Forums » Suggestions
For those soon to be affected, and later down the road:
I propose a change in the way we access/view our inventory residing in stations we can no longer visit. In addition to the remote sell option offered by Inc, I suggest that we be able to release either individual items or our whole inventory to specific individuals that we may have contracted to transport them.
This would allow, not only, for pilots to maintain their inventories, but to commission fellow (or not-so-fellow) pilots to move goods for them. It would also add to a smuggling career.
Discuss.
I propose a change in the way we access/view our inventory residing in stations we can no longer visit. In addition to the remote sell option offered by Inc, I suggest that we be able to release either individual items or our whole inventory to specific individuals that we may have contracted to transport them.
This would allow, not only, for pilots to maintain their inventories, but to commission fellow (or not-so-fellow) pilots to move goods for them. It would also add to a smuggling career.
Discuss.
Wonderful.
Seeing as this has just become more relevant, I'm gonna give it a little bump.
Signed, I like this idea.
*plots to buy up goods at every itani station and relinquish them to unsuspecting serco players ;)*
Seriously though, if you release your goods to someone they should also have to accept them!
Seriously though, if you release your goods to someone they should also have to accept them!
i like it
Why would a faction that hates you let you transfer/sell the goods you have stored in their stations, rather than seizing them for their own use?
Once released, the specific items that you selected will be available as part of a separate tab to the indicated player as a export-only inventory. This interface should be very similar to the Load/Unload tab allowing for instant transfer not requiring a ship.
Or drazed, to solve that problem, every CU could still be counted as the original owner's inventory until the other person picks it up.
Once you become KOS with a faction, it would be nice if all your ships and goods in their stations were forfeit.
I don't know about that Ticho. I can't argue that it would make logical sense that if you were considered a criminal by a country, they would seize your belongings and auction them.
But for functionality and the fact that in VO we are able to change alliances more easily than in real life, I might suggest either a 'warning period' where you have the option to have another pilot smuggle them out of station, or simply the current model.
I think that it would be interesting to include seized goods in the economy: You are storing 5000cu of VanAzek in a station that suddenly hates you. After the grace, period the station seizes your goods and counts them as a delivery. Therefore, they will not send for VanAzek ore for some time.
OK Ticho, you have changed my mind. I like the seizure idea, but I want a grace period built in.
But for functionality and the fact that in VO we are able to change alliances more easily than in real life, I might suggest either a 'warning period' where you have the option to have another pilot smuggle them out of station, or simply the current model.
I think that it would be interesting to include seized goods in the economy: You are storing 5000cu of VanAzek in a station that suddenly hates you. After the grace, period the station seizes your goods and counts them as a delivery. Therefore, they will not send for VanAzek ore for some time.
OK Ticho, you have changed my mind. I like the seizure idea, but I want a grace period built in.
Ray and I actually discussed this idea several weeks ago. But, it's non-trivial to implement. I expect to support remote-sale in the near term, but this will probably have to wait until the Faction/FF redux, which I would like to get done this month.
We were primarily looking at NPCs moving the items, to avoid the whole.. player-ran-off-with-my-stuff issue. Of course, the NPCs could still be pirated en route.
We were primarily looking at NPCs moving the items, to avoid the whole.. player-ran-off-with-my-stuff issue. Of course, the NPCs could still be pirated en route.
are you absolutely SURE you want to add remote sell?
Inc, I'm glad to see that such an option is under consideration. Remote sell will indeed make me happy in the interim.
As to the player-ran-off-with-my-stuff issue: It is my belief that people wanting to commission a cargo transfer should be very prudent in choosing a pilot. My suggestion would be someone like a member of the Viper or TGFT guilds. And a smart play would hire some friends to help guard the transport.
We could see an advent of truly player operated convoys. It could be very interesting. We may even see players create 'trucking' guilds that are sworn to move cargo for other players.
As to the player-ran-off-with-my-stuff issue: It is my belief that people wanting to commission a cargo transfer should be very prudent in choosing a pilot. My suggestion would be someone like a member of the Viper or TGFT guilds. And a smart play would hire some friends to help guard the transport.
We could see an advent of truly player operated convoys. It could be very interesting. We may even see players create 'trucking' guilds that are sworn to move cargo for other players.
I like this idea but it needs proper security so 'hacking' inventory isn't an issue.
About 'trucking guilds', they exist or rather once existed and are now defunct.
About 'trucking guilds', they exist or rather once existed and are now defunct.
blacknet: what's so terrible about remote sell?
stackman: I'm not against that, but it becomes a bit more complex from an interface/logistics standpoint. The usual mechanic for moving stuff to and fro (PC or NPC) is the mission system, which is designed for that case, but is not specific to only "certain people".
Either that, or you just remove the mission mechanics entirely and allow some sort of me/them inventory swap drag-and-drop thing.
The whole point of our PC/NPC-interchangeable mission construct was to allow people to post their own missions. I guess we could add a new "Requirement" field that's specific to only a given character or guild, so people could issue missions *only* to other people they define. That could work.
Missions are inherently one-sided, there is no "approval" back channel.. once it's issued with its defined requirements, that's it. But, using a given character/guild as a requirement could be a reasonable workaround. Ray says that would be relatively easy to add.
stackman: I'm not against that, but it becomes a bit more complex from an interface/logistics standpoint. The usual mechanic for moving stuff to and fro (PC or NPC) is the mission system, which is designed for that case, but is not specific to only "certain people".
Either that, or you just remove the mission mechanics entirely and allow some sort of me/them inventory swap drag-and-drop thing.
The whole point of our PC/NPC-interchangeable mission construct was to allow people to post their own missions. I guess we could add a new "Requirement" field that's specific to only a given character or guild, so people could issue missions *only* to other people they define. That could work.
Missions are inherently one-sided, there is no "approval" back channel.. once it's issued with its defined requirements, that's it. But, using a given character/guild as a requirement could be a reasonable workaround. Ray says that would be relatively easy to add.
Way cool, I am no programmer, but I have a rough understanding of the logistics and code-work involved in adding something into a program this complex.
I imagine that one of the more complicated aspects might be to whom the said inventory is designated between the time it is released and picked up. And what happens if a player decides that they will risk it and move it themselves? The other thought I had was: Is there a way for us to release a payment to a particular player as well? (And not be confined to the within the sector requirement.) Maybe even (and yes, this may be asking far too much) giving the transporter half on pick up and half on delivery?
Would it make it easier to tie such a 'mission' to a player if they were on online as opposed to offline? Such as a rejection to the release request if the player's name does not match any of those currently logged onto the server? And if it becomes a player-submitted mission, would it also dole out XP based on distance?
Thx
I imagine that one of the more complicated aspects might be to whom the said inventory is designated between the time it is released and picked up. And what happens if a player decides that they will risk it and move it themselves? The other thought I had was: Is there a way for us to release a payment to a particular player as well? (And not be confined to the within the sector requirement.) Maybe even (and yes, this may be asking far too much) giving the transporter half on pick up and half on delivery?
Would it make it easier to tie such a 'mission' to a player if they were on online as opposed to offline? Such as a rejection to the release request if the player's name does not match any of those currently logged onto the server? And if it becomes a player-submitted mission, would it also dole out XP based on distance?
Thx
Basically, it would function much like the current mission system (dynamic, player-created missions were a goal from the beginning):
You would have some remote inventory in Station X, that you wanted brought to Station Y. You would create a mission, you'd select a particular mission "class" (say, like, "Freighter") which would then prompt you for various parameters. What cargo you wanted moved, where you wanted it moved *to*, what you were offering as payment, etc. Once you defined the cargo you wanted moved, it would no longer be available to you until: A) the mission was completed, or B) you chose to cancel the mission entirely. If the mission were already being taken, the option to cancel would probably not exist.
You would also be able to define "mission requirements", much like our current missions: license levels, faction standing(s), and as discussed above.. particular character name or membership in a guild of specific name. The mission would be posted, and visible to people based on the requirements (ie, not visible to people who cannot get it). So if you said "Only Incarnate", then I would be the only person to see the mission. "Only TGFT", then only TGFT members could see it.
Once posted, the mission would be unrelated to anything else you did. You could be offline, online, whatever. You would have no other control, beyond the initial requirements of the posted mission. This is how our mission system is architected, and for good technical reasons that I won't get into.
If the player you wanted to give the mission to was not online, you could simply retract/cancel the mission. It would be possible to also construct missions that were only posted for a fixed period of time, and then auto-canceled if not "taken" within that period. Ie, a requirement of "Within the next 1 hour", then if no one takes it, the mission auto-cancels an hour later.
You *could* have options built into the mission class ("Freighter"), like being able to pay half upfront and half on delivery. But for most cases the expectation would be.. deliver the items, receive payment. That's how our current missions all work.
The mission system could also dole out XP for specific mission classes, based on the quantity of cargo and the distance involved, but it would probably be low-ball numbers to prevent exploitation by people concocting missions for one another. Users would not be able to influence XP handed out by a mission, beyond the limits of whatever algorithm we defined (like a "(1 xp per cu / 2) * number of hops; with a ceiling of N xp" kind of thing. That example might be too high, just an example anyway).
Anyway, these are all generalities, but possible ones within the current framework. Other things beyond posting and canceling of fixed missions (with specific requirements, and success/failure parameters, that then run autonomously whether the player is online or not) would probably not be possible without a mission system re-architecture (not desired). Still, I imagine we can work within these limits to fulfill most of the goals.
You would have some remote inventory in Station X, that you wanted brought to Station Y. You would create a mission, you'd select a particular mission "class" (say, like, "Freighter") which would then prompt you for various parameters. What cargo you wanted moved, where you wanted it moved *to*, what you were offering as payment, etc. Once you defined the cargo you wanted moved, it would no longer be available to you until: A) the mission was completed, or B) you chose to cancel the mission entirely. If the mission were already being taken, the option to cancel would probably not exist.
You would also be able to define "mission requirements", much like our current missions: license levels, faction standing(s), and as discussed above.. particular character name or membership in a guild of specific name. The mission would be posted, and visible to people based on the requirements (ie, not visible to people who cannot get it). So if you said "Only Incarnate", then I would be the only person to see the mission. "Only TGFT", then only TGFT members could see it.
Once posted, the mission would be unrelated to anything else you did. You could be offline, online, whatever. You would have no other control, beyond the initial requirements of the posted mission. This is how our mission system is architected, and for good technical reasons that I won't get into.
If the player you wanted to give the mission to was not online, you could simply retract/cancel the mission. It would be possible to also construct missions that were only posted for a fixed period of time, and then auto-canceled if not "taken" within that period. Ie, a requirement of "Within the next 1 hour", then if no one takes it, the mission auto-cancels an hour later.
You *could* have options built into the mission class ("Freighter"), like being able to pay half upfront and half on delivery. But for most cases the expectation would be.. deliver the items, receive payment. That's how our current missions all work.
The mission system could also dole out XP for specific mission classes, based on the quantity of cargo and the distance involved, but it would probably be low-ball numbers to prevent exploitation by people concocting missions for one another. Users would not be able to influence XP handed out by a mission, beyond the limits of whatever algorithm we defined (like a "(1 xp per cu / 2) * number of hops; with a ceiling of N xp" kind of thing. That example might be too high, just an example anyway).
Anyway, these are all generalities, but possible ones within the current framework. Other things beyond posting and canceling of fixed missions (with specific requirements, and success/failure parameters, that then run autonomously whether the player is online or not) would probably not be possible without a mission system re-architecture (not desired). Still, I imagine we can work within these limits to fulfill most of the goals.
That sounds great! My main praise goes to the ability to select a particular person to make the move. This will also lead to the Vipers having something to do, and the pirates really having something to do!
Sign me up!
Sign me up!
Ok, let's get some further feedback on this concept, and if there aren't any other major concerns or suggestions, I'll look at rolling it into a ticket for Ray later this week. (The ticket would be made then, not the feature, not exactly sure when this would happen.. would have to discuss it with him more. But like a 60-day kind of timeframe, not "Soon(tm)" :).