| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SaorAlba
   |
Posted - 2005.01.05 22:31:00 -
[1]
As producers we all now the rentals for labs, factories and real estate are staggering. As long as all keep renting every slot in every station the prices will rise and rise.
My solution is a s follows. lets make an gentlemans agreement and leave the top slot (no1) empty on ever station. So who's with me. let's stop this madness now. Signup below this petition if you agree:)
Greetz, Alba.
|
Drusilla
|
Posted - 2005.01.05 23:02:00 -
[2]
Useless idea, since in every player base there will be at least some percentage of the population that is opportunistic enough to rent them. And frankly, you'd have to be nuts NOT to. If this happened I would run around renting every darn lab I could until they were ALL taken up because now I'd have tens of billions of ISK worth of real estate I could sell. rankly, one would have to be an idiot to pass up the opportunity. So no, nobody's going to get on board wtih this idea, especially since there's no reason to believe that you;re not among the group of people who would rent those slots instantly in order to try to make money.
Also, nobody who currently HAS slot one is going to give it up just on your say-so.
|
SaorAlba
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 00:09:00 -
[3]
First off it's a gentlemans agreement. Secondly, eventually somebody has to give up something when prices really hit idiotic roof tops. Thirdly no gentleman would ever be intrested in taking over a top slot:). Your right when you refer to mankinds greed.
Greetz, Alba.
|
KingsGambit
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 08:02:00 -
[4]
It is a good idea and one that I'd thought of in recent weeks, but as Dru said, as great and noble an idea as it is, even if all the decent and honest players in the game did agree, you have the greifers, gankers, opportunists, pirates, l337 kiddies, and slimeballs that we know and hate who will rent them and not care about costs to researchers. CCP should simply introduce either an infinite lab slot per lab equipped station thing, or at least a goodly number that there's enough slots for every alt in the game to have 10 slots and still more free. CCP won't do that though.
We ask for:
- More labs
- Less bugs
- Seeding the missing Tech I BPOs
- Differentiating BPOs from BPCs
We get:
- Increasingly expensive labs
- More bugs
- More players = less labs
- New ship BPOs = more BPs that need research/copying = less labs
Combined with the mockery that are star bases, the industrious and scientifically inclined players really get a raw deal. I've given up believing that the devs will ever do anything that will either make the game more enjoyable or easier for players, just invent new ways to lose a ship...which for manufacturers isn't *all* bad!
-------------
BYOC Crow Interceptor Deals |
Tas Devil
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 10:55:00 -
[5]
I genuinely good idea in theory...a totally worthless idea in practice... gentleman's agreement work amongst gentlemans... but in a community of 50,000 players there will always be a proportion of those who see their immediate profit (grabbing that free slot) above the entire community's interest (leaving it open to bring down rent costs) and to be honest that's just Human behaviour 101 ...
As far as the last guys idea about increasing lab slot numbers ...again human behaviour 1010...it won't change the situation ...more alts will grab the excess slots and you will have a hoarding situation again...what you are offering is not a long term solution but a short term remedy... which may be good for you but not for Joe Smith new player in 2 months when there is again no lab slots available ...just more lab slots hoarded
|
KingsGambit
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 13:24:00 -
[6]
I have 6 slots already actually, so I don't need anymore for myself as I cannot control (and wouldn't want to try anyway, it's a lot of headache). But I think it's an optimal solution. Having more slots than all the chars in the galaxy x100 would ensure there is no hoarding problem, because someone would unable to rent and hang on to any number anyway, and even at 6 slots per person there would still be more.
My reasoning...research is a means to an end, not the end in itself. The researched blueprint or BPC is the finished product, and what's important. The problem is here that lack of slots has made labs themselves a commodity which the game's original design certainly never intended. When I began playing just shy of a year ago, they were still hard to come by, but some forrays into low sec space soon garnered a few. Now since however many more players have since joined, including the mass Exodus from E&B (no pun intended), there are more players with more BPs and still the labs are the same.
There needs to be more lab slots than all the players combined could ever conceivably rent, that would allow everyone to research. This might "kill the market" but in case people haven't been paying attention, the BPC market has already long since deteriorated for the most part. That would keep BPC prices realistic by not having huge rentals, let everyone who wants to research have that chance and end the lab slot trading/scamming.
-------------
BYOC Crow Interceptor Deals |
Aliksr
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 21:26:00 -
[7]
learn some freaking economics dumbfark
you can't distort a functioning market. if other people are willing to pay more, move out of the way
|
Tas Devil
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 21:52:00 -
[8]
Please all rise an apploud the very convincing argument by Aliksr.... prrof that eve community is like the real world...youdo have your little hillbilly insulting creep that slips through the net here and there ...
|
Aliksr
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 21:55:00 -
[9]
sorry but 5 threads a day full of stupid ideas and no one understands that the labslot 'problem' is a very simple one
someone who circumvents a price cartel is a hero, not a 'scumbag', IMHO
|
Tas Devil
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 21:59:00 -
[10]
well at least like that you express your opinion in a civilised way... can't say I didn't achieved something ...even if I do agree with you that we have had too many whinning posts about labslots recently I don't think its quite worth insulting people for it just yet.... its a game really... trust me
|
Aliksr
|
Posted - 2005.01.06 23:40:00 -
[11]
i know, moment of weakness :(
|
Keva
|
Posted - 2005.01.07 03:09:00 -
[12]
It is strange how people think that increasing a finite # of slot will solve the problem.
Think about this. CCP says forget marekt pricing and resets all lab slots to 100K and then introduces 10x the # of lab slots. What will happen?
All these players who are whinning for more slots think they will be able to go anywhere and get a slot. Sorry to ruin the party for you. Here is what happens (me & a couple hundred players) will run around and buy 1,000+ slots. Why? because the ROI is high enough to make that kind of risk worth it.
CCP has solved the problem it just may take days,week, months for the effect to be felt.
Prices will continue to rise but not equally. Distant systems will hit an balance pretty soon. As some point (100K, 500K, ?) the value of a slot will equal the price in rentals. The core systems will take longer. Maybe it will have to get to 10 million for a factory and 25 million for a lab in Yulai to reach a balance.
It will happen eventually.
So if you want a slot:
1) Don't buy from a hoarder. Pretty soon he will start feeling the pain (100 slots * avg price of 1.1 million ever 5 days adds up quickly :))
2) Don't keep asking CCP to increase the # of slots. That will not solve anything
3) Wait. It will takes some time but the market will correct itself.
If CCP has introduced market pricing for slots when the game launched we wouldn't even have this discussion now.
|
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2005.01.07 03:24:00 -
[13]
 Originally by: Keva
All these players who are whinning for more slots think they will be able to go anywhere and get a slot. Sorry to ruin the party for you. Here is what happens (me & a couple hundred players) will run around and buy 1,000+ slots. Why? because the ROI is high enough to make that kind of risk worth it.
You are limited by your lab slot operations skill. Even if you made three alts with it trained to the maximum you could only grab a dozen or so labs per account. CCP dont even have to make the number of slots per station limited, they could just make a lab everytime one was rented.
It is CCP's intention that lab slots are *limited*. CCP has many of these points of friction in the game to cause people to fight each other over resources (people already start wars over office slots).
--------------------------------------------------
|
Lygos
|
Posted - 2005.01.07 06:19:00 -
[14]
A market is only a tool, not a creditable religion or philosophy. You judge that tool by what sort of economy or society it produces. This is also a game of nationalistic domination.. so theories of civil societies built on the common approval of equity and property and provisos thereof go right out the window. Market advantage is often adjudicated by strength of arms and properties often go to the most fervently patriotic. EVE doesn't subscribe to a single set of principles from any one period of western development. It is a very rich game in that respect even though many of the ingame political factions are not quite as coherent as one might expect, nor as tangible.
Some things that would affect the lab situation slightly:
-No more remote pay. Full stop.
-Show who is renting the lab slot
-Different size labslots and factories for different classes of blueprints.
-No bills. You simply rent the lab for the duration of your project. No one but you knows when the contract expires so you have first dibs on reaquiring it.
-Put a much lower ME research cap on lower classes of blueprints. Ammo BPs scarcely need to go past ME 10 for added efficiency. There are no high-volume markets in the game anyway to justify competition or earnings at such tiny percentages.
-Ship BPs and the like tend to have much stiffer competition and can also eck out a few isk even in the MEs after 35, so those are ok. ME research should still be capped at 50 at the highest for high end bps and the costs of pursuing it this far should be rather steep.
The concerns about the equity market will disappear in less travelled systems immediately as the profession grows unviable. Noone will should control real estate across the galaxy unless they or their corporation are willing to do quite a bit of travelling. Will people not anticipating this lose money? Yes. Reserve your pity for groups other than speculators.
|
Aliksr
|
Posted - 2005.01.07 06:44:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Lygos
hay guys i'm a polisci student
what?
my whole point is that this problem is simple. why make it complicated? why do all your bizarre and unsubstantiated suggestions work better than my very simple one?
|
Sir Tidus
|
Posted - 2005.01.07 13:25:00 -
[16]
IMO, the cure to the labslot problem lies with skills, not the number of labs. If the number of labs you could use AND rent was equal to your lab op skill +1 (science) then all these hoarders are more or less screwed in terms of grabbing every available slot.
If a lab is rented to a corp then the number of labs rentable to the corp should equal the person with the best lab op skill who has rights to use the labs, or a total of each persons skills who have access rights. Most big corps would scream blue murder at this prospect, as will most lab slot renters but it would drastically reduce the problem of availability of labs and allow more people to rent them. I read at times some people having rented 20+ factories or labs in a single station.
This can work for factories too.
*this is just my opinion on the matter*
|
Aliksr
|
Posted - 2005.01.07 19:18:00 -
[17]
that doesnt solve the core problem, it simply makes it more difficult to hoard. but if the economic incentives are there for hoarding, people will hoard. in fact, making it more difficult will probably just make the secondary market more lucrative.
there is enormous pent up demand for lab slots, everyone wishes they could have them. if you dropped a restriction like this, it would cause a one-time unrenting, but since it costs next to nothing to grab them, new players would jump in. 1000 hoarders under higher skill restrictions acheives the same outcome as 100 hoarders under low skill restrictions.
|
Lygos
|
Posted - 2005.01.07 20:24:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Aliksr
[Why do all your.. suggestions work better than my very simple one?]
Because people aren't simple-minded enough to subordinate their behavior to a simplistic pseudo-classical liberalism that attempts to graft an artificial numerical accounting as a reflection and measure of their relative wants and desires. Aside from the vast ontological hubris involved in such an enterprise, such programmes rarely pan out to any great extent in the real world without severe mediation and continuous temporizing.
Market activity without controls in an environment without restrictions does not automatically bring about some social good. It is merely a superfluous measurement of the activities people are already choosing to conduct. If you decide that it "works" you state that it has achieved an end state that is by self-definition desireable. The resulting system of ethics in wealth and property distribution becomes tautological. EVE doesn't possess many of the factors and necessities we have in real life to make the cruder points of this system workable. EVE has no dialectical masses to account for either. (none to pity, not to loathe and none to merely accept) A system of inviolable property rights (self grounded no less  ) to support passive ownership is no less barbaric, no less politically charged, and no less incivil than a system directly recognizing continuous force of arms in possession.
For these and other reasons, to say that your idea is simple is a misnomer. Your position, for all its popularity, is in fact immensely nuanced and highly tailored to a given end state and a given mode. I don't really see what is so desirable about simplicity over sufficiently succinct comprehensiveness. Complexity is critical for furthering any diversion.
I have had the privelege of hearing vastly more rigorous persons than myself eloquently defend far more elaborate variants of your own position to persuasive effect and subsequently give pause to the audience by calling into question every element of their position. And the reverse. Therefore, I will try to refrain from judging your position as desirable or undesireable. Personally, even I am generally not much interested in my own opinions in that vein.
What I will attempt to do is to point out what your position entails. To that extent I can only conclude that while the end state of your position is not necessarilly undesirable, I can say that I believe it will prove insufficient.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |