Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Matrix Operator
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 06:40:00 -
[61] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:No new item should have been introduced in the past few years which depend on a single material source (such as "only minerals" or "only PI inputs").
Much, Much truth here. I agree. Wonder if CCP has the gumption to fix it.
Adunh Slavy wrote:If the problem CCP wants to solve is monetary inflation, then solve that problem by whacking the problem at its source, the generation of ISK. Attempting to play all these other hidden tax and fee games is quite honestly foolish.
See post #34 |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
705
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 06:44:00 -
[62] - Quote
Matrix Operator wrote: See post #34
See post #33 |
papamike
Precipice Industries
22
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 06:52:00 -
[63] - Quote
I think we have a semantic problem here.
NPC 'taxation' isnt really taxation in the true sense of the word. A controlling organisation or group is not drawing wealth from the population (ie you) to then re-invest or redirect into government controlled ventures (usually employing the population in producing these endeavors).
Taxation in Eve is not as taxation in RL, so analogies from RL are somewhat flawed if taken too literally.
Taxation in Eve equates to taking money out of the system completely and essentially burning it.
It is true of course that the bounty system magically puts money into the system as well...
Perhaps bounty prices should be based on taxation amounts, otherwise a faction could well go bust?
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
885
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 13:04:00 -
[64] - Quote
Mmm, impact of corp/alliance bills on a monthly basis:
- A flat per-month fee per corp would ensure that long-dead corps get disbanded and their tickers get recycled. - A per-month fee for the alliance would do the same for alliance tickers. - It would act as an additional ISK sink.
Per-corp fees could be as low as 100-500k/mo. Alliance fees in the range of 10-20M/mo. Maybe alliances pay 2M ISK/mo per member corp. Maybe corps pay a fee of 1k ISK/member each month to buy membership capacity.
(shrugs) It's probably a horrid idea. |
Prophet Avater
Imperium Technologies F0RCEFUL ENTRY
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 13:10:00 -
[65] - Quote
Instead of having few large taxes it best to have smaller one, since the majority of the game live in high sec, high sec should be the main target, ccp can hit two birds with one stone, increasing the transition from high sec to low , null and wormhole space. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
59
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 13:42:00 -
[66] - Quote
asi i already posted here, the best way to get ISK out of the system would be to introduce upkeep costs for mundane tasks such as docking, storing items etc. |
Johnny Frecko
Fruidian Logic
16
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 19:06:00 -
[67] - Quote
and ofcourse it's the best way because you said it is. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
60
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 20:52:00 -
[68] - Quote
Johnny Frecko wrote:and ofcourse it's the best way because you said it is. yes. also because of the first rule of tautology club. |
Johnny Frecko
Fruidian Logic
17
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 22:03:00 -
[69] - Quote
i'm humbled by such logic |
Matrix Operator
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 22:42:00 -
[70] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Mmm, impact of corp/alliance bills on a monthly basis:
- A flat per-month fee per corp would ensure that long-dead corps get disbanded and their tickers get recycled. - A per-month fee for the alliance would do the same for alliance tickers. - It would act as an additional ISK sink.
Per-corp fees could be as low as 100-500k/mo. Alliance fees in the range of 10-20M/mo. Maybe alliances pay 2M ISK/mo per member corp. Maybe corps pay a fee of 1k ISK/member each month to buy membership capacity.
(shrugs) It's probably a horrid idea.
This is an interesting idea. Question is, how much isk will it be successful at sinking per month? We would need to know the total number of active corps and alliances to know. If an entire alliance is only paying 20mil per month then that the equilivent to the amount a single incursion runner 'faucets' into the game in 2 incursions.... would it make enough of a dent in the problem? |
|
Durin Sarga
Lionhearted Investment Services and Planning STORM.
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 22:53:00 -
[71] - Quote
Um... guys... alliances already pay 2M ISK/month/member corp. FYI. |
Fish Hunter
Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing Renaissance Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 00:43:00 -
[72] - Quote
Why is simply lowering the isk generation of ratting the wrong option. Lower the standard by 10-20 %.
Minerals rose up to prices that it is now as profitable to mine as run empire missions and have stopped increasing as of late. There were several forces that contributed to the low mineral prices up til now. bots, drone poo, rat loot. All of these have been diminished and thus mineral prices rose because ratting income has remained constant. For as long as i can remember the highend deadspace equipment which is rare enough has hovered around the same prices. If we were really having a runaway isk problem this stuff would be running up. Good officer stuff has run up so maybe that is the indicator.
Of course the current problem we have is there is so much isk in game that for many players a reduction in isk/hr income wouldn't be felt anytime in the forseable future but newer players & pvpers would feel it right away. |
Chiralos
Merchant Princes
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 13:48:00 -
[73] - Quote
I like the ideas of floating NPC service costs, and possibly size scaled docking and storage fees (also floating). This might really come into its own when eventually the starbase and outpost system gets revamp.
It might tackle insufficient ISK sinks, but I think that would be less important than making player industry more interesting. Note one of the other long term things from the Fanfest presentation was the desire to take things out of NPC control and put it into player hands.
More generally, I think highsec security and convienience should cost more. You can think of highsec as an NPC limit on the security market. In the same way that NPC shuttle sales once set a ceiling on the trit price, CONCORD sets a (low) upper limit on the price of security. While in theory alliances might compete and fight over nullsec economies, in practice everything tends to slide into highsec - who can compete with CONCORD protected NPC corp alts, fixed price manufacturing lines and unlimited free storage space ? This probably needs to be tackled on both ends: taxing hisec more as well as making nullsec more productive (not just more ISK productive).
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
345
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:08:00 -
[74] - Quote
All the reprocessing should be done by reprocessing slots, requiring an ISK fee and time.
Then for all slots (industry, research and reprocessing) the fee goes up 5% if more then 75% of the slots are are occupied throughout the week. And every week less then 25% are occupied, the prices drop 5%. Then cut all fees according to standings, so excellent standings gets you a competitive edge.
Carebears will hate it, but it will improve the health of empire by a lot. POS also become more viable as alternatives. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
68
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 23:22:00 -
[75] - Quote
All they need is more items sold by NPC's for isk.
As the player driven economy is a huge part of game play the items need to be sort of detached from any in game utility other than vanity.
Special color limmited edition ships and colorful drones.
To keep pricing dynamic, the sales should not be unlimmited and the process should be done by a blind auction where they announce that 100 of an item will be sold to the 100 highest bidders at say 6pm server time each day or week or whatever.
"blind" means that people cannot see each others bids. Another wrinkle in a blind auction is not everyone pays the same. While its good if they disclose the threshold price, to be sure that you get an item you might have entered a price twice the threshold and you would still pay what you bid. The 101nth highest bidder would need to wait till the next auction.. or if it was a single issue.. never have a chance to buy it. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 00:22:00 -
[76] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:All the reprocessing should be done by reprocessing slots, requiring an ISK fee and time
Then for all slots (industry, research and reprocessing) the fee goes up 5% if more then 75% of the slots are are occupied throughout the week. And every week less then 25% are occupied, the prices drop 5%. Then cut all fees according to standings, so excellent standings gets you a competitive edge
Carebears will hate it, but it will improve the health of empire by a lot. POS also become more viable as alternatives.
This is really an awesome ideas.
Having slots on recycle, reprocess, and maybe even repairs. Would really be interesting. The floating price dynamic really needs to be introduced on a lot more of EVE game mechanics
I also would like a small idea I dabbled with. In any station the npc slots not only shifts up and down in price, but also corp standing demands and security status demands depending on history, So always using the average of the last days state. NPC facilities should all do this, and thus when player services got plugged into npc stations, the whole game mechanics would start being fixed. When npc rents services to players on behalf of players they would add tax/vat that was depending on your standing towards them
Example: So say you rent out a copying slot at high sec price 7904 per hour (highest price in Sinq Mirilene) public, you would ofc need to undercut that price. I would expect daily changes and 5% increments only on new bids. So you would go in with around 7500 per hour. TO this the npc station add 15% VAT -1% per standing point with corp
If the station services 40 research slots. a system with 20 moons and avg 2 slots per player owned POS. Slots for rent was set as Active perma running a print/voucher from the station corp. LP store item (isk sink) When all the slots are filled the average security status would be calculated and when a slot clears any new demands would have to be above that, or above npc corp standing.
Also the players would have the option to rent to other corp, alliance or ID player (not in npc corp) This would be considered a private rental, and not public. The station brokering this rental would get flat 10% tax on the rental and not adjustable.
A boost to slots might be needed. These services could also work as PI "Populated" installations. So the combo of POS and PI would grant enough slots according to demand. PI slots should be inferior to POS though, at least until DUST and integration of that functionality is more clear
Similar mechanic for all the mentioned mechanics would be preferable, to keep things close to simple. With this we might finally be able to get rid of the npc facility problem
Would also be nice if npc seeds of reports was nerfed a bit. Or all copying demanded an added player generated item. Something like maybe scientists, that could be generated on populated PI planets?! So say any type of population could be converted to other types? Using installations with preloaded/fixed schematics. (something for future visuals considered)...
|
Alabaster Ra
Stoic Assembly Lines Trade Federation Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 00:25:00 -
[77] - Quote
All right, I'll bite.
Why is inflation a problem here? If I follow: the argument assumes that we have a relatively fixed supply curve. However, the demand grows because people have greater disposable income. "ISK faucets" are giving out more than they have in the past for the same investment of time and effort
This isn't real life. Little old grandmothers don't rely on social security and other fixed incomes. As long as prices adjust in tune with the relative ease of acquiring isk, where is the problem? There would be a problem if price level was rising while the relative ease of acquiring isk was not. However, if this is the case, I missed the post which argued it.
If there is no problem, there is no reason to fix anything. |
Perramas
Pan Caldarian Ventures
40
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 02:54:00 -
[78] - Quote
Whatever the new taxes are they need to be progressive taxes. The more isk in your wallet the higher your tax rate. That way new players wont have to grind out even more crappy low level missions while they train the skills for more lucrative endeavors. |
papamike
Precipice Industries
23
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 03:58:00 -
[79] - Quote
Perramas wrote:Whatever the new taxes are they need to be progressive taxes. The more isk in your wallet the higher your tax rate. That way new players wont have to grind out even more crappy low level missions while they train the skills for more lucrative endeavors.
Thats going to be a hard sell. Surely it would be better to be a VAT/ GST sort of tax.
Plain speak: A tax on goods and services rendered by NPC corporations. Problem here of course is that it would effect high sec ALOT more then it would 0.0 alliances. Not necessarily a bad thing but considering the population demographic it again would be a hard sell, just for different reasons. |
Ireland VonVicious
Vicious Trading Company Assassin Confederacy
48
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 04:37:00 -
[80] - Quote
If inflation is high then indy is paying well. This will move more players to indy.
Which will bring back down prices a bit.
Also amount of isk in system being used toward taxes goes up as prices go up. It will find a balancing point.
If it is long term inflation then you do things to make indy more profitible but do so in a way that help produce more total product as to keep prices down and will in turn give players a bit more items/ships to get blown up.
The most important aspect of the isk faucets are how balanced are they between eachother.
The indy will always balance back out with the isk producing jobs. |
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
899
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 04:16:00 -
[81] - Quote
Perramas wrote:Whatever the new taxes are they need to be progressive taxes. The more isk in your wallet the higher your tax rate. That way new players wont have to grind out even more crappy low level missions while they train the skills for more lucrative endeavors.
Easily avoided.
I keep all ISK on my alt account, do all my purchase/sells/activity on my main account and only shoot over enough ISK from the alt account to cover immediate needs.
|
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 11:13:00 -
[82] - Quote
One thing that really have not been mentioned much here..
The features of player to player taxing and billing. WE need this almost as much, if not more than npc taxing.
Ideally the features players got would be integrated better and floating price balanced on npc side.
There is a thread over in Features that also discuss the taxing issue.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=101426&find=unread
I mentioned the option of wealth tax at a maximum of 2%
Yes players could just move their money to alt accounts.. That is why statements of payment would be needed. Tax avoidance would be visible. Just sort table by taxed amount and start kicking those that paid to low tax. Say Scrapyard Bob here, that is a rather veteran player. Any amounts "claiming" he has less then 1B in his accounts, would be obvious avoidance. Also said veterans might be considered special enough to use a flat billing instead, since access to his amassed wealth would be "unfair".
The potential benefits from introducing these things first is staggering. Player to player bills. Unpaid.. Set standing to neutral. Third warning. Set to Bad.
Option on standing based limitation in public contracts. Suddenly paying your bills might make sense. Buying someones debt. If the bills could have a preset compounding interest generated.. Hmm suddenly we would get a better mechanic for handling player to player loans, and even trading such credit in a future update..
|
Pres Crendraven
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 12:29:00 -
[83] - Quote
If we want to talk taxes, we must look at what we want to accomplish with them after taking the time to understand how different styles of tax cuts, levies and credit can affect gameplay. The current concern seems to be inflation. Reducing money supply is conventional wisdom. Total assets could be taxed, 2% as mentioned could temporarily turn the tide against monopolies which I suspect would be good for gameplay. I wish I knew the numbers for reactions. A lot wealth gravitates through them. This might also be a viable taxation vector if taxed with isk instead of product. Other areas that act like ISK wells or holding ponds need to be identified also. The current (refine) tax for poses is counter productive. Especially since we will be needing more minerals. T3, LP and faction modules are others that come to mind. It really depends on what you want to do with taxes though.
Do you want to decrease money supply to try to control inflation. Do you want to control the size of monopolies. Stimulate conflict and if so, financial or military just to name a few. Any taxation changes need to be projected out a few cycles to see their real effect. to often we only go out one layer deep. To stimulate conflict for instance, you need temporary rolling tax credits. Instead we don't tax much at all and end up with the monopolies and a repeated drift toward stagnancy. Meta34me |
Trollin
65
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 11:14:00 -
[84] - Quote
the best way to sink isk is to cause it not to be generated so much in the first place instead of taking it out of traders asses
reduce bounties or ramp up difficulty. ie. give belt rats sleeper AI/increased hps/dps reduce mission rewards or ramp up difficulty. ie give mission rats sleeper AI/increased hps/dps reduce incursion rewards or ramp up difficulty. << ccp already done this w/ vanguards . |
Nikodiemus
Jokulhlaup
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 16:20:00 -
[85] - Quote
Kawaai wrote:Taxes are dull, they are IRL they are ingame. If you figure increasing the taxes will fix the economy, think again. Those measures really only work when the money is genuinely going somewhere. Since we have one currency, one economy and also no government there is little use to implementing higher taxes but for only the sake of discouraging transactions.
TL;RD: No.
Aren't you forgetting that while this game has one currency, it is completely artificial and can undergo drastic changes over just a day whether through expansions or just market activity and that the faucets must be balanced with the sinks. I agree taxes are boring - at least in the way they are implemented now. I have trade skills pretty high to reduce taxes but those are mostly not needed because they are so low. Higher taxes would allow these skills to be more useful but then in the end all you have are more "essential" skills that everyone trains for and then once training is complete nothing else changes, back to square one. (remember our old learning skills that everyone trained and made new characters pointless for several months before CCP just removed them?)
One of the interesting things mentioned earlier was a transaction tax on regional gates or something of the like. Seems interesting, forces people to fine tune courier and transport to reduce costs. Not a great idea but it is a good example of a tax that can be implemented to affect gameplay in a more positive manner and encourage innovation and thinking outside the box instead of just flat taxing and forcing people to train skills to drop it.
Another "tax" that could be cool is a tax to fund some sort of consumer financial regulator group, probably would have to be NPC, that would manage the credit of pod pilots to make player corps have a reference for loans, stocks, investment, etc. which is something I know a lot of us tycoons want - more business flexibility. Or maybe a cost to hold inventory for homogeneous items (prevent someone stockpiling huge amounts of morphite or tech for instance and increase costs to hold in inventory, just like the real world)
All are half baked ideas that I just came up with here but the point I wanted to make was if you are going to tax or create sinks, do it in a way to encourage innovative gameplay and give the players something else to play with or work with, not just a flat tax sink. |
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
142
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 16:58:00 -
[86] - Quote
Nikodiemus wrote:Kawaai wrote:Taxes are dull, they are IRL they are ingame. If you figure increasing the taxes will fix the economy, think again. Those measures really only work when the money is genuinely going somewhere. Since we have one currency, one economy and also no government there is little use to implementing higher taxes but for only the sake of discouraging transactions.
TL;RD: No. Aren't you forgetting that while this game has one currency, it is completely artificial and can undergo drastic changes over just a day whether through expansions or just market activity and that the faucets must be balanced with the sinks. I agree taxes are boring - at least in the way they are implemented now. I have trade skills pretty high to reduce taxes but those are mostly not needed because they are so low. Higher taxes would allow these skills to be more useful but then in the end all you have are more "essential" skills that everyone trains for and then once training is complete nothing else changes, back to square one. (remember our old learning skills that everyone trained and made new characters pointless for several months before CCP just removed them?) One of the interesting things mentioned earlier was a transaction tax on regional gates or something of the like. Seems interesting, forces people to fine tune courier and transport to reduce costs. Not a great idea but it is a good example of a tax that can be implemented to affect gameplay in a more positive manner and encourage innovation and thinking outside the box instead of just flat taxing and forcing people to train skills to drop it. Another "tax" that could be cool is a tax to fund some sort of consumer financial regulator group, probably would have to be NPC, that would manage the credit of pod pilots to make player corps have a reference for loans, stocks, investment, etc. which is something I know a lot of us tycoons want - more business flexibility. Or maybe a cost to hold inventory for homogeneous items (prevent someone stockpiling huge amounts of morphite or tech for instance and increase costs to hold in inventory, just like the real world) All are half baked ideas that I just came up with here but the point I wanted to make was if you are going to tax or create sinks, do it in a way to encourage innovative gameplay and give the players something else to play with or work with, not just a flat tax sink.
thats what im saying, thoughtless careless dumbing down of a MAJOR game feature is utterly ******** to put it nicely.
What we need to focus on is ratting and plexing in goon space, lets get some statistics on that. |
Zelda Wei
New Horizon Trade Exchange
141
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 21:45:00 -
[87] - Quote
If you introduce artificial wealth 'taxes' then players will game the tax system, just like real life.
Recognise this and make the 'tax' rules promote the game vision.
The obvious example is extend the effects of standing on taxes and fees.
Gate & Docking fees based on Ship (+cargo) Mass * Security.
More Office with Rent based on standing.
Extend the contract system, e.g. Reverse Auctions for Courier contracts. |
Jih'dara
Survival Research Laboratories
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 04:45:00 -
[88] - Quote
Zelda Wei wrote:If you introduce artificial wealth 'taxes' then players will game the tax system, just like real life.
Recognise this and make the 'tax' rules promote the game vision.
The obvious example is extend the effects of standing on taxes and fees.
Gate & Docking fees based on Ship (+cargo) Mass * Security.
More Office with Rent based on standing.
Extend the contract system, e.g. Reverse Auctions for Courier contracts.
I think this is a good idea, to have fees increase or decrease with factional standing. Amarrians should have to pay more to buy things in Hek or Rens, and Gallente should have to pay more in Jita.
I had an idea once to make a security based transaction tax on a systems security status. 10% in a 1.0 system, %5 in a 0.5 system and so on. This would hopefully encourage more people to move business and trade into low and null sec areas.
This makes 'game world' sense if you think about it. Those NPC forces that keep the high security system safe are pod pilots too. Their ships cost money and they don't work for free. The amount of 'work' they are prepared to do depends on how well paid they are, so they are slower to respond in areas where they are paid less. |
forestwho
Foonfleet Investment Banking
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 20:19:00 -
[89] - Quote
we need more taxes to remove all the tech isk form the game. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
467
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 20:57:00 -
[90] - Quote
forestwho wrote:we need more taxes to remove all the tech isk form the game.
Tech doesn't create isk. It just moves it around. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |