Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ly'sol
|
Posted - 2005.02.27 11:32:00 -
[1]
For months the games isk increase has continued to climb. Personally Ive always thought that the baseline prices of everything is what the designers originally want. However the income and export of ISK coming into the game is not about supply and demand.
Its about a sever inbalance to the game. That will be hampering the player driven economy.
Sources of Income NPC bounties NPC Trade (which has boomed recently) Agent rewards Mining Insurance (Trust me)
Sources of exports POS Market tax the piddly charge for talking to people. And NPCs buying money
here is an example of the inflation over a period of three months for Trit, which I have always thought was 1 trit = 1 isk. the basline for the economic health.
three months ago it was common to see trit runing aroun the 1.87 trit range. And now I now saw trit going for 3.4 isk.
This is about 50% inflation in just three months.
So where is this money coming from? NPC hunters and evel 4 agent runners who can farm off well over 20+ million a day in new isk introduced into the game. And more and more people are starting to do it.
But its ruining the market. Some people say that "Inflation is apart of the market adapt". You guys are nuts. Price changes like that are horribly for the economy.
The exports of ISK to keep the value at a resonable price cant even keep up without severly hurting the players that are not recieveing the cash flow that is bloating the system.
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE:
Remove bounties on NPCs that allow for such a huge profit for a period to allow the isk to naturally drain out of the market. It would at least stop the hemorageing. The bounties should be, Oh this will help pay for ammo. Not "Oh this should pay for my next five Ravens."
NPC hunting should be about getting these niffty modules new mods.
Remove or modify the cash cow trade routes that introduce new isk.
Insurance as it stands works like this. Player A pays for a new Raven for 130 million to Player B. Player A decides to insure that Raven for a cost of 30 million for a 110 million payout.
Player B has 130 million Player A has removed 30 Million from the game Player A looses his ship and is repaid 80 million (minus the cost of insurance)
30 million left the game, and 80 million when into the game. This needs some work
Some extras that can help drain the market
Higher Taxes Toll gates at 0.0 entrances to Empires and Highway gates. Concord starts activly Ambushing players with bounties on thier heads. thus claim the bounty.
The whole point is the game MUST stop hemorage this cash. I know the Devs dont want this because they have instituted several sinks such as the market tax and POS's . But the hole needs to be pluged before the saturation can be corrected.
And to those who say that inflation is not a bad thing, you need to think of the economy as a boat that is leaking water, if more water is coming in than you can get out.
You sink. -------------------------- Vist the Jericho Fraction Forums
|
Lygos
|
Posted - 2005.02.27 12:10:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Lygos on 27/02/2005 12:18:50 No, the only way people are making money off of insurance is if they are blowing up empty hulls. Even then, the process is simply transmogrifying minerals directly into isk, which is no worse than any other labor activity. I just wish it was more possible to turn isk directly into minerals to even things out. NPC item sales like shuttles, basic goods and starbase bits are one way, but they rarely approach any functional level of efficiency.
If you ask me, all modules could be depletable and refinable or refurbishable in their depleted state. That would boost market consumption and involve isk absorption and/or industrial property ownership without actually requiring a significant tax on the sum labor hours of the playerbase..
As to inflation, all that hurts is savings accounts. If you partipate in the inter-pc market, you simply need to raise your own income. Prices on npc made goods like skillpacks aren't rising. If your primary income is fixed, as in from an npc, then a stabilizing level will eventually be reached. The very activity that generates the problem will become less and less desirable to pursue. Participant logic theoretically take over after that. The main incentive will be standing, LP offers, and odd object dropping like implants and the desire to not mine.
The very activity of level iv agent running will make agent running less popular eventually. On the other hand, isk sinks or other inflation countering game mechanics will prolong the profitability of level iv agents.
It's a bit of a quandary. I'd say leave it alone for now. The best option would be to incorporate new variables in the form of investment assets which would lend potence to large savings accounts rather than letting them rot.
|
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2005.02.27 13:59:00 -
[3]
Edited by: theRaptor on 27/02/2005 14:00:31
Originally by: Lygos Edited by: Lygos on 27/02/2005 12:18:50 No, the only way people are making money off of insurance is if they are blowing up empty hulls. Even then, the process is simply transmogrifying minerals directly into isk, which is no worse than any other labor activity.
Sorry you are wrong. Insurance *always* introduces more Isk into the system when the ship is blown up within the first contract. Only after a ship has had several contracts expire will more Isk leave the system insuring the ship then will be produced when it is destroyed.
Blowing up a ship *always* causes a loss in *wealth* (ie the insurance payout is never enough to cover the mineral cost plus insurance cost) but not in Isk.
I however disagree with my corp mate that the current inflation is really bad. It only really affects people who have large ISK reserves. What does it really matter if a piece of tritanium is 1 ISK or 10? Prices will adjust to account for inflation just as they do in the real world (paying $10 for a book would have been an unthinkable expense for most people 50 years ago). The more ISK in the system means that each ISK is worth less. So don't store your wealth in pure cash for long periods of time.
-------------------------------------------------- Thanks for killing my corporation ISD. ISD Motto: Changing history, one air brushed photo at a time. |
Demian Sky
|
Posted - 2005.02.27 19:45:00 -
[4]
I have to agree with Ly'sol. Run away inflation is not a good thing. The Soviet Union had inflation rivalling that of EVE's--- it ended up costing an individual a wheelbarrow full of money to purchase a loaf of bread.
In the end, all things being equal, low inflation is better than high inflation.
The way Ly'sol addresses the NPC problem has a little bit of merrit, but I'd innitiate the change a bit differently. I think that, rather than bounties, NPC pirates should give out CC's or Concord credits. With Concord credits will allow individuals to go to Concord stations and cash in the credits for minerals, ships, special modules etc. that can be sold to other players and not NPC's. This way, NPC "pirate bounties" will be paying out via other players, as opposed to NPC's, thus reducing the ammount of money entering the game SUBSTANTIALLY.
Just my take...
|
Lygos
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 00:36:00 -
[5]
Real world examples of inflation don't really convey to EVE. In Italy, or the Soviet Republics or Argentina, the primary danger of inflation was to savings accounts. This was bad for new investment in industry and scared off foreign investment thereby causing unemployment.
Except in cases of hyperinflation where workers had to spend their money an hour within recieving it, inflation doesn't really affect earnings purchasing power per hour by laborers in a fluid system. Mostly we see cases of coercion where wages are set highly static by their employers. Sufficient moderate inflation tends to loosen such habits, though workers generally are the ones that carry all the burden of stabilizing an economy.
Regardless, EVE does not have all of the mechanics and concerns of a real world economy. No one has to put food on the table for instance. Money generation is only a prod for material efficiency. It's an artificial overlay on an economy that meters out practices when equity accounting is established and formalized. This is why most surviving laborers only make a small percentage of gain from year to year if any.
Yes, the isk payouts from npcs on insurance is higher than the insurance payments. I alluded to as much in my first post. I felt that was blatantly obvious already and therefore didn't mention it. What I'm saying though is that it doesn't matter, and for all of the reasons already listed.
The only reason people are afraid of rising bank balances is because they desire to hurt the other guy a little more and feel impotent. The first thing they don't realize is that inflation does this for them by devaluing the purchasing power of the isk. The second thing they don't realize is that this doesn't even mean anything.
Losing a battleship is a terrible loss of minerals and definitely causes a lot more impact than the loss of an interceptor though the hulls alone might not cost a lot different to replace. On tech2 goods of course, you also have to note that additional labor costs are present even if the individual does not feel them. Ultimately, the mineral economy is a lot more important than the isk economy and insurance doesn't affect that at all. They only do a one way tranfer or minerals to isk. Isk sinks then are targetted at the miner rather than the npcer, and to all who are exposed to the constriction of hypercompetition.
I like the fact that anyone can get involved in the economy of EVE, but I now see the reason why people favored such restrictions as the need for startup capital to become an industrialist. EVE needs the industrial movement of a planned economy, that is, with massive industrial expansion, and attrition level conflict in order to supply that much labor with employment. As it is, you have too much labor competing over the same small pool of demand. Demand and production isn't balanced and in addition there is an immovable cieling rather than enough GGP growth to absorb surplus labor and ease competition. If that were to happen, inflation would merely make things interesting.
|
jbob2000
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 01:13:00 -
[6]
You could solve insurance by having player corps run the insurance business. ----------------------------------------------- CANADIAN |
Lygos
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 06:27:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Lygos on 28/02/2005 06:29:40 That would be impossible. I know this because I seriously pondered it on the fourth day I started beta. I immediately realized that the world was full of unimaginative people who were content to do all manner of things without the benefit of clarity of purpose.
[Edit: atrocious grammar.]
|
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 10:54:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Demian Sky I have to agree with Ly'sol. Run away inflation is not a good thing. The Soviet Union had inflation rivalling that of EVE's--- it ended up costing an individual a wheelbarrow full of money to purchase a loaf of bread.
Go study history.
The problem with the Soviet Union was that they had a command economy (the government would set how many of item X would be produced, mostly ignoring what the market wanted), and got into a position where it couldn't cut military budgets without risking a coup d'etat.
The situation of hyperinflation happend in Germany in the 1920's when the rate of inflation hit 3.25 million percent per month. When one piece of trit costs thousands of Isk then you will have hyperinflation.
-------------------------------------------------- Thanks for killing my corporation ISD. ISD Motto: Changing history, one air brushed photo at a time. |
Motive
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 22:38:00 -
[9]
This is a sources vs sinks of Isk issue. If sources > sinks Isk goes into the system. You can decrease sources or increase sinks to pull Isk out of the system.
Sources: NPC Buy Orders Insurance payout NPC Bounties Agent Cash rewards (Small) Initial char payout
Sinks: NPC Sell orders Insurance expiring. Offices Labs Factories ?Do agent offers take cash?
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2005.03.01 09:32:00 -
[10]
Its better to make it harder to earn money than to make it easier and then just drag it out with stupid ISK sinks. -- The best description of alliances, ever:
|
|
Cmdr Sy
|
Posted - 2005.03.01 10:04:00 -
[11]
A couple of corpmates of mine solo L4 missions. One of them uses only faction and T2 mods on his BS, giving it a value of over a billion ISK.
Pretty soon he will have lost a dozen ships kitted out in this fashion.
Perhaps he should be given a medal for his valiant efforts to remove ISK from the game?
Regarding increasing mineral prices, there are two perfectly good explanations:
1) A bunch of alliance wars going on right now, which makes it more difficult for member mining corps to mine. Thus some minerals have a war premium. This also explains 130m Ravens. They keep getting blown up!
2) Changes brought in by CCP mean that players now have no choice but to specialise in their chosen fields. Empire mining is now being done almost entirely by people who have chosen to specialise in mining barges and advanced mining skills. Everyone else is busy learning T2 weapon specialisations, elite ships, etc, and a BS pilot with Mining IV just doesn't cut it any more. The newbie-ish miners sitting hour after hour in 0.7 systems are therefore setting the market price of basic minerals, which they are entitled to do after spending months learning the skills.
I don't think there is too much new ISK in the game, because I am no wealthier today than some people I knew as a newbie, and I know plenty of people who are broke right now.
|
Doctor Shady
|
Posted - 2005.03.01 16:35:00 -
[12]
leave income from hunting as it is. you guys get billions while you want to take away what little we ve got.
|
Dionysus Davinci
|
Posted - 2005.03.01 18:50:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Dionysus Davinci on 01/03/2005 18:51:20 Some of the methods of 'isk' that is new posted by the orginal poster is just stupid because it isn't truth. For example, unless the NPC corp bys your minerals (which if the do it is super small batches at low rates) mining does not introduce 'new' isk into the game.
Only Bounties, Mission rewards, finding abondened ships in safespots that you board and then splode for insurance payout, and NPC trade actually introduce more isk. Everything else is moving isk around and ship destruction takes isk out of the game as well as insurance payments and taxes. Which actually hurts the econmoy if to much of it goes into a blackhole in a consumer market. Which is what Eve is.
In fact, new isk only enters the game via NPC creation.
|
Denz0
|
Posted - 2005.03.01 19:05:00 -
[14]
You want to intruduce ISK sinks, I got you an answer. Introduce co-op markets, I shall explain. Private ownership is the answer. Stock ownership in stations, like a co-op, with teh abilities to construct them. In simple terms works like so: For instance, ORE is willing to construct you, for an exhorbitant amount of ISK and or minerals, a stace station in the system that is available. Before that can happend, it would require a deposit, and in exchange, the initial underwritter will get package of shares of station X stock. If the underwritter manages to sell enough shares to the public to raise the needed amount, it automatically remits it to the builder. The construction could be instanteneous, simpler that way. The new station will require upkeep, depending on the its features, like factories, labs, refineries and so on. The more of the features there are on the stations, the more it cost to build, upgrade, maintain. The shares of the stations should be transferable, could be eligible for either dividends or capital calls depending on the station profitability. Further, the stocks certificates should be held either on person (that means if u are podded, the certificate is lost) or in a vault, for a fee of course. If the station is far in arrears it could be simply destroyed. Further, the station maintenance would be done by NPC builder corp. This includes the isk paid to managing agent/minerals paid to managing agent. Also the managing agent should be able to set the user fees. With the voting by the shareholders: raise the docking fee from .1 isk per volume to .2 isk per volume of docking ship? If majority of shareholders votes yes, so be it. You get the drift? The vote should be periodic by NPC manager or by call to vote by 20% (or some other minority %) of shareholders(the cost a fee to call the managing agent should not be immaterial). I am not sure if the POS should be destructible? To get this implemented would require some programming but mostly authoring, I assume. This mechanism would constantly vacate the isk out of player's economy in the form of managment fees and such, while creating secondary market for intangibles.
|
Steven Dynahir
|
Posted - 2005.03.03 21:46:00 -
[15]
Quote: A couple of corpmates of mine solo L4 missions. One of them uses only faction and T2 mods on his BS, giving it a value of over a billion ISK.
Pretty soon he will have lost a dozen ships kitted out in this fashion.
Perhaps he should be given a medal for his valiant efforts to remove ISK from the game?
Yet he is not removing any ISK from the game.
The amount of ISK he paid for the ship and modules does not leave the game. Even if he used 100 trillion ISK to pay for that ship and modules, the ISK is still within the economy.
Grasp that, and you know what "we" are talking. SigPl/HQ&Log Coy/MNB(C)/KFOR |
Dark Big
|
Posted - 2005.03.04 11:17:00 -
[16]
When i was your age i payed 5 cents for a movie. that got me pop corn and a drink and money left over now it cost over 20 dallers.
i got payed 50 bucks a week at my job back then that was more then enough to pay the bills and to buy me that hot 2000 daller car.
man inflation is part of a market it can go up or down. but the thing is it is the same now as befor.
ya we payed 1 isk back long ago 200mill was good money then. but with inflation people have to pay more but yet are geting payed more. so it is really not bad.
|
Andarvi
|
Posted - 2005.03.04 11:23:00 -
[17]
I would say the main source of income is NPC bounties, mainly on account of the new L4 agent missions, though I'll admit I've never done any trading. 0.0 hunting may be part of a problem, but it hasn't changed much from the introduction of the new bounties a while ago.
Saying that, I would be very much in favor of changing the bounty system. You could have ships drop refinable wreckage along with modules for starters. This would both drop the price of ore and not introduce new ISK into the economy. And you could build up faction points with Concord, which you could then redeem for rewards, simmilary to the agent rewards system.
|
Trak
|
Posted - 2005.03.04 14:42:00 -
[18]
ok, i'm no expert but I would have thought that inflation in itself is not a problem, rather it is if one particular career choice earns substantially more than another independant career.
For example, if an agent runner player earns 50 million isk a week while being a trader earns 5 million isk a week then i'd imagine most players will choose to be agent runners. The net result would be inflation based on an income of 50 million a week. The trader gets left behind.
This is offset somewhat by making dependancies between careers. For example, if agent runners now earn 50 million a week then they have a lot more isk to buy minerals from miners who previously might only have made 5 million a week and could raise their prices to also make 50 million a week.
This is all very good when such a dependancy exists but what about that poor trader who has no such dependancy. Not only does he earn significantly less than the agent runner and the miner but now he can no longer afford the minerals the miner produces.
|
Azure Skyclad
|
Posted - 2005.03.04 16:46:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Azure Skyclad on 04/03/2005 16:47:58 The apparent fact of the bounty issuing organizations and Insurance companies in Eve having bottomless pits of cash always seemed a bit daft to me.
No claims bonuses for the careful?
Premium hikes for the nutters?
(Dole for the lazy gits Josh)
"The Serpentis threat is a bit weak at the moment so our bounties drop accordingly"
Doesn't sound too bad does it?
La Maison de tous Les Plaisirs Star Fraction http://www.voodoorockers.co.uk/ |
Steven Dynahir
|
Posted - 2005.03.05 00:12:00 -
[20]
Quote: When i was your age i payed 5 cents for a movie. that got me pop corn and a drink and money left over now it cost over 20 dallers.
Dang kids, they get all for free nowdays.
SigPl/HQ&Log Coy/MNB(C)/KFOR |
|
Steven Dynahir
|
Posted - 2005.03.05 00:16:00 -
[21]
Quote: For example, if an agent runner player earns 50 million isk a week while being a trader earns 5 million isk a week then i'd imagine most players will choose to be agent runners. The net result would be inflation based on an income of 50 million a week. The trader gets left behind.
If a agent runner gets 50m in a week, he is adding 50m into the economy in a week. If a trader is getting 5000000000032m in a week, he is trasferring 5000000000032m to other accounts in a week.
As you see, difference is not in what "you make" but in "how much do you add to total isk value of the game's economy system".
SigPl/HQ&Log Coy/MNB(C)/KFOR |
Dark Big
|
Posted - 2005.03.05 06:04:00 -
[22]
inflation in eve was going on even befor leval 4 agents it has been going up and up. trit was at 2.0 befor shiva. look at the market data and see for you self.
|
Dark Big
|
Posted - 2005.03.05 06:08:00 -
[23]
the high ship prices are due to the high zydrine prices right now. thats becouse of all of the wars in 0.0 ( JQA vrs IMP/SPURM ) jqa was the main suplyer of zydrine and is now gone. and now the space is stell a war zone. i can see mega starting to make a jump now to. also there is a huge demand for mins. when trit was 1 isk there was only 4k people on tops. then there was a huge influx of people. the demand got biger. suply got lower. the huge prices right now is becouse of suply and demand.
|
Hayzo
|
Posted - 2005.03.05 08:39:00 -
[24]
well, freezing the entire NPC economy isnt gonna help.
some ppl rely on NPC rat hunting and missions for money. ____________________
"Sanity Is Not Statistical" |
Ly'sol
|
Posted - 2005.03.05 12:31:00 -
[25]
Originally by: OdCuK Hayzo well, freezing the entire NPC economy isnt gonna help.
some ppl rely on NPC rat hunting and missions for money.
If they did freeze it...well...your gonna have to adapt. Your telling me you cant make any money off of refined mods and selling rare mods off? -------------------------- Vist the Jericho Fraction Forums
|
Hayzo
|
Posted - 2005.03.05 13:36:00 -
[26]
i prefer direct payment. like they have for pensions now.
I would much rather get 750,000 than some loot, for 2 reasons.
1) Money buys things 2) Its very rare that after a large battle, i can be in the slightest bit bothered to go loot every last can, regardless of who dropped it. And im sure that there are many ppl who would share my POV. ____________________
"Sanity Is Not Statistical" |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |