| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Song Li
   |
Posted - 2010.01.09 01:50:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Song Li on 09/01/2010 01:50:33
CCP flaunts Eve as a player run economy but much of it is still NPC seeded. For instance: Control towers; POS modules; iHubs and upgrades; consumables like: robotics, nanite repair paste. By creating BPOs for these items CCP can open up more streams of manufacturing and remove more of artificial prices.
|
Z0D
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 01:57:00 -
[2]
I support this with Song Li as well. This would create new industrial opportunities of global scale across all factions for a vast amount of items to be completely built and sold by capsulers.
Click below for my manifesto.
|
Rascal deJascal
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 02:01:00 -
[3]
I totally agree. Maybe phased in over time.
|
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
Galactic-Rangers
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 02:05:00 -
[4]
Edited by: ITTigerClawIK on 09/01/2010 02:05:13
I strongly agree with Song Li on this
Sig space reclaimed in the name of me -courtesy of Tiggy ([email protected]) |
Trade Skills
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 02:08:00 -
[5]
The tower idea is a great one, do it like the BS's, keep the faction tower bpc's from complex rats ect, and seed the amarr/caldari/min/gall small/med/large tower bpos
|
Syberbolt8
Gallente
Mercurialis Inc.
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 02:28:00 -
[6]
While I would like to see these things being player made and sold on the market, something to consider is the effect your going to have on the market. Those items are an isk sink right now, and without them acting like an isk sink we will have to come up with a different way to remove isk from the eve economy. I think we can all agree that isk sinks are important, and POS's of all things are one of the most used isk sinks you can find anywhere.
Sure sov with dominion costs isk now too and that sinks a large chunk of isk, but I get the impression CCP was looking for more sinks not less.
If, and only if another reasonable isk sink was brought up could I support this.
The Resurrection: Support the Revised Dead Horse Pos thread in Assembly Hall |
Theac Osiris
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 02:49:00 -
[7]
This proposal would have to be balanced out by adding some form of ISK sink to replace those lost by adding new BPOs.
Not supported.
|
Grady Eltoren
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 03:29:00 -
[8]
I think I see where Song Li is going with this but I would expand the idea to avoid the ISK sink counterargument. What about turning not just towers into BPC's or a rare BPO drop but lots of items like skill books. In effect you are then making them an isk sink because players have to venture into space and explore (which is what space is all about) to get them which is an isk sink in itself. You lose ships in 0.0. Tweaking of sites/plexes or adding them as a reward to a huge mission arc are ways of getting people to spend isk/time to get the reward. Just today I was in a 0.0 system trying to run a plex and got jumped on the way out. A friend lost a 100+ million isk ship = isk sink. We didn't even get to finish the site. It despawns and the cycle starts again. Anyways - the idea needs to be expanded though. I would even like to see this replace invention and see things like t2 bpcs run this way. Complex goals and datacores from research alts all required to run a mission that takes you into 0.0 etc etc to get this bpc. Make the isk that needs to be spent come from the things we need to be expendable. Ships, trit/mins, modules, etc. Podding is an issue but the new standings fix should have fixed that to not ultimately deter 0.0 completely. Not to mention making missions diverse enough to where larger knowledgable corps cant' camp them or monopolize them. Just my .2 isk.
|
steave435
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 03:37:00 -
[9]
 Quote:
A friend lost a 100+ million isk ship = isk sink
No, that is not an isk sink. Isk sinks remove isk from the game, not a persons wallet, when your friend bought that ship, he gave those 100m isk to someone else, and that someone still has it. In addition to that, your friend got insurance from his ship, adding even more isk to the game.
I thought it was a great idea, right up until I read the isk sink arguement. If a way can be found to make everything player made while replacing the isk sink functionality of them, I will support it again, but until that point, it would hurt the economy too much to be worth it.
|
AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Buggers' Advanced Interstellar Transport
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 06:01:00 -
[10]
Towers and their modules are usually bought with general proximity to where they will be set up; as a retired empire POS Cleanup expert, I know that the majority of my post-op sales of faction POS modules are made to buyers I can find in my journal - those that bought a tower or other POS modules from me.
Being able to track who is buying what kind of POS + loadout and where could result in an unnecessarily risky trader's environment for newer corps hoping to go set up their first tower.
If the tower purchase is transparent, the chances of someone noticing them and finding out where they set up the tower are greatly diminished. If the tower purchase is not transparent, someone could intentionally have a character that sells nothing but towers in order to review the buyer in their journal, then have a scout follow the buyer to find out where they set up.
Besides these elements, this would remove an isk sink from the game, as mentioned by others. There are few enough of these as it is.
---
|
EdvensoR
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 06:55:00 -
[11]
not supported, because of isk inflation
|
Alekseyev Karrde
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 07:16:00 -
[12]
Strong support for this. If you think about how isk sinks and faucets are laid out now vs. the direction the CSM has been pushing them for a few terms this makes a lot of sense.
They need to exist, both of them, but they need to be in the right places. Opening up these things to player production increases market areas for people to compete it, increases the value of a strong industrial backbone for alliances, and is much more in keeping with the spirit of the game.
I mean heck, NPCs could sell everything in the game (ships, mods, etc) but it'd not be nearly as cool of a game. EVE has a largely player run economy and that's a major selling point for the game. I see this proposal, either all at once or more likly something CCP phases in gradually, as aimed toward a more perfect realization of that goal
---
|
Taram Caldar
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 07:19:00 -
[13]
A good idea is a good idea regardless of who has it. Fully endorse this. As for isk 'inflation'? Not seeing how this would be so.
Want a sig made? Contact me in game. Click my sig to see samples |
Dark Linda
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 07:22:00 -
[14]
support this we already build the rest of stuff why not the rest to
|
Uronksur Suth
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 08:47:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Dark Linda
support this we already build the rest of stuff why not the rest to
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 09:11:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Malcanis on 09/01/2010 09:13:41
Specifically with respect to POS and POS modules. These are one of the largest ISK sinks, so, as others have said, the ISK flow would have to be very carefully rebalanced to compensate it.
However, one very good effect of making these into player-made items would be that they would be a huge mineral sink, which we badly need.
EDIT: However, POS should only be producable in lo-sec/0.0, in the same way capital ships are. In fact it would be cool if they needed an upgraded outpost to create, since it would actually make 0.0 industry economically and strategically relevant.
|
De'Veldrin
Special Projects Executive
The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 09:14:00 -
[17]
Speaking as an industrialist, I'm quite pleased with the idea of even more markets to try and sell items in. However,
(You just saw that coming, right?)
They need to be phased in in such a way that the hard costs to corporations and alliances for holding and maintaining space, stations, and other things aren't erased, and replaced with soft costs. By hard costs I mean money that actually leaves the organization (or in this case, the eve economy), as opposed to money that circulates around inside it.
The primary reason for this concern is that, in Eve, it is very possible for a large enough alliance or corporation to produce every item they could possibly need,typically for less than the market price (ergo, profit). But doing this for some of those items, particularly the consumables will actually reduce the hard costs of holding sov and maintaining towers by whatever percent the acceptable markup is.
For example, my employer has something like 1800 servers in our data centers. But we don't make our servers, we buy them, because it's cheaper for us to buy them from someone who makes them and resells them. But exactly the opposite situation exists in Eve. It's equally practical for a large corporation to make a given item as it is for them to buy it, and making it is normally cheaper. Given an assumption of equal practicality (that is, the materials needed are on hand and the facilities exist to do so) cost is going to be the determining factor in how large corporations do procurement.
If the cost to make these items is 20 - 30% (just to have some numbers to work with) it will lower the cost of the related activities (POS Fueling, etc) by that much, reducing the effectiveness of those ISK sinks on maintaining a relative balance in the economy.
All of that said, I am not opposed to the CSM bringing this up with CCP. But I think careful consideration needs to be applied to the long term effects that the change over of some of these items might produce.
--Vel
Brand new year, same old attitude. |
Echo Mande
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 10:33:00 -
[18]
Partial support.
I wouldn't like to see the NPC items as BPOs, but as BPCs. BPOs IMO would destabilize the markets too much and wouldn't work as well as an ISK sink.
|
SolarKnight
Gallente
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 10:39:00 -
[19]
How about BPos for the control towers etc that use trade goods for ingredients/requirements, to keep the isk sink?
The Light in the Darkness
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 10:59:00 -
[20]
Supported only if you compensate with another isk sink.
|
Hemmo Paskiainen
Gallente
Silver Snake Enterprise
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 12:32:00 -
[21]
Towers : i dont know, if all towers going to be made out of ore there will be a serious mineral problem
NPC loot: Remove all from L4 missions
Meta level NPC loot: only drops from pirate faction npc loot
Consumables pos fuel: need to be seeded by npc's
Other condumable: seeded trough bpo's
|
Harkwyth Mist
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 14:07:00 -
[22]
not supporting BPO's
BPC's i would possibly support, but i'd want to see detailed analysis on ingame impact a change like this would have.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 20:22:00 -
[23]
Assuming all the macroeconomic effects balance out at least roughly(once you make any other changes alongside this), I'm for it. |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 21:10:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Assuming all the macroeconomic effects balance out at least roughly(once you make any other changes alongside this), I'm for it.
Like removing meta 0 loot from missions (another Song Li proposal)?
It seem some of the current CSM member have no idea of EVE isk and item sink and faucets balance and are pushing in one direction only , toward a large price inflation, reducing isk sinks and item faucets while increasing mineral use.
Unless they can refine this kind of suggestions and present some new isk sinks balancing the effect of the proposal made till now, not supported.
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 21:19:00 -
[25]
Provided that a proper ISK-sink is put in place to make up for it, yes.
|
Bunyip
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 22:46:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Bunyip on 09/01/2010 22:48:14
While I'm all for improved marketing and manufacturing, I don't think this idea is the best unless massive changes to the market are made. The economy as it is right now is very smooth, with a large amount of ISK gathered, traded, and lost (faucets, market, and sinks).
If we tried to reduce the number of ISK sinks (by this proposal), we would either have to replace them with other ISK sinks (no insurance, other items which only NPCs sell, etc), or reduce the number of faucets (limit mining, no missions, etc). Both of these I cannot see happening.
I would eventually like to see Meta 0 loot stop being dropped by NPCs, and perhaps replace them with tags or something similar, but this cannot happen until the number of manufacturing lines are doubled and mining is made more interesting so more people will want to do it. Until these two effects take place, removing meta 0 loot from NPCs would be a disaster to the economy and the game's delicate balance.
I'm not saying that the answer is not out there for this problem, but it would require a near-complete economic rewrite. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
TL;DR: Too complicated to implement with too many hurdles to overcome. Not supported.
"May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table. |
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2010.01.10 03:48:00 -
[27]
Agreed wholeheartedly! All commodities should be manufacturable, even the ones with utterly now use (ground vehicles). These represent planetary production but Capsule pilots should not be barred from also supplying such commodities to whomever requires them.
Remove commodity sell orders, and make buy orders dynamic by material cost indexes, by NPC corps and introduce BPOs for everything from those ground vehicles to POS towers.
The low end BPOs (base commodities) would give new pilots something to manufacture with their meagre mining efforts, to NPC or player buy orders, and allow them to grow in ways other than early career mission grinding.
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.01.10 06:45:00 -
[28]
Lot of confusion in this thread about what is an "isk sink" and "isk facet". Basically if isk goes to ccp- its a sink. If isk comes from ccp its a facet.
I support this "conditionally". Its a bit more complex then just a yes or no. Only ccp knows the extent per day of the current isk sinks/facets. One would assume any sinks lost would have to be replaced- or facets reduced to compensate.
The obvious solution is to increase the cost of skillbooks- not sure if this would be enough to compensate. Maybe do away with items that are "only" npc traded (ie made by npc and bought by npc)
So the condition attached to my yea vote is i would want to know from ccp what the options are. If we do X- we must also do Y. Only then will i know for sure if its something i can support.
Interesting side note- this will buff null sec manufacturing operations the most. Which explains why so many csm members are supporting it. Which isnt to say buffing null sec manufacturing is a bad thing- just saying lets not disguise this issue in "good for everyone" rhetoric.
|
Juwi Kotch
Fiat Iustitia
|
Posted - 2010.01.10 12:59:00 -
[29]
Generally yes. But ... it would again give more power to those who control resources (aka the big alliances) and weaken the smaller corporation and alliances, unless it is ensured that those items can be produced from generally and abundantly available resources.
Support the Bounty Hunter Profession! |
Syberbolt8
Gallente
Mercurialis Inc.
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 04:13:00 -
[30]
I have already made my view on this clear. Pos's are the most used isk sink in the game, bar none. They are staging area's, protection ratting and mining pos's, logistics pos's for cyno's cyno gens, jammers, jump bridges, t1 production, t2 reactions, t2 production, t3 reactions and production, base of operations, research labs, super capital construction yards. They are more widely used and effect more people then any other one item in the game, as without them, there would be no t2, no t3,no supercapitals, longer lines for research then we have already.
Needless to say they are used a lot, and have a lot of uses, to remove them as an isk sink would be removing what I view as the largest isk sink this game has.
However, if we must allow them to be constructed, Instead of seeding bpo's seed max run BPC's, say 5 per bpc, at the price of the tower itself. So a large tower bpc would cost 350 mil x 5 or 1.75 billion, and then the players themselves could play the value game with them, and compete on the market to sell the towers for bpc cost + minerals + profit. This would make towers cost more in the end, but I can live with that.
The Resurrection: Support the Revised Dead Horse Pos thread in Assembly Hall |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |