I think deconstruction should be lossy rather than perfect, but otherwise I don't have a problem with it.

I agree those final items like the 8 IBA should not be returned.

I'd like to see more about why Skinwalker doesn't like the idea of giving away a Trident, particularly in the case of a player leaving the game.

(I don't mean to imply that I agree, but it seems now would be a good time to air any concerns. I think he may be on to something from an economic perspective, but some discussion laying out exactly what the perceived problem is might be beneficial. You can assume I'm aware of things like value, scarcity, and opportunity cost).

Concern.

At the start, building a trident was turned into a pretty much masochistic thing by Raging John. It was hard, time consuming and, for someone who is not into driving behemoths hauling stuff for months - actually boring.
So... building a trident became somewhat easier over time. The most recent concession was removing the 30k travel to M7.

Before this latest concession, a dedicated player with some help from his friends could theoretically build a trident in 3-4 months on his own.
Building a trident is a part of VO content aimed at keeping players busy and invested in the game.
For many players, as it seems, trident became 'the end game'. They would build it, play with it for a while. Decide it's nothing special and quit.

Making tridents almost instantly available to anyone, at least in my opinion, is not a good move in terms of player retention.
By doing it like this, you are actually removing VO content that kept players occupied for a long time and giving them a shortcut to get to the end game, get bored with nothing to do anymore and just quit.

I somehow think that adding content and not creating shortcuts to circumvent the already existing content is the right way to go.
Of course, I might be wrong - it's just my opinion, I have no true insight into all the facts and data developers have so it's Raging Johns call after all.

Again, I'm not really following Bojan's complaint here, any more than I did Skinwalker's.

Tridents are manufactured items formed from components. These components have always been for sale, and I think it was CD who first started selling "kits" of them.

All we're really discussing here is the ability to split a functional trident back down into component pieces.

This is relevant for wanting to re-sell your trident investment, or (potentially) for wanting to break down your Type M and change it to some other theoretical configuration.

The degree of instant gratification here (for people "buying" tridents) is not really any more than it was already. And we certainly can make the process of de-construction "lossy" as well, or add a need for additional items that have to be manufactured by the individual, if we still want to require some degree of personal effort.

But, fundamentally, I don't have any real problem with the concept of deconstruction (the limitations or parameters of which could vary), and I haven't really seen anyone post an actual problem with that. I'm open to hearing about these actual problems, if someone has something of value to add there?

If you're going to make a "lossy" deconstruction process, making the Reactor have to be re-built every time would be a good place to start. It's a reasonably large component and has character accomplishment flags tied to it that're needed for the rest of the build.

I agree with ARF and others that deconstruction should not be perfect and should even imply some risk. Things like the reactor beacon and even the dedicated type m computer should be enough "punishment" for a trident pilots who want to convert the type M to a pile of parts for trade or other flavors of trident and hopefully other classes of vessel we have not thought players could have such as player owned HAC or Terradons. I am considering having myself and a few others apply to PCC to push more inovation at the topic at hand.

+1 ARF

There should be no time based restrictions on the mission, I feel it would set an arbitrary restriction on free trade.

Also, I feel that this new content should curtail the amount of EULA violations of real world trading and account sharing. If we can provide current and future players a facility officially endorsed in game instead of resorting to more malicious avenues.

This makes no sense, lol. Permanently deconstructing and selling off a Trident is something that will largely only be done by quitting players and, in those instances, will serve to virtually guarantee the quitting player NEVER returns to resub while simultaneously dramatically reducing the subscription requirement of the recieving players who would have otherwise needed to grind for at least three long months.

Greenwall makes a valid point that players who decide to give away the deconstructed vessel are more inclined not to return, but wouldn't said player just hand over the entire account if they intend to not return? It wouldn't even require them to use this mission to begin with.

I really don't care about "retaining" players by forcing them to keep their stuff. It's basically an illusion anyway, as Mi5 says, they may just give up their account.

Besides, there are a number of other situations that might be addressed by this. If anything, enabling features that broaden the usage and preceived "value" of the game content.. tends to improve aggregate retention. If people have decided to leave, then they're going to leave.

Nothing wrong with a decon mission , especially if the s and p require a full build, then you can just insert your s and p parts, rebuild.

Yup, exactly. Helps the new-variant case, helps the "move ship between characters" case, etc.

Let's go then! Hooray!

I've started on this. I'll let everyone know how it goes. If someone else is working on this please let me know. We can collaborate or at least share ideas.

I've sent my application in, as a few others have.

EDIT: Alright I want to get a general consensus of what the community wants compared to the existing TRS effort alongside what Incarnate is willing to publish.

Total credit cost: 30m (To cover "labor" from corvus end on deconstruction)

Total recipe loss: (To maintain realism, minimize exploit, along with cargo loss due to insufficient space )

(You should not be able to unsmelt ores)
Premium Carbonic Ore : 2000cu
Premium Silicate Ore : 1000cu
Premium Ferric Ore : 600cu
Premium VanAzek Ore : 200cu
Premium Xithricite Ore : 400cu
Premium Ishik Ore : 200cu
Heliocene Ore : 350cu
Lanthanic Ore : 280cu
Apicene Ore : 160cu
Denic Ore : 300cu

(You should have to repaint/regrease your ship)
Ship Paint : 160cu
Bearing Grease : 14cu

I've approved all the current PCC applications, as of today.

Posted TRS's deconstruct mission on the PCC mission feedback.

Hope this helps.

Not being able to unsmelt ores is a pretty minor inconvenience, almost such an inconvenience that it doesn't matter on the basis that the logistic hours required to move those ores are better spent just obtaining them on the destination character in the first place. People might not even move the ores half the time.

I just wonder if it wouldn't be better to actually have more steps required to be taken before you can obtain all your items, maybe stagger the deconstruction to take place over a couple of days, requiring further deliverables to come in?

The irony of the PCC seems to be that most missions are elaborate Phaserlight-written dialogues that ultimately give you nothing of actual benefit, with the exception of 'Slay the Hydra' and the one about the IDHCP.

Now that we have something of actual benefit to give, I wonder if its worth structuring something around it to stimulate the economy a little bit rather than simply the whole "come in, click yes, pay fee, here's your dent parts back" routine.