Universal storage is essential to the survival of new planets. Discuss
- Thread starter Oleg
- Start date
So far there have been a few consistent arguments on each side
Interplanetary trade is hindered by Universal Storage
Travel is much more inconvenient without Universal Storage
This is definitely true, but it seems that this has been the trend with MA ever since there has been off planet travel available. It isn't likely to change soon.
As an addition to this, alot of people have said that 'vacationing' is limited by how difficult it is to travel. This seems like it is completely MA's intention. Just comparing FPC and Rocktropia, it looks like planets may be targeted to more of a niche. For example, Rocktropia offers access to music and artists, and it can be expected that other planets will have other specific draws and strengths. MA doesn't want people hopping from planet to planet to take advantage of each planet's strength. For example, briefly going to Rocktropia to see a free concert and then traveling back to Calypso to hunt is not desirable for Rocktropia at all as no money will be made.
Without this feature planets will die
This seems a tad extreme. It is much more likely that Rocktropia just dies from being built on a bad business model. Clearly, this inconvenient storage arrangement will deter some, but may also cause others to spend more time on Rocktropia or to relocate permanently.
Convenient travel is the purpose of planets
So which way should it be?
This is still up for discussion. However, it seems like this is the way it is going to be for a while. Personally, I think a universal storage only makes it easier for people to make make the trip and spend money. And other people spending money is almost always a good thing. In addition to this, it won't really affect much in the economy, except maybe for the poor crafter who can only craft boxes. Oleg was correct when he said that all the storage system does is waste time.
Interplanetary trade is hindered by Universal Storage
I don't see how interplanetary trade will be significantly changed by universal storage. Each planet will still be separated by a transport fee that cannot be circumvented. Even if a trader drops an item into universal storage, he or she still has to pay the travel fee to reach the other planet and sell his item. Whether he carries it or puts it into storage makes no difference. Now, if the weight of an avatar counted into the travel fee, then this would make a significant difference.
Travel is much more inconvenient without Universal Storage
This is definitely true, but it seems that this has been the trend with MA ever since there has been off planet travel available. It isn't likely to change soon.
As an addition to this, alot of people have said that 'vacationing' is limited by how difficult it is to travel. This seems like it is completely MA's intention. Just comparing FPC and Rocktropia, it looks like planets may be targeted to more of a niche. For example, Rocktropia offers access to music and artists, and it can be expected that other planets will have other specific draws and strengths. MA doesn't want people hopping from planet to planet to take advantage of each planet's strength. For example, briefly going to Rocktropia to see a free concert and then traveling back to Calypso to hunt is not desirable for Rocktropia at all as no money will be made.
Without this feature planets will die
This seems a tad extreme. It is much more likely that Rocktropia just dies from being built on a bad business model. Clearly, this inconvenient storage arrangement will deter some, but may also cause others to spend more time on Rocktropia or to relocate permanently.
Convenient travel is the purpose of planets
No. the planets should offer something unique, that isn't offered on any other planet. People should visit or move because they whatever that special thing is. Customers who want many special things have to pay more to get them all from each planet, and I bet there will be those who have the money to do so.
So which way should it be?
This is still up for discussion. However, it seems like this is the way it is going to be for a while. Personally, I think a universal storage only makes it easier for people to make make the trip and spend money. And other people spending money is almost always a good thing. In addition to this, it won't really affect much in the economy, except maybe for the poor crafter who can only craft boxes. Oleg was correct when he said that all the storage system does is waste time.
jjmatrix
Stalker
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Posts
- 1,883
- Location
- Calypso
- Society
- SPU
- Avatar Name
- JJ Ony Matrix
IMHO the storage should be universal; as pointed out, the main reason is that you cannot camp effectively (on RT for example), especially when it's a new place and we don't have complete info yet about the mobs etc.
On the other hand, I'm thinking that maybe this was MA's strategy all along; maybe the new places are primarily geared towards new players, and not "old farts"
.
On the other hand, I'm thinking that maybe this was MA's strategy all along; maybe the new places are primarily geared towards new players, and not "old farts"
.
FireTaffer
Dominant
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
- Posts
- 439
- Society
- Freelancer
- Avatar Name
- Fire Taffer Kane
As a Calypsian, you must be totally out of your mind, this technology isn't even here yet! Omegatron has yet to develop teleporters for objects located in a blue machine. It must be in your pocket, these blue 'storage terminals' interfere with quantum physics. I mean, this is common knowledge you must have at least learnt this in Trox school?
But on-topic (well not really) it would sure save me a lot of hassle
. If Omegatron ever develops such technology, I'd say go for it! Give us universal teleporters. I do not see any reason why not to, I mean what's the point of not having them now? To go to a planet and say 'Woops forgot my Armour! I guess it's time to pay 40PED and go back to retrieve it?' I mean MA should be able to make better money making schemes than that 
.
But on-topic (well not really) it would sure save me a lot of hassle
. If Omegatron ever develops such technology, I'd say go for it! Give us universal teleporters. I do not see any reason why not to, I mean what's the point of not having them now? To go to a planet and say 'Woops forgot my Armour! I guess it's time to pay 40PED and go back to retrieve it?' I mean MA should be able to make better money making schemes than that .
TimUnleashed
Prowler
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Posts
- 1,210
- Location
- Australia
- Society
- Southern Fortress Engineering (SFE)
- Avatar Name
- Tim TimUnleashed Kerin
My understanding of the planet partner concept is that it's set up with the following win-win situation in mind:
1. It doesn't matter to MA which planet attracts the most players, MA still makes money (except that of course they own FPC, but that's got to be small bickies compared to having multiple successful planets!).
2. Planets that attract players not already in EU are going to do well
3. Planets that attract players already in EU are going to do well (particularly if they KEEP those players).
Therefore from MA's perspective, as long as each planetary system is empowered to be as awesome as possible, and they're going to compete with each other, then EU will have lots of happy players, and MA wins.
From any planet partner's perspective, there is a great vested interest in trying to have the best planet, and to keep players. That is, a planet partner would want to make the situation such that players create a life of their own on a particular planet and don't want to leave.
From a player's perspective, we have the pick of the crop then because we've got all these planets trying to be the best planet.
It's also worth noting that when you change planetary systems, the distribution of income changes (eg the planet you move to starts to earn income from you, and the planet you leave loses income!).
Changing planetary systems is therefore a far more significant event than moving around within a single planetary system:
From my perspective, the point Oleg raises is fundamentally this:
Should it be simple, cheap, easy, convenient, to change planets, or should it require some effort on the part of the player?
It seems to me that if it's too easy to change planets, then the planet partners would be more motivated to attract players with cheap tricks such as double skill events and the like.
If it's a bit harder to change planets, then the planet partners would be more motivated to work harder to attract players by genuinely having to have a great planet.
If a planet doesn't survive in such a system, that's probably a good thing too because the players don't want a crappy planet.
For this reason - and it's critical to focus on this reason because we're dealing with a RCE where money is the driver of everything in the business - changing planetary systems needs to be treated as a reasonable move, not a simple click of the teleporter. It needs to be significant.
Such a system puts the onus back on the planet partners, in line with the existing financial model, to genuinely strive to have an awesome attractive planet that players are willing to put effort into moving to.
I believe that's the important end game for all developers, and the system needs to be set up to encourage it.
I therefore submit that there should be a fee (somewhere around 40 ped seems right) to switch planetary systems, and that you really should have to take with you what you're going to need. That makes the player put weight into the decision, which forces the planets to strive to be good enough.
1. It doesn't matter to MA which planet attracts the most players, MA still makes money (except that of course they own FPC, but that's got to be small bickies compared to having multiple successful planets!).
2. Planets that attract players not already in EU are going to do well
3. Planets that attract players already in EU are going to do well (particularly if they KEEP those players).
Therefore from MA's perspective, as long as each planetary system is empowered to be as awesome as possible, and they're going to compete with each other, then EU will have lots of happy players, and MA wins.
From any planet partner's perspective, there is a great vested interest in trying to have the best planet, and to keep players. That is, a planet partner would want to make the situation such that players create a life of their own on a particular planet and don't want to leave.
From a player's perspective, we have the pick of the crop then because we've got all these planets trying to be the best planet.
It's also worth noting that when you change planetary systems, the distribution of income changes (eg the planet you move to starts to earn income from you, and the planet you leave loses income!).
Changing planetary systems is therefore a far more significant event than moving around within a single planetary system:
- The planet arrived at has a win
- The planet departed has a loss
- The player is dealing with a genuinely different company providing their gaming - the player is choosing one service provider over another (encouraging competition)
From my perspective, the point Oleg raises is fundamentally this:
Should it be simple, cheap, easy, convenient, to change planets, or should it require some effort on the part of the player?
It seems to me that if it's too easy to change planets, then the planet partners would be more motivated to attract players with cheap tricks such as double skill events and the like.
If it's a bit harder to change planets, then the planet partners would be more motivated to work harder to attract players by genuinely having to have a great planet.
If a planet doesn't survive in such a system, that's probably a good thing too because the players don't want a crappy planet.
For this reason - and it's critical to focus on this reason because we're dealing with a RCE where money is the driver of everything in the business - changing planetary systems needs to be treated as a reasonable move, not a simple click of the teleporter. It needs to be significant.
Such a system puts the onus back on the planet partners, in line with the existing financial model, to genuinely strive to have an awesome attractive planet that players are willing to put effort into moving to.
I believe that's the important end game for all developers, and the system needs to be set up to encourage it.
I therefore submit that there should be a fee (somewhere around 40 ped seems right) to switch planetary systems, and that you really should have to take with you what you're going to need. That makes the player put weight into the decision, which forces the planets to strive to be good enough.
Last edited:
Oleg
Mutated
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2006
- Posts
- 19,406
- Location
- Leeds, UK
- Avatar Name
- Oleg Oleg McMullery
I think my fundamental point is something more like: Can the new planets sustain a business when it isn't simple, easy, convenient, to change planets? (Just a different way of phrasing the same question really, but with a focus on a different aspect).
I took out the 'cheap' from your list
I'm not asking for a free ride. I just want to save time.
TimUnleashed
Prowler
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Posts
- 1,210
- Location
- Australia
- Society
- Southern Fortress Engineering (SFE)
- Avatar Name
- Tim TimUnleashed Kerin
I think my fundamental point is something more like: Can the new planets sustain a business when it isn't simple, easy, convenient, to change planets? (Just a different way of phrasing the same question really, but with a focus on a different aspect).
I took out the 'cheap' from your list
Lol didn't mean to infer you're a cheapskate Oleg
I think the concern for a lot of people is that it needs to be cheap, and I've hijacked your thread to tie the two together, I guess. Sorry about that.
In isolation - if it still cost 40 ped but was really convenient with universal storage, I think my argument still stands - the planet partners need to be motivated to make the players make a significant move.
Then there's also the niggling thought in the back of my head that teleporting stored items within one gravitational system (eg Calypso to CND) is one thing, but teleporting through null-gravity to another planetary system is quite another - do we have the technology? We're lucky the voyage doesn't take 9 months like a trip to Mars does!
Brilliam Mason
Dominant
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Posts
- 414
- Location
- Indiana, USA
- Society
- Skillin Villians
- Avatar Name
- Mason Brilliam Seafarer
Oleg I agree put there is a problem with this in the past planet. You cant have access to futuristic weapons and items that are computerized in the past planet. Otherwise I completly agree with you. This current system is very limiting on what you can do.
Colbey Kal
Dominant
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2009
- Posts
- 402
- Society
- NBK Otium
- Avatar Name
- Colbey Colbey Kal
Oleg said:
Yes, I am sure it's possible. Will they? I have no idea.
Right now there's almost no reason to relocate to Rocktropia. People have complained that it's just a bunch of new land areas that are expensive, and a hassle, to get to. If that doesn't change it will not be sustainable. The novelty will wear off quick.
If it becomes a place where a significant portion of the total EU player-base wants to spend most of their time it becomes a real possibility. Rocktopia (and any other new planets) will need something Calypso doesn't have. What this will be only Neverdie knows.
I hope Neverdie knows.
Last edited:
Oleg
Mutated
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2006
- Posts
- 19,406
- Location
- Leeds, UK
- Avatar Name
- Oleg Oleg McMullery
That's easily solved by allowing me to keep such an item in my storage but not remove it, or to remove it but not equip it, or even to equip it but not use it.
If there is to be some future restriction on what we can and can not use, it doesn't really matter at what point we are prevented from using it, the effect is the same.
Nihilist
Elite
- Joined
- May 17, 2006
- Posts
- 3,294
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
- Society
- Cult of the Skull
- Avatar Name
- Dave Nihilist Quantison
The same can be said in the opposite though, if the fee's were reasonable i'm all for the convenience of increased storage facilities, i.e. 500 storage per planet.
I agree... but it'll never happen in my honest opinion.
My understanding based on comments from MA/FPC/RT is that they never intended for it to be easy/cheap to move between planets. As if the planets are in competition to retain their own player base.
My understanding based on comments from MA/FPC/RT is that they never intended for it to be easy/cheap to move between planets. As if the planets are in competition to retain their own player base.
Mac
Marauder
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2005
- Posts
- 5,708
- Location
- USA
- Avatar Name
- Mannanan Mac y Lir
TimUnleashed
Prowler
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Posts
- 1,210
- Location
- Australia
- Society
- Southern Fortress Engineering (SFE)
- Avatar Name
- Tim TimUnleashed Kerin
Well, thanks for using my writing style, but I think you've KIIIIIIIIIINDA misquoted me.
In fact, you've used my arguments to argue the opposite.
You're saying that taking the barriers away opens up the freedom to move around and that's conducive to competitiveness.
I reckon that makes it to easy for the planet partners.
I'm saying that if it's that little bit harder to actually get someone to move, then you've got to REALLY be worth moving to, resulting in better planets.
now that would be technically fairly tricky*: dumping all your items to storage on transfer? prevent you from going until you have done so manually? what about items you are permitted to transfer? you'd have to sit as the teleporter assess the suitablity of each item.
* in a how to find the best way that works sensibly and fast, in principle its simple.
how about you tell us why it is so important? if you want a convenient and free way to shoot mobs, stay on calypso. understand the business model, if planet X spends hundreds of thousands on promotion and once their new avatars freely wander off to calypso and planet Y, thats a lot of money wasted. stop looking from the player perspective and consider the business perspective.
Uni
Old Alpha
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Posts
- 818
- Location
- Tatooine
- Society
- freelancer
- Avatar Name
- Iman Universalis Freeman
I dont mind having separate storage, i think it's more real.
Think requests like this make this game more expensive. U don't believe new features come free , do u?
Another thing why i dont like it is becouse the more complicated EU software is the more bugs can occur, i believe.
my 2pecs
Think requests like this make this game more expensive. U don't believe new features come free , do u?
Another thing why i dont like it is becouse the more complicated EU software is the more bugs can occur, i believe.
my 2pecs
ChairmanEdgewise
Elite
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Posts
- 4,822
- Location
- Sweden
- Society
- Freelancer
- Avatar Name
- Edgewise
The fact that storage is not universal atm is totally BS if you ask me.
I agree with you Oleg, good post.
I agree with you Oleg, good post.
mastermesh
Mutated
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2007
- Posts
- 16,461
- Location
- Auction room somewhere...
- Society
- Freelancer
- Avatar Name
- Maria Mesh
Maybe MA can introduce a new type of Personal Storage Unit, and make it L like the other one, but make it have access to all planet's storage as separate tabs. Costs for decay on that thing should probably be similar to auction transport cost.
sitram
Marauder
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2007
- Posts
- 5,546
- Location
- Romania
- Society
- Agents of Entropy
- Avatar Name
- Adrian Adi Martis
I can find a few reasons traders are good:
Traders are usefull for crafters who are used to do big crafting runs and don't have time to gather their own materials. It's hard to find huge stacks of ores/enmatters on auction often.
Traders are good for crafters who are looking for a specific amount of materials for their crafting rounds. In auction you either find small stacks are high markup or huge stacks at smaller markup. Either way it's an inconvenience.
As you said, traders also give added value the the small amounts of loot that players withouth big ped buffers have. Those small amounts wouldn't be sellable on auction because of auction fee anyway.
Just like RL, everything in EU revolves around trading. I'd say that auction atm is a convenience for everyone and that's why there aren't too many trading opportunities in EU. This might change now that we have separate strorage systems on different planets.
Traders are just like tiering system. I don't have to use them if I'm capable to gather enough loot, study the market graphs and sell it in auction. But I see them as option for a large majority of players who don't like to be bothered about squeezing every pec of markup out of loot or don't have enough cash to store everything they loot.
Please don't missunderstand me, I'm not keeping traders part, but I believe that the more diversity and opportunities we have in our small virtual universe the better it is for all of us.
I would also like to have universal storage in EU because it's more convenient, but I think it's a better for the future of EU without it. I'm sure that MA already did some economic simulations before they implemented this feature.
Just my 2 pecs.
Chrome
Elite
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
- Posts
- 2,710
- Location
- Eastern USA
- Society
- Kaos
- Avatar Name
- Mono Chrome Monochrome
<gasp>
Has anyone tried to bring their Calypso (L) personal storage with all their items in it to ROCKtropia?!?!?
Golden Atrox
Guardian
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Posts
- 332
- Location
- Singapore
- Avatar Name
- Sun Luna Ray
Totally agree with universal storage; need to add universal auction and lower tp fees too. So that pple can play without regard for cost of transfer or transport. Anyway, I'm stuck in Rocktropia with opalo till I could get better guns over there...
thoreau
Elite
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Posts
- 3,894
- Location
- Calypso
- Avatar Name
- Hiro Protagonist
Sorry if this has been mentioned.
Is it possible that this is a technical issue?
If storage was universal then every time a player opened their storage the 'system' would have to query all the planet partners. I already have storage lag - I can't imagine how bad it would be if they had to check my storage for X number of planet partners.
Is it possible that this is a technical issue?
If storage was universal then every time a player opened their storage the 'system' would have to query all the planet partners. I already have storage lag - I can't imagine how bad it would be if they had to check my storage for X number of planet partners.
Golden Atrox
Guardian
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Posts
- 332
- Location
- Singapore
- Avatar Name
- Sun Luna Ray
You mean the lag wasn't due to excessive no. of items in storage?
jjmatrix
Stalker
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Posts
- 1,883
- Location
- Calypso
- Society
- SPU
- Avatar Name
- JJ Ony Matrix
True... up to some point; every partner's DB can store an exact copy of the main storage, along with a synchronization procedure. Since you cannot be in two places at once... I think it's doable from a technical standpoint.
mastermesh
Mutated
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2007
- Posts
- 16,461
- Location
- Auction room somewhere...
- Society
- Freelancer
- Avatar Name
- Maria Mesh
Most storage lag seems to be in the armor tab... so I suspect it has something to do with ce2 adding new attributes to armor, probably tags that have to do with the new visuals on armor or something that are hidden, but still load in to inventory and stuff so there won't be lag when you drag the armor out or put it on... reflections, etc.
Etopia
Bitchtropian
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Posts
- 9,708
- Society
- The Incredibles
- Avatar Name
- ETOPIA
why query all planet ?
Storage is part of the database of the player...
So its a query to the "player database"...
this has nothing to do with your location...
you dont move player from database to database...you just change his location number...
If every time a player TP from 1 town to an other , MA was mouving all the player from one database to an other... that would create an insane lag for nothing...what would be the point of such system ?
demonseedgfx
Dominant
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Posts
- 362
- Location
- England, Yorkshire
- Society
- -TAO-
- Avatar Name
- Demonseedgfx
Just adding my bit to this. If they scrap the fee's and bring back pilot's, then open up a parcel carrying service between planet, comets, floating clubs and other wonders that pilots bid on that would give an added stream of income for MA (or whoever they are called at this moment in time). I.E. once per day an auction shipment goes from calypso to rockpedeater. This shipment has a fee of 40 ped for example pilot a bids 40 ped for the job, pilot B bids 38ped for the job at the given time the lowest bid gets the job. The pilots will stop bidding when the weight of the job outweighs the cost to ship. So the items sold in auction nolonger have a fee to move from plant to planet. New jobs for pilots bidding on getting people from a to b with the addition of cargo runs at the same time. simple'sk
Mac
Marauder
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2005
- Posts
- 5,708
- Location
- USA
- Avatar Name
- Mannanan Mac y Lir
I think its important for the success of the game or I wouldn't bother expressing my opinion and I'm not going to stop looking at it from a players perspective because its the players that pay the bills, not the other way around.
I don't care how much planet x y and z spend to bring their content, if the players don't like the content, or like how it works, or how they are forced to access it, they aren't going to participate and it will fail no matter how many restrictions and controls they put in place.
Keep charging customers new/more fees (transport, auction) every time they turn around and making their buying experience a hassle (storage) and see what happens
Oleg
Mutated
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2006
- Posts
- 19,406
- Location
- Leeds, UK
- Avatar Name
- Oleg Oleg McMullery
Just catching up after being off EF most of the day because of the security wotsit.
I think a lot of people should read this:
My thinking is not (directly) about how it affects the players, but how their resulting behaviour has a knock-on effect on the businesses that are running the planets.
I've no idea how many people are employed or contracted by Neverdie Studios, but they're going to need income to cover the costs of those people and their other expenses, and to get that income they need people playing on their planets.
A lot of people commenting in this thread seem to be stuck in thinking about themselves, not the bigger picture, whether they agree with me or not.
Separate storage and therefore more item points surely makes it harder in system terms, due to the bigger database load.
I think storage loading times are primarily a client-side thing, not a server issue. More RAM and a better CPU/GPU are what you need to fix that.
I'm no technical expert so forgive me if I am talking rubbish
I think a lot of people should read this:
My thinking is not (directly) about how it affects the players, but how their resulting behaviour has a knock-on effect on the businesses that are running the planets.
I've no idea how many people are employed or contracted by Neverdie Studios, but they're going to need income to cover the costs of those people and their other expenses, and to get that income they need people playing on their planets.
A lot of people commenting in this thread seem to be stuck in thinking about themselves, not the bigger picture, whether they agree with me or not.
Separate storage and therefore more item points surely makes it harder in system terms, due to the bigger database load.
I think storage loading times are primarily a client-side thing, not a server issue. More RAM and a better CPU/GPU are what you need to fix that.
I'm no technical expert so forgive me if I am talking rubbish