EVE Search - EVE need more isk sink

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

EVE need more isk sink

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Useful Alt	Posted - 2009.03.15 18:54:00 - [1] nothing more to say
Korerin Mayul	Posted - 2009.03.15 18:57:00 - [2] can i have your isk?
Skraeling Shortbus Caldari Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2009.03.15 19:13:00 - [3] Have you tried shooting other players, I heard that can be a great way to do it.
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.03.15 19:16:00 - [4] PvP. EvE's only necessary isk sink. Before Wormholes
superlolzz	Posted - 2009.03.15 19:19:00 - [5] actually thats not an isksink, the opposite since when ur ship dies u get paid out insurance :P
Bluefix Gnu Terror Corps	Posted - 2009.03.15 19:20:00 - [6] Originally by: Skraeling Shortbus Have you tried shooting other players, I heard that can be a great way to do it. /Fail That's not an isk sink.
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.03.15 19:23:00 - [7] Originally by: superlolzz actually thats not an isksink, the opposite since when ur ship dies u get paid out insurance :P I've yet to have the cost of my modules and ship paid back in full. I'm always losing some money. On the other hand, it's not an isk sink per se. Just a way to transfer isk for the purchase of ships and modules. Still, PvP is all we need. Just need more reason to pvp. Before Wormholes
mechtech Entropy Industries	Posted - 2009.03.15 19:32:00 - [8] Isk is too easy to make these days. When I started in '05, it was a slower march towards owning a BS as a noob, and the game had a better feeling of accomplishment than it does now. Insurance needs to be revamped, or removed for everything over a cruiser. The real problem is that because T2 prices are low now from invention, even losing a T2 fit BS is only 30-40 mil or so. In other words, losing a BS (the standard PvP ship) takes only 30-60 minutes of ratting to recover from, which is too easy for a hardcore game like eve.
Andrea Erlang Caldari Erlang Biolabs	Posted - 2009.03.15 19:33:00 - [9] Edited by: Andrea Erlang on 15/03/2009 19:33:22 Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Originally by: superlolzz actually thats not an isksink, the opposite since when ur ship dies u get paid out insurance :P I've yet to have the cost of my modules and ship paid back in full. I'm always losing some money. On the other hand, it's not an isk sink per se. Just a way to transfer isk for the purchase of ships and modules. Still, PvP is all we need. Just need more reason to pvp. In before MD vets, Akita or whoever sees this first, but PvP is not an isk sink, since modules do not generate ISK by themselves, minerals are mined and ISK is only transfered between parties, but it doesn't actually exit the game. Unless you only use faction fittings that you buy from LP stores.
Taedrin Gallente Golden Mechanization Protectorate	Posted - 2009.03.15 19:45:00 - [10] Examples of ISK sinks: Sales Tax Contract Fees Buying insurance and letting it expire buying items from NPCs (BPOs, etc) Broker fees etc etc ISK faucets: NPC rat bounties NPC buy orders Insurance payouts etc etc
Turiel Demon Minmatar Inhumation Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.15 20:09:00 - [11] Originally by: Taedrin Examples of ISK sinks: Sales Tax Contract Fees Buying insurance and letting it expire buying items from NPCs (BPOs, etc) Broker fees etc etc ISK faucets: NPC rat bounties NPC buy orders Insurance payouts etc etc Indeed, and I don't think anyone who gets the above is in doubt that isk fonts by far outpace isk sinks. This is necessary, to a certain extent, as there's an ever increasing number of individuals that the isk has to be spread around over, but the current balance seems excessively skewed against the sinks. This would seem to be detrimental to the eve economy, but I don't believe we've heard from CCP's eve-economy watchers as to if they see this as problematic, and if so, what they may consider viable options for implementing; removing isk from the game in a player driven economy isn't as easy as it seems without introducing item vendors, which is very much against the eve-economy model.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp KenZoku	Posted - 2009.03.15 20:16:00 - [12] Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon I've yet to have the cost of my modules and ship paid back in full. I'm always losing some money. But the guy you bought them off still has the ISK. The ISK does not leave the system, so it isn't a sink. I agree with the OP, Eve really does need more ISK sinks, or less potential for generation. アニメ漫画です
Nick Curso Black Nova Corp KenZoku	Posted - 2009.03.15 20:18:00 - [13] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon I've yet to have the cost of my modules and ship paid back in full. I'm always losing some money. But the guy you bought them off still has the ISK. The ISK does not leave the system, so it isn't a sink. I agree with the OP, Eve really does need more ISK sinks, or less potential for generation. Maybe in ambulation we will get sofas and loose change down the back of them.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp KenZoku	Posted - 2009.03.15 20:19:00 - [14] Originally by: Nick Curso Maybe in ambulation we will get sofas and loose change down the back of them. アニメ漫画です
James Malice Gallente Legion Of Mad Cats	Posted - 2009.03.15 20:58:00 - [15] Maybe fewer people should play eve like a job and instead only play a couple hours a day. :D Isk would be a lot harder to come by if we all did that. Originally by: MooKids I like them, I have an elite rating in HULL TANKING! That is like saying I can block punches with my face.
Shea Klant	Posted - 2009.03.15 23:29:00 - [16] *Isk is too easy to make these days. When I started in '05, it was a slower march towards owning a BS as a noob, and the game had a better feeling of accomplishment than it does now.* Well there's you problem right there, it's not 2005 anymore. So what you are saying is that getting a BS ship should be as painful as getting a carrier is now. Yeah that'll encourage even more people to PvP won't it? I don't remember the sense of achievement in busting my hump for several months just to be able to pick up a Domi and fit it with medium guns (back when you started with practically zero skills, it was sheer terror, and nausea every time I went into hull. I'm sorry but that month you just spent grinding for the ship and mods lasted all of 37 seconds to that roving gank squad, now get your butt back into that asteroid belt and mine yourself up another Mega. Isn't Eve fun? The only reason I'm willing to sacrifice BSs, like burnt offerings to the Fleet PvP gods, is that I know that I can go crank out another one with less than a day of half hearted ratting in 0.0. Of course when the Thanatos get's into hull those feelings of nausea do come back. If we are ever going to get people to be willing to fight and loose often, the price (difficulty, isk has nothing to do with it since that is just simple money supply economics) needs to come down even more. Double the output of mining in 0.0, quadruple it in low sec, and add in faction points that are given out from faction agents similar to the way research agents dole out RPs that are specifically used for getting faction ships/mods and we will see massive wars kick off once people loose there fear of making pretty fireworks with the gutted hull of their favorite ship.
Ms Delerium	Posted - 2009.03.15 23:43:00 - [17] Originally by: mechtech Isk is too easy to make these days. When I started in '05, it was a slower march towards owning a BS as a noob, and the game had a better feeling of accomplishment than it does now. Insurance needs to be revamped, or removed for everything over a cruiser. The real problem is that because T2 prices are low now from invention, even losing a T2 fit BS is only 30-40 mil or so. In other words, losing a BS (the standard PvP ship) takes only 30-60 minutes of ratting to recover from, which is too easy for a hardcore game like eve. maybe thats because you was a noob in 2005 and youre an advanced player in 2009? dude, Ive been playing for 5 months and no way I can earn those numbers you are telling us. 30-40mil in 30-60min? WTF? Im happy if I get 10millions per day, and I play a lot of hours. I can do lvl3 missions and fly a BC and a Retriever. Biggest rats I can do are 100k or so. But you know time is wasted, fitting the ship, flying through systems, and so on... I will be happy when earning 1mil/minute like you!!!
mechtech Entropy Industries	Posted - 2009.03.15 23:45:00 - [18] Edited by: mechtech on 15/03/2009 23:46:18 Originally by: Shea Klant *Isk is too easy to make these days. When I started in '05, it was a slower march towards owning a BS as a noob, and the game had a better feeling of accomplishment than it does now.* Well there's you problem right there, it's not 2005 anymore. So what you are saying is that getting a BS ship should be as painful as getting a carrier is now. Yeah that'll encourage even more people to PvP won't it? I don't remember the sense of achievement in busting my hump for several months just to be able to pick up a Domi and fit it with medium guns (back when you started with practically zero skills, it was sheer terror, and nausea every time I went into hull. I'm sorry but that month you just spent grinding for the ship and mods lasted all of 37 seconds to that roving gank squad, now get your butt back into that asteroid belt and mine yourself up another Mega. Isn't Eve fun? The only reason I'm willing to sacrifice BSs, like burnt offerings to the Fleet PvP gods, is that I know that I can go crank out another one with less than a day of half hearted ratting in 0.0. Of course when the Thanatos get's into hull those feelings of nausea do come back. If we are ever going to get people to be willing to fight and loose often, the price (difficulty, isk has nothing to do with it since that is just simple money supply economics) needs to come down even more. Double the output of mining in 0.0, quadruple it in low sec, and add in faction points that are given out from faction agents similar to the way research agents dole out RPs that are specifically used for getting faction ships/mods and we will see massive wars kick off once people loose there fear of making pretty fireworks with the gutted hull of their favorite ship. I don't want the days of mining for months for a BS, but I do think it's a bit too easy now. It's nice to stop along every ship class on the way to a BS. The ship I most enjoyed was a Wolf (Assault Frigate). I killed pirate BCs for a couple of weeks to afford a Thorax BPO and kick start my industry career. I think removing most loot drops from missions would be a step in the right direction.
Nooto Caldari Panta-Rhei Guardian Federation	Posted - 2009.03.15 23:51:00 - [19] my wallet is a great isk sink just drop the isk in and i will ensure that u wont see them again BEWARE!!! All text above this sig represents my personal opinion. This in no way reflects the views of my corporation or alliance
Ms Delerium	Posted - 2009.03.15 23:54:00 - [20] Originally by: Nooto my wallet is a great isk sink just drop the isk in and i will ensure that u wont see them again not a sink as you will put them in the market... but implants are. Get them, plug in, and be podded. Great isk sink there :) make podding a "legal" activity even in high sec and you got a nice isk sink lol
Wet Ferret	Posted - 2009.03.15 23:54:00 - [21] If there was much less isk then more people would fly smaller ships, you wouldn't need as much isk. So it wouldn't matter as much that you couldn't afford to throw away battleships. But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started.
Fulbert Gallente	Posted - 2009.03.16 00:09:00 - [22] Edited by: Fulbert on 16/03/2009 00:09:27 More ISK in games means : => inflation. Prices get higher and higher (cause people are ready to spend more ISK for the same item) = more taxes and more broker fees => People learn skills they wouldn't afford otherwise (Freighters, capitals, every single T2 class) = destruction of ISKs The system DO regulate itself ____________________________________ Fulbert Peon
Yelan Zhou Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.16 02:32:00 - [23] Get rid of insurance. fixed
Armoured C Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.	Posted - 2009.03.16 02:36:00 - [24] forum trolling doesn't pay please give isk to me that Armoured C yeah capital A and a u in there as well with that space and capital C yep thanks to be not flamed by me read this instructional video
Rac Blanco	Posted - 2009.03.16 02:43:00 - [25] You can not go back to mining like it use to be because it would take months of group mining to make a capital, not to mention years to make a titan. Instead of isk sinks, why not just give out lower bounties for rats in non-empire space, or no bonuses at all! Make the 0.0 people truly earn their isk the old fashion way. Of course this would cut way down on pvp and cause more cooperation by players. But then that would be something like reality and no-one wants that (except carebears that is they say).
Apoctasy The Carebear Stare	Posted - 2009.03.16 04:11:00 - [26] Confirming that I am the isk sink. Send all isks to me.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.16 05:09:00 - [27] Originally by: Andrea Erlang In before MD vets, Akita or whoever sees this first, but PvP is not an isk sink, since modules do not generate ISK by themselves, minerals are mined and ISK is only transfered between parties, but it doesn't actually exit the game. Unless you only use faction fittings that you buy from LP stores. OMG Rabble rabble rabble Insurance is an ISK faucet.
Ephemeron North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.03.16 05:14:00 - [28] If there was a way to customize color schemes and post ads on billboards, it could serve as major isk sink For billboards - allow people to create animated GIFs with limited size and queue in time slots and systems.
Karr Blanch The Nietzian Way	Posted - 2009.03.16 05:18:00 - [29] I am EVE's biggest ISK sink. Give me money you'd like taken out of the economy and I will horde it and count it and never spend it. EVER.
Noriko Sakai Gallente DC1 Coalition	Posted - 2009.03.16 05:26:00 - [30] Simple solution. Docking Fees Common! Every Space station in every Sci-Fi Books, Movies charges docking fees. Fees should be based on the size of the ship and you faction standings.
Belmarduk Amarr M.A.R.S. Enterprises	Posted - 2009.03.16 06:21:00 - [31] Remove insurance and macroers - Simple fix Mainchar:
Karr Blanch The Nietzian Way	Posted - 2009.03.16 06:24:00 - [32] Originally by: Belmarduk Remove insurance and macroers - Simple fix What would you propose to do to 'remove' macroers?
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.16 06:29:00 - [33] Originally by: Karr Blanch Originally by: Belmarduk Remove insurance and macroers - Simple fix What would you propose to do to 'remove' macroers? Instead of giving out bounties, trade goods like sleepers drops should be implemented for ALL rats. Isn't that easy enough?
Holy Lowlander Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.03.16 06:30:00 - [34] insurence should be lowered tbh. Especially for battleships. losing 200 battleships in some silly 0.0 engagement doesn't really matter as you replace the thing isk-wise in about 1 hour .... The only problem is getting it to 0.0 but that has nothing to do with isk sinks ... I mean , when you run level IV missions you even make ****loads of isk.
Karr Blanch The Nietzian Way	Posted - 2009.03.16 06:32:00 - [35] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Karr Blanch Originally by: Belmarduk Remove insurance and macroers - Simple fix What would you propose to do to 'remove' macroers? Instead of giving out bounties, trade goods like sleepers drops should be implemented for ALL rats. Isn't that easy enough? How does this remove macroers? It just makes them mine instead of rat.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.16 06:39:00 - [36] Originally by: Karr Blanch How does this remove macroers? It just makes them mine instead of rat. It increases the barrier to entry for macroing. It requires more logistics. Mining is also not an ISK faucet, which this thread is all about
Karr Blanch The Nietzian Way	Posted - 2009.03.16 06:47:00 - [37] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Karr Blanch How does this remove macroers? It just makes them mine instead of rat. It increases the barrier to entry for macroing. It requires more logistics. Mining is also not an ISK faucet, which this thread is all about Ore = Minerals = ISK? Ore appears magically each downtime. How is it not an ISK faucet?
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.16 06:53:00 - [38] Originally by: Karr Blanch Ore = Minerals = ISK? Ore appears magically each downtime. How is it not an ISK faucet? Ore can be made into minerals which can be exchanged for ISK. An ISK Faucet is a mechanic which outputs more ISK than was put into it on a macro-scale. Mining does NOT create ISK anywhere along the line.
Karr Blanch The Nietzian Way	Posted - 2009.03.16 07:02:00 - [39] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Karr Blanch Ore = Minerals = ISK? Ore appears magically each downtime. How is it not an ISK faucet? Ore can be made into minerals which can be exchanged for ISK. An ISK Faucet is a mechanic which outputs more ISK than was put into it on a macro-scale. Mining does NOT create ISK anywhere along the line. Ore -> Minerals -> Ships -> Boom -> Insurance?
Belmarduk Amarr M.A.R.S. Enterprises	Posted - 2009.03.16 07:03:00 - [40] Hmm it might also help a little if CCP enforced their Eula a little more instead of keeping a protective hand over all those macroers........... Mainchar:
Jin Nib	Posted - 2009.03.16 07:03:00 - [41] What I'd like to see are ship maintnece fees and as some one mentioned docking fees and hanger fees as well. Im sure there is a ton of junk in most ppls hangers, what ever happened to rent? Seriously, given that ships are supposed to have crews one would suppose they'd want to be paid, what about fuel? I think these things would help give a reason to actually go out to make ISK to keep you BS running and whatnot. For me it would furthur imersion in the environment. Can you imagine having to pay death benifits on dead crewmebers? That'd make you feel a little bad about loosing your ship at least....
Eran Laude Gallente The Astral Order	Posted - 2009.03.16 07:06:00 - [42] Go to Rancer - the sinkhole of the galaxy. The galactic ISK plug is in there - when removed it will cause all ISK to disappear! Go on - fly to Rancer! ----- Originally by: "CCP Whisper" Boo hoo. Cry some more.
Arden Loque	Posted - 2009.03.16 07:07:00 - [43] I'd be down with that. Fuel Charges, Docking Fees, crewing fees. New crew must be bought everytime your ship goes kaboom, the more times it goes kaboom, the more expensive the crew gets. Obviously you could get high quality staff, maybe you'd need higher quality staff for the bigger ships. There's plenty of ways of doing it.
Belmarduk Amarr M.A.R.S. Enterprises	Posted - 2009.03.16 07:08:00 - [44] A docking fee of lets say 100 - 1000 isk would perhaps be a good idea for an isk-sink. Some alliances have a docking fee for their outposts,but then thats not an isk-sink. Mainchar:
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.16 07:18:00 - [45] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Andrea Erlang In before MD vets, Akita or whoever sees this first, but PvP is not an isk sink, since modules do not generate ISK by themselves, minerals are mined and ISK is only transfered between parties, but it doesn't actually exit the game. Unless you only use faction fittings that you buy from LP stores. OMG Rabble rabble rabble Insurance is an ISK faucet. According to you even wormholes are an overpowered isk faucet(despite the fact you seem to have no idea how the economy in eve works and think three NPC buy orders break the game) So despite the big gold shiny letters you're out of your element. ------------------------------------------------- Everyone hates goonswarm for one reason or another. ... And they promote ***gotism -Zurrar
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.16 07:19:00 - [46] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Karr Blanch Originally by: Belmarduk Remove insurance and macroers - Simple fix What would you propose to do to 'remove' macroers? Instead of giving out bounties, trade goods like sleepers drops should be implemented for ALL rats. Isn't that easy enough? Wait you have a big hurf blurf thread about how the sleeper drops go against the grain of the game. Also along those lines lets remove isk and LP bounties off missions and mission npcs. :) Your only source of loot will be the physical loot and the salvage. Since your goal is an entirely player driven market this will work out best right? ------------------------------------------------- Everyone hates goonswarm for one reason or another. ... And they promote ***gotism -Zurrar
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.16 07:22:00 - [47] Before anyone tries to argue my "nerf missions" post I am simply pointing out how terrible of an idea this is. No need to get your CNR covered panties in a bunch. I have no desire to ** on your missions so long as you keep your grubby nerf screaming hands off my rats and sleepers. ------------------------------------------------- Everyone hates goonswarm for one reason or another. ... And they promote *gotism -Zurrar
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.16 07:47:00 - [48] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources According to you even wormholes are an overpowered isk faucet(despite the fact you seem to have no idea how the economy in eve works and think three NPC buy orders break the game) So despite the big gold shiny letters you're out of your element. Strawman argument a lot, eh? Well, nice trolling. If you actually read the thread you would know I'm not exactly saying that wormholes are an overpowered isk faucet.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.16 07:49:00 - [49] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Wait you have a big hurf blurf thread about how the sleeper drops go against the grain of the game. It's an idealogical discussion. It's no whining-thread about how sleepers are overpowered like you make it out to be. Quote: Also along those lines lets remove isk and LP bounties off missions and mission npcs. :) Your only source of loot will be the physical loot and the salvage. Since your goal is an entirely player driven market this will work out best right? No. As I already said, we MUST have ISK faucets to make up for ISK sinks. Economic growth isn't inherently bad, as long as it's under control.
Hadreus	Posted - 2009.03.16 09:35:00 - [50] If you make that much, good for you. Buy yourself another carrier. The rest of us work hard for our benjamins.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.03.16 09:57:00 - [51] Edited by: Venkul Mul on 16/03/2009 09:57:57 Originally by: LaVista Vista Instead of giving out bounties, trade goods like sleepers drops should be implemented for ALL rats. Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Karr Blanch How does this remove macroers? It just makes them mine instead of rat. It increases the barrier to entry for macroing. It requires more logistics. Mining is also not an ISK faucet, which this thread is all about I doubt there are macro running combat missions. It is highly probable there are macro or sweatshops running tons of courier missions. So it will not cure macro using in any way. Still a good thing to implement.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.03.16 10:07:00 - [52] Originally by: Jin Nib What I'd like to see are ship maintnece fees and as some one mentioned docking fees and hanger fees as well. Im sure there is a ton of junk in most ppls hangers, what ever happened to rent? Seriously, given that ships are supposed to have crews one would suppose they'd want to be paid, what about fuel? I think these things would help give a reason to actually go out to make ISK to keep you BS running and whatnot. For me it would furthur imersion in the environment. Can you imagine having to pay death benifits on dead crewmebers? That'd make you feel a little bad about loosing your ship at least.... Sure, but think about it a bit: 1) player go away 1 month, return and he has no isk and his ships have been impounded; 2) trader set up a buy order with a x jump range, get items sold in several stations and all his gain disappear in station fees; 3) you buy something, it get in you hangar in the station, pay hangar fee; 4) you remove a module or charge from your ship, it get in the hangar in station, pay fee; 5) you dock, pay fee. Beside the probable cost of all the above, it mean that the server would have to calculate the new fee or if there is a change in the fees you how every time you dock/undock, fit/unfit a module, buy something, sell something, put up a sell order, cancel a sell order, move something to and from corp hangar, start a research job, end a research job, ecc. To sum it up, every time you change what is in your hangar. Care to guess how fast lag will build up?
Kaivos Pyydys	Posted - 2009.03.16 10:12:00 - [53] Originally by: Useful Alt nothing more to say Stable market prices prove that there is no considerable inflation and there is no need of additional isk sinks. If you or anybody in this thread feel that they have too much isk, open up people & places find character named kaivos and send it over.
Ratchman	Posted - 2009.03.16 10:29:00 - [54] Originally by: mechtech I don't want the days of mining for months for a BS, but I do think it's a bit too easy now. It's nice to stop along every ship class on the way to a BS. The ship I most enjoyed was a Wolf (Assault Frigate). I killed pirate BCs for a couple of weeks to afford a Thorax BPO and kick start my industry career. Quote: You don't want to spend time mining for months for a BS, but you think it's too easy to make ISK now? Isn't that a contradiction there? It seems to me what you actually mean is that you don't like the younger players having an easier time of it than you did. There is also the fact that there is an economic effect that means the more money you have, the easier it becomes to make money. It should get easier for you over time, because that is the nature of business. If you spent all the ISK you had and started from scratch, I'll wager that you would have as much trouble now as when you first started. I get fed up of all these 'ISK is too easy to acquire' threads. If you have too much ISK, why not buy a carrier or a dreadnaut and fly it into lowsec and challenge all comers? What's that? You're not suicidal? Well, if you run and hide from all encounters (not that I'm knocking it as a tactic, as I do the same), then you're not losing the ISK. And the issue with insurance? Have you tried flying tech 2 ships? You're guaranteed to lose money taking those into battle. PvP is an ISK sink, but only if you stay and fight. I can make decent enough money to risk battleships routinely, but not enough to throw them away too cheaply, and I'm very cautious with my tech 2 ships. However, I want to earn more than I'm spending, and that's taking me time, as I need to invest ISK in other things (speculate to accumulate). If you have too much, then don't whine about it, just spend it. But if you want another ISK sink, then just donate 10% to me on a weekly basis. I won't complain about having the extra dosh.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.16 10:34:00 - [55] Originally by: Kaivos Originally by: Useful Alt nothing more to say Stable market prices prove that there is no considerable inflation and there is no need of additional isk sinks. If you or anybody in this thread feel that they have too much isk, open up people & places find character named kaivos and send it over. Actually. There has been considerable inflation in the T2 market due to the POS exploit and the like. Economic growth ISN'T equal to inflation. Inflation is EXCLUSIVELY measured by indices(Price baskets).
Unbowed Ash Gallente Ad Astra Vexillum Arcane Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.16 10:36:00 - [56] T2 ships - you get 10% of ISK back IF you insured it. T2 fits - need I say more. Rigs - they ussualy cost 50% of the hull. Try flying 250+ mil Astarte into a rowing gang. Then loose 3 in 2 weeks. Does it sound like ISK sink ? Not to mention what ISK sink will be to loose T3 ship in few months. Oh yes - we will PVP in them. So you see - there are ISK sinks for people that have the guts to fly proper ships. T1 ship with T1 fits is just a step towards T2. Something to do while waiting on skills.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.16 10:39:00 - [57] Originally by: Unbowed Ash T2 ships - you get 10% of ISK back IF you insured it. T2 fits - need I say more. Rigs - they ussualy cost 50% of the hull. Try flying 250+ mil Astarte into a rowing gang. Then loose 3 in 2 weeks. Does it sound like ISK sink ? Not to mention what ISK sink will be to loose T3 ship in few months. Oh yes - we will PVP in them. So you see - there are ISK sinks for people that have the guts to fly proper ships. T1 ship with T1 fits is just a step towards T2. Something to do while waiting on skills. Wrong. Losing a ship is ALWAYS an ISK Faucet. No ISK is taken out of the economy when you lose a ship. But ISK is ALWAYS added when you lose a ship.
Ratchman	Posted - 2009.03.16 10:47:00 - [58] Originally by: Belmarduk Remove insurance and macroers - Simple fix Remove insurance and watch at least half the PvP evaporate overnight. Most of the PvP participants cannot afford to lose ships without insurance. And the macroers? Well they exist because people buy ISK, and the more ISK that is bought, the more macroers will exist in-game. It's supply and demand, and where real-life economics interfaces with in-game economics. Now, if ISK were just that easy to obtain in-game, why do these people even exist? Answer: it isn't as easy to make money in-game as people are whinging about. Just because a few people have ISK coming out of their ears, doesn't mean everyone has. If you have great wealth that's burning a hole in your pocket, then spend it. Take great risks with expensive ships (maybe fly around hunting rather than low-risk gatecamping in a fleet). Maybe invest in your corp, buying armaments for their territory and financing pushes into other corporations' territories. Build or buy a titan and spearhead an offensive. If all your corpmates are as flush as you are, then they should have no trouble with affording big ships. Declare war on a corp with an equal footing and do your best to hammer them into submission. You could even be a philanthropist and give your money away to people you feel are deserving (which would devalue the macroers). If all these things are not worthy of spending money on, then perhaps you're just bored of EVE, and maybe you should try something else.
Ratchman	Posted - 2009.03.16 11:05:00 - [59] Edited by: Ratchman on 16/03/2009 11:10:24 Originally by: LaVista Vista Wrong. Losing a ship is ALWAYS an ISK Faucet. No ISK is taken out of the economy when you lose a ship. But ISK is ALWAYS added when you lose a ship. Not for the person who lost the ship, it isn't. Again, if ISK is added to the economy whenever a ship is destroyed, then there can't be much PvP happening, as the more PvP occurs, the more likely the economy will collapse. Asteroid fields are created out of nothing, right? And NPC rats, too, right? These are both additions to the economy, and provide a source of income for people. People spend their money on ships and PvP. Ship gets destroyed. A large portion of the ship's total value will get destroyed too, leaving only a percentage as loot and salvage. Other people could make money from this, but wrecks do disappear if left untouched. Now, even if the pilot insures a T1 ship for 100%, they have still lost money, as the insurance wasn't free, and neither was the modules. It maybe not such a great loss, but it's a loss none the same. Therefore, ISK is taken out of the economy via the loss of modules and the cost of the insurance. If the wreck is unsalvaged, then the surviving value will also evaporate. The only way I can think of a ship's destruction adding to the economy is if you fly an insured ship with no modules, or fly something like a battleship with only frigate modules, but how many ships does that encompass? I may have got this wrong, so please elaborate on where the ISK creation is here?
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.03.16 11:14:00 - [60] Originally by: Ratchman Not for the person who lost the ship, it isn't. A loss in personal wealth is not an ISK sink. You have to consider things on a macro scale rather than just think about your own wallet. ISK Faucets and Sinks are defined on a macro-scale. Trying to discuss it on a micro-scale goes to prove your ignorance to EVE as more than your your own little experience of it.
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.03.16 11:27:00 - [61] Originally by: Ratchman Originally by: LaVista Vista Wrong. Losing a ship is ALWAYS an ISK Faucet. No ISK is taken out of the economy when you lose a ship. But ISK is ALWAYS added when you lose a ship. Not for the person who lost the ship, it isn't. Individuals are irrelevant for the discussion of faucets and sinks — these exist on a system-wide basis. Just because you lose or gain money doesn't mean that the system as a whole does. Quote: [snip] I may have got this wrong, so please elaborate on where the ISK creation is here? The destruction of ships and modules are not ISK losses — they are item losses. The ISK was transferred the instant the ship or module was bought and now exists in another player's wallet. The ISK is not removed from the system, only moved around. Likewise, the salvage created has nothing to do with adding or subtracting ISK from the system, but is rather a way to create more items out of thin air. Insurance costs can be an ISK sink, yes, since you pay them to NPC entities. The ISK is thus removed from the system, and will stay gone if the insurance runs out. However, if your ship is destroyed, you get that ISK back and more, thus creating ISK out of nowhere. In essence, there are two separate but parallel processes going on here: item creation/transfer/destruction, and ISK creation/transfer/destruction, and you need to avoid confusing the two. Looking at the various events you describe, they can be categorised as follows: Asteroid mining: item creation (ore). NPC ratting: item creation (loot, salvage) + ISK creation (bounties). Buying ships: item transfer (the ship), ISK transfer (paying for it), ISK destruction (taxes). PvP: item destruction (ship, modules), item transfer (loot), item creation (salvage), ISK creation (insurance payout). So to answer your question: the ISK creation is, quite simply, the insurance payout. Everything else about ship loss is shuffling around items — the only ISK transaction involved is a payout from an NPC party, i.e. creation of ISK out of nowhere. (Well, technically, there could also be a bounty payout, but that would be a transfer from whoever posted that bounty). ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in =v=… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Kagura Nikon Minmatar M. Corp	Posted - 2009.03.16 11:29:00 - [62] Seems a lot of people fail to understand what an isk sink is. My proposal. Make tax in NPC stations to be automatically adjusted based on amount of commerce. From 1% up to 20%. The more commerce on that station on the last 15 days the higher the tax. YES that would put a 20% tax on everything on Jita 4-4. And that is pretty much the objective. I hate the concept of a single super hub for all market in eve that destroy half the fun of market gaming. Plus 20% sink on everything on jita would drink isk from market like nothing else. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Dibsi Dei Salamyhkaisten kilta	Posted - 2009.03.16 11:38:00 - [63] Originally by: Kagura Nikon My proposal. Make tax in NPC stations to be automatically adjusted based on amount of commerce. From 1% up to 20%. The more commerce on that station on the last 15 days the higher the tax. YES that would put a 20% tax on everything on Jita 4-4. And that is pretty much the objective. I hate the concept of a single super hub for all market in eve that destroy half the fun of market gaming. Plus 20% sink on everything on jita would drink isk from market like nothing else. Now THAT would be fun.
Narcogen Gallente IBO CORP	Posted - 2009.03.16 11:38:00 - [64] Originally by: Tippia So to answer your question: the ISK creation is, quite simply, the insurance payout. Everything else about ship loss is shuffling around items ù the only ISK transaction involved is a payout from an NPC party, i.e. creation of ISK out of nowhere. (Well, technically, there could also be a bounty payout, but that would be a transfer from whoever posted that bounty). Why not move insurance into the player-run portion of the economy, like shipbuilding, instead of the purely NPC-run portion? The bottom line is you're saying insurance payouts are an isk faucet, and they are. However, if player corporations actually had to run solvent-- if payouts could actually only be based on balances built up by the payment of insurance fees-- if fees had to actually cover payouts...
R3dSh1ft Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.03.16 11:44:00 - [65] Ok so everybody has a wallet with some isk in it, add to that all the isk in player corporation wallets. This total (whatever it may be) is the value of the eve economy, lets give it an imaginary value of 1000 trillion. Everybody has a share in it (maybe a negative one) as a percentage of the total isk, right. So some ******* has crap loads of ships and assets, but none of that matters in this discussion, we are only concerned with his wallet, lets say he has 1b isk, that means his buying power in the eve world is some tiny percentage like 0.000000000000001% Ok fine, we can all understand that ... but, at the same time that total amount of isk in the economy is changing, right, so his buying power is either going up or going down over time depending on whether the economy is inflating or deflating. All those ratters and NPC good traders etc and people getting insurance are sucking money from "nowhere" to increase the total value of the eve economy - this is an isk faucet. When you have to pay a repair bill, or buy something from the NPCs, pay a sales tax or maybe buy a skill, that isk goes back into "nowhere" decreasing the total value of the eve economy - this is an isk sink. Some of the more notable isk sinks include: * Capital ship skills * Capital ship insurance that is not claimed * Starbase fuel * Items from the loyalty shop If the number of players, value of isk sinks and isk faucets are not carefully balanced this can lead to runaway inflation, so that matey above sees his buying power fall by half or more during the 3 month break he took to go ride bikes. Many people are concerned about this because there are a lot of mission runners and macro farmers and "professional" eve players who are flooding the eve economy with these isks. Over time CCP have got smart and reduced the income share due to bounties from about 90% in the beginning to now something like 10% if you are running 0.0 complexes, the rest of the income being made up from items like salvage and faction mods which are instead material faucets - but thats another issue altogether :) I hope people who didn't previously understand the concept now appreciate what faucets and sinks in this context mean. DKOD - an awesome synchronised killing machine
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.03.16 11:48:00 - [66] Originally by: Narcogen Why not move insurance into the player-run portion of the economy, like shipbuilding, instead of the purely NPC-run portion? The main argument would be: because it works as a mechanic to balance the economy, and those mechanics are good to have around. Like LaVista Vista said, there is nothing inherently wrong with having sinks and faucets — in fact, they are mandatory to keep the economy under control — you just have to make sure that they balance out in the end. So the question is: what would the benefit be of moving insurance into the player-run economy? Yes, you'd lose an ISK faucet (and a sink), but you'd also lose a economy control mechanism. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in =v=… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Dibsi Dei Salamyhkaisten kilta	Posted - 2009.03.16 11:50:00 - [67] Don't know if player-run insurance is possible but in my opinion the SCC should be run like a real corporation. CCP should recheck insurance costs, payouts and terms in a way that SCC would make profit of their business. That way insurance would not be an isk faucet but an isk sink.
Ratchman	Posted - 2009.03.16 12:15:00 - [68] Edited by: Ratchman on 16/03/2009 12:19:13 Edited by: Ratchman on 16/03/2009 12:17:34 Originally by: LaVista Vista Trying to discuss it on a micro-scale goes to prove your ignorance to EVE as more than your your own little experience of it. That's a poor response to my post. I didn't insult you, did I? I wasn't just looking at the micro-scale, but perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. Insurance is an ISK sink if it expires, and it often does, as people often have ships all over the place. Now, if you buy a ship, that ship has been created from minerals that have been created from nothing. Although you have paid 100 million for it, it still came from nothing, so that value was added to the economy. You insure it for 100%, costing 30 million. That 30 million has left the economy. Ship gets destroyed, that's 70 million added to the economy. So we're 70 million up at this stage. If the modules fitted to the ship total, for the sake of argument, 50 million. All of these were originally created from nothing, either from minerals or rat loot. That 50 million worth, if it all gets destroyed, or left unlooted, exits the economy. That would leave us with 20 million plus in the economy. Some may be recovered and salvaged, so say we add half the value back, so that leaves the economy 45 million up. Now add in, say 50 million in rigs as well, and the same dynamics mentioned above for the modules applies to the rigs, so 50 million value is destroyed, and 25 million value is recovered, that's a loss of 25 million bringing the total net added value to the economy of 30 million. So, a small gain for standard T1 territory, but only if value is looted and salvaged. But now we will add in Tech 2, for which insurance is negligible, say 10%. You'd lose 90 million on a 100 million ship. That leaves the economy 90 million down. Even with 50 million salvage, this is still a loss. In know the figures are arbitrary, but I've not got a comprehensive knowledge of the market details right now, so these will serve as an example. In conclusion, low level ship loss can be a profit to the economy, providing that the fits are basic and they are insured for maximum value every time. The value put back into the system via loot and salvage is chance based, and doesn't include the 'scorched earth' tactic plenty of people use of destroying wrecks. As you go up the value and tech tree, the value to the economy will switch from being positive to negative. What you say does hold water, but only under certain circumstances, and that is assuming the majority of losses are low-level ships with full insurance that never expires. If the value lost by the high-end ship losses outweighs the gains made by the low-end ship losses, then your position is undermined. When you factor in how many insurance policies simply expire, or ships that simply aren't insured (because people with ISK to burn probably don't bother with it. I certainly don't with the low end ships), then that loss to the economy becomes greater. But this can all be boiled down to the following statement: If ship loss contributes to the economy as a whole, then there are fewer ISK sinks. And if there are so few ISK sinks, why isn't inflation out of control and the in-game currency continually devalued? Now, if we had some hard figures from CCP regarding the values added and lost to the economy from PvP, this would be easier to prove or disprove. If there is something I have left out, then please add to this, but don't assume that I'm simply thinking on the micro scale. And certainly don't refer to me as ignorant. Every insult removes credibility from the argument. Oh, and I did agree with your previous statements, so tarring me with the ignorance brush is to cast aspersions on your previous arguments.
Iria Ahrens Amarr 101st Space Marine Force Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.03.16 12:35:00 - [69] Edited by: Iria Ahrens on 16/03/2009 12:38:21 Ships have a crew, so how about paying to feed that crew and for their salaries, life support, waste disposal. We could have the ship have the readiness rating below optimal if you had to suddenly pull out of a station before all the crew returned. The head engineeer could be on vacation so your armor repair is below optimal until he gets back. Ahh, lots of ways to put in more time sinks. I think a pop-up every once in a while when the crew wants to go on liberty at a nearby planet would be fun :P -- Nobody expects the Amarr Inquisition!
Jettax Gallente The Professional's Club The Second Genesis	Posted - 2009.03.16 12:39:00 - [70] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Unbowed Ash T2 ships - you get 10% of ISK back IF you insured it. T2 fits - need I say more. Rigs - they ussualy cost 50% of the hull. Try flying 250+ mil Astarte into a rowing gang. Then loose 3 in 2 weeks. Does it sound like ISK sink ? Not to mention what ISK sink will be to loose T3 ship in few months. Oh yes - we will PVP in them. So you see - there are ISK sinks for people that have the guts to fly proper ships. T1 ship with T1 fits is just a step towards T2. Something to do while waiting on skills. Wrong. Losing a ship is ALWAYS an ISK Faucet. No ISK is taken out of the economy when you lose a ship. But ISK is ALWAYS added when you lose a ship. Actually I'm inclined to partially agree Ash. I believe pvp is an indirect isk sink. Sure the isk that was spent on the lost hardware just moves to someone elses hands, but ultimately somewhere down the line some isk gets to the people that build the actual kit. Now if it's T1, they may have to rent out a production line (isk sink), they'll have to buy skill books to meet the requirements what they are making (isk sink)... If it's T2 or they are upscaling it a bit with a POS, then they'll have to buy a bunch of NPC fuel to run is (isk sink). Now although these are pretty small fractions of the end product, overall pvp is still contributing to these isk sink factors, although you can't just take pvp isk sink effect at market rates, it does exist. On another note, consider also the oppourtunity cost. If all these producer people are busy mining and making things flat out and NOT ratting as much (or at all), then that's less people involved in isk faucet activities. If pvp gives them a viable source of income, then that is a shift of player energy to isk-sink related activities.
Jettax Gallente The Professional's Club The Second Genesis	Posted - 2009.03.16 13:10:00 - [71] IMO a really effective ISK sink would be 'station services' for altering your avatars appearance. Hair style upto 10mil Plastic surgery 10s of mil range Designer sunglasses, clothes etc: anything upto 100s Cheap Tattos 750isk Tatto removal 1mil Tatto removal non scarring method 10mil I recon heaps of people would have a laugh with something like that, and you'd get quite a good "billions gone per minute" score happening on a friday night after people get home from the pub. Then they wake up in the morning and see their avatar looks as worse for wear as they do :)
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.03.16 13:17:00 - [72] Originally by: Ratchman Now, if you buy a ship, that ship has been created from minerals that have been created from nothing. Yes, but that's the thing: they're minerals, not ISK. Likewise, the ship is a ship, not ISK. Adding more of one does not add more of the other. Quote: Although you have paid 100 million for it, it still came from nothing, so that value was added to the economy. No. "Value" is a separate matter, and is entirely in the hands of the players. If you create 100Mil "worth of" items, you don't create 100Mil ISK — you still only create items with the option to trade them for ISK. So, to trace the progression of value in your example, we're going to split the value up into its two parts: actual ISK (denoted ISK), and potential, option-to-trade, ISK-worth in the form of items (ITE). First step: you have created a ship worth 100Mil and fitted it with modules and rigs worth another 100Mil. All of these are items. Total economy: 200Mil ITE, 0 ISK. Quote: You insure it for 100%, costing 30 million. That 30 million has left the economy. Ship gets destroyed, that's 70 million added to the economy. So we're 70 million up at this stage. Insurance: -30Mil ISK Payout: +100Mil ISK. Ship loss: -100Mil ITE. Total economy: 100Mil ITE, 70Mil ISK. Quote: If the modules fitted to the ship total, for the sake of argument, 50 million. […] That 50 million worth, if it all gets destroyed, or left unlooted, exits the economy. Items lost: -50Mil ITE. Total economy: 50Mil ITE, 70Mil ISK. Quote: Now add in, say 50 million in rigs as well, and the same dynamics mentioned above for the modules applies to the rigs Item loss: -50Mil ITE. End economy: 0Mil ITE, 70Mil ISK. The ship, module and rig destruction are item sinks that completely cancel out the item creation at the beginning of the process. All that's left is the 70Mil ISK net created by the insurance process, and the insurance process is balanced so that the payout is larger than the cost, giving us a net gain. Quote: But now we will add in Tech 2, for which insurance is negligible, say 10%. You'd lose 90 million on a 100 million ship. That leaves the economy 90 million down. Even with 50 million salvage, this is still a loss. Makes no difference, because the same relationship between insurance cost and payout would exist: Creation of ship: +100Mil ITE. Creation of modules: +50Mil ITE. Creation of rigs: +50Mil ITE. Insurance cost: -3Mil ISK. Destruction of ship: -100Mil ITE. Destruction of modules: -50Mil ITE. Destruction of rigs: -50Mil ITE. Insurance payout: +10Mil ISK. End economy: 0 ITE, 7Mil ISK. Quote: If ship loss contributes to the economy as a whole, then there are fewer ISK sinks. Non sequitur. The same number of ISK sinks exist regardless of what action leads to what. Ship loss only contributes to the ISK supply because of how insurance cost and payout are balanced against each other. Ship loss without salvaging is neutral to the item supply since and destruction that takes place (obviously) completely removes creation of said items. Any surviving items are simply transferred (still neutral to the item supply) and if you salvage the wreck, you contribute to the supply. Quote: And if there are so few ISK sinks, why isn't inflation out of control and the in-game currency continually devalued? Because there are other factors that continually prop up the value of the ISK, such as rampant item creation (more items = value of items goes down = your ISK gives you more items, i.e. is worth more). ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in =v=… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2009.03.16 13:40:00 - [73] im not sure if this one farmer in branch with his 6 accounts is still there but i've tried everything from cov op probing to login-"traps": there's nothing one can do against him tapping an entire constellation. ... except parking a cloaker in every system. and i'm not going to run (more than) half a dozen accounts, nor can i with this "new" client -.- so i'd be more in favor of - dog tags replacing bounties - log-off timers (with npc-aggro) to be long enough to actually probe this cloak-less bugger^6 - adding the old chance-based probe results for people that do cloak. maybe a 1% chance for them to emit a signal shrug - putting the gist back into logistics
Exlegion Caldari New Light	Posted - 2009.03.16 13:52:00 - [74] PVP is NOT an isk sink. PVP increases inflationary pressure. So it is more appropriate to think of it as an isk faucet, relatively speaking. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr
Iria Ahrens Amarr 101st Space Marine Force Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.03.16 14:07:00 - [75] Originally by: Exlegion PVP is NOT an isk sink. PVP increases inflationary pressure. So it is more appropriate to think of it as an isk faucet, relatively speaking. War Decs cost a lot of isk, especially to maintain week after week. -- Nobody expects the Amarr Inquisition!
Exlegion Caldari New Light	Posted - 2009.03.16 14:18:00 - [76] Edited by: Exlegion on 16/03/2009 14:21:42 But I was not referring to war decs. I'm explicitly referring to PVP. But I'll expand on the topic of war decs since you brought it up. A war dec alone is an isk sink. But if in the end there was more destruction of modules/ships than there was destruction of isk via the war dec cost then the total net outcome of the war is one of an inflationary effect, not deflationary. Edit: My grammar is terrible. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.03.16 14:29:00 - [77] I'd love to see some stats on what the biggest ISK sinks are. POS items and NPC POS fuel goods are probably the biggest contributers, with the LP stores next.
Aion Amarra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.03.16 14:31:00 - [78] I actually have trouble understanding the "replace bounties with tradegoods that have an NPC buy order" argument. In the end, it's still a faucet as the money comes from an NPC corp. Short of the items getting destroyed on their way to the sales station and sales tax, this doesn't really reduce the amount of ISK injected into the economy. Effectively, this is a "slightly reduce NPC bounties and make the process slightly more bothersome". I would not mind the mechanic (I actually like selling overseers personal effects and dogtags for some reason), but this doesn't exactly curb any ISK faucet. I also do not see how this is supposed to reduce macroing. Filling an NPC buy order is probably one of the easier tasks to automatize. Is there something I'm overlooking?
Uzume Ame	Posted - 2009.03.16 14:31:00 - [79] Edited by: Uzume Ame on 16/03/2009 14:32:24 Don't worry, RL economy is far worse and still runs (not so well as we are observing now though lol): virtually no money sinks and the ratio at which money is created due to the debt mechanic is at 1:9 AT BEST. In other words, the world economy is terrible (money is not really based on nothing material) and still runs... somewhat. The 'there is too much isk' crew is not factoring several things: average account income, average account wallet and the volume of isk transactions, apart of very important human variables. It doe snot matter if there are 100 trillion isks in the system if 99% of them are sitting still at the wallets of 0.1% eve population, that's why, as someone said earlier, the markets remain estable. Start asking youself if it really does affect you that there are too much isks in the system. Anyway too much asumptions on this (and related) threads, nobody but CCP has the data to know wealth distribution, inflation and other stuff, where the heck are these quarterlly economic reports lol.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.03.16 14:33:00 - [80] Originally by: Aion Amarra I actually have trouble understanding the "replace bounties with tradegoods that have an NPC buy order" argument. In the end, it's still a faucet as the money comes from an NPC corp. Short of the items getting destroyed on their way to the sales station and sales tax, this doesn't really reduce the amount of ISK injected into the economy. Effectively, this is a "slightly reduce NPC bounties and make the process slightly more bothersome". I would not mind the mechanic (I actually like selling overseers personal effects and dogtags for some reason), but this doesn't exactly curb any ISK faucet. I also do not see how this is supposed to reduce macroing. Filling an NPC buy order is probably one of the easier tasks to automatize. Is there something I'm overlooking? Yes. At the moment, macro/sweatshop ratters are virtually invulnerable, and the ISK that they generate is instantly awarded and is then untouchable. If they had to run tags back to empire, then there would be a way to stop them cashing in their ill-gotten gains. At the very least it would increase the labour overhead.
Turiel Demon Minmatar Inhumation Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.16 15:32:00 - [81] The reason the markets remain stable is because there is ITE inflation as much as there is ISK inflation. There are more items coming in than are being destroyed at roughly the same rate as there is more ISK coming into the game than is going out of it, that has a dampening effect on the ISK value of items which balances the opposite effect of item inflation. This means that a battleship still costs the same as it did a year ago, but is easier to get now, if you're trying to produce it or are trying to buy it. Actually, and my memory may be failing me here, but didn't battleships used to cost about the same as the insurance payout? Now the payout is near sufficient to cover the ship cost _and_ insurance cost, at least at tier 1 and 2.
Xianbei	Posted - 2009.03.16 15:54:00 - [82] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Ratchman Trying to discuss it on a micro-scale goes to prove your ignorance to EVE as more than your your own little experience of it. 10/10 for douchebaggedness
5pinDizzy	Posted - 2009.03.16 16:24:00 - [83] If you replaced all npc bounties with tradegoods, where would new isk come from eventually? Agent rewards and Insurance claims? People would blitz missions in the easiest possible way for the payout and people would self destruct their ships for the insurance after so long surely. Around the same time the economy transformed itself into more of a barter system. Although maybe old fashioned for a high tech space game, I think it would be great if isk itself was an ingame item, not just a number in a wallet. Agent rewards dropped it in your hangar, aswell as being able to rob it from other players destroyed ships.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.16 16:37:00 - [84] Want an isk sink? Make people pay for protection in empire on a weekly basis if they lack required standings with the factions space they are in. I bet that would empty out trillions. You're completely free to not pay but you then get flagged and can be attacked by any tom ** and harry wandering about(Still lowers their sec status to attack you) Granted this s all over the RP aspects of Concord but it not only gives people an incentive to move out to 0.0 if they aren't mission running(A thing CCP has stated they want) it also lets mission runners stay cozy in their homes just like always. Characters under a certain age would be excluded from this. ------------------------------------------------- Everyone hates goonswarm for one reason or another. ... And they promote *gotism -Zurrar
Jin Nib	Posted - 2009.03.16 18:20:00 - [85] Edited by: Jin Nib on 16/03/2009 18:22:18 Originally by: Venkul Mul Sure, but think about it a bit: 1) player go away 1 month, return and he has no isk and his ships have been impounded; 2) trader set up a buy order with a x jump range, get items sold in several stations and all his gain disappear in station fees; 3) you buy something, it get in you hangar in the station, pay hangar fee; 4) you remove a module or charge from your ship, it get in the hangar in station, pay fee; 5) you dock, pay fee. Beside the probable cost of all the above, it mean that the server would have to calculate the new fee or if there is a change in the fees you how every time you dock/undock, fit/unfit a module, buy something, sell something, put up a sell order, cancel a sell order, move something to and from corp hangar, start a research job, end a research job, ecc. To sum it up, every time you change what is in your hangar. Care to guess how fast lag will build up? First, things first. Lag is not the issue here depending on how much could be handled by the clients themselves with occasional relays to the server or whatever. I really doubt it would cause much lag. No more so then do bounties, simply because the money is being relayed to non entities or from non entites and a lot of lee-way is available in such a case. I have a feeling that CCP decided to ditch these things and say its all covered by the up front cost of a ship, but that doesnt help one feel like they matter. Hanger fees seem to be unweildy because of deciding how to charge. Do you charge 10 k ISK a month? What if you only use the hanger one day? But docking fees would cover this area nicely and would simply have to be based on the hull class of a ship. After all if you want the items in a hanger most ppl have to dock thus docking fees could cover rent and access and all sort of stuff like that. The second form of fee would be just running a ship. An hourly cost that could represent salery, fuel, and logistics for all that stuff. Basicaly if you cant afford to undock a BS or to pay the hourly rate you cant use it. Nor should you given that YOUR POOR, you ought not to be flying a BS anyways. To protect newbies or poor ppl from going bankrupt you could set a sum below which, fees are not drawn say a million ISK or somthing. In addition, the cost of running frigates or docking them should be 0 scince they really dont appear to put much strain on anything. In addition these cost only would ever apply when your running the game (becasue they both depend on active player choices like docking of flying a BS around) so nobody would come back after a month to an empty bank balance (unless it was empty before hand, of course :p ). It really doesnt seem as hard to work out as your making it seem.
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.03.16 19:32:00 - [86] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Want an isk sink? Make people pay for protection in empire on a weekly basis if they lack required standings with the factions space they are in. I bet that would empty out trillions. It will empty out trillions in about one week while everyone grinds up their standings, then all will be back to normal. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in =v=… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Dzil Caldari Apache Research Team	Posted - 2009.03.16 20:47:00 - [87] Originally by: superlolzz actually thats not an isksink, the opposite since when ur ship dies u get paid out insurance :P Your gonna be pretty disappointed the first time you lose a t2 ship.
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.03.16 21:02:00 - [88] Originally by: Dzil Originally by: superlolzz actually thats not an isksink, the opposite since when ur ship dies u get paid out insurance :P Your gonna be pretty disappointed the first time you lose a t2 ship. Doesn't matter. It's a faucet even for T2 insurance. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in =v=… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.16 22:13:00 - [89] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Want an isk sink? Make people pay for protection in empire on a weekly basis if they lack required standings with the factions space they are in. I bet that would empty out trillions. It will empty out trillions in about one week while everyone grinds up their standings, then all will be back to normal. So make standings degrade over time. Just because you helped a buddy out once a few decades ago doesnt mean he is there for you all the time forever unless he is either very easily abused or you are frank **ing sinatra. Mission accomplished ------------------------------------------------- Everyone hates goonswarm for one reason or another. ... And they promote *gotism -Zurrar
Zyck Dark-Rising	Posted - 2009.03.16 22:35:00 - [90] I barely have enough isk as it is :/
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.16 22:56:00 - [91] Originally by: Zyck I barely have enough isk as it is :/ Do you run missions? ------------------------------------------------- Everyone hates goonswarm for one reason or another. ... And they promote ***gotism -Zurrar
Bethulsunamen Viziam	Posted - 2009.03.16 23:34:00 - [92] Edited by: Bethulsunamen on 16/03/2009 23:36:44 Edited by: Bethulsunamen on 16/03/2009 23:35:54 Originally by: Shea Klant Double the output of mining in 0.0, quadruple it in low sec, and add in faction points that are given out from faction agents similar to the way research agents dole out RPs that are specifically used for getting faction ships/mods and we will see massive wars kick off once people loose there fear of making pretty fireworks with the gutted hull of their favorite ship. ^-- This! With Veldspar mining in 1.0 being more profitable than Jaspet mining in lowsec, there's never any real point to risking a Hulk in 0.0 Same with FW, imagine if we actually got faction points, or hell just loyalty points, from blowing up enemy ships. People would flock to FW, and later to 0.0 Point is, there has to be a reward to at least somewhat make up for the risk. If you can make tons of money in 1.0 with no risk, there is no point to accept 100% risk for LESS profit (due to loosing ships now and then). Except for the excitement that is, but some of us simply cant afford it. I'd love to faff about in 0.0 in my one and only battleship, but i know i'd loose it eventually, and then i'd be back to being broke. An hour or two of excitement doesnt make up for days or weeks of boredom. But hey, if any 0.0 alliances with ship reinbursement programs want to take me in, im your slave
Atius Tirawa Minmatar Destructive Influence KenZoku	Posted - 2009.03.16 23:50:00 - [93] I think the price of t2 has gone up. . .and suprise suprise, some people are getting very rick from it. -----------
Bethulsunamen Viziam	Posted - 2009.03.17 09:20:00 - [94] Originally by: Atius Tirawa I think the price of t2 has gone up. . .and suprise suprise, some people are getting very rick from it. Must be because of all the ships your alliance lost
Jettax Gallente The Professional's Club The Second Genesis	Posted - 2009.03.17 10:45:00 - [95] Originally by: Exlegion Edited by: Exlegion on 16/03/2009 14:21:42 <snip> if in the end there was more destruction of modules/ships than there was destruction of isk via the war dec cost then the total net outcome of the war is one of an inflationary effect, not deflationary. War can cause shortage of supplies and material in a region through factors such as: - Disruption of industry and shipping - Replacing hardware lost in combat - Downtime from security threats Shortages will cause inflation, particularly high turnover kit such as that required for the pvp. Since inflation means isk is worth less over time, it really is a form of isk sink in it's own right too. Though not quite the same, as localised inflation of prices may not apply throughout eve, but then again how many people operate THROUGHOUT Eve? maybe some, but I think 90%+ of us probably spend a lot of time hanging round a particular haunt for several months at a time, maybe with a couple of clone satellite areas. Wonder how wormholes will affect these dynamics...
Sleazy Cabbie	Posted - 2009.03.17 12:17:00 - [96] I question the premise of this topic. "eve needs more isk sink" is based on what? Your 18 hour ratting session last night? Since when are game economies based on the playstyle of unemployed people? Of course, if you play alot of hours, avoid pvp like the plague, then yes, you prolly have more money than Bill Gates. If that's your barometer of having fun, have at it. This is a pvp-centric game and we expect normal people to play it too, not just people with 12 R&D alts who rat 20 hours a week. In a way this thread is more about waving e-peen than discussing anything related to "economy." It's a way of saying, "look, I'm SO successful in-game that I think the game needs to be nerfed to accomodate my awesomeness." Far be it from me to question anybody's awesomeness, but in-game success is generally proportional to the amount of time and dedication you put into something. Eve has a rabidly fanatical fanbase, tons of people (including myself) are spending more time here than is probably healthy. Let's not go overboard and balance the game economy around the pale and overweight.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.03.17 16:14:00 - [97] Originally by: Jin Nib Originally by: Venkul Mul Sure, but think about it a bit: 1) player go away 1 month, return and he has no isk and his ships have been impounded; 2) trader set up a buy order with a x jump range, get items sold in several stations and all his gain disappear in station fees; 3) you buy something, it get in you hangar in the station, pay hangar fee; 4) you remove a module or charge from your ship, it get in the hangar in station, pay fee; 5) you dock, pay fee. Beside the probable cost of all the above, it mean that the server would have to calculate the new fee or if there is a change in the fees you how every time you dock/undock, fit/unfit a module, buy something, sell something, put up a sell order, cancel a sell order, move something to and from corp hangar, start a research job, end a research job, ecc. To sum it up, every time you change what is in your hangar. Care to guess how fast lag will build up? First, things first. Lag is not the issue here depending on how much could be handled by the clients themselves with occasional relays to the server or whatever. I really doubt it would cause much lag. No more so then do bounties, simply because the money is being relayed to non entities or from non entites and a lot of lee-way is available in such a case. Error one: you not leave the data of the wallet on the client, as that will allow some smart boy to hack them and change them. Error two: bounties cause lag. That is why they have been lumped together every 20 minutes and not give out immediately as before. Quote: Hanger fees seem to be unweildy because of deciding how to charge. Do you charge 10 k ISK a month? What if you only use the hanger one day? But docking fees would cover this area nicely and would simply have to be based on the hull class of a ship. After all if you want the items in a hanger most ppl have to dock thus docking fees could cover rent and access and all sort of stuff like that. The problems are: - the lag you discount so easily, every time you dock the server should : detect your ship class, decide the docking fee, modify it for your standing; - if for some reason you are low on isk you could be incapable to docking. Quote: The second form of fee would be just running a ship. An hourly cost that could represent salery, fuel, and logistics for all that stuff. Basicaly if you cant afford to undock a BS or to pay the hourly rate you cant use it. Again, you discount that people don't play constantly but take breaks from the game, even involuntary break for RL reasons. it is too easy to return after some time and discover that your capital has disappeared and you ships have been impounded. Quote: To protect newbies or poor ppl from going bankrupt you could set a sum below which, fees are not drawn say a million ISK or somthing. And before every DT each player will send my money to a alt with 1 noob frigate . Quote: In addition these cost only would ever apply when your running the game (becasue they both depend on active player choices like docking of flying a BS around) so nobody would come back after a month to an empty bank balance. Even more work for the server, now it must track every minute I am in space. And what if I am at a POS? Disconnected but in space? Quote: It really doesnt seem as hard to work out as your making it seem. It really seem you have no clue.
Jin Nib	Posted - 2009.03.17 21:36:00 - [98] Originally by: Venkul Mul Quote: Error one: you not leave the data of the wallet on the client, as that will allow some smart boy to hack them and change them. Error two: bounties cause lag. That is why they have been lumped together every 20 minutes and not give out immediately as before. Lag really isn't the issue under discussion here, but if you want to keep on pumping that strawman feel free to do so, I'm sure he's enjoying it just as much as you are. The lag issues are solvable, the topic actually under discussion is a hypothetical exploration of whether or not EVE needs more ISK sinks. Your busy talking about smart boys, lag and you will doubtless throw in terrorist for good measure at some later point. Quote: The problems are: - the lag you discount so easily, every time you dock the server should : detect your ship class, decide the docking fee, modify it for your standing; Lag, lag, lag, get a different horse to beat already... Guess what, the server already knows what ship is docking or un-docking, not just the class. After all it needs to know what to show in your hanger anyways, and what to show on the assets menu when it updates. Adding a minor calculation or even a set number to that, which could easily be handled by the client is not going to cause any more lag then already occurs. Quote: - if for some reason you are low on isk you could be incapable to docking. So? You should be more careful with your finances. EVE isn't there to hold your hand, it's one of the things that make this game good. Quote: Again, you discount that people don't play constantly but take breaks from the game, even involuntary break for RL reasons. it is too easy to return after some time and discover that your capital has disappeared and you ships have been impounded. Impounded? What? you're the only one who is talking about impounding things. If a battle ship costs theoretically 1000 isk an hour to run then with a mere 10k isk you can pilot it for 10 hours. If you don't have 10k isk and your flying a battle ship maybe you should of thought that before hand. These are flying battleships you really think the should be absolutely free to run? How does that possibly make sense? Quote: And before every DT each player will send my money to a alt with 1 noob frigate . Yes, because Im going to spread 223 million ISK to 222 different alts most of whom cant send ISK because they're likely trail accounts. If some one has that much energy kudos to them. And if some one is spending that much cash to maintain that many accounts kudos to CCP for making a small fortune. Quote: Even more work for the server, now it must track every minute I am in space. And what if I am at a POS? Disconnected but in space? Why do you insist that everything is work for the server? Allot of calculations and information can be done on the client itself with only relevant information relayed to the server. Also if the cost of the ship is for running it then why would it charge you if your not busy running it. As I said if you aren't playing the game then you wont be charged since nothing is actively happening. Perhaps if you paid attention to the post you're responding to you might have seen that part. Quote: It really seem you have no clue. It really seems like you have the distinct disadvantage of being unable to utilize your faculty of reason to figure out things for yourself. Congrats.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.03.18 10:03:00 - [99] Originally by: Jin Nib The lag issues are solvable, the topic actually under discussion is a hypothetical exploration of whether or not EVE needs more ISK sinks. Your busy talking about smart boys, lag and you will doubtless throw in terrorist for good measure at some later point. 1) we are discussing if your suggested changes can work as a way to add isk sinks and the consequences of that; 2) lag is one of the main issues in EVE; 3) your suggestion will crate a lot of secondary problems and add lag. Conclusion: The are not a good idea as they will require a lot of programming and even then add database load.
Ratchman	Posted - 2009.03.18 12:06:00 - [100] Originally by: Tippia The destruction of ships and modules are not ISK losses ù they are item losses. The ISK was transferred the instant the ship or module was bought and now exists in another player's wallet. The ISK is not removed from the system, only moved around. But surely, worth is not separate to ISK. ISK is just the measure of an items intrinsic worth? ISK is the currency of worth, hence items are worth ISK. Therefore when something is bought, ISK goes to the seller, who has created that from either manufacturing, or from loot. Regardless of the source, it has been created from nothing. If it was salvaged from rat loot, then it was a creation of value into the system. If the item gets destroyed, then the net worth is taken out of the system. The ISK remains in the system, but the system has lost a small amount of worth. ISK and worth are not separate but are the same thing. Originally by: Tippia So to answer your question: the ISK creation is, quite simply, the insurance payout. Everything else about ship loss is shuffling around items ù the only ISK transaction involved is a payout from an NPC party, i.e. creation of ISK out of nowhere. (Well, technically, there could also be a bounty payout, but that would be a transfer from whoever posted that bounty). While I understand that insurance creates ISK, I'm asserting that it doesn't contribute enough to cover all value lost in the total number of ship losses. It will create more if every ship is insured to 100%, but this is far from the case. There are plenty of people who throw frigates and cruisers around like disposable toys, as they can easily afford to replace them. When these uninsured ship are destroyed, their intrinsic value is lost to the economy. Some worth can be clawed back, but the majority is lost. Tech 2 ships result in far less ISK creation upon their destruction as well. The 'shuffling around of items' you refer to is still referring to worth, and my previous assertion still holds true. If there are more faucets than sinks, the the economy should be crashing, and the currency devalued. People would have so much disposable income that manufacturers could charge what they like, so you would start to see prices fluctuate dramatically, usually upwards. Some people have an excess, but the majority do not. The creation of items adds worth to the system, but a surplus of items means people start undercutting each other, and the value of each item is reduced, so excessive production doesn't exactly lead to an ISK faucet. All these items are created out of nothing, but their ISK worth is determined by the consumers. It is also important to point out that if the net value of things created exceeds that which is lost, it would be equivocable to printing money, which has lead to rampant inflation in almost every single real world example. Of course, this is all speculation in the absence of hard figures, and I'm not so arrogant that I think I know exactly how the whole complicated economy works. I would think CCP would know this, and keep a fairly close eye on it (whilst at the same time allowing market forces to act naturally). It would be interesting to see figures on the average amount of ISK per player, along with the intrinsic value of created items versus that destroyed or lost. I'll wager people are not as rich as some people seem to think.
Pan Crastus Anti-Metagaming League	Posted - 2009.03.18 12:08:00 - [101] Originally by: Skraeling Shortbus Have you tried shooting other players, I heard that can be a great way to do it. No, it sucks. It's either a prestige sink also if you do it wrong, or it's not an isk sink if you do it right. How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.03.18 12:56:00 - [102] Edited by: Tippia on 18/03/2009 12:59:15 Originally by: Ratchman But surely, worth is not separate to ISK. Not separate, no, but also not the same thing. "Worth" is just a relationship between item and ISK availability, desirablilty and usefulness. Yes, both categories add value to the economy, but the worth of either of them can only be expressed in terms of the other. Quote: ISK is the currency of worth, hence items are worth ISK. No, items are only worth ISK if someone is willing to trade ISK for them — until then, they are only worth themselves or, possibly, their component parts. Quote: While I understand that insurance creates ISK, I'm asserting that it doesn't contribute enough to cover all value lost in the total number of ship losses. Sure, but that's irrelevant. Adding value is not the same thing as adding ISK, nor is the removal of value the same thing as removal of ISK. ISK is one type of value among others. The relationship between these values is what creates worth. What's being discussed here is only whether or not combat is an ISK sink, and it is not. No ISK is being lost when the ship goes pop — quite the opposite. Whether or not it's a value sink is a completely different matter, as is the effect combat has on the worth of both items and ISK. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in =v=… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Wacktopia Infinity Miners Union Eych Four Eks Zero Ahr	Posted - 2009.03.18 13:04:00 - [103] Originally by: mechtech In other words, losing a BS (the standard PvP ship) takes only 30-60 minutes of ratting to recover from, which is too easy for a hardcore game like eve. A serious PvP battleship fitted out is... 150mil at least? Even if you have insurance for the ship your T2 modules (you do have them fitted, right? If you dont then you "shouldn't be in a BS") will need to be replaced. How about your implants if you got podded? The best case for getting popped in a BS is probably about 50mil loss? Pleeeeeaese tell me where you rat that gets you 50mil an hour!
adriaans Amarr Ankaa.	Posted - 2009.03.18 14:24:00 - [104] dont know about other people but every day i spend tens of millions (occasionally i've gone over 100 mill) in repair fees from overheating, and many more tens of millions in transaction taxes and even more tens of millions in the LP store every day... more isk sinks and im gonna be pvp'ing much less... which is less fun...and we play for fun... -sig- Support the introduction of Blaze M crystals for Amarr! Originally by: UMEE if ure another fotm re-roller, then dont pvp. you'll fail. QFT!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.