Introduce Upkeep allready

CCP have issues with,

A) Super Capital proleferation
B) Wealth distribution
C) Resource distribution

To tackle they have introduced,

  1. Increased costs to capitals
  2. Increased skill points to build capitals
  3. Various changes to acuisition known as “poverty patch”

Monetisation is based on,
. 30 day plex cost
. Skill injection & extraction & boosting
. Vanity items ie, skins

All of the solutions disproportiently harm newer, more casual & space poorer players who are less able to adapt.

Why is the one organic & natural irl downward force on power & wealth missing from eve online?

Why has CCP not introduced maintenance costs for assets, in particular super capital vessels? A daily isk sink or depletion of fuel bay should be required for these ships regardless of their docked status ect,

Tl;dr Bring maintenace of assets into game to obtain desired balances.


You make this suggestion without thinking that even if CCP did it, the first people to be penalised by it would be people now having to upkeep their Lvl3 mission Caracals.

My fiat punto is cheaper to run than my neighbours Ferrari.

His wealth has greater downwards pressure than my own. Albeit not as much as his capital likely gains.

In eve there is no downward pressure, why does ccp moan about wealth distribution while artificially removing the greatest downward pressure after taxation or in some places robbery?

THats super, he must be richer and can more easily afford to maintain it.

As well as probably a second car he actual drives to work.

5% of a poor’s income is a bigger impact that 5% of a rich man’s

Right, but it costs more than 5% to maintain a ferrari & since this is a game ccp can introduce limits ie limiting up keep only to capitals.

A super capital say could have a 33% up keep cost and a carrier 10% ect.

1 Like

You know thats not how theyd do it.

The only solution that makes sense: Remove Capitals.


So anway good news everybody. I just fixed the game, also eve is slightly more real now.

Btw I am not suggesting we introduce breakage chance fron experience in a competitive online game this is badly frustrating but maintenance could be great in a casual sandbox like eve.

A new type of rogue drone, a sentient parasite that targets capital ships everywhere, that is almost impossible to kill even with an entire armada of caps, subacps and fighters/drones; that upon reaching the capital enters it then ejects the piloting capsuleer’s pod then takes over the ship, infects it in 30 seconds then warps into deadspace then jumps off system through a rogue drone spatial rift. :space_invader:

While doing this it posts in local:

01110010 01100101 01110011 01101001 01110011 01110100 01100001 01101110 01100011 01100101 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100110 01110101 01110100 01101001 01101100 01100101



Somewhere between this & space wd40 for capitals please. A good base would be 10% pcm on the value of each capital hull. Hull is gubbed till all balance is paid.

Melt return is unaffected, encouraging not utilised capitals to be melted.


I am multi capital owner. Please downward pressure me.

I wanted that few years ago. Nobody was there to listen then.

Upkeep cost implies you want to have people make periodic payments. Do you want payments per real time, or payments per time played? Or payments per cap flight time?

Real time puts disproportional pressure on people who have less time to play, as they would be required to devote much more of their playtime to the upkeep of their capital ship than someone who plays daily. If you want people who play daily to feel pressure from your capital upkeep, this would make it impossible for someone who plays a couple of hours a month to maintain a capital ship even though they pay for the same game and have spent as much playtime as other players to buy that ship. Real-time upkeep puts disproportional pressure on people with less playtime.

Thus, real-time based payments are out.

Next, time-played upkeep costs. Would it be based on character logged in time?

In this case you’re severely punishing main characters that can also fly a capital ship, but spend a lot of time logged in not flying caps. You would force every capital pilot to be an alt for monetary reasons. I sure would be incredibly annoyed that I cannot use my fax alt for Porpoise boosting anymore when the extra upkeep payments for logging in that alt negate the profit of having a Porpoise in space. Punishing a pilot for being logged in just because they have a capital ship is disproportional for people who use characters for more than just flying that capital ship.

Thus, played-time payments are out.

The two previous upkeep options aren’t any good, but perhaps time spent inside the capital is a better measurement? After all, this would be fair for everyone, the people who play daily as well as those once a mont, the people who fly capitals on their alts as well as those who also fly capitals on their mains!

How can CCP easily track time spent inside a capital ship? I have an idea: capital ships move around when they’re used. Most often, they make use of their capital jump drives to do so.

Maybe CCP could put an upkeep tax on capital movement? Something like a travel tax?

Call it… fuel?


You’re going to have to explain this one to me, because I’m not tracking.


  • Unless you make upkeep a function of how much time you spend logged in, it will disproportionately affect casual players and weekend warriors. And I personally think it would be a mistake to penalize players for playing.
  • This will annoy the vast majority of players, as they will feel like they have to do more grinding just to be able to do what they could do before.
  • This might cause serious problems for the economy, as everyone looks to liquidate all assets that they don’t have an immediate need for.
  • Moreover, unless you severely restrict what the upkeep costs is applied to (i.e. only unpackaged ships), it will disproportionately hurt traders and industrialists. But, of course, if you do that, people will just package their ships more, which will just result in more expensive salvage and rigs. Might make salvaging a more viable career for older players, but it will hardly achieve your goals.
  • The players that will be affected the most by it will be everyday players (and no, most capital and super cap owners aren’t wealthy.) And the players least affected by it will be the super wealthy, as much of their wealth takes the form of isk and plex. So, what would affect them the most is a wealth tax, but that’s a whole another can of worms.

Honestly, I could go on (i.e. how do you handle tournament ships?), but hopefully, people get my point. This isn’t going to solve any problems, and it’s just going to piss most players off. In fact, I’d bet 1000 plex that if this got implemented, there would be someone posting in the official dev thread that this was all just a ploy by CCP to sell more plex.

Oh, and just to make it clear, the vast majority of the players in the game aren’t wealthy -and that includes cap and super cap owners. Many of those dudes grind like mad men to be able to afford their ships, and the only reason they can really afford them is because of things like stimuluses and SRP.


I would also like to see upkeep but just for supers and caps.
And it would probably healthy to make an alliance think about if they need to put a stucture in every system.

1 Like

almost every MMO i have played has had upkeep. however, i rarely kept mulitiple sets of armor with different components, although i kept several weapon types. Unlike EVE where players keep several backups of several different classes of ships. Even though the introduction of upkeep seems logical and has MMO precedent. In EVE it would dramatically change gameplay. Would it help fix the econony? yes, would it cost players and reduce conflict? yes. I do, however , support upkeep on “high maintenance” ships (define high maintenance how you wish, but probably caps above carriers)

For EVE there already is an upkeep cost for structures (fuel), which means an upkeep cost to keep supers docked.

What kind of MMO are those? Do you lose everything on death there? What was the reason those MMOs introduced upkeep? And what was the upkeep?


in almost every case, armor and weapons degraded over time and needed to be repaired. some you got your stuff back if you died (instantly at respawn) others required the dreaded corpse run. a few had random drop rates that you had to go pick up with the npcs still around to kill your half dressed self. EVE has the harshest death penalty of losing ship and some mods. The need to replace your stuff is the main reason players keep multiple ships in the hangar.

Your stuff does get damaged from being used and must be repaired. If in npc station it costs isk. If in player structure most of the time it’s free but the structure also needs fuel. So there are already maintenance costs in the game no matter what.

1 Like

Real time. Capitals are supposed to be corp/alliance-level assets, and if your corp/alliance can’t keep them paid for then you shouldn’t have them. How the individual players handle things is irrelevant.

Why would this be the case? A Caracal might have a 0.00000000000000001% tax per month, an irrelevant amount of ISK even for the poorest newbie farmer, while a titan might cost 500% of its build cost per day in upkeep. It would be trivially easy to implement a system that ends capita/supercapital proliferation while having no effect on newbies.

1 Like

And this is CCP, so it wouldnt.

It would be a quickly written flat tax that screws everyone.

I dont even know why we are talking about this, its a repetition of a previous daft idea.

“CCP will implement some other stupid idea instead” is not a very constructive response to the merits of a proposal. And we’re discussing it because it’s an excellent idea.