Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Naj Panora
VC Academy
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 05:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
We need some serious overhaul to how isk is removed from the game. Sov doesn't cost enough for large alliances to make a difference (goons have proven this), market fees are laugh able. This isk gained vs removed ratio is way out of wack and needs fixed before any other part of eve otherwise that will be the eve killer. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1530
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 14:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
Naj Panora wrote:We need some serious overhaul to how isk is removed from the game. Sov doesn't cost enough for large alliances to make a difference (goons have proven this) The sov even for the relatively small amount of space controlled by GSF, much less the enormous swathes held by the CFC collectively, is actually quite expensive. We've merely been highly effective at marshaling the resources necessary to pay for it. So has the N3 coalition, which you can see on the map controls a considerable amount of space in their own right, albeit more fragmented amongst many smaller partners and renters.
So what is wrong, exactly, with a group of players coming together to command the resources to overcome some large cost?
Naj Panora wrote:This isk gained vs removed ratio is way out of wack
[Citation Needed] Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Rengerel en Distel
1873
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 16:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
The goons proved it's easy to pay for sov by being forced to take on renters to help pay the costs? Pretty strong argument there.
As for the economy in general, what problem are you seeing?
With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
|
Leigh Akiga
State War Academy Caldari State
120
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:As for the economy in general, what problem are you seeing?
I just took it as a bland: "I wanna rant about 0.0" post.
|
Naj Panora
VC Academy
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Naj Panora wrote:We need some serious overhaul to how isk is removed from the game. Sov doesn't cost enough for large alliances to make a difference (goons have proven this) The sov even for the relatively small amount of space controlled by GSF, much less the enormous swathes held by the CFC collectively, is actually quite expensive. We've merely been highly effective at marshaling the resources necessary to pay for it. So has the N3 coalition, which you can see on the map controls a considerable amount of space in their own right, albeit more fragmented amongst many smaller partners and renters. So what is wrong, exactly, with a group of players coming together to command the resources to overcome some large cost? Naj Panora wrote:This isk gained vs removed ratio is way out of wack [Citation Needed]
|
Naj Panora
VC Academy
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
Leigh Akiga wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:As for the economy in general, what problem are you seeing? I just took it as a bland: "I wanna rant about 0.0" post.
And I take it as a bland you don't have the balls to show who you really are. |
Naj Panora
VC Academy
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:20:00 -
[7] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:The goons proved it's easy to pay for sov by being forced to take on renters to help pay the costs? Pretty strong argument there.
As for the economy in general, what problem are you seeing?
Empires with an unlimited source of isk are a detriment to this game. We need a better way to help regulate and create a balance of isk earned from sources like null sec and missions and balance it with taking isk out of the market. One way to deal with the Null sec issue would be to have the first 5-10 systems an Alliance controls cost X isk. Then every 5 or so systems after that the maintenance cost to own the system will go up by 25-33% of the previous tier. Example: an alliance holds 15 systems. the first 5 cost 100 million a month each to own. The next 5 cost 125 million a month each. The final 5 cost 156 million each. Using this we limit the use of passive isk sources like moons.
Now I won't just punish the Null sec dwellers. Lets find an answer that will use high sec to remove isk from the economy. One answer is to create a corp maintenance fee based on player size. If a corp doesn't have a Null sec office it is considered a High Sec corp and thus subject to a fee per member to stay open. I'm open for better ideas from others (though I doubt the Coalition for Cowards will offer any). This is about fixing a broken economy which has unchecked inflation.
The answer may be as simple also as CCP increasing the bounties on rats every month depending on what the economy does. Lets have some constructive ideas now. |
Crasniya
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
158
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 21:29:00 -
[8] - Quote
Naj, the problem is, it only costs a billion ISK to make another alliance. Then you just get Goons 2.0, Goons 3.0, and Goons 4.0, each holding 5-10 systems. Over time, the alliances pay for themselves. A design so easily exploited is a bad design.
As a side note, the reason Bitcoin is a bad currency, is that currency is actually SUPPOSED to inflate. Because if the economy deflates, then people are better off hoarding money for later, so the economy slows, less progress is made. Inflation ensures that people feel the need to SPEND their money as they earn it, maintaining a healthy and active ecosystem. |
Naj Panora
VC Academy
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 22:47:00 -
[9] - Quote
Crasniya wrote:Naj, the problem is, it only costs a billion ISK to make another alliance. Then you just get Goons 2.0, Goons 3.0, and Goons 4.0, each holding 5-10 systems. Over time, the alliances pay for themselves. A design so easily exploited is a bad design.
That is fine because it will diffuse the isk over several entities which sooner or later one will want better systems and the wars will start anew. We have too many fat cats with too much isk. Now with this model there will be a ton of changes to capitals that will need done. Inflation is ok but Eve's is out of control. |
FightingMoose
Norse'Storm Battle Group Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 23:09:00 -
[10] - Quote
Your system won't fix "passive income like moons," because sov isn't required for moons. You then say that if, for example, Goons were to create a bunch of sub-alliances in order to get around the financial cost, this would be good because it would diffuse the ISK over several entities which will go to war.
You're missing the point here. Goons will create Goons2, Goons3, Goons4, and Goons5 as shell alliances. The membership will stay within Goons prime, so there won't be a battle. You're seeking an artificial game-based solution for (what you see as) a meta problem. You're also missing the fact that almost all of the ISK being removed from the game is removed by ships going KABOOM, and one of the more significant contributors to ships going KABOOM (especially the big ones that require lots of ISK input) is |
|
Adunh Slavy
1246
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 06:16:00 -
[11] - Quote
FightingMoose wrote: You're missing the point here. Goons will create Goons2, Goons3, Goons4, and Goons5 as shell alliances. The membership will stay within Goons prime, so there won't be a battle.
Well ... maybe.
First I don't give a crap about goons one way or the other, but it is an interesting topic. Second, I do agree with the basic premise of the OP, but not for Economic reasons. My preference would be that as the number of systems an alliance controls goes up, the more expensive each system will be in fees, maybe on the order of a 25% increase. Cost would become increasingly prohibitive.
Anyway back to the topic.
Yeah goons would make goons1 goons2 so on and so forth. However, the administrative overhead of management and control would increase. There would be more opportunity for differences of opinion to emerge. Different tax rates would emerge, there would be different policies on how to deal with different things. Some goon groups would have more resources than others, this would create some tension.
Likely goons would devolve to a sort of feudal confederation and have their own internal conflicts on a minor scale but then all band together when the need arises.
It might be the most fun the goons could have. Plus the opportunity to drag others into their "lol civil wars" would be good laughs for all concerned. Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.-á-á- William Pitt |
Rengerel en Distel
1882
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 11:35:00 -
[12] - Quote
I still say the biggest fix for the economy will be when they actually do modular POS, making them character launched instead of corp. Then they can remove the npc production lines and make people set up their space factories. In empire, you need charters (I'd extend that to low with the change), in sov space, it's a tax/rent, giving them a ground up source of income. More modules have to be built, more fuel used, etc. etc.
With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
|
Crasniya
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
159
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 14:42:00 -
[13] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Yeah goons would make goons1 goons2 so on and so forth. However, the administrative overhead of management and control would increase. There would be more opportunity for differences of opinion to emerge. Different tax rates would emerge, there would be different policies on how to deal with different things. Some goon groups would have more resources than others, this would create some tension.
Likely goons would devolve to a sort of feudal confederation and have their own internal conflicts on a minor scale but then all band together when the need arises.
It might be the most fun the goons could have. Plus the opportunity to drag others into their "lol civil wars" would be good laughs for all concerned.
Yeah, no, that wouldn't happen. At all. Like seriously, LOL. |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
1081
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 15:16:00 -
[14] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Yeah goons would make goons1 goons2 so on and so forth. However, the administrative overhead of management and control would increase. There would be more opportunity for differences of opinion to emerge. Different tax rates would emerge, there would be different policies on how to deal with different things. Some goon groups would have more resources than others, this would create some tension..
It could easily be run by one guy with alt accounts and a few minutes of clicking over morning coffee a few times a month.
Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal |
Adunh Slavy
1246
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 17:13:00 -
[15] - Quote
LOL, what makes your crystal ball better? We are speculating on what 5000 might do, and you think you know for sure? Haha, right. Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.-á-á- William Pitt |
FightingMoose
Norse'Storm Battle Group Circle-Of-Two
1
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 18:21:00 -
[16] - Quote
In the case of Goons, it would be trivial for Mittens to plex two accounts, giving six possible alts/alliances. I agree that it would be interesting to have some mechanics changes which would encourage smaller alliances, but it needs to be done in a way that can't be easily bypassed. |
Incizion
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 22:04:00 -
[17] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:LOL, what makes your crystal ball better? We are speculating on what 5000 might do, and you think you know for sure? Haha, right.
Assuming you're referring to Crasniya's crystal ball, what makes it better is that it is sitting in CFC space. Being part of the CFC, we see first-hand how cohesive the goons are. They will not dissolve into civil war just because these shell alliances would have to be formed. As one poster commented, it's more than likely that every single one of your rank-and-file goon would be in the same alliance: GSF. GSF2, GSF3, etc would be all but vacant.
Even if a mechanic was put in place to require the division of the goons, it wouldn't matter. They would still all stage out of the same system, rat and mine together in the same regions, post on the same forums, talk on the same voice comms, same chats, etc, etc. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3789
|
Posted - 2013.09.14 04:31:00 -
[18] - Quote
FightingMoose wrote:You're also missing the fact that almost all of the ISK being removed from the game is removed by ships going KABOOM
This supposed fact of yours which is wrong by the way requires further explanation. RIP Scamming; CCP has finally acknowledged that the average gamer is too stupid to avoid being scammed & has decided to protect them from themselves with TOS changes that effectively ban the practice. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3789
|
Posted - 2013.09.14 04:34:00 -
[19] - Quote
Naj Panora wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:The goons proved it's easy to pay for sov by being forced to take on renters to help pay the costs? Pretty strong argument there.
As for the economy in general, what problem are you seeing?
Empires with an unlimited source of isk are a detriment to this game. We need a better way to help regulate and create a balance of isk earned from sources like null sec and missions and balance it with taking isk out of the market. One way to deal with the Null sec issue would be to have the first 5-10 systems an Alliance controls cost X isk. Then every 5 or so systems after that the maintenance cost to own the system will go up by 25-33% of the previous tier. Example: an alliance holds 15 systems. the first 5 cost 100 million a month each to own. The next 5 cost 125 million a month each. The final 5 cost 156 million each. Using this we limit the use of passive isk sources like moons. Now I won't just punish the Null sec dwellers. Lets find an answer that will use high sec to remove isk from the economy. One answer is to create a corp maintenance fee based on player size. If a corp doesn't have a Null sec office it is considered a High Sec corp and thus subject to a fee per member to stay open. I'm open for better ideas from others (though I doubt the Coalition for Cowards will offer any). This is about fixing a broken economy which has unchecked inflation. The answer may be as simple also as CCP increasing the bounties on rats every month depending on what the economy does. Lets have some constructive ideas now.
First you should probably explain why inflation is such a big issue. RIP Scamming; CCP has finally acknowledged that the average gamer is too stupid to avoid being scammed & has decided to protect them from themselves with TOS changes that effectively ban the practice. |
Sera Kor-Azor
Amarrian Mission of the Sacred Word
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 10:29:00 -
[20] - Quote
Naj Panora wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:The goons proved it's easy to pay for sov by being forced to take on renters to help pay the costs? Pretty strong argument there.
As for the economy in general, what problem are you seeing?
Empires with an unlimited source of isk are a detriment to this game. We need a better way to help regulate and create a balance of isk earned from sources like null sec and missions and balance it with taking isk out of the market. One way to deal with the Null sec issue would be to have the first 5-10 systems an Alliance controls cost X isk. Then every 5 or so systems after that the maintenance cost to own the system will go up by 25-33% of the previous tier. Example: an alliance holds 15 systems. the first 5 cost 100 million a month each to own. The next 5 cost 125 million a month each. The final 5 cost 156 million each. Using this we limit the use of passive isk sources like moons. Now I won't just punish the Null sec dwellers. Lets find an answer that will use high sec to remove isk from the economy. One answer is to create a corp maintenance fee based on player size. If a corp doesn't have a Null sec office it is considered a High Sec corp and thus subject to a fee per member to stay open. I'm open for better ideas from others (though I doubt the Coalition for Cowards will offer any). This is about fixing a broken economy which has unchecked inflation. The answer may be as simple also as CCP increasing the bounties on rats every month depending on what the economy does. Lets have some constructive ideas now.
The inflation problem in EVE has been discussed for a few years now.
One of my suggestions was to have a security tax. This would be based on the security status of the station you are in, so 1.0% in a 1.0 system, and .01% in a .01 system. Police and the Military in the real world have to be paid, they have expenses, they are not for profit, and their equipment costs money. It's taxpayer dollars that go towards paying their salaries and buying the equipment that they need.
Shouldn't it be the same way in EVE? Shouldn't CONCORD and the Factional NPC Navies be paid from a/ the transaction tax from every financial transaction at a high sec trade hub? Aren't they the ones keeping your system safe?
When I suggested this, some people screeeeaaaamed. "I am a high sec Market trader! I make billions of ISK a day! I don't want to pay ANY taxes AT ALL!" and so on, and so on.
Well, that might be some of the cause for inflation right there. Some people just stay docked up and just relist things over and over again until they make a tremendous profit. They seem to want all of the benefits of living in high sec space, without contributing anything (tax wise) to maintaining the security of that space, AT ALL.
Now, if market traders wanted to move to mid-sec systems such as 0.5 in order to avoid paying tax, that's fine. I think the more trade hubs the better. Trade hubs in 0.5 mid sec areas would help encourage people to move to low-sec and null sec too.
Another suggestion I had was to introduce more consumables. Not just illegal booster drugs, but maybe food, alcohol, tobacco, and so forth. These are a major part of our lives, and would add a lot of dimension to the backdrop of EVE.
I think a lot of people would buy food and drinks for the same reason they would buy clothes (that no one else can see yet), which is game immersion. I don't think this would affect you in space, you could say that your character doesn't feel hungry unless they are docked and online. You could make food another 'booster', which has beneficial effects when active and some negative effects when it wears out. 'Better' foods would of course cost more money than cheaper foods, and the same would be true for alcoholic drinks.
The walking in stations thing went nowhere, but people might pay a lot of ISK to have the same kinds of useless ornaments that people pay a lot to have in Second life, such as furniture, pets, hand weapons, ground vehicles, art and artifacts, and so on. This does not have to be an intricate graphic, it could just be a hangar called 'personal quarters' that holds one's personal commodities. Real estate purchased on a planet could also be another ornamental ISK sink, providing some status but having no real effect on your character in game.
Having exclusive associations and clubs with a monthly membership fee might be another effective ISK sink. Imagine a chat channel group/ mailing list which costs 1Billion ISK a month to belong to for example. Why would you belong? Business contacts.
Gambling could change things a lot too. I would restrict this to low sec. There are already a lot of out of game EVE gambling sites, such as EVE poker for ISK. I think that CCP is really missing out on some opportunities here. Gambling is one activity where you could make or lose a fortune in the blink of an eye....and no.....I don't think station trading is the same thing as gambling. |
|
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
1194
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 13:49:00 -
[21] - Quote
Significantly higher hisec fees and taxes are a great idea, but not because of some ill-conceived inflationary bugaboo. Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal |
Red Templar
Monkey Attack Squad Goonswarm Federation
219
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 15:17:00 -
[22] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:Significantly higher hisec fees and taxes are a great idea, but not because of some ill-conceived inflationary bugaboo. Agreed. If you live in empire space, you should pay all kind of taxes, thats how empires work. If you dont like it, go to null and make your own little kingdom.
As for the OP, im not sure how proposed increased prices for null sov is gonna fix entire eve economy. Are you seriously suggesting that null players should be the only one to pay?
I havent seen any metrics lately (i wasnt looking though), but as i remember only about 10% of eve population live in null sec. The rest are high-sec dwellers, and im pretty sure they are doing something in their time that brings ISK into the game. So maybe we should ask money sinks for them? Seeing how their contribution to inflation is probably larger that of null sec residents. For Love. For Peace. For Honor.
For None of the Above.
For Pony! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
11747
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 10:06:00 -
[23] - Quote
Red Templar wrote:Varius Xeral wrote:Significantly higher hisec fees and taxes are a great idea, but not because of some ill-conceived inflationary bugaboo. Agreed. If you live in empire space, you should pay all kind of taxes, thats how empires work. If you dont like it, go to null and make your own little kingdom. As for the OP, im not sure how proposed increased prices for null sov is gonna fix entire eve economy. Are you seriously suggesting that null players should be the only one to pay? I havent seen any metrics lately (i wasnt looking though), but as i remember only about 10% of eve population live in null sec. The rest are high-sec dwellers, and im pretty sure they are doing something in their time that brings ISK into the game. So maybe we should ask money sinks for them? Seeing how their contribution to inflation is probably larger that of null sec residents.
No no no, see we need still more disincentives to live in sov 0.0, it's not quite terrible enough yet.
Then when it's finally abandoned, people will stop reading about EVE in the news, the human players will all leave and the bots can mine veldspar in perfect silent peace of cold empty space.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Oswaldos
Sine Nobilitatis
6
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 20:58:00 -
[24] - Quote
Bottom up funding for null alliances (I.E. alliance tax) + more mineral sinks in null sec (destroyable stations / gates / structures etc) would solve most of the problems with null sec.. Then couple that with...
Taxes increase taxes for reprocessing at NPC stations. The extra isk sink would be passed on to everybody so the miners wouldn't exactly be hurt.
My 2 Cents
|
Naj Panora
VC Academy
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.28 04:42:00 -
[25] - Quote
Red Templar wrote:Varius Xeral wrote:Significantly higher hisec fees and taxes are a great idea, but not because of some ill-conceived inflationary bugaboo. Agreed. If you live in empire space, you should pay all kind of taxes, thats how empires work. If you dont like it, go to null and make your own little kingdom. As for the OP, im not sure how proposed increased prices for null sov is gonna fix entire eve economy. Are you seriously suggesting that null players should be the only one to pay? I havent seen any metrics lately (i wasnt looking though), but as i remember only about 10% of eve population live in null sec. The rest are high-sec dwellers, and im pretty sure they are doing something in their time that brings ISK into the game. So maybe we should ask money sinks for them? Seeing how their contribution to inflation is probably larger that of null sec residents.
Not saying Null players are the only ones. Null would just be a starting point. Again This is meant to fuel discussion and get Ideas on paper.
My targeting of Null sec is based on how much isk a system can generate vs. how much it costs to maintain. Thinking and kicking more ideas around if we don't want to make it a number of system based price system for increasing how much isk it cost to maintain more systems how about requiring all sov holding alliances to declare a "Home system". Every system that has a gate to that system costs the same as the current prices are set for each jump past that price to maintain a system goes up between 5 and 15%.
Ok now lets look back at high sec. I like the station tax idea. It would need a few tweeks. One thing I would suggest is to halve the tax rate for corps that have office in a given station. Also maybe have the tax rate adjust depending on how many players dock per hour not sure if this idea would really work or just drive prices up more because of station traders. |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
1232
|
Posted - 2013.09.28 05:08:00 -
[26] - Quote
Terrible ideas to address an imaginary problem...par for the course around here. Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal |
Naj Panora
VC Academy
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 03:08:00 -
[27] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:Terrible ideas to address an imaginary problem...par for the course around here.
Pretty sure it's not imaginary but you are entitled to your opinion. |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
1237
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 03:38:00 -
[28] - Quote
That's just, like, your opinion, man. Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4685
|
Posted - 2013.10.05 02:55:00 -
[29] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Red Templar wrote:Varius Xeral wrote:Significantly higher hisec fees and taxes are a great idea, but not because of some ill-conceived inflationary bugaboo. Agreed. If you live in empire space, you should pay all kind of taxes, thats how empires work. If you dont like it, go to null and make your own little kingdom. As for the OP, im not sure how proposed increased prices for null sov is gonna fix entire eve economy. Are you seriously suggesting that null players should be the only one to pay? I havent seen any metrics lately (i wasnt looking though), but as i remember only about 10% of eve population live in null sec. The rest are high-sec dwellers, and im pretty sure they are doing something in their time that brings ISK into the game. So maybe we should ask money sinks for them? Seeing how their contribution to inflation is probably larger that of null sec residents. No no no, see we need still more disincentives to live in sov 0.0, it's not quite terrible enough yet. Then when it's finally abandoned, people will stop reading about EVE in the news, the human players will all leave and the bots can mine veldspar in perfect silent peace of cold empty space. I thought highsec would be warm.
After we remove the gankers There are no goons. The goons' 0.0 dream is over.
"Progodlegend said the goal of N3 is to destroy Goonswarm Federation, but in reality NCdot is in Fountain due to the fact it is virtually the last place there is action." ~NC., Fountain 2013 |
brinelan
The Flying Dead Insidious Empire
108
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 21:32:00 -
[30] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:Significantly higher hisec fees and taxes are a great idea, but not because of some ill-conceived inflationary bugaboo.
This plus remove perfect refine in all empire refineries. They should be equal to or slightly lower percentage as the worse player built outpost refinery. If players have to fight for the space, hold sov then build an outpost it should be better then anything that is gifted by the game in hisec. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |