Well, I don't subscribe to the 'tell people what they have to want' school of thought. People may have to take a break from VO for RL reasons, and punishing them for that isn't very wise.

Reduce cargo space by all means. The 'charge by in-game time' makes most sense to me. Make the limit 2.5kcu. A hundredfold increase in storage fees is not going to hurt the already wealthy, though, but the ones trying to gain a foothold.

I'm all for an incredibly strict 1000cu limit plus crazy fees for anyone beyond said limit, but if this happens I think people should be allowed to remotely delete any of their cargo from any place in the universe (not to be confused with selling). That should fix up the bit with not being able to dock anywhere in Dau x_x.

Also: hated people are KoS, too! Few things should require strict KoS as it is too easy to accidentally go from -1000 to -999

Not too sure about the "crazy" fees for more storage space. Maybe distinguish between storing ships and matter? I completely agree that the nasty habit of storing ships and weapons in the anticipation that the price will go up, especially because the offer cost is negligible, should be curtailed. Maybe let the first five ships be free, then extort a fairly large amount of "docking berth cost" for the following. That would not hurt new players.

If the devs put excessive penalties on storage of raw goods and cargo widgets, I see that the missions for special items are going to fail. Right now we have a (although small) market for players to sell kits to other players (like the SL kit), one of the extremely few player-player interactions that doesn't involve pew-pew. However, it means that the seller needs to be able to stock a fair amount of the required goods.

So, I do not think we can change storage space allocation into a money sink, and I do not believe that we need to have one. Lets just wait for capital ships and player owned/leased stations for that. I do not see a problem with some players having excessive amounts of money. However, I think that in RP terms that it makes sense to limit the free amount of space, to impose some financial cost on storage space, and in particular to impose some financial cost to ships storage.

That said, please keep the discussion above the waistline for once? It is getting tiresome and repetitive...

This is a game last time I've checked and from what I understand about games are they not to be fun? Of course fun being subjective to one's point of view.

And in that context, how does this suggestion make this game more fun?

Also, Whytee brings up a decent point about reasons not to make "a money sink,."

And in that context, how does this suggestion make this game more fun?

It makes the game more immersive, and is a step toward a well-balanced dynamic-economy space combat mmorpg. We've all agreed that a well-balanced dynamic-economy space-combat mmorpg would be fun, or we wouldn't be sitting around playing Guild Software to develop one.

But I suspect you already knew that, and are merely being contrary.

However, it means that the seller needs to be able to stock a fair amount of the required goods.


Right, and for this they will pay fees. In business, that's called "overhead" -- and you pass it along to your customer. So this will make a S/L Kit cost more. Whoopdeefuckindoo.

I know good Dr. I was cautioning that they nerf it too much and thus bury the option in the name of Holy Money-sinking.

Naturally it has absolutely NOTHING to do with me having several hundred thousand crates of Helio lying around...:)

cause like not being able to have a decisive victory over your opponent cause they have billions of credits and ships only cost 10s of thousands is not fun?

cause like not being able to have a decisive victory over your opponent cause they have billions of credits and ships only cost 10s of thousands is not fun?

You act as if you couldn't have those billions of credits as well if you didn't choose a different path.

To me the money sinks seem to be a temporary place holder for making money simply harder to come by. Until then, though, we need to get some credits out of our system.

It seems that the majority has turned this thread over and started thinking that this is just a suggestion coming from pirates who just want to be mean to traders. It is not. It could be that most of us became pirates because we value games where you actually do something to get money and there is a system of advancement and a risk of failure if you're not good at what you do. But that is all a different matter. All the same, can we put aside the flaming and focus on ways that we can take steps to actually making money matter?

We can adjust this in many small steps so there's no reason to get hung up on the potential for a credit sink.

It is immersive, realistic, and gives pilots an additional layer to juggle when they calculate their ideal gameplay strategies. *I* consider this fun. But I can see that it is subjective so if you'd rather things were kept more simple feel free to speak against this idea.

This idea should not be thought of as a credit sink.

I'm not acting like that at all atice, I suggest you read what I wrote again. If this game is going to evolve to a point beyond space quake money needs to be an issue, ship losses need to count for something and becoming "rich" should require much more thinking then take mission from point A to point B.

A 1000 cu per station times the 30 ? current stations is 30,000 cus of storage. 5 ships per 30 stations is 150 ships.

I realise that there are some players who voluntarily limit themselves by becoming KOS with most of VO but this in my book is thier choice.

2 ships and 500 cu per station is actually plenty for most players. That works out to 60 ships and 15000 cus of storage.

Less space and moderate fees looks to be a better choice in my book.

free 500 cu and 2 ships at each station.

1 credit per cu per in-game day (8 hours) would be very easy to pay.

1000 credits per ship per in-game day looks to be fairly easy on the pocket as well

seems I misread the tone of your post peytros. I'm not sure how such a system would work, however, and it sounds somewhat EVE like. I dunno... I feel like if there is too much risk of serious loss, people just won't engage.

I've been playing almost 6 years and I only have 6 in game days total. 1C/cu per 8 hours in game would be way less than it costs now. Big no to going the wrong direction.

EDIT: adding a reply to atice:

As I was commenting to ardenus today, at some point vo has to decide and accept what kind of game it's going to be. While the goal seems to be MMO the reality is glorified space quake. I personally have my doubts it will ever get past that, but to each their own. PvP is right now the only thing keeping a lot of players playing. The other half are holding out hope that all their money grinding will pay off, but the fact is if it does those players will very suddenly possess an eve like vet advantage without the required hard work. I'm the last person to endorse yet another reason for running from a fight, but money concerns would at least be a legitimate reason for running, and if this game is going to be a real MMO, those mechanics need to exist.

We're forgetting the newbies, here. Perhaps we should have some kind of "ship maintenance" fee based on a fraction of the original price. This would encourage gameplay more like EVN where a player really only has one ship in their arsenal at a time. Then have default max space (not including ships) be 100 cu. That would be free. Then extra chunks of 100 cu space can be bought for a fee, up to 19 more of them. Each chunk would only cost 50,000cr and it would cost 5,000cr per cu the person withdraws.

To be fair, one of the major attractions for many folk is actually community. I enjoy the comradeship of my guild and friends in game. Having a punitive charge/unit time for storage would be difficult for folk who do enjoy spending time ingame with friends, but may be playing from parts of the world where any pvp is impractical.

I am totally against any system which has a negative effect on players such as Whytee, who spend time away from VO due to RL. I know why he is away: I will fight tooth and nail to ensure that on his return VO is an enjoyable experience.

Look, I am way past the point that anything VO throws at me personally has any real effect. I am however the commander of TGFT, and must therefore represent those players who do see VO as more than just spacequake. You can throw personal insults at me all you like; you will not affect me personally. I will still argue against changes which will have a detrimental affect on folk who do just wish to pay a sub, trade a bit, mine stuff and talk to folk. They do contribute financially to VO, why should they not enjoy the game their way ?

I actually think that the present 10 k per station free storage is a sensible limit. The price rolloff system could do with a bit of detail adjustment but is the right idea, and that storage charges are sensible given that some players may be offline for 6 months but still pay a sub.

I understand that behind all this is an intention to implement a true supply/demand dynamic economy. I would welcome that long term, but punitive short term fixes will only reduce the playerbase.

I understand that the suggestions forum is just that; suggestions. However can we try to suggest things to improve the game as a strategic whole rather than suggest things which would merely satisfy the tactical objectives of a minor subset of the playerbase.

"People who don't like this suggestion are quite capable of speaking for themselves." - Maalik

Of course not. Certain individuals have managed to totally ruin the desire of most active players to contribute on the discussion forum with their constant fire spitting.

@impavid: I hear you. I can't say if I agree with you as we're both speaking in vagaries at this point, but what you're saying makes sense (with regards to the direction of the game).

Also, 6 days ingame total? no fucking way. I have 27...

Whytee said: However, I think that in RP terms that it makes sense to limit the free amount of space, to impose some financial cost on storage space, and in particular to impose some financial cost to ships storage.

Ecka said: I am totally against any system which has a negative effect on players such as Whytee...

This change wouldn't have to have any effect at all on people who aren't currently playing. Rent shouldn't be changed until you've docked at the offending stations.

There are a lot of proposals out there for adjusted numbers, and I'm not sure why you see them all as punitive to the extent that the it will "reduce the playerbase." 1k cu free storage and 30k/week for each additional 1k cu seems quite reasonable. Can you post some details illuminating why you think this isn't fair?