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)
Erik Finnegan	Posted - 2003.08.24 14:36:00 - [181] Edited by: Erik Finnegan on 24/08/2003 14:39:21 Commenting Trix' answer on Augentis' suggestion of nano bots: It is indeed a cute concept. But probabely needs a lot coding. The main idea of Augentis was to make resources necessary for repair. Hence, I suggest using the repair shops in stations like before, but add a "required resources" field to the screen. Of course, the resources needed should be more than just minerals (the main source of boredom in EVE economy), but also trade goods. Editing in a remark on Dorien: Good idea, at least from a risk evaluation point of view. But the correct and fair consequence would just be higher primes for BSes. And Trix already and comprehensibly dismissed suggestions which only drain ISK out of the game. ----- L'obcuritÚ de la Loi est un appel Ó l'intelligence du juge.
Erik Finnegan Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2003.08.24 14:36:00 - [182] Edited by: Erik Finnegan on 24/08/2003 14:39:21 Commenting Trix' answer on Augentis' suggestion of nano bots: It is indeed a cute concept. But probabely needs a lot coding. The main idea of Augentis was to make resources necessary for repair. Hence, I suggest using the repair shops in stations like before, but add a "required resources" field to the screen. Of course, the resources needed should be more than just minerals (the main source of boredom in EVE economy), but also trade goods. Editing in a remark on Dorien: Good idea, at least from a risk evaluation point of view. But the correct and fair consequence would just be higher primes for BSes. And Trix already and comprehensibly dismissed suggestions which only drain ISK out of the game. ----- L'obcuritT de la Loi est un appel a l'intelligence du juge.
Grachus	Posted - 2003.08.25 01:52:00 - [183] Bump
Grachus	Posted - 2003.08.25 01:52:00 - [184] Bump
Trixxy	Posted - 2003.08.25 09:38:00 - [185] Edited by: Trixxy on 25/08/2003 09:42:15 Dorien's ideas in Insurance and Erik's response. Yup Erik, when a drain on ISK is introduced into the game, I do indeed like to see it there for more reason than simply being an ISK drain. But there IS some merit to increasing the risk on the use of BSes. So how can we modify it to improve the economy? Here's an idea: New profession: Insurance Agent. It's a complicated idea to explain, so I'm putting it in a new thread... here. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain.
Trixxy Gallente The Chaos Fellowship	Posted - 2003.08.25 09:38:00 - [186] Edited by: Trixxy on 25/08/2003 09:42:15 Dorien's ideas in Insurance and Erik's response. Yup Erik, when a drain on ISK is introduced into the game, I do indeed like to see it there for more reason than simply being an ISK drain. But there IS some merit to increasing the risk on the use of BSes. So how can we modify it to improve the economy? Here's an idea: New profession: Insurance Agent. It's a complicated idea to explain, so I'm putting it in a new thread... here. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain.
Erik Finnegan	Posted - 2003.08.26 19:47:00 - [187] bump No more ppl interested in the EVE economy?! No comment of CCP for a 2000-view thread?! ----- L'obcuritÚ de la Loi est un appel Ó l'intelligence du juge.
Erik Finnegan Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2003.08.26 19:47:00 - [188] bump No more ppl interested in the EVE economy?! No comment of CCP for a 2000-view thread?! ----- L'obcuritT de la Loi est un appel a l'intelligence du juge.
michel	Posted - 2003.08.27 11:04:00 - [189] bump
michel	Posted - 2003.08.27 11:04:00 - [190] bump
Gauguin	Posted - 2003.08.28 21:08:00 - [191] I agree with Trixxy's suggestions and their implications analysis one hundred percent. Here is something I've posted in another thread before reading this one (I've combined my previous posts on this subject and changed them slightly to conform with this thread). Most of this is a reiteration of what has already been said with slightly different wording and focus. 1. Reliability/maintenance: all hardware in EVE needs some mean time between failure (MTBF) value (modules AND the built in ship's systems). Every time an item is used (a gun fired, shield hardener turned on, warp drive used, etc.) the MTBF value needs to decrease until the item fails and needs to be repaired, or fails catastrophically and needs to be replaced. There is no need to elaborate on the effect this would have on the player manufactured items market, as it's obvious (and has been discussed in this thread already). Another aspect of this is maintenance costs for different ships and modules. Currently it costs next to nothing to repair after combat, just slap in your armor/hull repairers and after that is done visit the repair shop and pay a ridiculously low sum to get your modules up to 100%. That last step isn't even required, AFAIK. With wear and reliability added the maintenance costs would drive the player's ship purchasing decisions. For example, the maintenance costs for the battleships should be ungodly expensive, with only the largest corporations being able to afford it. Using a battleship for mining should be prohibitively expensive due to running costs and logistics (refueling, etc.). Skill based proficiency in repairing different systems (including rare modules) could be a source of income for the player built stations. Notes: a) degradation would be based on solely on the use of items, so a casual player would not incur any costs while inactive; b) degradation of all items increases during combat (when the ship is taking hits). 2. Fuel: a definitely necessary component to running a ship. It doesn't have to be expensive, but it would add to 'realism', and could also provide income to player stations built out in the middle of nowhere. The fuel expenditure could be linked to the energy used by the ship: for every 1 cap value the ship's generator has to produce some unit of fuel would be consumed. The engines would consume some fuel unit per delta-V times the ship's mass, or whatever. A fuel scoop module could be introduced to provide the capability for fuel siphoning from the upper atmosphere of gas giants, but that fuel would be low-grade and the ship's systems using that fuel would degrade faster requiring extra maintenance expenditure (see above). A ship that runs out of fuel in open space would have several options: call for a tanker (PC or NPC) for a fee, ask someone in-system to rendezvous and sell some fuel, or use 'solar cells' or 'dark matter' to very slowly recharge the capacitors and very slowly move in real-space using some kind of induction drives or some such. Note: Fuel should be cheap enough (in mainstream systems) that a frigate owner should have no worries, but expensive enough that a cruiser pilot would need to take it into consideration and a battleship pilot should always be in contact with the CFO of his corp to make sure it's worth the expenditure to make the trip. The introduction of these systems can coincide with the introduction of higher tech. The tech 1 modules and systems can stay 100% reliable with a logic behind it that its old and proven and therefore extremely reliable. Fuel can be introduced with faster ships (like the new frigates).
Gauguin	Posted - 2003.08.28 21:08:00 - [192] I agree with Trixxy's suggestions and their implications analysis one hundred percent. Here is something I've posted in another thread before reading this one (I've combined my previous posts on this subject and changed them slightly to conform with this thread). Most of this is a reiteration of what has already been said with slightly different wording and focus. 1. Reliability/maintenance: all hardware in EVE needs some mean time between failure (MTBF) value (modules AND the built in ship's systems). Every time an item is used (a gun fired, shield hardener turned on, warp drive used, etc.) the MTBF value needs to decrease until the item fails and needs to be repaired, or fails catastrophically and needs to be replaced. There is no need to elaborate on the effect this would have on the player manufactured items market, as it's obvious (and has been discussed in this thread already). Another aspect of this is maintenance costs for different ships and modules. Currently it costs next to nothing to repair after combat, just slap in your armor/hull repairers and after that is done visit the repair shop and pay a ridiculously low sum to get your modules up to 100%. That last step isn't even required, AFAIK. With wear and reliability added the maintenance costs would drive the player's ship purchasing decisions. For example, the maintenance costs for the battleships should be ungodly expensive, with only the largest corporations being able to afford it. Using a battleship for mining should be prohibitively expensive due to running costs and logistics (refueling, etc.). Skill based proficiency in repairing different systems (including rare modules) could be a source of income for the player built stations. Notes: a) degradation would be based on solely on the use of items, so a casual player would not incur any costs while inactive; b) degradation of all items increases during combat (when the ship is taking hits). 2. Fuel: a definitely necessary component to running a ship. It doesn't have to be expensive, but it would add to 'realism', and could also provide income to player stations built out in the middle of nowhere. The fuel expenditure could be linked to the energy used by the ship: for every 1 cap value the ship's generator has to produce some unit of fuel would be consumed. The engines would consume some fuel unit per delta-V times the ship's mass, or whatever. A fuel scoop module could be introduced to provide the capability for fuel siphoning from the upper atmosphere of gas giants, but that fuel would be low-grade and the ship's systems using that fuel would degrade faster requiring extra maintenance expenditure (see above). A ship that runs out of fuel in open space would have several options: call for a tanker (PC or NPC) for a fee, ask someone in-system to rendezvous and sell some fuel, or use 'solar cells' or 'dark matter' to very slowly recharge the capacitors and very slowly move in real-space using some kind of induction drives or some such. Note: Fuel should be cheap enough (in mainstream systems) that a frigate owner should have no worries, but expensive enough that a cruiser pilot would need to take it into consideration and a battleship pilot should always be in contact with the CFO of his corp to make sure it's worth the expenditure to make the trip. The introduction of these systems can coincide with the introduction of higher tech. The tech 1 modules and systems can stay 100% reliable with a logic behind it that its old and proven and therefore extremely reliable. Fuel can be introduced with faster ships (like the new frigates).
Falnaerith	Posted - 2003.08.28 21:33:00 - [193] Couple impacts i'd like to point out with those proposals: 1) Need for haulers to transport large amounts of fuel to high traffic areas. 2) Non-Production of said fuel brings in need for haulers since it's not able to be produced on site. 3) Upkeep is needed to use all the isk that is being generated by pirate hunting. 4) On the note of repair systems: Repair systems require "Nano Bots" (can't remember from description) as ammo in repair systems, also not player produced. There are plenty more, but there are a few major ones. Increased complexity and difficulty of playing = good. ------------------- Basic truths? Idiots make us rich. - Some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill them.
Falnaerith Caldari Just-fun	Posted - 2003.08.28 21:33:00 - [194] Couple impacts i'd like to point out with those proposals: 1) Need for haulers to transport large amounts of fuel to high traffic areas. 2) Non-Production of said fuel brings in need for haulers since it's not able to be produced on site. 3) Upkeep is needed to use all the isk that is being generated by pirate hunting. 4) On the note of repair systems: Repair systems require "Nano Bots" (can't remember from description) as ammo in repair systems, also not player produced. There are plenty more, but there are a few major ones. Increased complexity and difficulty of playing = good. ------------------- Basic truths? Idiots make us rich. - Some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill them.
Silicon	Posted - 2003.08.29 05:03:00 - [195] Add one more voice to the growing cacophany of voices endorsing these suggestions. Great post I agree 100%
Silicon Minmatar	Posted - 2003.08.29 05:03:00 - [196] Add one more voice to the growing cacophany of voices endorsing these suggestions. Great post I agree 100%
SUNchaser	Posted - 2003.08.29 21:40:00 - [197] Oh give me a break these ideas are what is crashing this game. IF REALISM was applied then 90% of the systems WOULD NOT have planets and asteroid belts in them. THERE would only be a handful of inhabital regions. The competion for control and use of all availible resources would be because "there aren't that many". Fix the game ???? get rid of 90% of the asteroid belts and then ore would become a valued commodity worth fighting over. Currently there is nothing worth fighting over and thus NO FIGHTING. THERE IS NO MARKET because everything is availible which translates into having no intrinsic value. The basic foundation of an UNLIMITED ore supply is totally false when bringing realism into the equation and until 90% of this resource is eliminated none of the rest can ever work. The economy is currently based on a GIGANTIC FALSEHOOD, there is no such thing as unlimited resources. So please stop trying to fix what may not be broken when the underlying foundation for this game is flawed and that is what needs to be fixed. Fix that THEN whats broke will surface but until then no one knows.
SUNchaser Doomheim	Posted - 2003.08.29 21:40:00 - [198] Oh give me a break these ideas are what is crashing this game. IF REALISM was applied then 90% of the systems WOULD NOT have planets and asteroid belts in them. THERE would only be a handful of inhabital regions. The competion for control and use of all availible resources would be because "there aren't that many". Fix the game ???? get rid of 90% of the asteroid belts and then ore would become a valued commodity worth fighting over. Currently there is nothing worth fighting over and thus NO FIGHTING. THERE IS NO MARKET because everything is availible which translates into having no intrinsic value. The basic foundation of an UNLIMITED ore supply is totally false when bringing realism into the equation and until 90% of this resource is eliminated none of the rest can ever work. The economy is currently based on a GIGANTIC FALSEHOOD, there is no such thing as unlimited resources. So please stop trying to fix what may not be broken when the underlying foundation for this game is flawed and that is what needs to be fixed. Fix that THEN whats broke will surface but until then no one knows.
Augentis Bursai	Posted - 2003.08.29 23:02:00 - [199] Moving on from concepts for a maintenance related function (many above suggestions including mine which for some reason I am fond of) there are the two basic issues of demand for items and sources of materials. On the sources of materials first and foremost this is a game. Everyone needs the same basic opportunity to get ISK so certain fundamentals need to be altered. I do think that a low respawn rate for roids is a good thing in this context. I think having a certain background (NPC) demand for minerals makes sense to cover things they make like NPC ships and trade goods and to keep some minimal influx of ISK for players who choose that path. Over time for higher tech items I would anticipate that they will consume correspondingly more minerals (while the actual supply base remains constant - constant roid spawn rates) so the player driven market for minerals should increase over time. On the demand side there have been many discussions of module/ship wear and eventual replacement. I will not pursue that path further. I propose that the other motivator for demand of items will be driven by obsolescence. There are other threads covering introduction of higher tech items, but the point here is that: 1) They will be introduced. 2) I believe that there will be a myriad of players (corps) that will be able to produce items. 3) Beyond increasing PvP I also belive that in game events will escalate over time making space more dangerous for those equiped with older gear. Personally, I would rather rely on this as a primary motivator to buy new modules, ships, etc.
Augentis Bursai Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2003.08.29 23:02:00 - [200] Moving on from concepts for a maintenance related function (many above suggestions including mine which for some reason I am fond of) there are the two basic issues of demand for items and sources of materials. On the sources of materials first and foremost this is a game. Everyone needs the same basic opportunity to get ISK so certain fundamentals need to be altered. I do think that a low respawn rate for roids is a good thing in this context. I think having a certain background (NPC) demand for minerals makes sense to cover things they make like NPC ships and trade goods and to keep some minimal influx of ISK for players who choose that path. Over time for higher tech items I would anticipate that they will consume correspondingly more minerals (while the actual supply base remains constant - constant roid spawn rates) so the player driven market for minerals should increase over time. On the demand side there have been many discussions of module/ship wear and eventual replacement. I will not pursue that path further. I propose that the other motivator for demand of items will be driven by obsolescence. There are other threads covering introduction of higher tech items, but the point here is that: 1) They will be introduced. 2) I believe that there will be a myriad of players (corps) that will be able to produce items. 3) Beyond increasing PvP I also belive that in game events will escalate over time making space more dangerous for those equiped with older gear. Personally, I would rather rely on this as a primary motivator to buy new modules, ships, etc.
Gavin Kineli	Posted - 2003.08.30 05:08:00 - [201] The problem with the economy in itself is that item prices drop, and manufacturing companies cannot keep up with the low prices of people who get those minerals for "free." So, as everybody has said, if it isn't "free" to mine, prices won't drop so drastically. I agree that the fuel idea would make it more realistic and might stabilize the economy better, but I don't think it should be implemented, as it would be less fun. I believe wear and tear should be the cost of doing things. And things should only accumulate any significant wear and tear during use. Play The BIG Lottery!
Gavin Kineli Frontier Technologies	Posted - 2003.08.30 05:08:00 - [202] The problem with the economy in itself is that item prices drop, and manufacturing companies cannot keep up with the low prices of people who get those minerals for "free." So, as everybody has said, if it isn't "free" to mine, prices won't drop so drastically. I agree that the fuel idea would make it more realistic and might stabilize the economy better, but I don't think it should be implemented, as it would be less fun. I believe wear and tear should be the cost of doing things. And things should only accumulate any significant wear and tear during use.
Trixxy	Posted - 2003.09.01 11:35:00 - [203] Edited by: Trixxy on 01/09/2003 11:41:44 SunChaser said: Oh give me a break these ideas are what is crashing this game... etc. Unfortunately, Sunchaser, Eve can't model realism errr realistically. It has to MODEL it. Realistically, the asteroid belts available in space WOULD give you an effectively unlimited supply. The asteroid belt in our own solar system alone would provide more ore than the human race would know what to do with for many millenia to come. The problem is, EVE physically cannot model the sheer HUGE number of asteroids that would realistically occur in 1 belt. The lag would make it unplayable. So it's TRANSLATED into having re-spawning asteroids. The effect is an unlimited supply of ore. The lack of realism does not come in from the fact the the supply is unlimited. When dealing with mining asteroids, then to all intents and purposes, it IS. (Not to mention mining moons if or when you have depleted a solar system of its asteroids. Believe me, the supply of ore in space IS just about unlimited as far as the human race is concerned). The lack of realism comes in by the fact that realistically the COST of mining the unlimited supply would be high. This is what is NOT modelled in the game and is one of the causes of a problematic economy. Effectively, we can't put a curb on the supply, as when it runs out, well, the game would die. So we need the infinite supply. But we have to make sure we stimulate an on-going and constant DEMAND to satisfy that supply, and implement a COST to providing the supply in order to control the economy. Both of these factors are currently unaddressed in the existing Eve economic model. You raised some pertinent points. There is not enough incentive to create wars large enough to really kick in decent demand. That would certainly help kick-start the economy. But I wouldn't be too hasty to write-off the ideas being put forward in this thread in favour of nothing more than having a few big wars. Eve needs a way of addressing it's economy in both peace-time AND war-time. P.S.) Yeh, yeh, we know that the majority of star systems out there may not have planets. Here's an idea for you, however. Let us assume that the star systems you see on the EVE map are actually ONLY those with known planets and asteroid fields. All non-planeted systems are of no interest to a space-faring nation, so are ignored for simplicity in the space-faring maps. Nothing unrealistic about that then. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain.
Trixxy Gallente The Chaos Fellowship	Posted - 2003.09.01 11:35:00 - [204] Edited by: Trixxy on 01/09/2003 11:41:44 SunChaser said: Oh give me a break these ideas are what is crashing this game... etc. Unfortunately, Sunchaser, Eve can't model realism errr realistically. It has to MODEL it. Realistically, the asteroid belts available in space WOULD give you an effectively unlimited supply. The asteroid belt in our own solar system alone would provide more ore than the human race would know what to do with for many millenia to come. The problem is, EVE physically cannot model the sheer HUGE number of asteroids that would realistically occur in 1 belt. The lag would make it unplayable. So it's TRANSLATED into having re-spawning asteroids. The effect is an unlimited supply of ore. The lack of realism does not come in from the fact the the supply is unlimited. When dealing with mining asteroids, then to all intents and purposes, it IS. (Not to mention mining moons if or when you have depleted a solar system of its asteroids. Believe me, the supply of ore in space IS just about unlimited as far as the human race is concerned). The lack of realism comes in by the fact that realistically the COST of mining the unlimited supply would be high. This is what is NOT modelled in the game and is one of the causes of a problematic economy. Effectively, we can't put a curb on the supply, as when it runs out, well, the game would die. So we need the infinite supply. But we have to make sure we stimulate an on-going and constant DEMAND to satisfy that supply, and implement a COST to providing the supply in order to control the economy. Both of these factors are currently unaddressed in the existing Eve economic model. You raised some pertinent points. There is not enough incentive to create wars large enough to really kick in decent demand. That would certainly help kick-start the economy. But I wouldn't be too hasty to write-off the ideas being put forward in this thread in favour of nothing more than having a few big wars. Eve needs a way of addressing it's economy in both peace-time AND war-time. P.S.) Yeh, yeh, we know that the majority of star systems out there may not have planets. Here's an idea for you, however. Let us assume that the star systems you see on the EVE map are actually ONLY those with known planets and asteroid fields. All non-planeted systems are of no interest to a space-faring nation, so are ignored for simplicity in the space-faring maps. Nothing unrealistic about that then. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain.
Erik Finnegan	Posted - 2003.09.02 15:04:00 - [205] Quote: Let us assume that the star systems you see on the EVE map are actually ONLY those with known planets and asteroid fields. All non-planeted systems are ... ignored for simplicity in the space-faring maps. What a witty twist! :-D ----- L'obcuritÚ de la Loi est un appel Ó l'intelligence du juge.
Erik Finnegan Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2003.09.02 15:04:00 - [206] Quote: Let us assume that the star systems you see on the EVE map are actually ONLY those with known planets and asteroid fields. All non-planeted systems are ... ignored for simplicity in the space-faring maps. What a witty twist! :-D ----- L'obcuritT de la Loi est un appel a l'intelligence du juge.
SUNchaser	Posted - 2003.09.02 15:40:00 - [207] Well I do agree that base resources must be continually added to the game BUT I don't think they need to be reintroduced in all systems all the time. There may be a lot of readily availible resources initially but when the low hanging fruit is taken then only certain areas will continue to produce. And my complaint was against TOO much realism and not enough focus on making the eve experience more enjoyable because I've seen other very good games get grounded by purist and their numbers are never going to be high enough to support this game.(ie those that want to make travel take more time, more realistic yes BUT much less fun and if it ain't fun people will stop doing it)
SUNchaser Doomheim	Posted - 2003.09.02 15:40:00 - [208] Well I do agree that base resources must be continually added to the game BUT I don't think they need to be reintroduced in all systems all the time. There may be a lot of readily availible resources initially but when the low hanging fruit is taken then only certain areas will continue to produce. And my complaint was against TOO much realism and not enough focus on making the eve experience more enjoyable because I've seen other very good games get grounded by purist and their numbers are never going to be high enough to support this game.(ie those that want to make travel take more time, more realistic yes BUT much less fun and if it ain't fun people will stop doing it)
SUNchaser	Posted - 2003.09.02 17:47:00 - [209] One other thought. There isn't an economic model that works where base resources are readily availible and free for the taking. The economy in eve isn't working because it is based on readily availible free unlimited resources. That has to be fixed before any other tweaks will have any value.
SUNchaser Doomheim	Posted - 2003.09.02 17:47:00 - [210] One other thought. There isn't an economic model that works where base resources are readily availible and free for the taking. The economy in eve isn't working because it is based on readily availible free unlimited resources. That has to be fixed before any other tweaks will have any value.

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.