It could be cool if the items which are produced had an owner’s plaques: “made by Joe Doe” like in other games which have crafting.
It’d be hilarious to see a killmail: “Joe Doe killed by Warrior II made by Joe Doe.”
Database logic says no.
Basically this would require tracking every single item as a unique item, nothing could be stacked, etc.
5 Likes
It is already tracked like damaged modules and other things so I don’t see a problem with database. Let developers decide.
Those items are ‘unpackaged’ and can’t be sold on the market like that deliberately to avoid DB bloat.
I’m pretty sure this is a topic they’ve already replied on ages ago with this basic answer.
3 Likes
Then you do not understand what a “database” means in this context.
Geez, we have so many concerned MSSQL database administrators here that I’m thrilled. Le’s do ‘drop database’ optimisation. Everything will be working fast then.
With attitude like yours there would be no Mining Ledger nor Activity Tracker. You have no idea how much data CCP collects and doesn’t show in game. So just stick to the idea and let developers develop.
Again, you do not understand what “database” means in this context, if that’s the initial joke you’re going to attempt to pull.
Irrelevant to the discussion. You are attempting to draw a parallel between multiple unrelated systems in the game, while failing to provide any actual argument in support of your claims. Disregarded.
Kid, you do not know what I understand and what I don’t’. So please do not attack my person. I’m not here to argue who works with bigger databases: you or me. You are on the wrong forum.
Look around you and check features of other crafting games than just EVE.
You brought noting to the OP except technical difficulties.
To be fair to Scoots, you didnt really bring much to the thread apart from…
However I would be interested to look at another crafting game like you mention. Care to share the named of the ones you are referencing. Especially if they deal with the insanely huge amount of crafted stuff that Eve does…
I don’t think there is a database problem. The problem is that you end up with “named” items that are otherwise identical which creates complexity with no purpose. There is no value add associated with the name in a fungible commodity market! Depending on the implementation details, the name might be a burden, or it might be irrelevant but I can’t think of any scenario where it would be useful.
Ship manufacturer and manufacture date
Permanent Branding for ships built and sold by corporations
Not a new idea, and the arguments made before remain valid. Adding something ‘because it is cool’ is an appeal to novelty fallacy and doesn’t bring value to the argument. What benefit is there in expending limited developer time on this? How does it improve the gameplay experience for a significant portion of the playerbase?
1 Like
Thank you for this input. I like the manufacturing date idea for ships. Not the justification 
I agree there are valid arguments against the idea like supply chain detection. But they don’t make my idea invalid. There’s always solution to the problem.
My idea is very general and leave space to decide to game developers, so I didn’t give any solutions or hints.
If we are disusing it such details here’s a solution so “both sides” are happy along with CCP itself: make it an ISK sink.
Branding contracts in form of items that can be applied (like mutaplasmids) sold by NPC for lets say 100 ISK. Branding then is not applied at production (involuntary) but is left to decide by capsuleers and can be only applied to assembled items.
Of course branding items that are expendable vary fast like ammo is useless so it could apply to deployables, ships and modules.
This can be probably solved in many other ways and permutations. Like: you can use branding contracts in production window (as another optional material) similarly as decryptors are optional in inventing.
Of course the idea is not new. I didn’t reinvent the wheel. Branding alone is as old as humanity. People branded crafted items like pottery and arms (eg. swords). But as I write it it strikes me that indeed EVE is not crafting game. It’s more “manufacturing in large quantities” game that has little to do with real crafting.
Anyway not a novelty in EVE too. EVE already “brands” items with “owner mark”. Deployables have ownership, wrecks have ownership, drones, etc. This is already tracked in game.
EVE already has items that are not stackable so this argument is not valid. Recently introduced mutaplasmids are an example. Another example are BPC. They are unique and I can make millions of them, each with 1 run remaining. Does EVE has limitation on how many unstacked items can be in a container/station?
EVE has this too. What benefit is with garment (while station interior is removed) or with SKINs, other than just appeal? Do they add meaningful game experience/mechanic to game except microtransactions?
Even tho the Idea is not knew it’s easier to criticize (by some) other’s ideas without giving meaningful solutions.
To sum up:
- make it ISK sink
- don’t force it, just give power of decision what capsuleers want to brand to them
You can argue it’s useless but if it’s requested feature then why not make the most out of it? If hi/low sec flips to null, market can change too. I heard mining is gonna change too.
Yes. More characters.
The only items that are not stackable are those with unique properties in their function within the game - not descriptive elements. There is a hard limit of 1000 unique items (stacks) per container - including ship hangars and item hangars in stations. Adding unique tracking data to items and rendering them unstackable creates a very real inventory management issue, without providing any countervailing benefit than ‘flavor’.
Would it be cool to have? For some people, maybe.
Does it improve the game in any way? No.
Just because other items have been added for monetization purposes and to meet MMO standards of expectation (avatar customization and ship SKINs, as you mentioned) does not mean investing in the development of new inventory management infrastructure to deploy yet more utterly-irrelevant ‘cosmetic’ content is a worthwhile expenditure of CCP resources.
As a player, I have the right to voice my support, or lack thereof, of proposed use of CCP’s strictly limited development time. This idea is entirely without gameplay purpose or functional value. Contrast that with things like actually fixing current inventory bugs, improving asset search mechanics, working on sorely needed tiericide for weapon modules… the list of better uses goes on and on. Unless we had all of those other things already taken care of, there’s zero reason to muck about with yet more utterly cosmetic content.
I love how bad posters almost always resort to the “just make it an isk sink” argument as if it makes their terrible idea any less terrible.
Modify every module you make with multi-plasmids.
Done.
Obviously you are not one of them, they told you what the problem is and you don’t seem to “get it”.
Your response makes it clear what you don’t understand. No one needs to speculate, you outed yourself.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.