If stockpiles are purely in minerals, that can work… but…
What if I already have a stockpile of said high tier ship?
Decrease the difference in “strength” between tiers in order to make killing the more expensive ships easier? As you said there needs to be more steps taken to solve this. I start to believe CCP is actually heading in the right direction with these changes. Let’s hope they don’t lose it again.
Make the ores mildly radioactive, so if there’s too much of a particular ore in one place it goes ‘bang!’ and disappears.
1 Like
well dam that’s pretty interesting, imagine how different the game would be if we had to pay for storage! I have a lot of trash that i will never use just lying in stations all over the regions i’ve been active in, it’s not even worth the effort of gathering it up to put on the market.
imagine a complete overhaul of the inventory system:
- players have to rent storage space and pay for it up front
- everyone gets a small complimentary amount of storage in every npc station so they can dock up swap out fits etc but if we leave anything in it over maint it gets “reposessed”
- all players also get a more significant amount of free storage space in the home station of their choosing.
- separate inventories for ore/minerals/modules/ammo/bluepirints instead of everything just being together.
- moorage fee’s for ships
- a different cost per m3 for each type of inventory
- if you miss payment your stuff gets moved to a repo section of the inventory, if you want to get it out you have to pay all back charges and fee’s.
- if you don’t take it out after a year it gets destroyed, or an auction contract is automatically generated by the system so that all players can bid on it. proceeds from auctions could be used to pay off all back charges, a portion of what’s left could be credited to the players account, or removed from the game. this would become an isk sink
- the same thing happens to inactive players inventory: it gets moved to a repo folder and eventually auctioned off if they don’t come back to claim it.
- player owned citadels will have huge but limited inventory space, players can rent excess storage out to public for a fee if they wish
- if your stuff is in a player owned citadel and the citadel gets destroyed your stuff gets destroyed with it. no insurance, no refunds, absolutely no loot drops, and no asset safety.
- to make players put their stuff in player owned citadels the storage costs in npc stations would need to be very high
obvious problems:
-
it would totally change everything about the way people are playing the game, there would be a huge uproar
-
if you have to pay for storage you’re only going to want to keep the very best modules and ships, t1 ships and modules would become even more worthless.
-
players would only keep a handful of ships if they had to pay moorage on them, this would negatively impact pvp players and alliances who go through a lot of ships and keep large numbers of ships stockpiled for different doctrines.
-
only the largest and most successful alliances would be able to protect their citadels, which means they would end up monopolizing renting storage to public, trading, and industry making them even larger and even more successful.
-
industry, trade, and mining would be restricted and could become logistical nightmares.
-
constantly managing inventory would create a lot of micromanagement for everyone.
-
other stuff i haven’t even thought of
most of these problems can be mitigated by making storage costs very cheap to begin with and then slowly raising them until we get a meta that we’re happy with. As for player owned structures it’s important that they don’t become loot pinata’s, and attackers should always pay a price for taking one down if the owner is online and defending. The way things are now it’s just too easy for properly organized groups to take them out with zero risk and no cost to themselves. To stop this citadels could get a very high alpha turret weapon with a slow rate of fire so they can always alpha a few ships off the field, and i mean extreme alpha that can’t be tanked by anything in the subcap class. Taking down an active players citadel should always be a strategic decision and not something that’s done on a whim by a gang of players who know they’re not going to lose anything in the attempt. I think that should be the case even now but especially if they’re going to push us into storing inventory in space where it can be destroyed, otherwise we’ll all end up reliant on using the structures of big alliances and corps.
One would expect that there would be a certain amount of free storage, but more the charges would be aimed at those who owned huge stockpiles of stuff.
The biggest impact is that it would break up the trade hubs somewhat, you don’t want all your stock in a single market at that point, you want it spread to different markets.
I like this idea. It would force corps to have to worry about transportation for all their ore/minerals with some regularity. When I started this game, my vision was to become a smuggler who would run goods to and from null sec but to my dissapointment, people in nullsec don’t need to trade with high sec for basically anything.
You are smuggling in the wrong direction
The idea of limiting space to end stockpiling will not work it to end the inequality of wealth, it will just cause what is stockpiled to change. For a quick example if trit is going for 6.5 ISK and you have 1000 m3 of space your net holding is 650000 ISK, not much at all. The players of eve excel at working the system so they will sell the stockpile(crashing the economy in the short term) and either sit on the wealth in ISK or put it in something else that has a vastly higher value to space ratio like blue prints current price of an avatar blueprint 75 billion. 1000 m3 of that is 7500 trillion(A.K.A 7.5 quadrillion). Then there is the free alts issue for a small price you can start a corp and rent corp hangers even if the corp hangers are limited in space you can move items through the corp hanger for free, so now you have an alt to store your trit and one for modules and so forth. I do not claim to know the answer or if there is one with the epic amount of working the system that EVE inspires. Though I’m not sure I see what the big concern with the stockpiles is either.
2 Likes
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Could you perhaps rephrase your post a tiny bit?
Was it supposed to?
And what would it have to do with the m3 and asset takes up?
I can confirm it is not the way to go - many industrialists have BIG stockpiles of already finished goods… inflating consumption of inputs doesn’t affect situation much. All it does is affect Chribba xD
Many people forget that when you make keepstar or titan you don’t hold ore or minerals - you hold parts needed to make finished goods. The only way to eat through stockpiles is decrease in supply and increase in demand, which is precisely what happened.
Sure, battleships can be a bit pricey, but if you someone struggles with replacing cruisers… L2 missions easily pay about 10M/h, doesn’t require much skills. Belt ratting in destroyers in lowsec is also an option. Explo can pay well. Many ways to make much isk with cheap throw away stuff - just requires some actual doing.
You may not realize this, but there is no m3 limit on hangars. the limit is like 1,000 stacks in an item hangar. So an isk/m3 ratio is irrelevant.
One of CCP’s supposed goals was to slow supercap proliferation, but as usual they use sledgehammers instead of scalpels because, as a company they are completely oblivious to the concept of subtlety or focused changes. If they were intent on curbing proliferation, they could have altered the blueprints to require more capital parts, instead they gutted the mineral economy like a child throwing their toys out of the pram.
1 Like
Like instead of changing the amount of ore available from Moos change the amount of ore required on a Blueprint to produce say an Orca ie Capital Construction Parts x15 but change to like 20 - 25?
yes, but focused on the ships you seek to curb production on, in their case, titans and supercarriers.
1 Like
So they didn’t do it that way due to the copies already produced? Could that had been the issue behind not just changing the Blueprints?
The BPC’s would change just at the BPO. The only unique thing that is recorded separately is the ME, TE of the copy.
1 Like
At which point all the existing super cap stocks laugh. I’d consider your proposal far more of a sledgehammer.
The CCP way doesn’t change the man hours required to produce a single super cap, it makes it harder to build them on mass. Which is a better approach than your proposal.
1 Like
Their way makes it more difficult to build anything. You literally can’t build a T1 battleship with the yield from a colossal mining anom. So no, their approach is not better unless your goal is to make industry a non-functioning mechaninc.
Oh no! Who said a colossal ore anom should give you a perfect distribution of minerals to build T1 battleships.
I do like how you misrepresent how much ore you do get though, it’s not that there isn’t that much ore, it’s that some of it is the wrong type. Just like it used to be years ago before CCP broke it and ushered in the era of null sec fat farmers.
Go back to importing like the old days.
1 Like
No, your way makes it more difficult. Because your way they need to COLLECT more ore.
This way, they have to FIND more ore.
Says a lot about what’s considered effort these days.
1 Like