Originally by: Batolemaeus

---

Edited by: Batolemaeus on 04/04/2011 12:06:56
Could we finally get some good data on mineral sources and drains?

Information on that has been suspiciously kept under lock since 2008.

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Having read page 6 I understand why there are changes being made to null sec. However, as a paying customer rather than to spew this off as a way to "increase conflict" i would have much preferred to read that PLEX is in considerable demand which has been the result of many people being able to upgrade space. ie Too many people can play the game for free.

I understand why there needs to be control on who plays for free - afterall without paying customers EVE would sieze to exist. So next time the stability of the company is to question and it is down to gaming factors do us all a favour and tell us the truth.


TL:DR Truth be told: Guys too many people are playing the game for free.

---

Your post doesn't make much sense.

---

Originally by: Salpun

---

pdf is not working for me.

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Increasing number of plex being sold = more people able to generate gametime via ISK, Less wonga for CCP. simple

---

Originally by: Mithfindel

---

Edited by: Mithfindel on 04/04/2011 12:16:44

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Increasing number of plex being sold = more people able to generate gametime via ISK, Less wonga for CCP. simple

---

And the PLEX is seeded by NPCs, right? It is completely unthinkable that real people would pay CCP to get items they can sell ingame for ISK, right?

Since the Net doesn't exactly conduct sarcasm, even in its most obvious forms: as far as we know, no PLEX just appear by magic. If you're funding your subscription by PLEX, it means that someone else is paying CCP for your game time with "real money" and getting your "spaceship money" for it.

Amazing?

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 12:40:07
Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 12:37:56

Originally by: Mithfindel

---

Edited by: Mithfindel on 04/04/2011 12:16:44

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Increasing number of plex being sold = more people able to generate gametime via ISK, Less wonga for CCP. simple

---

And the PLEX is seeded by NPCs, right? It is completely unthinkable that real people would pay CCP to get items they can sell ingame for ISK, right?

Since the Net doesn't exactly conduct sarcasm, even in its most obvious forms: as far as we know, no PLEX just appear by magic. If you're funding your subscription by PLEX, it means that someone else is paying CCP for your game time with "real money" and getting your "spaceship money" for it.

Amazing?

---

It is amazing and as i wrote, the increase in ISK paid is a good indictation that not enough Timecard are being paid for by real money.

edit: Completely unthinkable that the price of PLEX would decrease if more people started paying for the game with real money wouldn't it.

---

Originally by: Mr LaForge

---

Most of the pictures in the report are of low resolution. Its easy to see pixilating.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

/facepalm at the part about "stabilizing" PLEX prices.
Both the "stealth NPC" purchase or sale of PLEX on the market would be highly unadvisable.
It is my only hope that it's only a ruse to prevent speculators from getting too daring and not much else.

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Increasing number of plex being sold = more people able to generate gametime via ISK, Less wonga for CCP. simple

edit: good indication is the increase in PLEX it self.

---

Originally by: bitters much

---

Bounty prizes up 8.1t compared to Q3 2011 (no comparison to Q4 2010, unfortunately), to 75.7t.

And you ( whiners ) wonder why CCP is nerfing 0.0 anomalies.

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

Originally by: bitters much

---

Bounty prizes up 8.1t compared to Q3 2011 (no comparison to Q4 2010, unfortunately), to 75.7t.

And you ( whiners ) wonder why CCP is nerfing 0.0 anomalies.

---

Well according to CCP it is gonna decrease the stability of coalitions and lead to more conflict, so according to them that is the reason they are nerfing it. It would mean some morons thought of that idea, but we are talking about CCP after all.

Your explanation is roughly equally moronic, making reward in 0.0 much less then in high sec, while there is much higher risk, is just ridiculous. ISK faucet nerf? Fine, but that is no reason to ruin the income completely. They could for example have added an agent upgrade instead, which gives agents in space. ISK sink by the LP shop, so no huge ISK faucet without ruining 0.0 income.

---

Originally by: Batolemaeus

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Increasing number of plex being sold = more people able to generate gametime via ISK, Less wonga for CCP. simple

edit: good indication is the increase in PLEX it self.

---

I don't think you're qualified enough to post in this thread about spaceship economy.

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

I think your completely irrelevent run along now recess is over.

---

Originally by: Evelgrivion

---

Edited by: Evelgrivion on 04/04/2011 14:03:31

Originally by: StuRyan

---

I think your completely irrelevent run along now recess is over.

---

Now see, if you weren't one of those NC renters who was going to bear the brunt of the negative, from your alliance's perspective, fallout from this change, your angry opinion might have bore more scrutiny. Now if only your grammar wasn't so horrible, that would be a bigger improvement still. Unfortunately, your original point was so far off the mark, that it's nonsensical. Every PLEX created is income for CCP, no matter what is done with it from there.

The increase in PLEX prices comes down to increasing amounts of ISK in player wallets and a subsequent increase in demand for PLEX by players who no longer need to bother shelling out $15 a month to keep an account or two going. If too many power-grinders can run accounts through PLEX, those players can conceivably suck up the PLEX supply, and reduce the number of players who can play via time codes, should the bar be raised too high.

There is a word of mouth effect, that should not be ignored, in knowing that people who play the game well enough might not have to pay $15 a month out of pocket to play EVE Online. If that free to play mark becomes unreachable for all but the most potent of power gamers, that's a powerful piece of advertising down the drain.

---

Originally by: Sporked

---

EVE IS DYING RUN TO THE HILLS! WE MIGHT HAVE TO ENGAGE WITH OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS MMO! THEY MIGHT SHOOT AT US WHILE WE ARE BUSY HOLDING HANDS AND FROLICKING! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

more People Play via ISK meaning less play via real money meaning less PLEX are being generated meaning the price of PLEX goes up which means there is more demand for the supply meaning less income for CCP, Deny that logic first and come back OK Cup cake.

---

Originally by: Evelgrivion

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

more People Play via ISK meaning less play via real money meaning less PLEX are being generated meaning the price of PLEX goes up which means there is more demand for the supply meaning less income for CCP, Deny that logic first and come back OK Cup cake.

---

Would you be so kind to explain how each PLEX used, which are bought by credit card for $17.50 each, becomes a loss of income to CCP?

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 14:21:18

Originally by: Evelgrivion

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

more People Play via ISK meaning less play via real money meaning less PLEX are being generated meaning the price of PLEX goes up which means there is more demand for the supply meaning less income for CCP, Deny that logic first and come back OK Cup cake.

---

Would you be so kind to explain how each PLEX used, which are bought by credit card for $17.50 each, becomes a loss of income to CCP?

---

It doesn't the fact is more people can play through ISK rather than using the credit card so said $17.50 becomes a loss only when THAT person can fund the game via ISK.

---

Originally by: Evelgrivion

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 14:21:18

Originally by: Evelgrivion

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

more People Play via ISK meaning less play via real money meaning less PLEX are being generated meaning the price of PLEX goes up which means there is more demand for the supply meaning less income for CCP, Deny that logic first and come back OK Cup cake.

---

Would you be so kind to explain how each PLEX used, which are bought by credit card for $17.50 each, becomes a loss of income to CCP?

---

It doesn't the fact is more people can play through ISK rather than using the credit card so said $17.50 becomes a loss only when THAT person can fund the game via ISK.

---

At what point does a PLEX enter the game that wasn't first paid for with cash?

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Forgive me if im wrong but isnt plex generated when $17.50 is paid ?

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 12:06:52
Having read page 6 I understand why there are changes being made to null sec. However, as a paying customer rather than to spew this off as a way to "increase conflict" i would have much preferred to read that PLEX is in considerable demand which has been the result of many people being able to upgrade space. ie Too many people can play the game for free.

I understand why there needs to be control on who plays for free - afterall without paying customers EVE would sieze to exist. So next time the stability of the company is to question and it is down to gaming factors do us all a favour and tell us the truth.


TL:DR Truth be told: Guys too many people are playing the game for free. We need to make these changes to reduce the amount of isk in the game

---

Originally by: Evelgrivion

---

Edited by: Evelgrivion on 04/04/2011 14:32:39
Edited by: Evelgrivion on 04/04/2011 14:31:35

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Forgive me if im wrong but isnt plex generated when $17.50 is paid ?

---

That's the only time the PLEX is generated, yes. Those PLEXes don't disappear until someone turns them into game time, which transforms the PLEX from an in-game asset into 30 days of account time. While the PLEX floats around in the game's list of assets, it's nothing more than game time that someone else bought in advance. Every account paid for in time codes is $2.50 more into CCP's coffers over the people who pay the flat $15.00 a month. At no point in this exchange does CCP lose money.

At this point, your poorly articulated argument finally starts to make sense; if people don't pay for game time with Time Codes, CCP loses an extra margin of income. However, this ends up balancing out over time. 0.0 Dwellers are not the exclusive buyers of time codes, after all. The harder it is to make money in game, the more willing a more casual player becomes to shell out $35 for two PLEXes. The final cost of a PLEX in ISK only matters in relative proportion to the amount of ISK in the average player's wallet.

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Oh please, get off your throne and answer this, what would happen if a substantial amount of people could play the game via ISK?

---

Originally by: Evelgrivion

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Oh please, get off your throne and answer this, what would happen if a substantial amount of people could play the game via ISK?

---

Since there is an upper limit on supply, if demand goes up, only the super-rich players will be able to pay for game time via PLEXes - thus leaving it in the hands of Tech 2 BPO holders, Alliance leaders, and particularly rich CEOs or players with no lives. There's a lot more ISK in the game than you seem to realize, and if too many people can pay for their time with ISK, a lot of people who come to the game with the idea of paying for that time with ISK stop showing up.

Too much demand for PLEX and their prices reach new heights.

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Isn't that my argument? Demand of plex goes up less real money exchanged for gametime this equals the real reason behind 0.0 nerf. Now lets say more people are going to be paying for gametime through the route of real money what do you expect the price of PLEX to do then?

---

Originally by: Evelgrivion

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Isn't that my argument? Demand of plex goes up less real money exchanged for gametime this equals the real reason behind 0.0 nerf. Now lets say more people are going to be paying for gametime through the route of real money what do you expect the price of PLEX to do then?

---

Wait, what?

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 12:06:52
Having read page 6 I understand why there are changes being made to null sec. However, as a paying customer rather than to spew this off as a way to "increase conflict" i would have much preferred to read that PLEX is in considerable demand which has been the result of many people being able to upgrade space. ie Too many people can play the game for free.

I understand why there needs to be control on who plays for free - afterall without paying customers EVE would sieze to exist. So next time the stability of the company is to question and it is down to gaming factors do us all a favour and tell us the truth.


TL:DR Truth be told: Guys too many people are playing the game for free. We need to make these changes to reduce the amount of isk in the game

---

Originally by: Ms Michigan

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 12:06:52
Having read page 6 I understand why there are changes being made to null sec. However, as a paying customer rather than to spew this off as a way to "increase conflict" i would have much preferred to read that PLEX is in considerable demand which has been the result of many people being able to upgrade space. ie Too many people can play the game for free.

I understand why there needs to be control on who plays for free - afterall without paying customers EVE would sieze to exist. So next time the stability of the company is to question and it is down to gaming factors do us all a favour and tell us the truth.


TL:DR Truth be told: Guys too many people are playing the game for free. We need to make these changes to reduce the amount of isk in the game

---

THIS

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

READ what i WROTE, if more pay via real money what will plex do?

For you: More PLEX being generated now there is an OVER supply.

Play the game for free if your super rich? C'mon it doesnt take long to rat 280m for 30 day gametime. Thats not being rich. thats being smart. And the whole point to my argument is to say rather than try to pass the 0.0 nerf as some conflict spinner I'd would have understood a lot more that the game needs financing becuase too many are now able to pay for it via ISK.

I suppose then it comes to this if PLEX reduces to a point where people can once again afford it will they nerf it even more.

---

Originally by: Batolemaeus

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Increasing number of plex being sold = more people able to generate gametime via ISK, Less wonga for CCP. simple

edit: good indication is the increase in PLEX it self.

---

I don't think you're qualified enough to post in this thread about spaceship economy.

---

Originally by: Rikki Sals

---

@StuRyan
If "everyone" in the game was paying their subs by buying PLEX with isk, that would mean a small group of people would have to be paying CCP hundreds of thousands of dollars each month to generate enough PLEX to meet that demand.

CCP does not lose money from PLEX being traded.

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Originally by: Rikki Sals

---

@StuRyan
If "everyone" in the game was paying their subs by buying PLEX with isk, that would mean a small group of people would have to be paying CCP hundreds of thousands of dollars each month to generate enough PLEX to meet that demand.

CCP does not lose money from PLEX being traded.

---

If everyone who played via plex no plex would generated.

---

Originally by: Bagehi

---

Edited by: Bagehi on 04/04/2011 15:52:44
A weakening currency in a monetary exchange is a sign of inflation. Need to kill more botters.

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Originally by: Rikki Sals

---

@StuRyan
If "everyone" in the game was paying their subs by buying PLEX with isk, that would mean a small group of people would have to be paying CCP hundreds of thousands of dollars each month to generate enough PLEX to meet that demand.

CCP does not lose money from PLEX being traded.

---

If everyone who played via plex no plex would generated.

---

Also, this type of situation is impossible as supply and demand would balance that out. Everyone buying something and no one selling it is the infinite price point on a supply and demand graph. Why are we arguing about something as theoretical as that?

---

Originally by: Trin Javidan

---

How about fixing pvp so more stuff gets blown up? Combine this with a review of the T2 ME BPO needs and u can solve alot of problems at once. Solve the prom/dyspo/neo/thul/tech problem. Second make t2 recons/ hac's/ dicters/hic's/logi's (currently a avarage pvp ship cost 130 mil. Thats 130/ 40 = 3,25 hours or boring anomaly whoring) cheaper. Now people can buy more and care less about losing so more pvp = better isk sink (side effect; implants get lost more)

---

Originally by: Marshallin Santerese

---

Originally by: Trin Javidan

---

How about fixing pvp so more stuff gets blown up? Combine this with a review of the T2 ME BPO needs and u can solve alot of problems at once. Solve the prom/dyspo/neo/thul/tech problem. Second make t2 recons/ hac's/ dicters/hic's/logi's (currently a avarage pvp ship cost 130 mil. Thats 130/ 40 = 3,25 hours or boring anomaly whoring) cheaper. Now people can buy more and care less about losing so more pvp = better isk sink (side effect; implants get lost more)

---

PVP ship destruction isn't an ISK sink. It does improve consumption (which is not an unalloyed good, but is basically positive) but it doesn't change the amount of money in the system.
Implant destruction leads to an increase the use of the LP stores, which is a small ISK sink, but I doubt increasing the number of poddings is a particularly effective way of sinking large amounts of isk from the system.
Dr. E. mentioned that plex creation currently outstrips usage by about 25%, which means either (a) plex prices will trend downwards until that's no longer the case or (b) there are significant stockpiles of plex in system.
Plex is a useful economic indicator, and it's also an interesting conduit for isk, but its effect on the overall economy is difficult to judge.

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 16:15:34

Originally by: Marshallin Santerese

---

Originally by: Trin Javidan

---

How about fixing pvp so more stuff gets blown up? Combine this with a review of the T2 ME BPO needs and u can solve alot of problems at once. Solve the prom/dyspo/neo/thul/tech problem. Second make t2 recons/ hac's/ dicters/hic's/logi's (currently a avarage pvp ship cost 130 mil. Thats 130/ 40 = 3,25 hours or boring anomaly whoring) cheaper. Now people can buy more and care less about losing so more pvp = better isk sink (side effect; implants get lost more)

---

PVP ship destruction isn't an ISK sink. It does improve consumption (which is not an unalloyed good, but is basically positive) but it doesn't change the amount of money in the system.
Implant destruction leads to an increase the use of the LP stores, which is a small ISK sink, but I doubt increasing the number of poddings is a particularly effective way of sinking large amounts of isk from the system.
Dr. E. mentioned that plex creation currently outstrips usage by about 25%, which means either (a) plex prices will trend downwards until that's no longer the case or (b) there are significant stockpiles of plex in system.
Plex is a useful economic indicator, and it's also an interesting conduit for isk, but its effect on the overall economy is difficult to judge.

---

From what i have seen Plex Prices have gone up So that to me says people are trading them more than they are buying

---

Originally by: Jack Gilligan

---

And so we see why CCP won't do anything about the botters/RMT. Sales of PLEX is shooting through the roof and they don't want to jeopardize all that extra revenue they need to develop those other two MMOs that aren't EVE.

---

Originally by: Knug LiDi

---

If 25% more PLEX are created than used, that means folks are hoarding them; keeping stock ahead of perceived increases in PLEX value. If the price of PLEX continues to rise, then it will be harder for folks to play to pay for their account. However, the upside is that paying for PLEX will generate you more ISK. The smooth movement in price of PLEX either up or down in a sign of health. Sudden jumps, up or down, decreases confidence in the value of ISK/PLEX which will ultimate hurt the EVE economy. Whether prices are going up or down is irrelevant, what is important is that the movement in prices should be gradual.

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Originally by: Bagehi

---

Also, this type of situation is impossible as supply and demand would balance that out. Everyone buying something and no one selling it is the infinite price point on a supply and demand graph. Why are we arguing about something as theoretical as that?

---

It was just one extreme to the model of plex as i try to explain why i the true reason behind the nerf to 0.0 is to do with the fact that too many poeple can now play for free.

---

Originally by: Marshallin Santerese

---

Originally by: Trin Javidan

---

How about fixing pvp so more stuff gets blown up? Combine this with a review of the T2 ME BPO needs and u can solve alot of problems at once. Solve the prom/dyspo/neo/thul/tech problem. Second make t2 recons/ hac's/ dicters/hic's/logi's (currently a avarage pvp ship cost 130 mil. Thats 130/ 40 = 3,25 hours or boring anomaly whoring) cheaper. Now people can buy more and care less about losing so more pvp = better isk sink (side effect; implants get lost more)

---

PVP ship destruction isn't an ISK sink. It does improve consumption (which is not an unalloyed good, but is basically positive) but it doesn't change the amount of money in the system.
Implant destruction leads to an increase the use of the LP stores, which is a small ISK sink, but I doubt increasing the number of poddings is a particularly effective way of sinking large amounts of isk from the system.
Dr. E. mentioned that plex creation currently outstrips usage by about 25%, which means either (a) plex prices will trend downwards until that's no longer the case or (b) there are significant stockpiles of plex in system.
Plex is a useful economic indicator, and it's also an interesting conduit for isk, but its effect on the overall economy is difficult to judge.

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

As more people can afford to play via ISK, when will they need to pay $17.50?

The model assumes there is a constant supply of new accounts that need to pay $17.50 becuase they don't have the Skill to make the ISK to pay for PLEX.

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

As more people can afford to play via ISK, when will they need to pay $17.50?

The model assumes there is a constant supply of new accounts that need to pay $17.50 becuase they don't have the Skill to make the ISK to pay for PLEX.

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

As more people can afford to play via ISK, when will they need to pay $17.50?

The model assumes there is a constant supply of new accounts that need to pay $17.50 becuase they don't have the Skill to make the ISK to pay for PLEX.

---

Originally by: Knug LiDi

---

If 25% more PLEX are created than used, that means folks are hoarding them; keeping stock ahead of perceived increases in PLEX value. If the price of PLEX continues to rise, then it will be harder for folks to play to pay for their account. However, the upside is that paying for PLEX will generate you more ISK. The smooth movement in price of PLEX either up or down in a sign of health. Sudden jumps, up or down, decreases confidence in the value of ISK/PLEX which will ultimate hurt the EVE economy. Whether prices are going up or down is irrelevant, what is important is that the movement in prices should be gradual.

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 15:51:22

Originally by: Rikki Sals

---

@StuRyan
If "everyone" in the game was paying their subs by buying PLEX with isk, that would mean a small group of people would have to be paying CCP hundreds of thousands of dollars each month to generate enough PLEX to meet that demand.

CCP does not lose money from PLEX being traded.

---

If everyone who played via plex no plex would generated. and then it becomes an incredibly lucrative trade. My question is when someone buys time via real money where do the plex come from and are they given a price say the same as JITA prices?

---

Originally by: Rasz Lin

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 15:51:22

Originally by: Rikki Sals

---

@StuRyan
If "everyone" in the game was paying their subs by buying PLEX with isk, that would mean a small group of people would have to be paying CCP hundreds of thousands of dollars each month to generate enough PLEX to meet that demand.

CCP does not lose money from PLEX being traded.

---

If everyone who played via plex no plex would generated. and then it becomes an incredibly lucrative trade. My question is when someone buys time via real money where do the plex come from and are they given a price say the same as JITA prices?

---

Stop posting already, this is clearly beyond you.

---

Originally by: Bagehi

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

As more people can afford to play via ISK, when will they need to pay $17.50?

The model assumes there is a constant supply of new accounts that need to pay $17.50 becuase they don't have the Skill to make the ISK to pay for PLEX.

---

It has little to do with "skill" and a lot to do with efficiency of time. If you can make $17.50 in less time than it takes to make 350m isk (roughly the current price of PLEX), and you find grinding for isk to be roughly as fun as your job, then it is in your best interest to buy PLEX and sell it for isk. The higher the isk-based price for PLEX gets, the greater the percentage of the player population there will be who finds it more efficient to sell PLEX for isk.

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

TL:DR Truth be told: Guys too many people are playing the game for free. We need to make these changes to reduce the amount of isk in the game

---

Originally by: Bagehi

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

As more people can afford to play via ISK, when will they need to pay $17.50?

The model assumes there is a constant supply of new accounts that need to pay $17.50 becuase they don't have the Skill to make the ISK to pay for PLEX.

---

It has little to do with "skill" and a lot to do with efficiency of time. If you can make $17.50 in less time than it takes to make 350m isk (roughly the current price of PLEX), and you find grinding for isk to be roughly as fun as your job, then it is in your best interest to buy PLEX and sell it for isk. The higher the isk-based price for PLEX gets, the greater the percentage of the player population there will be who finds it more efficient to sell PLEX for isk.

---

Originally by: QEN, page 44

---

On the other hand, the [Nanite Repair Paste] blueprint's second place position on the material efficiency [research] list is somewhat unfortunate. In all, 908 players did almost 1.3 million research runs on the blueprints. Every single run was wasted. <snip> ...all three ingredients in Nanite Repair Paste under the heading of Extra Material. Material efficiency has no effect on such extra materials.

---

Originally by: Esan Vartesa

---

Originally by: Knug LiDi

---

If 25% more PLEX are created than used, that means folks are hoarding them; keeping stock ahead of perceived increases in PLEX value. If the price of PLEX continues to rise, then it will be harder for folks to play to pay for their account. However, the upside is that paying for PLEX will generate you more ISK. The smooth movement in price of PLEX either up or down in a sign of health. Sudden jumps, up or down, decreases confidence in the value of ISK/PLEX which will ultimate hurt the EVE economy. Whether prices are going up or down is irrelevant, what is important is that the movement in prices should be gradual.

---

Maybe if we take a step back and look at this from another angle, the bickering might subside.

As has been established above, buying PLEX costs $17.50, whereas buying another 30 days of play time directly costs $15.00. Therefore, a rational player would not buy PLEX to cover their own subscription. It then follows that the only reason a rational player would buy a PLEX is to essentially turn real life money into ISK by selling that PLEX to other players.

The initial inherent value of a PLEX is determined by a comparison on the part of the buyer of real dollars to the ISK value of the PLEX on the current market. That buyer will immediately sell the PLEX on the market. The in-game purchaser of that PLEX is making a completely different value comparison, however. He is looking at the value of 30 days of play time versus the ISK cost of the item. No real money comparison is involved, which is why the perceived value of the item is different for these 2 players. That second player's valuation of ISK is determined largely by the ease of generating that ISK.

Now lets follow that chain backwards, starting with the nerf of a null-player's ability to generate ISK. If it's harder to generate ISK, it becomes more valuable. This makes an ISK for PLEX trade less appealing, which we'll translate into a lower demand for PLEX at the current in-game price point. Over time, this lower demand for PLEX (remember to draw a distinction between demand for PLEX in ISK terms on the market from demand for PLEX in real money terms from CCP) which causes the market to move to a new, lower ISK price for PLEX.

Now, if the value of a PLEX in ISK terms is now lower, then the value of PLEX compared to real money is lower. This decreases demand for PLEX from initial buyers. So, the argument that CCP is nerfing null because they're greedy is debunked.

Note, however, that the $2.50 difference between PLEX and subscription cost is not a profit for CCP, it's purely an offset for administrative costs. Frankly, CCP makes pretty much the same money no matter how you pay for your game time.

This isn't about PLEX at all. PLEX is just a really good way to look at the "exchange rate" between real money and ISK. The fact is, PLEX prices are rising because the value of ISK is decreasing, and that simply reflects the fact that too much ISK is being created in the game.

The null nerf is indeed meant to constrict the ISK faucet slightly. But there are lots of faucets and lots of ways to constrict them, so why this one? Well, I would suggest that CCP did their homework, and decided that this WOULD add more conflict to null, that it WOULD hurt botters more than the average account, that it WOULD be good for the game.

My point is, relax, they know what they're doing.

---

Originally by: Esan Vartesa

---

Originally by: Knug LiDi

---

If 25% more PLEX are created than used, that means folks are hoarding them; keeping stock ahead of perceived increases in PLEX value. If the price of PLEX continues to rise, then it will be harder for folks to play to pay for their account. However, the upside is that paying for PLEX will generate you more ISK. The smooth movement in price of PLEX either up or down in a sign of health. Sudden jumps, up or down, decreases confidence in the value of ISK/PLEX which will ultimate hurt the EVE economy. Whether prices are going up or down is irrelevant, what is important is that the movement in prices should be gradual.

---

Maybe if we take a step back and look at this from another angle, the bickering might subside.

As has been established above, buying PLEX costs $17.50, whereas buying another 30 days of play time directly costs $15.00. Therefore, a rational player would not buy PLEX to cover their own subscription. It then follows that the only reason a rational player would buy a PLEX is to essentially turn real life money into ISK by selling that PLEX to other players.

The initial inherent value of a PLEX is determined by a comparison on the part of the buyer of real dollars to the ISK value of the PLEX on the current market. That buyer will immediately sell the PLEX on the market. The in-game purchaser of that PLEX is making a completely different value comparison, however. He is looking at the value of 30 days of play time versus the ISK cost of the item. No real money comparison is involved, which is why the perceived value of the item is different for these 2 players. That second player's valuation of ISK is determined largely by the ease of generating that ISK.

Now lets follow that chain backwards, starting with the nerf of a null-player's ability to generate ISK. If it's harder to generate ISK, it becomes more valuable. This makes an ISK for PLEX trade less appealing, which we'll translate into a lower demand for PLEX at the current in-game price point. Over time, this lower demand for PLEX (remember to draw a distinction between demand for PLEX in ISK terms on the market from demand for PLEX in real money terms from CCP) which causes the market to move to a new, lower ISK price for PLEX.

Now, if the value of a PLEX in ISK terms is now lower, then the value of PLEX compared to real money is lower. This decreases demand for PLEX from initial buyers. So, the argument that CCP is nerfing null because they're greedy is debunked.

Note, however, that the $2.50 difference between PLEX and subscription cost is not a profit for CCP, it's purely an offset for administrative costs. Frankly, CCP makes pretty much the same money no matter how you pay for your game time.

This isn't about PLEX at all. PLEX is just a really good way to look at the "exchange rate" between real money and ISK. The fact is, PLEX prices are rising because the value of ISK is decreasing, and that simply reflects the fact that too much ISK is being created in the game.

The null nerf is indeed meant to constrict the ISK faucet slightly. But there are lots of faucets and lots of ways to constrict them, so why this one? Well, I would suggest that CCP did their homework, and decided that this WOULD add more conflict to null, that it WOULD hurt botters more than the average account, that it WOULD be good for the game.

My point is, relax, they know what they're doing.

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Originally by: Bagehi

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

As more people can afford to play via ISK, when will they need to pay $17.50?

The model assumes there is a constant supply of new accounts that need to pay $17.50 becuase they don't have the Skill to make the ISK to pay for PLEX.

---

It has little to do with "skill" and a lot to do with efficiency of time. If you can make $17.50 in less time than it takes to make 350m isk (roughly the current price of PLEX), and you find grinding for isk to be roughly as fun as your job, then it is in your best interest to buy PLEX and sell it for isk. The higher the isk-based price for PLEX gets, the greater the percentage of the player population there will be who finds it more efficient to sell PLEX for isk.

---

The model assumes that someone is always going to be there to pay real money for game time which will generate the plex for someone to buy.

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Recess is that way ->

---

Originally by: Bagehi

---

Edited by: Bagehi on 04/04/2011 18:41:02
Edited by: Bagehi on 04/04/2011 18:37:17

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Originally by: Bagehi

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

As more people can afford to play via ISK, when will they need to pay $17.50?

The model assumes there is a constant supply of new accounts that need to pay $17.50 becuase they don't have the Skill to make the ISK to pay for PLEX.

---

It has little to do with "skill" and a lot to do with efficiency of time. If you can make $17.50 in less time than it takes to make 350m isk (roughly the current price of PLEX), and you find grinding for isk to be roughly as fun as your job, then it is in your best interest to buy PLEX and sell it for isk. The higher the isk-based price for PLEX gets, the greater the percentage of the player population there will be who finds it more efficient to sell PLEX for isk.

---

The model assumes that someone is always going to be there to pay real money for game time which will generate the plex for someone to buy.

---

People are already willing to pay money for PLEX to convert to isk at the current 350m/PLEX exchange. Of course there will be people willing to pay if the exchange rate improves. The only situation where you could conceivably lose supply is if the Eve economy completely collapses (weakening value of isk dramatically). Increases in demand do not cause decreases in supply. It just doesn't work that way. This is some pretty basic economic theory.

---

Originally by: Di Mulle

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Recess is that way ->

---

You, dear Sir, clearly have demonstrated you are one meticulous traffic regulator. Now, it is time to demonstrate yet you have some clue in a basics economics.

---

Originally by: Doc J

---

Why would you want to pay real money for game time espeesially when 350m is a fairly easy thing to do.

---

Originally by: bitters much

---

Bounty prizes up 8.1t compared to Q3 2011 (no comparison to Q4 2010, unfortunately), to 75.7t.

And you ( whiners ) wonder why CCP is nerfing 0.0 anomalies.

---

Originally by: Elzon1

---

Originally by: bitters much

---

Bounty prizes up 8.1t compared to Q3 2011 (no comparison to Q4 2010, unfortunately), to 75.7t.

And you ( whiners ) wonder why CCP is nerfing 0.0 anomalies.

---

"In Q4, 2010, EVEæs subscriber count grew by 9%, which translated into an increase in money supply. The money supply rose by 11% in Q4 2010"

"The main cause for the increase in money supply is that the bounty prizes increased by 8.1 trillion ISK in Q4 compared to Q3"

"or from 67.6 trillion to 75.7 trillion."

It seems you have misread something?

And no, the soverignty upgrades are not the leading cause of inflation, its how the game is built.

---

Originally by: zloxlo

---

Not sure why you are trolling this guy, he has created a good discussion and im not entirely sure why you waste your time posting with useless garbage. From what i have read and filling in the gaps, more people are able to pay for plex via ISK, no biggy, obviously someone at CCP saw this and thought if we aren't careful I hope there is a currency for ISK becuase thats what my wage could be if we allow more and more people to grind sanctrums all day.

---

Originally by: Bagehi

---

Originally by: Elzon1

---

Originally by: bitters much

---

Bounty prizes up 8.1t compared to Q3 2011 (no comparison to Q4 2010, unfortunately), to 75.7t.

And you ( whiners ) wonder why CCP is nerfing 0.0 anomalies.

---

"In Q4, 2010, EVEæs subscriber count grew by 9%, which translated into an increase in money supply. The money supply rose by 11% in Q4 2010"

"The main cause for the increase in money supply is that the bounty prizes increased by 8.1 trillion ISK in Q4 compared to Q3"

"or from 67.6 trillion to 75.7 trillion."

It seems you have misread something?

And no, the soverignty upgrades are not the leading cause of inflation, its how the game is built.

---

Again, much more likely that the inflation comes from Incursions, simply based on the timing of the increase and the release of the expansions.

---

Originally by: Bagehi

---

Edited by: Bagehi on 04/04/2011 16:45:25


I think it would be useful to see statistics on that. Are the majority of plex sold to null sec players or empire players? That is the statistic required to make that conclusion. I don't see it in the QEN.

---

Originally by: Di Mulle

---

Originally by: Bagehi

---

Edited by: Bagehi on 04/04/2011 16:45:25


I think it would be useful to see statistics on that. Are the majority of plex sold to null sec players or empire players? That is the statistic required to make that conclusion. I don't see it in the QEN.

---

Yep, that would be more informative, but it seems to me is hard to determine. Lots of people buy PLEX'es with alts in Jita and contract to mains. Obviously safer that way.

---

Originally by: Esan Vartesa

---

words

---

Originally by: Thalis Malu

---

Originally by: Esan Vartesa

---

words

---

Excellent post and explains things very well for those who hadn't caught on or weren't able to explain it clearly.

I agree with you completely on this. The whiners will whine as their ISK faucets are turned off but in the long run the null sec change is for the better. After the presentation at FF I knew they needed a way to curve the ISK supply lest they flood the economy.

---

Originally by: Bagehi

---

Honestly, the big faucet is Incursions and I think CCP wants null sec to start running those more and the plexes less.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Originally by: Bagehi

---

Honestly, the big faucet is Incursions and I think CCP wants null sec to start running those more and the plexes less.

---

While I admit I haven't looked at it very hard, I'm pretty sure that last time I ran the numbers, Incursions are much like running missions for the Sansha - "mission reward+bonus" and a massive overhead ISK cost for using the LP store.

I guess I could look at it a bit harder... the system is utterly plain to see and easy to read.

-Liang

---

Originally by: Bagehi

---

Bounties increased dramatically the month Incursions came out. Hard to say causation, but that seems like a correlation to me. The correlation seem to exist for the null sec plexes as they were out for 5 months without any noticeable impact on the bounty payouts. QEN-Q4 - page 19.

---

Originally by: Thalis Malu

---

Originally by: Esan Vartesa

---

words

---

Excellent post and explains things very well for those who hadn't caught on or weren't able to explain it clearly.

I agree with you completely on this. The whiners will whine as their ISK faucets are turned off but in the long run the null sec change is for the better. After the presentation at FF I knew they needed a way to curve the ISK supply lest they flood the economy.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 04/04/2011 21:10:14

Originally by: Bagehi

---

Bounties increased dramatically the month Incursions came out. Hard to say causation, but that seems like a correlation to me. The correlation seem to exist for the null sec plexes as they were out for 5 months without any noticeable impact on the bounty payouts. QEN-Q4 - page 19.

---

Incursions don't give bounties.

-Liang

Ed: In fact, quite the opposite. An incursion in your constellation nerfs the **** out of your bounty collection. I think if I had to make a guess for a correlation, it'd be the increase in subscribers at the beginning of a new expansion - nothing at all to do with Incursions as a mechanic.

Oooh, but we do see the huge spike in the ISK sink from LP. It's actually bigger than the ISK faucet gain for the same period.

---

Originally by: Bagehi

---

No, that's the skill sink. Dr EG notes that in the report, explaining that a great deal of capital skill books were purchased in Dec 2010, potentially because of the learning skill rebate. The LP store didn't really budge.

---

Originally by: CCP Shadow

---

...I cannot guarantee (my) sobriety or decency.

---

Originally by: Abramul

---

What's the distribution of bounties by high/low/nullsec status? (presumably null>high≫low, but would be interesting to know the exact numbers)

Also, any chance of getting a version that works in-game? Never did get the fascination with PDF when HTML would work just as well.

---

Quote:

---

EVE Central Bank has been monitoring the money supply closely and is becoming increasingly concerned about the rate of growth in the total money supply and the subsequent risk of inflation increase (see next section). The bank has therefore proposed that in 2011 there should be a focus on increasing ISK sinks in order to curb potential inflation.

---

Originally by: Peralandra

---

B) Only 11% of the entire eve population lives in null sec. Given the outrageous amount of whine over the sanctum changes you would think that number would be much higher... talk about a vocal minority

---

Originally by: CCP Dr.EyjoG

---

In all, 908 players did almost 1.3 million research runs on the [Nanite Repair Paste] blueprints. Every single run was wasted.

---

Originally by: CCP Dr.EyjoG

---

When starting a manufacturing job, the window with the quoted cost and list of materials shows all three ingredients in Nanite Repair Paste under the heading of Extra Material. Material efficiency has no effect on such extra materials.

---

Originally by: CCP Dr.EyjoG

---

This should probably be better publicized.

---

Originally by: Straight Edged

---

so whats the use of 425mm if its not for killing stuff? just curious.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 04/04/2011 21:10:14

Originally by: Bagehi

---

Bounties increased dramatically the month Incursions came out. Hard to say causation, but that seems like a correlation to me. The correlation seem to exist for the null sec plexes as they were out for 5 months without any noticeable impact on the bounty payouts. QEN-Q4 - page 19.

---

Incursions don't give bounties.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Not per rat, but they do give out a pretty large amount of straight ISK as reward for completing a site.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Comments:
- Yes, of course... but I'm near positive it isn't coming in under "bounty". It's much closer to mission reward.

- All or most of that ISK will be fed to the Concord LP store. (I admit to not having done my "homework" and examined the numbers on that last night).

Ed: Maybe the good Dr would be so kind as to tell us where Incursion payouts are on the graph? That would be much simpler than us trying to guess and deduce.

---

Originally by: Ariane VoxDei

---

We are near positive that it has been filed under bounties - they are paid out in a very similar manner.
Since there is a strong relationship between bounties from missions and mission rewards and mission rewards has barely moved, the remaining sources of any significance, that can be classed like bounties, are anomalies (obviously) and incursion payouts.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, the concord LP store looks very balanced in terms of eating as much isk as getting the required LP would also generate.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

I suppose the other possibility is that Incursions aren't a major source of ISK to the economy?

---

Originally by: Dread Nanana

---

I know that people misunderstand that basics so I'll try to spell it out.

Stabilizing PLEX prices is important because PLEX can be viewed as amount of "spare" ISK one can accumulate per month to play for free.

For example, if PLEX price increases quickly, it means the isk faucet is much larger than isk sinks available to the player base. There is lots of spare ISK floating around and players chose to buy game time with it.

Converse is also true. Steady PLEX price decrease can indicate that isk faucets available are too little and there is a deflation situation happening. Not enough ISK is floating around.

This way PLEX price changes can be viewed as an early signal of inflation/deflation.

I believe this is the reason why stabilizing PLEX prices is important. This stabilization will come through changes to ISK sinks/faucets, as we've already seen with nerfing of 0.0 anomalies. It will not be CCP creating/sucking away PLEXes (although the have done that via PLEX for Good drives - I actually was hoping that CCP would match (double) the donations from players...)

---

Originally by: Dread Nanana

---

I know that people misunderstand that basics so I'll try to spell it out.

Stabilizing PLEX prices is important because PLEX can be viewed as amount of "spare" ISK one can accumulate per month to play for free.

For example, if PLEX price increases quickly, it means the isk faucet is much larger than isk sinks available to the player base. There is lots of spare ISK floating around and players chose to buy game time with it.

Converse is also true. Steady PLEX price decrease can indicate that isk faucets available are too little and there is a deflation situation happening. Not enough ISK is floating around.

This way PLEX price changes can be viewed as an early signal of inflation/deflation.

I believe this is the reason why stabilizing PLEX prices is important. This stabilization will come through changes to ISK sinks/faucets, as we've already seen with nerfing of 0.0 anomalies. It will not be CCP creating/sucking away PLEXes (although the have done that via PLEX for Good drives - I actually was hoping that CCP would match (double) the donations from players...)

---

Originally by: Hakaru Ishiwara

---

ETA on the 2011 Q1 QEN?

---

Originally by: Hakaru Ishiwara

---

Originally by: Hakaru Ishiwara

---

ETA on the 2011 Q1 QEN?

---

This. Been almost a month since the Quarter wrapped up. Thx.

---

Originally by: StuRyan

---

Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 12:06:52
Having read page 6 I understand why there are changes being made to null sec. However, as a paying customer rather than to spew this off as a way to "increase conflict" i would have much preferred to read that PLEX is in considerable demand which has been the result of many people being able to upgrade space. ie Too many people can play the game for free.

I understand why there needs to be control on who plays for free - afterall without paying customers EVE would sieze to exist. So next time the stability of the company is to question and it is down to gaming factors do us all a favour and tell us the truth.


TL:DR Truth be told: Guys too many people are playing the game for free. We need to make these changes to reduce the amount of isk in the game

---