EVE Search - Mad inflation

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Mad inflation

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
Endeavour Starfleet 685	Posted - 2012.03.12 18:23:00 - [1] - Quote CCP Soundwave wrote: highonpop wrote: CCP Soundwave wrote: We're looking at the economy constantly and looking at our options. One of the fundamental issues we have is that we're making everyone "better" at making money, so the effect kind of snowballs. Right now we're considering everything form increasing taxes to lowering bounties across the board. or maybe do the 1 thing you KNOW will regulate the flow... Switching Incursions from ISK to LP payout... Or tell the Sansha to go home... Incursions are not a big issue in terms of isk globally. Thank you! People crying left and right on the forums about so called Incursion inflation when in reality the amount from bounties is astronomically higher a good chunk of that due to nullsec botting. How about these nullbears start reporting blue bots before screaming about incursions?
Endeavour Starfleet 685	Posted - 2012.03.12 18:27:00 - [2] - Quote CCP Soundwave wrote: Tippia wrote: CCP Soundwave wrote: Incursions are not a big issue in terms of isk globally. You're going to have to elaborate on that one a bit. Kile Kitmoore wrote: Finally, NOW can we please stop the nerf Incursion threads! Nope. Quote: As for the inflation, you wanted a mining buff here it is! Trit selling at 5 ISK a pop! Nice! Inflation is not a mining buff since it doesn't mean mining is more worth-while. Someone already posted the numbers, the majority of isk in EVE comes off bounties and if anything, we should be reviewing the current bounties on battleship NPCs. Before you do anything which will get the CSM screaming. You need to look at the situation of nullsec botting. In my opinion. I think you can lay most of the so called 1% Inflation on bots pounding 23/7 behind blue walls. You need to find a way to reward players who are willing to report blue bots and punish those who say to their members not to report. Right now it's too easy for these idiots to say "Its for teh ship replacement fund" like it is justification for not reporting.
Endeavour Starfleet 685	Posted - 2012.03.12 18:31:00 - [3] - Quote JitaPriceChecker2 wrote: Ana Vyr wrote: So 80%ish of all the ISK income comes from rats? But, wouldn't rat bounty income have remained roughly stable over the last few years? Why would that cause prices to explode? Because people fail at arithmetics and dont understand that 16% increase isk generation(incursions) can actually mean multiplying by a huge factor isk that stays in the economy Except that "some" people fail to realize in this very same topic CCP said Incursions arent the problem.
Endeavour Starfleet 685	Posted - 2012.03.12 18:44:00 - [4] - Quote Zircon Dasher wrote: Tippia wrote: if people are abandoning an infinite ISK source to get to it, it is a cause for worry since it tells us that we're nowhere near that yet and it's already a significant contributor to the ISK supply. Not necessarily. You may have a situation where the minimum number of people needed to harvest 100% of the total possible ISK (perfect efficiency) gives a greater ISK/hr than missions/ratting/etc So long as the ISK/hr is greater people will move to incursions. Meaning that the distribution of total possible ISK is spread across more players, and yet the total injection remains the same. This is all theory, given that we do not know the distribution of incursion ISK across security. IF incursions are only being run in highsec....ever.... then there is significant room for more injection once people start running them in low/null. However, when an incursion pops up in your deep-blue 0.0 sov sys it would be silly not to farm it like crazy (little risk) so I can only assume that SOME of the feb numbers include 0.0 space. Some of em do come from null and some love to run them when they arrive. However the many that don't despite the huge income factor in my opinion shows the extent of botting out there. They can't even be bothered to get a fleet to remove the incursion which takes half a day at most counting time to get the bar to blue. Their bots just move to somewhere else. With more reporting of blue bots and action I think you just might see them run more again and many that run in hisec will come back to run them with their alliance.
Endeavour Starfleet 685	Posted - 2012.03.12 18:49:00 - [5] - Quote CCP Soundwave wrote: Incursions are not a big issue in terms of isk globally. CCP Soundwave wrote: Someone already posted the numbers, the majority of isk in EVE comes off bounties and if anything, we should be reviewing the current bounties on battleship NPCs. Sorry to quote it again but some here just don't get the point. Incursions are not the issue. And yes they have ALOT more data than you considering they WORK for the company.
Endeavour Starfleet 685	Posted - 2012.03.12 18:58:00 - [6] - Quote Cant figure the issues? It says it RIGHT there. Incursions arent the problem. You and the others screaming about incursions have lost. You have had a CCP member say without beating around the bush that Incursions aren't the big bad inflation monster I see so many posts make it out as. You know the fake numbers on incursion inflation y'all used to get the uninformed screaming in topics even tho they have never run an incursion. Now instead of beating a dead horse how about trying to provide real solutions such as ways to encourage people to report the blue bots that ARE generating massive inflation. Andski wrote: Seriously any post by Endeavour Starfleet in threads about incursions should just be glossed over entirely because he doesn't want his risk-free 150m ISK/hour fountain touched Wrong. I have never made that much in an Incursion and I never will. And I actually support small changes to vanguards to help remove the blitzing ability if assaults and HQs get a buff to payout. Even Ammzi seems to agree with the buff. However that is because a single fleet type can blitz VGs without ever having to change fleet comp. Nothing to do with Inflation its due to want to them to start coming over to the community HQ fleets so we can have more of them and perhaps CCP will add more sites so things are a bit more interesting. It is the fact that people with obvious agendas are pounding on Incursions when the real cause of out of control inflation is the massive amount bots are putting out.
Endeavour Starfleet 685	Posted - 2012.03.12 19:08:00 - [7] - Quote Real numbers Tippia? So your "real" numbers beat CCPs even tho they have a market expert with access to their data. Epic and I mean epic fail! And Andski I know about the bot ban wave but it is not enough by far. And it dosen't help that blues are "encouraged" not to report blue bots with promises of sharing and ship replacement programs. And I have called time and again for hisec bots to be reported tho I highly doubt they beat the numbers in nullsec. Report them anyway because the more bots banned the better!
Endeavour Starfleet 685	Posted - 2012.03.12 19:13:00 - [8] - Quote Zircon Dasher wrote: Tippia wrote: As luck would have it, we do know that. Even if we assume that the highsec incursions are run at max efficiency, there's still roughly twice as much in untapped incursion income waiting in the systemGÇª I did not see that one. Good catch! Someone needs to ask him to break out bounties by security for feb. What it does show as well as even though low and nullsec incursions have a very high payout and can be done with low cost ships they don't get done. Why is that? They supposedly have higher pay than anoms? right? Or is it that even with the free Cyno jams and ability to run with far less and make more still. They don't get run because its interfering with the real income source which in my opinion is mass scale botting. Don't give me that crap about numbers online. VGs require a small amount of people.
Endeavour Starfleet 686	Posted - 2012.03.12 19:21:00 - [9] - Quote Andski wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Real numbers Tippia? So your "real" numbers beat CCPs even tho they have a market expert with access to their data. Epic and I mean epic fail! And Andski I know about the bot ban wave but it is not enough by far. And it dosen't help that blues are "encouraged" not to report blue bots with promises of sharing and ship replacement programs. And I have called time and again for hisec bots to be reported tho I highly doubt they beat the numbers in nullsec. Report them anyway because the more bots banned the better! How do you feel about risk/reward imbalances between high-sec incursions and nullsec anomalies? That they are balanced minus the issue of AFK cloaking which I already proposed a solution for. With Blitzing VGs are on a bit of the high side but I am not too worried about that because I know eventually the blitzing part will be changed. HQs and As could use a buff tho. You see I do not like the idea of bounty nerf. I think it will legitimately harm active players and yes greatly change the balance to favor hisec again. Instead I'm going to call as much as I can for action on botting. You are a goon right? Rumor is the norm is "Don't $*&^ over other goons" Help prevent this madness by reporting the blue bots you see. As my opinion seems to mean little if they are bent on nerfing bounties eh?
Endeavour Starfleet 686	Posted - 2012.03.12 19:25:00 - [10] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: How about these nullbears start reporting blue bots before screaming about incursions? Not possible right now. Like all political bodies, the CSM is corrupt on some levels. You have null representatives who punish their own members who report blue bots. RMT is big business when the convesion ratio is highly profitable in a country that has a broken economy or if you currently are not employed at all. I have never seen CCP out people who report bots. The report must be done and move on like you saw nothing. Tho if you are talking about things like shutting down SRPs and other activities funded by blue bots in retaliation well here is the deal folks. Blue bots are NOT your friends. Would you rather they get banned while there is peace and you have time to build up resources legitimately or potentially have them banned when you need that SRP the most during war? They are cheating you They are cheating your corp and alliance They are cheating everyone Report them.

Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 19:28:00 - [11] - Quote Andski wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Zircon Dasher wrote: Tippia wrote: As luck would have it, we do know that. Even if we assume that the highsec incursions are run at max efficiency, there's still roughly twice as much in untapped incursion income waiting in the systemGÇª I did not see that one. Good catch! Someone needs to ask him to break out bounties by security for feb. What it does show as well as even though low and nullsec incursions have a very high payout and can be done with low cost ships they don't get done. Why is that? They supposedly have higher pay than anoms? right? sorry to spoil your lil rant but GSF and TEST have been running lowsec incursions since the damn things were released, we even got the first revenant BPC drop! heh! now here's a better question: why would anyone bother running incursions in lowsec (or, hahahaha nullsec), jumping around in carriers with PvE ships in the hold and scouting all over the place when they can fork over a few billion for a shiny faction BS and farm them in high-sec with significantly less risk of losing ships? Nullsec pays better. ALOT better. Goons know that as they run them. You can try to defend the actions of other alliances all you want but the sheer amount of nullsecs that pop without intervention speaks for itself in my opinion. Andski wrote: Please tell me exactly how my alliance's leadership would enforce the "don't report blue bots" rule. Not saying goons do this but I have heard of people expelled and blacklisted for bot reporting. Of course it would likely involve someone telling another blue or saying in corp or alliance that they had reported or spotted a bot. Don't have to actually remove that many members. If many think you have the power to spot them reporting. You get the point. Edit: My main point is encouraging you and others to start getting serious about reporting blue bots before they really do end up lowering bounty payments.
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 20:37:00 - [12] - Quote baltec1 wrote: What make you think we dont? We simply do not police for CCP. You had better get started then eh? Considering their next step is to nerf bounties. If nullsec folks can report blue bots and people get serious about reporting hisec bots. Inflation may be able to be stopped. Or atleast slowed to acceptable levels. Patient 2428190 wrote: Where does the idea to nerf highsec (and just highsec) ever come in the minds of people wanting to fix inflation? NPC bounties are much, much more plentiful in nullsec than in highsec, incursions pay out a lot more in dangerous areas than highsec. Even ship deaths you may suffer while generating NPC bounties end up adding even more ISK into the economy. I have several theories why some want to nerf hisec so badly. #1 They want their cannon fodder to return. #2 Part of #1 For some they want them to come back because there are now gaps in the shield wall and that affects their botting. #3 They have been forced to accept lower SP members or lower member requirements and they hate that. DelBoy Trades wrote: CCP Soundwave wrote: Incursions are not a big issue in terms of isk globally. UMAD?!?! No.... HE RIGHT!!!..
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 20:44:00 - [13] - Quote Kusanagi Kasuga wrote: The real solution is not to try to pin the nerf to one specific area of the game, as there isn't a specific mechanic causing the inflation singularly. It's to do an all around slight nerf to income, which will result in a net no-change to people's wealth. The thing that's not helping is people trying to bandwagon this as another nerf-highsec thread. The solution is to get serious about botting with more incentive to go PVP. #1 Encourage reporting of blue bots. #2 More wormholes into nullsec so the shield wall can be bypassed easier. #3 One time payment for Clone grade (Who wants to PVP defensively when it costs a ton for an experienced player to replace his clone grade? You get alot more isk sink from his ship going pop) #4 Implementation of a vastly modular POS and Corp system to isolate thieves and spiez. (To give smaller groups without 20 POS a chance)
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 20:45:00 - [14] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: baltec1 wrote: What make you think we dont? We simply do not police for CCP. You had better get started then eh? Considering their next step is to nerf bounties. If nullsec folks can report blue bots and people get serious about reporting hisec bots. Inflation may be able to be stopped. Or atleast slowed to acceptable levels. Removing bots will do very little to stop the massive inflation going on. Are you serious? Or are you a botter yourself?
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 20:54:00 - [15] - Quote Eso Es wrote: Nothing to do with inflation, but again, Incursions are terrible for the EVE universe for more than just inflation. So now we finally cut through the bs about Incursion inflation and onto the real issue. It lowers the power of nullsec. No denying that. There is an alternative to the BS politics, broken game mechanics (AFK Cloaking, POS and Corp systems that make it difficult to isolate evil doers) Sov grind, Moon grind, Bot defending etc.. And the alternative is Incursions. And even better they provide a large and varied community aspect to boot! I have called for a solution to remove the incentive to AFK while cloaked. I have called for implementation of a much more modular POS and Corp system. I do not support the bounty nerf. Other than that tho most of the issues with nullsec are player based. Crap like requiring full API, Fees, Daily mandatory CTAS. Booting people that don't show up at 4AM. Etc... The current game and alliance player mechanics makes nullsec bad for the EVE universe greater than community Incursions could ever be. So when you get your act together, report the blue bots, start taking needed changes seriously and stop whining only after the fact. Maybe we can talk about what you THINK Incursions are doing that are bad for EVE.
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 20:59:00 - [16] - Quote CCP Soundwave wrote: gfldex wrote: [quote=CCP Soundwave] Love makes pretty blind, you know. We all know how much you love your baby that is Incursions. Please don't cuddle it until it dies. You're aware that we're making adjustments to Incursions right? I've never said we didn't need to look at Incursion income in isolation, the point I made was that in terms of money coming into the economy, bounties are a massive issue. I'm not entirely sure why some of you keep insisting that it's either or. Do Incursions need looking at? Absolutely, that's already been done and is awaiting deployment. Are Incursions the big issue in terms of isk coming into the economy? Not even remotely. Which I assume what you mean by adjustments are changes to VGs to remove blitzing while boosting assault and HQ income right? Side question when will we see a dev blog about those changes? After fanfest right? And will we have plenty of time to test them on Sisi to make sure there arent any surprises right? Yet thanks for yet again pointing how wrong many are about Incursion Inflation. They just don't get it. In my opinion all they see is rage from Incursions providing an alternative to broken nullsec.
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 21:12:00 - [17] - Quote Grey Azorria wrote: Hmmmmm.... Actually I think he did more damage to your arguement - since most people were not against hitting bounties, but rather against hitting bounties instead of (rather than as well as) incursions. while you seem to be going on about how incursions are fine as they are. Did you not read above? I am against VG Blitzing (Tho due to a different reason than Inflation obviously) However they are fine the way they are compared to botting.
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 21:18:00 - [18] - Quote CCP Soundwave wrote: I'll leave the details to the devblog but I'd say there is a chance the changes might be (among other things) exactly what you wrote. I love you Soundwave! I eagerly await the blog. And I hope I am correct in my guess. VG blitzing is a big issue due to fairness. If you aren't in a near perfect fleet you get contested every time. Good VGs are where good varied fleets go back to "10 Mins 10 Mil" or longer Like it was long ago. No more 3 min blitzes. Assaults and HQs could do with a boost in payout tho. While a boost could look bad on paper in reality it is almost never end, warp, enter like the shiny VG fleets. 5-10 mins between sites are almost guaranteed and often it is longer. A boost will get more people into those higher sites so there will be more fleets doing them. That will help incursion content to shine when it is the community and not just a small fleet.
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 21:21:00 - [19] - Quote baltec1 wrote: [quote=Endeavour Starfleet] Why the hell would we boost assault and HQ isk rewards when we need to reduce the flow of isk into the game? I wonder how many times they have to say Incursions arent the main thing causing the inflation before you just get the point? BTW you do realize that HQs and Assaults make a tiny portion of injected Incursion isk right? A 10M boost per site will do minimal increase in the long run.
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 21:25:00 - [20] - Quote CCP Soundwave wrote: No, that's incorrect. The massive jumps we see in terms of isk almost always come when we make adjustments to anomalies. The last change we did was pretty drastically increase the isk floor across the board on anomalies and the isk coming into the economy jumped after that. --- Thread

Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 21:28:00 - [21] - Quote Grey Azorria wrote: I'm reasonably confident that it isn't as black and white as that, as it sounds like they are indirectly nerfing the income from vanguards (the real incursion money maker) - and after all CCP wouldn't risk boosting the incurbears risk free income - not when a very large chunk of the player base is already pissed off about it. Who is "pissed off" A bunch of nullsec folks generating falsehood after falsehood to attack an aspect of the game competing with their broken, bot filled nullsec? Are they going to take their 1,337 accounts and leave? Or better yet leave after VGs get changed and Assaults and HQs get a small buff? If they leave because of that then EVE will do better without them. I wonder how much they will scream with modular Corp and POS will make small corps viable again and nullsec starts to change for the better.
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 21:30:00 - [22] - Quote Darrow Hill wrote: CCP Soundwave wrote: The last change we did was pretty drastically increase the isk floor across the board on anomalies and the isk coming into the economy jumped after that. Is it too early to jump on the "null-sec anom running bots are ruining the economy" bandwagon? Best solution to that. Report all bots even blue ones.
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 21:34:00 - [23] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: baltec1 wrote: [quote=Endeavour Starfleet] Why the hell would we boost assault and HQ isk rewards when we need to reduce the flow of isk into the game? I wonder how many times they have to say Incursions arent the main thing causing the inflation before you just get the point? BTW you do realize that HQs and Assaults make a tiny portion of injected Incursion isk right? A 10M boost per site will do minimal increase in the long run. Or we can not boost them and nerf the rewards of vanguards thus making them worth doing while at the same time reducing inflation? Incursions might not be the biggest but there sure as hell have not helped matters. An across the board nerf in isk income sounds good to me given the plans for the dronelands. I am going to just say you know very little about HQs and leave it at that. Again they look good on paper but poor in implementation. Now about your "across the board" nerf. You don't seem to understand that will just make those with the money even more valuable and powerful. The MAIN thing that has to happen is attacking the bots on every level of the game. You can do a nerf of say a dock tax or some other BS and that will all together equal to maybe ONE bot lord. Get them out of the game and the game will benefit. If you have to break up alliances that have "Dont report blue" rules so be it. Got to get serious about botting.
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 21:38:00 - [24] - Quote I stopped reading when you tried to use PLEX prices. When GTCs were around the big players all had multiple YEARS already paid on their accounts. They werent even considering GTCs/PLEX yet.
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 21:41:00 - [25] - Quote Grey Azorria wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: baltec1 wrote: [quote=Endeavour Starfleet] Why the hell would we boost assault and HQ isk rewards when we need to reduce the flow of isk into the game? I wonder how many times they have to say Incursions arent the main thing causing the inflation before you just get the point? BTW you do realize that HQs and Assaults make a tiny portion of injected Incursion isk right? A 10M boost per site will do minimal increase in the long run. And how many times to we have to say that they are still a pretty big RISK FREE contributor (bolded the bit that pisses the most people off) and that we want a nerf across the board. And yes, we all hate bots too, but CCP has killed, and will continue to kill, lots and lots of the automated buggers. (@DarthNefarius, I would also like to see tech nerfed - but left it out because it doesn't actually print isk, and as for a bias against high sec - Risk vs Reward, but thats all for another thread) (@Endevour Starfleet - again, Sigh I should have listened to my own sig...) People are losing ships in incursions. RIsk free my ass.
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 21:54:00 - [26] - Quote Cearain wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: CCP Soundwave wrote: No, that's incorrect. The massive jumps we see in terms of isk almost always come when we make adjustments to anomalies. The last change we did was pretty drastically increase the isk floor across the board on anomalies and the isk coming into the economy jumped after that. --- Thread He could easilly end these threads by providing the numbers that prove what he says. But if he leaves us with no numbers except what we have regarding incursions then its hard for anyone with a brain to ignore incursions as a cause of inflation. Let us see the numbers on how much more isk was generated by bounties before and after this floor. If it was several times more than what incursions bring in then yeah I will agree incursions aren't the main issue. If it was less than incursions bring in then incursions would be the bigger issue. If it was equal to what incursions bring in then I will consider them both equally to blame. Does that seem reasonable? I'm trying to see if you will admit to some things before we get the numbers so that after we get them you don't just keep spinning them. It would demonstrate you are not completely biased. I don't care if you think I am biased or not. All I care about these days is if you are going to start actually using the report bot function or just blame something else. As for numbers that is likely waiting for a dev blog. Or a tweet. And how will you factor in the Anom nerf and boost? How will you factor in bots and bot growth? You would need a hell of alot more data than a couple of before and after charts. I only care about the fact that as of recently bounties are injecting several times the isk as Incursions and that in my opinion a large chunk of that is bot based. If all I cared about what "NERF IT ALL!" Why am I not supporting the rumored bounty nerf? As an incursion runner I should be jumping for joy at the thought of nullsec folks getting punished no? I am not because while large alliances do need a change the bounty nerf will harm legit players a hell of alot more than bots.
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 22:23:00 - [27] - Quote Andski wrote: people will just blitz HQs instead of vanguards any kind of payout boost is terribly unnecessary! Yep you have no clue about HQs either in my opinion. You can't Blitz them. Atleast nowhere near what you can with a VG.
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 22:24:00 - [28] - Quote Misanth wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Marlona Sky wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: How about these nullbears start reporting blue bots before screaming about incursions? Not possible right now. Like all political bodies, the CSM is corrupt on some levels. You have null representatives who punish their own members who report blue bots. RMT is big business when the convesion ratio is highly profitable in a country that has a broken economy or if you currently are not employed at all. I have never seen CCP out people who report bots. The report must be done and move on like you saw nothing. Tho if you are talking about things like shutting down SRPs and other activities funded by blue bots in retaliation well here is the deal folks. Blue bots are NOT your friends. Would you rather they get banned while there is peace and you have time to build up resources legitimately or potentially have them banned when you need that SRP the most during war? They are cheating you They are cheating your corp and alliance They are cheating everyone Report them. AFK cloaking is an excellent counter to bots, too. Sure if they werent AFK and reporting said bots.
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 22:25:00 - [29] - Quote Zleon Leigh wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Should I quote CCP about Incursions again? They aren't the issue here. I believe CCP misspoke - the Incursion income is overshadowed by other sources, but it is almost completely unbalanced (how many ships are lost in the shiny Inc fleets nowadays? .01% maaaybe?). PLEX being the logical outlet - PLEX prices skyrocket, since once that unstoppable Inc shiny has been purchased it floats indefinitely. He did not misspeak. He said it multiple times and said it wasnt even close. And again PLEX is NOT a measure. For many reasons.
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 22:29:00 - [30] - Quote Grumpy Owly wrote: I'd be careful about kneejerk reactions to a global bounty nerf. It's likley due to the volumes of people affected and the large numbers involved, that the effective change wont be substantial. If it was the sole contributer as an isk faucet and assuming that inflation is still 1% per month. Then assuming a total view to remove all inflation which may not be the best interests will obviously only reduce earnings by 1% per month. So if you were earning 100m isk a month you'd be getting 99m isk. However it's more likley that a combination of isk faucet changes and sinks will be combined as a re-structuring exercise to combat perceived inflation issues. So I think its a bit early to start the scare-mongering with the view that dramatic changes will occur as a result. It is not going to be that simple. Mainly because the bot runners have alot of leeway to counter nerfs. Including more accounts and more aggressive botting. It won't counter the issue and therefore it will just cause more bullcrap about Incursions to be posted. What is obvious here is the need to get serious about botting.

Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 22:30:00 - [31] - Quote Kaivar Lancer wrote: Well I'm a casual trader and crunched some numbers. While trading is probably THE most lucrative career in Eve, you're required to hold onto large volumes of ISK. Day by day my net wealth will fall unless I keep churning stock and make enough paper-profit to cancel inflation. Once your ISK is in the billions, finding lucrative trades becomes more difficult and your average profit margins fall. A monthly inflation rate of 5-10% is awful. Its not 5-10 percent at worst it is 1....
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 22:32:00 - [32] - Quote Andski wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Andski wrote: people will just blitz HQs instead of vanguards any kind of payout boost is terribly unnecessary! Yep you have no clue about HQs either in my opinion. You can't Blitz them. Atleast nowhere near what you can with a VG. How long does it take to run any particular assault or HQ site, then? Varies WILDLY. You have to remember when you have a fleet size that big the time between sites is bad. I cant tell you how many times I have watched 15 mins go by sitting at the gate. Then there is type site, Spawn rate, preload or not, etc.. etc.. Nowhere NEAR as easy to call as a VG going site to site.
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 22:47:00 - [33] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Gogela wrote: baltec1 wrote: Gogela wrote: Well as more than a few people have pointed out, ISK entering the game right now isn't a problem. What I suggested doesn't need to be applied globally... I'm just saying it could be. I totally agree though, deflation of any kind would actually be a bad thing, and is a lot more dangerous than inflation because if deflation go out of control it would really wreck the game experience. Yes the current flow of isk into the system is a problem right now. Inflation and deflation are both just as harmfull to the game. Damn. I thought you were getting it. NO!!!! Bad baltec1! Bad! Yes the flow of ISK into the game is a problem, but within the context of my proposed fix the lack of ISK flowing into the economy could conceivably be the problem because it would cause deflation. NO inflation and deflation are not equally "bad"... deflation would be worse because the lack of ISK in the economy could mean that it is a lot harder to pull together investment capital for large industrial projects and the economy would stagnate. Inflation is good for the economy and helps it to grow! Hyper-inflation is not here yet but we are getting there uncomfortably fast and that could be a whole other ball of wax/problems. Gah. I'm over it. I don't even care. I'm rich. I have a hanger full of PLEX. You guys want to hyper inflate the ISK go ahead. I'm hedged to the hilt. The people who suffer most are going to be anyone who makes money from PvE (miners or producers exempt) and new players. I feel bad for the noobs, but the rest of you are doing it to yourselves. ~fin All of the ships I build have gone up 30% since the start of the year and are still rising fast. Hyper inflation is already here, by summer ships will be 50% higher if nothing is done. You do realize speculation on Drone bounties and a war themed expansion are causing people to stock up right?
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 22:48:00 - [34] - Quote Zircon Dasher wrote: Interestingly enough you could probably build a case that by making asault/hq sites better relative to vg's might result in an increase in total ISK being pumped into the game because population can go up while the number of contested sites goes down. Should be interesting to see that devblog. Except that wont be able to count the other factors that affect those fleets. It is not simple to factor VGs.
Endeavour Starfleet 687	Posted - 2012.03.12 23:02:00 - [35] - Quote Andski wrote: Also it's very clear that only Goons are opposed to easy ISK in highsec Some goons you mean. Mit likes Incursions.
Endeavour Starfleet 688	Posted - 2012.03.13 00:09:00 - [36] - Quote Misanth wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Misanth wrote: AFK cloaking is an excellent counter to bots, too. Sure if they werent AFK and reporting said bots. Don't have to report them, just sit in local, the bots will cloak or log off. The only sad part is, bots don't get pissed off, like players do, so the griefing aspect is completely lost on them. Its called moving systems and AFK cloaking has done nothing relevant on botting. And I personally doubt you even report them because you want to pad your killboard for many. If yall actually reported it might be different.
Endeavour Starfleet 688	Posted - 2012.03.13 02:23:00 - [37] - Quote Xorv wrote: CCP Soundwave wrote: I'll leave the details to the devblog but I'd say there is a chance the changes might be (among other things) exactly what you wrote. I certainly hope the "among other things" addresses the extreme risk vs reward imbalance that High Sec Incursions caused. Inflation is just one of the many problems your development foray into Themeparkish PvE raids has caused There is no extreme imbalance. Especially when you have nullsec alliances being run with true risk free botting. You can make more than incursions with multiple accounts with the anoms as well. The only "Extreme Imbalance" is in your mind. Or in the fact that the way things are set up heavy favors RMT and nullbearing up. People go into incursions tired of the bullcrap of nullsec. Such as defending moon goo or RMT. Maybe after seeing if Inferno turns nullsec into a massive warzone again where bots cant thrive can we talk about incursions being imbalanced. Awaits Speech about "Defending the alliance" or "We have to have mandatory CTAs or they wont show up at 4AM!1"
Endeavour Starfleet 689	Posted - 2012.03.13 03:50:00 - [38] - Quote Ryan Startalker Zhang wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Kusanagi Kasuga wrote: The real solution is not to try to pin the nerf to one specific area of the game, as there isn't a specific mechanic causing the inflation singularly. It's to do an all around slight nerf to income, which will result in a net no-change to people's wealth. The thing that's not helping is people trying to bandwagon this as another nerf-highsec thread. The solution is to get serious about botting with more incentive to go PVP. #1 Encourage reporting of blue bots. #2 More wormholes into nullsec so the shield wall can be bypassed easier. #3 One time payment for Clone grade (Who wants to PVP defensively when it costs a ton for an experienced player to replace his clone grade? You get alot more isk sink from his ship going pop) #4 Implementation of a vastly modular POS and Corp system to isolate thieves and spiez. (To give smaller groups without 20 POS a chance) Nerf Vanguard sites AND do this at the same time. Or is that too much to ask? How do you assure the blue bots get reported tho? You see if its just a one way "Nerf Vanguards" That will only fix a small part of the issue. And blue bots will continue to use SRP and other crap to keep members from clicking report bot. There needs to be incentive for the people to go back and report the bots.

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.