In EVE the ships that people fly, mostly, are built by characters from raw materials.
At the moment, mostly, I build a mixture of mining platforms, haulers and mining command ships.
I think it’d be quite cool to have the shipbuilder’s name and build date embedded into the information about the ship that you’re flying.
I’d freely accept that there is a tiny bit of ego in this for me, but I do think that’d it’d be quite cool to be ale to talk to other pilots and ask them, “who built your ship?”, and then to be able to find out this information (and if it was one of mine, it’d be quite cool to know that I built it).
If there is a downside to this, I guess it might be that gankers might use it as a tool to target certain ships that they though had survived way too long, but even with this I think it would be kinda cool.
As you can see there isn’t a post there, except mine, that has a title that includes the word ‘shipbuilder’ or as separate words, ‘ship builder’.
I didn’t stop there though, because that would be a bit sloppy. I opened up the the four threads and did a word search for the word ‘shipbuilder’ or as separate words, ‘ship builder’ in the thread.
these words don’t actually appear at all in three of the posts, but ‘shipbuilder’ does feature in the post, “Career agents - a view from the capsule”:
Career path: Industry Agent: Kokseri Velen Mission series: Making Mountains of Molehills
…
8. I Am a Shipbuilder (Complicated Manufacturing) …
This is the only mention of ship building that there is as far as I can tell, and for what it’s worth, it doesn’t mention the concept of including shipbuilders names. What it does do is link through to an external site. Which also doesn’t mention the concept of including shipbuilders names. If you don’t believe me, feel free to have a read. Here’s the link: https://encapsulated.space/index.php/2019/01/28/i-am-a-shipbuilder
Might I suggest that next time you start firing out pithy responses to posts, you at least credit some us with a modicum of intelligence and as a suggestion, learn not be so condescending in how you write.
I think this is actually a fair point possibly. I hadn’t actually thought of how much data this’d add to the database (as in my mind, it’d be a fixed and unchanging bit of info, so not hot linked to the shipbuilders name, just with it in there somewhere).
I might had responded more positively to this however if your reply hadn’t been so utterly patronising.
And if you had tried ‘ship builder name’ 5, 7 & 13 would have been previous threads on or including this particular topic.
So like I said, learn to search, you clearly didn’t use the right terms.
And if you had a modicum of intelligence, you would have considered that rather than make yourself to be silly.
i have played other mmo’s where the builder name is on the product. from a database perspective it isnt a horrible thing that would somehow make the market crash. it is just a data element added at time of creation. the date stamp is already there, just not visible to us. i think its a great idea. i take pride in my work.
Can we have all previous pilots of a ship too and the individuals who researched the blueprints/bought the blueprints with LP?
I passed my old L4 runner Navy Apocalypse to my girlfriend at the time, who passed on to a corp mate, who passed it back to me, who passed it to my sister.
@Mu_ad_Diib Perhaps the option to write a ship bio. Its not what you want but its easily implemented and if you build and fly your own ships you can have that.
Thanks for the positive comment @leavwiz. My gut feeling was that it could be quite simple and like you said, a bit more like a time stamp than a hyperlink to the character’s profile or anything like that.
Ho! Ho! Ho! Recognising miners in any way, shape or form is just an awful idea so I couldn’t possible agree with you here @Xeux … < tongue cheek wedged in >
I wasn’t really thinking along these line simply because it was more complex than I’d envisaged. My suggestion was just a gentle nod towards shipbuilders really. If we did want to make it slightly more complex then maybe a construction date? Or maybe a serial number that might include this?
For example maybe for a Skiff made by me in 2020 maybe the code could be MUA-20 If there are two characters with the same first three letters in their name, then maybe MUA1-20.
Unique (unpackaged) items cannot be sold on the market. Adding this data makes every ship hull unique and means they would not be repackageable. Thus, no ships can be sold on the market (only via contract or trade). That would suck.
(There was a more eloquent and long-winded version of this, but I decided short and to the point would do.)
If you want more details on why this doesn’t work with the current asset system, I’m happy to expand on it. If the asset system is ever overhauled in such a way that this would be feasible, it might he worth discussing, but with the system as-is and no announced plans to overhaul, any discussion is entirely theoretical around the pros and cons of additional visible intelligence about supply lines.
I don’t mind explaining if you are interested in it. It basically boils down to assets existing in two distinct states: 1 - repackaged assets, and 2 - assembled assets.
1 - repackaged assets aren’t stored as individual objects in the asset database. They are stored as a stack object that is assigned a parent object ID and a quantity indicator. All items in the stack object are exactly identical, allowing the game engine to save processing effort by referring to the parent database entry for the asset class rather than having to store all the details for each individual item in the stack. This is generally how most games handle inventory of non-modifiable objects, since it saves on storage and processing costs.
2 - assembled assets (which includes ships, modules, drones, and damageable charges like crystals) are objects that have been created into independent entries in the asset database, rather than being a part of a stack. This allows the assembled entity to gain unique characteristics (damage, mutaplasmid application, equipped modules, etc) - but once the item is repackaged it loses all of those details again. Because these are unique object instances instead of stacks, all of the item details have to be tracked on a per-object basis, increasing data storage requirements and frequently upping processing costs when the game interacts with them (as additional fields have to be checked for impacts, like variables from a mutaplasmid or damage levels for modules).
So, one can assign construction data to an assembled ship (like by putting it in the ship name), as an assembled ship has fields for unique data elements, but once you repackage the ship all of that customized data is sanitized and it goes back to a tally mark in a stack object for that specific hull type.
It would take an overhaul of the asset database to deliver a way to have stacks of ships with construction data appended for each ship in the stack. I’m not even sure they could still use stacks at all - it’s beyond my programming knowledge. if they could not use stacks when storing this data, then presumably there would also be a change to the 1,000 stack limit in storage spaces to allow for all the various instances of construction data, and a way to keep them ‘grouped’ on the market without devolving to contract-only sales (which I would consider minimum requirements for this to be a good feature, as losing the market for ship transactions would be an awful QoL loss).
Thanks for that @Mkikaden_Tiragen that’s a really thorough explanation. The ordered complexity makes sense when you think of it although given the size of EVE the amount of variations that assembled assets take must be mind blowing.
I’m definitely feeling a tad sheepish and possibly embarrassed now about the whimsical notion that I suggested of attaching shipbuilder names to ships. In principle I still like the idea, but given the complexity of the asset system as you’ve described it I think it’s possibly a bit of a non-starter (“ice pops in hell you say? Hmmm. Why don’t you write me a feasibility study on that?” LMAO)
Happy to share the perspective. Again, it isn’t a bad idea on the face of it - it simply isn’t compatible with the EVE game engine as currently structured. If CCP overhauls assets at some point and it becomes feasible, it would definitely merit discussion around whether including that data is too much info for intelligence efforts, or harmless but fun data to have.
It basically boils down to assets existing in two distinct states: 1 - repackaged assets, and 2 - assembled assets.