Forums » Suggestions
Please cut down on that crap, I'm trying to get this suggestion back on track here. I've already done my best to assure you that this is not some pirate conspiracy of some sort.
What I had just suggested in my last post (given the ability to delete ships from station inventories the other end of the 'verse) would not affect newbies because their ships are dirt cheap and they don't usually have more than 100 cu anywhere and it would not drain people who are afk from VO. First off, people would only pay one-time fees other than ship maintenance (which should be just high enough of a fraction of ship costs to prevent people from stockpiling; this would encourage people to fly one ship at a time somewhat EVN-style) and they would only be charged when withdrawing cargo not stored in the default 100 cu.
What I had just suggested in my last post (given the ability to delete ships from station inventories the other end of the 'verse) would not affect newbies because their ships are dirt cheap and they don't usually have more than 100 cu anywhere and it would not drain people who are afk from VO. First off, people would only pay one-time fees other than ship maintenance (which should be just high enough of a fraction of ship costs to prevent people from stockpiling; this would encourage people to fly one ship at a time somewhat EVN-style) and they would only be charged when withdrawing cargo not stored in the default 100 cu.
@Atice Yeah I misread it's 60 days, still not anything in terms of storage costs though.
Also, if characters on unsubbed accounts were not charged rent (they shouldn't be) and you didn't want to lose credits while you were away but wanted to keep giving money to Guild Software, you could cancel the one account and sub a dummy account until you started playing again.
whoever suggested 2 ships and 500cu's is off their nut, thats one behemoth xc, and one revenant sized ship, theirs your 500cu and two ships, right there, with nothing in storage.
1000 cu of shit is incredibly easy to store in a station, especially if you have a bunch of ships. Ec107's are 100 cu each, i think Vultures are similar, Hogs might be a bit bigger. one gauss vult, one neutron vult, an agt/flare hog, a behemoth, and a centaur would be damn near the 1000 cu.
Having to sell and rebuy ships every time you want to change loadouts is not fun, it's annoying.
I realize some say we need money sinks, but they miss the point by orders of magnitude. We don't need to force players to go broke, we need to open up possibilities of things to blow money on, cap ships im sure will cost a good shit ton or so. Once things like that become player accessable the vast majority of the money in circulation will simply get blown to bits.
oh and shanktank, i think your entire last post stinks on ice.
1000 cu of shit is incredibly easy to store in a station, especially if you have a bunch of ships. Ec107's are 100 cu each, i think Vultures are similar, Hogs might be a bit bigger. one gauss vult, one neutron vult, an agt/flare hog, a behemoth, and a centaur would be damn near the 1000 cu.
Having to sell and rebuy ships every time you want to change loadouts is not fun, it's annoying.
I realize some say we need money sinks, but they miss the point by orders of magnitude. We don't need to force players to go broke, we need to open up possibilities of things to blow money on, cap ships im sure will cost a good shit ton or so. Once things like that become player accessable the vast majority of the money in circulation will simply get blown to bits.
oh and shanktank, i think your entire last post stinks on ice.
I will fight tooth and nail to ensure that on his return VO is an enjoyable experience.
Yes. Because otherwise desirable game mechanics must be stopped dead in their fucking tracks because one guy wants to hoard massive amounts of Heliocene. European thinking at its finest, gentlemen and gentlemen pretending to be ladies.
Yes. Because otherwise desirable game mechanics must be stopped dead in their fucking tracks because one guy wants to hoard massive amounts of Heliocene. European thinking at its finest, gentlemen and gentlemen pretending to be ladies.
One guy says its too cheap and anouther says theres not enough storage. Funny but I dont see your versions anywhere....
Lnh seems overly concerned about the terrible burden his dozen ship load outs will cost him.... lets see 100 ships times a thousand credits is.... 100,000 every 8 hours. wow - thats like 1 escort mission in 8 hours of actual time spent in game. BTW ships dont use any station storage space....
Yes my proposal is somewhat less then the current one but the number of characters that will have to pay will increase and remove far more credits.
Lnh seems overly concerned about the terrible burden his dozen ship load outs will cost him.... lets see 100 ships times a thousand credits is.... 100,000 every 8 hours. wow - thats like 1 escort mission in 8 hours of actual time spent in game. BTW ships dont use any station storage space....
Yes my proposal is somewhat less then the current one but the number of characters that will have to pay will increase and remove far more credits.
That's one hell of an oversimplification Lecter.
One counter-argument to increasing storage fees and limiting free storage is that players who go away for awhile would be punished in a manner that does not make them want to return. As player retention is a good thing, we would like to avoid changes which diminish it.
Just because the example given happens to be an extraordinary one does not invalidate this one particular argument against the OP. Don't try to pretend that it does.
Moving on...
Currently storage is cheaper than it makes immersive sense for it to be. Charging more for extra storage would most likely increase trading and decrease stockpiling, which is a good thing. However, we should keep in mind that we do not want any changes we make to the storage system to become cumbersome with regards to simple tasks such as storing medium sized (200-400cu) stockpiles of different weapons, or moving a few XCs into Sedina (see LNHs numbers)...
By the same token, we don't want to punish users who take a break from the game yet still hold a subscription. Here are a couple ways of accomplishing this goal:
1) Charge for storage on account of in-game time (I dislike this approach)
2) Stop charging for storage after X months of inactivity.
side note: does anyone know what happens if you run out of money, but still have stuff in storage that you should be paying for?
One counter-argument to increasing storage fees and limiting free storage is that players who go away for awhile would be punished in a manner that does not make them want to return. As player retention is a good thing, we would like to avoid changes which diminish it.
Just because the example given happens to be an extraordinary one does not invalidate this one particular argument against the OP. Don't try to pretend that it does.
Moving on...
Currently storage is cheaper than it makes immersive sense for it to be. Charging more for extra storage would most likely increase trading and decrease stockpiling, which is a good thing. However, we should keep in mind that we do not want any changes we make to the storage system to become cumbersome with regards to simple tasks such as storing medium sized (200-400cu) stockpiles of different weapons, or moving a few XCs into Sedina (see LNHs numbers)...
By the same token, we don't want to punish users who take a break from the game yet still hold a subscription. Here are a couple ways of accomplishing this goal:
1) Charge for storage on account of in-game time (I dislike this approach)
2) Stop charging for storage after X months of inactivity.
side note: does anyone know what happens if you run out of money, but still have stuff in storage that you should be paying for?
Wow, you can spin vague, unsupported hypotheticals. Confuckingratualtions. We don't just need smarter noobs, we need smarter vets. You're boring me, Atice.
Back to the numbers..
My biggest stash is in D14. I have imported weapons and ships and ingredients for Superlights and Widowmakers plus other odds and ends. I could probably pare it down but it takes up 5800 cu now. I'd be happy to pay 150k credits every week to rent that space. Probably I would end up renting space at a few other stations but where and how much depends on what is happening in the game. Sedina is the PvP central right now, and PvP is why I play Vendetta. But that I would choose to go over 1k cu in D14 has to do with convenience not necessity. Much of my inventory there functions (or is held is hope that it will function) as something of a guild armory.
Given how steep price falloff is I don't see the need for gobs of free space. But someone with expertise should outline how changing the amount of free cargo space and rental prices in different ways would affect trading and mining for them.
What is wrong with having to make calculations about whether or not it is worth the credits to store something?
My biggest stash is in D14. I have imported weapons and ships and ingredients for Superlights and Widowmakers plus other odds and ends. I could probably pare it down but it takes up 5800 cu now. I'd be happy to pay 150k credits every week to rent that space. Probably I would end up renting space at a few other stations but where and how much depends on what is happening in the game. Sedina is the PvP central right now, and PvP is why I play Vendetta. But that I would choose to go over 1k cu in D14 has to do with convenience not necessity. Much of my inventory there functions (or is held is hope that it will function) as something of a guild armory.
Given how steep price falloff is I don't see the need for gobs of free space. But someone with expertise should outline how changing the amount of free cargo space and rental prices in different ways would affect trading and mining for them.
What is wrong with having to make calculations about whether or not it is worth the credits to store something?
Two points to fling into the ring.
1. While I agree with many of the posters here that free storage should be diminished (on the order of 1000 cu's free would suit me, though I'll also address this idea in my second point), I don't necessarily agree that reducing free storage would increase trading. If people were going to trade more they would be already, from my experience the lack of storage is nowhere near as much an impediment as the lack of incentive.
After all, most of the well-used lucrative routes these days (to my knowledge, which is, admittedly, not too broad in that area) are static routes, where stockpiling doesn't matter because the price doesn't change. I think it's a good change to implement, and will increase immersion and all that, and even make trading more immersive in the future as well, but I seriously doubt it will have an immediate effect on trading, or even a noticeable one, until other issues are dealt with.
2. PaK, ships absolutely take up station space. The various quantities quoted in this thread are pretty representative. Ideally, I'd like to see a move away from storage space being used for both goods and ships, when ships should be stored in the docking bays and goods in actual storage areas, but in lieu of making the devs work on something that really doesn't matter all that much I'd say a good compromise would be to allocate a certain amount of space for goods and a certain amount of space for ships. Say, 1000 cu for goods and 600 cu for ships, or something like that.
People would be free to use the storage for whatever they wanted, 1600 cu for ships, 1200 for ships and 400 for goods, however they pleased. But breaking it down into space like that would also be a useful mental exercise, both for possible future changes, and for arriving at a suitable amount of free space. Allocate enough for people to get by with a reasonably small number of ships and a reasonably moderate amount of goods, and there you are.
1. While I agree with many of the posters here that free storage should be diminished (on the order of 1000 cu's free would suit me, though I'll also address this idea in my second point), I don't necessarily agree that reducing free storage would increase trading. If people were going to trade more they would be already, from my experience the lack of storage is nowhere near as much an impediment as the lack of incentive.
After all, most of the well-used lucrative routes these days (to my knowledge, which is, admittedly, not too broad in that area) are static routes, where stockpiling doesn't matter because the price doesn't change. I think it's a good change to implement, and will increase immersion and all that, and even make trading more immersive in the future as well, but I seriously doubt it will have an immediate effect on trading, or even a noticeable one, until other issues are dealt with.
2. PaK, ships absolutely take up station space. The various quantities quoted in this thread are pretty representative. Ideally, I'd like to see a move away from storage space being used for both goods and ships, when ships should be stored in the docking bays and goods in actual storage areas, but in lieu of making the devs work on something that really doesn't matter all that much I'd say a good compromise would be to allocate a certain amount of space for goods and a certain amount of space for ships. Say, 1000 cu for goods and 600 cu for ships, or something like that.
People would be free to use the storage for whatever they wanted, 1600 cu for ships, 1200 for ships and 400 for goods, however they pleased. But breaking it down into space like that would also be a useful mental exercise, both for possible future changes, and for arriving at a suitable amount of free space. Allocate enough for people to get by with a reasonably small number of ships and a reasonably moderate amount of goods, and there you are.
what exactly do you people want? We have been suggesting easy additions to make the economy more dynamic and not a free money dump for ever and at every suggestion it gets blocked by the same people.
We suggested nerfing escorts, making them rarer, not letting people ride in the cap ship, and making them easier to fail. People cried foul on that.
We suggested boosting the grey space rewards for trading and nerfing the rewards in capital systems like dau and people cried foul to that.
Actually anything that would add an element of danger or require people to work together has been blocked by the same group of people. So I would really like to know what they think a functioning dynamic economy is.
We suggested nerfing escorts, making them rarer, not letting people ride in the cap ship, and making them easier to fail. People cried foul on that.
We suggested boosting the grey space rewards for trading and nerfing the rewards in capital systems like dau and people cried foul to that.
Actually anything that would add an element of danger or require people to work together has been blocked by the same group of people. So I would really like to know what they think a functioning dynamic economy is.
"2. PaK, ships absolutely take up station space."
Learn something new everyday... I do agree ships should not take up station storage space nor should thier contents That severely affects the numbers in several ways. Low CU ships are generally the same ships that get hoarded. A purely CU driven approach heavily favors them.
Humm - How about
Change 1. Players are allowed 4 free ship berths
Change 2. Ship contents do not count for station storage,
Change 3. Eliminate all free Station storage or severely restrict it.
Change 4. Station storage rented for maybe 1 credit per in game day per cu. (in 1000 cu blocks?)
Change 5. extra ship berths are rented at 1000 credits per game day per berth
From a r/l and rp perspective both berths and storage space cost unless you are an owner or member in some fashion. With the new player controlled stations one of the perks could be free storage and berths....
Using maaliks numbers 6000 cu's at one station would cost him a mere 6k per gameday so maybe 12k per realtime day plus 1000k per ship. Myself I have an easy dozen ships at several stations and two stations have big stashes of 3000 cus each - 36k per day + 3k perday... wow a whooping 40k per gameday storage fee...
Charging by time in game allows those who unsub or dont play for a while to "freeze" their characters while they are gone - no penalty! (easier for Guild too I suspect)
Atice did raise a point on what happens when money runs out - In r/l you would be required to pay up or be evicted... I do agree players need to be able to do remote sales (at the going price where the goods are) and if remote sales are put in then a player should get the chance to pay and if they fail Id be tempted to space everything stored at that station.... Without remote sales a demand for payment will have to wait untill the player actually docks.... If they undock with no payment then they will be able to pick thier stuff up as it is ejected from the side of the station...:D
Learn something new everyday... I do agree ships should not take up station storage space nor should thier contents That severely affects the numbers in several ways. Low CU ships are generally the same ships that get hoarded. A purely CU driven approach heavily favors them.
Humm - How about
Change 1. Players are allowed 4 free ship berths
Change 2. Ship contents do not count for station storage,
Change 3. Eliminate all free Station storage or severely restrict it.
Change 4. Station storage rented for maybe 1 credit per in game day per cu. (in 1000 cu blocks?)
Change 5. extra ship berths are rented at 1000 credits per game day per berth
From a r/l and rp perspective both berths and storage space cost unless you are an owner or member in some fashion. With the new player controlled stations one of the perks could be free storage and berths....
Using maaliks numbers 6000 cu's at one station would cost him a mere 6k per gameday so maybe 12k per realtime day plus 1000k per ship. Myself I have an easy dozen ships at several stations and two stations have big stashes of 3000 cus each - 36k per day + 3k perday... wow a whooping 40k per gameday storage fee...
Charging by time in game allows those who unsub or dont play for a while to "freeze" their characters while they are gone - no penalty! (easier for Guild too I suspect)
Atice did raise a point on what happens when money runs out - In r/l you would be required to pay up or be evicted... I do agree players need to be able to do remote sales (at the going price where the goods are) and if remote sales are put in then a player should get the chance to pay and if they fail Id be tempted to space everything stored at that station.... Without remote sales a demand for payment will have to wait untill the player actually docks.... If they undock with no payment then they will be able to pick thier stuff up as it is ejected from the side of the station...:D
I can envision exploits based on charging only for in-game time.
It is reasonable to ask people to scale their rental ambitions to the time they actually have to play the game.
I like Denji's idea about players allocating space between cargo and ship storage
It is reasonable to ask people to scale their rental ambitions to the time they actually have to play the game.
I like Denji's idea about players allocating space between cargo and ship storage
And how exactly would you exploit it Mallik?
Firstly, it's 'Maalik'..
Secondly, with dummy alts.. not that I would exploit it, but I see the potential.
Secondly, with dummy alts.. not that I would exploit it, but I see the potential.
Heh - sorry about the mispell...
AH- transfer everything to a dummy alt and use it to transfer goods...
Humm - could make a minimum charge - 8 hours per login would be too low....
How about a minimum charge of 56 hours (week) per any month the character logs in?
AH- transfer everything to a dummy alt and use it to transfer goods...
Humm - could make a minimum charge - 8 hours per login would be too low....
How about a minimum charge of 56 hours (week) per any month the character logs in?
Maalik , " This idea should not be thought of as a credit sink. " is not a a reasonable response to a thread that starts with " Simple enough. We need money sinks" .
A simple analysis. Ladron is a member of CHRN, the objective of the original suggestion is to skew the game in favour of the pvp enthusiasts and against the mining and trading enthusiasts. Fair enough, folk join a guild which generally plays the game in a way which suits them. The game is about people, so policy debate is reasonable. However the underlying objectives of the suggestion should be recognised for what they are. Simple tactics.
I played vo this evening after a rather tiring day. I mined a bit , did a couple of escorts, shot a few bots. I enjoyed talking with guildmates, I really wasn't in the mood for pvp. Many people choose to play this way, why deliberately try to spoil their enjoyment of the game just to try to be nasty to easy targets such as the few super rich traders ? You are only going to discourage the average player by trying to introduce sanctions aimed at players like myself.
It started as a suggestion to financially drain rich traders, and ended up as a complex set of rules to cover all instances with all sorts of charge by the hour and limits and controls. Just as an exercise Ladron, you write the tutorial mission which explains such a system to new players in a simple and clear manner. When you have done that , and come up with figures as sensibly argued as Pakettle then post . Oh , and write the acres of code needed to make it all happen .....
A simple analysis. Ladron is a member of CHRN, the objective of the original suggestion is to skew the game in favour of the pvp enthusiasts and against the mining and trading enthusiasts. Fair enough, folk join a guild which generally plays the game in a way which suits them. The game is about people, so policy debate is reasonable. However the underlying objectives of the suggestion should be recognised for what they are. Simple tactics.
I played vo this evening after a rather tiring day. I mined a bit , did a couple of escorts, shot a few bots. I enjoyed talking with guildmates, I really wasn't in the mood for pvp. Many people choose to play this way, why deliberately try to spoil their enjoyment of the game just to try to be nasty to easy targets such as the few super rich traders ? You are only going to discourage the average player by trying to introduce sanctions aimed at players like myself.
It started as a suggestion to financially drain rich traders, and ended up as a complex set of rules to cover all instances with all sorts of charge by the hour and limits and controls. Just as an exercise Ladron, you write the tutorial mission which explains such a system to new players in a simple and clear manner. When you have done that , and come up with figures as sensibly argued as Pakettle then post . Oh , and write the acres of code needed to make it all happen .....
Ecka the only person in this thread making it about traders vs pirates is you. You ought to realize by now we don't need game mechanics to pwn your ass. The original point stands. I've been a billionaire several times over NOT counting my experiment with a borked maud. Even the ship cost increase worked to my (and I expect many other vets) advantage because the devs didn't devalue currently held property, so we all made 1000% or more selling older, pre-inflation ships. The fact is we're all making suggestions and having discussion about economic changes that might benifit the long term state of the game, and you're doing what you always do: making it personal. Please stop.
Indeed. Cut out the crap, Ecka.
Ladron and I often disagree. Whether or not space rental should function as a money sink may be one of those places where we differ.
I have proposed some pretty simple and specific rental mechanic changes that would be super easy to implement. For some reason you have chosen to ignore it even after I directly asked for trader input. So. Again. How does what I proposed remove the fun and profit from trading and mining if we assume that other, more arbitrary, variables are also adjustable?
I think I understand the goal behind PaK's idea but it looks overly complicated and as a said before, it seems reasonable to expect that players could scale their rental ambitions to the time they have available to be in-game.
Many people who aren't pirates have recognized that the primary value of this suggestion is that it makes the game more immersive.
Ladron and I often disagree. Whether or not space rental should function as a money sink may be one of those places where we differ.
I have proposed some pretty simple and specific rental mechanic changes that would be super easy to implement. For some reason you have chosen to ignore it even after I directly asked for trader input. So. Again. How does what I proposed remove the fun and profit from trading and mining if we assume that other, more arbitrary, variables are also adjustable?
I think I understand the goal behind PaK's idea but it looks overly complicated and as a said before, it seems reasonable to expect that players could scale their rental ambitions to the time they have available to be in-game.
Many people who aren't pirates have recognized that the primary value of this suggestion is that it makes the game more immersive.
I really don't see how this is being nasty to super rich traders as it would effect everyone who plays the actual game. The amount of people who have over 100 million credits when ships only cost at most 70k is laughable.
I also fail to see how this would skew the game in favor of the pvp enthusiasts, many of who have weapons caches around various sectors. The simple fact is the game is going to evolve and people are going to have to change the way they play whether that means keeps stockpiles more spread out, having to work more with other players or seeing their huge amounts of credits being reduced is all part of it, probably on the same level as people seeing their favorite ship nerfed.
arguing about how long it will take to write the code for something isn't helping, hell maybe the devs should just give up right now seeing as there are only 4 of them and its going to take a long time to write the code for the entire game.
Aside from that everyone posting in this thread and others like it are going to have to decide if they are going to continue to bitch about every suggestion that might be a minor inconvience to them, or start posting less personal and more thought out arguements on what they think a fully functioning economy should have.
I also fail to see how this would skew the game in favor of the pvp enthusiasts, many of who have weapons caches around various sectors. The simple fact is the game is going to evolve and people are going to have to change the way they play whether that means keeps stockpiles more spread out, having to work more with other players or seeing their huge amounts of credits being reduced is all part of it, probably on the same level as people seeing their favorite ship nerfed.
arguing about how long it will take to write the code for something isn't helping, hell maybe the devs should just give up right now seeing as there are only 4 of them and its going to take a long time to write the code for the entire game.
Aside from that everyone posting in this thread and others like it are going to have to decide if they are going to continue to bitch about every suggestion that might be a minor inconvience to them, or start posting less personal and more thought out arguements on what they think a fully functioning economy should have.