I was doing some thinking about Upwell structures and where they’re at right now, and thought of a couple ways their economy can be improved.
Firstly, I think that structure owners should be able to offer benefits to corporations that rent offices in their stations (e.g., renters get lower reprocessing fees, free jump clones, access to certain services, etc).
Practically speaking, you can do this already, but if you have more than a few structures and don’t keep very good track of who’s renting, updating access lists gets to be a real hassle. Furthermore, it’s not granular, it’s profile-wide. Baking this functionality into the structure profile, and allowing service use on a case-by-case basis (i.e., does your corporation rent an office in this specific station or not?) would go a long way to improving the economy around structures, I think, because it incentivizes higher service fees to the public, while renters get lower fees in exchange for a flat payment every month. This is particularly great for industrial stations, since industrial corporations use a lot of station services and (in my experience) make more use of corporate hangars.
Secondly, I think that there should be a tax associated with rentals that the structure owner pays.
We can call it an administration fee or whatever, but to help prevent rental prices from zeroing out, structure owners should pay a fee for each office rented in their structure. This associates a cost with office rental, which discourages free offices. Note: I will never, and am not suggesting that structure owners should not be allowed to offer free offices, only that there should be a cost associated with doing so. Fuel cost has proven to be insufficient–since it scales with the number of structures/services, not the number of structure/service users–but an (awful) alternative to this tax would be to raise fuel costs; this is mostly just kicking the can down the road.
I love intelligent discussion, so please, feel free.