New station service - Logistics


(Wesfahrn) #1

Hello, Im sure this idea has been suggested before.

But the problem is that hauling is a tedius task. You can pay others to do it for you but its not really cost effective. You need to pay alot in order to attract someone, and most of the time nobody will be around to do it in a timely manner, so at that point you may as well do it yourself and save the time and money.

But what if there was a middle ground? Some sort of station delivery system.

What should it do excactly? Its just a means for you to select some items you want transferred to another station and then its done automatically. The way i imagine it is that it only works in the same solar system. So if you want stuff moved out of the solar system you still have to do it yourself or get someone else to do it. How much it should cost, what limitations it should have and so on i dont know. But i imagine you set it up sort of like an industry job. You select the stuff you want moved, you pay a fee, and the more m3 you want moved the longer it takes. You can even implement skills that decreases the time it takes for these tasks to complete. For example a “Logistics Connections” or “Goodwill” skill that gives your goods priority. This cuts down time 5% per skill level etc.

Anyway i think its a really interesting idea if done right. Let me know what you think.


(Tiddle Jr) #2

What if there is only one station in system?

Or wait are you talking about avoiding J 4-4 undock by shifting valuable stuff by teleport between other stations?


(Wesfahrn) #3

I dont understand your first question.

Regarding your second question, no, i am not. But i imagine if this mechanic were to implemented and there were systems where players moved alot of stuff between stations it would become an expensive feature in that particular system. The game already has similar features like this for industry called the system cost index.


(Quelza) #4

If the items were shipped by NPC haulers that could be attacked and looted, then I don’t have much of an issue. They should not just magically teleport from one structure to another after a volume-determined amount of time.


(Tiddle Jr) #5

What are the benefits of such feature?

You want to manipulate market or avoid ganking? Your initial intent was about expensive haulage now you talking something different.


(Daichi Yamato) #6

I’m pretty strongly opposed to ideas like this. NPC’s shouldn’t do jobs that players can.

Moving things, even within a system, can make you a lot of isk. I shouldn’t be able to move three freighters worth of compressed ore/ice to a refinery in a system without using the freighters myself or hiring someone.

Even if the npc’s undock in a hauler, you’ve still effectively got a pet and i can fly a combat/webber ship in escort or transport twice as much at once.

No. Not under any circumstances.


(Wesfahrn) #7

If the items were shipped by NPC haulers that could be attacked and looted, then I don’t have much of an issue.

I dont see the purpose of this tbh.

They should not just magically teleport from one structure to another after a volume-determined amount of time.

Why not?


(Wesfahrn) #8

Being able to multi task. A blueprint is finished researching and you want to start manufacturing right away. But the structure the research was performed at is not the structure that supports manufacturing. So if you are not in the system you are kinda screwed until you get back. I mean you can already install the manufacturing jobs remotely, why not be able to move stuff around in a system remotely as well.


(Wesfahrn) #9

Why not?


(Tiddle Jr) #11

I’d call that pre-planning and simple managing of what you are doing. I have multiple jobs running in different stations and call that multitasking and have no issues to move stuff arround. You’re asking about sloppy ass lazy playstyle.


(Nisanthro) #12

EVE is a player driven economy. Stuff gets manufactured, stuff also gets destroyed. How would you destroy stuff that is not transported through space and is magically teleported between stations instead?


(Black Pedro) #13

Indeed.

OP, why should the developers take away the game play for players who make a living hauling for other players, as well as the players who hunt haulers, just because you to cheap/impatient/lazy to move things around the universe? The fact that is costs time/ISK to move stuff, and that moving stuff puts the stuff at risk, is a major part of what makes this game and its economy interesting.

So, -1.


(Daichi Yamato) #14

It means i don’t have to move the freighter to system, which means im not in space interacting and i may not even have to have a freighter at all with this, meaning I’m not buying into the economy.


(Jonah Gravenstein) #15

I can both address the purpose of being able to destroy and loot NPC courier services, and answer your question easily.

Eve’s economy is driven by destruction, risk free movement of goods is the antithesis of this.

The design of the game is such that any movement of goods is at risk of reallocation or destruction.


(Wallyx) #16

EvE do not need more Risk-Free mechanics. There are plenty in the game and thankfully some of them are going away, but more should go away.

Just plan ahead and use the right stuff already in the game to reduce the risk.


(Wesfahrn) #17

It wont be the end of the world. Besides this mechanic may not neccerily mean less stuff is transported through space.

First of all it only works within the same solar systems, second of all it means that some systems utility may increase and demand for stuff going in and out of that system increases resulting in MORE stuff actually being freighted through space.

OP, why should the developers take away the game play for players who make a living hauling for other players

Im curious how many people freight stuff around for a living in the same system? If CCP dont implement this they make life harder for people who live in less populated systems where pilots ARE NOT available to haul. So when you think about it this mechanic helps those who spread out more.

But more importantly, please learn to comprehend what i write. I already suggested that it should only work in the same solar system, so people who freight from one solar system to the other will not be affected.

I also suggested that solar systems where this mechanic is used alot should be more expensive, similar to how research and manufacturing system cost work. This means that players who do freight may actually be able to do it cheaper in systems that are really busy.


(Wallyx) #18

You still do not understand, right? No matter if is only Solar System Mechanic, is a Risk-Free one and EvE do NOT need them.

And you do not think about Null-Sec and WH Space, where this mechanic will be exploited to the max, because there are the systems were is risky to warp around. For HS and Low-Sec is safe to warp around, except if you screw up and do not warp at 0. Then, why pay for something you can do for free and without risk?

And on those systems where is “no” available haulers is because they do not need them and haul them selfs around.


(Wesfahrn) #19

Risk is not a silver bullet. When you introduce risk you dont suddenly make the game better.

Please explain why docking and undocking doesent blow up your ship 50% of the time? We should introduce some risk there because the game will be so much better!

those systems where is “no” available haulers is because they do not need them and haul them selfs around.

This is like saying people who starve dont need food because if they did they wouldnt starve.

And you do not think about Null-Sec and WH Space, where this mechanic will be exploited to the max,

There is not really much you can exploit with this. Please explain what kind of exploit you had in mind.

Honestly you dont belong in a features and ideas section of an MMO. Your understanding of game design is lackluster at best and you continually rely on knee jerk assumption. Im just gonna ignore you from now on.


(yellow parasol) #20

Complaining about something being tedious is a first world problem.

Tediousness is not a valid reason for changes. Tediousness is subjective and usually only used by specific types of people. In your case it seems the actual issue is lazyness and unwillingness to put effort into things you want to get done, combined with your unwillingness to pay for it.

We should never accept tediousness as a reason for a change, because otherwise every spoiled, lazy, immature brat will get what he wants.

Roddybaby calls “self responsibility” and “vigilantism” tedious as well. Should we scratch that too?

No.


(Wesfahrn) #21

Tediousness is not a valid reason for changes. Tediousness is subjective and usually only used by specific types of people. In your case it seems the actual issue is lazyness and unwillingness to put effort into things you want to get done, combined with your unwillingness to pay for it.

Are you ■■■■■■■ serious? Where is your reading comprehension? I suggested this feature should COST MONEY

And how much effort am i really putting into moving something from one station to the other. It takes literally no effort, its a tedius task that should be able to be automated.