These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Hangar Storage Units

Author
Praal
Bearded BattleBears
#1 - 2016-02-25 19:13:34 UTC
Suggestion: Add rentable "Hangar Storage Units" (HSUs) as an office-like feature to stations, outposts, citadels. HSUs would be rented in similar fashion to offices, follow similar billing cycles and impound mechanics. Unlike offices, these would be rented by a character, not a corporation.

Goals: QoL improvement for groups of friends and players with multiple characters / accounts, ISK sink

Mechanics:

  • Hangar Storage Units would be rentable in station/outpost through a button in the offices list. Unlike offices they would not be listed / viewable by others.
  • Access management: Similar to channels. The renter character would be able to add characters to the access list of the HSU. The characters on the access list would be able to add and remove items to/from the HSU's contents. Potentially, access could be set separately for add and remove, but this is not necessary in the initial stage.
  • A HSU would be equivalent to a single corp hangar division (can store items and containers, unlimited size)
  • HSUs would have a base rent of 50M/mo. In NPC stations supply/demand would scale this price up as it does for offices (up to 500M/mo). In sov stations/outposts the owner of the station could add a markup to this 50M and receive the markup amount (the base 50M would go to NPCs)
  • Anyone with access would be able to prepay ISK towards the HSU rental time


Benefits:

  • Small groups of friends or alts can share items without the need to form a splinter-corp
  • QoL improvement for players with many alts
  • Promotes player cooperation across corp boundaries, or sub-groups in a given corp
  • Facilitates manufacturing groups (sharing a BPC pool, materials, etc)


Balance considerations:

  • All stations / outposts give all characters unlimited m3 storage already so adding additional space does not provide a power boost.
  • Contracts allow a character to transfer items in station to their alts / friends already. However contracts require knowing the exact amount and character needing something, HSUs would add convenience by sharing a pool of items.
  • ISK sink is significantly higher than even creating hundreds of contracts to alts/friends a month.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#2 - 2016-02-25 23:56:36 UTC
If you want the benefit of a corp you should start a corp. Not even social corps should have these.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Iain Cariaba
#3 - 2016-02-26 01:44:36 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
If you want the benefit of a corp you should start a corp. Not even social corps should have these.

This.

I manage to run 10 characters on 4 accounts just fine using contracts and trades, even once took a Charon into null and had to unload it with a Tayra due to lack of docking right with the Charon pilot. The existing methods to do what you want are rather easy, and with a tiny bit of planning, fairly cheap. A 200 unique item contract is 10k isk, or about 2 highsec rats.
Amarisen Gream
Pleasant Peninsula Productions
Cauldron of Ecstasy
#4 - 2016-02-26 08:58:40 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
If you want the benefit of a corp you should start a corp. Not even social corps should have these.

This.

I manage to run 10 characters on 4 accounts just fine using contracts and trades, even once took a Charon into null and had to unload it with a Tayra due to lack of docking right with the Charon pilot. The existing methods to do what you want are rather easy, and with a tiny bit of planning, fairly cheap. A 200 unique item contract is 10k isk, or about 2 highsec rats.


Oh I love this - not saying I agree with you, but the irony of it all. I had a post not long ago that someone used this whole "oh, but it raise the cost blah blah blah" and I replied it wouldn't be that different, just kill a few rats or mine trit. That was my post on merging BPOs of like item types like ammo and such. You saying that the cost of contracts is so minimal I find ironic.

Now for the OP - this function has been ask for repeatedly - now most people will say make a Corp, but you said this is to keep people from having to make splinter corps or other such things. So your intent is for the betterment of New Eden.
Now in real life - we have things like joint accounts for banks - we don't have this in eve.
If we want to share goods with others, we rent storage units and hand our keys to those we want to have access or they bring blot cutters. We don't have this function in eve.

What we do have is a dated system called Corporations- where there are 7 hangers and 7 wallets that can be shared among all your corp mates. Now I run a small Corp so I can have easier sharing of assets between my 4 characters - contract system IMO can be burdensome - and I do allow others to join me and over time give them access to some things.

But to be fully honest - the Corp management system is a total joke and though it works for what you are asking for, it isn't what could be the better option.

My issue is this - I live in Provi, we are NRDS, so the only way I could get be hind something like is if there was security via the API that told me as a CEO or an Alliance leader who had access to these shared hangers. I would not want a Corp mate sharing assets with a red player who invaded my space every day seeking content.

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs

Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#5 - 2016-02-26 11:16:12 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
once took a Charon into null and had to unload it with a Tayra due to lack of docking right with the Charon pilot.


You did WHAT?! ShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShocked

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#6 - 2016-02-26 12:35:05 UTC
Arya Regnar wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
once took a Charon into null and had to unload it with a Tayra due to lack of docking right with the Charon pilot.


You did WHAT?! ShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShocked


He adapted and overcame. Props and good for him...

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

Alize Remy
Corporate Machine
#7 - 2016-02-26 13:18:55 UTC
A feature like this would allow players to create psuedo corporations, with the ability to share assets, but be immune to war-decs.

not good.
Praal
Bearded BattleBears
#8 - 2016-02-26 14:40:13 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
If you want the benefit of a corp you should start a corp. Not even social corps should have these.

I am in a corp. Unfortunately a corp only has 8 hangars, so in anything but the smallest of corps they run out quickly for specialized uses. Not to mention that sometimes an activity group that would benefit from a shared storage is made up of people in separate corps in an alliance.

Iain Cariaba wrote:
The existing methods to do what you want are rather easy, and with a tiny bit of planning, fairly cheap. A 200 unique item contract is 10k isk, or about 2 highsec rats.

Cheap is definetely not the point of this. My suggested price point (50M+) would cover the fee for 5000 contracts/mo (166/day). If anything, I see this as an additional way to drain ISK out of the economy (something I consider a benefit to the game as a whole, http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/68738/1/sinksfaucets.png ). The idea is to deliver non-power-affecting convenience with an ISK sink attached (hence the NPC cut of the fees even in sov null).

Amarisen Gream wrote:
Now for the OP - this function has been ask for repeatedly - now most people will say make a Corp, but you said this is to keep people from having to make splinter corps or other such things. So your intent is for the betterment of New Eden.

As described above, the intent is a feature that adds UI convenience paired with an ISK isnk (which i feel we have too few of nowadays).

Amarisen Gream wrote:
My issue is this - I live in Provi, we are NRDS, so the only way I could get be hind something like is if there was security via the API that told me as a CEO or an Alliance leader who had access to these shared hangers. I would not want a Corp mate sharing assets with a red player who invaded my space every day seeking content.

That is a fair concern. Generally my view is that transferring items in a station the other person can't dock anyway is of very limited benefit. The red can't use them, and if it's a case of extracting assets, they could set up a public courier for your blue/grey to move their stuff out anyway.

But with your concern in mind, this could be covered by an API dataset for a character's accessible HSUs which returned all HSUs they can access and who else is on the access list. Items in an accessible HSU would be returned in the assets API as well.

Alize Remy wrote:
A feature like this would allow players to create psuedo corporations, with the ability to share assets, but be immune to war-decs.

Players can already share assets without being in a corp through direct trading or contracts. This just reduces the amount of clicking involved.

HSUs would also not have the many other sharing aspects that a corp is needed (and used for): shared POS / POS modules, shared industry jobs, ability to lock BPOs so corp members can use but not steal, shared standings, shared bookmarks, shared access to corp contracts, fleet advert open to corp, ability to launch non-personal structures, etc.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#9 - 2016-02-26 16:15:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Yeah, its specifically item sharing between members out of corp that shouldnt happen.

8 shared hangars is enough and every corp member still gets a personal hangar that you can drop stuff into at the office. You can use containers if you need to organise things within a shared hangar. The only need you'll have for multiple shared hangars is differing levels of access.

Edit- on second thought, i dont mind as much if members outside the corp can access them as long as the office is owned by a corp. So my counter proposal is this:

Allow access to corp hangars similar to how access to citadels will work. But it still requires an office set up by a player corp. Not a social corp, not an NPC corp member.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Praal
Bearded BattleBears
#10 - 2016-02-26 18:40:36 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
8 shared hangars is enough and every corp member still gets a personal hangar that you can drop stuff into at the office. You can use containers if you need to organise things within a shared hangar. The only need you'll have for multiple shared hangars is differing levels of access.

Finer / different access control is one of the main purposes to this. In larger corps it's not viable to give everyone access to everything. On the flip side, there are situations where players may want to cooperate / share across corp boundaries (be it with people in other corps of the same alliance, or with NPSI fleet members).

Daichi Yamato wrote:
Edit - on second thought, i dont mind as much if members outside the corp can access them as long as the office is owned by a corp. So my counter proposal is this:

Allow access to corp hangars similar to how access to citadels will work. But it still requires an office set up by a player corp. Not a social corp, not an NPC corp member.

Something like that could definetely work, but I think it's important to allow the renting decision / expense be doable by the individual. How about: if your corp has an office in a station or owns the station, you personally can rent extra hangars there and control access to them as per citadels (maybe a good way to beta-test the future citadel access system?) This could even be limited to where you can only allow access to characters not in a NPC corp.

This would actually boost the purpose of corp offices a bit since they lost a lot of that when freely podexing to corp offices was taken away.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#11 - 2016-02-26 19:10:01 UTC
I know that I can do this using in station trades and contracts, what I want to know is why do so many people just accept that?

Why are you all so opposed to the idea that one human should have one hangar which all his characters can access?

If there are technical hurdles, so be it, but otherwise the opposition to this idea seems to be pretty stupid. It's the typical "Eve should be hard for the sake of being hard."

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#12 - 2016-02-27 03:53:48 UTC
There isnt much incentive to be in a corp. Whilst i advocate for the implementation of social corps, i am adamant that they keep to their name sake. No mechanical benefits whatsoever, and for me this includes asset sharing.

The reason i want it to be owned by the corp is so that it lives and dies with the corp. Its a wardeccable entity with public offices and if all corp members should leave, all shared assets stay with the corp rather than having the foggy issue of a player leaving corp and 'rightfully' being able to take the shared hangars they pay for and maintain with them.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#13 - 2016-02-27 06:10:25 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
There isnt much incentive to be in a corp. Whilst i advocate for the implementation of social corps, i am adamant that they keep to their name sake. No mechanical benefits whatsoever, and for me this includes asset sharing.

The reason i want it to be owned by the corp is so that it lives and dies with the corp. Its a wardeccable entity with public offices and if all corp members should leave, all shared assets stay with the corp rather than having the foggy issue of a player leaving corp and 'rightfully' being able to take the shared hangars they pay for and maintain with them.


I am already in a corporation. A rather large one. I don't want to share everything with my corpmates - I just don't want to have to put up a contract to move some ammo from one alt to another. Why are you opposed to that? Why do you insist on having this cumbersome workaround?

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#14 - 2016-02-27 06:34:33 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
There isnt much incentive to be in a corp. Whilst i advocate for the implementation of social corps, i am adamant that they keep to their name sake. No mechanical benefits whatsoever, and for me this includes asset sharing.

The reason i want it to be owned by the corp is so that it lives and dies with the corp. Its a wardeccable entity with public offices and if all corp members should leave, all shared assets stay with the corp rather than having the foggy issue of a player leaving corp and 'rightfully' being able to take the shared hangars they pay for and maintain with them.


Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and call BS on this...

Many corps don't have an office. Many don't use the office. Many rely on offices in null, where things are a good bit more difficult to organize with only 7 slots.

As far as why I'm calling BS on your statements: There's nothing about this idea that would change anything.

NO ONE has ever formed a corp solely for corporate hangars.
As a matter of fact, corporate hangars aren't even a consideration to why someone forms a corp.

All corporate hangars are is a perk that comes with a corp if you pay for it, and not at all a consideration for forming the corp.

If players don't want to be in a corp, corp hangars have no pull.
If a player wants to be in a player corp, they never say "I just want access to corp hangars".
If they did, someone would probably call them out for wanting to steal from the corp.

Giving players the ability to rent personal hangars, and manage access to those hangars, will never lead to anyone quitting a corp..
All this does is provide better QoL for those players with multiple characters and groups that spread their influence through multiple corps/characters inside and out of player corps.

TBH, this would not only be a QoL improvement for those mentioned, but would also be the replacement for corporate offices.
Instead of corps purchasing an office, they would instead pay a rental fee on a corporate hangar.
A Hangar gives 1 bay, and multiple bays could be purchased, allowing for several bays (IE more than 7) allowing an individual and a corp to have much larger access to organization, while allowing them to share access to specific bays with alts, scouts, allies, coalition members, etc. etc. etc...

So again, I call BS, as these hangars change nothing about player corps (other than making them better) and will never convince someone to leave a corp because NO ONE has ever joined a corp for the "Oh, so awesome" corp hangars.
Iain Cariaba
#15 - 2016-02-27 06:45:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Iain Cariaba
Joe Risalo wrote:
NO ONE has ever formed a corp solely for corporate hangars.
As a matter of fact, corporate hangars aren't even a consideration to why someone forms a corp.

Not true. The first corp I ever formed was solely for the purpose of shared hangar access for my alts and a couple RL friends.

Again, the current tools to share between alts is already ridiculously easy and cheap. This idea would only qualify as a QOL improvement for those who only have one account and keep all those characters in one location. With multiple accounts, trade is the way to go. With alts in multiple locations, you still would have to use the already existing tools. Overall, this suggestion reeks of being nothing more to gain one of the perks of being in a corp without risking the chance of getting wardeced.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#16 - 2016-02-27 07:06:10 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
NO ONE has ever formed a corp solely for corporate hangars.
As a matter of fact, corporate hangars aren't even a consideration to why someone forms a corp.

Not true. The first corp I ever formed was solely for the purpose of shared hangar access for my alts and a couple RL friends.

Again, the current tools to share between alts is already ridiculously easy and cheap. This idea would only qualify as a QOL improvement for those who only have one account and keep all those characters in one location. With multiple accounts, trade is the way to go. With alts in multiple locations, you still would have to use the already existing tools. Overall, this suggestion reeks of being nothing more to gain one of the perks of being in a corp without risking the chance of getting wardeced.


Well in that case, remove contracts and trade as they allow players to avoid risks.. instead, force players to items on the market, or do jet can swaps: thus increasing risks on non-player Corp toons.

You made the claim that it provides corps with some sort of perk for the players, over being in an NPC corp, yet fail to realize that most corp members don't actually have access to all, and is most cases ANY, corp hangars.
So for most players, whether they're in the corp or not, they're supplied the exact same way: being contracts or trades.

Now, you as an individual would be able to purchase "bays" for your own hangar, then you as a corp CEO could purchase bays for corp acces, and the individuals in your corp could purchase their own bays, and share access to one of their bays with whomever it is in your corp that provides doctrine ships so they can drop and allotment of ships and/or provide replacements instead of paying for losses.

Basically, it's an all around functional improvement on hangar bays, while also providing access to hangars to those not in your corp, and not specific or limited to NPC alts.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#17 - 2016-02-27 08:01:40 UTC
No, the idea is unworkable. Assets like this need to be tied to a corporation as that is in the only way to attack someone in highsec otherwise the feature is effectively undisruptable. We do not need more features that enable safety and devalue corporations.

Since citadels are indeed already under player control, perhaps such a thing could exist only there - a shared hanger that either the citadel owner could control access to or a hanger someone could rent from the owner of the citadel and share with who they like (like a safe deposit box). But ultimately the hanger would be still owned by the corporation which deployed the citadel and would be at risk in space.
Lord Vyper
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2016-02-27 08:30:12 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
No, the idea is unworkable. Assets like this need to be tied to a corporation as that is in the only way to attack someone in highsec otherwise the feature is effectively undisruptable. We do not need more features that enable safety and devalue corporations.


If you only value your corp for corp hangars then arent you making an argument in favor of the OP? I will never understand why everyone's reaction is no we cant let you enjoy this SANDBOX game the way you want to? If both characters are living out of the same station weather they are on the same account or different ones nobody can interrupt the transactions anyway so this point is genuinely invalid.

This game really needs some QoL changes that dont affect gameplay dynamics negatively. Excel Spreadsheets online could definitely use some gradual upgrades to how transactions are handled between players. The contract market is sort of a mess and cumbersome. It works but could be streamlined. How does it negatively affect anyone else that wants to avoid engaging in some of the tragic fumbles in the overall game design.

Put it on the test server and see if it sticks. Thats why they exist.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#19 - 2016-02-27 09:01:35 UTC
Lord Vyper wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
No, the idea is unworkable. Assets like this need to be tied to a corporation as that is in the only way to attack someone in highsec otherwise the feature is effectively undisruptable. We do not need more features that enable safety and devalue corporations.


If you only value your corp for corp hangars then arent you making an argument in favor of the OP? I will never understand why everyone's reaction is no we cant let you enjoy this SANDBOX game the way you want to? If both characters are living out of the same station weather they are on the same account or different ones nobody can interrupt the transactions anyway so this point is genuinely invalid.

This game really needs some QoL changes that dont affect gameplay dynamics negatively. Excel Spreadsheets online could definitely use some gradual upgrades to how transactions are handled between players. The contract market is sort of a mess and cumbersome. It works but could be streamlined. How does it negatively affect anyone else that wants to avoid engaging in some of the tragic fumbles in the overall game design.

Put it on the test server and see if it sticks. Thats why they exist.

I am not sure what your point is. This is a PvP sandbox game. By design, you do not get to "enjoy" the game by isolating yourself from other players by forming an invulnerable pseudo-corporation.

If you are just transferring stuff between your alts, use contracts. If you want to form a group of players to compete in the shared economy of New Eden, form a corporation. This isn't that hard a concept.
Iain Cariaba
#20 - 2016-02-27 09:36:48 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
This isn't that hard a concept.

Apparently, for some, it is.
12Next page