|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page | |
| Author | Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
 Mysticaa    |
Posted - 2003.08.13 02:50:00 -
[151] The Big question is .. IS ANYONE AT CCP EVEN READING THIS POST?  I have to say that the original post was very well thought out. The one addition I would like to see to it is the "empire" also needs to buy from the player market. Right now player produced items are only sellable to other players, if the 'empires' also needed to buy replacement parts this would also help to stabilize the economy. *If someone else mentioned this I am sorry as I did not read every post  Please CCP do something to fix the economy. |
 Mysticaa Gallente Fringe Roamers of Goa |
Posted - 2003.08.13 02:50:00 -
[152] The Big question is .. IS ANYONE AT CCP EVEN READING THIS POST? I have to say that the original post was very well thought out. The one addition I would like to see to it is the "empire" also needs to buy from the player market. Right now player produced items are only sellable to other players, if the 'empires' also needed to buy replacement parts this would also help to stabilize the economy. *If someone else mentioned this I am sorry as I did not read every post Please CCP do something to fix the economy. ----------------------------------------------- Why do I post here?
Sig snatched by Xorus |
 Ruffles |
Posted - 2003.08.13 08:01:00 -
[153] Doc Who: Sorry to say this but how often do you play the game? If you amassed that amount of wealth solo in two months, do you play pretty regularly? A lot of people assume everyone that plays the game plays a large portion of their time. Please remember, if you want to drag things out and make them harder to achieve, then you are also killing the casual players chances of having fun also. Try to imagine only a few hours per night, or perhaps every other day. Those people don't need their lives made harder. If you are concerned about the wealth distribution, can I ask just how many of you are currently involved in major corp-wars? Have you stopped to think just how fast you would burn through all this cash if you were involved in one? If you make it damned slow to make money, then it will be more off-putting to those wanting to fight a war. It will take longer to accumulate the wealth to buy the replacement ships/ammo/etc, and some might not even take the risk that they would be bored senseless for weeks perhaps mining to recoup their losses. Yes I agree with some elements of this, mostly wear and tear, and quality of player produced items needs to have some drastic attention, and be able to compete with the dropped items or player producers will never be seen as offering something anyone else wants, perhaps excluding ships and ammunition. I think that would come back to research myself. Probably the most useless profession at the moment is the science lines, where researchers are pretty much copy-machines, or perhaps mineral-efficiency improving machines mostly. They don't actually research new things, alterations and customisations to current items. Its a lost potential, and it has masses of potential. |
 Ruffles |
Posted - 2003.08.13 08:01:00 -
[154] Doc Who: Sorry to say this but how often do you play the game? If you amassed that amount of wealth solo in two months, do you play pretty regularly? A lot of people assume everyone that plays the game plays a large portion of their time. Please remember, if you want to drag things out and make them harder to achieve, then you are also killing the casual players chances of having fun also. Try to imagine only a few hours per night, or perhaps every other day. Those people don't need their lives made harder. If you are concerned about the wealth distribution, can I ask just how many of you are currently involved in major corp-wars? Have you stopped to think just how fast you would burn through all this cash if you were involved in one? If you make it damned slow to make money, then it will be more off-putting to those wanting to fight a war. It will take longer to accumulate the wealth to buy the replacement ships/ammo/etc, and some might not even take the risk that they would be bored senseless for weeks perhaps mining to recoup their losses. Yes I agree with some elements of this, mostly wear and tear, and quality of player produced items needs to have some drastic attention, and be able to compete with the dropped items or player producers will never be seen as offering something anyone else wants, perhaps excluding ships and ammunition. I think that would come back to research myself. Probably the most useless profession at the moment is the science lines, where researchers are pretty much copy-machines, or perhaps mineral-efficiency improving machines mostly. They don't actually research new things, alterations and customisations to current items. Its a lost potential, and it has masses of potential. |
 Mysticaa |
Posted - 2003.08.14 13:15:00 -
[155] Bump...back to page 1  |
Mysticaa Gallente Fringe Roamers of Goa |
Posted - 2003.08.14 13:15:00 -
[156] Bump...back to page 1 ----------------------------------------------- Why do I post here?
Sig snatched by Xorus |
 Serina Verity |
Posted - 2003.08.14 22:02:00 -
[157] Too tired to comment now - make some comments later. Good thread so far. Sticky this one please someone. |
 Serina Verity Caldari |
Posted - 2003.08.14 22:02:00 -
[158] Too tired to comment now - make some comments later. Good thread so far. Sticky this one please someone. |
Serina Verity |
Posted - 2003.08.18 12:09:00 -
[159] Bump, so that this doesn't get lost. |
Serina Verity Caldari |
Posted - 2003.08.18 12:09:00 -
[160] Bump, so that this doesn't get lost. |
 Erik Finnegan |
Posted - 2003.08.19 00:01:00 -
[161] *bump* May I add the brilliant ideas of Draco Darkmatter from another thread here? They complement to the aforementioned perfectly. These are the highlights:
But just to tell you: the above ideas are not new. Some problems (like station camping) have also already been discussed in an eve-i thread which I didn't tag, else I'd have pasted it, too (sorry!), but in my opinion, the increase in price would sufficiently intice blockade runners. Actually, wouldn't it be nice to not only have gates camped? And see a station go "dark". Diversity kicks ass in every aspect (though as trader I'd prefer not to run into blockades at all :-]) One more aspect: the mentioned improvements should be very feasible on the implementation side. Ain't it, CCP?! ----- L'obcuritÚ de la Loi est un appel Ó l'intelligence du juge. |
 Erik Finnegan Gallente The Scope |
Posted - 2003.08.19 00:01:00 -
[162] *bump* May I add the brilliant ideas of Draco Darkmatter from another thread here? They complement to the aforementioned perfectly. These are the highlights:
But just to tell you: the above ideas are not new. Some problems (like station camping) have also already been discussed in an eve-i thread which I didn't tag, else I'd have pasted it, too (sorry!), but in my opinion, the increase in price would sufficiently intice blockade runners. Actually, wouldn't it be nice to not only have gates camped? And see a station go "dark". Diversity kicks ass in every aspect (though as trader I'd prefer not to run into blockades at all :-]) One more aspect: the mentioned improvements should be very feasible on the implementation side. Ain't it, CCP?! ----- L'obcuritT de la Loi est un appel a l'intelligence du juge. |
Trixxy |
Posted - 2003.08.20 12:54:00 -
[163] Edited by: Trixxy on 20/08/2003 12:58:31 Erik posted: May I add the brilliant ideas of Draco Darkmatter from another thread here? I agree - the ideas mentioned by him are also ones that I have been thinking about. It's worth plugging his thread again (as well as this one, of course). If the economy can be made more interesting, it may just attract me back into the game. (P.S. - If you're at all interested in knowing what I think the game needs to stop me from leaving - see here. I know - shamelessly plugging my own posts - but hey, maybe CCP will take notice eventually.  . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain. |
 Trixxy Gallente The Chaos Fellowship |
Posted - 2003.08.20 12:54:00 -
[164] Edited by: Trixxy on 20/08/2003 12:58:31 Erik posted: May I add the brilliant ideas of Draco Darkmatter from another thread here? I agree - the ideas mentioned by him are also ones that I have been thinking about. It's worth plugging his thread again (as well as this one, of course). If the economy can be made more interesting, it may just attract me back into the game. (P.S. - If you're at all interested in knowing what I think the game needs to stop me from leaving - see here. I know - shamelessly plugging my own posts - but hey, maybe CCP will take notice eventually. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain. |
 Clyde Darcinoff |
Posted - 2003.08.20 13:49:00 -
[165] OK SO I MUST ADMIT, someone playing this game does have thier lights on. Lots of very good stuff here. One way to help both the economy and game play would be to introduce the ability to capture vessels instead of just destroying them. Although I am not a pirate player it seems a major drawback. Throughout history the principal reason both criminals and nations engaged in piracy was for what was called prize money (the value of the captured ship) this would not only provide a real reason to pirate but also provide a real market for older used ships. I also believe that the repair ideas should be listned to better. There are just no real winning passive employment paths in game yet and this could be an easy one to impliment. |
 Clyde Darcinoff |
Posted - 2003.08.20 13:49:00 -
[166] OK SO I MUST ADMIT, someone playing this game does have thier lights on. Lots of very good stuff here. One way to help both the economy and game play would be to introduce the ability to capture vessels instead of just destroying them. Although I am not a pirate player it seems a major drawback. Throughout history the principal reason both criminals and nations engaged in piracy was for what was called prize money (the value of the captured ship) this would not only provide a real reason to pirate but also provide a real market for older used ships. I also believe that the repair ideas should be listned to better. There are just no real winning passive employment paths in game yet and this could be an easy one to impliment. |
 Erik Finnegan |
Posted - 2003.08.21 21:03:00 -
[167] *bump* |
Erik Finnegan Gallente The Scope |
Posted - 2003.08.21 21:03:00 -
[168] *bump* |
Jstek |
Posted - 2003.08.22 18:56:00 -
[169] *Bump* I posted these ideas here before i saw this topic. I hope yah take a look.. Some ideas are somewhat simlar and i belive a convergence of both and others on the topic will make EVE rule supreme!! :) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=27683 |
 Jstek |
Posted - 2003.08.22 18:56:00 -
[170] *Bump* I posted these ideas here before i saw this topic. I hope yah take a look.. Some ideas are somewhat simlar and i belive a convergence of both and others on the topic will make EVE rule supreme!! :) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=27683 |
Serina Verity |
Posted - 2003.08.22 19:54:00 -
[171] A few more ideas to consider: 1) When a ship is destroyed, all modules attached to it (i.e. not in the cargohold) are destroyed as well. This is reasonable, really - how can a weapon system or piece of electronic equipment survive a ship exploding? This won't have too much effect; although it will help to increase demand (slightly) through attrition. 2) Docking fees. Every time your ship docks, you are charged a docking fee. The fee depends on your ship type and size. (Battleship docking fees could be thousands, perhaps tens of thousands; Cruisers several hundred; Frigates tens; and rookieships, shuttles and indys either a nominal charge or free.) The fee could be modified by your standing with that faction / corporation. If you can't pay the fee, you can't dock. This will (slightly) reduce the money supply. |
Serina Verity Caldari |
Posted - 2003.08.22 19:54:00 -
[172] A few more ideas to consider: 1) When a ship is destroyed, all modules attached to it (i.e. not in the cargohold) are destroyed as well. This is reasonable, really - how can a weapon system or piece of electronic equipment survive a ship exploding? This won't have too much effect; although it will help to increase demand (slightly) through attrition. 2) Docking fees. Every time your ship docks, you are charged a docking fee. The fee depends on your ship type and size. (Battleship docking fees could be thousands, perhaps tens of thousands; Cruisers several hundred; Frigates tens; and rookieships, shuttles and indys either a nominal charge or free.) The fee could be modified by your standing with that faction / corporation. If you can't pay the fee, you can't dock. This will (slightly) reduce the money supply. |
 Augentis Bursai |
Posted - 2003.08.22 23:07:00 -
[173] I agree with the principles discussed thus far, but I would like to offer an alternative to both the fuel and item maintenance ideas. Let me back up first with a little science. The notion of fuel I think is inconsistent with power sources that are likely fusion or dark matter based, as the resources for them can readily be gained flying through space, and that the fuel consumption is low. As for wear on items I think it is safe to say that it is consistant with the setting that there would be some kind of basic nano bots that effectively maintain your ship and its parts. These nanobots could be quite fragile tho, and since you wouldn't want self-replicating ones (say a prohibition against Von Neuman machines) they would depelete over time. Take this nano concept and it can be the cost of living item thats needed. Here is what I imagine: 1) Over time your ship accumulates WEAR. This is generated by: a) Energy use - linear with module as bigger ships are likely to use bigger modules. b) Non-warp travel - more as you go faster, have a larger ship, and some terrain based (proximity to asteroids). c) Damage - more for hull, less for shields. 2) All ships have a built in module that houses NANO, Additional modules can be introduced for extra NANO capacity. 3) NANO is spent to reduce WEAR. 4) NANO is produced like ammo. Better NANO reduces more WEAR, but takes more exotic resources. 5) As WEAR accumulates to constant (regardless of what you are flying) levels it has the effect of: a) Reducing speed. b) Having a chance to damage your ship or equipment. Couple this with stuff having a quality rating (and player made stuff having the potential to have a higher quality) and some kind of player based repair that replenishes quality (where generic station doesn't, or at least as much) then you accomplish a few of the basic idea's presented earlier. There have been plenty of good sugestions for these two items so I will not go further into them. What do folks think? |
 Augentis Bursai Caldari Provisions |
Posted - 2003.08.22 23:07:00 -
[174] I agree with the principles discussed thus far, but I would like to offer an alternative to both the fuel and item maintenance ideas. Let me back up first with a little science. The notion of fuel I think is inconsistent with power sources that are likely fusion or dark matter based, as the resources for them can readily be gained flying through space, and that the fuel consumption is low. As for wear on items I think it is safe to say that it is consistant with the setting that there would be some kind of basic nano bots that effectively maintain your ship and its parts. These nanobots could be quite fragile tho, and since you wouldn't want self-replicating ones (say a prohibition against Von Neuman machines) they would depelete over time. Take this nano concept and it can be the cost of living item thats needed. Here is what I imagine: 1) Over time your ship accumulates WEAR. This is generated by: a) Energy use - linear with module as bigger ships are likely to use bigger modules. b) Non-warp travel - more as you go faster, have a larger ship, and some terrain based (proximity to asteroids). c) Damage - more for hull, less for shields. 2) All ships have a built in module that houses NANO, Additional modules can be introduced for extra NANO capacity. 3) NANO is spent to reduce WEAR. 4) NANO is produced like ammo. Better NANO reduces more WEAR, but takes more exotic resources. 5) As WEAR accumulates to constant (regardless of what you are flying) levels it has the effect of: a) Reducing speed. b) Having a chance to damage your ship or equipment. Couple this with stuff having a quality rating (and player made stuff having the potential to have a higher quality) and some kind of player based repair that replenishes quality (where generic station doesn't, or at least as much) then you accomplish a few of the basic idea's presented earlier. There have been plenty of good sugestions for these two items so I will not go further into them. What do folks think? |
Trixxy |
Posted - 2003.08.23 09:13:00 -
[175] Edited by: Trixxy on 23/08/2003 09:20:46 Serina Verity - Docking Fees: I believe we should avoid introducing cost into the game for its own sake. The reasons behind maintenance/fuel/etc. are to provide an economic injection. Someone needs to be paid to maintain your ship, and to maintain your ship, someone (or yourself) needs raw material and further items. All these promote economic stimulation through demand of materials and/or player services. Even fuel I would prefer to only be introduced if it is coupled by player-sourced supply and refining of that fuel. Again, introducing fuel just as a money drain without any extra injection into the economy is probably not a wonderful idea. Maybe make it that only player-run stations have the option to charge docking fees - the proceeds going to a player or corp. It would also be nice if facilities can be introduced into player stations that aren't available in any NPC stations, to encourage players to visit them. In that way, the economy is being stimulated again - there's a reason to pay the money, the money is going into the player economy, and a service/reward can be obtained from that money. Augentis Bursai - The Nano-bot idea: Very Nice idea - provides a great bringing-together of the concepts of fuel and maintenance, all in a believable package. The problem, however, is that your nano-bot theory takes away the need for player-supplied maintenance and repair of items (other than the service of improving quality). It also removes the concept of module and or eventual ship failure and the need for replacement. These are lynch-pins in the original ideas around the improvement of the demand side of the game. Effectively, you are introducing nanobots as your 'fuel', but taking away the need for item repair and/or replacement (requiring player-supplied parts, raw material and services). Dark Matter and fusion may be cheap/freely available, but they don't necessarily provide the best conventional thrust. Fusion drives provide cheap, but low thrust over a long time. If you want much better thrust/speed for conventional travel, you'll need conventional volatiles as fuel. So this means Dark matter is best used for warps and jumps (through harnessing the massive energy obtained by triggering a chain-reaction), but conventional fuel is still the best choice for conventional travel. If you run out of conventional fuel, you can use the freely available dark matter, but your conventional thrust produces far less acceleration (translated in the*****-eye Eve physics model as lower speed). Your cap represents your dark matter stores. Your cap reduces massively when you warp, meaning you are triggering a reaction in that much dark matter. It recarches again through acquiring more of the freely available dark matter when you are out of warp. So to travel without conventional fuel implies your cap reducing over time, with the need to stop from time-to-time to recharge - a much slower means of travel all-in-all. Any player would then have 2 options: 1. Pay to use conventional fuel to travel a lot faster 2. Travel for free, but use your cap (thereby slower, and running the risk of being low on cap when you get jumped by pirates). . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain. |
Trixxy Gallente The Chaos Fellowship |
Posted - 2003.08.23 09:13:00 -
[176] Edited by: Trixxy on 23/08/2003 09:20:46 Serina Verity - Docking Fees: I believe we should avoid introducing cost into the game for its own sake. The reasons behind maintenance/fuel/etc. are to provide an economic injection. Someone needs to be paid to maintain your ship, and to maintain your ship, someone (or yourself) needs raw material and further items. All these promote economic stimulation through demand of materials and/or player services. Even fuel I would prefer to only be introduced if it is coupled by player-sourced supply and refining of that fuel. Again, introducing fuel just as a money drain without any extra injection into the economy is probably not a wonderful idea. Maybe make it that only player-run stations have the option to charge docking fees - the proceeds going to a player or corp. It would also be nice if facilities can be introduced into player stations that aren't available in any NPC stations, to encourage players to visit them. In that way, the economy is being stimulated again - there's a reason to pay the money, the money is going into the player economy, and a service/reward can be obtained from that money. Augentis Bursai - The Nano-bot idea: Very Nice idea - provides a great bringing-together of the concepts of fuel and maintenance, all in a believable package. The problem, however, is that your nano-bot theory takes away the need for player-supplied maintenance and repair of items (other than the service of improving quality). It also removes the concept of module and or eventual ship failure and the need for replacement. These are lynch-pins in the original ideas around the improvement of the demand side of the game. Effectively, you are introducing nanobots as your 'fuel', but taking away the need for item repair and/or replacement (requiring player-supplied parts, raw material and services). Dark Matter and fusion may be cheap/freely available, but they don't necessarily provide the best conventional thrust. Fusion drives provide cheap, but low thrust over a long time. If you want much better thrust/speed for conventional travel, you'll need conventional volatiles as fuel. So this means Dark matter is best used for warps and jumps (through harnessing the massive energy obtained by triggering a chain-reaction), but conventional fuel is still the best choice for conventional travel. If you run out of conventional fuel, you can use the freely available dark matter, but your conventional thrust produces far less acceleration (translated in the*****-eye Eve physics model as lower speed). Your cap represents your dark matter stores. Your cap reduces massively when you warp, meaning you are triggering a reaction in that much dark matter. It recarches again through acquiring more of the freely available dark matter when you are out of warp. So to travel without conventional fuel implies your cap reducing over time, with the need to stop from time-to-time to recharge - a much slower means of travel all-in-all. Any player would then have 2 options: 1. Pay to use conventional fuel to travel a lot faster 2. Travel for free, but use your cap (thereby slower, and running the risk of being low on cap when you get jumped by pirates). . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain. |
 Trucker |
Posted - 2003.08.23 09:16:00 -
[177] One-Stop-Link-Shop I've browsed through this whole thread, compiling a list of the links to other related threads. Here they are again, all in one place. That way this thread can be used as a focussing point of discussions of the economy of the game as a whole. JsTek: Clones, Research & Blueprint Control Draco Darkmatter: Dynamic Trade Goods & Convoys D'Ren: Maintenance Costs Casey Jens: Wear & Tear If you've spotted any other threads that are economy-related and good, post the links below. |
 Trucker Amarr |
Posted - 2003.08.23 09:16:00 -
[178] One-Stop-Link-Shop I've browsed through this whole thread, compiling a list of the links to other related threads. Here they are again, all in one place. That way this thread can be used as a focussing point of discussions of the economy of the game as a whole. JsTek: Clones, Research & Blueprint Control Draco Darkmatter: Dynamic Trade Goods & Convoys D'Ren: Maintenance Costs Casey Jens: Wear & Tear If you've spotted any other threads that are economy-related and good, post the links below. |
 Dorien |
Posted - 2003.08.24 12:44:00 -
[179] My first foray onto this forum and a great read, the whole thing. Kudo's to Trix - and everyone else. I am posting partially to continue the bumping (can we get a sticky here?), as well as to advance an idea: INSURANCE Insurance is a great way to have high-risk occupations limit their personal risk. BUT at some time the training wheels should come off. Like say, Battleship level. Would any insurrance company in their right mind insure a battleship?? Aside from the real life paradigm thing, lets talk economy. The single most expensive piece of hardware currently in the game is a battleship. Yes, Titan's will be more expensive, but probably not nearly as prevalant. If when a M0o pirate or EV hunter or Foutain battlegroup has to put it all on the line, lets make it sting a little. Not so much to discourage their play, but rather to remove the ISK from the game. As it is, anyone in a battleship engaging in piracy uses the first Xisk to insure it then makes money. Lets STOP insuring battleships and let that isk leak out of the economy. Just an idea. |
 Dorien Minmatar Brutor tribe |
Posted - 2003.08.24 12:44:00 -
[180] My first foray onto this forum and a great read, the whole thing. Kudo's to Trix - and everyone else. I am posting partially to continue the bumping (can we get a sticky here?), as well as to advance an idea: INSURANCE Insurance is a great way to have high-risk occupations limit their personal risk. BUT at some time the training wheels should come off. Like say, Battleship level. Would any insurrance company in their right mind insure a battleship?? Aside from the real life paradigm thing, lets talk economy. The single most expensive piece of hardware currently in the game is a battleship. Yes, Titan's will be more expensive, but probably not nearly as prevalant. If when a M0o pirate or EV hunter or Foutain battlegroup has to put it all on the line, lets make it sting a little. Not so much to discourage their play, but rather to remove the ISK from the game. As it is, anyone in a battleship engaging in piracy uses the first Xisk to insure it then makes money. Lets STOP insuring battleships and let that isk leak out of the economy. Just an idea. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page | |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page | |
Originally by: Tao Han| Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,11s, ref 20250914/2126 EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP. |
| 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. |