UTC
Valei Khurelem wrote:
The nex store and micro-transactions shouldn't exist in a game we are already paying full price and a subscription for, it should purely be an ISK sink if it should cost anything. People who buy into DLCs or Micro-transactions when they have already paid full price are suckers and they deserve to lose all their money.



^^What he said
Skorpynekomimi
#32 - 2012-02-27 17:22:21 UTC
- Ships have a 'paint' slot, one-use-only, like rigs.
- Blueprints for paint cost AUR.
- Adding paint takes materials or just straight ISK.
- Paint jobs become an item, tradable between players.

OPTIONAL
- Paint jobs can be added to BPOs through research, or to BPCs through copying the BPO. This would be bound to the ship through repackaging, as well.

Using that system, your custom-painted ship can have the paintjob destroyed with the ship. Alliances and corporations can distribute paintjobs, and require use of them.
Or with the optional method, distribute standard ships with standard paint jobs. For example, rifters with the TEST or goonswarm logo on. Shark-jawed interceptors. Cow-patterned Hulks sold at major trade hubs. Industrials with cutie marks.

With this system, it'd be an ISK AND AUR sink. It might even consume minerals or PI materials, or just a further ISK sink from NPC seeding,

Economic PVP

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#33 - 2012-02-27 17:31:37 UTC
Zarian Uphius wrote:
Valei Khurelem wrote:
The nex store and micro-transactions shouldn't exist in a game we are already paying full price and a subscription for, it should purely be an ISK sink if it should cost anything. People who buy into DLCs or Micro-transactions when they have already paid full price are suckers and they deserve to lose all their money.



^^What he said


Please point out the item that I can't purchase with cash in game currently.
Please point out the item that I can't purchase with ISK in game currently.

Again, the only difference between PLEX and AUR is that AUR is more granular and vanity item specific.

If you want to make an argument why PLEX should'nt be allowed in game, feel free, but that is another topic.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Lina Alar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2012-02-27 18:39:32 UTC
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=863918#post863918

(from another thread)
Lina Alar wrote:
Do we want vanity items?
Yes.

Should they appear out of thin air in the Eve economy?
No.

Should they be manufactured by players using blueprints or similar mechanisms?
Yes.

Should they be destructible like normal items?
Yes.

How should we be able to pay for them?
ISK.

Should there be a group of developers producing vanity items?
Yes.

Should this group be given priority over staffing for game mechanics, balance, general FiS / trade gameplay?
NO.

What else should we do?
Provide a way for users to submit their own vanity customizations for inclusion in the game. (Really tough for an MMO, as opposed to a single-player game like Skyrim, but here's an opportunity to pioneer as opposed to "everyone else has a vanity shop so...")

An explanation of Eve socialization: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTbgvYPVdXE

Lick with your main™

Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2012-02-27 18:47:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Grey Stormshadow
Without micro transactions custom paint jobs for every ship hull would be rather horrible concept and tie entire existing graphics department to the task from which only some part of the community is willing to pay.

This is main reason why the money used to produce these vanity paint jobs should be marked and after initial release of the feature all new ship paint designs should be funded from this vanity stack. In EvE this vanity fund is called AUR at the moment. I honestly wish that CCP will actually hire extra resources for the purpose. If this will not be the case, the micro transactions lose their justification and paint jobs start eating subscription fees. This is something I would not want to see.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest

Lina Alar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2012-02-27 19:07:27 UTC
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
Without micro transactions custom paint jobs for every ship hull would be rather horrible concept and tie entire existing graphics department to the task from which only some part of the community is willing to pay.

This is main reason why the money used to produce these vanity paint jobs should be marked and after initial release of the feature all new ship paint designs should be funded from this vanity stack. In EvE this vanity fund is called AUR at the moment. I honestly wish that CCP will actually hire extra resources for the purpose. If this will not be the case, the micro transactions lose their justification and paint jobs start eating subscription fees. This is something I would not want to see.

Good point.

An explanation of Eve socialization: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTbgvYPVdXE

Lick with your main™

Stabs McShiv
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2012-02-27 20:34:35 UTC
Going to snip this in the bud right now your claim that ship skins would require extra art team time is flat out wrong.
T2 hulls do not have different textures from the T1 hull the engine renders them differently no one has to remap these objects. The extra polys for the extra bits on the hull e.g the engines on the enyo have to be but that is not the paint job that was the point of the trinity upgrade.

You can change the colour of your ships right now it just changes every ship in the game. All ccp has to do is have a ship painter option in the character editor tool and have a option to turn custom paint schemes off when tidi turns on.

no isk, no aur, no industry hell just look at the AT ships the methods are already in the client.
Lexmana
#38 - 2012-02-27 20:50:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
Ranger 1 wrote:
Let me qualify something, I fully understand why people have it in their heads that paint jobs that have anything to do with the NEX would not include player industry.

This is only part of the problem. Making paint jobs similar to BPCs is better than selling them directly through NEX. And I could support that if CCP was very clear with their business model and what they intend for NEX. But they are not. They don't want to tie their hands by making such promises to us players. And after reading the fearless newspaper we know other plans have been made ... but are put on ice, at least for now.

Some people think BPC in NEX and LP store is basically the same thing. But it is not. By a fair margin.

So will they stop with paint jobs? What if they decided you could trade in player made ammo in NEX for better ammo similar to the LP store? Do you really trust CCP to not go that way?

If that would happen less players would be paying ISK for faction ammo from the LP store. This would make prices drop and essentially devaluing all player activity that generates LP. It would also decrease the need for logistics in game (because NEX is in every station but faction crystals are not) making the game more shallow and devaluing the activity of couriers and haulers.

If the concept is expanded to other LP store items it would directly devalue all players activities that generate LP, faction or deadspace loot (and indirectly all other loot as well) in addition to reducing the need for logistics and hauling services. There will be less explorers, ratters and mission runners around in particular in low/null.

With every AUR spent in NEX, demand is increased for PLEX fueling an inflation.
Compare that to an ISK sink (like the LP store) that works against inflation.

No matter how you look at it, every AUR spent in NEX is devaluing ISK and the work of others in EVE. It is not just industry.
Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2012-02-27 21:04:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Grey Stormshadow
Stabs McShiv wrote:
Going to snip this in the bud right now your claim that ship skins would require extra art team time is flat out wrong.
T2 hulls do not have different textures from the T1 hull the engine renders them differently no one has to remap these objects. The extra polys for the extra bits on the hull e.g the engines on the enyo have to be but that is not the paint job that was the point of the trinity upgrade.

You can change the colour of your ships right now it just changes every ship in the game. All ccp has to do is have a ship painter option in the character editor tool and have a option to turn custom paint schemes off when tidi turns on.

no isk, no aur, no industry hell just look at the AT ships the methods are already in the client.

Did I mention extra art team somewhere? It could be only one guy or someone working outside CCP.

Anyway... giving people ability to use some kind of ship painter and transferring data over to other clients would end up to wtf pink zombie lime green zebra rainbow rifters colouring the jita undock and giving some serious realism boost to the game. This is the reason why only pre made CCP approved paint jobs should ever end up to the game.

Each custom paint job needs plenty of love before it is ready to be released. Each ship hull will need at least one and most hulls could probably use several paint jobs to choose from. If this doesn't put any load to CCP's main art team, I wonder will these appear from thin air?

edit:
Besides... it causes much less communications load for server to receive/send "here goes kick a55 rifter wearing pre made ship skin 0532" than "here goes rifter wearing random ship skin where {long list of custom definitions and colour codes but still without ability to use actual custom images on textures}"

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#40 - 2012-02-27 21:30:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Lexmana wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Let me qualify something, I fully understand why people have it in their heads that paint jobs that have anything to do with the NEX would not include player industry.

This is only part of the problem. Making paint jobs similar to BPCs is better than selling them directly through NEX. And I could support that if CCP was very clear with their business model and what they intend for NEX. But they are not. They don't want to tie their hands by making such promises to us players. And after reading the fearless newspaper we know other plans have been made ... but are put on ice, at least for now.

Some people think BPC in NEX and LP store is basically the same thing. But it is not. By a fair margin.

So will they stop with paint jobs? What if they decided you could trade in player made ammo in NEX for better ammo similar to the LP store? Do you really trust CCP to not go that way?

If that would happen less players would be paying ISK for faction ammo from the LP store. This would make prices drop and essentially devaluing all player activity that generates LP. It would also decrease the need for logistics in game (because NEX is in every station but faction crystals are not) making the game more shallow and devaluing the activity of couriers and haulers.

If the concept is expanded to other LP store items it would directly devalue all players activities that generate LP, faction or deadspace loot (and indirectly all other loot as well) in addition to reducing the need for logistics and hauling services. There will be less explorers, ratters and mission runners around in particular in low/null.

With every AUR spent in NEX, demand is increased for PLEX fueling an inflation.
Compare that to an ISK sink (like the LP store) that works against inflation.

No matter how you look at it, every AUR spent in NEX is devaluing ISK and the work of others in EVE. It is not just industry.


I, and many others, have been fairly outspoken on the point that faction oriented items should remain part of the loyalty point store as well as any new items introduced that would be appropriate (NPC themed paint jobs for instance).

While CCP has announced quite firmly that they were going to avoid the concept of (gold ammo) lets look at that more closely. If they were to introduce a new type of ammo that was significantly different from faction ammo, all they need do is make sure that one of the components necessary for it's creation (from a NEX purchased BPC) is an similar amount of an appropriate faction ammo. Throw in a quantity of PI materials (or whatever) to complete the production requirements and you have stimulated both mission running and PI production.

I fully acknowledge your point, but do you see how easily this could be implimented in a way that stiumulates the existing economy and industry base (or mission runner base)... and I don't think that a higher demand for PLEX is a bad thing as supply and demand takes care of that quite nicely given a small amount of time for the market to adjust.

This same solution applies to most anything you can think of, especially since an item such as this new "NEX ammo" you hypothesize could then be freely resold on the player driven market.

The only piece to still fall in place is the ability to sell BPC's through the NEX, and have those BPC consume the right player made components for production. Unless plans have changed, this is the course already plotted by CCP.

PS: While we disagree on this point, I always enjoy your posts. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Previous page123Next page