Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 02:45:00 -
[31] - Quote
Goose99 wrote: Stats provided by CCP. A bit out of date, but I doubt it changed much. All your ideas ruins the economy, in order to achieve your vision of what Eve should be changed into. It's an economy thread. Go push your unrelated agenda somewhere else. Btw, I now pronounce you the boss of what Eve should be.
My ideas are linked with issues of "The Economy in General", hence not inappropriately posted here. Perhaps you can ask Trebor to make a new thread that would by default exclude ideas like mine, such as... "CSM December Summit: The Economy, specifically how to reward risk aversion and punish risk takers" or "CSM December Summit: Space WoW, the future of EVE"
So only 8% of players have any characters that spend any time in Nullsec, Lowsec, or Wormholes? hmm ok...
Goose99 wrote:Btw, I now pronounce you the boss of what Eve should be.
Thanks! ..Please inform CCP |
Avila Cracko
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
122
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 10:36:00 -
[32] - Quote
remove drone poo... ore to miners...
a little increase in prices is good for market/economic with big amounts of money... and for EVE itself (too easy to get big ships) and more ppl will start to mine again - less ppl grinding isk in the economy.
that's a balance between that 2 things... |
Wolodymyr
Mando'a Navy Controlled Chaos
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 11:40:00 -
[33] - Quote
PVP is the biggest material sink in this game, and dumping more materials in the game encourages people to pew in more (materially) expensive ships due to availability. So pvp is a material sink that grows to compensate any material inflation.
If inflation is inevitable This is why material inflation is more desirable to isk inflation
I think the reward systems in eve (missions, anoms, incursions) should move away from isk rewards and towards material rewards.
This is also why I like the LP store. LP can't be traded between players and can only be turned in for certain items at certain stations. LP is basically materials waiting to happen.
On a slightly related note, the one thing that would really make mining more profitable is to crack down on botting. The reason you don't make isk mining for 2 hours on the weekend is because some botter is running 15 hulks somewhere in highsec 23/7 flooding the market with minerals. Not because of drone salvage, (OK well drone botting is hurting the system but that's the bot's fault not the rogue drones!) |
Jax Slizard
Celerna Talocan United
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 17:16:00 -
[34] - Quote
My general comment is that (as some people have already pointed out) botting seriously messes up the economy.
A friend of mine played this game back before the first titan was built, and he laughed at the idea that anyone would be able to any reasonable number of them ever. He was also afraid of lvl4s, because it supposedly took 5-6 coordinated people, much like incursions or c5/c6 HW sites.
If ships (especially caps and supercaps) were much much much more minerally intensive, nerfing them might not have been so important because there would not be nearly so many. People like cheap ships, but it was not that long ago that ship prices were set by insurance rather than minerals because minerals were so cheap.
I think the economy would be healthier if a serious effort to stop bot mining were made, not to mention help the poor miners that are actually people. (And for those people who say we wouldn't have any ships without botters, you have it wrong. If there were no bots, and nobody wanted to mine, prices would eventually rise to the point that mining would be more profitable than incursions/lvl4s, and then more people would mine, and then prices would fall, and then...it would work like a functional economy.)
Finally, on the whole isk source/sink thing. Problematically, CCP is determined to get rid of NPCs selling stuff, and not having massive inflation, while letting people get more and more isk. Good luck.
Stuff can be created and destroyed. Isk can be created, but it is much more difficult to find reasonable ways to destroy it. I think the best solution (not that this would happen in a million years, its just a theoretical suggestion,) is to get rid of all sources and sinks of isk. All of them.
Replace all rewards/costs that used to be isk with some physical item/mineral/tags that can be used and destroyed, and require transportation. Make skillbooks bought with some of this stuff.
Why you ask? Because isk will still be used as a medium of exchange. People who want fluid assets will trade their stuff/items for isk, as its much more convenient than stuff. People will still buy stuff they want with isk, but will no longer just be able to go and get isk form the isk tree, but instead will have to go and get stuff that other people find valuable enough to buy from them.
Isk becomes a medium of exchange, instead of a source/sink problem. If you still want some inflation for economic purposes, then give some to newbie players or something. Further, it encourages activities that actually contribute to the economy.
Basically, imagine Sleeper loot/salvage, only all of those ancient coordinate databases would be purchased by players because they are redeemable for skillbooks (instead of selling the databases to NPCs for ISK.) |
Wolodymyr
Mando'a Navy Controlled Chaos
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 01:32:00 -
[35] - Quote
Jax Slizard wrote:get rid of all sources and sinks of isk. All of them. Brilliant idea, would totally fix the economy, and halt inflation in it's tracks, never gonna happen though.
Also you'd have to account for the one unavoidable isk sink: people unsubscribing. I know we don't like to talk about this but after the incarna debacle a lot of ultra wealthy people in eve just stopped playing, you can see the effects of this in the T2 market.
When someone quits playing all the isk in their account just sits there never re entering the system. Also all their market sell orders stay up so the dead account accumulates more isk without spending it. |
Thredd Necro
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
58
|
Posted - 2011.11.30 07:03:00 -
[36] - Quote
Xorv wrote: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?
EVE's long term health has to do with income to keep CCP in business and therefore EVE up and running. ALL else is secondary including everyone's fantasies of a 100% sandbox game. CCP gets to say how it goes and has the right to alienate thousands of potential customers and leave millions of ISK on the table if they want to. You don't get to.
CCP was at least smart enough to see that EVE as 100% null-sec would hamstring its growth otherwise don't you think they would have at least shrunk empire space by now if not made it smaller to begin with?
EVE has certainly held on and certainly has a devoted following but hasn't exactly been a smash hit. It is still a mostly unique game and although it opened almost a year and a half BEFORE WOW, it just celebrated 350K subscriptions. EVE has staying power yes, but isn't setting the world on fire.
What is the point of low-sec and null-sec if the payments are balanced against the risk? It's not like there's any real risk when death means nothing and a new ship is just seconds away provided one follows the rule to not fly anything one cannot afford to replace.
Humans as a group prefer living in high-sec type places rather than low or null-sec and the sooner people decide to accept that as reality the sooner they will be able to work out how to make this game more interesting for all players. Or they can keep going and keep the same subscription numbers.
This game needs treaties and trade and tribute more than it needs robbing from people who choose to play a style of game that CCP allows even though they might prefer more people spend more time screwing each other over, just to give the money to CCP's pet player segment.
|
Zirse
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
181
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 18:21:00 -
[37] - Quote
Goose99 wrote:Xorv wrote:Goose99 wrote: 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. Those suggestions... they either vastly increase isk faucet via insurance, or chase highseccers (92% of total player base) to another mmo, likely both. Your other suggestions, like adding insurance value to manufacturing cost, is downright game breaking. .
This is such a garbage stat. It's 92% of characters. When you consider how many dead trial characters are in highsec as well as everybody's Jita alt, of course 92% of the characters are in highsec.
|
Zenedia
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 18:57:00 -
[38] - Quote
The answer is shockingly simple. How come CONCORD pays you in Imperial Spacebuxx when you kill people in the lawless frontier? Why can you trade your Imperial Spacebuxx for things on the fringes of the galaxy?
In ye olde times, how much trade was accomplished by an agreed upon item? So my fix is simple. Cash made in different regions is only good for that region!
You wanna run HS missions all day? Good on you, you just made 1bil Imperial Insured Guaranteed "In God We Trust" Spacebuxx. Have fun only using that to shop in HS stations.
Lowsec income (lol) is the same, you get Black Market Spacebuxx. Only can shop in lowsec with it. Lowsec people dont trust Imperial Spacebuxx, only their agreed upon currency.
Same for 0.0. When the influence of the galactic governments is half a galaxy away ... I don't care how much they SAY their cash is worth/represents. Ill trade you a gun for that piece of metal. |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 06:28:00 -
[39] - Quote
Goose99 wrote:Xorv wrote: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.
Er what, anomalies give 2 rewards (isk and items) and empire missions do all of that, and LP and in safe space that does not need to be fought fore. And you are suggesting that null sec stuff should be nerfed more?
LP is not a isk sink for the missioner themselves, they make money on every LP, what are they worth a thousand each? If they spend lp and 5 million isk on a mod worth 10 million, they make 5 mil strait up. That's not a loss its a gain. |
Rip Minner
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
35
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 06:55:00 -
[40] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:StukaBee wrote: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 ... Yeah, missioning gives too many different things. Each "task", career, whatever you want to call it, should have its own rewards. The divisions of labor need to be more distinct. Missioning and ratting/exploration are the biggest offenders in this regard.
Ya I could not agree more myself. I feel bpc's should be droping and not modules them selfs. On top of burning the Drone goo.
There are just to many sources of Min's out side of Mining. That needs to change. At least on NPC targets. Player targets it works just fine.
The current pure isk fauts are just fine. They would need that isk to pay the higher prices for things if you burn drone goo and change npc loot to bpc's. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1385
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 07:43:00 -
[41] - Quote
Goose99 wrote:Xorv wrote: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? Stats provided by CCP. A bit out of date, but I doubt it changed much. All your ideas ruins the economy, in order to achieve your vision of what Eve should be changed into. It's an economy thread. Go push your unrelated agenda somewhere else. Btw, I now pronounce you the boss of what Eve should be.
The last available data, the QEN from Q4 2010 showed 79.6% of characters in hi-sec Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Takeshi Yamato
ALA Biomedical
34
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 08:24:00 -
[42] - Quote
The economy suffers from significant inflation and attempts should be made to reduce it. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
147
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 09:36:00 -
[43] - Quote
Fix wardec system so that wardec evasion is impossible Ban NPC corps for anyone over X months in age, all you can get is individually decced. Fix bounty system (ie: payout conditional on type of ship destroyed) so that bounty hunting is an actual profession. Give locator agents the ability to track a competitor's trade deals and cut back on alt-based industry. Remove drone compounds ,or mix drone minerals with drone bpcs and faction/officer spawns to the point where mins are minority of exports from drone regions.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
147
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 09:46:00 -
[44] - Quote
I do agree with this though:
Thredd Necro wrote:This game needs treaties and trade and tribute
Overhauling the current standings/roles interface so that administration of alternative, non-NBSI ROEs is something worth pursuing. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
146
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 10:24:00 -
[45] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The last available data, the QEN from Q4 2010 showed 79.6% of characters in hi-sec
And that's merely a snapshot.
If at the time it was taken, a 0.0 player happened to be in highsec picking up skillbooks or jihading mackinaws or making a shopping run to Jita, they would count as one of those characters in highsec.
|
Nullbeard Rager
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 16:42:00 -
[46] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Malcanis wrote:The last available data, the QEN from Q4 2010 showed 79.6% of characters in hi-sec And that's merely a snapshot. If at the time it was taken, a 0.0 player happened to be in highsec picking up skillbooks or jihading mackinaws or making a shopping run to Jita, they would count as one of those characters in highsec.
Of COURSE! That MUST be it!
Most of 0.0 was on their jita alts shopping that day/hour/minute. |
Rip Minner
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
35
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 08:23:00 -
[47] - Quote
Nullbeard Rager wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Malcanis wrote:The last available data, the QEN from Q4 2010 showed 79.6% of characters in hi-sec And that's merely a snapshot. If at the time it was taken, a 0.0 player happened to be in highsec picking up skillbooks or jihading mackinaws or making a shopping run to Jita, they would count as one of those characters in highsec. Of COURSE! That MUST be it! Most of 0.0 was on their jita alts shopping that day/hour/minute. Right after they took their class pictures!
Funny thing that is what they always say and CCP will no longer provide this data at least openly to the player base. Were pushing 2012 right around the corner and I would bet the bank they dont add that stat into the QEN anymore.
They realy dont want to see the trueth of just how many players spend the majority of there time in High Sec.
If they keep releasing that data on every QEN and it holds at around that % or higher then the hardcore players would be hard pressed to defend there crap.
CCP know's were most of the players spend most of there time. They just dont wish to say it out loud like in that QEN.
How ever if you wish to take your own snap shots all you have to do is.
1.) Hit your F10 key and select the tab labeled Stars. 2.) Open your Statistics folder. 3.) Select the option called "Averge Pilots in Space in the Last 30 Minutes".
Spend the time doing that every time you log in and right before you go to log out. Then tell me were the over whelming majority of players spend there time in space in EVE.
Answer: High Sec
Edit: On the other hand that is only pilots in space in the last 30mins so mybe all of Low/Null and NPC Null realy like spending there time always docked up? Could the be the real push for Incarna? CCP belives there Low/Null and NPC Null players realy realy like there station time and there for they wish to improve it for them? I just dont know. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
13
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 09:01:00 -
[48] - Quote
The stats that show nearly 80% of characters (not players) in Highsec seems to make some believe that is justification for and an endorsement by players actions for a further push to risk free PvE, consensual PvP, and other themepark-ish mechanics. However, the assumption is wrong.
Most players assess their actions and behaviors on what's most rewarding, where can the most can be gained for the least effort and risk, where the action is, and what is most fun. EVE is also a game where a large portion of players have multiple accounts, never mind multiple characters.
It isn't that 80% of players would rather play under the protection of Concord in Highsec, but if that's the easiest and safest way for them to make ISK you can be sure that's where they will be, if not with their main, which they have fun with in Null or Low Sec, then with Alt characters. Just because you make the most a situation, does not mean you endorse that status quo.
Then with most of the miners and PvEing characters etc in Highsec so too come the pirates and predatory type PvPers. I don't mean to insult anyone but the Empire Wardecers and other similar types are the real Pirates of EVE, at least as traditionally a Pirate or Privateer is thought of as being. Lowsec guys are more like gangs of road warriors from Mad Max, they even live in a wasteland.
All of which point to the 80% figure indicating a serious unbalanced situation in EVE, not in that everyone wants Highsec 'space WoW', but rather the Risk vs Reward is totally off in EVE. Either non consensual PvP needs to be brought back full force to Highsec (pre P Alliance Wardec nerf), or all the major sources of ISK and minerals need to leave Highsec. |
Doctor Invictus
Industry and Investments NZAU Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 09:49:00 -
[49] - Quote
As part of an overall campaign to improve risk-reward across EVE, I would like to see player-protection/revenge services (i.e., CONCORD) get revamped. Instead of being a mandatory purchased paid for by taxes, I would like to see it be optional. That is, CONCORD would offer protection services to players in hi-sec systems on a subscription basis, with the price of the subscription being determined by the lowest security level being covered by the subscription (e.g., buying protection for 0.5 systems costs more than buying protection for 1.0 systems) and by the sec-status of the pilot being covered (covering lower-security pilots costs more). Pilots could also forgo subscribing to CONCORD, which would leave them open to attack, even though they might be located in hi-sec. New players would receive an automatic subscription for some period. Protected vs. Unprotected players could be distinguished via overview settings.
A kind of tweaked bounty/contract system would allow player-groups to basically compete with CONCORD in hi-sec (perhaps offering lower prices for not-so-guaranteed or swift revenge) and maybe even provide this service in low-sec, possibly making it more accessible to a greater range of pilots (for a price). Another possibility would be to have the overview icon distinguishing Protected and Unprotected work on a color gradient: observers could distinguish between players protected by highly effective providers, those protected by not-so-effective providers, and those with no protection whatsoever.
Within hi-sec, pilots would have the option of choosing between various qualities and prices of protection: CONCORD would be the high-priced gold-standard, and various player groups could offer protection of a quality somewhere between that and nothing. Those choosing to go without protection would have lower operating costs, but would be at a greater risk of being attacked.
|
ovenproofjet
The Illuminatii Mildly Intoxicated
27
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 10:51:00 -
[50] - Quote
Goose99 is a troll right? Otherwise he's just plain re####ed.
I mean come on, deleting anomalies in null sec and move all Isk faucets to high sec the most stupid idea I've read on here since CCP announced Aurum.
Your plan would render Sov MORE worthless than it currently is, anoms are the ONLY reason currently to hold Sov beyond Supercap production.... |
|
Zagam
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
303
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 18:35:00 -
[51] - Quote
Add logistics ships repairing the killers to killmails. |
Goose99
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
313
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 18:59:00 -
[52] - Quote
Zagam wrote:Add logistics ships repairing the killers to killmails.
Remove kms. Problem solved. |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 19:04:00 -
[53] - Quote
Doctor Invictus wrote:As part of an overall campaign to improve risk-reward across EVE, I would like to see player-protection/revenge services (i.e., CONCORD) get revamped. Instead of being a mandatory purchased paid for by taxes, I would like to see it be optional. That is, CONCORD would offer protection services to players in hi-sec systems on a subscription basis, with the price of the subscription being determined by the lowest security level being covered by the subscription (e.g., buying protection for 0.5 systems costs more than buying protection for 1.0 systems) and by the sec-status of the pilot being covered (covering lower-security pilots costs more). Pilots could also forgo subscribing to CONCORD, which would leave them open to attack, even though they might be located in hi-sec. New players would receive an automatic subscription for some period. Protected vs. Unprotected players could be distinguished via overview settings.
Best core idea ever. Plus it's an isk sink. |
Goose99
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
313
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 19:07:00 -
[54] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Doctor Invictus wrote:As part of an overall campaign to improve risk-reward across EVE, I would like to see player-protection/revenge services (i.e., CONCORD) get revamped. Instead of being a mandatory purchased paid for by taxes, I would like to see it be optional. That is, CONCORD would offer protection services to players in hi-sec systems on a subscription basis, with the price of the subscription being determined by the lowest security level being covered by the subscription (e.g., buying protection for 0.5 systems costs more than buying protection for 1.0 systems) and by the sec-status of the pilot being covered (covering lower-security pilots costs more). Pilots could also forgo subscribing to CONCORD, which would leave them open to attack, even though they might be located in hi-sec. New players would receive an automatic subscription for some period. Protected vs. Unprotected players could be distinguished via overview settings.
Best core idea ever. Plus it's an isk sink.
Only if all Empire, including nullsec is covered, and you don't know who's protected until you shoot them. Also, Concord should randomly roam and kill you, your ship then receive no insurance payout.
There, ship sink + isk sink. Instead of sinking others, bring the sink onto you. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |