These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Optional Shared Item Hangars for Toons owned by the same person
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tora Hokori
Wargasm Inc
#1 - 2016-12-09 17:19:15 UTC
Not sure if this has been posed before but I have multiple accounts and one of the things over the years I've always wanted was a shared hangar. If I'm in my own corp with all my alts that's fine but if I'm in another corp run by someone else I don't have that option.

I usually organize my main's hangar in station containers (ammo, shields armor hull, drones, propulsion, ewar, etc.) but it's inefficient to try and do that for all toons. I'd have to own more crap than I already do to have fittings available for both toons under that model or do what I do now - endless trading of modules and oh that fit needs a less power hungry module so now I have to swap them back and try a different one. And don't say "use EFT" because that doesn't solve the trading issue it just minimizes the trading back.

What I'm proposing is an OPTIONAL way to share a hangar between your toons.

1. It can only be shared between toons/accounts you own. I have several accounts and a main toon on each so just allowing the sharing on a single account would be barely an improvement. Not sure how you'd link them - that would probably be the biggest technical issue is figuring out how to verify that toons from a different account are owned by the same person.

2. It's optional...meaning if you're an awoxer or you're running a scam or you just don't want a corp you're in to be able to see into your hangar and see everything you don't have to turn on the sharing. Or maybe you just like having everything separated.

3. If it's turned on and you're in a corp they CAN see in just like they can now if they have an office in that same station I think is the restriction?

Thoughts? I think it'd be a really nice convenience for everybody. If you don't like it...don't turn it on.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2016-12-09 17:28:11 UTC
Quote:
Not sure if this has been posed before

More times than I care to count.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Tora Hokori
Wargasm Inc
#3 - 2016-12-09 17:29:42 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Quote:
Not sure if this has been posed before

More times than I care to count.


Do you recall the arguments against? Or is it just something CCP can't feasibly implement for some reason?
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#4 - 2016-12-09 17:53:45 UTC
Alt-play is fine, and a fact of life in Eve, but I think we can probably draw a line at changing anything to specifically enable or accommodate it.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Tora Hokori
Wargasm Inc
#5 - 2016-12-09 18:04:51 UTC
So it's okay if someone pays for multiple accounts to support the game but it's not okay to make managing that any easier when it hurts no one?
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#6 - 2016-12-09 18:13:51 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Tora Hokori wrote:
So it's okay if someone pays for multiple accounts to support the game but it's not okay to make managing that any easier when it hurts no one?


I'm sorry, did you have an argument you could hang on a hook other than a false equivalence between something being merely allowed Vs. being openly supported at the expense of dev hours?

As I've said before: Absolutely nobody has a single care to spare about the convenience of your alt-operations. It is purely a meta-game activity. You're ALLOWED to engage in it.

Being ALLOWED to do something does not, by itself, function as a reason it should be explicitly accommodated by game mechanics.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2016-12-09 18:30:30 UTC
Heard of power of 2? CCP DOES promote alt play, especially when it has meant another subbed acct

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#8 - 2016-12-09 18:34:52 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
Heard of power of 2? CCP DOES promote alt play, especially when it has meant another subbed acct



Well now that we've established that marketing promotions and game mechanics are literally the same thin...


Oh, wait, they're not, so it isn't relevant.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2016-12-09 18:38:25 UTC
Keep being snide and salty bro. Establishing a very well thought out and respectable position there.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Tora Hokori
Wargasm Inc
#10 - 2016-12-09 18:42:10 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Tora Hokori wrote:
So it's okay if someone pays for multiple accounts to support the game but it's not okay to make managing that any easier when it hurts no one?


I'm sorry, did you have an argument you could hang on a hook other than a false equivalence between something being merely allowed, and open supported at the expense of dev hours?


Apology accepted...you can't help it.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#11 - 2016-12-09 18:48:52 UTC
Tora Hokori wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Tora Hokori wrote:
So it's okay if someone pays for multiple accounts to support the game but it's not okay to make managing that any easier when it hurts no one?


I'm sorry, did you have an argument you could hang on a hook other than a false equivalence between something being merely allowed, and open supported at the expense of dev hours?


Apology accepted...you can't help it.




So you don't have one, and are going to go with a tone argument instead? Got it.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2016-12-09 18:48:53 UTC
Tora Hokori wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Tora Hokori wrote:
So it's okay if someone pays for multiple accounts to support the game but it's not okay to make managing that any easier when it hurts no one?


I'm sorry, did you have an argument you could hang on a hook other than a false equivalence between something being merely allowed, and open supported at the expense of dev hours?


Apology accepted...you can't help it.






The reason I've heard in the past, and I'd believe this were the case based on my experience with Eve and it's legacy code, comes back to ownership and permissions. Eve's legacy code is, from what I've heard, a heap of coding, with layers of coding piled on top of that, with a few truckloads of code dumped on top of that. Changing anything has huge potential to have widespread and unforeseeable game breaking consequences because it's all been so hodgepoded and cut and pasted and welded and crowbarred together.

With corporate hangars, you can assign very concise 'yes/no' permissions which either let you access a hangar or not, and only if you have permission to do it. With shared hangars, you run into the question of 'well who actually owns it?' 'Who can give permission to it?' 'Who can revoke permission?' 'What degree of permission?' All of those are just a PITA to deal with with the mountain of old coding behind them, again, from what I've read/heard in the past(I'mm not a coder). It has very little to do with whether its an alt or not, that's just the cross some bad trolls choose to die on. It has everything to do with what can and can't be coded at this time. Part of the same reasoning set we can only have 1 pilot per ship, because then we get into the 'who does it belong to, who can do what with it, etc'

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Tora Hokori
Wargasm Inc
#13 - 2016-12-09 19:03:34 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
Tora Hokori wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Tora Hokori wrote:
So it's okay if someone pays for multiple accounts to support the game but it's not okay to make managing that any easier when it hurts no one?


I'm sorry, did you have an argument you could hang on a hook other than a false equivalence between something being merely allowed, and open supported at the expense of dev hours?


Apology accepted...you can't help it.






The reason I've heard in the past, and I'd believe this were the case based on my experience with Eve and it's legacy code, comes back to ownership and permissions. Eve's legacy code is, from what I've heard, a heap of coding, with layers of coding piled on top of that, with a few truckloads of code dumped on top of that. Changing anything has huge potential to have widespread and unforeseeable game breaking consequences because it's all been so hodgepoded and cut and pasted and welded and crowbarred together.

With corporate hangars, you can assign very concise 'yes/no' permissions which either let you access a hangar or not, and only if you have permission to do it. With shared hangars, you run into the question of 'well who actually owns it?' 'Who can give permission to it?' 'Who can revoke permission?' 'What degree of permission?' All of those are just a PITA to deal with with the mountain of old coding behind them, again, from what I've read/heard in the past(I'mm not a coder). It has very little to do with whether its an alt or not, that's just the cross some bad trolls choose to die on. It has everything to do with what can and can't be coded at this time. Part of the same reasoning set we can only have 1 pilot per ship, because then we get into the 'who does it belong to, who can do what with it, etc'



:/ Now THAT is a good sound argument against. Or at least a good reason. Oh well. It was just an idea. It would have been nice though.


Thanks!
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2016-12-09 19:08:17 UTC
Tora Hokori wrote:
:/ Now THAT is a good sound argument against. Or at least a good reason. Oh well. It was just an idea. It would have been nice though.


Thanks!


7 accts later I would DEFINITELY love for this to be a thing..... but...


But yeah, this topic has come up quite a few times.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Do Little
Bluenose Trading
#15 - 2016-12-09 19:25:51 UTC
There are several workarounds.

The obvious one is start your own corporation. There are still stations where you can rent an office for 10K/month and Citadels/EC's where the rent is free.

If your Alts are members of the same player corp have your CEO put a shared container in one of the corp hangars for you and put a password on it.

Last but not least, you can anchor a container at a safespot and password protect it. These need to be accessed once a month I believe or they will disappear.

I believe the only "family" associations the game engine knows about are the ones you establish in-game, not the ones established in account management.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#16 - 2016-12-09 20:06:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Tora Hokori wrote:
Kenrailae wrote:
Tora Hokori wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Tora Hokori wrote:
So it's okay if someone pays for multiple accounts to support the game but it's not okay to make managing that any easier when it hurts no one?


I'm sorry, did you have an argument you could hang on a hook other than a false equivalence between something being merely allowed, and open supported at the expense of dev hours?


Apology accepted...you can't help it.






The reason I've heard in the past, and I'd believe this were the case based on my experience with Eve and it's legacy code, comes back to ownership and permissions. Eve's legacy code is, from what I've heard, a heap of coding, with layers of coding piled on top of that, with a few truckloads of code dumped on top of that. Changing anything has huge potential to have widespread and unforeseeable game breaking consequences because it's all been so hodgepoded and cut and pasted and welded and crowbarred together.

With corporate hangars, you can assign very concise 'yes/no' permissions which either let you access a hangar or not, and only if you have permission to do it. With shared hangars, you run into the question of 'well who actually owns it?' 'Who can give permission to it?' 'Who can revoke permission?' 'What degree of permission?' All of those are just a PITA to deal with with the mountain of old coding behind them, again, from what I've read/heard in the past(I'mm not a coder). It has very little to do with whether its an alt or not, that's just the cross some bad trolls choose to die on. It has everything to do with what can and can't be coded at this time. Part of the same reasoning set we can only have 1 pilot per ship, because then we get into the 'who does it belong to, who can do what with it, etc'



:/ Now THAT is a good sound argument against. Or at least a good reason. Oh well. It was just an idea. It would have been nice though.


Thanks!


Here is another one. This is a sandbox game and the idea is for players to interact and do things. Your suggested change, even if there were no coding issues, would reduce that. I have alts, quite a few, and yeah, having shared hangar access would be awesome. But making something easier means you will get more of it, not less. And it will be possible for people to then sit around in NPC corps and isolate themselves from other players. And player interaction is what tends to ensure people stay subbed.

Edit:

And many people do not like it when people bring up old often discussed topics. There is a search function for the forums. There is also this website called google that also can help you find stuff too. When early on in a thread like this somebody posts and says, been discussed many times, a good solution would be to look for those threads and read them...not start a new thread for beating an already dead horse.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Tora Hokori
Wargasm Inc
#17 - 2016-12-09 23:55:30 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


Here is another one. This is a sandbox game and the idea is for players to interact and do things. Your suggested change, even if there were no coding issues, would reduce that. I have alts, quite a few, and yeah, having shared hangar access would be awesome. But making something easier means you will get more of it, not less. And it will be possible for people to then sit around in NPC corps and isolate themselves from other players. And player interaction is what tends to ensure people stay subbed.

Edit:

And many people do not like it when people bring up old often discussed topics. There is a search function for the forums. There is also this website called google that also can help you find stuff too. When early on in a thread like this somebody posts and says, been discussed many times, a good solution would be to look for those threads and read them...not start a new thread for beating an already dead horse.

[/quote]

Boy...you know what...you're right! And when you're right you're right! You are so much smarter than the rest of us...ME in particular. I've seen a lot of your other posts and... WOW...you just really have a big job putting all of us in our places but you rise to the challenge. You are a HERO. I salute you. I just pray that everybody else you've given a piece of your mind to is able to accept it as the generous gift of your time that it is. I have no doubt that your time is precious so I don't want you to waste ANY more of it on stupid ole me. I think your work here is done and you did it very very well. So I want you to have a great weekend! Don't you worry about me...I've learned my lesson. Seriously...have a really really great weekend!

o7