| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
   |
Posted - 2007.06.05 23:55:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Trevedian
Suggestions? Comments?
Quite apart from allways seeing old, broke PvPers in this game - there's inflation and it's directly caused by CCP. No more need be said.
//Maya |
Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 00:02:00 -
[2]
"Extra Tax: Jita? Huge Hub, why not tax it?"
Becaus getting the traders to quit again isn't smart. Because nt touching the factors which created the hub (and they are VERY VERY strong) means that at best, two or three systems will pick up the slack, although a lot of fittings will mean flying arround like a loon trying to find stuff which is going direct to the big alliances,...
Not to mention the griefing potentials if you're using pure order volume. This has been covered before in detail. It's one of thw worst ideas ever posted in this forum. Seriously.
You need to start tearing down the boundaries to spreading the market, not trashing it again.
//Maya |
Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 00:10:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 06/06/2007 00:10:01
Jinx, such a change would be tempory as a tax rise, and the majority of players who'd quit over it wouldn't come back. Quite simply, they are the people who CCP needs to spread the market away from the current hubs.
There's a lot which can be done (see the recent dedicated thread on this..) without slash and burn methods like taxing hubs, which plain discourages the use of the market (and since auctions are barely useful, trade beyond personal contacts at all).
Also, I'm far from convinced that a "great" amount of ISK needs to be lost. See broke people in Eve all the time, many of them with high SP characters...
//Maya |
Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 00:19:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 06/06/2007 00:18:48
And as I've said, it will do a lot of damage to an allready badly damaged area of Eve, and leaving it in place for 6+ months will just damage the spread of goods avaliable, without spreading the market beyond the current hubs and maybe the odd system or two directly next to one of the current major hubs.
So it won't even work, and it's counterproductive in the longer term!
And it's specifically about taxting Jita: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=530938
//Maya |
Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 00:28:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 06/06/2007 00:28:27
Drykor,
It's been tried before. Mostly on MU*'s rather than anything graphical, but you can directly compare and draw conclusions from the MU*'s. (I think Dr. Bartle did a paper on it, but I can't find the link right now)
Quite simply, a fixed economy is quite hard to control, and you have problems with scarcity and hording, as well as issues such as characters quitting and returning. It is far simpler to control the faucets and drains from the economy.
Also, bear in mind that real-world economies certainly are not fixed-cash, they haven't been tied to actual reserves for a long time now. (And, from my experience, fixed-cash economies plain ain't that much fun - if I want to be taxed to death from a thousand papercuts... oh, that happens IRL...)
//Maya |
Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
|
Posted - 2007.06.07 01:15:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Alvara
"introduce reduced payoff according to where the ship was lost (sec)"
I like. :)
So you're planning on fighting against the PvPers who come back to high sec to wardec corps of newbs then?
//Maya |
| |
|