heh ecka must have sent out a guild e-mail or something to see all these tgft guys come out and post at once. In response to death fluffy, when the shield turrets first came out there was a bug where you could make millions selling them in dau. Those credits where removed from the offending players even though they spent so much time and "hard work" jumping between two stations in a system.

I don't really see where you are coming off with the lvl 5 people not being able to compete since when did your level numbers dictate how well you could trade or pvp? Aside from what ships you could fly.

oh and everyone that is bitching and threatening to cancel their subs. Fine be a pussy and quit, go look at eve which has a way more complex economy and you can lose money at the drop of the hat and come back here and tell me they are bleeding players left and right.

Pey,

1) That was not the so called bug I was referencing, nor did I ever trade that item myself. Your example was fixed very shortly after it was discovered. Being able to sell all cargo at top price was known for years and yet only recently changed. Different topics.

2) Level 5 is an arbitrary level that I think demonstrates a reasonable amount of knowledge and experience for a given player to engage effectively. The real number could be lower. Personally, I think the ability to afford an item should be the only thing that limits a players ability to purchase it after that marker- barring items that have special requirements. I don't think someone should give a newb 1 mil cr so they can buy an XC and rack up their license rapidly. However, some people do give them megaposi's and hive or uc's which enable them to rack up their combat rapidly so, whatever.

3) I've tried Eve. Its not a game I want to play. I play VO despite all of my irritations because the only factor that matters is a persons skill. When that changes, I leave. If that makes me a pussy in your eyes, I really don't care.

Edit: I personally loath the license system to be perfectly honest. I think it makes a great way of keeping 'score'. But somewhere between 3 & 5 its value for directing new players as they learn the game ends.

We are getting way off-topic here. Don't make me start bludgeoning back your topic-creep! ;_;

Death: Can you explain (with evidence) why you believe my change is harmful?

Surb: Your question was answered before.

Using this as a credit sink is obviously contentious but this is only one way to approach revisiting storage rental so let's disregard any changes that would be punitive and move forward from that.

Well first off this is only a single issue in the overall economy - I agree the fee should not be a pain or "un-fun". The point of a dynamic economy is not to make getting credits a total struggle but rather to make those credits meaningfull. Making a billion credits in VO is a pointless grind because the credits are basically worthless. I myself already have more credits then I will ever spend in VO and that figure still continues to rise even tho I am not actually trying to make credits.

In truth there is little reason to trade since it takes effort to actually lose money in VO. There simply is no challenge to trading. (I can still make 2 mill per hour...) <shrug>

Reset? I just dont see it happening. I can see the economy being reworked a piece at a time.

I do have to agree that Guild needs to participate more in the economic discussions so we have at least a small idea where they are headed.

Can you explain with evidence to support why you believe your change would make the game more fun?

I believe it is harmful because it does not add to the game play experience in a positive way.

First off, I clearly stated that I am in agreement with some form of storage cost. Personally I think it should start with the first 100-500 cube at a fairly low price and should increase according to volume. I also said my opinion is that it should be a one time expense. I'll allow for a recurring expense so long as the cost is either kept extremely low or at a higher rate if far less frequently than the weekly charges. I do not however think it should be implemented as a standalone. I believe whatever the devs decide on should be implemented with the rest of the economic changes.

Second, I see no real current benefit because the economy is still in mid transition. The only thing this would do is drain credits without adding to the challenge of trade, mining or collecting whatever. So I see it 'now' as a disincentive.

Third, What are players storing? You've got miners that have thousands of cube of ore sitting in storage. Why? Because they enjoy mining. They believe someday their ores will matter. The sell price drops too quickly to justify selling everything they mine and yet they enjoy mining because they find it relaxing, a great activity to do while engaged in other things like cleaning house, bullshitting with people in game, or just reading a book. What are traders storing? Not a damned thing because bulk trade is dead. So then, if your not a miner, maybe your a pirate like LNH's example. He's got shit stored all over the place that he's hanging onto in anticipation of it gaining value, or just hasn't bothered to sell what he's looted. What else is being stored? Well, you've got players stock piling ships, uc batteries and weapons mostly in Latos or Sedina so that they don't have to run all over the place when they lose a ship. You've got people who do hive skirmish saving scrap, cores, and other drops which are currently of negligible value with a few exceptions, but thinking some day they might be worth something. I fail to see how a current implementation would enhance the game experience for these players. I'll add one other example, those who find it worthwhile to deliver 4 XC's regular and extremely rare goods for 1 cube of finished product or a single port ship to race in.

Edit: Does Guild need to move forward in making the game marketable? Absolutely. It is my opinion however, that at this point, we need more incentives than disincentives like the addition of the conquerable station. While I don't give a rats ass about the station personally, I do enjoy joining a group either attacking or defending it. So, my opinion Conquerable Station= incentive, new manufacturing mission for an item no one uses which requires extremely rare shit and XC loads of other crap = disincentive.

Edit 2:
Fourth, at the 150,000cr per week you spoke of earlier on most folk can easily afford this since credits are still very easy to get- as they should be! Perhaps the elite combat players can spend an evening doing pvp or engaging in a furball for a couple hundred thousand, but mediocre pilots such as myself easily spend a million or more doing so. Perhaps the ultimate goal of Guild is to move VO away from that sort of activity, I don't know. I do know that a significant number of players log in mostly for the combat. Is it worth it for them to need to spend a week or two building up their bankroll to afford it? It is my perception that this is the direction that Guild is heading and that Guild is being encouraged to head. Regardless, my point is, that such a charge would most significantly hurt players that predominantly mine. I think they would either stop or reduce their mining and by default the amount of time they spend in game, or be forced to sell at less than optimal prices thereby keeping the price at every station in the region tanked.

What we need rather, is another incentive for miners. One that encourages them to use the ores they mine to produce high margin items that can be traded across VO like Helio Mists. When you've added an incentive like this, 'then' it makes more sense to create a disincentive to hoard goods by implementing a storage fee.

The problem is, some like the op won't be happy unless it hurts people some people.

Where, exactly, did I say or imply that?

ladron-
A credit sink is punitive by it's very nature. it's designed to simply take away what people have earned though varying degrees of effort. If the credit sink is so small as to not hurt anyone then it's not effective enough to well, burn credits.

I think stewie put it best in family guy "it's not that i want to kill Lois, its just that i don't want her to be alive anymore"

It's not that i think you want to hurt people, but theirs no way you could do what you want without it.

peytros-
the big issue with the shield turret thing was that you were jumping to adjacent sectors in an extreamly well defended system, if it was hauling them to latos for 3 times the profit it wouldn't have been as bad, cause you could pop them in azek before they hit latos (turrets still hadent been moved from h2 then).

maalik-
"I really like the Warehouse station idea. I don't think malicious intentions are an insurmountable problem in an open discussion forum such as this."

I wish I had your optimism.

death fluffy-
You hit the nail on the head, many of us with massive amounts of shit are storing stuff of minimal credit value, with little hope the sell price at the station will increase. But those couple xc loads of dentek cores i have, well now theirs a use for them, I've had them for almost a year. I also have a few constellation loads of scrap metal, again, I'm figuring eventually their will be something to use it for. I'm also holding a good half dozen xc's of uc battery's, and a fleet of ships, almost no two the same load out in any station.

I can work around the limits with ease if I were so inclined, though I'd resent the work of having to just to save my stuff.

One way to decrease the number of ships I have would be if there was some way I could save presets beyond four, and have presets take a ship and equipment from inventory and use that. Then i wouldn't have half a dozen cv's at d14, or a bunch of revc's at Orion, etc.

Actually come to think of it, I agree very much with death fluffy's last three posts.

Removal of game credits is one goal but not the only one. Reducing player inventories is in fact also a goal here. Hoarding a bunch of useless crap just makes the job of fixing the economy and even adding new missions far more difficult because you also have to assume someone has 10,000 of an item that is suppose to be very rare. While this wont prevent hoarding it will discourage it some. Most players are not going to avoid this over worthless junk and will clean out thier closets a bit more.

Actually a credit sink is any mechanism that removes credits from the game... piracy is a credit sink of a sort. This is not a punitive measure toward anyone or any group - Every player in VO and almost every play style will be affected.

If you would prefer, we could try an income tax - say 30 percent or some such... windfall profit taxes anyone?...

Hang on while i clean up the vomit pakettle.
Ok, my carpet is fucked, oh well I wanted another one anyway.

Your right pk, its going to hurt everybody. do you know how long it takes to accumulate most of these junk piles? especially the non purchasable things like my 600 or so free mining beams? sure dropping in the new missions and dynamic economy stuffs would be a bit chaotic as the stockpiles are used up, but after a month of people blowing themselves up with teller ulam mines, most of the hoarders will have shot their load. The repercussions beyond two months would be relatively minor. Far less than the number of people that would simply say, ohwell it was fun while it lasted and leave.

I guess if oversized station storage isn't needed to profit from trading and mining then I don't have much sympathy for miners wanting excess storage for their excess ore. The added overhead to manufacturing missions is acceptable to me. Pilots not being able to stockpile large numbers of imported combat ships without cost seems like a plus to me. Batteries and weapons don't take up that much space.

With the constrained development resources, postponing simple changes until the economy redux is complete seems silly. It could be *years*. (Or is there word that it will be sooner?)

I like contending with limited resources. I like organizing logistics. I like it when one station or one system is allowed to be significantly different from all the others. I like imagining that the space station at which I'm docked is a limited physical entity. This is where I see the fun coming from.

The mining problem is a mining problem. Why wouldn't someone who mines because they like mining continue to mine when they could no longer stockpile their ore? If the current population of miners is able to saturate the market then why aren't you clamoring on the suggestions forum, asking for a change? I certainly wouldn't oppose changes. (Well, I would, if they didn't, at least in part, involve enticing people to grey space)

The only real problem I see is that some people have gigantic inventories now. I don't know what to do about that. Compelling them to sell their stuff off would be an unfortunate side effect, not a primary goal.

I dont really see it as forcing anyone to do anything - they all have a choice. The rates I am proposing are a pitance for those who have huge inventories anyway.

As for mining the only real reason I sell the ore is to get my basic mining badge....It has nothing to do with the worthless credits. Infact I have sold several loads at I8 inspite of the 0 sales price....

Hell, there are miners with huge stockpiles waiting for good prices, there are traders without much to trade right now, if the miners hired the traders at a percentage of the profits the problem could pretty much solve itself!

lnh: one of the key features of the storage changes is that they don't take effect until you do something with the station storage in question, as has been mentioned a couple times. It's true that you've put in a good amount of effort to accumulate all those things, in the hope that eventually they will be good for something (though free mining beams? good for boiling, but hardly a good reason to keep an idea like this from moving forward, in my opinion (which is just my opinion, i know :P)), but there are is an effective counter to this.

The devs usually give some warning that this is going to happen. You'd have time to move all the crap you didn't want to deal with until it's useful into some form of long-term storage. Maybe you designate some backwater station "Scrap Metal Storage Station 1" or something. Then, when the change goes through, you don't have to go near the station until after the stuff becomes useful, and as long as you don't touch it it'll be grandfathered in.

Of course, once it becomes useful and you do go deal with it, you'll have to either move it all out or deal with the added overhead, but then there will be a purpose to it, and presumably people willing to pay. A win-win for everyone there.

Death Fluffy: You are approaching this as "how will this make the game more fun?" I think you are neglecting a broad variety of aspects to the game in how you are defining "fun." This will materially effect how people manage their resources, adding depth to the game, which I believe adds fun. Want to fly valks in Sedina? Either pay a premium for storage or fly them down every time. Want to mine XC-loads of Heliocene and corner the market? Best factor this small overhead into your calculations.

Much like a well-balanced economy will make it harder than it used to be to get credits, this change, while making some things harder, adds a certain level of realism that I, and apparently many others, believe to be a good addition to the game. Note that I'm not saying any realism is good, but this particular aspect would be a welcome one.

Signed, someone who has in the past gone through all of his holdings across the universe (not insubstantial, at that) and eliminated or vastly reduced them, and so someone who knows exactly how hard it can be.

i still think my wharehouse idea is the best solution, even if you can't go visit the warehouse, though a physical warehouse with convoys coming from it would rule.

I think we are in agreement that more control over storage is needed. The timing is a reasonable disagreement.

diqrtvpe, No, I am not neglecting those aspects. Those are the very reasons I believe reducing storage and / or charging storage fees are a good idea. I do not believe that they would enhance the game in its current state for the reasons I expressed above. So far as I am concerned implementing it now only restricts further what I do without adding any value to what I can do. I have more motivation to troll these forums most days than I do to log in and actually engage in the game. As a matter or perspective there was one point a couple of years ago where I was so absorbed that I quit playing for a while because I couldn't believe I'd wasted the majority of a weeks vacation just playing VO. Today, I'm trying to find a reason just to log in. As I alluded to above, I would be minimally affected by this change with the exception that I would mine less than I do now which is pretty rare as it is.

If this gets implemented, so be it. I will be minimally affected since I have very few stockpiles of anything but a few ores- and less than 5000 cube of that between all stations. I stand by my arguement however. Until we see more opportunities created, restrictive measures are not going to positively affect gameplay.

If, as you said, you would be minimally affected by this change then why obstruct what would make the game a more positive experience for others?

The last few times I've mined for manufacturing missions the ore I pulled out of rocks in Sedina seemed to fetch a pretty good price. ;-)

What the fuck? Because I have a different point of view from yours I'm an obstructionist now? Because I found this topic of interest and have a strong opinion that doesn't go along with your acceptable 'theme' I'm somehow out to stop other players from enjoying the game? Is that what I'm being accused of here? Is this patronizing question really the best you have to counter my arguments?

I don't believe that this change alone would make for a more positive experience for most other players. I think apart from seriously impacting a minority and mildly inconveniencing a somewhat larger number, that the affect would be negligible. I think changes similar to what has been discussed here are needed as part of the overall game improvement. However, it is my opinion that since I believe the impact of this change would not significantly affect the game dynamics positively or negatively at this time, that a better use of the devs resources would be to actually finish any of the larger projects that are supposedly going to bring us to that magical 2.0 like the overall economic or faction revisions, or by providing active players with more interesting rewards for logging on like the conquerable station.

As I've said several times, we agree the changes are necessary, but seem to be disagreeing on the urgency. Its up to the devs to decide what is in the best short and long term interests of the game as to if and when such implementation should be made. I'm done with this topic for now. :)

I've been very pleased that we have for the most part managed to keep this thread civil and constructive. I'm sorry you read my last post as incendiary.

Assuming you are arguing in good faith and not trolling, by arguing against the idea you are, of course, attempting to obstruct its implementation. There is no moral implication to that as we don't know in any absolute sense the value of the idea. It wasn't an insult.

The question remains, though. It's a simple change that many would like to see implemented. You can't say that both you think resource management is something to look forward to and that this idea, by inducing resource management, will negatively affect a good part of the community, and thus shouldn't be implemented. Why not let those for whom you believe this idea would inconvenience speak for themselves if you yourself would not be bothered by it?

We quite clearly also disagree about the value of the idea. I think it would be great. I'd love for killing someone's SkyProm in Sedina to have meaning. But, as you said, it is Incarnate who directs the show.

I suppose you are correct in a sense that arguing against something is obstructive. For that, I regret that I misunderstood your question in the previous post. I don't perceive myself to be obstructing this suggestion however, because I have absolutely no control over what the devs do. I had thought I was engaging in healthy debate over the merits of subject. As I said, I'm done with the topic because at this point, there is nothing left but engaging in a cycle of regurgitation.

As far as the simplicity of the change, the devs would have to answer that. I have seen several seemingly simple suggestions responded to by the devs stating that the change would be far more complex than the user thought, so the difficulty of the change is not part of my though process.

This is an open forum. I am not stopping anyone from speaking up. Pakettle disagrees with me. LNH feels that he would be inconvenienced, so in fact, people have spoken up for themselves. Other people have voiced their opinions in this 90+ post thread. I could also ask you to let those that you believe would benefit from it to speak for themselves, but as I have shown above, they have for both sides.

As you said, this has been for the most part a civil and constructive thread, and I want to keep it that way. These forums have entirely too much negativity for which I share equal responsibility with a number of others. However, I get the sense that you want to silence me at this point by the nature of your questions. Most of my comments since my original post have been in response to questioning, for which I have tried to oblige with a rational description of what I think.

I'm not going to defend against your arguement in the third paragraph, because as I said, I have reached the point that I would only be repeating myself. I do believe my previous arguments hold up against it however.

Cheers :^)

Your forgetting that this is in fact a step towards getting the faction and economic systems done.

Everything in VO is rolled out in small steps - its called incremental development. Not a bad way to create software but it can result in some rather odd problems. If the VO server is the highly optimised monolithic program I suspect it is, then there will be a point when even the tiniest change will become difficult...<shrug>

I am not sure this is a step towards that PaKettle. I see the suggestion as a step towards more reality based play (paying for stuff). Getting the faction and economic systems up to speed (two very different subjects) takes some other measures to fix.
Now is probably the time we should let the devs digest whatever has been said and let them take the decisions. End of regurgitation