Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No.

I love the idea and I brought it up once in discussion years ago.

Got poo pooed as "computer games are artificial. No one wants reality afflicting their game" sort of replies.

What you want, what everyone else wants and what CCP end up doing are often at odds

Only if it only applies to highsec. CONCORD regulations require a yearly vehicle registration and emissions inspection.

I was hoping for more than just "no" or "yes". I want to hear WHY.

i may have been a bit harsh with my initial post. After thinking about it, Ill pay your maintainence fee, But i expect all my ships with any damage to be repaired without any input from myself, free of charge. If this doesnt happen, then they arent being maintained....and if they arent being maintained..why for now you want fee? Having said that... Ill stick by my original post.

Sorry... but that "storage closet" full of ships is actually necessary for me as I never know what the enemy is going to bring out. And I may or may not lose that ship so I need a replacement. Which may or may not be used based on whatever the enemy may or may not bring.

Your idea also requires that people "grind" to maintain a certain level of income (cutting costs just isn't an option for some people because it will diminish their effectiveness and put their remaining assets in greater jeopardy).

You really can't see the issues? Really? Everything looks good from your perspective? I'll point out a few of the most obvious ones.

First: It's not fun and never has been in any game ever. Not a single one. On the other hand it's one of the most hated feature in many games and removing it only improves the gameplay experience. Point being it's fundamentally a bad and hated feature, so you don't want to do this unless it's an absolute necessity to ensure the functioning of your game. If you have any other means to achieve the same goals, you use them.

So why do games do this then? Sometimes because of bad design, but mostly because they need to control the amount of money in the game and they lack actual uses for money. This isn't really a problem with EVE. You constantly need more money and have uses for it, so personally it's not an issue. We also already have many ISK sinks, that control the system, so we don't need to introduce such bad gameplay features to manage the health of the system. It just isn't needed.

Second: Why for the love of God do you think introducing an upkeep for assets is a good idea in a player driven market environment? We want people to buy and consume as much as possible to maintain the health of the game. Putting an upkeep on this would work directly against this engine, that keeps several gameplay aspects and the entire game going. Gameplay should be designed to stimulate buying, consuming and destruction of assets and not to stifle it.

Third: Collecting things is a goal and a reason to play for many, so penalizing it in any form is bad. Having extra ships also allows you to experience the game more fully by allowing you to switch between several different roles and activities(Something you classify as a downside ).Having large stock piles of ships is also mandatory, if you want to play the PvP part of the game actively. You're going to lose ships and you want to get back to playing as soon as possible. This means having stockpiles of replacement ships ready to go. It's mandatory, if you want to enjoy playing the game in most parts of the space. Putting a cost on that is going to create big legitimate grievances for your playerbase.

Fourth: What are the practical implications and are you going to invest even more dev time in hammering out the loopholes? For example do you pay upkeep for packaged ships? How about ships on the market or in contracts? What did you plan to do when people start using market and contracts for storage space, because of your upkeep mechanic? Are you ok with people storaging thousands of replacement ships on the market, creating storage alts and whatever to go around your mechanic? It's useless, if people do that, but trying to block all loopholes isn't going to be simple and you're likely to harm legitimate gameplay doing it. Is it really worth the time, trouble and cost even when the most likely end result is, that it could have been done in other ways and it severely reduces the enjoyment most people get from playing?

Conclusion: I'm sure there are other points to make, but I'm tired and I'm not sure it's really necessary. This idea is a perfect example of what happens when someone tries to transfer a feature from another game directly to EVE without really giving any thought how it fits here. It's bad/lazy game design used as a stopgap to keep badly designed systems going, EVE doesn't need it and it's actually detrimental for the health of the game and for the gameplay. In conclusion, the idea is bad and anyone suggesting it needs to have their license to post gameplay suggestions removed for a minimum of 2 weeks, so they can think hard about what they did.


TL;DR: Get out.

God damn dude. Couldn't have said it better. *high fives*

i loled. i suppose that is a true statement though

If players have to pay for m3 to store their ships and equipment they'll simply just stop buying ships and equipment. How does that help the player driven market?