We need more scarcity :)

For example, further restrictions to availability of ores to increase the contrast between Minmatar vs Amarr space, 0.9 vs 0.5. Another would be restricting NPC LP stores to the regions claimed by the particular NPC corp's empire. Thus you wouldn't buy Republic Fleet shield extenders from an RSS station deep in Amarr territory.

Don't just include material scarcity: encourage scarcity of services and supplies too. Restrict the flow of traffic through stargates, allow stargates to be upgraded through the use of either anchorables like SBUs (two varieties - one which enhances weight-per-jump and/or weight-per-hour, the other diminishes weight-per-jump and/or weight-per-hour) to allow e.g.: faction militias to engage in economic warfare by e.g.: disabling all the gate enhancers between Jita and the surrounding systems.

But those are just my two soap boxes I like to push at any opportunity. Not really related to any existing problems in the economy (apart from the severe deflation due to ease of supply).

Ideally, each strand of PvE should specialise in granting one type of resource to the player who puts time into it, so if you want minerals, mining should be your first port of call. Half the problem with the current economy is that missioning acts as a one-stop shop which grants everything a player could ever need ...

I think the big issue here is how to find the right balance between the ISK faucets and the ISK sinks. Judging from the last QEN* of last year, the biggest ISK faucet happens to be bounty prizes (no doubt from running missions). From the looks of things, the ISK flowing into the economy will continue to devalue the ISK over time unless a balance between the faucet and the sink is found.

Thankfully, since the insurance payout to suicide gankers will be nerfed 100% this winter expansion, the ISK flowing into the economy will obviously drop. However, I believe that is just a minor drop in the bucket compared to the 800 lb gorilla in the room (mission bounties). Perhaps if we can discuss this more we may find a solution together.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q3-2010.pdf

All major ISK faucets should be in Null, Low Sec, and WH space. High Sec should be the place to use resources from WHs, Low Sec and Null in refining, manufacturing, and markets.

That is at it's core what is wrong with EVE's economy Risk/Reward balance. Your ISK sink would be built in the risk from other players when farming the faucets into the game.

Wrong. Isk faucets in null anomalies should be greatly nerfed because of its type - pure liquid isk faucet, not counterbalanced by LP shop isk sink. The only kind of isk faucet that is acceptable should be highsec mission/incursion isk faucet - which is properly countered by LP shop isk sink, while isk faucet from insurance is minimal.

Eve economy doesn't care about risk. If anything, popping ships damage eve economy by adding insurance isk faucet.

"Let's pick the pockets of the carebears because they choose to not live a lifestyle where they burn through ships like an addict does crack..."

^take stuff that works, and break them.

It isn't between PvPers and "Carebears" whatever that means, it's between Sandbox players and Themepark players. In regards to the Economy and everything else in the next meeting I want the CSM to ram home to CCP with the iron fist of Mittani that they need to always choose Sandbox over Themepark. I have no desire to play space WoW.

There's no insurance on mods, rigs, and implants. The insurance on T2 ships is marginal. And on top of all that I wouldn't mind seeing insurance removed altogether anyway, but I think your over stating it's impact. LP store's demand is largely fueled by things blowing up. The problem is those milking that faucet (missions and high sec incursions) are at virtually no risk to losing stuff themselves.

popping ships does nothing to reduce isk in circulation. it reduces the materials in circulation, which in turn would lead to higher material prices (except for the faucets of materials)

Batch of faction cruise cost 4.2k LP and 4.2 mil isk trade in. A high end lvl4 mission gives around 8.4k LP, 3 mil isk rewards, and 10 mil isk bounty (if pirate rats, zero for drone/faction rats). If clearing all rats, it's a small 4 mil net isk faucet. If not clear all rats, or blitz, it's net isk sink.

This is why sanctums were nerfed, but not missions. Doing so reduce isk sink as well as isk faucet. You even run the risk of potentially making things worse by reducing sink more than faucet, if the nerf end up chase mission blitzers off.

You didn't fix anything Thredd,

Risk vs Reward is the basics of gameplay. If the greatest reward is to be found where there is the least risk, why would players ever rationally choose anything other than the least risk? Other than out of sheer boredom of course.

If you live in High Sec doing PvE, you still effect the whole game, the more ISK you generate into the game the less everyone's ISK is worth, including those in Null, Low Sec and WH. If you want gameplay that immunizes you from other players and parts of the game, the game should be immunized of all your activities. Perhaps that's an alternative option High Sec missions and Incursions only reward players with mods/ships that can be used in PvE and no ISK.

EVE is supposed to be a Sandbox, CCP should stop accommodating Themepark players... yes that's the divide in all these debates I see on the forums. It isn't between PvPers and "Carebears" whatever that means, it's between Sandbox players and Themepark players. In regards to the Economy and everything else in the next meeting I want the CSM to ram home to CCP with the iron fist of Mittani that they need to always choose Sandbox over Themepark. I have no desire to play space WoW.

Please discuss issues related to this session in this thread. We look forward to your comments and suggestions.

popping ships does nothing to reduce Isk in circulation. it reduces the materials in circulation, which in turn would lead to higher material prices (except for the faucets of materials)

You and Goose are correct, my earlier statement only applies as an ISK sink for players, not the economy as a whole.

Perhaps then Insurance is what needs to be adjusted, adding and ISK cost in manufacturing equivalent to the cost to insure the ship, or removing Insurance altogether. A scam proof system of player funded insurance would be interesting, although I'm not sure if many players would get any insurance under real market situations.

Bounties are a huge ISK faucet however, and I have some ideas to fix that.

No more direct ISK payments into a players account. Rather when an NPC ship with a bounty is killed it drops Tags which then have to be taken to an appropriate Faction Agent and traded for ISK. This combined with reinstating proper Risk/Reward dynamics to EVE would cut ISK inflation significantly, make blowing up ships potentially a game wide ISK sink, and add a real means of potentially profiting from Piracy/PvP which is sorely lacking in EVE. ... All dependent on whether the ship is carrying Tags (physical ISK) and whether on ship destruction they drop or get destroyed.

Essentially make ISK a physical object like gold in Fantasy sandbox MMOs.

There are safer ways to introduce isk sinks, in ways that are not hugely disruptive. Remove LP shop tag tradein, while increase isk tradein, to a point far higher than base tag prices. Drastically increase sov bills and npc office bills. Entities that get them can afford it. Drastically increase wardec costs. Etc.

Trying to "add risk" in order to force people to play their game a certain way, introduce problems, and has nothing to do with increase isk sink/decrease isk faucet. Don't tie the two together.

No, in a game like EVE everything is connected, you can't look at one aspect in isolation of everything else. Risk and Reward are very much out of balance in EVE and that dynamic is very much tied in with the economic aspects of EVE. Your fears of people fleeing to Highsec or joining mega alliances with a fetish for blue, already happened long ago, precisely because that's the path of both greatest reward and least risk, fix that and players may make different choices.

Your suggestion on Wardecs is backwards. Wardecs should be made cheap and limitless. The ISK sink ought to be for those wishing to avoid the risks of war, not for those that embrace it. At least double the Tax rates of NPC corps, but something in the region of 40-50% would be better. Allow player corps to pay for the same protection from Wardecs, by paying Concord a 50% tax on all members activities. That would be an effective solution that is also balanced with risk/reward.

No Goose99, everything you say in your last post has been answered in one of previous posts, Except about players leaving.

I think what it boils down to is you just want EVE to be more of a Themepark style MMO. If players came to EVE (a supposedly sandbox MMO revolving around PvP) and expected to be able to play a Themepark MMO where they're can at no cost never be subject to non consensual PvP then they should leave. Further more, EVE's long term health as a game would be better off if they did leave as opposed to keep pushing the game further and further away from the Sandbox model.

Oh and are you saying that 92% of Players in EVE only play in Highsec? Where is the number from?