Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ralara
Caldari D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 10:36:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Ortos
Originally by: Ralara
Originally by: Sokratesz Insurance, even of T1 ships, is what's causing the inflation - massive influx of ISK into the economy. Last thing we need is more of that.
There is no inflation :)
That prices remain stable doesnt mean there isent a large influx of money into the game.
True, but prices remaining stable (or in most cases, actually going down) does mean that there is no inflation :-) -- "I didn't join Triumvirate, I joined D00M.". |
Ralara
Caldari D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 10:37:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Ortos
Originally by: Ralara
Originally by: Sokratesz Insurance, even of T1 ships, is what's causing the inflation - massive influx of ISK into the economy. Last thing we need is more of that.
There is no inflation :)
That prices remain stable doesnt mean there isent a large influx of money into the game.
Exactly. The average player now is alot richer than the average player 2 or 4 years ago, newbies are flying bigger ships ever quicker and a BS loss has been reduced from a 'severe blow' to a 'minor inconvenience', and this isn't helping eve in any way. Just look at the amount of supercaps dying with sh!tty fittings, so many people haven't a clue what to do with all their isk so they waste it on expensive toys they haven't a clue of how to fly.
tldr; eve needs more isk sinks
True.
But that's not inflation :-) -- "I didn't join Triumvirate, I joined D00M.". |
Pteranodon
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 12:37:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Izvilistiy I think we have to go to the base issue here, and that is, if you have the skills to fly a golem how the hell did you lose it on a storyline mission ? I only fly a CNR and rape/tank everything without ever worrying.
It is very easy to loose any ship in a level 4 mission. Just fit it wrong an oversight- get too much agro or whatever or just become complacent & over confident. The most dangerous stage IMO is the transisition stage from going from one ship to another. You can be very confident in a Raven but stepping into a Golem or other big ship is a new set of lessons to learn & that is a dangerous time. One of the bigger mistakes is thinking that a bigger ship has bigger survivability- it does when you know it well! but forget something or fit it badly & your in big trouble.
|
EvilChipmunk
Noir. Trinity Nova Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 13:01:00 -
[34]
imho insurance should give you a pile of minerals equivalent to your loss instead of isk
|
Jin Entres
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 13:12:00 -
[35]
Originally by: EvilChipmunk imho insurance should give you a pile of minerals equivalent to your loss instead of isk
Tell me, if your house should burn down or your car get stolen, would the insurance company send you a bunch of tiles, wood and nails or steel and rubber? I doubt it.
It would make sense if EVE insurance worked more like actual profit driven companies and insurance costs and amounts would be based on say how much ships you lose. They're making a huge loss as it is. ----------------------
|
Lord WarATron
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 13:46:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 16/05/2008 13:46:43
Originally by: EvilChipmunk imho insurance should give you a pile of minerals equivalent to your loss instead of isk
What a excellent plan! Lets all build some obscure t1 ship that almost nobody buys cost a few hundred k to build and sell it in some station in the corner of the universe for 1 billion each. Hmm nobody is buying it? I know, lets use our alts to buy it repeatedly and then insure and self destruct for a free 1 billion isk worth of mins!
See the problem?
To be honest, insurance needs to be removed compleatly so losses mean something --
Billion Isk Mission |
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 13:56:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Ortos Edited by: Ortos on 16/05/2008 07:16:18
Originally by: Derek Sigres
Originally by: Jin Entres I think the whole concept of insurance undermines the important risk aspect of the game, and that the problem is too much insurance on T1 ships rather than too little on T2.
Insurance is what makes the risk of PVP worth the effort. I don't subscribe to the notion that most fairly vetern Eve players are able to farm hundreds of millions of isk per day without spending every second thinking about maxamizing income and spending most of the game day farming cash. Most people who play Eve probably have jobs (given the average age of Eve players seems to be fairly high for a MMO).
Small scale PVP and piracy is one thing - one can partake in a great deal of such things without losing ships if they're smart. This is the reason T2 ships are popular for this sort of work - their advantages in small gang combat outweigh the significant financial risks.
On the other side of the coin, in actual fleet combat your survival is largely dependent upon luck. Without insurance most alliance wars would be over after a handful of battles because even the wealthiest of alliances can't afford to replace an entire armada of fleet fitted ships without insurance.
Even when you take insurance into account my Scorpions (which are perhaps the MOST insurable battleship - you damn near make a profit when they pop) generally cost 10 - 20 million isk to replace. God forbid I chose to rig the things - replacement of a rigged scorpion can easily top 70 million isk. Without insurance to mitigate risks to acceptable levels fleet battles wouldn't happen - 0.0 would literally be a stalemate because a side would never commit it's force to an action where victory was anything less than assured.
I will halfway call shenanigans on this.
If there was no insurance, t1 ships would cost a fraction of what they do now. Right now T1 ship prices are decided by the insurance value. If insurance wasent there a t1 battleship would perhaps only cost 15m.
And for that sake, if you could mine minerals needed for t2 production the same way you can mine minerals needed for t1. T2 ships would reach near insurance costs aswell.
I don't know if you realize just how circular your argument becomes. My stance is that insurance makes larger scale PVP possible. You believe without insurance fewer people would risk their ships, which means fewer losses which means fewer replacements etc. This would result in a price decrease in minerals as overall demand plummets but supply remains the same. This means that ship prices would be reduced perhaps increasing demand for ships for PVP which raises the prices.
In the end ships would still cost more to replace and people would still be less than adamant about wanting to jump into a fleet battle.
|
Unknown Comic
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 14:43:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Derek Sigres ship prices would be reduced perhaps increasing demand for ships for PVP which raises the prices.
In the end ships would still cost more to replace and people would still be less than adamant about wanting to jump into a fleet battle.
Sorry, but I don't follow the bit I've put in bold. Seems like an equilibrium too me.
|
Ortos
Abyssus Incendia THORN Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 14:50:00 -
[39]
T2 ship prices are largely decided by raw material prices.
If there was added more way of getting ahold of moon minerals T2 ship prices would decrease. Beeing able to mine moon minerals (say they made it so that the best ores had 10% of one of the diffrent moon minerals in them) price would decrease.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 16:48:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Unknown Comic
Originally by: Derek Sigres ship prices would be reduced perhaps increasing demand for ships for PVP which raises the prices.
In the end ships would still cost more to replace and people would still be less than adamant about wanting to jump into a fleet battle.
Sorry, but I don't follow the bit I've put in bold. Seems like an equilibrium too me.
Assuming that an influx of free captial into the economy of Eve has caused inflation (a fair assumption but one that seems erronious given the drop in ship prices in the time I've played the game but I digress) then removing said capital would have a two fold effect. It would reduce the amount of money being spent in Eve (because there is less free capital obviously) and reduce the number of ships partaking in PvP given they find the new risk levels unacceptable. This would reduce the number of ships lost and thus the number of ships bought which would cause a subsequent drop in prices. Should the ship prices drop to a level that they are once again deemed expendible by the average PVP player they will once again be thrown into combat, increasing demand as more ships would be lost. An increase in demand would cause a subsequent increase in cost until eventually equilibrium is reached in the price of a ship and the potential for loss is deemed acceptable.
In the near term removal of insurance would in fact make large scale PVP unmanagable because most can't afford to spend several hundred million isk per day replacing fleet battleship losses. In the longer term ship prices would drop overall but large scale PVP rates would still inevitably be lower because of the relative lack of financial cushion. Small scale PVP would likely remain unchanged, especially PVP that involves the use of T2 and/or faction ships which are already essentially uninsured (my cerberus' insurance for example will pay to replace 2 t2 launchers and 2 t2 BCS).
To expand the impact beyond the PVP players, if items are lost less frequently and are in less demand, salvaged parts become less valuable meaning that Mission runners and Ratters will lose a fair amount of income. Lower demand means even lower prices for minerals meaning mining becomes even less profitable than it is these days.
The entire economy of Eve is built around the idea of generation of money from nowhere. The billions if not trillions of isk generated each week by Insurance policies are just as unrealistic as the billions if not trillions of isk generated each week in bounties and mission rewards. To remove a critical segment of the capital influx would have a far reaching impact on the game.
My argument is really quite simple if you don't feel like reading the above: Insurance is a critcal part of the economic infrastructure of EVE and to advocate it's removal without a suitable replacement program means your going to do terrible things to the game's economy.
|
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 17:08:00 -
[41]
You can. You're just paying too much for your T2 ships. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? |
bldyannoyed
Un4seen Development
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 17:11:00 -
[42]
Edited by: bldyannoyed on 16/05/2008 17:11:28
Originally by: Ne nehn When T2 ships were launched you could insure them the same way as other ships. Fully insure even.
That made them a lot more popular, and price increased. There were less and less moon minerals left on the market, and price increased some more.
Thats how it works really, there is simply not enough moon minerals to support fully insurable t2 ships. If I could take 6 CS's a day out to combat the same way I can with BS's. I would.
LOOOOOOL
When Tech2 ships were introduced (i.e. when Eve was launched) there were no POS's, moon minerals or any of the other stuff you've based this pretty off the wall explanation on.
Pretty much all the Tech2 components required to build Tech2 ships were given away as mission rewards and then sold on the market. All that was then needed was a little Morphite and one of the ultra-rare BPO's and you were in business.
The insurance payouts on these "Original" Tech2 ships ( AF's, HAC's, Covert Ops Frigs and Logistics Cruisers) basically hasn't changed. It has always gone off the base mineral cost of the ship, and still does.
And thats the way it should stay tbh because atm tech2 ships are the only real loss anyone takes as the insurance system is stupidly generous, often paying out more than the market cost of your ship.
|
Manu Hermanus
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 17:12:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Lord WarATron Edited by: Lord WarATron on 16/05/2008 13:46:43
Originally by: EvilChipmunk imho insurance should give you a pile of minerals equivalent to your loss instead of isk
What a excellent plan! Lets all build some obscure t1 ship that almost nobody buys cost a few hundred k to build and sell it in some station in the corner of the universe for 1 billion each. Hmm nobody is buying it? I know, lets use our alts to buy it repeatedly and then insure and self destruct for a free 1 billion isk worth of mins!
See the problem?
To be honest, insurance needs to be removed compleatly so losses mean something
ship is built with wastage on the bp, it explodes and you get its base mineral cost, ending with less minerals than you used to make it? i don't think it would have to do with what you bought it for, if it did well...
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 18:04:00 -
[44]
Originally by: bldyannoyed
And thats the way it should stay tbh because atm tech2 ships are the only real loss anyone takes as the insurance system is stupidly generous, often paying out more than the market cost of your ship.
I don't know what ships you refer to when you say "pay more than market cost". The insurance payout realistically is the payout - the premium. Scorpions are a great example - the insurance payout is actually higher than what the ship sells for - the fact that you pay several million for the policy means you actually lose a few million on the deal. When you throw fittings on a ship the ininsured items in battle grow immensely.
Personally, the closest thing to a free ship that I fly is the blackbird. Total replacement cost is only a few hundred k - because I fit my blackbirds with rat trash (because using expensive mods is silly on a ship built to be primary without anything to protect it).
In all reality, the vast majority of the money I take into space is uninsured. My implants aren't insured and even the cheap +3's abe 5.5 million each (at the LP store). My modules aren't insured and on many ships the modules cost more than the ship itself. My most expensive ship in terms of uninsured isk is actually my T2 fitted cerberus - almost 200m uninsured isk floating in space (god forbid I faction or deadspace fitted the thing). My fleet scorps are 20 million uninsured isk on average
|
TerrorBaBy
Caldari Universal-Corp The Nexus Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 18:42:00 -
[45]
Mate of mine lost a Kronos when all the angels aggro'd him in the last level of Worlds Collide. He was gutted at the time.
Not being able to insure T2 is just the way it is. T2 ships currently act as a big isk sink I think too (for those that fly them at least) because they aren't insurable. _______________
Originally by: CCP Navigator Please keep to the topic at hand. Discussions of ****ography on youtube or anywhere else is not relevant.
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 18:52:00 -
[46]
Originally by: TerrorBaBy Mate of mine lost a Kronos when all the angels aggro'd him in the last level of Worlds Collide. He was gutted at the time.
Not being able to insure T2 is just the way it is. T2 ships currently act as a big isk sink I think too (for those that fly them at least) because they aren't insurable.
Please tell me how T2 ships remove isk from the economy?
I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and i refuse to respect people who hold them. |
Gimpb
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 19:10:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Ne nehn The solution to this problem would be to implent more T1 shiptypes though. The only viable solution atleast.
You imply there's a problem...
If T2 ships were simply better than T1 in every way except skill requirements that would just make T1 newb ships. T1 remains useful even for older players because it's not a big deal to lose it.
Loosing an insured BS in a fleet fight isn't a big deal but loosing a marauder costs you. If you could fully insure marauders, they'd be quite popular for pvp.
It's higher risk for a more powerful ship. That trade off is entirely appropriate.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 23:18:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Gimpb
Originally by: Ne nehn The solution to this problem would be to implent more T1 shiptypes though. The only viable solution atleast.
You imply there's a problem...
If T2 ships were simply better than T1 in every way except skill requirements that would just make T1 newb ships. T1 remains useful even for older players because it's not a big deal to lose it.
Loosing an insured BS in a fleet fight isn't a big deal but loosing a marauder costs you. If you could fully insure marauders, they'd be quite popular for pvp.
It's higher risk for a more powerful ship. That trade off is entirely appropriate.
I agree. In combat scenarios where player skills and actions have little to do with survival (i.e. fleet combat) bringing a T2 ship that is all of 20% more effective (arbitrary) but 400% more expensive (arbitrary) is not cost effective. For smaller gang stuff where player skill makes a huge impact on survival, that edge can be the difference between victory and defeat.
For players partaking in the YARR aspects of Eve T2 ships are a godsend because a single hull is versital, tough and packs a whallop.
Not being able to insure T2 ships ensures I only pull them out when I think there's a fair chance I'm going to get it back.
|
Atsuko Ratu
Caldari VSP Corp.
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 23:27:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 16/05/2008 23:32:06 Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 16/05/2008 23:31:06 Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 16/05/2008 23:29:55
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: TerrorBaBy Mate of mine lost a Kronos when all the angels aggro'd him in the last level of Worlds Collide. He was gutted at the time.
Not being able to insure T2 is just the way it is. T2 ships currently act as a big isk sink I think too (for those that fly them at least) because they aren't insurable.
Please tell me how T2 ships remove isk from the economy?
Nothing dieing in any game removes liquid money (unless it's a bag with money inside, I suppose) from the game. In fact, this is true in real life as well.
Edit: The best isk sink in game is the destruction and/or purchase of pos materials. Simply because they are seeded into the market by NPCS and the isk disappears upon purchase.
Oh, and skill books too, I suppose.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.05.16 23:39:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Atsuko Ratu Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 16/05/2008 23:32:06 Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 16/05/2008 23:31:06 Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 16/05/2008 23:29:55
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: TerrorBaBy Mate of mine lost a Kronos when all the angels aggro'd him in the last level of Worlds Collide. He was gutted at the time.
Not being able to insure T2 is just the way it is. T2 ships currently act as a big isk sink I think too (for those that fly them at least) because they aren't insurable.
Please tell me how T2 ships remove isk from the economy?
Nothing dieing in any game removes liquid money (unless it's a bag with money inside, I suppose) from the game. In fact, this is true in real life as well.
Edit: The best isk sink in game is the destruction and/or purchase of pos materials. Simply because they are seeded into the market by NPCS and the isk disappears upon purchase.
Oh, and skill books too, I suppose.[/quote}
You're mistaken. When you destroy a ship you remove a ship and the material components required to craft that ship from the game. Given that either item has a price tag attached to it one could go on to assume the system has suffered a net loss of cash. Along with the destruction of your ship you tend to lose items as well - once again items have real value and as such represent a net loss to the economy of the game. Insurance fails to pay a quantity of ISK greater than or equal to the current market value of the items destroyed. As such, capital is removed from the game.
|
|
Kael Jorensen
Crimson Star Empire
|
Posted - 2008.05.17 00:49:00 -
[51]
The key is to fix insurance so your payout is based on a calculation (figured at the time of loss) that includes the number of ships you have recently lost and the number of times you have recently aggressed someone. There are many benefits to this.
-you drive out of business the no talent isk buying pirates (and there are alot of them). -you make large scale fleet PVP become progressively more expensive as conflicts go on. -People that use aggression tactics for easy gain in high sec have more risk. -you force pilots to become more skillful rather then counting on a big wallet to cushion them.
Yes this would probably reduce the amount of PVP in Eve over a short period of time while many pilots scramble to learn PVP with a mind on ship conservation. This would drop ship prices. I don't see this as a bonus to the carebears in highsec since I don't think most even bother to insure their ships. I know I haven't lost a ship on a mission in 3 years and the last time was when I shot someone in my gangs can and got concord on me. Seriously, can anyone justify why insurance handouts should be so high for everyone in game? Can anyone justify why the insurance payout should be the same for the newb mining as it is for the suicide ganker in jita?
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.05.17 02:00:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Kael Jorensen The key is to fix insurance so your payout is based on a calculation (figured at the time of loss) that includes the number of ships you have recently lost and the number of times you have recently aggressed someone. There are many benefits to this.
-you drive out of business the no talent isk buying pirates (and there are alot of them). -you make large scale fleet PVP become progressively more expensive as conflicts go on. -People that use aggression tactics for easy gain in high sec have more risk. -you force pilots to become more skillful rather then counting on a big wallet to cushion them.
Yes this would probably reduce the amount of PVP in Eve over a short period of time while many pilots scramble to learn PVP with a mind on ship conservation. This would drop ship prices. I don't see this as a bonus to the carebears in highsec since I don't think most even bother to insure their ships. I know I haven't lost a ship on a mission in 3 years and the last time was when I shot someone in my gangs can and got concord on me. Seriously, can anyone justify why insurance handouts should be so high for everyone in game? Can anyone justify why the insurance payout should be the same for the newb mining as it is for the suicide ganker in jita?
Yes - the reason everyone gets a payout is because it helps increase the risk to all. Suicide ganking people in high sec is fairly difficult to turn a profit with. Without insurance I would imagine one would be hard pressed to make ANY money off an edeavour.
The premise that a pilot's skill can prevent the loss of a ship is a silly one indeed. I am forced to assume you have not traveled through a competent gate camp recently, a scenario where your survival is dependent upon the reactions of others not your own (and not the only such scenario). People lose ships all the time in Eve, in every possible scenario. To arbitrarily determine a payout should be lower for one player because of their propensity of ship loss is silly because it harms their very ability to go out and lose ships, and probably has a negative impact on their ability to actually enjoy the game.
|
Qwant
|
Posted - 2008.05.17 02:35:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Qwant on 17/05/2008 02:40:12 Edited by: Qwant on 17/05/2008 02:38:23 all they need to do is cancel insurance payment on fraud and have concord guard wrecks on empire ganks for 10 min after the kill. This whole issue keeps coming up in the forums and neither side will ever be happy. The pirates and hardcore pvpers all want open pvp everywhere with no consequences to themselves, and the bears all want no risk mission running. THERE IS NO HAPPY MEDIUM. THe best i can think up is to allow suicide attacks but disallow proffiting off them. That way pirates can still suicide for tactical advantage but not for profit . Once you have 7 or 8 ravens set up for suicide gank it's a forgone conclusion and the target is dead before it can even respond. This is even weaker behavior than taking a mega tanked ship into a mission it can't lose. Then the devs are always talking about trying to simulate as realistic a gaming world as possible. How are we supposed to meet in the middle when all 3 sides run in opposite directions. For the pirates leave suiciding legal, for the bears have concord guard a wreck just like cops would guard a crime scene although for only 10 min or so and for the devs cancel payouts on suicides because what's more realistic than an insurance company trying to get out of paying. And as far as insurance coverage goes let players decide how much coverage they want as long as it does not exceed the total paid for all modules and make it a 10% flat rate on coverage decided on, then cancel insurance on self destructs. Another thing that might work is terminating insurance purchase rights of a whole account for 30 days following a suicide gank. That's just my 2 cents.
|
Atsuko Ratu
Caldari VSP Corp.
|
Posted - 2008.05.17 02:46:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Derek Sigres
Originally by: Atsuko Ratu Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 16/05/2008 23:32:06 Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 16/05/2008 23:31:06 Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 16/05/2008 23:29:55
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: TerrorBaBy Mate of mine lost a Kronos when all the angels aggro'd him in the last level of Worlds Collide. He was gutted at the time.
Not being able to insure T2 is just the way it is. T2 ships currently act as a big isk sink I think too (for those that fly them at least) because they aren't insurable.
Please tell me how T2 ships remove isk from the economy?
Nothing dieing in any game removes liquid money (unless it's a bag with money inside, I suppose) from the game. In fact, this is true in real life as well.
Edit: The best isk sink in game is the destruction and/or purchase of pos materials. Simply because they are seeded into the market by NPCS and the isk disappears upon purchase.
Oh, and skill books too, I suppose.
You're mistaken. When you destroy a ship you remove a ship and the material components required to craft that ship from the game. Given that either item has a price tag attached to it one could go on to assume the system has suffered a net loss of cash. Along with the destruction of your ship you tend to lose items as well - once again items have real value and as such represent a net loss to the economy of the game. Insurance fails to pay a quantity of ISK greater than or equal to the current market value of the items destroyed. As such, capital is removed from the game.
While logical, this is actually a common misconception.
Capital /= liquid isk. Very very very little isk is actually removed from the game when you manufacture a ship (if in empire, you lose a few thousand to the NPC corps for station services).
All the minerals you mined to make the ship cost a whopping 0 isk to get. This means that, for 0 isk, you can pump an infinite amount of ships into the game (assuming you have the few thousand it takes to build it).
Now let's pretend you use that infinitely free materials to make ammo, which you use to rat an infinite number of rats, making an infinite amount of isk.
In this process, an extremely small amount of isk is ever removed from the game (again, manufacturing costs or pos fuels such as coolant), while a free, infinite amount of materials is achievable.
Without skill books or seeded poses in the market, or manufacturing cost, isk would never be removed from the market. A ship's death merely removes some free-minerals a week old player mined in his bantam a few weeks ago. The isk you used to buy that ship is in someones else's hand, and they only payed 6000 isk to build it.
Oh, and insurance also just put another x amount of isk into the game, assuming you died before it ran out.
In the end, this only creates an illusion of an isk sink. The only thing removed from the market is the hangable minerals used to build the ship, no isk.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.05.17 07:05:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Atsuko Ratu
While logical, this is actually a common misconception.
Capital /= liquid isk. Very very very little isk is actually removed from the game when you manufacture a ship (if in empire, you lose a few thousand to the NPC corps for station services).
All the minerals you mined to make the ship cost a whopping 0 isk to get. This means that, for 0 isk, you can pump an infinite amount of ships into the game (assuming you have the few thousand it takes to build it).
Now let's pretend you use that infinitely free materials to make ammo, which you use to rat an infinite number of rats, making an infinite amount of isk.
In this process, an extremely small amount of isk is ever removed from the game (again, manufacturing costs or pos fuels such as coolant), while a free, infinite amount of materials is achievable.
Without skill books or seeded poses in the market, or manufacturing cost, isk would never be removed from the market. A ship's death merely removes some free-minerals a week old player mined in his bantam a few weeks ago. The isk you used to buy that ship is in someones else's hand, and they only payed 6000 isk to build it.
Oh, and insurance also just put another x amount of isk into the game, assuming you died before it ran out.
In the end, this only creates an illusion of an isk sink. The only thing removed from the market is the hangable minerals used to build the ship, no isk.
While it is granted that only a small portion of liquid capital is removed from the game, capital in general is removed.
Afterall, there is a finite amount of minerals mined and salvaged during the course of the average game day. There are a finite number of ships produced in the course of a game day. Even more finite are the moon minerals required to build T2 components to create those fancy T2 ships.
Thus, when a ship is destoryed a quantity of minerals in the form of a ship is lost. A quantity of money (paid to the insurance company for example for the policy) is lost. The end state of losing a ship is that a quantity of captial, no matter how insignificant is lost from the economy of Eve.
Given that there are mechanisms in place to lose at least some quantities of liquid capital, it stands to reason there are mechanisms to create liquid capital - otherwise the money supply would eventually dwindle to nonexistance. (Other mechanisms exist, for example purchases through LP Stores or NPC merchants)
To my knowledge there are currently only four ways that liquid capital is generated - through mission rewards, though rat bounties, through insurance payouts and through sales to NPC characters.
One can see evidence that the ISK generation is offset by ISK depletion. I'm sure one could write a doctorate thesis on the subject (if one could get away with such a thing at a reputable school anyway) discussing the reasons why inflation is not ravaging the EVE economy in the way it does other MMO's. The destruction of liquid and physical capital is one such reason as is an ever expanding player base with which the capital is shared. I imagine the fact that many characters save huge quantities of liquid assets in order to buy a new tremendously powerful ship is one such example.
My point remains that while I agree that the "isk sink" theory is accurate, it isn't as important in the wider scale of the EVE economy as some would believe (so I agree with you to an extent).
On a personal economy level a T2 ship is precisely an ISK sink when you lose it.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.05.17 07:20:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Qwant Edited by: Qwant on 17/05/2008 02:40:12 Edited by: Qwant on 17/05/2008 02:38:23 all they need to do is cancel insurance payment on fraud and have concord guard wrecks on empire ganks for 10 min after the kill. This whole issue keeps coming up in the forums and neither side will ever be happy. The pirates and hardcore pvpers all want open pvp everywhere with no consequences to themselves, and the bears all want no risk mission running. THERE IS NO HAPPY MEDIUM. THe best i can think up is to allow suicide attacks but disallow proffiting off them. That way pirates can still suicide for tactical advantage but not for profit . Once you have 7 or 8 ravens set up for suicide gank it's a forgone conclusion and the target is dead before it can even respond. This is even weaker behavior than taking a mega tanked ship into a mission it can't lose. Then the devs are always talking about trying to simulate as realistic a gaming world as possible. How are we supposed to meet in the middle when all 3 sides run in opposite directions. For the pirates leave suiciding legal, for the bears have concord guard a wreck just like cops would guard a crime scene although for only 10 min or so and for the devs cancel payouts on suicides because what's more realistic than an insurance company trying to get out of paying. And as far as insurance coverage goes let players decide how much coverage they want as long as it does not exceed the total paid for all modules and make it a 10% flat rate on coverage decided on, then cancel insurance on self destructs. Another thing that might work is terminating insurance purchase rights of a whole account for 30 days following a suicide gank. That's just my 2 cents.
I don't support the notion that a player should be uber protected from piracy by NPC's. Given Eve is primarily a game involving PVP, to stack the odds agains the pirate like this is just silly.
A suicide gank is difficult to make profitable. Afterall, a golem sporting a fancy Pith X-Type XL Booster may be an attractive target for a ganker but it's also quite the HARD target as well. A Hulk carrying a 0.0 tank fit (involving lots of faction gear and whatnot) may be an attractive target for gankers but if a player puts this much tank on a mining ship in High Sec they're silly.
There are lots of areas where a suicide gank can be made worthwhile but it relies on stupidity on the part of the pilot. Putting loads of valuable material in a Industrial ship is one such example - afterall a gank cruiser can easily dispatch a hauler before concord drops the doughnuts and comes running. An unescourted freigher can easily contain enough valuables to make the cost in battleships for a gank to be worth it - but the pilot made the blunder of flying without an escourt and scout.
Eve is a game of calculated risks, and to provide such protection from sillyness while providing even more severe ramifications for brazen action is a step in the wrong direction in my book. Carebears can spend months or even years in a single ship. Piracy is just one aspect of PVP in Eve - and the only one a carebear has to contend with. Given how easy it is to avoid any real danger from piracy, the insignificantly small chance of an unavoidable encounter for a carebear does not warrent such a knee jerk reaction.
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2008.05.17 07:24:00 -
[57]
Eve needs more ISK-sinks, removing insurance or lowering the maximum insurable amount to 75% (and lower the premiums equivalently) would be a good start.
I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and i refuse to respect people who hold them. |
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.05.17 07:29:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Sokratesz Eve needs more ISK-sinks, removing insurance or lowering the maximum insurable amount to 75% (and lower the premiums equivalently) would be a good start.
Have you ever gotten insurance? I often only get 40% or less of my total ship cost back in the end.
Even when I insure blackbirds, perhaps the most insurable of all ships and I lose money on the hull itself (several hundred thousand isk). Granted, I usually fit the things with rat trash so I'm not terribly botered by the the loss (because they're ever so easy to lose)
|
Atsuko Ratu
Caldari VSP Corp.
|
Posted - 2008.05.17 13:31:00 -
[59]
While it is true that capital is removed from the game upon a ships death, liquid isk is not. If you were to remove the very few isk sinks (seeded items, insuring a ship and not losing it), liquid isk would never be removed from the economy, just shuffled around.
That is all I was really saying, tbh.
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2008.05.17 18:33:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Derek Sigres
Originally by: Sokratesz Eve needs more ISK-sinks, removing insurance or lowering the maximum insurable amount to 75% (and lower the premiums equivalently) would be a good start.
Have you ever gotten insurance? I often only get 40% or less of my total ship cost back in the end.
Even when I insure blackbirds, perhaps the most insurable of all ships and I lose money on the hull itself (several hundred thousand isk). Granted, I usually fit the things with rat trash so I'm not terribly botered by the the loss (because they're ever so easy to lose)
The point is, by decreasing the returned amount as well as the fee, you keep the increase in ISK loss to a minimum, while decreasing the amount of isk that enters the economy through this.
I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and i refuse to respect people who hold them. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |