Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
100
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
Some people may have seen me post about this in other threads but I have never seen it addressed in its own thread.
My question is, at this point in the life of EvE as an online game, why aren't there any mandatory upkeep costs for ships and other assets (POS excluded of course)? I am talking about how ships require no significant maintenance, there are no docking or storage fees, no one needs to stock crew, food, or water. There is no fuel replenishment or replacement of items for "wear and tear". Just about the only upkeep there is include ammo, jump fuel, and insurance, one of those is optional and the other is insanely cheap.
Obviously the downside to more upkeep is the ISK cost, but the benefits are far better. First off, this would add a sink to the economy that would help decrease inflation. Second, it would put downward pressure on players to maintain a "closet full of ships" that can be simply switched out instantly for whatever the immediate situation calls for. Third, it would add another layer of consideration to the purchase of a ship outside acquisition and fitting costs. Fourth, it would add a soft cap to the sustainability of larger ships, thereby making them more expensive and harder to deploy (meaning they would be less of an automatic win for those who have them). Fifth, it would just simply be more realistic. And lastly (for now), it would force players to fit ships in a more broad and less specialized manner, for extended stays in space, and less station humping.
So, what I want to hear are substantive arguments and facts in support of, or opposed to this idea.
In the words of Human Torch, FLAME ON!!! |
Tragedy
The Creepshow
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
No. |
Unsuccessful At Everything
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
75
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
Get out. |
Spurty
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
494
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
I love the idea and I brought it up once in discussion years ago.
Got poo pooed as "computer games are artificial. No one wants reality afflicting their game" sort of replies.
What you want, what everyone else wants and what CCP end up doing are often at odds
---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
2726
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
no. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
158
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
Only if it only applies to highsec. CONCORD regulations require a yearly vehicle registration and emissions inspection. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1748
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
I'm pretty sure gear maintenance has never led to any fun gameplay ever. It's just used as a way to manage money sinks when not enough people are dying.
Eve ships exploding and modules overheating give enough "gear maintenance" as is.
So, OP: No. Rifterlings - small gang frigate PvP - low/nullsec operations, newbie-friendly, free ship program; Join today! www.rifterlings.com
Accidentally The Whole Frigate (blog) - Learning how to pew pew, one loss at a time - www.thewholefrigate.com |
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
100
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:47:00 -
[8] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:Get out.
I was hoping for more than just "no" or "yes". I want to hear WHY. |
|
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
221
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
Moved from General Discussion. ISD Suvetar Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Unsuccessful At Everything
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
75
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:49:00 -
[10] - Quote
i may have been a bit harsh with my initial post. After thinking about it, Ill pay your maintainence fee, But i expect all my ships with any damage to be repaired without any input from myself, free of charge. If this doesnt happen, then they arent being maintained....and if they arent being maintained..why for now you want fee? Having said that... Ill stick by my original post. |
|
Robert De'Arneth
85
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:50:00 -
[11] - Quote
No thanks, I have quit every game that forced me to work, if I wanted a 2nd job I would get one that pays me, not one I have to pay for. What is it with people wanting everyone to treat a frigging game like it is a job. No offense op, I play for fun and no game that forces this on it's players is what I would call fun. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
950
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 20:13:00 -
[12] - Quote
Sorry... but that "storage closet" full of ships is actually necessary for me as I never know what the enemy is going to bring out. And I may or may not lose that ship so I need a replacement. Which may or may not be used based on whatever the enemy may or may not bring.
Your idea also requires that people "grind" to maintain a certain level of income (cutting costs just isn't an option for some people because it will diminish their effectiveness and put their remaining assets in greater jeopardy). Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
100
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 20:16:00 -
[13] - Quote
Robert De'Arneth wrote:No thanks, I have quit every game that forced me to work, if I wanted a 2nd job I would get one that pays me, not one I have to pay for. What is it with people wanting everyone to treat a frigging game like it is a job. No offense op, I play for fun and no game that forces this on it's players is what I would call fun.
I can see this being true if it was like 1mil to dock and like 10mil a day to moor a ship. But assuming the costs are not exorbitant putting a price on ship upkeep would do much to control the problem many people have with caps and super cap ships being so available and easy to deploy. Also, I for one think its dumb to just "leave" a ship and get into another, turn the lights on and you are ready to rock and roll. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
2726
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 20:41:00 -
[14] - Quote
Shizuken wrote:Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:Get out. I was hoping for more than just "no" or "yes". I want to hear WHY.
You really can't see the issues? Really? Everything looks good from your perspective? I'll point out a few of the most obvious ones.
First: It's not fun and never has been in any game ever. Not a single one. On the other hand it's one of the most hated feature in many games and removing it only improves the gameplay experience. Point being it's fundamentally a bad and hated feature, so you don't want to do this unless it's an absolute necessity to ensure the functioning of your game. If you have any other means to achieve the same goals, you use them.
So why do games do this then? Sometimes because of bad design, but mostly because they need to control the amount of money in the game and they lack actual uses for money. This isn't really a problem with EVE. You constantly need more money and have uses for it, so personally it's not an issue. We also already have many ISK sinks, that control the system, so we don't need to introduce such bad gameplay features to manage the health of the system. It just isn't needed.
Second: Why for the love of God do you think introducing an upkeep for assets is a good idea in a player driven market environment? We want people to buy and consume as much as possible to maintain the health of the game. Putting an upkeep on this would work directly against this engine, that keeps several gameplay aspects and the entire game going. Gameplay should be designed to stimulate buying, consuming and destruction of assets and not to stifle it.
Third: Collecting things is a goal and a reason to play for many, so penalizing it in any form is bad. Having extra ships also allows you to experience the game more fully by allowing you to switch between several different roles and activities(Something you classify as a downside ).Having large stock piles of ships is also mandatory, if you want to play the PvP part of the game actively. You're going to lose ships and you want to get back to playing as soon as possible. This means having stockpiles of replacement ships ready to go. It's mandatory, if you want to enjoy playing the game in most parts of the space. Putting a cost on that is going to create big legitimate grievances for your playerbase.
Fourth: What are the practical implications and are you going to invest even more dev time in hammering out the loopholes? For example do you pay upkeep for packaged ships? How about ships on the market or in contracts? What did you plan to do when people start using market and contracts for storage space, because of your upkeep mechanic? Are you ok with people storaging thousands of replacement ships on the market, creating storage alts and whatever to go around your mechanic? It's useless, if people do that, but trying to block all loopholes isn't going to be simple and you're likely to harm legitimate gameplay doing it. Is it really worth the time, trouble and cost even when the most likely end result is, that it could have been done in other ways and it severely reduces the enjoyment most people get from playing?
Conclusion: I'm sure there are other points to make, but I'm tired and I'm not sure it's really necessary. This idea is a perfect example of what happens when someone tries to transfer a feature from another game directly to EVE without really giving any thought how it fits here. It's bad/lazy game design used as a stopgap to keep badly designed systems going, EVE doesn't need it and it's actually detrimental for the health of the game and for the gameplay. In conclusion, the idea is bad and anyone suggesting it needs to have their license to post gameplay suggestions removed for a minimum of 2 weeks, so they can think hard about what they did.
TL;DR: Get out. |
Furry Commander
Furry Armada
17
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 20:55:00 -
[15] - Quote
one of the biggest most aggrivating parts of real life is having to constantly dump money into things just to maintain a standard of living which is in most circumstances far below what most people consider to be a fair and healthy one. why would i want this in my games where i go to escape the depressing parts of life? |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
951
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 21:46:00 -
[16] - Quote
Furry Commander wrote:one of the biggest most aggrivating parts of real life is having to constantly dump money into things just to maintain a standard of living which is in most circumstances far below what most people consider to be a fair and healthy one. why would i want this in my games where i go to escape the depressing parts of life? God damn dude. Couldn't have said it better. *high fives* Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Crispin McTarmac
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 22:23:00 -
[17] - Quote
Upkeep costs are already here: all crew wages, reaction mass re-fuelling, hangar space hire and other minor expenses are included in your CONCORD pilot's license fee. |
Furry Commander
Furry Armada
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 22:53:00 -
[18] - Quote
Crispin McTarmac wrote:Upkeep costs are already here: all crew wages, reaction mass re-fuelling, hangar space hire and other minor expenses are included in your CONCORD pilot's license fee.
i loled. i suppose that is a true statement though |
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
100
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 20:22:00 -
[19] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:Shizuken wrote:Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:Get out. I was hoping for more than just "no" or "yes". I want to hear WHY. You really can't see the issues? Really? Everything looks good from your perspective? I'll point out a few of the most obvious ones.
Well, first of all, thank you for a substantive reply. This is exactly what I was looking for. However, yes, everything looks good from my perspective. First off, I never meant to indicate that the potential cost would be incredible. Some of the other replies seem to think, as you do, that I was suggesting something on the level of the cost of a PLEX for basic upkeep, but I was not suggesting that.
Second, it does not take away from the player driven market environment at all. It adds to it. If it was implemented simply as a premium on rented space, it could add another layer of complexity to the game in the form of real estate. Stations would have a finite level of internal volume devoted to storage that could be rented on a per (m3) basis. As the occupancy level increases, so would the premium on the space for those renewing or starting to rent space. And, the station could be expanded. This would also give POS owners another revenue stream, as they could use the money for other things, or to expand their stations. As it is now, the idea that all these corps build gigantic stations with infinite space for all players, in every station, for no charge, is not part of a market driven system at all.
Third, The ability to switch between different roles is not in and of itself a downside. However, if you want to switch between all roles at the drop of a hat, that convenience should come with some cost. We are talking about gigantic spaceships here, not a collection of specialized small arms used in close infantry combat. If you want the ability to have huge stockpiles of ships for PvP then you should have to pay something for that ability.
Fourth, what loopholes? The ships have a defined size, and them being listed on the market, packaged or not, does not change that fact. If you own it, and are trying to sell it, I would remain in your hangar until sold. This is no different than real life. Just be cause you list some junk in your closet on Ebay, does not make it disappear until the auction ends. If it has no crew, there is no crew cost or food to pay for. Similarly, if it is floating in space, there are no storage fees.
Conclusion: I have given much thought to how this feature could be made to fit in EvE. I am not suggesting a simple calculated payment of ISK to CCP every month, there are ways to integrate this so it feels more natural to an economy based game like EvE.
Destination SkillQueue wrote:In conclusion, the idea is bad and anyone suggesting it needs to have their license to post gameplay suggestions removed for a minimum of 2 weeks, so they can think hard about what they did.
As for this statement, I don't really know how to respond to this. You seem to think that anyone not aligning with your view on how EvE should be is worthy of a totalitarian style censure and should be silenced. Well guess what, people of many viewpoints play this game. You may hate mine, but I find your support of the non market-based storage system in this game a little two dimensional. That however does not mean you should be "silenced." Plus, and what would those people reflect on in their 2 week suspension? I am guessing not a single one would say "wow that guy was right, I am a total ****** and it was right of me to be banned."
Destination SkillQueue wrote:TL;DR
This explains a lot. |
Marcus Ichiro
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
78
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 02:29:00 -
[20] - Quote
Shizuken wrote:it does not take away from the player driven market environment at all
If players have to pay for m3 to store their ships and equipment they'll simply just stop buying ships and equipment. How does that help the player driven market? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |