EVE Search - Ideas for Improving the Economy in EVE

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Trucker	Posted - 2003.08.07 15:34:00 - [121] Edited by: Trucker on 07/08/2003 16:13:49 Quoted from Derkan: Well thats really stupid. Putting costs on mining? No one would mine ore. Corperations would go under. Erm, how do businesses in the real world make money Derkan? God forbid - there's a cost of living - so now we all can't do business? We're all going to go bankrupt? Sigh The suggestions are for a general cost of living, not just for mining. Meaning nothing is for free anymore (including trading and especially fighting). So mining will probably remain the fastest way to earn money for many. The difference is that it will no longer be money-for-nothing. A cost to mining will not make it any less viable to make money. The only difference is that you can no longer just dump unlimited amounts of Ore and minerals on the market at give-away prices. The cost is simply a means of introducing a very definite lower bound on the prices that can be charged. It means you actually have to think before selling. The Cost of living is not being introduced just for its own sake. By introducing it through item degradation (needing ore and money and/or skills to repair), you are introducing continued DEMAND in the market - and that is the crux. The fact that this would result in a cost-of-living is simply a side-affect, with the result that people would need to consider cost to themselves before deciding on a price at which to sell. I don't believe it's particularly beneficial to introduce a cost-of-living for its own sake. It may be more realistic, but won't necessarily make the game more fun or challenging. But item degradation and/or fuel add new dimensions and possibilities to the game while providing new sources for demand, and thereby produce the cost-of-living as an off-shoot. This seems to be a worthwhile idea. As it is now, the economy is ultimately heading towards slow-down. Simply because once all the players have the ships and items they want, there's no more need to mine ore. And all players will get the ships they want ever-faster as more players get better ships, and can thereby get more ore at a faster rate and still at no cost. Talk about your downward spirals... An alternative of making changes along the lines of Trixxy's suggestions would be to introduce regular, massive and very damaging wars in order to keep ship and item production (and hence the need for raw material) ticking over nicely.
Trucker Amarr	Posted - 2003.08.07 15:34:00 - [122] Edited by: Trucker on 07/08/2003 16:13:49 Quoted from Derkan: Well thats really stupid. Putting costs on mining? No one would mine ore. Corperations would go under. Erm, how do businesses in the real world make money Derkan? God forbid - there's a cost of living - so now we all can't do business? We're all going to go bankrupt? Sigh The suggestions are for a general cost of living, not just for mining. Meaning nothing is for free anymore (including trading and especially fighting). So mining will probably remain the fastest way to earn money for many. The difference is that it will no longer be money-for-nothing. A cost to mining will not make it any less viable to make money. The only difference is that you can no longer just dump unlimited amounts of Ore and minerals on the market at give-away prices. The cost is simply a means of introducing a very definite lower bound on the prices that can be charged. It means you actually have to think before selling. The Cost of living is not being introduced just for its own sake. By introducing it through item degradation (needing ore and money and/or skills to repair), you are introducing continued DEMAND in the market - and that is the crux. The fact that this would result in a cost-of-living is simply a side-affect, with the result that people would need to consider cost to themselves before deciding on a price at which to sell. I don't believe it's particularly beneficial to introduce a cost-of-living for its own sake. It may be more realistic, but won't necessarily make the game more fun or challenging. But item degradation and/or fuel add new dimensions and possibilities to the game while providing new sources for demand, and thereby produce the cost-of-living as an off-shoot. This seems to be a worthwhile idea. As it is now, the economy is ultimately heading towards slow-down. Simply because once all the players have the ships and items they want, there's no more need to mine ore. And all players will get the ships they want ever-faster as more players get better ships, and can thereby get more ore at a faster rate and still at no cost. Talk about your downward spirals... An alternative of making changes along the lines of Trixxy's suggestions would be to introduce regular, massive and very damaging wars in order to keep ship and item production (and hence the need for raw material) ticking over nicely.
Drusilla	Posted - 2003.08.07 16:50:00 - [123] Edited by: Drusilla on 07/08/2003 16:52:16 Did you see my post on fuel consumption? I'm curious to get feedback. It's on page 3 of this thread. Quote: Good series going here. Thought I would add some ideas on fuel that occurred to me as I was reading through the other posts in the thread. I see two concerns on fuel: (1) that noobs would suffer disproportionately from fuel costs; and (2) what to do with players who run out of gas. Perhaps ships could come with a space-dust cruncher or solar sail to operate as a back-up engine. When you do not have enough isk to pay for a tow, it is time to break out the ôspace oarsö and row. For small ships, like the noob frigate these basic engines might be a reasonable alternative, but still not as good as better fuel burning engines (similar to the civilian hybrid blasters for noobs that do not need ammo, but take forever to kill small things). For larger vessels, these basic engines would lengthen travel times immensely (e.g., 10 m/second thrust). The idea is that such engines should not be used as anything but a last resort for those who foolishly run out of gas without a bank account to pay for towing service. I have to admit my idea here is not nearly as well thought out as TrixxyÆs original post, but it also serves the purpose of bumping the thread along.
Drusilla	Posted - 2003.08.07 16:50:00 - [124] Edited by: Drusilla on 07/08/2003 16:52:16 Did you see my post on fuel consumption? I'm curious to get feedback. It's on page 3 of this thread. Quote: Good series going here. Thought I would add some ideas on fuel that occurred to me as I was reading through the other posts in the thread. I see two concerns on fuel: (1) that noobs would suffer disproportionately from fuel costs; and (2) what to do with players who run out of gas. Perhaps ships could come with a space-dust cruncher or solar sail to operate as a back-up engine. When you do not have enough isk to pay for a tow, it is time to break out the ôspace oarsö and row. For small ships, like the noob frigate these basic engines might be a reasonable alternative, but still not as good as better fuel burning engines (similar to the civilian hybrid blasters for noobs that do not need ammo, but take forever to kill small things). For larger vessels, these basic engines would lengthen travel times immensely (e.g., 10 m/second thrust). The idea is that such engines should not be used as anything but a last resort for those who foolishly run out of gas without a bank account to pay for towing service. I have to admit my idea here is not nearly as well thought out as TrixxyÆs original post, but it also serves the purpose of bumping the thread along.
Quince al'Pillan	Posted - 2003.08.07 17:29:00 - [125] Some great ideas in this topic. However, I will make a point to say that items not being used should NOT decay. As long as something is properly* stored it won't just fall apart. Therefore, leaving for three weeks should NOT cause you to be broke by the time you come back. Only items currently equipped and ONLY if used cause decay. Some things should not decay even when used constantly. Others, however, should. For instance, if my radio quits after only a month of working - even using it every day - I would be mightily ***ed and I would return it immmediately. by properly, I mean in such a way that the elements can't get at it. If you store something in a dry place, moisture can't get at it and destroy it. ie: Iron does not rust in space as there is no oxygen. Simply sitting on the shelf for three weeks does not make products die (unless they're food ) If you take the oil out of your car before putting it in storage, the engine will last a lot longer, etc. Putting it into proper storage could be as simple as using repackage on it after you use it. -Q
Quince al'Pillan Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2003.08.07 17:29:00 - [126] Some great ideas in this topic. However, I will make a point to say that items not being used should NOT decay. As long as something is properly* stored it won't just fall apart. Therefore, leaving for three weeks should NOT cause you to be broke by the time you come back. Only items currently equipped and ONLY if used cause decay. Some things should not decay even when used constantly. Others, however, should. For instance, if my radio quits after only a month of working - even using it every day - I would be mightily ***ed and I would return it immmediately. by properly, I mean in such a way that the elements can't get at it. If you store something in a dry place, moisture can't get at it and destroy it. ie: Iron does not rust in space as there is no oxygen. Simply sitting on the shelf for three weeks does not make products die (unless they're food ) If you take the oil out of your car before putting it in storage, the engine will last a lot longer, etc. Putting it into proper storage could be as simple as using repackage on it after you use it. -Q
Amicus	Posted - 2003.08.07 23:39:00 - [127] Hi Drusilla, I missed the full import of your post when I was scanning through the thread the first time. It looks like your idea would be simple to implement. What would you propose should happen to players who cannot cover the cost of the fuel used when they dock? Perhaps a tab for fuel debt to be deducted immediately from any income? I do so see two disadvantages to the system you propose: (1) it is a little less realistic to have ships with infinite fuel supplies; and (2) your system appears to make fuel a station service as opposed to a commodity that players could mine and supply. Of course, realism must sometimes give way to ease of programming. Nonetheless, I do believe that one of the neat things about fuel is having it as a commodity that players can produce, trade in, and supply. I think it would be fun to have players going into business to sell fuel to stranded ships or ships far from stations. Fuel as a valuable commodity increases the opportunities for players to generate income in the game.
Amicus Gold Diggers Inc.	Posted - 2003.08.07 23:39:00 - [128] Hi Drusilla, I missed the full import of your post when I was scanning through the thread the first time. It looks like your idea would be simple to implement. What would you propose should happen to players who cannot cover the cost of the fuel used when they dock? Perhaps a tab for fuel debt to be deducted immediately from any income? I do so see two disadvantages to the system you propose: (1) it is a little less realistic to have ships with infinite fuel supplies; and (2) your system appears to make fuel a station service as opposed to a commodity that players could mine and supply. Of course, realism must sometimes give way to ease of programming. Nonetheless, I do believe that one of the neat things about fuel is having it as a commodity that players can produce, trade in, and supply. I think it would be fun to have players going into business to sell fuel to stranded ships or ships far from stations. Fuel as a valuable commodity increases the opportunities for players to generate income in the game.
Trixxy	Posted - 2003.08.08 09:04:00 - [129] Drusilla said: <lotsa stuff> I like your idea of a fuel-free engine alternative that runs a lot slower. It can run off Cap instead of fuel, but provides much less thrust and is therefore much slower. But how do you justify this in the Eve Universe? Simple: Warping uses Capacitor. Capacitor can recharge by utilising the energy in the invisible 'Dark Matter' that makes up the majority of the mass of the known universe (but this is difficult and time-consuming). Warp is achieved by causing a massive chain-reaction in your Cap power to induce a break in the space-time continuum, allowing faster-than-light travel. BUT, it is very inefficient to apply the control needed on Capacitor power to travel at sub-light speeds, so the result is much slower travel (say 50m/s - 100m/s) and extremely inefficient Cap usage. Now fuel can come in different types (yielding different amounts of power - at different costs of course). It can be burned to allow for far faster and more efficient sub-light-speed travel. What's more, you can burn fuel to speed up your Cap recharge. So with fuel, you can travel normally and cap recharges normally. Without, you can only travel limited distances at far lower speed (stopping now and again to recharge cap) and cap recharges more slowly. So you then have an alternative to fuel, and something that is usable to prevent being stranded, but fuel is far, far, faaaar more attractive. Quince al'Pillan said: I will make a point to say that items not being used should NOT decay I agree 100% (as I've mentioned several times in previous posts). Use-based decay, NOT time-based. I also agree that different items decay at different rates (some not at all). The means of determining this is simple: base it on CPU and Power needs. The higher the sum of the CPU and Power usage of the item, the faster it will decay. Something like a cargo expander won't decay at all. Amicus said: I do believe that one of the neat things about fuel is having it as a commodity that players can produce, trade in, and supply. Again, I agree 100% - to me this is one of the best incentives to introduce fuel. You have a further injection into the economy, more strategies for Corporates to try to contol the economy (trying to obtain a monopoly on fuel), more incentives for war, more career paths, more means of trade, etc. Nice nice nice. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain.
Trixxy Gallente The Chaos Fellowship	Posted - 2003.08.08 09:04:00 - [130] Drusilla said: <lotsa stuff> I like your idea of a fuel-free engine alternative that runs a lot slower. It can run off Cap instead of fuel, but provides much less thrust and is therefore much slower. But how do you justify this in the Eve Universe? Simple: Warping uses Capacitor. Capacitor can recharge by utilising the energy in the invisible 'Dark Matter' that makes up the majority of the mass of the known universe (but this is difficult and time-consuming). Warp is achieved by causing a massive chain-reaction in your Cap power to induce a break in the space-time continuum, allowing faster-than-light travel. BUT, it is very inefficient to apply the control needed on Capacitor power to travel at sub-light speeds, so the result is much slower travel (say 50m/s - 100m/s) and extremely inefficient Cap usage. Now fuel can come in different types (yielding different amounts of power - at different costs of course). It can be burned to allow for far faster and more efficient sub-light-speed travel. What's more, you can burn fuel to speed up your Cap recharge. So with fuel, you can travel normally and cap recharges normally. Without, you can only travel limited distances at far lower speed (stopping now and again to recharge cap) and cap recharges more slowly. So you then have an alternative to fuel, and something that is usable to prevent being stranded, but fuel is far, far, faaaar more attractive. Quince al'Pillan said: I will make a point to say that items not being used should NOT decay I agree 100% (as I've mentioned several times in previous posts). Use-based decay, NOT time-based. I also agree that different items decay at different rates (some not at all). The means of determining this is simple: base it on CPU and Power needs. The higher the sum of the CPU and Power usage of the item, the faster it will decay. Something like a cargo expander won't decay at all. Amicus said: I do believe that one of the neat things about fuel is having it as a commodity that players can produce, trade in, and supply. Again, I agree 100% - to me this is one of the best incentives to introduce fuel. You have a further injection into the economy, more strategies for Corporates to try to contol the economy (trying to obtain a monopoly on fuel), more incentives for war, more career paths, more means of trade, etc. Nice nice nice. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain.
Doc Who	Posted - 2003.08.08 13:54:00 - [131] LOTS of great ideas here and positive posts. I have a few ideas to discuss from the viewpoint of someone has just about it all in the game. Fully equipped fighting Battleship, with best or near best equipment in the game. Bestower with best equipment. Thorax with best mining equipment and drones, Thorax with fighting equipment. Nice little frigate I use as a blockade runner etc. etc. And I have nearly 100million ISK in the bank. I also did this all solo - no corp help at all. The point I will be trying to make is not how rich I am, but how to try to improve the game. First of all it is far too easy to amass vast fortunes from trading and mining. I only started playing this game about 2 months ago. I have almost nothing to look forward to right now to achieve in the game at least in terms of money or equipment. Sure one expects to reach this point in a game eventually - but not after 2 months starting from a complete newbie. The economic model in EVE is badly flawed. We truly need the ideas in this thread to be implemented. I have not seen 1 polaris or GM making a comment on one of the best thought out and maturely discussed threads in the forums. I want to have to struggle to make money. Getting a cruiser should be the results of weeks or even months of play. A battleship should be something to strive for as a very long term objective, maybe approaching a year of play for a solo person. Having player crafted equipment with quality related to player skill and better quality than pirate drops is needed. Equipment has to reduce in durability and effectiveness with use. Equipment should be repairable at a cost almost exponentially proportional to its tech level. Skilled player repairers should be able to do it a bit cheaper than NPC's. This keeps the economy going and opens a whole new side to the game for players. Newbie ships and equipment should be the exception to the wear out rule. Newbie ships should be very slow and clumsy and have equipment of very low spec but not suffer from any degradation with use. Also newbie equipment should only be usable on newbie ships. I don't really believe that the game needs the concept of fuel. Equipment wearing out with use pretty much has a similar effect and is easier to implement. You travel far and fast - you pay for it with higher costs to repair your engines and other systems. You mine a lot with hi-end drones and lasers - be prepared for a substantial bill for repairs to your lasers and drones. One loophole with this is trading. One can already make stupid amounts of money from trading and the only real thing you need is a ship with decent cargo hold. So cheap ship and cheap running costs. There are solutions to this of course but that is another discussion. I just hope that CCP wakes up and sees that unless they fix the EVE economic model, and quickly they are going to be looking at a lot of bored players in their Battleships going to other games. This game has the potential still to be one of the best - please CCP make it so.
Doc Who	Posted - 2003.08.08 13:54:00 - [132] LOTS of great ideas here and positive posts. I have a few ideas to discuss from the viewpoint of someone has just about it all in the game. Fully equipped fighting Battleship, with best or near best equipment in the game. Bestower with best equipment. Thorax with best mining equipment and drones, Thorax with fighting equipment. Nice little frigate I use as a blockade runner etc. etc. And I have nearly 100million ISK in the bank. I also did this all solo - no corp help at all. The point I will be trying to make is not how rich I am, but how to try to improve the game. First of all it is far too easy to amass vast fortunes from trading and mining. I only started playing this game about 2 months ago. I have almost nothing to look forward to right now to achieve in the game at least in terms of money or equipment. Sure one expects to reach this point in a game eventually - but not after 2 months starting from a complete newbie. The economic model in EVE is badly flawed. We truly need the ideas in this thread to be implemented. I have not seen 1 polaris or GM making a comment on one of the best thought out and maturely discussed threads in the forums. I want to have to struggle to make money. Getting a cruiser should be the results of weeks or even months of play. A battleship should be something to strive for as a very long term objective, maybe approaching a year of play for a solo person. Having player crafted equipment with quality related to player skill and better quality than pirate drops is needed. Equipment has to reduce in durability and effectiveness with use. Equipment should be repairable at a cost almost exponentially proportional to its tech level. Skilled player repairers should be able to do it a bit cheaper than NPC's. This keeps the economy going and opens a whole new side to the game for players. Newbie ships and equipment should be the exception to the wear out rule. Newbie ships should be very slow and clumsy and have equipment of very low spec but not suffer from any degradation with use. Also newbie equipment should only be usable on newbie ships. I don't really believe that the game needs the concept of fuel. Equipment wearing out with use pretty much has a similar effect and is easier to implement. You travel far and fast - you pay for it with higher costs to repair your engines and other systems. You mine a lot with hi-end drones and lasers - be prepared for a substantial bill for repairs to your lasers and drones. One loophole with this is trading. One can already make stupid amounts of money from trading and the only real thing you need is a ship with decent cargo hold. So cheap ship and cheap running costs. There are solutions to this of course but that is another discussion. I just hope that CCP wakes up and sees that unless they fix the EVE economic model, and quickly they are going to be looking at a lot of bored players in their Battleships going to other games. This game has the potential still to be one of the best - please CCP make it so.
Cro Ramel	Posted - 2003.08.08 14:04:00 - [133] With the new aggression code coming into play along side the fact you can't use mwd to come out of warp at a gate going 2km/s+, soon modules to track people within a system, and a whole wave of new ships theres going to be a lot of ships getting destroyed I think that'll fix the market quickly, Cro out! "If it sounds like a bad idea, it is."
Cro Ramel TOUAREGS	Posted - 2003.08.08 14:04:00 - [134] With the new aggression code coming into play along side the fact you can't use mwd to come out of warp at a gate going 2km/s+, soon modules to track people within a system, and a whole wave of new ships theres going to be a lot of ships getting destroyed I think that'll fix the market quickly, Cro out! "If it sounds like a bad idea, it is."
Trixxy	Posted - 2003.08.08 16:02:00 - [135] Quote: With the new aggression code coming into play along side the fact you can't use mwd to come out of warp at a gate going 2km/s+, soon modules to track people within a system, and a whole wave of new ships theres going to be a lot of ships getting destroyed I think that'll fix the market quickly, Cro out! Not really, Cro. With the current economic model, people are still able to avoid too much aggression while making money very easily - until they get to the point where they have a ship that's powerful enough to go exploring at will (i.e. Battleship). Even with the new toys you described, it takes a real concerted effort to kill a battleship. So with an even playing field, where all end-game players have high-power ships, ship losses will still not outpace the absolute ease with which people can make money. You mine and pirate-hunt in a battleship, you won't take long at all to build up enough cash for your next one to hold in reserve. Not to mention, with higher rates of ship loss, people will just ensure their ships with NPCs, thereby not even losing a whole lot of money when they lose their ship. Not a great deal of economic stimulation there, I'm afraid. You may be correct in saying that mass ship losses will stimulate the economy - but the game needs more to hold interest than that. This is NOT primarily a PvP fighting game. It's supposed to be holding interest as a trading/exploring/fighting/living-in-the-future game. It can't achieve this with a bum economic model. If you only introduce more ways of killing ships you'll simply frustrate and chase away all players who were attracted to the original game concept. Even if the game is to be primarily about fighting, it needs more work to make it so. But if it's to be about a living, breathing, human economy in space, however, it NEEDS some attention along the lines of the ideas discussed in this thread. It all depends on where the Devs (and users) want to take the game I guess. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain.
Trixxy Gallente The Chaos Fellowship	Posted - 2003.08.08 16:02:00 - [136] Quote: With the new aggression code coming into play along side the fact you can't use mwd to come out of warp at a gate going 2km/s+, soon modules to track people within a system, and a whole wave of new ships theres going to be a lot of ships getting destroyed I think that'll fix the market quickly, Cro out! Not really, Cro. With the current economic model, people are still able to avoid too much aggression while making money very easily - until they get to the point where they have a ship that's powerful enough to go exploring at will (i.e. Battleship). Even with the new toys you described, it takes a real concerted effort to kill a battleship. So with an even playing field, where all end-game players have high-power ships, ship losses will still not outpace the absolute ease with which people can make money. You mine and pirate-hunt in a battleship, you won't take long at all to build up enough cash for your next one to hold in reserve. Not to mention, with higher rates of ship loss, people will just ensure their ships with NPCs, thereby not even losing a whole lot of money when they lose their ship. Not a great deal of economic stimulation there, I'm afraid. You may be correct in saying that mass ship losses will stimulate the economy - but the game needs more to hold interest than that. This is NOT primarily a PvP fighting game. It's supposed to be holding interest as a trading/exploring/fighting/living-in-the-future game. It can't achieve this with a bum economic model. If you only introduce more ways of killing ships you'll simply frustrate and chase away all players who were attracted to the original game concept. Even if the game is to be primarily about fighting, it needs more work to make it so. But if it's to be about a living, breathing, human economy in space, however, it NEEDS some attention along the lines of the ideas discussed in this thread. It all depends on where the Devs (and users) want to take the game I guess. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain.
Cro Ramel	Posted - 2003.08.08 16:32:00 - [137] Trixxy - Yeah you are right. I've been living on the edge for some time now I guess I don't share the same point of view as everyone else. I agree though isk is easy to come by if you're willing to put in the work. "If it sounds like a bad idea, it is."
Cro Ramel TOUAREGS	Posted - 2003.08.08 16:32:00 - [138] Trixxy - Yeah you are right. I've been living on the edge for some time now I guess I don't share the same point of view as everyone else. I agree though isk is easy to come by if you're willing to put in the work. "If it sounds like a bad idea, it is."
Doc Who	Posted - 2003.08.08 17:49:00 - [139] Pirating is something that hasn't really been much touched on in this thread. The Player Pirate is very important in the EVE economic world and to the interest and appeal of the game. They add spice to the game with otherwise mundane things like exploring, trading, missions and mining. Not only that - they stimulate the player economy through ship losses, ship damage and bribes or "toll fees". I hate having to potentially run a blockade or bump into a player pirate with my nice fat indy ship. But I love the fact that I hate it! Again more needs to be done in this area.
Doc Who	Posted - 2003.08.08 17:49:00 - [140] Pirating is something that hasn't really been much touched on in this thread. The Player Pirate is very important in the EVE economic world and to the interest and appeal of the game. They add spice to the game with otherwise mundane things like exploring, trading, missions and mining. Not only that - they stimulate the player economy through ship losses, ship damage and bribes or "toll fees". I hate having to potentially run a blockade or bump into a player pirate with my nice fat indy ship. But I love the fact that I hate it! Again more needs to be done in this area.
Propehcy	Posted - 2003.08.09 07:55:00 - [141] DAMNIT, im to god damn tired to post a long thought out, smart, and collected post after catching up on what ive missed in 2-3days, hell with it! ill post tomorrow, but i beef with your fuel. Proph Ex-CA Rep and Ex-CA Member http://www.designegrafix.com/eve/prop5.jpg Props Chop Shop: Ships, Arms, and Armaments producer for Northern Eve! Located at Torrinos 5 - 6 - Home Guard Assembley. The Prop And Notferr Chronicles Notferr> Propehcy Owns me! Yet I feel so much Fear in his Evil Presence! Propehcy> Bow Down, You know who your Master is. Notferr> Only Prop is King!! Only Prop!! I Am nothing! Propehcy> I think Stav would be Proud. Propehcy> I Need a Tool... Where is that Notferr... [ 2004.09.11 28:63:98 ] Propehcy 2004.09.11 29:05:33.3 combat Your Miner II perfectly strikes Notferr, wrecking for WTFPWNAGE.
Propehcy Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2003.08.09 07:55:00 - [142] DAMNIT, im to god damn tired to post a long thought out, smart, and collected post after catching up on what ive missed in 2-3days, hell with it! ill post tomorrow, but i beef with your fuel. Proph Ex-CA Rep and Ex-CA Member http://www.designegrafix.com/eve/prop5.jpg Props Chop Shop: Ships, Arms, and Armaments producer for Northern Eve! Located at Torrinos 5 - 6 - Home Guard Assembley. The Prop And Notferr Chronicles Notferr> Propehcy Owns me! Yet I feel so much Fear in his Evil Presence! Propehcy> Bow Down, You know who your Master is. Notferr> Only Prop is King!! Only Prop!! I Am nothing! Propehcy> I think Stav would be Proud. Propehcy> I Need a Tool... Where is that Notferr... [ 2004.09.11 28:63:98 ] Propehcy 2004.09.11 29:05:33.3 combat Your Miner II perfectly strikes Notferr, wrecking for WTFPWNAGE.
Doc Who	Posted - 2003.08.11 12:03:00 - [143] got to bump this!
Doc Who	Posted - 2003.08.11 12:03:00 - [144] got to bump this!
D'ren	Posted - 2003.08.11 21:38:00 - [145] Edited by: D'ren on 11/08/2003 21:41:37 Edited by: D'ren on 11/08/2003 21:39:07 Well, I'm really depressed that Trixxy isn't going to be around to stimulate this debate further, so let me say that she'll be missed. Me, I'm gonna hang in here for another couple of months before cashing out, so let's take this thread to five pages. Somebody will take notice eventually. OK, these thoughts may not be entirely original, but I hope that I'm at least taking a slightly different tack than has been presented here previously. What I'm going to address here is sort of the next step up from trading in goods and services, specifically investment, lending, and currency. - Stock Market We were promised a stock market, but I haven't seen or heard anything about it lately. This is discouraging, but if a market were to be added it would add a lot of interesting depth to the game. It would allow hostile takeover attempts of public corporations, dividend payments to investors, a chance for little guys to gamble with their hard earned money, and a chance for the big guys to have more money to play with. Also, imagine the possibilities of stock-price manipulation games. Corp A (large) is going to attempt a hostile takeover of Corp B (small). 24 hours prior to the attempt, A declares war on B, driving their stock price down, facilitating the subsequent buyout. Finally, I can envision a set of market-related broker-type skills that would allow one to buy and sell stock products, e.g., individual shares, mutual funds, options, etc. Indeed, there could be separate tracks for the stock market and for the... - Bond Market Bonds aren't as sexy as stock, but it does have the advantage of being a somewhat safer investment that will continue to accrue value as long as the corporation exists. Additionally, IRL bond holders are paid off early in bankruptcy proceedings if a corp does go belly-up, while stockholders are often left holding the bag. Again, there could be a specific set of skills related to brokering bond market sales. I believe that if bond and stock markets were introduced, they might give corporate wars an actual end-point. For instance, let's say that the two markets have rules that listed companies must have a stock price above 1 ISK/share and that their bond rating must be better than junk; failing on either of these counts for a period of, say, three consecutive days, would result in loss of stock and bond sale rights. This would necessitate a buyout by interested parties and a return to privately-held status or a declaration of bankruptcy. Corporate wars could then allow Corp A to drive Corp B out of the markets, depriving them of capital, or force them to re-organize, find new investors, or simply die. That would be cool. Of course, it would also mean that if you **ed TTI off you'd be dead, but I hope you take my point. Now for this to have any real effect... - Corporations should be treated as such Corporations in EVE are that only in the loosest sense of the word. Really, they're much more like guilds than RL for-profits. Adding markets would be a huge help here, as this would force publicly-listed corporations to turn a profit and increase shareholder value. Corporations failing to do so would face eventual de-listing; corporations succeeding in their efforts would be rewarded with better bond ratings and the possibility of rewarding workers with options, etc. Taxes by the various governments would also force corps to turn a profit. To help corps make profits, licenses should be sold, i.e., mining rights for a certain field, fly-through rights for a particular system, docking rights at a particular station, trading rights in a particular domain, whatever. This would give a corp real assets and real responsibilities, forcing that corp to use those assets to turn a profit while fulfilling those responsibilities. Ideally these licenses would be quite expensive, forcing corps to go public, issue bonds, or take advantage of... - A Banking System** OK, you don't trust markets, you hate corps, but you're sitting on 10M ISK. How about a savings account? It's really not clear where your money is kept when you're not spending it, but if it's some kind of bank then you should be able to earn interest on it because other people are paying interest to borrow it. Loans would force people to make money in excess of the interest payments, and would give corps long-term debt to work off. This gives people long-term goals that are currently absent from EVE (see my earlier rant for more). And again, a separate skill could allow players to lend their money for interest, with the skill here perhaps reflecting some sort of license to do so. Also, as noted in my earlier post, there's the extremely cool possibility of repo bounties. And finally, ISK are cool, but how about... (cont'd)
D'ren	Posted - 2003.08.11 21:38:00 - [146] Edited by: D'ren on 11/08/2003 21:41:37 Edited by: D'ren on 11/08/2003 21:39:07 Well, I'm really depressed that Trixxy isn't going to be around to stimulate this debate further, so let me say that she'll be missed. Me, I'm gonna hang in here for another couple of months before cashing out, so let's take this thread to five pages. Somebody will take notice eventually. OK, these thoughts may not be entirely original, but I hope that I'm at least taking a slightly different tack than has been presented here previously. What I'm going to address here is sort of the next step up from trading in goods and services, specifically investment, lending, and currency. - Stock Market We were promised a stock market, but I haven't seen or heard anything about it lately. This is discouraging, but if a market were to be added it would add a lot of interesting depth to the game. It would allow hostile takeover attempts of public corporations, dividend payments to investors, a chance for little guys to gamble with their hard earned money, and a chance for the big guys to have more money to play with. Also, imagine the possibilities of stock-price manipulation games. Corp A (large) is going to attempt a hostile takeover of Corp B (small). 24 hours prior to the attempt, A declares war on B, driving their stock price down, facilitating the subsequent buyout. Finally, I can envision a set of market-related broker-type skills that would allow one to buy and sell stock products, e.g., individual shares, mutual funds, options, etc. Indeed, there could be separate tracks for the stock market and for the... - Bond Market Bonds aren't as sexy as stock, but it does have the advantage of being a somewhat safer investment that will continue to accrue value as long as the corporation exists. Additionally, IRL bond holders are paid off early in bankruptcy proceedings if a corp does go belly-up, while stockholders are often left holding the bag. Again, there could be a specific set of skills related to brokering bond market sales. I believe that if bond and stock markets were introduced, they might give corporate wars an actual end-point. For instance, let's say that the two markets have rules that listed companies must have a stock price above 1 ISK/share and that their bond rating must be better than junk; failing on either of these counts for a period of, say, three consecutive days, would result in loss of stock and bond sale rights. This would necessitate a buyout by interested parties and a return to privately-held status or a declaration of bankruptcy. Corporate wars could then allow Corp A to drive Corp B out of the markets, depriving them of capital, or force them to re-organize, find new investors, or simply die. That would be cool. Of course, it would also mean that if you **ed TTI off you'd be dead, but I hope you take my point. Now for this to have any real effect... - Corporations should be treated as such Corporations in EVE are that only in the loosest sense of the word. Really, they're much more like guilds than RL for-profits. Adding markets would be a huge help here, as this would force publicly-listed corporations to turn a profit and increase shareholder value. Corporations failing to do so would face eventual de-listing; corporations succeeding in their efforts would be rewarded with better bond ratings and the possibility of rewarding workers with options, etc. Taxes by the various governments would also force corps to turn a profit. To help corps make profits, licenses should be sold, i.e., mining rights for a certain field, fly-through rights for a particular system, docking rights at a particular station, trading rights in a particular domain, whatever. This would give a corp real assets and real responsibilities, forcing that corp to use those assets to turn a profit while fulfilling those responsibilities. Ideally these licenses would be quite expensive, forcing corps to go public, issue bonds, or take advantage of... - A Banking System** OK, you don't trust markets, you hate corps, but you're sitting on 10M ISK. How about a savings account? It's really not clear where your money is kept when you're not spending it, but if it's some kind of bank then you should be able to earn interest on it because other people are paying interest to borrow it. Loans would force people to make money in excess of the interest payments, and would give corps long-term debt to work off. This gives people long-term goals that are currently absent from EVE (see my earlier rant for more). And again, a separate skill could allow players to lend their money for interest, with the skill here perhaps reflecting some sort of license to do so. Also, as noted in my earlier post, there's the extremely cool possibility of repo bounties. And finally, ISK are cool, but how about... (cont'd)
D'ren	Posted - 2003.08.11 21:39:00 - [147] Edited by: D'ren on 11/08/2003 21:43:30 - Different Currencies That's dumb, you say. What the hell is that going to do besides complicate my life? Well, how about adding extra layers to trading? This would make those standard ore prices more interesting if the Gallente geld was suddenly worth less than the Amarr dinar (yes, those names suck). Exports to Amarr space from Gallente are suddenly profitable, while the reverse is no longer true. Or how about markets in derivatives, i.e., one-time bets that a currency will go up or down? Hedge funds? All kinds of cool stuff becomes possible when currency is introduced, including a set of skills that would allow one to buy/sell currency at progressively smaller and smaller penalties (soon to be a must for every trader). This would also force the existence of multiple stock and bond markets, so that if you want to invest in a corp listed on the MinMarket, you'll need the appropriate currency to do so. Within limits, player transactions could actually drive currency prices. Anyway, all of the above is possible only if CCP actually implements some of the stuff they promised at the outset. Would it be complicated? You bet. Would it be worth it? Ditto.
D'ren	Posted - 2003.08.11 21:39:00 - [148] Edited by: D'ren on 11/08/2003 21:43:30 - Different Currencies That's dumb, you say. What the hell is that going to do besides complicate my life? Well, how about adding extra layers to trading? This would make those standard ore prices more interesting if the Gallente geld was suddenly worth less than the Amarr dinar (yes, those names suck). Exports to Amarr space from Gallente are suddenly profitable, while the reverse is no longer true. Or how about markets in derivatives, i.e., one-time bets that a currency will go up or down? Hedge funds? All kinds of cool stuff becomes possible when currency is introduced, including a set of skills that would allow one to buy/sell currency at progressively smaller and smaller penalties (soon to be a must for every trader). This would also force the existence of multiple stock and bond markets, so that if you want to invest in a corp listed on the MinMarket, you'll need the appropriate currency to do so. Within limits, player transactions could actually drive currency prices. Anyway, all of the above is possible only if CCP actually implements some of the stuff they promised at the outset. Would it be complicated? You bet. Would it be worth it? Ditto.
Drusilla	Posted - 2003.08.12 20:25:00 - [149] (bump)
Drusilla	Posted - 2003.08.12 20:25:00 - [150] (bump)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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