Forums » Suggestions
You can make a mission for it which requires some credits to deconstruct capships ,
Then the parts will be added back in latos m-7
Then the parts will be added back in latos m-7
-1
You made your bed, now lie in it. Nowdays its not even that hard to build another capship.
You made your bed, now lie in it. Nowdays its not even that hard to build another capship.
Gimme a trident kit then joyless ,
Also im not the first guy whose asking for it
It got suggested many times in the past
Also get your ONE buddies ready to -1 all my suggestions joyless :P
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/34833
Also im not the first guy whose asking for it
It got suggested many times in the past
Also get your ONE buddies ready to -1 all my suggestions joyless :P
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/34833
There are some deconstruct missions in the works. I think phaserlight has made some. They just need to be approved.
-1 This can lends itself to possible exploitation.
There should be refit missions as new capships are made available that allow you to refit your current capship into the new model by bringing additional parts.
There should be refit missions as new capships are made available that allow you to refit your current capship into the new model by bringing additional parts.
This can lends itself to possible exploitation.
In what way?
In what way?
It would allow you to move capships across alts.
Very true, wash.
As long as the deconstruct mission is not 100% efficient, it shouldn't be a problem. I figure that in the deconstruction process the computer and the 200mw reactor suffers irreparable harm. Only things like EHAs and IBAs should survive.
It would allow you to move capships across alts.
If you spent the time and money building a capship, and then you spent more money (and time earning that money) to deconstruct it, I don't see why you can't them also spend the time (and risk interception) transferring those parts to an alt. I see no grounds for calling that exploitation.
As long as the deconstruct mission is not 100% efficient, it shouldn't be a problem.
Why isn't a fee enough of a penalty?
If you spent the time and money building a capship, and then you spent more money (and time earning that money) to deconstruct it, I don't see why you can't them also spend the time (and risk interception) transferring those parts to an alt. I see no grounds for calling that exploitation.
As long as the deconstruct mission is not 100% efficient, it shouldn't be a problem.
Why isn't a fee enough of a penalty?
This just won't be used to move capships across alts, which isn't a bad thing, but would allow more real world trades for in-game items as it skips the need to ask the devs to transfer them for you. So no.
would allow more real world trades for in-game items as it skips the need to ask the devs to transfer them for you
+1 , agrees with greenwall
To be fair, it should deconstruct all manufactured items as well.
If you spent the time and money building a capship, and then you spent more money (and time earning that money) to deconstruct it, I don't see why you can't them also spend the time (and risk interception) transferring those parts to an alt. I see no grounds for calling that exploitation.
After you build your first trident on your main account, it becomes much easier and safer to transport capship parts through dangerous grayspace since you now have a trident to protect your parts.
"exploitation" might be too strong a word, but it would definitely detract from pirate gameplay if everybody could easily build tridents for their alts without the normal risk.
After you build your first trident on your main account, it becomes much easier and safer to transport capship parts through dangerous grayspace since you now have a trident to protect your parts.
"exploitation" might be too strong a word, but it would definitely detract from pirate gameplay if everybody could easily build tridents for their alts without the normal risk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzQsRcZ1lOs
This has already been suggested, and the devs have shown support for both Trident Type M and Goliath.
This has already been suggested, and the devs have shown support for both Trident Type M and Goliath.
If people are going to be transferring ships to alts anyway, I'd rather they do it this way than by asking the devs to do it. Getting the devs to do things for you is a waste of dev time and rather fishy to boot.
How long is it going to take to release the dent P and S...It cant take more than an hour to edit the TTM's stats and mission requirements....
After you build your first trident on your main account, it becomes much easier and safer to transport capship parts through dangerous grayspace since you now have a trident to protect your parts.
Right, which is the point of building a Trident (or goliath).
"exploitation" might be too strong a word, but it would definitely detract from pirate gameplay if everybody could easily build tridents for their alts without the normal risk.
Yes, exploitation is too strong a word for playing the game as it was intended to be be played.
Alts are a natural, planned, permitted, and facilitated part of gameplay. Transferring goods between alts is a fully supported part of gameplay. There is absolutely zero reason to restrict the transfer of certain goods between alts, especially considering that it always entails the risk of interception by enemies. The transfer of any capital ship parts, or entire capital ship kits for that matter, between characters on the same account in no way diminishes the price of original acquisition.
Regardless, this matter has already been settled and a case doesn't really have to be made in support of it any longer. I was just curious if Wash had some yet unheard argument as to why it would be exploitative, which he apparently doesn't... so... moving on.
Right, which is the point of building a Trident (or goliath).
"exploitation" might be too strong a word, but it would definitely detract from pirate gameplay if everybody could easily build tridents for their alts without the normal risk.
Yes, exploitation is too strong a word for playing the game as it was intended to be be played.
Alts are a natural, planned, permitted, and facilitated part of gameplay. Transferring goods between alts is a fully supported part of gameplay. There is absolutely zero reason to restrict the transfer of certain goods between alts, especially considering that it always entails the risk of interception by enemies. The transfer of any capital ship parts, or entire capital ship kits for that matter, between characters on the same account in no way diminishes the price of original acquisition.
Regardless, this matter has already been settled and a case doesn't really have to be made in support of it any longer. I was just curious if Wash had some yet unheard argument as to why it would be exploitative, which he apparently doesn't... so... moving on.
Yes, it's abundantly clear that you never cared for pirate gameplay, which is as valid as any other gameplay choice. Which is why it's a good thing you're NOT in charge of any game design related decisions.
If the devs support the idea of deconstruction, so be it. It's their game after all.
If the devs support the idea of deconstruction, so be it. It's their game after all.