That is not what the OP suggested. He wants every ship to break down over time regardless whether it is being used or not.
1 Like
Correct , all ships should have a cost to maintain whether used or not. Only unfitted repackaged ships should not have any costs
I think CODE would agree a lot, after all they rely heavily on stockpiling gank ships in all sorts of places so that they have ships ready for use when they want to act.
subcap cost is not going to be large unless in huge numbers .
Right, and this is a discussion broad, to discuss ideas. Not a bash on the OP because he didnāt present an idea 100% perfect. 
If you noticed Iām not supporting the full idea of the OP, but the general idea. Now we can discuss how this kind of idea could work, or how it could be improved.
If the idea of the OP is inflexible then we donāt need a discussion board, we only need a place where the OP can present an idea, and then everyone can vote āsupportā or ādonāt support.ā 
Edit: This also applies to the OP.
Yes sir
So for ships that arenāt being used, it would only affect lazy pilots or ships with fitted rigs. Iām not sure this gives much advantage as ships without rigs can easily be repackaged. I think something like ātime in spaceā would be a better metric for ship upkeep.
Repackaged ships couldnāt take any damage or have upkeep, as they donāt exist as individual items in the game.
1 Like
First step is to show that an isk sink is
A: Needed for the economies health.
B: That this particular isk sink would actually hit the people building up too much isk and not everyone else.
Then consider that CCP removed clone costs as they were a negative to PvP & even people undocking. Which were effectively maintenance costs for your close. And ask yourself why an isk sink is needed.
We already have to pay to replace the ships, most MMOās have a ārepairā cost because you can never lose equipment. In EVE you can.
1 Like
I see your point, but I donāt agree. Iām not worried about redistributing wealth.
This was more of a death penalty, I donāt think ship upkeep would be quite the same.
True
3 Likes
While I agree in concept, in practice this is infeasible.
Eve is marketed as a Rock Paper Scissors game. Which means that you need multiple doctrines at your disposal, to answer what your opponents bring.
On top of that, youāll probably want/need spares ready to re-ship.
And then you need your ratting ship(s).
The solution to this is to have them engage in combat more often. Not tax them.
At the end of the day, there are VERY few FCs that will drop supercaps into a fight that they arenāt expressly NEEDED in (aka you need to out-escalate the ā ā ā ā out of your opponents).
HOW you go about doing this is the subject of much debate. But if the problem is that theyāre being built faster than than theyāre being destroyed, destroy more of them.
1 Like
I didnāt mean CODE would agree or disagree with this idea. I meant they would disagree with calling ships ānon-consumableā as CODE uses ships in a very consumable manner. Of course there are exceptions, but for the most part after CODE āusesā a ship, it is consumed and needs to be replaced. CODE uses Cats like other players use ammo. 
1 Like
Not a snowballs chance in hell. Does a ship on the market/contracts degrade?
No? So i can store ships by contracting them to an alt or putting them on the market for ridiculous prices?
Yes? So now each ship needs a unique entry on the market for how long its been there?
Add to that how the idea basically introduces a cost of living and if you are a casual player you have to grind just to pay billsā¦fun!
Pvp happens because ships are ready in hangars. Imagine having to goto a market every time you want to fight. Now imagine you live in low sec.
2 Likes
Only unfitted repackaged ships should not have any costs
IOW, the tax is easily avoided by only assembling a ship right before you undock. This is a stupid idea that taxes you for trying to save a few minutes when the fun stuff is happening.
subcap cost is not going to be large unless in huge numbers .
Then what is the point of the tax, if it is so small that it only matters in huge numbers (which are, again, easily avoided)? This is a solution in need of a problem.
1 Like
The primary objective of this idea would be to have a downside to large number of capitals ready and fitted at all times . If you are happy and able to pay the bills , ok then , but if not then a decision would need to be made on how many you want , and how they are fitted .
This wont discourage pvp at all , this is simply a idea to discourage large capital stockpiles , currently there are no disadvantages to having huge amounts of capitals at the moment in gam.
Except that:
-
Youāre applying the tax to sub-capitals as well, so donāt pretend that itās just a capital tax.
-
The tax doesnāt apply to packaged ships, so you can have a whole stash of zero-tax packaged capitals and fittings and quickly assemble them when needed. So your tax adds a minor inconvenience but accomplishes nothing else.
1 Like
I donāt know if the OPās idea was for this to be like a tax, maybe it was. The way I see it is, in real life things break down, and the idea would be to try to mimic that, but maybe Iām too idealistic.
You will never be able to make it expensive enough to penalise groups like goons from fielding as many caps as they like without making it impossible for anyone to maintain a cap fleet to oppose them. Check the MER, goons can piss away rorquals and still have spares.
This is a prime example of malcanis law.
1 Like
In real life they also need fuel too. Nothing violates the conservation of energy like an Eve perpetual motion spaceship. While you can argue that a ship can fuel up when it docks, for the longest time supercaps had nowhere to dock and literally just logged off in space.
I agree in concept for that reasonā¦ things do break, and they do wear down. But in practice, taxing a ship that never undocks is justā¦ dumb. Itās not undocked. The engine isnāt running, the turrets arenāt shooting, even the asshole on the bridge of the ship who pushes F1 too hard doesnāt need to replace his keyboard after he rages too hard.
If this WERE to be implemented, it would have to follow similar gear mechanics in other MMOs. You use it, it gets damaged. Your sword can only smack something so long before it busts and you need to go get it fixed. Same as your helmet, when some asshole starts smacking you in the balls, your helmet (no not that headā¦) doesnāt get worn down. Thus when you dock up, you use the existing repair mechanics to repair your worn down ship and modules. Which of course is the exact opposite of what the OP is asking for.
1 Like
correct , the goal is also to make the player think that since he is paying for the upkeep of the ship he might as well use it , which may prompt more players risking there expensive ships.