These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Hire workforce to do ships maintenance
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Eric Prinz
IDO Research Center
#1 - 2014-08-03 11:52:12 UTC
In Krius update the manufacturing/research slotes are gone.
Quote:
This is explained as the cost to hire necessary workforce in a given system

I think that rule must also relate to our ships, that we use for combat/transport/production
Large ships require more costly maintenance than small. We should pay ISKs for workforce to doing maintenance. Otherwise we risk get "system failure" (one of ships systems) on current ship.
So please, think about it.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#2 - 2014-08-03 12:00:04 UTC
in kris search must not work....crew and crew costs a dead horse man. just assume they are there and they get paid somehow. This does not add anything to the game except needless micromanaging really. Which seems to turn on certified accountants and neckbeards. Which does not say a lot for being a certified accountant lol.


Or if you must feel need to pay a crew send me whatever isk you feel they should cost weekly per ship you have.
Eric Prinz
IDO Research Center
#3 - 2014-08-03 12:19:08 UTC
So eve became illogical game for me. If we need to paid workforce for production - we need paid it for ships maintenance also.
However it solves another problem in eve: hundreds of capital ships (MS,Titans) will be very expensive to maintain for alliances....
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#4 - 2014-08-03 12:35:47 UTC
Eric Prinz wrote:
So eve became illogical game for me. If we need to paid workforce for production - we need paid it for ships maintenance also.
However it solves another problem in eve: hundreds of capital ships (MS,Titans) will be very expensive to maintain for alliances....


Sadly we aren't advanced enough yet to create truly immersive worlds. Besides, you would need implants to properly connect your brain to those artificial wonder worlds anyway, which would be quite expensive.

For someone playing a game, you're really kind of inflexible. At least CCP tries to connect game play balance with in-game lore, there are a lot of games where you would just be told: Deal with it.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#5 - 2014-08-03 12:59:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Eric Prinz wrote:
So eve became illogical game for me. If we need to paid workforce for production - we need paid it for ships maintenance also.
However it solves another problem in eve: hundreds of capital ships (MS,Titans) will be very expensive to maintain for alliances....



you obviously have not run havens and sanctums in a carrier....they make isk very well

you'd also be hurting the little guys. Goons, n3, russians,etc...have the assets to run fleets. The amount of costs we are talking to where they'd notice the drain of isk would have most small crews long dead and buried. The "blob" would live on alive and well however.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2014-08-03 16:38:47 UTC
Isn't a single ISk enough to set someone up for life?

Just round your wallet down to the nearest whole ISK and pretend the cents are your maintanance costs.


or, explain how this would be good for the game in any way. I've got hundreds f ships scattered around, as have most other people. Do you want to bankrupt us all?
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#7 - 2014-08-03 16:53:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Owen Levanth
Danika Princip wrote:
Isn't a single ISk enough to set someone up for life?

Just round your wallet down to the nearest whole ISK and pretend the cents are your maintanance costs.


or, explain how this would be good for the game in any way. I've got hundreds f ships scattered around, as have most other people. Do you want to bankrupt us all?


There's a contradiction in your post. If paying your crew is that cheap, even a few hundred ships means just a few hundred ISK per month pay. Hell, you could double that number to include ship maintenance cost and no-one would even notice the drain on their wallet!

So nope, CCP could just implement this as some sort of "immersion-tax", and nothing of value would be lost. No bankruptcy, no panic: Only 100% immersion. Lol
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2014-08-03 21:41:53 UTC
Owen Levanth wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Isn't a single ISk enough to set someone up for life?

Just round your wallet down to the nearest whole ISK and pretend the cents are your maintanance costs.


or, explain how this would be good for the game in any way. I've got hundreds f ships scattered around, as have most other people. Do you want to bankrupt us all?


There's a contradiction in your post. If paying your crew is that cheap, even a few hundred ships means just a few hundred ISK per month pay. Hell, you could double that number to include ship maintenance cost and no-one would even notice the drain on their wallet!

So nope, CCP could just implement this as some sort of "immersion-tax", and nothing of value would be lost. No bankruptcy, no panic: Only 100% immersion. Lol


The only reason to implement this would be as an additional ISK sink. The problem is that if it were really that small, it's useless as a sink. And if it costs enough to be noticeable, we run into the problem Danika illustrates.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#9 - 2014-08-04 03:44:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
De'Veldrin wrote:
Owen Levanth wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Isn't a single ISk enough to set someone up for life?

Just round your wallet down to the nearest whole ISK and pretend the cents are your maintanance costs.


or, explain how this would be good for the game in any way. I've got hundreds f ships scattered around, as have most other people. Do you want to bankrupt us all?


There's a contradiction in your post. If paying your crew is that cheap, even a few hundred ships means just a few hundred ISK per month pay. Hell, you could double that number to include ship maintenance cost and no-one would even notice the drain on their wallet!

So nope, CCP could just implement this as some sort of "immersion-tax", and nothing of value would be lost. No bankruptcy, no panic: Only 100% immersion. Lol


The only reason to implement this would be as an additional ISK sink. The problem is that if it were really that small, it's useless as a sink. And if it costs enough to be noticeable, we run into the problem Danika illustrates.



Basically. And its not even a pvp'er problem only. It affects pve as it can be common to have a few ships laying around.

Already have enough external forces adding to market prices. We don't need more. We can assume a freighter will have a decent shop fee on it for example. Smart traders/builders don't eat costs. Those are passed on to the buyers. The install fees for jobs the got him started on this for example are commonly done this way. I spend 5 mil in fees...well my sell pricing is set to get that 5 mil back.

Lets have op's shop fee be say 20 mil a month. I'll just tack that 20 mil onto orders an isk here and there on split orders. That's me doing it, and the 100's of others. And we watch the markets creep up over time as result.

So its not even an isk sink. I lose 20 mil to run monthly pm's on a Charon I will get it back in sales. As will many like me. Maybe its just me....ships over the years already shot up too much in price. Not really digging higher buy costs to make the rp'ers happy. Want immersion...like I said send me isk for pretend pm's on your ships. You have immersion. For the rest of us....we just accept this happens magically. Latter makes life much easier to deal with.