EVE Search - I don't have a doctorate in economics but...

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

I don't have a doctorate in economics but...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.12.29 03:34:00 - [1] I was doing some thinking while waiting for some carebears to undock their carriers and came to some conclusions: ISK 'faucets' such as missions and mining are increasing the total volume of ISK in the system, while the major ISK 'sinks' are things like PVP and ammo consumption. So to that end, ISK faucets are highly detrimental to the value of ISK as the volume of ISK increases, while the need to purchase new items decreases, if the 'sinks' can't keep up with the faucets, assuming that population remains static (as we're looking at the volume of ISK per capita). CCP has introduced some interesting sinks into the game lately (rigs and faction ammo are very expensive, yet essential for PVP use and 100% consumable), but I find it amusing that they've introduced mechanics such as these, and not removed others such as insurance (an easy way to remove ISK from the game). Additionally, mission runners in high sec are creating what I would think is a vast amount of ISK in the game with little to no ISK removal on their own part with the exception of ammunition consumption. This means that everyone else in Eve except the mission runners have to shoulder the burden of removing ISK from the game by either destroying or losing ships. As was indicated by the QEN (Quarterly Economic Newsletter), PVPers (players that I would classify as living in 0.0 or low sec. Empire 'PVP'rs are probably an even smaller minority than low sec or 0.0) are a very small minority, as everyone with -3.0 sec or less is less than 1% of the population, and a very small portion of the players lives in 0.0 compared to empire. Furthermore, I'm sure it's obvious that of all the population in 0.0, only a small percentage of those players are actually PVPers, with the rest being industrial/farming players. So here we have game mechanics that generate large amounts of ISK into the economy by the majority of the player base, while a very small fraction of the player base is responsible for removing it. Additionally, those who remove the ISK generate the least amount of ISK into the economy and have the least amount of purchasing power, when compared to the other players in the system. PVP playersgenerate a net ISK amount of zero- while they may gain some ISK from combat, they don't put any new ISK into the game, and in fact remove it every time there is a kill. The question isn't 'if', but 'how much' ISK is destroyed. Players like mission runners (as an example) generate an infinite amount of ISK (given enough time) and remove almost zero ISK from the game (in the form of ammunition, this includes drones etc., and a few ships due to noob losses). The more ISK a mission runner generates, the less likely he is to remove ISK from the economy, as the mission runner becomes more experienced and buys better modules/ships for mission running. Where is the balance in this? Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Yonneh Precision Engineering	Posted - 2007.12.29 03:38:00 - [2] Edited by: Yonneh on 29/12/2007 03:37:56 Here to provide nothing of consequence to your thread.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.29 03:39:00 - [3] Originally by: Bellum Eternus ISK 'faucets' such as [...] mining Originally by: Bellum Eternus ISK 'sinks' are things like PVP [...] Originally by: Bellum Eternus CCP has introduced some interesting sinks into the game lately (rigs [...] and not removed others such as insurance [...] What. - DesuSigs
Mikelio Raijan Sulithus	Posted - 2007.12.29 03:40:00 - [4] Originally by: Bellum Eternus PVP playersgenerate a net ISK amount of zero- while they may gain some ISK from combat, they don't put any new ISK into the game, and in fact remove it every time there is a kill. The question isn't 'if', but 'how much' ISK is destroyed. Just an FYI, PvP is an ISK faucet. Take a look at how insurance works then have a think about this. Originally by: Mikelio Raijan ...also, Pyramid quote time! \o/ Sorry everyone who received a 'forum break' for continuing this.
Igetshotalot THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.12.29 03:44:00 - [5] uhmm... think again..
Richard Phallus	Posted - 2007.12.29 03:48:00 - [6] Originally by: Bellum Eternus I was doing some thinking There's the problem, you may want to avoid that in the future.
Mikelio Raijan Sulithus	Posted - 2007.12.29 03:52:00 - [7] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Bellum Eternus ISK 'faucets' such as [...] mining Originally by: Bellum Eternus ISK 'sinks' are things like PVP [...] Originally by: Bellum Eternus CCP has introduced some interesting sinks into the game lately (rigs [...] and not removed others such as insurance [...] What. Ah hell, i'm just going to quote Crumplecorn. Take a note of what he has highlighted and have a think about where -ISK- comes from and where it goes, pay particular attention to what happens to the ISK when you buy a new ship, and what happens when that ship is lost.. remember you are looking at the ISK here. Your thread title is 'I don't have a doctorate in economics but...' so i'm sure people will go easy on you. However hopefully by looking at these things you will quickly realise where you went wrong. Originally by: Mikelio Raijan ...also, Pyramid quote time! \o/ Sorry everyone who received a 'forum break' for continuing this.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.12.29 03:53:00 - [8] Originally by: Mikelio Raijan Originally by: Bellum Eternus PVP playersgenerate a net ISK amount of zero- while they may gain some ISK from combat, they don't put any new ISK into the game, and in fact remove it every time there is a kill. The question isn't 'if', but 'how much' ISK is destroyed. Just an FYI, PvP is an ISK faucet. Take a look at how insurance works then have a think about this. [sarcasm]Right. Destroying ships increases the net material/ISK value in the economy.[/sarcasm] How insurance works: players pay NPCs to insure their ships. The player's ship is destroyed. The insurance ISK is removed from the game (transferred to NPCs, and not to another player). That is the definition of AN ISK SINK. Just an FYI. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Exlegion Caldari New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.29 03:54:00 - [9] Edited by: Exlegion on 29/12/2007 03:55:34 Originally by: Bellum Eternus PVP playersgenerate a net ISK amount of zero- while they may gain some ISK from combat, they don't put any new ISK into the game, and in fact remove it every time there is a kill. The question isn't 'if', but 'how much' ISK is destroyed. In fact, PVP does not remove isk from the game. PVP is a faucet, and per your argument, it's also part of the 'faucet' problem. As for your argument that mission runners are generating an 'infinite' amount of isk isn't truer than PVP generating isk inflation as well. As long as mission runners collect the loot and salvage their wrecks they more or less balance the relative effects of inflation. PVP (ship destruction) only has one direction; increase inflation. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Guru
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.12.29 03:55:00 - [10] Originally by: Mikelio Raijan Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Bellum Eternus ISK 'faucets' such as [...] mining Originally by: Bellum Eternus ISK 'sinks' are things like PVP [...] Originally by: Bellum Eternus CCP has introduced some interesting sinks into the game lately (rigs [...] and not removed others such as insurance [...] What. Ah hell, i'm just going to quote Crumplecorn. Take a note of what he has highlighted and have a think about where -ISK- comes from and where it goes, pay particular attention to what happens to the ISK when you buy a new ship, and what happens when that ship is lost.. remember you are looking at the ISK here. Your thread title is 'I don't have a doctorate in economics but...' so i'm sure people will go easy on you. However hopefully by looking at these things you will quickly realise where you went wrong. So... running missions removes large amounts of material wealth from the game? PVP adds more material wealth to the game? Wern't you the guy who said something about insurance being an ISK faucet? What? Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.29 03:56:00 - [11] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Mikelio Raijan Originally by: Bellum Eternus PVP playersgenerate a net ISK amount of zero- while they may gain some ISK from combat, they don't put any new ISK into the game, and in fact remove it every time there is a kill. The question isn't 'if', but 'how much' ISK is destroyed. Just an FYI, PvP is an ISK faucet. Take a look at how insurance works then have a think about this. [sarcasm]Right. Destroying ships increases the net material/ISK value in the economy.[/sarcasm] How insurance works: players pay NPCs to insure their ships. The player's ship is destroyed. The insurance ISK is removed from the game (transferred to NPCs, and not to another player). That is the definition of AN ISK SINK. Just an FYI. /facepalm The only way insurance could be an ISK sink is if peoples' ships survived the 12 week insurance period several more times than they were destroyed during it on average. - DesuSigs
Mikelio Raijan Sulithus	Posted - 2007.12.29 03:57:00 - [12] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Mikelio Raijan Originally by: Bellum Eternus PVP playersgenerate a net ISK amount of zero- while they may gain some ISK from combat, they don't put any new ISK into the game, and in fact remove it every time there is a kill. The question isn't 'if', but 'how much' ISK is destroyed. Just an FYI, PvP is an ISK faucet. Take a look at how insurance works then have a think about this. [sarcasm]Right. Destroying ships increases the net material/ISK value in the economy.[/sarcasm] How insurance works: players pay NPCs to insure their ships. The player's ship is destroyed. The insurance ISK is removed from the game (transferred to NPCs, and not to another player). That is the definition of AN ISK SINK. Just an FYI. Don't back yourself into a corner with aggression, it will only make you feel more foolish when you have the big 'revelation'. Originally by: Mikelio Raijan ...also, Pyramid quote time! \o/ Sorry everyone who received a 'forum break' for continuing this.
Hannobaal Gallente Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.29 03:57:00 - [13] Originally by: Bellum Eternus ISK 'faucets' such as missions and mining are increasing the total volume of ISK in the system, while the major ISK 'sinks' are things like PVP and ammo consumption. Mining = not ISK faucet (actually, in an indirect way, it counteracts the effects of ISK faucets on inflation) PVP = not an ISK sink in any way (and with insurance it's a net ISk faucet for the most part) Ammo consumption = not an ISK sink in any way Look at it this way: I buy a ship from someone. I get the ship and they get 30 mil ISK from me. Now I have the ship and the ISK is in the wallet of the person I bought it from. I go out and lose that ship. The ship is gone, but the ISK is still safe in the sellers wallet. No currency left the economy.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.29 04:00:00 - [14] The last thread about this - DesuSigs
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.12.29 04:05:00 - [15] Originally by: Crumplecorn Edited by: Crumplecorn on 29/12/2007 03:57:23 Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Mikelio Raijan Originally by: Bellum Eternus PVP playersgenerate a net ISK amount of zero- while they may gain some ISK from combat, they don't put any new ISK into the game, and in fact remove it every time there is a kill. The question isn't 'if', but 'how much' ISK is destroyed. Just an FYI, PvP is an ISK faucet. Take a look at how insurance works then have a think about this. [sarcasm]Right. Destroying ships increases the net material/ISK value in the economy.[/sarcasm] How insurance works: players pay NPCs to insure their ships. The player's ship is destroyed. The insurance ISK is removed from the game (transferred to NPCs, and not to another player). That is the definition of AN ISK SINK. Just an FYI. /facepalm The only way insurance could be an ISK sink is if peoples' ships survived the 12 week insurance period several more times than they were destroyed during it on average. As I said in the last thread on this a few days ago, the common mistake here is equating value-in-ISK and actual ISK. Ok, lets just remove the concept of ISK and just refer to everything as 'material wealth', as ISK is an abstraction of wealth and it's value is variable depending on other factors. Mission runners/miners generate 99% of the material wealth in Eve, PVPers remove 99% of it. Mission runners do so with near 100% safety. PVPers can't access that wealth (attacking the mission runners hiding in high sec) at all by doing what they do (PVP). Broken? Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.12.29 04:07:00 - [16] Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: Bellum Eternus ISK 'faucets' such as missions and mining are increasing the total volume of ISK in the system, while the major ISK 'sinks' are things like PVP and ammo consumption. Mining = not ISK faucet (actually, in an indirect way, it counteracts the effects of ISK faucets on inflation) PVP = not an ISK sink in any way (and with insurance it's a net ISk faucet for the most part) Ammo consumption = not an ISK sink in any way Look at it this way: I buy a ship from someone. I get the ship and they get 30 mil ISK from me. Now I have the ship and the ISK is in the wallet of the person I bought it from. I go out and lose that ship. The ship is gone, but the ISK is still safe in the sellers wallet. No currency left the economy. So would it be correct in saying that 'material wealth' left the economy? The man-hours required to make the ship left the economy, yes? Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Paulo Damarr	Posted - 2007.12.29 04:08:00 - [17] Edited by: Paulo Damarr on 29/12/2007 04:11:40 Originally by: Hannobaal [Look at it this way: I buy a ship from someone. I get the ship and they get 30 mil ISK from me. Now I have the ship and the ISK is in the wallet of the person I bought it from. I go out and lose that ship. The ship is gone, but the ISK is still safe in the sellers wallet. No currency left the economy. Never thought of of it that way but it makes total sense, any act where you mine something or receive a bounty or loot drop is a creation of the ISK in the game and after that ISK is not destroyed or lost its just transferred around. Unless you count the purchase of some of the uber expensive NPC items like carrier skill books and NPC sale order T1 BPOs like BS or capitol ship ones and thats a pretty significant ISK sink. Originally by: Bellum Eternus So would it be correct in saying that 'material wealth' left the economy? The man-hours required to make the ship left the economy, yes? Material wealth is only worth the price you can get for it a good recent example was the mothership fire sale just before Trinity was released at one stage they where selling for many billions less than the usual price. In a game where the goalposts can be moved at will "material wealth" cant be used to judge actual wealth. moderated - removed to facilitate search query
Hannobaal Gallente Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.29 04:11:00 - [18] Edited by: Hannobaal on 29/12/2007 04:14:28 Originally by: Bellum Eternus Ok, lets just remove the concept of ISK and just refer to everything as 'material wealth', as ISK is an abstraction of wealth and it's value is variable depending on other factors. Fine, but then you will have said nothing that is in any way relevant to the issue of inflation. It's all material wealth, yes. But, they have a completely different effect on inflation and deflation in the economy. More ISK = inflationary pressure Less ISK = deflationary pressure More commodities (stuff to buy) = deflationary pressure Less commodities = inflationary pressure It's basically supply versus demand: More currecncy = more demand = higher prices Less currency = less demand = lower prices More commodities = more supply = lower prices Less commodities = less supply = higher prices
Hannobaal Gallente Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.29 04:14:00 - [19] Originally by: Paulo Damarr Never thought of of it that way but it makes total sense, any act where you mine something or receive a bounty or loot drop is a creation of the ISK in the game and after that ISK is not destroyed or lost its just transferred around. Yes, except for mining. When you mine you just create minerals, not ISK. The ISk you get for mining when you sell the minerals comes from another player (since we don't have npc buyers for minerals). So, the ISK you get was already in the economy.
Mikelio Raijan Sulithus	Posted - 2007.12.29 04:15:00 - [20] Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: Paulo Damarr Never thought of of it that way but it makes total sense, any act where you mine something or receive a bounty or loot drop is a creation of the ISK in the game and after that ISK is not destroyed or lost its just transferred around. Yes, except for mining. When you mine you just create minerals, not ISK. The ISk you get for mining when you sell the minerals comes from another player (since we don't have npc buyers for minerals). So, the ISK you get was already in the economy. Infact due to the market tax when you sell minerals, mining is technically an ISK sink. Originally by: Mikelio Raijan ...also, Pyramid quote time! \o/ Sorry everyone who received a 'forum break' for continuing this.
Exlegion Caldari New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.29 04:16:00 - [21] Edited by: Exlegion on 29/12/2007 04:18:41 Originally by: Paulo Damarr Never thought of of it that way but it makes total sense, any act where you mine something or receive a bounty or loot drop is a creation of the ISK in the game and after that ISK is not destroyed or lost its just transferred around. Actually, the 'creation' of loot and minerals out of nothing keeps a check on the relative effects of inflation. The destruction of material has the opposite effect, since the same amount of isk remains in the game while there is now less material to trade for it, thus increasing inflation (relatively speaking). One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Guru
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.29 04:19:00 - [22] Edited by: Crumplecorn on 29/12/2007 04:20:21 Originally by: Bellum Eternus Ok, lets just remove the concept of ISK and just refer to everything as 'material wealth', as ISK is an abstraction of wealth and it's value is variable depending on other factors. Mission runners/miners generate 99% of the material wealth in Eve, PVPers remove 99% of it. Mission runners do so with near 100% safety. PVPers can't access that wealth (attacking the mission runners hiding in high sec) at all by doing what they do (PVP). Broken? Looking at it from that perspective, total 'material wealth' or 'abstract wealth' using some magic absolute measuring system does keep increasing. But does it matter? If we both have the same wealth, but then you mission ***** to double your wealth, it does not effect me. Sure you now have more stuff than me, but I still have my stuff so I am unaffected (jealousy notwithstanding). OTOH, if you partake in an activity which is a massive ISK faucet, then my ISK indirectly becomes worth less (inflation), and that does affect me, it effectively reduces how much wealth I have through no action of mine. So I think it only matters when it concerns the ratio of ISK to Stuff, not the total of both And that relates to ISK sinks and faucets, which as pointed out above are more complicated and varied than 'missioners make, PvPers destroy'. However, I might be talking total crap here. - DesuSigs
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.12.29 04:28:00 - [23] Ok, I think I have it now. And the whole reason I posted about this is that I am/was quite confused about it. So everyone is helping me make sense of what I'm thinking about. Ratting/missioning creates raw ISK into the economy. Mining only creates raw materials into the economy that can be traded for ISK. ISK sinks are things like NPC taxes, anything sold by NPCs (like skillbooks, sales taxes, contract fees etc.), NPC station corp office rentals, etc. So I guess what the real questions I'm asking here are this: if mission runners are generating the largest portion of ISK in the game, and PVPers are generating the least amount, then how should we go about designing the game mechanics so that the PVPers have better access to the large amount of ISK/material wealth generated by the mission runners? Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Igetshotalot THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.12.29 04:30:00 - [24] Originally by: Richard Phallus Originally by: Bellum Eternus I was doing some thinking There's the problem, you may want to avoid that in the future. QFT :))
Arekhon Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2007.12.29 04:41:00 - [25] Edited by: Arekhon on 29/12/2007 04:43:30 after looking at this thread /me now understands why most petitions get denied. edit: instead of saying "we reviewed the game logs...yadda yadda" they should say "we are sorry but the sink needs more isk" Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap [BEES]
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.12.29 04:43:00 - [26] Originally by: Arekhon after looking at this thread /me now understands why most petitions get denied. Material wealth removal? Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Viper G	Posted - 2007.12.29 04:46:00 - [27] All mmorpgs are like this. If Eve were a person, that person would vote for Ron Paul.
Hannobaal Gallente Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.29 04:47:00 - [28] Originally by: Bellum Eternus So I guess what the real questions I'm asking here are this: if mission runners are generating the largest portion of ISK in the game, and PVPers are generating the least amount, then how should we go about designing the game mechanics so that the PVPers have better access to the large amount of ISK/material wealth generated by the mission runners? See, yes that makes more sense. I just went back and saw that you never actually mentioned inflation anyway. It was all the talk about sinks and faucets and the need to removeit at the same rate in entered. Anyway, as far as the distribution of wealth, a lot of people who do pvp combat in Eve also do other things to make money for themselves, either with the same character or with alts. For example, I have an industrial alt in a one-person corp that buys salvage materials and manufactures rigs near Jita so this character can buy and fit combat ships. Also, a lot of people (pirates) use pvp combat to steal wealth from others. There's two problems I, personally, think are there though. First of all, there are people who just run missions all the time and have no way of using their money in any kind of meaningful way (cause they don't want to fight other players or lead corps or alliances). They just keep piling up ISK and stuff in their wallet and hangars that they don't really need. Secondly, the more wealth in general there is in the economy (both ISK and stuff of value) compared to the number of players, the easier it is for people to buy and equip bigger and more expensive ships and lose them. At some point it kind of cheapens the game when everyone is so rich (if it comes to that point) that they can afford to fly around in capitals and lose them like people do with cruisers right now. Yaay did a thread about that months ago, except he kept calling it "inflation" for some odd reason. :)
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.29 04:49:00 - [29] Edited by: Crumplecorn on 29/12/2007 04:50:38 Originally by: Bellum Eternus So I guess what the real questions I'm asking here are this: if mission runners are generating the largest portion of ISK in the game, and PVPers are generating the least amount, then how should we go about designing the game mechanics so that the PVPers have better access to the large amount of ISK/material wealth generated by the mission runners? I'm not completely certain of what you are asking. To give direct access to that wealth you could start by (drastic example) moving L4 missions to lowsec. That way PvPers can gank carebears and take their expensive mission running gear. But in that case carebears will probably stop fitting expensive gear. Or simply learn to avoid being ganked. The amount of ISK/wealth that can be made through PvP is determined by how much people risk and subsequently lose in PvP. Mission runners have a lot of wealth because they risk as little as possible, so there's not much you can do to change it really. In terms of giving PvPers non-missioning ways of making their own money, that's a case of boosting lowsec and 0.0 moneymaking I guess... or just removing missions completely. That'd be a laugh. - DesuSigs
Mikelio Raijan Sulithus	Posted - 2007.12.29 05:01:00 - [30] Originally by: Xaen Originally by: Mikelio Raijan Originally by: Bellum Eternus PVP playersgenerate a net ISK amount of zero- while they may gain some ISK from combat, they don't put any new ISK into the game, and in fact remove it every time there is a kill. The question isn't 'if', but 'how much' ISK is destroyed. Just an FYI, PvP is an ISK faucet. Take a look at how insurance works then have a think about this. Insurance. T2 ships. Do the math. Even on T2 ships you do not pay more to insure the ship than you receive from the insurance. Please read through the thread. Originally by: Mikelio Raijan ...also, Pyramid quote time! \o/ Sorry everyone who received a 'forum break' for continuing this.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.29 05:01:00 - [31] Originally by: Xaen Originally by: Mikelio Raijan Originally by: Bellum Eternus PVP playersgenerate a net ISK amount of zero- while they may gain some ISK from combat, they don't put any new ISK into the game, and in fact remove it every time there is a kill. The question isn't 'if', but 'how much' ISK is destroyed. Just an FYI, PvP is an ISK faucet. Take a look at how insurance works then have a think about this. Insurance. T2 ships. Do the math. Pray tell, how do T2 ships alter the equation? - DesuSigs
Jennai The Greater Goon GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.29 05:04:00 - [32] Originally by: Xaen Originally by: Mikelio Raijan Originally by: Bellum Eternus PVP playersgenerate a net ISK amount of zero- while they may gain some ISK from combat, they don't put any new ISK into the game, and in fact remove it every time there is a kill. The question isn't 'if', but 'how much' ISK is destroyed. Just an FYI, PvP is an ISK faucet. Take a look at how insurance works then have a think about this. Insurance. T2 ships. Do the math. it's still an isk faucet, but much smaller than T1 ships. isk sinks in T2 production: NPC pos fuel for moon miners and reactors, NPC station factory cost, construction blocks (I think this is the only NPC component used in construction), broker fees and sales tax, insurance purchase. all of these combined is still less than the insurance payout.
Karyuudo Tydraad Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services The Acquisition	Posted - 2007.12.29 05:06:00 - [33] Alright, I can't read all these replies, and I'm only gonna make this clear once. Mining is an ISK sink. You mine the ore. Probably refine it. Doesn't matter. Now you sell the ore, and you get ISK. But that ISK comes from someone else. It doesn't just appear, someone bought your ****. The only net change in the economy is the tax on the transfer that takes a small cut out of the economy. PVE is an ISK faucet. Mission rewards and bounties are money that just appear out of thin air. Selling the loot is an ISK sink. Again, you got the loot for free, but someone had to buy it/reproccessed minerals from it for you to make money. The only net change there is, again, the tax. Insurance is an ISK faucet. You buy a Raven. Money exchanges hands between players, but the only net change is tax. You insure the Raven. You lose, say for simplicity's sake, 20 mil ISK. That money is out of the economy. At this point it's an ISK sink. You buy modules. No net change besides tax, because while you're losing money through buying, another player is making money from the sale. It's still in the economy. Now, you lose the Raven. Pirates loot it. You collect, say 100mil from insurance. That money appears from thin air. Half your gear is looted. The pirates sell it. No net change (save taxes), for them to sell someone else has to pay. If it was rigged, also no change. You paid for the rigs, but another player got the money. The ISK is still out there. So the only net change (taxes are fairly negligible) is 100mil you gained from insurance, 20 mil you lost for the initial payment. It's a net 80mil ISK faucet. Don't confuse your own personal loss with an ISK sink. The money's still out there, you just don't have it any more.
Aeco Feife	Posted - 2007.12.29 05:32:00 - [34] DonÆt know why I am getting in to another one of these butà. To oversimplify, prices at a point in time reflect the ratio between money in the system, and the quantity of goods exchanged via that money. So P = money / stuff. Increasing money generally increases prices (level of stuff fixed), while increasing stuff with no change in money decreases prices. Applied to Eve, there are three sorts of activities people can engage in: 1. Actions that affect only the level of isk in the economy buying (then training) skills, ratting without looting, and mission payouts. Pure faucets and sinks that impact only the money side. 2. Actions that affect only the level of material wealth in the economy like mining, drone regions, etc that impact only the stuff side 3. Actions that affect both the level of isk and the level of material wealth in the economy. Ratting with looting, building from blueprints, pvp with insurance, everything else in Eve except 1 & 2. How such an act impacts the level of prices depends on how much isk is generated (destroyed) compared to the current isk value of the goods produced (destroyed). The part of the trouble with T1 insurance is that it increases the level of isk in the system at the same time the amount of stuff in the system is decreased. A ship is lost, decreasing the stuff in the economy while isk is pumped in, increasing the money side, both forces increasing prices in general.
Frug Zenithal Harvest	Posted - 2007.12.29 05:37:00 - [35] For once, crumple, you're talking nonsense. - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.12.29 05:51:00 - [36] Originally by: Crumplecorn Edited by: Crumplecorn on 29/12/2007 04:50:38 Originally by: Bellum Eternus So I guess what the real questions I'm asking here are this: if mission runners are generating the largest portion of ISK in the game, and PVPers are generating the least amount, then how should we go about designing the game mechanics so that the PVPers have better access to the large amount of ISK/material wealth generated by the mission runners? I'm not completely certain of what you are asking. To give direct access to that wealth you could start by (drastic example) moving L4 missions to lowsec. That way PvPers can gank carebears and take their expensive mission running gear. But in that case carebears will probably stop fitting expensive gear. Or simply learn to avoid being ganked. The amount of ISK/wealth that can be made through PvP is determined by how much people risk and subsequently lose in PvP. Mission runners have a lot of wealth because they risk as little as possible, so there's not much you can do to change it really. In terms of giving PvPers non-missioning ways of making their own money, that's a case of boosting lowsec and 0.0 moneymaking I guess... or just removing missions completely. That'd be a laugh. I guess this is what I'm thinking about. Both you and Haanobaal have replied similarly. Wouldn't the continual stockpiling of ISK by mission runners with nothing to spend it on make my ISK worth relatively less, as for example, they could always out-bid me on items on auction, or w/e? Just because people can spend ISK like it's water, the most valuable items get bid up like crazy, pushing them out of reach of normal players. I still don't know about this however, as it's not making sense exactly. It still feels strange some how, as with the drop in module prices (T2 in particular) then it's less expensive to fit ships, but for each ship kill I make, I earn less ISK from the loot in the form of module resale. So as a pirate, is it in my best interest to have modules be worth more ISK, and have all items be more expensive? Or is it better for me to have stuff priced lower, knowing that I maintain a kill ratio of about 100:1? Is the ability of mission runners to generate so much ISK risk free a good thing for Eve and it's economy? At what point would it be worthwhile for mission runners to want to run missions in low sec? I've never been killed running a L4 low sec or 0.0 mission (or any other mission anywhere at all for that matter). So I don't personally understand the apprehension of mission runners about doing missions in low sec. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
J Valkor Blackguard Brigade	Posted - 2007.12.29 07:48:00 - [37] The super rich in EVE are not mission runners.
Lardarz B'stard Amarr Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.12.29 07:49:00 - [38] "Faucet" is a stupid word. The correct expression is "tap". Originally by: Kindakrof there is no gravity in space
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.29 08:07:00 - [39] Edited by: Venkul Mul on 29/12/2007 08:09:11 Originally by: Crumplecorn Edited by: Crumplecorn on 29/12/2007 04:50:38 Originally by: Bellum Eternus So I guess what the real questions I'm asking here are this: if mission runners are generating the largest portion of ISK in the game, and PVPers are generating the least amount, then how should we go about designing the game mechanics so that the PVPers have better access to the large amount of ISK/material wealth generated by the mission runners? I'm not completely certain of what you are asking. To give direct access to that wealth you could start by (drastic example) moving L4 missions to lowsec. That way PvPers can gank carebears and take their expensive mission running gear. But in that case carebears will probably stop fitting expensive gear. Or simply learn to avoid being ganked. The amount of ISK/wealth that can be made through PvP is determined by how much people risk and subsequently lose in PvP. Mission runners have a lot of wealth because they risk as little as possible, so there's not much you can do to change it really. It is not possible to give PvPers a way to get more wealth from PvPing as it is a negative sum activity as material wealt go: at the end of a PvP encounter one of the players has less material wealth than before. Even if the target escape, there are still the ammunition expended, if the target is killed there is the loss of ships, modules and implants. Unless Bellum want to receive a bounty for each PC target killed. Crumplecorn, your idea of moving missions again do nothing as the mission runner going to low sec and partaking in PvP is a doing PvP, so at the end there is less material wealth between the two parties again (unless you define PvPers differently than someone that is doing PvP and have some vision of a "professional" PvPers against "non-professional" PvPers division). Again Bellum: you are still loosing a point PvP is a isk faucet because of the insurance, the loser get less material wealth but more isk. That increase the quantity of isk in the system and is a large isk faucet (BTW, you are forgetting ratting, especially in 0.0, as a isk faucet). Originally by: Xaen Just an FYI, PvP is an ISK faucet. Take a look at how insurance works then have a think about this. Insurance. T2 ships. Do the math. Indifferent Xaen, even if the insurance payout was 1 isk more than the cost, it is an isk faucet. You lose material wealth when you lose a ship, not isk, but you (and the whole system) gain isk.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.12.29 09:25:00 - [40] Originally by: Venkul Mul -clipped for characters- Notable stuff Venkul. Thanks for the constructive posting. In regard to adding bounties for PC kills, a while ago I suggested exactly that for the concept of factional warfare. IMO the real issue of PVPers not being able to access the ISK made by mission runners (ratters in 0.0 contribute to a very minute amount of the ISK generated in Eve compared to mission runners in empire) is due to the mission runners never coming into contact with PVPers ever. Yeah, I guess this is a stuck record, but I was just thinking about the groups of ISK in Eve and what it's doing to the economy, and what really drives the Eve economy. I mean, doesn't destruction of assets (PVP) produce the sole reason for the Eve economy to exist? Otherwise you'd have 100% saturation of all goods (assuming a stable number of players) and no one would need to buy anything other than a few low cost consumables such as ammo. What else other than PVP and small NPC charges like sales tax etc. really drives ISK loss? I'd be quite interested to see the correlation between players wallets and their sec status, as well as their ship type losses and system locations. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Skyslider Gallente Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2007.12.29 09:31:00 - [41] You have missed a few ISK sinks: Mission running generates LP, Isk and Material. LP store converts LP and Isk into material. This has a negative feedback loop with inflation/deflation of Isk as when isk is deflated, you can get more personal value by using the pure LP option, creating material without sinking isk; when Isk is inflated, you gain more value by spending isk and a much lesser amount of LP, sinking isk and creating material (and then sinking more isk in tax/broker fees as you trade the item to another player for inflated isk). All POS modules are either purchased from market seeds initially, or required a POS module purchased from a market seed as part of their construction. Territorial disputes tend to destroy large quantities of these modules, which tend to be replaced, resulting in a large isk sink without much change in materials. This sink has been weakened somewhat as of Trinity due to the ability to capture everything but the towers. Outpost construction takes massive amounts of components purchased from market seeds, sinking isk. Inflation should also be moderated by shuttles, which can be purchased from market seeds and refined into minerals.
Caligulus Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.12.29 10:29:00 - [42] The single greatest source of inflation is payouts on insured ships. The second greatest source of inflation would be bounties on 0.0 rats and BS mission rats. Eliminating insurance especially for piracy would clamp down vastly on isk entering the game. That being said i'm pretty sure it wont be too long before bounties are the number one source. Damn RMT farmers. Gotta get rid of the morons buying isk to drive these fools away. ------------------------------------------------- ** Name ONE thing that your windows comp can do that my MAC cant ** Right click.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.12.29 10:31:00 - [43] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 29/12/2007 10:35:43 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 29/12/2007 10:31:51 Originally by: Bellum Eternus I was doing some thinking while waiting for some carebears to undock their carriers and came to some conclusions: ISK 'faucets' such as missions and mining are increasing the total volume of ISK in the system, while the major ISK 'sinks' are things like PVP and ammo consumption. You do not in fact have even a basic course in economics, obviously. PvP is more of a ISK faucet then sink (due to insurance) - PvP has the two-fold effect of increasing ISK in circulation and decreasing items in circulation*. Ammo consumption (since ammo is bought from players) merely decreases items in circulation. This is not counting in the trivially small trade tax. * Decrease in material in circulation is neither a ISK sink or faucet. It does have a inflatory influence of the economy, but we do not, in fact, have inflation; meaning more stuff is mined (which is neither a ISK sink or faucet, merely increases the amount of material in circulation) then destroyed. Edit: did anyone mention inflation in thread? There is no inflation. Move along. Rifters!
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.12.29 10:33:00 - [44] did you read the report or watch the fanfest video on this? there is actually deflation currently in eve. things are going down in price not up. inflation would mean things are costing more to buy. however the cost of living in eve is going down. thus deflation. pink supporter! Future art director at CCP! or texture guy, either or :P http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2004#Narbacular_Drop Was in class with these folks :P
Jonny JoJo Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2007.12.29 10:59:00 - [45] Edited by: Jonny JoJo on 29/12/2007 11:00:40 Originally by: Xaen Originally by: Mikelio Raijan Originally by: Bellum Eternus PVP playersgenerate a net ISK amount of zero- while they may gain some ISK from combat, they don't put any new ISK into the game, and in fact remove it every time there is a kill. The question isn't 'if', but 'how much' ISK is destroyed. Just an FYI, PvP is an ISK faucet. Take a look at how insurance works then have a think about this. Insurance. T2 ships. Do the math. T2 ship has build cost of pretty much the insurance value - its just that people like you decide to pay more than build cost. Some people even pay 10 million for a shuttle, that does not mean that shuttle should be insured for 10mil. However build/Market cost is irrelevant. The ship is made from minerals/goods and when blown, it creates isk in the form of insurance. Thus the TOTAL isk in the game has gone up, not down, since the money you spend on buying that ship is still in the game. E.G T2 ship gives out 2mil insurance. Costs about 2 mil to make. You buy on market from reseller for 200mil. Total isk in game = 200mil. Ship dies and you get 2 mil insurance. Total isk in game 202mil. Now do the maths yourself and relise you dont know what isk faucet is Refresh to see next Real Life CCP sig(16 total)
Zey Nadar Gallente Jade Phoenix Consortium	Posted - 2007.12.29 11:12:00 - [46] Arent skillbooks a kind of isk sink?
Melor Rend	Posted - 2007.12.29 11:20:00 - [47] Edited by: Melor Rend on 29/12/2007 11:20:31 I think the OP got the ISK-sinks wrong: Anything thats player made (e.g. rigs, pvp-ships, ammo etc.) are definatly NOT ISK-sinks since the ISK is still in-game after you buy a ship - it just changed hands. Then you insure your ship for 20mil (these 20mil are out of the game since insurance is NPC service = 20mil ISK "sunk") then you go loose your ship and get 100mil payed back to you so instead of "sinking" any ISK, you actually pumped 80mil ISK extra into the market. The only things that can be considered "ISK-sinks" are services or transactions that remove the ISK from the game (and not just your individual wallet since the ISK still remains in the game that way).
Cat Casidy Wise Guys Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.12.29 11:31:00 - [48] SECOND! to contribute absolutley nothing to this M thread! ... I knew YOU had too much time on your hands, but who would've thought so many other people did too?? My two cents..... you owe me a nickle now btw
Jenny Spitfire Caldari SIVAKASI	Posted - 2007.12.29 11:32:00 - [49] I am not an economist Melor Rand but let me see if I have understood you correctly. Are you saying that PVP is actually destroying the economy by making ISKs available more freely in the game? It sounds a bit oxymoron to me unless I have completely misunderstood you. --------- Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria! Recruitment -KB-
Omega Man The Geddy Foundation	Posted - 2007.12.29 11:35:00 - [50] Originally by: Bellum Eternus I was doing some thinking while waiting for some carebears to undock their carriers and came to some conclusions: ISK 'faucets' such as missions and mining How does mining generate isk? - - Happy user of CAOD troll cleaner http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=584345
Cat Casidy Wise Guys Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.12.29 11:36:00 - [51] Edited by: Cat Casidy on 29/12/2007 11:38:31 Jenny, I think he forgot that ships have mods on them that get blown up along with the ship... not to mention cargo edit- but ya like i said before i have nothing to contribute here and frankly I'm in the middle of making a meatloaf and lots of things sound like they're close to being "why did you burn me you bastard!" so yaa My two cents..... you owe me a nickle now btw
7shining7one7 Quafe Paladins	Posted - 2007.12.29 11:37:00 - [52] Originally by: Bellum Eternus I was doing some thinking while waiting for some carebears to undock their carriers and came to some conclusions: ISK 'faucets' such as missions and mining are increasing the total volume of ISK in the system, while the major ISK 'sinks' are things like PVP and ammo consumption. So to that end, ISK faucets are highly detrimental to the value of ISK as the volume of ISK increases, while the need to purchase new items decreases, if the 'sinks' can't keep up with the faucets, assuming that population remains static (as we're looking at the volume of ISK per capita). CCP has introduced some interesting sinks into the game lately (rigs and faction ammo are very expensive, yet essential for PVP use and 100% consumable), but I find it amusing that they've introduced mechanics such as these, and not removed others such as insurance (an easy way to remove ISK from the game). Additionally, mission runners in high sec are creating what I would think is a vast amount of ISK in the game with little to no ISK removal on their own part with the exception of ammunition consumption. This means that everyone else in Eve except the mission runners have to shoulder the burden of removing ISK from the game by either destroying or losing ships. As was indicated by the QEN (Quarterly Economic Newsletter), PVPers (players that I would classify as living in 0.0 or low sec. Empire 'PVP'rs are probably an even smaller minority than low sec or 0.0) are a very small minority, as everyone with -3.0 sec or less is less than 1% of the population, and a very small portion of the players lives in 0.0 compared to empire. Furthermore, I'm sure it's obvious that of all the population in 0.0, only a small percentage of those players are actually PVPers, with the rest being industrial/farming players. So here we have game mechanics that generate large amounts of ISK into the economy by the majority of the player base, while a very small fraction of the player base is responsible for removing it. Additionally, those who remove the ISK generate the least amount of ISK into the economy and have the least amount of purchasing power, when compared to the other players in the system. PVP playersgenerate a net ISK amount of zero- while they may gain some ISK from combat, they don't put any new ISK into the game, and in fact remove it every time there is a kill. The question isn't 'if', but 'how much' ISK is destroyed. Players like mission runners (as an example) generate an infinite amount of ISK (given enough time) and remove almost zero ISK from the game (in the form of ammunition, this includes drones etc., and a few ships due to noob losses). The more ISK a mission runner generates, the less likely he is to remove ISK from the economy, as the mission runner becomes more experienced and buys better modules/ships for mission running. Where is the balance in this? uh.. i'm not entirely sure what it is your talking about or wanting to say exactly, because i think you must have made a mistake or is this a joke thread. but anyways speaking of which, how about 0.0 mission running for pirate faction ships, how about plex running and 0.0 exploration for faction stuff and other such things. how about r&d invention etc. and the list goes on and on and on... your post seems kinda like this; "i haven't got a clue about eve besides pvp'ing in low sec, so uhm i guess i think empire is kinda sucky cause they should fly in low sec and get ganked by me, so i'll make this post to encourage ppl to pvp more since i percieve an imbalance that isn't really there.."
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.29 11:39:00 - [53] In after, and almost certainly before, people who don't bother reading the thread. - DesuSigs
Corpse Mage	Posted - 2007.12.29 11:40:00 - [54] Edited by: Corpse Mage on 29/12/2007 11:40:27 Originally by: 7shining7one7 Originally by: Bellum Eternus stuff uh.. i'm not entirely sure what it is your talking about or wanting to say exactly, because i think you must have made a mistake or is this a joke thread. but anyways speaking of which, how about 0.0 mission running for pirate faction ships, how about plex running and 0.0 exploration for faction stuff and other such things. how about r&d invention etc. and the list goes on and on and on... your post seems kinda like this; "i haven't got a clue about eve besides pvp'ing in low sec, so uhm i guess i think empire is kinda sucky cause they should fly in low sec and get ganked by me, so i'll make this post to encourage ppl to pvp more since i percieve an imbalance that isn't really there.." QFT lol
Wet Ferret	Posted - 2007.12.29 11:59:00 - [55] You just won't stop until you can literally grief people out of the game, will you?
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.12.29 12:02:00 - [56] Originally by: 7shining7one7 ...stuff... No, what I'm trying to understand/figure out is what really drives Eve's economy. In particular, what creates the market demand for goods. Mission runners? Industrialists? Explorers? Miners? PVPers? Pirates? Why do people need new goods? Do they run out of ships? Do ships wear out? Specifically ships and modules. Drones, ammo, cap charges, stuff like that is consumable. I get that. But what about ships? Besides the occasional screw up by a noob carebear where he loses his T1 BC to a mission every once in a while, what is the major driving force in the Eve economy? Why are manufacturers able to sell so many ships and modules? I want to know where all the stuff is going. Maybe I'm really off and mission runners are just way dumber than I think they are, and just lose tons of mission running ships. Personally I haven't lost a ship to an NPC in oh... I can't remember when, it's been so long. But it just seems weird to me that anything other than PVP drives the Eve economy. Who's buying all those cap ships? Where are the old ones going? What about all those ships that arn't Ravens? Who uses them and for what? Anyone else noticing that the prices for CNRs, Navy Megas and other faction BS is dropping through the floor? Why? Market saturation. All the mission runners already have a maxed out CNR/Navy Mega/whatever and don't need any more. So I'm wondering what is the most important group of people in Eve when it comes to a healthy economy, and why that is, and how to generate a more vigorous turn over and exchange of ISK/material wealth between the players who have it, and those who don't. Isn't it bad for the economy for wealth to stagnate and not move anywhere? Like I said, the economics of Eve is something that I don't clearly understand, and is something I'm trying to figure out. Sure, I've read all the dev blogs about stuff, but so far none of the information has really answered any of the questions I have just posed. All the dev blog stuff has shown so far are some general statistics that have little to no real meaning, like the Vagabond being the 'most destroyed' T2 ship. Who cares? There is no context to that statistic, and is therefore meaningless. So anyway, stop being a smartass and try to add something to the thread. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.12.29 12:04:00 - [57] Originally by: Wet Ferret You just won't stop until you can literally grief people out of the game, will you? A) There is no such thing as 'griefing' in Eve. B) It is very common (almost every day) that I am the root cause of someone quitting the game permanently. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Antodias Ethically Challenged	Posted - 2007.12.29 12:13:00 - [58] Originally by: Crumplecorn In after, and almost certainly before, people who don't bother reading the thread. QFT Originally by: Wet Ferret You just won't stop until you can literally grief people out of the game, will you? Go away troll. Originally by: Cpt Branko Edit: did anyone mention inflation in thread? There is no inflation. Move along. I would think there would a least be a little. The amount of material leaving the economy (destroyed modules etc) doesn't seem to equate to the amount entering. Correct me if I'm wrong. ------------------------------------ Politically Correct since 2007. No really.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.29 12:16:00 - [59] Originally by: Cat Casidy Edited by: Cat Casidy on 29/12/2007 11:38:31 Jenny, I think he forgot that ships have mods on them that get blown up along with the ship... not to mention cargo edit- but ya like i said before i have nothing to contribute here and frankly I'm in the middle of making a meatloaf and lots of things sound like they're close to being "why did you burn me you bastard!" so yaa Sigh, to repeat it again: no isk has left the game to build or buy those modules or the ship so even if the player has less net worth, the whole community as more isk. When something that has been player built with player gathered resources or gathered from rats is blow up no isk leave the game. When a ship is blow up no isk leave the game, but isk enter the game from the insurance payout.
Thorek Ironbrow Ironbrow Industries Co. Empire Research	Posted - 2007.12.29 12:17:00 - [60] Edited by: Thorek Ironbrow on 29/12/2007 12:17:12 Technically, insurance is a sink. Because if you think about it. If you pay 2 million to insure a Caracal for 6 million. You've spent 8 million. You get it blown up, you only get 6 million back to buy the Caracal. But you don't get the other two million back unless you do some good missions or get something worth over two million. Maybe if the price to insure a ship was increased, that would be a big sink, especially since I'm sure everyone insures their ship. _____________________________ Thorek Ironbrow of Ironbrow Industries Co. Part of the Empire Research Alliance Look us up in Nomaa or Itamo to join!
Antodias Ethically Challenged	Posted - 2007.12.29 12:27:00 - [61] Originally by: Thorek Ironbrow Edited by: Thorek Ironbrow on 29/12/2007 12:17:12 Technically, insurance is a sink. Because if you think about it. If you pay 2 million to insure a Caracal for 6 million. You've spent 8 million. You get it blown up, you only get 6 million back to buy the Caracal. But you don't get the other two million back unless you do some good missions or get something worth over two million. Maybe if the price to insure a ship was increased, that would be a big sink, especially since I'm sure everyone insures their ship. For you it is an ISK sink, but for the whole economy it is a faucet. That 6 million you were paid came from nowhere, it entered the economy and only 2 million left. Therefore the economy has a net ISK gain of ~ + 4 million. ------------------------------------ Politically Correct since 2007. No really.
Desh Craven	Posted - 2007.12.29 12:41:00 - [62] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Where is the balance in this? Mission running ISK isn't the real problem. ISK is of no value if there is nothing to buy with that ISK. Empire missions should not provide raw materials or items that would otherwise be attainable only through mining ops in lowsec/0.0. What i've understood from talk of players that have been around for years, the PvE material sources are distorting the market. Apparently, two years ago the rare mineral prices used to be sky high. There is no real shortage of goods, so there is no inflation. Goods through PvE might not be the only thing distorting the market, but it would seem it is a major one.
Jonny JoJo Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2007.12.29 12:59:00 - [63] Originally by: Omega Man Originally by: Bellum Eternus I was doing some thinking while waiting for some carebears to undock their carriers and came to some conclusions: ISK 'faucets' such as missions and mining How does mining generate isk? Indrectly, Minerals from mining can be built into ships that blow up - thus indrectly create isk via insurance. Refresh to see next Real Life CCP sig(16 total)
Wild Rho Amarr GoonFleet	Posted - 2007.12.29 13:01:00 - [64] POS warfare is probably one of the largest isk sinks in game.
Cat Casidy Wise Guys Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.12.29 14:09:00 - [65] Edited by: Cat Casidy on 29/12/2007 14:12:19 Edited by: Cat Casidy on 29/12/2007 14:11:43 Originally by: Crumplecorn In after, and almost certainly before, people who don't bother reading the thread. Second! I hope -edit-> i did but .... ya at this point why bother My two cents..... you owe me a nickle now btw
Jonny JoJo Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2007.12.29 14:19:00 - [66] Originally by: Wild Rho POS warfare is probably one of the largest isk sinks in game. QFT. People spend Billions every hour on pos, NPC Tradegoods used by pos as fuel, as well as modules etc. Refresh to see next Real Life CCP sig(16 total)
Nicoli Voldkif Caelli-Merced INC. Gunboat Diplomacy	Posted - 2007.12.29 14:43:00 - [67] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Anyone else noticing that the prices for CNRs, Navy Megas and other faction BS is dropping through the floor? Why? Market saturation. All the mission runners already have a maxed out CNR/Navy Mega/whatever and don't need any more. So I'm wondering what is the most important group of people in Eve when it comes to a healthy economy, and why that is, and how to generate a more vigorous turn over and exchange of ISK/material wealth between the players who have it, and those who don't. Isn't it bad for the economy for wealth to stagnate and not move anywhere? One thing that was missed from the above formula is that materials/isk that are not moving between players generally have no effect on the market. If I managed to get 1 googol of isk until I use that money to trade it has no effect on the market. Once I begin to use that money to trade it starts to affect the market value of isk. In a very general since the more that stuff sits on the market the cheaper it becomes and there is a deflation of prices as shown with the T2 ship/module prices after invention. The faster that materials change hands you generally see an inflation of prices as sellers are able to raise prices and still move goods. In the real world stockpiling of money tends to have an effect on the value of money because its rarely truly stagnate, money in banks are used by the banks to provide loans which causes that money to change hands. Since the money that sits in wallets in EVE is not used at all (Think a stack of money on your desk) the overall wealth a person has does not have any direct affect on the market value of Isk, Indirectly it will have some effects mostly through the demand on goods but that will effect price not so much inflation/deflation.
Cor Aidan	Posted - 2007.12.29 15:19:00 - [68] Originally by: Desh Craven Mission running ISK isn't the real problem. ISK is of no value if there is nothing to buy with that ISK. Empire missions should not provide raw materials or items that would otherwise be attainable only through mining ops in lowsec/0.0. Actually, that's the ideal way to create ISK. Currency should directly reflect the amount of wealth in the system to avoid inflation. This means that when you create wealth (blow up a rat and get loot/salvage) you also get the currency to balance out that wealth. Likewise, when you mine, you create wealth, so ISK should be generated - but that's more complicated because you don't get a "bounty" for mining. However, as noted: Originally by: Jonny JoJo Indrectly, Minerals from mining can be built into ships... Mining does end up creating ISK by allowing players to collect bounties. This is not a 'firm' link between the wealth and currency though, as there is theoretically an infinite amount of currency able to be generated by a single ship because there is an infinite supply of rats. So an intelligent purchaser will price the ship based on a discounted future value of the ship...but most people just base the price on the current market value of the minerals used to produce it plus some markup.
Draconyx	Posted - 2007.12.29 15:22:00 - [69] A SINK is something that removes ISK from the game ie. Insurance. NPC Station taxes for selling and buying goods. Corp Offices in NPC Stations. Ship & Mod building (In the form of NPC trade goods & Taxes) Skill books (THis adds up to ALOT) There are probably several others Faucets are items that create ISK in the game. Ratting Mission Running Trading NPC goods Neither Faucet or Sink Now MINING is neither a Faucet or a Sink. In actual fact it only redistributes ISK that is in the game. I mine ICE or ORE I get the appropriate byproducts. Thre are NO NPC buyers for said byproducts. The only way I can make ISK is to sell the byproducts to others players. So I am NOT creating ISK only trading my products for another players ISK. So mining only adds Minerals or Ice to the game (NOT ISK) which is based entirely on demand of the PvP'rs So in actual fact ISK is CREATED by PVP'rs and Mission Runners NOT (miners or industrialists)
Kyra Felann Gallente Elite Storm Enterprises	Posted - 2007.12.29 15:33:00 - [70] Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad Alright, I can't read all these replies, and I'm only gonna make this clear once. Mining is an ISK sink. You mine the ore. Probably refine it. Doesn't matter. Now you sell the ore, and you get ISK. But that ISK comes from someone else. It doesn't just appear, someone bought your ****. The only net change in the economy is the tax on the transfer that takes a small cut out of the economy. PVE is an ISK faucet. Mission rewards and bounties are money that just appear out of thin air. Selling the loot is an ISK sink. Again, you got the loot for free, but someone had to buy it/reproccessed minerals from it for you to make money. The only net change there is, again, the tax. Insurance is an ISK faucet. You buy a Raven. Money exchanges hands between players, but the only net change is tax. You insure the Raven. You lose, say for simplicity's sake, 20 mil ISK. That money is out of the economy. At this point it's an ISK sink. You buy modules. No net change besides tax, because while you're losing money through buying, another player is making money from the sale. It's still in the economy. Now, you lose the Raven. Pirates loot it. You collect, say 100mil from insurance. That money appears from thin air. Half your gear is looted. The pirates sell it. No net change (save taxes), for them to sell someone else has to pay. If it was rigged, also no change. You paid for the rigs, but another player got the money. The ISK is still out there. So the only net change (taxes are fairly negligible) is 100mil you gained from insurance, 20 mil you lost for the initial payment. It's a net 80mil ISK faucet. Don't confuse your own personal loss with an ISK sink. The money's still out there, you just don't have it any more. Finally--someone who knows what he's talking about.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.12.29 15:34:00 - [71] Originally by: Xaen Insurance. T2 ships. Do the math. Yes, OK. Let's do the math. I buy a Jaguar from someone for 9M. I am personally 9M poorer; the producer (unless you have a way of buying ships from NPCs) is 9M richer. Total ISK in economy: same as it was before the purchase. Said Jaguar gets destroyed - i get a default insurance payout of 1.2-1.3M I think. ISK in the economy: 1.2-1.3M as it was before it blew up. Insuring it just means that more ISK will eventually get in the economy, actually. Rifters!
Desh Craven	Posted - 2007.12.29 15:41:00 - [72] Originally by: Draconyx Edited by: Draconyx on 29/12/2007 15:32:46 A SINK is something that removes ISK from the game ie. Insurance. NPC Station taxes for selling and buying goods. Corp Offices in NPC Stations. Ship & Mod building (In the form of NPC trade goods & Taxes) Skill books (THis adds up to ALOT) There are probably several others Faucets are items that create ISK in the game. Ratting Mission Running Trading NPC goods Neither Faucet or Sink Now MINING is neither a Faucet or a Sink. In actual fact it only redistributes ISK that is in the game. I mine ICE or ORE I get the appropriate byproducts. Thre are NO NPC buyers for said byproducts. The only way I can make ISK is to sell the byproducts to others players. So I am NOT creating ISK only trading my products for another players ISK. So mining only adds Minerals or Ice to the game (NOT ISK) which is based entirely on demand of the PvP'rs So in actual fact ISK is CREATED by PVP'rs Ratting or just Ratters in general and Mission Runners NOT (miners or industrialists) So why is that? Why is the most logical way of getting ISK into the economy not there? Why is there no NPC demand for everything?
Thorek Ironbrow Ironbrow Industries Co. Empire Research	Posted - 2007.12.29 15:47:00 - [73] Aren't tech 1 blueprints sinks. Don't they get sold by NPCs? _____________________________ Thorek Ironbrow of Ironbrow Industries Co. Part of the Empire Research Alliance Look us up in Nomaa or Itamo to join!
Kalixa Hihro	Posted - 2007.12.29 16:06:00 - [74] Originally by: Exlegion Edited by: Exlegion on 29/12/2007 04:18:41 Originally by: Paulo Damarr Never thought of of it that way but it makes total sense, any act where you mine something or receive a bounty or loot drop is a creation of the ISK in the game and after that ISK is not destroyed or lost its just transferred around. Actually, the 'creation' of loot and minerals out of nothing keeps a check on the relative effects of inflation. The destruction of material has the opposite effect, since the same amount of isk remains in the game while there is now less material to trade for it, thus increasing inflation (relatively speaking). The amount of isk in the game is always going up. CCP is constantly printing money in the form of missions, bounties and insurance payouts. Without periodic corrections inflation is inevitable. In the real world, you would have hyperinflation in any country where this occurred. From a macro economics standpoint, the only real isk sinks in this game are taxes and npc stations that sell npc things (like huge containers and commodities). On a game wide economic scale this isn't a drop in the bucket when compared to how much isk is flowing into the economy. You can't even argue that ship destruction is a macro economic sink because it's not. It didn't cause any isk to leave the game. The minerals came from mining. The money that was paid for the ship is still in the economy (in the seller's wallet), and the insurance faucet opened up and paid the player when his ship was blown up. The net isk in the economy was increased as a result of his ship destruction. The player flying the ship lost isk, but the economy did not. It gained isk, roughly double what left the economy when the player insured his ship (for the sake of example). Ship destruction is not a sink, macro-economically speaking, it's a faucet. If the player forgot to insure, approximately half the insurance value of the ship in isk left the economy( if you consider platinum insurance as a standard). People that forget to insure are actually helping the economy ROFL. -K /----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/ My opinion in no way represents that of my corp or anyone I am associated with, and is probably entirely wrong.
dakari	Posted - 2007.12.29 16:09:00 - [75] You're sorta right, carebears do hide in stations, but I've seen more "PvP" players hiding in stations til reinforcements arrive than carebears because most carebears get killed by gatecampers or if in a wardec'd corp they leave and move to an NPC corp. As to your "ISK flow and lack of flow" theories, what's the point? you lose ships you have a chance of getting a module worth several million plus your insurance means you have a good chance to get back into ship pretty fast. 0.4-0.0 do have a high ISK loss, but how many 0.5-1.0 corps actually have the tech 2 BPO's and never see 0.4-0.0 space?So by my reasoning the 0.0 corps have the most money and the highest ISK generation ability for the purpose of PvP. The only people making ISK hand over fist in high security are macro miners or multi link multi boxers with 4+ accounts running at one time, all the rest are providing salvage and minerals for everyone else to buy cheaply and build their ships and modules.
dakari	Posted - 2007.12.29 16:15:00 - [76] Originally by: Desh Craven Edited by: Desh Craven on 29/12/2007 12:53:24 Originally by: Bellum Eternus Where is the balance in this? Mission running ISK isn't the real problem. ISK is of no value if there is nothing to buy with that ISK. Empire missions should not provide raw materials or items that would otherwise be attainable only through mining ops in lowsec/0.0. What i've understood from talk of players that have been around for years, the PvE material sources are distorting the market. Apparently, two years ago the rare mineral prices used to be sky high. There is no real shortage of goods, so there is no inflation. Goods through PvE might not be the only thing distorting the market, but it would seem it is a major one. Insurance mechanics could use tweaking atleast, but it's merely a pebble in the big pile of rubble that is the current economy. Actually I re-upped after a 3 year gap and unless something changed in that 3 year period megacyte and zydrine prices have not changed. The other minerals are cheaper it seems(trit used to sell for close to 4 in some places) but the "rare" minerals are pretty much the same maybe +/- 300 depending upon region. From basic memory ships are actually more expensive now, I used to make and sell scorpions for 30million now I see them selling for 50 million or mroe now. But if you look past the "empire has it too easy" ideals and you will find mor 0.0 corps make more isk than any other corp around, which is the way it should be since they lose more ships and equipment, but blaming high security for easy ISK just ignores all the factors in the game.
Exlegion Caldari New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.29 16:28:00 - [77] Edited by: Exlegion on 29/12/2007 16:32:45 Originally by: Kalixa Hihro Originally by: Exlegion Edited by: Exlegion on 29/12/2007 04:18:41 Originally by: Paulo Damarr Never thought of of it that way but it makes total sense, any act where you mine something or receive a bounty or loot drop is a creation of the ISK in the game and after that ISK is not destroyed or lost its just transferred around. Actually, the 'creation' of loot and minerals out of nothing keeps a check on the relative effects of inflation. The destruction of material has the opposite effect, since the same amount of isk remains in the game while there is now less material to trade for it, thus increasing inflation (relatively speaking). The amount of isk in the game is always going up. CCP is constantly printing money in the form of missions, bounties and insurance payouts. Without periodic corrections inflation is inevitable. In the real world, you would have hyperinflation in any country where this occurred. From a macro economics standpoint, the only real isk sinks in this game are taxes and npc stations that sell npc things (like huge containers and commodities). On a game wide economic scale this isn't a drop in the bucket when compared to how much isk is flowing into the economy. You can't even argue that ship destruction is a macro economic sink because it's not. It didn't cause any isk to leave the game. The minerals came from mining. The money that was paid for the ship is still in the economy (in the seller's wallet), and the insurance faucet opened up and paid the player when his ship was blown up. The net isk in the economy was increased as a result of his ship destruction. The player flying the ship lost isk, but the economy did not. It gained isk, roughly double what left the economy when the player insured his ship (for the sake of example). Ship destruction is not a sink, macro-economically speaking, it's a faucet. If the player forgot to insure, approximately half the insurance value of the ship in isk left the economy( if you consider platinum insurance as a standard). People that forget to insure are actually helping the economy ROFL. -K Actually, we seem to agree. I was referring more to the comment from Paulo Damarr that mining and collecting loot create isk, when in fact, they create deflation. The reason I keep using the term 'relatively speaking' is because when a mission runner collects bounties AND the loot AND salvages the wrecks he/she has more or less curbed inflation. There is more isk due to bounties in the Eve economy, but there is also more material to trade for the isk. Prices should more or less remain stable. The net effect should be close to null. Not collecting loot or salvaging DOES create inflation. On the other hand, and as you said, ship destruction does, 'relatively' speaking, create inflation. Destruction of material without the removal of isk has left this net isk without value in the game. Even though there was no isk creation isk did increase when compared to the trade goods available in the game. isk + goods = zero net effect (ex. Mission runner/ratter that collects loot and salvages) isk + 0 goods = inflation (ex. Mission Runner that only collects bounty) 0 isk - goods = inflation (PVPer) -isk + 0 goods = deflation (POS, Skill books, Equipment repair) 0 isk + goods = deflation (Miner) Anyway, just thought I'd let you know I agree with what you say. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Guru
Freya Runestone Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2007.12.29 16:47:00 - [78] There was a discussion much like this in the brutor tribe corp chat a day or 2 ago. I can see why some people find it difficult to understand how faucets and sinks work to start with, but I am surprised by how hard it is to convince someone. Basically the OP has got it all backwards isk being removed from the economy is a sink isk coming into the economy is a faucet the economy doesn't care how much isk your wallet is currently set at, or any change in it. it only cares about the total amount Someone (forget who) asked why the npc's don't buy up goods as well as sell them (like shuttles) to cap the lower end of minerals as well I'm pretty sure that actually balances itself out. If minerals get to a ridiculously low price it just means ships will be cheap to produce, (and more affordable to lose) so they'll get destroyed more. mining will be less attractive, so people will go do something fun instead (go plow something up, removing minerals form the economy) Originally by: Crumplecorn In after, and almost certainly before, people who don't bother reading the thread. Oh, and i did actually read the entire thread ;)
Nicoli Voldkif Caelli-Merced INC. Gunboat Diplomacy	Posted - 2007.12.29 17:23:00 - [79] Originally by: Exlegion isk + goods = zero net effect (eg, Mission runner/ratter that collects loot and salvages) isk + 0 goods = inflation (eg, Mission Runner that only collects bounty) 0 isk - goods = inflation (eg, PVPer) -isk + 0 goods = deflation (eg, non-mining POS, Skill books, Equipment repair) 0 isk + goods = deflation (eg, Miner) The trick is keeping these equations balanced relative to each other and still keeping the 'fun' factor up. Good luck, CCP . Also, deflation/inflation aren't necessarily a bad thing. It's the over-inflation/deflation that can kill an economy. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know I agree with what you say. I could also be completely wrong since I'm not an economist. Although I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night . Your very close and in a very basic way your right. What you missing is the movement of those goods and isk between players/enities. money and goods only have value at the time of a transaction, when you appraise something you find its assumed value if you would sell it. The ratio of money to goods when combined with the movement of goods and money and I'm sure a few more factors that I don't know all go into whether or not there is inflation or deflation. EVE has seen Deflation not inflation according to Dr. EyjoG speech during fanfest. Generally speaking you are able to buy more for your money now then 3 years ago when I started. Battleships have dropped almost 30 mil in some cases. EVEs economy is very stable and solid and there is very little inflation. One thing to watch out for is the difference between Price inflation and Monetary inflation. T2 ships like HACs/Command Ships display Price inflation from supply and demand issues not actual monetary inflation like if the cost of all t2 ships went up 25%.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.12.29 18:42:00 - [80] Originally by: Jonny JoJo Originally by: Omega Man Originally by: Bellum Eternus I was doing some thinking while waiting for some carebears to undock their carriers and came to some conclusions: ISK 'faucets' such as missions and mining How does mining generate isk? Indrectly, Minerals from mining can be built into ships that blow up - thus indrectly create isk via insurance. lol that's a little out of the way. it's a sink mate it makes isk worth more. pink supporter! Future art director at CCP! or texture guy, either or :P http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2004#Narbacular_Drop Was in class with these folks :P
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.29 19:15:00 - [81] Originally by: Draconyx Edited by: Draconyx on 29/12/2007 15:32:46 A SINK is something that removes ISK from the game ie. Insurance. NPC Station taxes for selling and buying goods. Corp Offices in NPC Stations. Ship & Mod building (In the form of NPC trade goods & Taxes) Skill books (THis adds up to ALOT) There are probably several others Faucets are items that create ISK in the game. Ratting Mission Running Trading NPC goods Neither Faucet or Sink Now MINING is neither a Faucet or a Sink. In actual fact it only redistributes ISK that is in the game. I mine ICE or ORE I get the appropriate byproducts. Thre are NO NPC buyers for said byproducts. The only way I can make ISK is to sell the byproducts to others players. So I am NOT creating ISK only trading my products for another players ISK. So mining only adds Minerals or Ice to the game (NOT ISK) which is based entirely on demand of the PvP'rs So in actual fact ISK is CREATED by PVP'rs Ratting or just Ratters in general and Mission Runners NOT (miners or industrialists) Insurance payout are big isk faucet.
Lardarz B'stard Amarr Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.12.29 19:23:00 - [82] * Paging Dr. Eggnog to this thread to explain tings to deez peeps Originally by:** Kindakrof there is no gravity in space
Xaen Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.12.29 19:56:00 - [83] Originally by: Venkul Mul Indifferent Xaen, even if the insurance payout was 1 isk more than the cost, it is an isk faucet. You lose material wealth when you lose a ship, not isk, but you (and the whole system) gain isk. Most don't insure T2 ships. -- Support fixing the EVE UI \| Suggest Jita fixes
Mikelio Raijan Sulithus	Posted - 2007.12.29 20:26:00 - [84] Edited by: Mikelio Raijan on 29/12/2007 20:28:18 Originally by: Xaen Originally by: Venkul Mul Indifferent Xaen, even if the insurance payout was 1 isk more than the cost, it is an isk faucet. You lose material wealth when you lose a ship, not isk, but you (and the whole system) gain isk. Most don't insure T2 ships. ...and when the ship goes boom they still receive 40% of the ships insurable value. Did you understand ANY PART of this thread? Originally by: Mikelio Raijan ...also, Pyramid quote time! \o/ Sorry everyone who received a 'forum break' for continuing this.
Draconyx	Posted - 2007.12.29 20:39:00 - [85] Alright lets get this straight once and for all. Insurance can be EITHER a FAUCET or SINK. Insurance by its very principle is a SINK. The premise on how a insurance company works is more people pay into the system then those that take out. You CAN NOT look and single or even multiple examples as justification. You have to look at the system as a WHOLE. BUT If EVE's insurance is giving out more then it is taking in then it is a Faucet. Now the only ones that can answer for sure how it is doing is CCP. And if it is a faucet and they consider it to be a problem then Insurance will have to go bankrupt or the rates will have to go up on high risk ships :)
Jonny JoJo Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2007.12.29 21:28:00 - [86] Originally by: Thorek Ironbrow Aren't tech 1 blueprints sinks. Don't they get sold by NPCs? Yes. Anything sold by NPC's, such as POS Fuel, Blueprints, Skills, Tradegoods etc are all isk sinks. But remember - a blueprint is not a isk sink if oyu buy it form another player - since the other player gained isk so the balance is still the same. There is no intrest in eve, therefore inflation is supply/demand. Prices for t1 goods are rigged so that they can never get too expensive or too cheap (due to insurance) Refresh to see next Real Life CCP sig(16 total)
Iyhi Baal	Posted - 2007.12.29 21:38:00 - [87] Bellum, you chose the path of outlaw. Outlaws have been and should be relegated to the fringes of society. Why should you have "access" to the wealth of players that wants to experience Eve at a higher level than that of the insipid gate camp. I personally mine, mission, and build ships because I am interested in gathering enough wealth to dominate a region -- not 1 vs 1 (or in your case 1 vs 4-10 BC at the Decon gate). The losses outside of empire are can be catastrophic. Furthermore, just meeting the needs to maintain an alliance's holdings do provide a substantial load on their local and the empire economy. Any marketeer can pretty much tell you who is building what and who is losing what just by how much work they have to put into turning a profit in empire. You don't see this because shuttles, frigs, and the occasional cruiser/BC that you get don't by themselves amount to much on the scale of this economy; by extension your actions don't amount to much. If you want more from Eve put more into it. Raise you level of play. Don't waste time and forum space whining about a nerf that would make it easier for you to gank newbies without risk. If you really want to improve Eve you should be asking for changes that enhance the play for the entire Eve community. How about a meaningful bounty system that is not exploitable by the outlaws themselves? How about just getting off the gates and see if you could survive on a playing field that while not level at least is not so heavily stacked in your favor that you may actually have to think for a change. I really don't think that you want that kind of change. There is vast wealth in low spec and people are starting to notice it. As null space gets more hotly contested and empire more crowed with fewer opportunities, we will see an exodus to low sec of small corps looking to make their way. You and your kinds days are numbered and there is no adapting that will save you. You should thank me for the heads up. I am already there... ################# I see you!
Tzar'rim Minmatar Reckless Corsairs	Posted - 2007.12.29 23:06:00 - [88] One of the things that keeps prices in check of the normal items like T1 ships and modules (making it seem as if there's no inflation) is the sheer amount of supply, even more when there's a lot of people who either accept a tiny amount of profit or STILL don't understand that the ore they mined represent a monetary value. As long as there's so many players investing in production and everything related to that normal items will stay right where they are. Understand ofcourse that a large part of inflation is the result of loans and interest, which do NOT play a large factor in this game. That's very much diffirent ofcourse IRL where just about everything is financed and/or loaned to the extreme.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.30 00:11:00 - [89] Originally by: Draconyx Alright lets get this straight once and for all. Insurance can be EITHER a FAUCET or SINK. Insurance by its very principle is a SINK. The premise on how a insurance company works is more people pay into the system then those that take out. You CAN NOT look and single or even multiple examples as justification. You have to look at the system as a WHOLE. BUT If EVE's insurance is giving out more then it is taking in then it is a Faucet. Now the only ones that can answer for sure how it is doing is CCP. And if it is a faucet and they consider it to be a problem then Insurance will have to go bankrupt or the rates will have to go up on high risk ships :) As it is a subsidizing for PvPers and new players it will not change, even if probably it is one of the biggest isk faucet, giving a 3 to 1 return for the isk invested. The only people losing isk to insurance are mission runner with pimped ships and a lot of experience and skill and industrialist that never leave a station. Both kind of player probably aren't even insuring the ships as the few ships they loose will have survived for several insurance cycles, making it not worth to insure, and the loss of the modules/rigs/cargo heavily outweight the loss for the ship.
Barbelo Valentinian Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2007.12.30 00:14:00 - [90] Originally by: Desh Craven So why is that? Why is the most logical way of getting ISK into the economy not there? Why is there no NPC demand for everything? Since there is NPC source for minerals and through salvaging, along with mining the market ends up saturated. So there should be NPC demand also for all that stuff to prevent market saturation, cause higher demand, and thus inflation. Doesn't make sense that mission running and ratting create both ISK and raw materials, but mining does not. Interesting point - how would it change the economy if rats' ships and materials (including the stuff looted) had actually been bought in the market by automated processes?
Zeknichov Life. Universe. Everything.	Posted - 2007.12.30 00:17:00 - [91] Reprocessing and the obscenely high supply produced in zero risk locations is whats destroying the economy.
Laechyd Eldgorn Caldari Karjala Inc. Onnenpyora	Posted - 2007.12.30 01:33:00 - [92] I do missions, industry, marketing and pvp. Why my wallet is still empty.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.12.30 02:32:00 - [93] Originally by: Iyhi Baal ...stuff... The (literally) perfect bounty system: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=664041&page=1 CBA to turn it into a link. I'm sure it will take a bit for gas cloud harvesting and other low sec stuff to really take off, and for the population pressures of high/null sec to really push people into low sec. But again, you have such a narrow mind, as you're always focused on the idea that someone is 'whining' and 'how much impact' they have on the game that you're missing the point of the post. Are the two economies exclusive? Does the PVP economy help the mission runner economy? Vice versa? Does the mission runner contribute as much to the economy as PVPers do, per person? I find it amusing that you try and define my viewpoints by assuming I'm approaching everything from a pirate's point of view, and your narrow idea of what that is. Pirates are predators. As such they are generally the most intelligent and adaptable of any of the players in Eve. Pirates will always exist, if for no other reason than 'because they can'. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
AENer01	Posted - 2007.12.30 02:40:00 - [94] I didnt read all the posts here, just the first one which was well put imo. I think one element of a potential balancing solution would be to revisit the percentage of sec status lost per kill in empire. It took me months to get my sec status up to 5.0 but only one day to bring it from there to -3.0. which means soon I wont be able to travel and purchase things, I will run into less targets as I will have less places I can visit, etc. (of course i can just tank sentries etc, but im generalizing here). I don't think we should make low sec a pirate haven just go a little easier on the sec status loss for kills.
Admiral Nova Strike Team Nova	Posted - 2007.12.30 03:53:00 - [95] Ah, nothing is an isk sink unless it involves net isk being given to NPC PLAYERS. PvP isn't because even though 'items' are destroyed, you already paid a PLAYER for those items. So no isk is destroyed. NPC trade goods for use in manufacturing, BPOs, POS equipment, probes are all isk sinks. One major isk sink was largely turned off when they let people un-anchor mods from destroyed control towers. Isk sent to the LP store is an isk sink. The actual LP cost / market cost of such items is not, only the amount they cost directly. Insurance is only an isk sink if you repeatedly don't collect on it. Once you collect it becomes a faucet, even the default insurance is a faucet.
Voodoo Mistross Minmatar Cold-Fury Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.30 03:59:00 - [96] Quote: CCP has introduced some interesting sinks into the game lately (rigs and faction ammo are very expensive, yet essential for PVP use and 100% consumable), but I find it amusing that they've introduced mechanics such as these, and not removed others such as insurance (an easy way to remove ISK from the game). Ever try insuring a T2 ship, buy a ship for 100+mill and at max insurance get back 18mill back, you dont call that taking isk out of the game? Originally by: Katherine Marx you make a great point. people who play WOW should stay there.
Admiral Nova Strike Team Nova	Posted - 2007.12.30 04:03:00 - [97] Originally by: dakari Actually I re-upped after a 3 year gap and unless something changed in that 3 year period megacyte and zydrine prices have not changed. The other minerals are cheaper it seems(trit used to sell for close to 4 in some places) but the "rare" minerals are pretty much the same maybe +/- 300 depending upon region. Edir: maybe my memory is bad, was zydrine 4100 and megacyte 3100 and did scorps sell for 60mil and ships are now less expensive? 3 Years ago Trit was selling for about 0.85 isk / unit. Pyerite about 2.5-3.5 Isogen for around 110, and nocx for about 250-350. Mex you could not give away for 7 isk. Megactye was around 4500 and zyd about 3500. Iso > Morphite has taken a dramatic tumble. Trit > Mex has rising quite steeply. Overall the cost is less to make a ship, but 0.0 areas are devalued over what they were, on the other hand, mining low ends in empire is now more profitable than mining ANYTHING in lowsec. And even 0.0 only has a handful of ores that are more valuable than highsec ores. Mex has risen for 2 reasons, new items use alot more of it, and it's impossible to get in the drone regions. High ends have taken a tumble because they are so easy to get in the drone regions. Low ends have come up because they need to in order to meet the supply of all the high ends which are now more plentiful. And you can always insure your ship and blow it up for the insurance if the build cost gets too low.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2007.12.30 04:03:00 - [98] In answer to what I think is Bellums question: PvP'ers are consumers and an ISK faucet. Mission runners are consumers, gatherers, and an ISK faucet. Neither of them is destroying the market. The market is not dependent upon either them. The "market" in EVE relies upon three things gatherers, builders, and end users. Gatherers bring in the raw material Builders turn the raw material into products End users use the product There are also traders, however they simply act to even out the market between different areas and assist people in making quick sales... all for a healthy percentage. All three main groups are of varying worth. If prices raw materials could be profitably purchased from NPC's gatherers would become worthless. The main pressure upon them currently is internal competition. Since some of the gathering professions produce the same raw materials if one can obtain it easier than another then it is possible to make that profession unprofitable. An example (or indicator at least) would be the drastic effect the drone regions had on miners, and the effect mission runner refined loot has on miners. Miners suffer the most here as they are not supplemented by an ISK faucet as ratters and runners are. If all needed items could be gathered without building manufacturers would be worthless. Runners and ratters gather items that compete with manufacturers but since supply of these items is far lower than demand, and since many items cannot be obtained this way manufacturing items remains profitable. If players could create or gather all items they need themselves then there is no need for a separate end user. This is unlikely to ever be the case due to player specialization and the fact that it's often possible to get stupid people to do the things that simply aren't worth your time. You could argue that for there to be customers items need to be destroyed via PvP. This is not true. Products are bought a first time before they ever need replacing and there is a constant stream of new players to buy items (this is what keeps WoW's market moving). In addition players often decide they want more than one of an item. Lastly PvP is not the sole cause of item loss (I'd be interested to see what percentage of ships are killed by NPC's as opposed to players). As for ISK sinks and faucets as has been shown both mission running and PvP bring ISK into the system. This ISK is beneficial to the system as both ISK sinks and faucets must balance inflation and deflation within the economy. It is far more complex than ensuring the amount of money in the system per person remains the same, as has been pointed out it is more to do with the movement of money than ownership of it, but basically a balance must be maintained making neither inherently worse than the other. Mission runners and ratters are bad for miners (as shown above, though this will get better when t1 loot is removed from the loot tables) but not for the economy. PvP'ers are bad for everyone who is not a PvP'er but they are not bad for the economy. Long post was long but hopefully thorough. I've never studied economics so no doubt there are words for some of the concepts used here that I am not aware of, feel free to point them out (for my personal interest) but I don't think Bellum would benefit from the use of terminology only understood by those who have studied economics.
Admiral Nova Strike Team Nova	Posted - 2007.12.30 04:05:00 - [99] Originally by: Voodoo Mistross Quote: CCP has introduced some interesting sinks into the game lately (rigs and faction ammo are very expensive, yet essential for PVP use and 100% consumable), but I find it amusing that they've introduced mechanics such as these, and not removed others such as insurance (an easy way to remove ISK from the game). Ever try insuring a T2 ship, buy a ship for 100+mill and at max insurance get back 18mill back, you dont call that taking isk out of the game? You have bought that ship for 100 mil. So now player B has the 100mil. You insure it for 3 mil - 3 mil from the game, and then get 18mil back. So you have 15mil extra, and player B has your 100mil. Congratulations, YOU have lost 85mil, but 'EVE' has now generated 15mil out of thin air. What you pay for ships NEVER leaves the games unless you are talking NPC bought shuttles.
Tarigal	Posted - 2007.12.30 04:13:00 - [100] I think most of the posts I read are missing the point here. The OP might be right about the creation of ISK outweighing the destruction of ISK, but who cares? Its not like the real world where if uncle sam turns on the printing presses grandma Millie is screwed cause shes on fixed income and her money is losing its purchasing power. CCP could add a zero to everything in game and it would be fine, or take a zero away. Generally speaking, inflation hurts people on fixed income and people who have tons of savings. Hyper inflation is another issue...but inflation itself in EVE is totally not worth talking about
DigitalCommunist Obsidian Core	Posted - 2007.12.30 04:40:00 - [101] Edited by: DigitalCommunist on 30/12/2007 04:40:48 Wrong arguments aside, I agree that both isk faucets and isk sinks need to be balanced to maintain the amount of total ISK in the economy at a good level for the size of the population. That much is kind of obvious.. Problem right now is that many of the isk sinks that CCP put into the game are static one-time things. There needs to be more services, and more use of uninsurable assets in warfare. POS are a good example but when you think about how many die on a daily basis to what kind of money is being generated - even a massive galaxy wide war costing two or three hundred POS is a drop in the bucket. My opinions only.. - POS need to be easier to kill - Combat and industry deployables should be introduced - Insurance should be only one month long, NO basic insurance in 0.0 space at all, NO insurance on capitals period - Outposts need to be made destructible - More NPC services in the areas of industry, research, agent locators, advertising and corp management There are other things, but this would be a good start. _______________________________ Complex Fullerene Shards; why God? :\|
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2007.12.30 05:31:00 - [102] Originally by: DigitalCommunist I agree that both isk faucets and isk sinks need to be balanced to maintain the amount of total ISK in the economy at a good level for the size of the population. That much is kind of obvious. Originally by: DigitalCommunist [ISK sink list] There are other things, but this would be a good start. You recognize the need for balance, I assume you can see from experience that there is a steady but slow case of deflation, have probably heard from the (admittedly inexperienced but capable with numbers) hired economist that there is an overall state of deflation with inflation occurring in certain faction markets, and yet feel the need to imbalance the system by adding more ISK sinks? Don't get me wrong most of those are nice ideas in and of themselves but we simply don't require any more ISK sinks at the moment, the market is reasonably well balanced.
Tarkan Kador Amarr PanTarkan Kador Holdings	Posted - 2007.12.30 06:13:00 - [103] If inflation was a problem, we'd see signs. 1) We wouldn't be able to buy, for example, Punishers for 300,000 ISK. We'd need 600,000 ISK for the same ship. 2) We'd find shortages of commodities we need. Armor repairer IIs and Tech 2 ammo would not be available in the markets. If they did show up, they'd be way higher than you'd usually see them. 3) People wouldn't go on many missions, because the ISK payout wouldn't cover the costs. 4) There'd be a barter economy, since ISK would fail as a medium of exchange. If you want a good example where inflation is a problem, check out Diablo II. See, gold is worthless in Diablo II. So are most weapons and equipment. The only medum of exchange worth anything is the Stone of Jordan (SoJ), which is an extremely rare magical ring that requires a ton of farming to even get. You have to trade whole mules of SoJs to get any item of any value. See, I don't think having more ISK printed into this economy is necessarily bad. I don't think it's necessarily bad if players are able to gain a lot of wealth. Nor do I think that it's bad if that that large quanitity of wealth enables them to buy a large quantity of assets. That's a sign that the economy is working correctly, because a large amount of wealth should buy a large amount of assets. It's when a large amount of wealth doesn't buy a lot that there's a problem with inflation. Right now, I just don't see that happening.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2007.12.30 07:08:00 - [104] Massive deflation would be worse. If a small amount of "wealth" can buy you all the assets you need then it all becomes meaningless. Though neither is a favorable situation. If inflation became a huge issue we could at least barter with minerals. I'd hate to see either happen but there seem to be no signs of either overall, the market has some issues (mostly related to supply limitations) but inflation and deflation are not amongst them. Should one of the two rear their ugly head a small tweak such as a percentage increase or decrease to one or a number of existing faucets/sinks would likely be sufficient. Future features may impact the balance here, as might a small imbalance if left unaddressed, but I'd like to think CCP wouldn't allow the situation to spiral out of control.
Vitrael Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.12.30 07:40:00 - [105] Originally by: Bellum Eternus ISK 'faucets' such as missions and mining are increasing the total volume of ISK in the system, while the major ISK 'sinks' are things like PVP and ammo consumption. You certainly DON'T have a Ph.D in economics. (Mining does not create ISK nor does PVP or ammo consumption destroy it.)
Iyhi Baal	Posted - 2007.12.30 16:53:00 - [106] Bellum, so quick to attack my post that you didnt even see that I had carefully adressed your arguments. The basic premises of your of your post were; a) there are too many isk sources and not enough sinks, b) PVP players are the only meaningful isk sinks -- players that tap sources are somehow excluded from sinks, and c)those PVPers are all negative and cannot take advantage of markets. You then draw the conclusion that the economy is unbalanced. Implicite in this argument was a call for CCP to grant PVPers(who, according to you, all happen to be negative) more access to players(and their wealth) that choose not to interact with you. I think that that sums it up. You should go back and reread what you wrote(I know it is painful). Now to adress your points in a pedantic fashion so that you understand. On the issue of too few isk sinks: From your low perch I don't think that you are correctly enumerating the various sources and sinks. Perhaps this is intentional because its easier to wait for an easy path than to seek an intelligent way. I have taken part in the various game play that Eve has provided. I mission, mine, build ships , and increasingly scrap with my fellow denizens. With a little over 2 year in the world I have worked and sampled a lot of what eve has to offer. In the course of a week I consume ice, data cores, lp ,bpc, drones, modules, charges, and missiles. I pay broker fees and taxes on large market orders. Without a doubt I believe that I "sink" more isk in a week than a gate camper does in a quarter and the terrible thing is that I am a "newbie" at this. You really should play eve before asking that CCP changes it. Try building an Obelisk and then say there are not enough sinks in the economy. On the issue of access to markets: As I said in the previous post, you chose the path of outlaw -- you should have an access penalty. That only makes sense. In fact CCP allows you multiple ways to circumvent these penalties. Make an alt. Try to generate "stuff". You will find that there are plenty of limiters and sinks that you have not considered. It would seem that when all facts are examined players of your ilk have "greater" access than the average player, fortunately you are all too lazy to take advantage of it. GTC are the oil that keeps your micro game engine running. and finally your broken definition of PVP: By limiting your definition to " we 1337 pilots in low sec" you are trying to belittle players that don't see Eve the way that you do. The fact is Eve extends in many directions beyond the Decon/Balle gate. It comprises many different PVP styles besides jumping frigs as they uncloak. PVP includes market operations, corporate organization/management, and territory control among others. Your mistake was in assuming that the little ripple gate camping makes in the economy was the entire sink for all of eve. It really is just a small deal. Your post has all the hallmarks of pubescent smack. <10year old boys voice> "We are real PVPer." "We are 1337 because we live lo sec." "My point of view is the only one that matters." "CCP you changed the game --please change it back so we are 1337 again." </10year old boys voice> If you actually played Eve you would hear a great sucking sound of isk and material leaving through player action. As it is you can't hear anything above your own giant vacuum generator Iyhi PS -- the economy is fine! ################# I see you!
DigitalCommunist Obsidian Core	Posted - 2007.12.30 17:26:00 - [107] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Originally by: DigitalCommunist I agree that both isk faucets and isk sinks need to be balanced to maintain the amount of total ISK in the economy at a good level for the size of the population. That much is kind of obvious. Originally by: DigitalCommunist [ISK sink list] There are other things, but this would be a good start. You recognize the need for balance, I assume you can see from experience that there is a steady but slow case of deflation, have probably heard from the (admittedly inexperienced but capable with numbers) hired economist that there is an overall state of deflation with inflation occurring in certain faction markets, and yet feel the need to imbalance the system by adding more ISK sinks? Don't get me wrong most of those are nice ideas in and of themselves but we simply don't require any more ISK sinks at the moment, the market is reasonably well balanced. The economist that works for CCP didn't arrive to any conclusions regarding inflation, but a lot of the data he provided affirmed what you should already know if you pay attention to EVE's economy for any serious stretch of time. For example, he showed the prices on certain goods was dropping, but he also showed the total amount of isk going into the system is greater than the amount of isk leaving it. That alone means there will be inflation in the long run. Why don't we feel it, or see it yet? 1. Many of the isk sinks come with new expansions and are only temporary in nature. When Trinity came out, how many people spent 150mil each on the new skills? The new BPOs? That might curb inflation for a month or two, or even reverse it, but in the long term it does nothing. I estimate that all the capital bpos purchased in EVE sunk maybe half of all the money generated by new isk fountains right after Exodus. Think about that for a moment... the most expensive item in EVE PERIOD used to be a 1.1bil isk Apocalypse blueprint original and back in the day its "worth" was roughly equivalent to owning a mothership bpo today. 2. Stuff that used to cost a lot, like tech 2, crashed in price. This doesn't mean the economy is deflating. But in the long run that just means wealth isn't going to centralize in huge lumps as it did with bpo monopolies and "the people" have greater purchasing power. So the wealth being distributed isn't going to make it so obvious that wealth is actually growing, because you'll see far fewer 'insane purchases'. If the average net worth of every player went from 500mil to 1bil most people wouldn't think twice about it, but in terms of the entire economy? HOLY $***! 3. Instead of spending all your cash on buying t2 ships as before, you use it to buy t2 resources to build instead. That itself is a limited resource, and the more purchasing power everyone has, the more people playing, the more isk being created.. the more focus is going to be on POS. If you've done any alliance stuff you'll know that the wealth involved in that isn't visible. Few people do the purchase, setup and maintenance. Most of the people involved have no clue about the money involved. Hell, even today you've gotta suck PRETTY BAD at EVE if you can't afford one large tower after a year of playing. The end result of inflation in the long run is EVE CHINA. I can break this whole discussion down to the following; Money In > Money Out And the bigger EVE population gets, the quicker we screw up the game if anything goes wrong. Right now CCP manages the system by introducing new things, but it doesn't take a genius to see that you can't keep adding stuff forever. _______________________________ Complex Fullerene Shards; why God? :\|
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2007.12.30 17:37:00 - [108] Originally by: 10 year old boys voice If you actually played Eve you would hear a great sucking sound of isk and material leaving through player action. As it is you can't hear anything above your own giant vacuum generator Iyhi; just about the only part of your post that I can agree with is that Bellum is indeed not qualified to comment on economics within EVE. Perhaps that is why his OP ended with a question mark. While Bellum can be an annoying, stubborn, poster prone to the occasional insult he has at least stimulated intelligent discussion and learned something from this thread. You on the other hand have managed to contribute nothing but smacktalk and immaturity.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2007.12.30 17:39:00 - [109] Edited by: Daelin Blackleaf on 30/12/2007 17:45:01 Originally by: DigitalCommunist Money In > Money Out Players In > Players Out Besides there are so many ways the market can be tweaked and so many artificial limits in place that our "free" market can easily be regulated. Also most of your points are clear signs of deflation. What your suggesting is that we need more ISK faucets to lower the value of ISK and therefore reduce the buying power of the community.
Tarkan Kador Amarr PanTarkan Kador Holdings	Posted - 2007.12.30 18:33:00 - [110] Try to think of ISK as a commodity, like Tritanium or Datacores. What ISK 'does' is provide a medium of exchange for goods and services both in-game (like purchasing modules), and out-of-game (like purchasing TS/vent service, webhosting, or signatures). So I think the question we need to ask ourselves first is, "does ISK work as a currency?" If it does, then there is no real need to ask ourselves, "is there too much ISK in the system?" The important point is that ISK works as a currency. If for some reason ISK doesn't work as a currency, then why are so many people going on missions, why are there so many goods on the market, and why are so many players willing to accept ISK for goods and services? There's no rule that says we must use ISK as a medium of exchange. We could all do station trades in Tritanium or Zydrine. Of course, that's rather inconvenient, but if ISK is so available that it ceases to have any value, that's what we'd have to do. We'd also have to barter if ISK was so unavailable that it would require more effort to get ISK than it would be simply to barter the goods we have. Since I don't see either scenario happening anytime soon, I don't think we should be so concerned with how much total ISK exists on Tranquility. What's more interesting to me is how much ISK is actually circulating on Tranquility. See, it could very well be the case that some cancelled characters from the past four years have billions of ISK on their expired accounts. But for the purposes of the game economy, those billions of ISK have no relevence, since they aren't able to put it into circulation. It might also be the case that a few characters who are still playing have billions of ISK, but don't do much with it. Now do those billions really make much of a difference when it comes to inflation? Not really, since for the purposes of the economy, they are not circulating much ISK. See, my fear is when we create new ways to take out ISK, it really doesn't do much but slow down the economy for those who are actively participating in economic activity. Those aren't the people who are the problem, and their ISK isn't the ISK that's the problem. If it were, we'd see things like 2 million ISK Punisher frigates, 200 ISK tritanium, and billion ISK battleships. The problem is that there is a lot of ISK that doesn't do much but just sit in inactive accounts, or players who don't play much, who really have no need or desire to put it back into the economy. Their ISK isn't relevant for taking about inflation, because for all intents and purposes, their ISK doesn't matter.
SiJira	Posted - 2007.12.30 18:34:00 - [111] while i dont care either way for his argument - almost everyone here seems to be misunderstanding bellum the total amount of minerals-items in the economy is as important as the total amount of isk imagine all the minerals and moon materials and products disappeared from the economy Trashed sig, Shark was here
Xoduse Gallente Beasts of Burden YouWhat	Posted - 2007.12.30 18:52:00 - [112] For all of you saying PvP is an isk faucet I guess you fly tech 1 ships fitted with crappy tech 1 gear? Because if you even fly a properly fitted battleship, with rigs, t2 equipment, and faction ammo then you've spent some money when that thing pops. And if the ship is tech 2, well then you are not gonna get much money back. --------------------------------- Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels -Valorem ([email protected])
Xoduse Gallente Beasts of Burden YouWhat	Posted - 2007.12.30 18:55:00 - [113] Originally by: Admiral Nova Originally by: Voodoo Mistross Quote: CCP has introduced some interesting sinks into the game lately (rigs and faction ammo are very expensive, yet essential for PVP use and 100% consumable), but I find it amusing that they've introduced mechanics such as these, and not removed others such as insurance (an easy way to remove ISK from the game). Ever try insuring a T2 ship, buy a ship for 100+mill and at max insurance get back 18mill back, you dont call that taking isk out of the game? You have bought that ship for 100 mil. So now player B has the 100mil. You insure it for 3 mil - 3 mil from the game, and then get 18mil back. So you have 15mil extra, and player B has your 100mil. Congratulations, YOU have lost 85mil, but 'EVE' has now generated 15mil out of thin air. What you pay for ships NEVER leaves the games unless you are talking NPC bought shuttles. Nvm this makes sense, I stand corrected. But I still don't think it breaks the economy. --------------------------------- Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels -Valorem ([email protected])
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.12.30 19:24:00 - [114] Money in > money out is not really a problem (although it is true, the faucets are bigger then the sinks). One of the major reasons is that (it seems) material in > material out, as well, meaning the extra money is "covered". If we had a constant amount of material around (or rising slower then ISK amount) we'd be in for some long-term trouble. It doesn't appear to be so. Rifters!
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.12.30 19:31:00 - [115] Originally by: Xoduse For all of you saying PvP is an isk faucet I guess you fly tech 1 ships fitted with crappy tech 1 gear? Because if you even fly a properly fitted battleship, with rigs, t2 equipment, and faction ammo then you've spent some money when that thing pops. And if the ship is tech 2, well then you are not gonna get much money back. Point is, you didn't buy the rigs, T2 equipment, etc from NPCs (unless you're a mission ****, and a part of faction ammo is on the market due to faction spawn kills anyway); you bought them from players. So taking that you spent 1B on outfitting your T2 BS, it didn't leave* the economy: it's in the hands of the producer. Plus, you get a 100ish M or whatever of insurance which is in the hands of you when it blows up, and, guess what; suddenly there's 1.1B in the economy where there used to be 1B before you exploded the ship. Plus, there's less material in the economy, creating a inflatory pressure. Fortunately, there are more producers (miners, salvagers, etc) then PvP-ers and non-looting mission runners, so the economy is relatively stable. Rifters!
Nicoli Voldkif Caelli-Merced INC. Gunboat Diplomacy	Posted - 2007.12.30 19:59:00 - [116] Edited by: Nicoli Voldkif on 30/12/2007 20:00:01 Originally by: Cpt Branko Money in > money out is not really a problem (although it is true, the faucets are bigger then the sinks). One of the major reasons is that (it seems) material in > material out, as well, meaning the extra money is "covered". If we had a constant amount of material around (or rising slower then ISK amount) we'd be in for some long-term trouble. It doesn't appear to be so. Well frankly the amount of materials or isk total in EVE doesn't matter. Its the movement of the materials and isk that matters. If we all quadruple the amount of money in our wallets thru a glitch nothing will happen to the value of isk until that isk begins circulating thru the market. Inflation comes when there is more money being circulated then the amount of goods and services stays relatively constant. With deflation the opposite occurs. A lot of players I know carry a safety buffer in their wallets. An amount that they try to avoid going beneath just in case they need it for an emergency. That isk that sits there encourages deflation since it is not exchanging hands.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.12.30 20:20:00 - [117] Originally by: Nicoli Voldkif Edited by: Nicoli Voldkif on 30/12/2007 20:00:01 Originally by: Cpt Branko Money in > money out is not really a problem (although it is true, the faucets are bigger then the sinks). One of the major reasons is that (it seems) material in > material out, as well, meaning the extra money is "covered". If we had a constant amount of material around (or rising slower then ISK amount) we'd be in for some long-term trouble. It doesn't appear to be so. Well frankly the amount of materials or isk total in EVE doesn't matter. Its the movement of the materials and isk that matters. If we all quadruple the amount of money in our wallets thru a glitch nothing will happen to the value of isk until that isk begins circulating thru the market. Inflation comes when there is more money being circulated then the amount of goods and services stays relatively constant. With deflation the opposite occurs. A lot of players I know carry a safety buffer in their wallets. An amount that they try to avoid going beneath just in case they need it for an emergency. That isk that sits there encourages deflation since it is not exchanging hands. This is true as well. Material reserves are a sort of 'coverage' for the ISK sitting around in wallets if people were to theorethically try to buy things with ISK reserves. Btw, nice to see Caelli-Merced guys, I love the setups your guys make sometimes. I still need to figure out that Caracal garamon flies though, I want one for giggles Rifters!
Anton Zuber Minmatar	Posted - 2007.12.31 02:54:00 - [118] Lol. This exchange is just getting comical. Heres three HUGE points you guys are overlooking. (And a few smaller ones simply to be thorough.) ONE> out in zero zerp there is a war going on. In this war things are getting blown up. Among these things that are getting blown up are these things called stations that can cost as much as 25 billion each. That is a very large sink. This is quite possible the single largest sink in the EVE universe. if you start looking at station and cap ship destruction on a galactic scale, this is really just staggering how much is being removed from the economy here on a daily basis. TWO> Implants. These are always a sink, and whether you do this or not, there are definatelly people out there with literally billions in their head, they eventually die, and these are lost. THREE> Fuel for stations. This is actually a fairly large one. here basically all ice that is harvested ever is ultimatelly consumed. While one could argue that this is essentially a break even process this is a pretty shallow view. A better way to think of this and perhaps even to re-evaluate all money is to recongize the fact that everything actually represents player time spent to accomplish something. In the case of PoS fuel, it is a case of player time consistantly spent every day simply to keep the lights on for a PoS. This is a sink. As for Insurance. I seriously cannot get how you guys are somehow twisting this up to make it look like a faucet in your head. It's not that complicated. even with the best insurance contract, you effectively pay 33% the cost of a ship in exchange for 90% of the cost of that ship in return IF it is blown up. net result... Loss 33% cost of ship and 100% cost of ship. net gain 90% cost of ship. Even factoring in a handful of fittings preserved this is pretty much always a sink. Since the subject is about potential inflation, this should pretty much end it right now really since ultimatelly the largest sums of money pretty much overshadow all the rest in something like this. But just for the sake of thoroughness, here's a few other things that... T1 BPO's. The initial purchase of these is a sink since it is paid to an NPC and is not recoverable. Invention Codexes. This is another mostly one time investment, but still a sink. other NPC market items. there's actually a fair number of NPC only items for sale on the market. obviously spending money into an NPC is a straight up loss. shuttles is one of the more obvious examples of this, but it is not the only one. Skill books. True, this is another one time investment type cost, but you also need to recognize that essentially every active in EVE is paying this cost consistantly over their entire life in the game. Hoarding. This is an online MMO. And people are still people. Any resources that are stashed and never used are effectively just removed from the system and can be though of as a sink for the most part. While it is true there is some potential for these to be suddenly returned, in general I think it should be somewhat obvious that most players are going to end up hoarding up a lot more resources than they will ever return to the system. Station fees, corp fees, war dec fees, alliance fees. Corporate expenses. There are actually quite a lot of fees which corps pay every month into nowhere simply for day to day operations. For offices in or near a hub like rens it is quite expensive to stay open. war decs, which are pretty much always occuring is another sink. alliances, which are also ever present are another sink. Research and industry fees. In the grand scheme of things these actually are fairly negligable, but for thoroughness I mention them anyhow. And in the end. I guess the real question is, do you actually see inflation in this game? Some perhaps. It is large quite complex system and will perhaps never be quite perfect, but it works pretty well. Try this. Name a MMO player market that works better. Good luck.
Sekket Caldari White-Noise	Posted - 2007.12.31 04:24:00 - [119] Buying anything from another player is an isk transfer. Any NPC fees are isk sinks. The only time an insurance contract acts as an isk sink is when it expires, otherwise isk is created to the difference of the payout amount minus the insurance contracts cost.
Ehranavaar	Posted - 2007.12.31 05:52:00 - [120] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Ok, I think I have it now. And the whole reason I posted about this is that I am/was quite confused about it. So everyone is helping me make sense of what I'm thinking about. Ratting/missioning creates raw ISK into the economy. Mining only creates raw materials into the economy that can be traded for ISK. ISK sinks are things like NPC taxes, anything sold by NPCs (like skillbooks, sales taxes, contract fees etc.), NPC station corp office rentals, etc. So I guess what the real questions I'm asking here are this: if mission runners are generating the largest portion of ISK in the game, and PVPers are generating the least amount, then how should we go about designing the game mechanics so that the PVPers have better access to the large amount of ISK/material wealth generated by the mission runners? glad to see you are improving your understanding of economics. you do not however need to change anything to give pvp players access to wealth. they just need to go do the things that produce wealth ie work. it's rather like a guy who loves surfing and spends his time surfing crying because he doesn't have a jag and a mansion. if he surfed less he'd have more "stuff" so in essence he's made a decision to be poor.
Ehranavaar	Posted - 2007.12.31 05:57:00 - [121] having read to the end of this i have to be utterly dismayed by the woefully complete ignorance of economics displayed by so many posters.
Kong iverz	Posted - 2007.12.31 06:04:00 - [122] Originally by: Richard Phallus Originally by: Bellum Eternus I was doing some thinking There's the problem, you may want to avoid that in the future.
SPAgent Scully	Posted - 2007.12.31 06:17:00 - [123] Originally by: Ehranavaar ignorance of economics displayed by so many posters. Indeed. I wish my truck had the same rate of depreciation as my battleship. Which is to say none. There are some interesting observations that can be made about the Eve economy using real world economic principals. The most accurate are how a market can be completely dominated and destroyed by the lack of regulation. Eve is the AEI's wet dream. Its fun...as a game.
Thunderguts Fusion Enterprises Ltd Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.12.31 18:24:00 - [124] Inflation is a good thing in moderation. What it does is encourage people to invest. If the money you get for your mining/ratting/missioning buys less and less stuff, you are encouraged to buy more stuff (better ships) sooner to improve your income. This applies to players as well as corporations. If you had deflation, on the other hand, the incentive would be to keep your money in the bank while it rose in value. Fewer people would be buying stuff, so manufacturers and suppliers would make less money, and the problem would spiral downwards. So although massive inflation is a problem, a moderate amount of inflation is much better than even a little deflation.
Angel DeMorphis Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.31 19:33:00 - [125] Originally by: Thunderguts If you had deflation, on the other hand, the incentive would be to keep your money in the bank while it rose in value. Fewer people would be buying stuff, so manufacturers and suppliers would make less money, and the problem would spiral downwards. So although massive inflation is a problem, a moderate amount of inflation is much better than even a little deflation. /facepalm Think through what you just wrote. If you had deflation, and if that gave people and incentive to keep their money in the bank while it rose in value... fewer people would be buying stuff, so manufacturers and suppliers would make less money... OKAY! Stop right there. Manufacturers and suppliers would manufacture and supply less (since less people are buying). A severe enough decrease in supply would eventually increase prices, as there would be the same amount of people needing to buy fewer amount of things, and so on and so forth. Deflation can only last in the short term. Eventually things will stabilize or tend toward inflation. Otherwise, if deflation continued and you money became worth more and more and more, eventually one penny can buy the entire continent of Asia... Or in Eve, 0.01 ISK would eventually be enough to buy all the POSes and Outposts of BoB and Goonswarm. Okay, now after that smackdown on deflation, your inflation statement: Originally by: Thunderguts Inflation is a good thing in moderation. What it does is encourage people to invest. If the money you get for your mining/ratting/missioning buys less and less stuff, you are encouraged to buy more stuff (better ships) sooner to improve your income. This applies to players as well as corporations. Inflation does not encourage people to invest. What it does do is make people more and more poor. The people that would invest and make 4% without inflation are the same people that would invest and hope to make 8% with a 4% inflation rate. The other people are not that smart. :P -- My sig taken from this site, so thoroughly explains the people I speak with on the forums.
Nicoli Voldkif Caelli-Merced INC. Gunboat Diplomacy	Posted - 2007.12.31 20:01:00 - [126] Originally by: Zeknichov While you are correct in your theory when applied to real world economics, a problem arises when applied to EVE. Even with a large amount of circulation there is so much supply that demand will never be large enough in comparison to this supply to push the prices anywhere above production costs that could be construed as inflation. If you look at best named items you will see inflation because supply of these items is limited in comparison to t1 and t2 items. EVE doesn't have a limited supply of resources, EVE has an unlimited supply. Combined with how easy it is to manufacturer and how little risk there is involved with the manufacturing process inflation will not occur. The problem with that is you don't use limited supply luxury items in your inflation matrix. The price and value of those items while they will be based around inflation the primary determination of there costs will be Demand on the limited supply not the value of isk. These Items can vary in price wildly and are not based on inflation. T1 goods will be a better indication of Inflation as there costs will be better displayed as a relation ship between isk and the minerals being put into the construction of the ship. This all comes down to to determining what market "Basket" you wish to use to define if inflation is happening. These items should only be items that have "stabilized" in the Supply and demand aspect of the market already. @ Cpt. Branko If we tell you then you might start thinking we have a plan behind them.
Digital Anarchist Minmatar	Posted - 2007.12.31 21:22:00 - [127] Edited by: Digital Anarchist on 31/12/2007 21:22:12 There are two kinds of inflation in Eve (and the RL), and they are inter-related. MONEY INFLATION This is strictly the increase in the total isk supply. Think of all the player's wallets (and money locked in escrow) as one lump sum. If that sum goes up, we have monetary inflation. Faucets increase this sum, sinks decrease it. Faucets: insurance payments, NPC rewards, NPC buy orders Sinks: NPC sell orders, skill books, agent marketplace PRICE INFLATION This is a murkier topic. Price inflation means "general increase in the level of prices". If prices tend to go up, we have price inflation. Price inflation is strongly linked to the increase of the money supply (over the long term), even if short term fluctuations do occur. To put it more clearly, if the money supply were fixed and we had a growing economy (more things getting produced and exchanged), the general price level would tend to fall (at about the rate of the economic growth). Production of resources (in Eve, mostly mining and manufacturing) tends to depress the price level. On the other hand, destruction of resources (PvP minus insurance premiums) tends to raise the price level. So production and destruction are not sinks/faucets from a monetary perspective, even if they affect the final price level. ------------------------ This space for rent
Iria Ahrens Amarr 101st Space Marine Force Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.12.31 22:38:00 - [128] A lot of wrong assumptions going on here, or oversimplification. Yet solutions are being proposed without a real attempt to understand all facets of the economy. Wrong assumption 1. Only a small fraction of players are involved in Pvp. Truth. Everyone that leaves their station is involved in Pvp. If you are in Player corp, whether Empire or no, You are playing Pvp, and there are Corps out there that declare wardecs on care bear corps just for giggles. Wrong assumption 2. All of the ISK sinks are minor. Truth, There are some VERY HUGE ISK sinks. War decs alone are pretty huge. Just FYI, a war dec costs 100Billion isk for the first week, then the cost goes up in a non-linear fashion, every week. Going back to wrong assumption 1, war decs turn Empire space into 0.0 space for the corps involved. There are plenty of corps that sit in Empire, safe from 0.0 corps, and war dec merchant corps in Empire for the easy kills. KOS seems to be constantly wardeced by some alliance, if not multiple alliances at once. So don't think that all of those people you see fighting in empire are suicide ganking. There's a reason why they fight and concord doesn't show up.
Thunderguts Fusion Enterprises Ltd Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2008.01.01 00:35:00 - [129] Originally by: Angel DeMorphis Deflation can only last in the short term. Eventually things will stabilize or tend toward inflation. I would tend to agree. Originally by: Angel DeMorphis Inflation does not encourage people to invest. What it does do is make people more and more poor. The people that would invest and make 4% without inflation are the same people that would invest and hope to make 8% with a 4% inflation rate. The other people are not that smart. :P Clearly your training is neither in economics nor in English. Inflation does encourage investment. Inflation in the US is about 3% a year on average. Therefore, if you keep your money in a mattress (or safe deposit box, or whatever) it loses value. Therefore, it makes more sense to invest, either in an interest-paying savings account or in risky assets like stocks. You invest because if you don't, you lose. See, all investments are risky. If you have deflation of 5%, you get that much richer by doing nothing. Investing in stocks may make you even richer, but you could also lose your money, and if you have a guaranteed 5%, you'll be less likely to play the markets. So if you have deflation, people and companies invest less. That means unemployment, less production, generally a lower standard of living. So inflation makes us poorer if we sit still, but it prods us to engage in economic activity, which benefits us in the larger scheme of things.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.01.01 00:36:00 - [130] Originally by: Iria Ahrens A lot of wrong assumptions going on here, or oversimplification. Yet solutions are being proposed without a real attempt to understand all facets of the economy. Wrong assumption 1. Only a small fraction of players are involved in Pvp. Truth. Everyone that leaves their station is involved in Pvp. If you are in Player corp, whether Empire or no, You are playing Pvp, and there are Corps out there that declare wardecs on care bear corps just for giggles. Wrong assumption 2. All of the ISK sinks are minor. Truth, There are some VERY HUGE ISK sinks. War decs alone are pretty huge. Just FYI, a war dec costs 100Billion isk for the first week, then the cost goes up in a non-linear fashion, every week. Going back to wrong assumption 1, war decs turn Empire space into 0.0 space for the corps involved. There are plenty of corps that sit in Empire, safe from 0.0 corps, and war dec merchant corps in Empire for the easy kills. KOS seems to be constantly wardeced by some alliance, if not multiple alliances at once. So don't think that all of those people you see fighting in empire are suicide ganking. There's a reason why they fight and concord doesn't show up. No wardec costs anyone 100 Billion ISK. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Paulo Damarr	Posted - 2008.01.01 02:01:00 - [131] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Pirates are predators. As such they are generally the most intelligent and adaptable of any of the players in Eve. Predators? the word parasite fits better, Ive seen some funny crap on these forums but I never would have guessed we would see a sour old peg leg trying to justify that "carebears" are ruining the game with pigeon economics. ----------------------------------------------- My new years resolution is to give up nonconstructive posting
Garborg Caldari	Posted - 2008.01.01 02:49:00 - [132] Edited by: Garborg on 01/01/2008 02:50:27 Originally by: Bellum Eternus ISK 'faucets' such as ... mining I didn't know mining made ISK appear! How do I do this?! Quote: detrimental to the value of ISK What value? Real life monetary value? If so why are you worried about something that is illeagal. In game value? It doesn't really change, your faction ammo still costs the same... cost to produce a ship is the same... time... Or do you mean the value in time spent to get it? Pretty much the longer the game lasts the cheaper your time is worth because your % of time compared to the total over-all time played in-game by every user is shrinking every day. It can't be helped...

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one 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.