Unique ship option


(Manwithdog) #1

So this idea is designed to allow players to purchase a USC (Unique ship certificate) for their ship. Purchasing this would allow the ship in question certain features . For one it would allow the ships information to be expanded to include how many kills the ships has made , solo kills, who has owned the ship in the past and finally the home of the ship which would be set by the player who owns it . This information should be available for anyone who sees the ship in space and clicks on it information. If the ships is destroyed the info should also be attached to the killmail

The cost of this certificate should be the cost of the hull and can be purchased from concord .

The reason for having such a feature would be to allow players particular solo pvp players who have a certain fondness for certain ships they have had for a long time. This feature would also cause a increase in the ships value and contribute to higher killmails , obviously most people wont use this on 99% of their ships but there will be people who want this sort of feature ,

As always , discuss , point out flaws and so on


Unique Ships? Implementation Strategies
(Old Pervert) #2

What’s the cost of a T3D hull? For a good idea of the “CCP cost”, look at the platinum insurance payout. IIRC it’s like 6 million.

With that said, I’m not at all against this idea… epeens need stroking too.


(Manwithdog) #3

I think this should be looked at as a luxury option , for people who are either so rich or so confident in the badass skillz that they can afford athe cost of the hull . For example drive by super pilots who want to stroke their ego’s even further .


(Krysenth) #4

Unlikely to happen for the same reasons packed items have unbending uniformity for same-type items. Primarily the fact that as long as an item’s packed, it has default stats and the only thing the server needs to track is quantity. Unpackaged stuff you need to track damage amounts, names, etc. Sadly, even if it did happen, it’s likely going to be something that’s lost on either-

  • Ship being packaged
  • Ship being traded

Much like insurance, and to some extent, skins.

Also, bear in mind ships do already gain Killmarks, unless you were looking at more along the lines of an “involved in” count.


(Daichi Yamato) #5

It’s a fine idea. As long as everyone realises, the information is lost as soon as the ship is packaged. And when it’s destroyed it will only survive as part of a kill mail.


(JUSTIFIED ARROGANCE) #6

Which is way this is a waste of development, programming and upkeep time taken away from better game features.


(Old Pervert) #7

If it involved any substantial amount of work I would agree. I have to believe though that this would be incredibly easy to implement. As such, I must disagree that it is a waste of dev time.

Daichi is absolutely right though, the persistent information will most definitely be destroyed when the ship is packed, traded, etc. You wouldn’t be able to indicate “previous anything”.


(JUSTIFIED ARROGANCE) #8

What if they completely reworked the entire basis of the game so we could get his idea into the game. (because getting his idea into the game would require a, “…substantial amount of work”.

Oh, wait that would be…

JUSTIFIED ARROGANCE (quote): “a waste of development, programming and upkeep time taken away from better game features”.

Does this just sound better coming from you than me, is that it?

Okay, you go ahead and say its a waste of programming time and I’ll +1 YOUR idea so you feel like it was your idea.


(Old Pervert) #9

I’m not sure if you just can’t read, or lack the reading comprehension to understand what I said. Perhaps it’s late and I failed to understand what you said. So allow me to clarify.

You said it’d be a waste of development time.

I said it probably wouldn’t take very much, and as such, is worth a small amount of development time. I also said that if it WERE to require a lot, I would agree that dev time would be better prioritized. But I did not believe it would require much time.

You then proceed to grumble and moan that I “stole your idea” somehow, when I quite clearly disagreed with the basic premise of your argument (that it was a waste of dev time). Perhaps that’s because you’re assuming I’m agreeing with your premise that it’s a lot of work. Either way, I stole nothing. I quite clearly contradicted you.


(JUSTIFIED ARROGANCE) #10

+1 just like i promised.


(JUSTIFIED ARROGANCE) #11

So making so that it could, ‘indicate previous anything’, would take a ton of reprogramming of the game to implement, is that correct ?

Hence, it would take a, “substantial amount of programming time to implement: {his idea}”.

Is this clearing things up or are you still confused by the gist of your own logic?


(Old Pervert) #12

Why would this be correct?

When a ship is (for example) repackaged, all unique data is destroyed on that ship. As evidenced by the fact that unique data can exist, all they need to do is add a few columns to the table which contains this unique information. That is a simple change. They they add said info to the attributes tab of the ship. That is also a simple change.


(JUSTIFIED ARROGANCE) #13

Ugh…

I give up, not because im wrong but explaining how im right is just becoming to frustrating.


(Old Pervert) #14

No, go ahead. Tell me why it would take a ton of reprogramming. I won’t wait, I’m off to bed, but I’ll answer you tomorrow. That gives you lots of time to pull something out of your ass.


(JUSTIFIED ARROGANCE) #15

I concede that you are correct. <----- trust me when i say that was painful.


(Linus Gorp) #16

In other words: The perfect thing for CCP to focus on. We don’t want them to break their streak, now do we?


(Manwithdog) #17

So I think as Daichi Yamato said as long as the certificate is lost on repackage then this should be fairly easy to Implement.


(JUSTIFIED ARROGANCE) #18

The wasted development time putting marks on ships that are damned near invisible, so yes i fully expect them to waste development time on this pointless addition to the game.


(system) #19

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.