because the vote system is new and people are naturally voting up things at the top and down things at the bottom like sheep, without even thinking about them. 20 votes is like omgawd i must spend them naow...

Mostly because you're trying to turn this game into a facebook game, actually. Yeah, the ship slots don't account for that much of an advantage, but where does this bullshit with space points stop? The clear answer is it doesn't, there is finally a stand in currency that translates to real money so you come up with the idea that you'll just switch out the term "cash" with "space points", and no one will bat an eye.

I mean if you want more money at least present it in a way that does not insult the collective intelligence of everyone who may read the thread. You avoid the word "cash" and money like it's the god damn plague throughout this thread to try and sell it as an idea that does not promote and endorse a pay to win mentality, going as far as saying: like space points don't simply amount to cash, while actively endorsing using excessive amounts of "space points"(money) to increase ship slots(bolster your finances).

In closing if you want to know why this is the only suggestion in proposals with a negative score, go back through and re-read this entire thread replacing the words "space points" with "money", because no one likes the fact that you took a long standing really shitty defective aspect of the game and essentially sold it to the player base with the unspoken thesis of "We'll fix this longstanding problem, and all you have to do is pay us even more money outside of the sub you already pay once a month."

Enkelin came up with a bloody brilliant solution that does not involve a lot of work and could feasibly be in by the next patch due to its sheer simplicity. You ignored it because it addresses the same problem without turning a profit.

I don't actually care that much about charging space points for it rather than credits. The initial suggestion was for credits, but was changed based on input from others on the team.

I'm not sure I really like the idea of "dry dock", since it seems a little bit overly complex to me, compared to just having a way to increase ship slots. But then enkelin's comment about having a ton more peasants to pump into new colonies is scaring me a little bit.

Maybe the suggestion to allow undocking in a pod or spirit is the better solution to the problem of getting stranded in a station without the ability to buy a ship. But I still feel like being able to cap 500 ships and then dock them all is an exploit and should be fixed with a more robust ship limit design. I guess instead of the proposed solution of counting all ships against a ship limit, we could prevent slaves from docking if you already have too many ships docked.

It is definitely an exploit in the sense that it was not intended, but I am not sure it needs to be fixed. The actual process of capturing ships en masse, programming them to dock somewhere, then selling what you can and releasing all the slaves, is one of the "grindiest" mechanics in the game. Not only that, its earning potential is superseded by DGing or boss runs once players get closer to endgame. For these reasons, the game is already doing a great job of discouraging players from "abusing" this mechanic habitually. While it may sounds awfully bad on paper, in practice I think fixing this would have very little positive effect on the game while hampering quite a few people who already have a ton of storage ships in addition to a fleet of trade slaves they only dock once a uni.

I see nothing but annoyance and frustration of "fixing" the capping "exploit". Fixing this would be effectively killing capping ais for any sort of profit, and removing a source of decent credits for low/mid level players. I dont think doing that is a good idea.

Yea, storing peasants and pumping them to colonys at uni reset sounds like more of a exploit. Your proposed solutions are actually worse then the current system we have, this is a tough one to figure out.

Many people have already suggested peasants decaying at reset. If you go with that you allow people to have all the ships they want without bring peasants over. Honestly, as far as things decaying at reset it wouldn't be a bad idea to eliminate all base building gear and commodities (excluding common fuels, and tier 3s maybe).

Actually, base gear decaying (except maybe expanders and certain things like hydros) is actually a pretty good idea.

Storing millions of peasants is way more of an exploit and makes wayyyyyy more money...

We really do need some kind of dry dock feature. It really wouldn't be different than say, neurobound itemformed ships with the small bonus of not destroying augs.
I say this as a person who obsessively wants to own one of every capturable ship hull ingame. But i can't because ship slots. Even if you doubled or tripled slots, it wouldn't be enough for me.

and yes, thank you for realizing the undocking in a shuttle thing is a good idea. It would really be a nice feature.

The dry dock idea is wonderful but please make it work the same way as TSL, i.e. cross-character, so that easier moving of ships to a (lesser) alt is possible too (provided it has the tech levels to use the ship)!

That is a good idea. It's currently impossible to pass a slave from one alt to another on a single account if you do not have access to a second account. In principle I have no problem with passing T19+ ships across a single account through the TSL either.

Do that and you will start seeing accounts with three to five snipers on it. Allowing that sort of accessibility to ships account wide would mean that you could cheaply and easily build an entire account to reuse all the same ships and items to level all the characters, then upon hitting endgame execute all of your lockouts five times while only ever funding one setup and ship.

You can then use multiple accounts to abuse it even further. I'll make the reasonable observation that with four properly designed and maintained level 1300-1500 characters you can MC all current endgame content. 1500, or even 2k, can be achieved on any character inside of a week.

So consider the option you have now presented anyone who already maintains enough characters to MC only. They can now reset an entire account to monk, one to sniper, one to engineer, etc... and just rotate the ships around. Currently the primary difficulty one faces on building all of those characters and attempting group content solo is the difficulty of amassing all the required resources to put the appropriate ship and gear on each individual character, then deal with the logistical headache of moving all the gear around. However once you allow full accessibility to ships account wide people will be able to simply send the entire setup to the next character once they exhaust lockouts, allowing for a nearly inexhaustible amount of resources and endgame drops and resources for an exponentially smaller investment than it currently requires.

That is why WoW still refuses to allow BoA gear to come anywhere near endgame content. By pooling all the resources of the entire account you multiply the possible effort put out to further that account by the number of characters on it, while at the same time increasing the effectivity of each accomplishment towards the overall product.

By allowing that you turn 1 lockout into 5, and at the same time take your material requirements from 5 all the way down to 1. So it would in fact be extremely overpowered for anyone with the mind to exploit it.

All right, then at least for T18 and lower it should be fine.

I would say anything t20 and below, personally. With t21 gear in the game everything below that levels exists, in the end, for the sole purpose of progressing a character to endgame. They would also get to say they beat Blizzard to the punch in what would be possibly one of the most useful features that no game has. Which is to automatically phase the current endgame into universally accessible leveling gear once new content takes its place.