Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
YuuKnow
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 02:26:00 -
[1]
Okeedokee...
... so the devs are always looking to improve/tweak the faucets, sinks, and overall economy of Eve. Lets help them with a collective MD thought experiment...How would a slash in bounty payouts by 50% effect the overall Eve economy? What hypothetical impact would it have? How would it effects vets vs new players vs missioners vs industrialist? Most importantly, would it be overall better or overall worse for the game? Post your analysis/prediction and why.
Here are my predictions for such a bounty change: 1. The prices of high end BS would drop: Missioners get less isk to buy CNRs, rattlesnakes, etc, and thus less demand. 2. The price of minerals would increase. This is because less bounties means less players missioning and less salvage to dump into the asset faucet. Less salvage in the market, means less minerals from reprocessing, thus the supply of minerals would decrease. 3. More players would turn to mining because of reason number 2 (increase mineral prices 2nd to decreased supply) and its increased profitability. 4. Plex prices would increase 2nd to more players seeking to earn isk a faster way. 5. The number of missioners would decrease since the isk reward is less. Whether these players persist in the game in some other activity, or get bored with the low isk rewards and cancel their accounts is hard to predict. (This may be to most importable factor to consider!)
Overall whether or not this would be 'good for the eve economy' is subjective. It would be a 50% slash in the largest isk faucet of the game (not sure how this would effect the larger market though), albeit more players mining (ie, more profitable mining), is a good thing IMHO. Any refutes to the predictions above?
|
Brock Nelson
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 02:35:00 -
[2]
Your prediction is based on one assumption: Player mission because it pays more than mining. You're making the wrong assumption here; Do players mission because missions generate more isk compared to mining or is it because missioning is more fun compared to mining?
|
YuuKnow
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 02:43:00 -
[3]
Edited by: YuuKnow on 13/07/2011 02:44:35
Originally by: Brock Nelson Your prediction is based on one assumption: Player mission because it pays more than mining. You're making the wrong assumption here; Do players mission because missions generate more isk compared to mining or is it because missioning is more fun compared to mining?
Valid point, but I suspect there is a broad spectrum of players. Some missioning, because trading in station is boring. Other because they suck at PvP, but still want to kill stuff. Some do it for fun (but I suspect that the redundancy gets old quick). Others because of its a good source of supplemental income.
The above predictions would probably only apply to those percentage that use missions for supplemental income... the larger that percentage of players, the larger the a bounty impact would have on their numbers IMHO.
|
Serene Python
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 02:51:00 -
[4]
Thousands of players would claim to cancel their accounts and start shooting an indestructable object to show their objection to this change. Then a few weeks later they would start crying about something new.
|
Tigerras
Smash Incorporated
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 02:54:00 -
[5]
There's also nullsec ratting to consider. It'll have effects on the economy, but I'm not sure what kind. --------------------------------------- Tigerras's Audits and Third-Party Servicing |
egola
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 03:14:00 -
[6]
2 and 3 would contradict, you can't have a profession that gets MORE isk and yet MORE people jumps into the band wagon, they CAN occur in phases, but they're mutually exclusive from one another(the general idea of it is almost impossible to fathom). 4 would be unrealistic, less of isk sink=cheaper plex.
|
Candy Oshea
Amarr Techfree Investment Group
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 03:20:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Serene Python Thousands of players would claim to cancel their accounts and start shooting an indestructable object to show their objection to this change. Then a few weeks later they would start crying about something new.
This, put less sarcastic:
I highly doubt they will make any further game breaking changes (Just yet) after the last uproar over monocles, just coz its mentioned in some article page 45, doesn't make it so. ___ iCandy Bonds
|
Clambumper June
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 03:22:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Serene Python Thousands of players would claim to cancel their accounts and start shooting an indestructable object to show their objection to this change. Then a few weeks later they would start crying about something new.
This guy hits the nail straight on. Must have been a carpenter on the Death Star. Cutting mission bounties, right, another CCP ploy to reduce membership and slowly wind down the EVE clock to zero. Like folks in Iceland want to go back to shaving long haired goats or what ever the hell those animals are instead of bring you bugfest every six months.
On a side note can you find a new scam to deploy in this forum or just not post. Their is very little to read here these days and worthless **** like this expresses it all.
|
Tutskii
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 03:55:00 -
[9]
I think the result of your experiment would not be making more mine, but rather I would think it would kill the game. But really, what I want to say is that "No non vanity MT's" is the only line worth defending. |
Tauranon
Gallente Weeesearch
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 06:15:00 -
[10]
I always thought the balance of mining vs missioning income was mostly set by the reprocessing of mission loot. ie if all mission loot was removed, missioning and mining would probably balance out to be more similar isk/hr for active miners.
I think if you halved bounties, it would probably stay exactly the same, except that missioners would be earning 10mil hr, and probably be more careful to pick up loot/salvage until the market stabilised, and mineral prices would fall to half, as there is half as much isk to buy it with, so miners would earn 3mil instead of 6mil or whatever per hour. Nothing much would change except face value of everything would be halved. Significantly less LP rewards in circulation where ISK is used as part of the redeeming process, and people sitting on old isk stockpiles would have tremendously greater buying power.
If you wanted to raise the prices of minerals, you'd either reduce/remove mission loot or put in different rules for reprocessing mission loot (ie damage it, so players have to make decisions about repair vs some sort of reduced reproc etc).
|
|
Florestan Bronstein
draketrain
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 07:01:00 -
[11]
I don't understand the reasoning behind 4.
Also, if I have all my SP in combat skills I am not going to go mining tomorrow, no matter how profitable it might be.
|
Miss Rabblt
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 09:02:00 -
[12]
one more detail:
less money from missons -> less demand for modules and ships -> less prices for this stuff -> less profits for industry -> less prices for minerals -> less profit for miners. So no rebirth of miner profession.
hm... i really can't predict result
Pretty sure it will not "kill the game". You know: nothing can kill already dead game and Eve is dead since 0.0 sov, nanonerf and other......
|
Xtreem
Gallente The Collective B O R G
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 09:48:00 -
[13]
With all the trillions ratting etc brings in i would love to see bounties reduced to 25%, but then people just won't play.
Although my above suggestion won't work, there does NEED to be some better isk sinks put in.
take away the default insurance like it used to be. erm and other stuff that takes isk out/in
|
Myfanwy Heimdal
Caldari Heimdal Freight and Manufacture Inc
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 10:48:00 -
[14]
If the amount of ISK coming into the game via bounties is too much then it does need to be cut.
I would look at cutting the Hi-Sec bounties by, say 80%. For the most part the reward for the destruction of the rats is the standing - that earns me more money in refining than does the actual direct bounty itself.
The hi-sec ratting is pointless at the moment; anyone with a handful of drones on a miner can effectively go AFK and collect the bounties. Just cut the bounty.
|
clixor
Celluloid Gurus
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 11:18:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Myfanwy Heimdal
The hi-sec ratting is pointless at the moment; anyone with a handful of drones on a miner can effectively go AFK and collect the bounties. Just cut the bounty.
OP is talking about missions, not ratting.
|
Myfanwy Heimdal
Caldari Heimdal Freight and Manufacture Inc
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 11:23:00 -
[16]
I would go even further and give NO bounty to mission ratting. I always see this as 'magic money'
As for the bounties for non-mission rats I would divide up all the ISK lost to rats (minus salvage and insurance) for the previous day and then pay a small percentage of that as a bounty.
This bounty would be weighted in favour of lo-sec space.
So, if the rats on Tuesday only took out ten million ISK out of the game then on Wednesday the bounty pot would be, say, eight million.
|
Gillaboo
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 12:14:00 -
[17]
Okeedokee:
A massive cut in Bounties (50%) would simply reduce the pilot population as many players said "screw this, it now takes me twice as long to earn enough ISK to buy a new battleship/dread/Monocle".
It's not a question of ISK... it's a question of how much time people are willing to invest in a game to have fun.
Long before they have earned enough ISK to buy that new BS or bionic eye, because a hypothetical 50% nerf to Bounties came along, they will say "screw this" and go play another game.
And let's be real. CCP, either right now, or any time soon, doesn't need that kind of "PR" -- not after the ****storm caused by the release of Vanity stuff.
---------------------------------------------
"MONOCLE-FREE" and Proud Of It !!!!!
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 12:59:00 -
[18]
More people would slowly quit.
Most people who arent mining dont want to mine. I play games to kill things and blow stuff up. If you try to force me to mine - Ill find a new game.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Rownen Kasozi
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 13:37:00 -
[19]
cut bounties is are bad idea,
Who are the dev's or anyone else to determine how much a pilot is worth to another pilot dead.
These pilots with high price tags on their heads obviously has done something to the originator of the bounty-hit in order for them to be willing to spend 100's of billions for the pilot dead.
cutting the bounty would anger people, and i doubt people would go about actively hunting bounties.
|
DeBingJos
Minmatar Goat Holdings
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 14:22:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Rownen Kasozi cut bounties is are bad idea,
Who are the dev's or anyone else to determine how much a pilot is worth to another pilot dead.
These pilots with high price tags on their heads obviously has done something to the originator of the bounty-hit in order for them to be willing to spend 100's of billions for the pilot dead.
cutting the bounty would anger people, and i doubt people would go about actively hunting bounties.
/facepalm
|
|
Rownen Kasozi
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 14:24:00 -
[21]
Originally by: DeBingJos
Originally by: Rownen Kasozi cut bounties is are bad idea,
Who are the dev's or anyone else to determine how much a pilot is worth to another pilot dead.
These pilots with high price tags on their heads obviously has done something to the originator of the bounty-hit in order for them to be willing to spend 100's of billions for the pilot dead.
cutting the bounty would anger people, and i doubt people would go about actively hunting bounties.
/facepalm
??? I say something wrong?
|
Florestan Bronstein
draketrain
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 14:57:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Rownen Kasozi ??? I say something wrong?
you missed the point of the thread - it's about rat bounties, not player bounties.
|
stoicfaux
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:21:00 -
[23]
Edited by: stoicfaux on 13/07/2011 15:22:11
Originally by: YuuKnow Okeedokee... Here are my predictions for such a bounty change: 1. The prices of high end BS would drop: Missioners get less isk to buy CNRs, rattlesnakes, etc, and thus less demand.
You might see less expensive faction ships being used for PvP. Mission runners tend not to lose their ships, so I don't see them as having a huge impact on the market.
Quote: 2. The price of minerals would increase. This is because less bounties means less players missioning and less salvage to dump into the asset faucet. Less salvage in the market, means less minerals from reprocessing, thus the supply of minerals would decrease.
Decrease. You would have to mission/rat longer and thus would accumulate more loot to reprocess. People would also be even more encouraged to reprocess their loot to generate isk, instead of letting it sit in hangers.
Quote: 3. More players would turn to mining because of reason number 2 (increase mineral prices 2nd to decreased supply) and its increased profitability.
Doubtful. Even if bounties were cut, missions would still pay more than mining. Plus mining is boring. Let the bots mine.
Quote: 4. Plex prices would increase 2nd to more players seeking to earn isk a faster way.
PLEX prices would decrease if more people sold PLEX for isk.
Quote: 5. The number of missioners would decrease since the isk reward is less. Whether these players persist in the game in some other activity, or get bored with the low isk rewards and cancel their accounts is hard to predict. (This may be to most importable factor to consider!)
Missioning would still provide more safe, easy income than any other activity, so there's no reason for it to go down aside from folks canceling in boredom.
Quote: Overall whether or not this would be 'good for the eve economy' is subjective. It would be a 50% slash in the largest isk faucet of the game (not sure how this would effect the larger market though), albeit more players mining (ie, more profitable mining), is a good thing IMHO. Any refutes to the predictions above?
Bounties are a huge faucet. Slashing bounties alone would be an equally huge Nerf which would hugely annoy people. We really need a huge sink, such as, oh, I don't know, a MT store with spaceship items that feeds on isk instead of Aurum only? (AKA a better LP store or ten that uses isk instead of LP?)
Other questions that were not asked: * What affect would a cut in bounties have on LP and LP store items?
* What effect would reduced bounties have on PvP? Would PvPers use less expensive ships which would require less minerals which when combined with additional loot from having to mission longer would increase the amount of minerals on the market causing prices for minerals, ships and modules to crash?
----- Request for Eve Development Roadmap. Let CSM know that we want one.
|
Rownen Kasozi
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:27:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Florestan Bronstein
Originally by: Rownen Kasozi ??? I say something wrong?
you missed the point of the thread - it's about rat bounties, not player bounties.
Got cha, My mistake.
|
Myfanwy Heimdal
Caldari Heimdal Freight and Manufacture Inc
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:29:00 -
[25]
Like I said, make the bounty pot proportional the amount lost to the rats.
These magic money wells need to be restricted otherwise we'll have galloping inflation.
I am surprised that we don't have fuel for these ships and other admin sinks such as anchorage fees for when in dock.
|
Tutskii
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 15:57:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Tutskii on 13/07/2011 15:59:25
Originally by: Myfanwy Heimdal Like I said, make the bounty pot proportional the amount lost to the rats.
These magic money wells need to be restricted otherwise we'll have galloping inflation.
I am surprised that we don't have fuel for these ships and other admin sinks such as anchorage fees for when in dock.
Citation needed. The faucets are not new and we don't have such a thing.
Competition between manufacturers/station traders seems to ensure that the price of items inevitably tends to reset to not very much above build cost in most items in short order even when massive manipulation is attempted.
But really, what I want to say is that "No non vanity MT's" is the only line worth defending. |
Zagam
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 16:23:00 -
[27]
Also bear in mind that if bounties are cut, less ISK will be placed into the economy, which has deflationary effect. This causes less spending, and more saving. That drives prices back down (1 mil ISK would buy more in that theory). So, combined with everything else, and assuming all of your numbered points are valid, it would now become... (additions in bold)
1. The prices of high end BS would drop: Missioners get less isk to buy CNRs, rattlesnakes, etc, and thus less demand. Demand decreases further due to deflation, causing the price to crash until a new equilibrium is found. 2. The price of minerals would increase. This is because less bounties means less players missioning and less salvage to dump into the asset faucet. Less salvage in the market, means less minerals from reprocessing, thus the supply of minerals would decrease. Deflation would also impact the market for items, bringing down prices, which reduces industrial demand. 3. More players would turn to mining because of reason number 2 (increase mineral prices 2nd to decreased supply) and its increased profitability. Profitability would be shot due to less buyers. Same supply, less demand = lower prices, increased competition. 4. Plex prices would increase 2nd to more players seeking to earn isk a faster way. PLEX would actually decrease due to less money supply, and lower demand due to more saving. 5. The number of missioners would decrease since the isk reward is less. Whether these players persist in the game in some other activity, or get bored with the low isk rewards and cancel their accounts is hard to predict. (This may be to most importable factor to consider!)
So, basically... The consumers would benefit from lower prices in the short term (to match lower bounties). The manufacturers, on the other hand, get beat down in a most vicious way. This causes less competition, harder entry into the market (due to lower potential profits), and essentially nukes the economy.
Best solution is to keep input the same, but find better ways to pull ISK from the market.
---------.oOo.---------- Chaos, Madness, and Destruction. My work here is done. |
Cipher Jones
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 17:10:00 -
[28]
Originally by: YuuKnow Okeedokee...
... so the devs are always looking to improve/tweak the faucets, sinks, and overall economy of Eve. Lets help them with a collective MD thought experiment...How would a slash in bounty payouts by 50% effect the overall Eve economy? What hypothetical impact would it have? How would it effects vets vs new players vs missioners vs industrialist? Most importantly, would it be overall better or overall worse for the game? Post your analysis/prediction and why.
Here are my predictions for such a bounty change: 1. The prices of high end BS would drop: Missioners get less isk to buy CNRs, rattlesnakes, etc, and thus less demand. 2. The price of minerals would increase. This is because less bounties means less players missioning and less salvage to dump into the asset faucet. Less salvage in the market, means less minerals from reprocessing, thus the supply of minerals would decrease. 3. More players would turn to mining because of reason number 2 (increase mineral prices 2nd to decreased supply) and its increased profitability. 4. Plex prices would increase 2nd to more players seeking to earn isk a faster way. 5. The number of missioners would decrease since the isk reward is less. Whether these players persist in the game in some other activity, or get bored with the low isk rewards and cancel their accounts is hard to predict. (This may be to most importable factor to consider!)
Overall whether or not this would be 'good for the eve economy' is subjective. It would be a 50% slash in the largest isk faucet of the game (not sure how this would effect the larger market though), albeit more players mining (ie, more profitable mining), is a good thing IMHO. Any refutes to the predictions above?
It already happened once, so you should research that IMHO. "Bound to repeat history" speech and all that. . Adapt and overcome or become a monkey on an evolution poster.
|
Vincent Athena
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 17:36:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Vincent Athena on 13/07/2011 17:38:03 The biggest ISK faucet is bounties and the biggest sink is the LP store (ref: the QEN reports). What if a portion of rat bounties was replaced with concord LP? The profit to the player would be about the same, but the ISK balance would be shifted.
To make this work the LP stores would have the be expanded. Otherwise LP item prices would drop, maybe drop too much.
Edit: Note they already did this to a extent with Incursions.
|
Marshiro
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 18:26:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Marshiro on 13/07/2011 18:27:03 Edited by: Marshiro on 13/07/2011 18:26:36 If you cut bounties: 1. MASSIVE I AM GOING TO SHOOT CRAP IN JITA RRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGEEEEEEE happens because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_illusion
2. Price level would change due to the now "reduced" purchasing isk availability for the newly minted isk poor.
*. isk hoarders just gets a massive boost to real purchasing power, and a short "hyperdeflationary cycle" might happen as it is fueled and sustained by deflationary expectations. --- I don't think the ratio of hoarded isk to generated isk will change much since that is a feature of player behavior. The real price of NPC books, blueprints, and services would increase, but they probably don't account for that big of a chunk of the economy to matter that much.
Quote: These magic money wells need to be restricted otherwise we'll have galloping inflation.
The MD and other elite have been vacuuming up money as faster as they are generated and putting them in a dead wallet, putting them out of circulation and lowing the velocity of money as fast as they are generated.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |