| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Veritech knight
Envoy Corps
   |
Posted - 2009.01.20 03:27:00 -
[1]
Hi, today marked my 1 year anniversary in eve. I've been a lurker on MD for some time now, as I got into trading fairly quickly once I got bored of mining a few weeks in. (some might reconize me from the trade channels)
One thing I might have missed or have not seen posted much here, is talk about the glaring difference between eve's economy and trading in the real world (besides the internet-spaceships thing..) : the lack of a "used item" system.
manufacturing-Trading works fine.. you can buy an item produced by a manufacturer, and sell it for more somewhere else. Where things go wrong is when modules that have been in use are sold back. In real life, items that have seen some use see their value decrease (except for some "antique" or collectors items). In eve, anything can be sold back at market value or higher by simply repackaging it. Thus, people only get richer and there is no isk sink related to wear and tear.
I'm not one to *complain*, I just wanted to point that out. I made most of my 45b trading faction items through contracts, where, if you could graph a pricing history, you'd most probably get sea-sick from the ups and downs as most prices were all over the place throughout the year.
yeah, supply and demand and all that, but the wear'n tear issue is real. In real life I own a business where I resell electronic parts/computers. I used my experience from my real business to help me make isk in eve, and I must say I am not a billionnaire yet in real life :). I would be however if I could repackage a used computer and sell it at the "new" price.
anyway, </wall of text> . maybe adding some sort of markings to an item after it has been assembled could be good. for some items the value could increase ("chribba used this item!"), but for most they might decrease a bit as people might want to be the first and only owners of a certain item.
It'd be coding hell for CCP though so I doubt we'll ever see this, but one can always dream.
here's to a few more years trading and the people I've met in the past year. o/
cheers
vk
|
Nebuchadnezzar I
Art of War
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 03:58:00 -
[2]
We'd all be billionaires irl if it was that easy :)
I do see your point, but then again i dont.
The only thing close we come is rigged ships, which you usually have to sell below cost, due to, well rigs being permanent.
|
Dacril
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 04:17:00 -
[3]
If I am not mistaken, the used objects IRL are subject to deterioration, hence their decreasing value over some period of use. Sometimes the decreased value does not reflect that fact very well (i.e. a car bought just lost half of his value). However, the system you are proposing would imply some sort of deterioration of the objet used. For instance, a shield booster would be less effective the more you use it, so it would lose some value on the market. If the objects were not losing any effectiveness over some period but were still losing "value", it would just encourage people to keep their stuff. No isk sink there.
Furthermore, I cant see why you want Eve to look more like the real life. It is a game I enjoy playing because its different from real life.
Best regards,
Dacril
|
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 04:34:00 -
[4]
I agree with your observations and have alluded to this in past posts seen here and here. (linked to avoid repetition)
It would not be so hard to introduce a more rl system of depreciation into Eve's economy. An example already exist in the way that used or researched BPOs are treated. Once a BPO is installed into a factory it can no longer be repackaged and sold on the market. Repackaged mods and ships could be treated similarly. Once assembled or installed, mods and ships could be "repackaged" on a different level so as to only take less space but not allowed to be traded on the market. Once "repackaged" they could only be traded in contracts.
Furthermore, CCP could eliminate perfect reprocess of mods and ships once they have been "repackaged." Used ships and mods could be made to have inherent waste to some level that would not be compensated for by skills.
The problem with either of these "fixes" would not be coding them so much as the outcry from popular sectors of the player base IMHO.
My .02 isk
Patri
A fool usually thinks he is a genius |
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 04:49:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Dacril
If I am not mistaken, the used objects IRL are subject to deterioration, hence their decreasing value over some period of use. Sometimes the decreased value does not reflect that fact very well (i.e. a car bought just lost half of his value). However, the system you are proposing would imply some sort of deterioration of the objet used. For instance, a shield booster would be less effective the more you use it, so it would lose some value on the market. If the objects were not losing any effectiveness over some period but were still losing "value", it would just encourage people to keep their stuff. No isk sink there.
Furthermore, I cant see why you want Eve to look more like the real life. It is a game I enjoy playing because its different from real life.
Best regards,
Dacril
One could posit that the lack of depreciation has a deleterious effect on the manufacturing community, especially with regard to T1 manufacturing. Industrialist have to compete with producers who think their minerals are free, module drops from rats, traders bringing in goods from other markets and used mods and ships dumped on the market.
Differentiation between used and unused ships and mods might actually inject some much needed increased profit margins back into manufacturing.
Patri
A fool usually thinks he is a genius |
Dreamwalker
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 04:52:00 -
[6]
I would like to see a system were items break over time, no matter how much you repair, at one point in time the item will break. I would like to see something like that.
I know it would hurt the markets and I understand CCP would spend too much time doing this, but I would like to see items break after so much use.
|
MilowFV
Echo Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 05:33:00 -
[7]
Not sure it would add anything really to over all game play, but I know I would get a laugh or two when someone titan broke from everyday use.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 05:45:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Akita T on 20/01/2009 05:47:25
In RL, everything breaks and needs maintenance to keep functioning, and eventually breaks down so much it's no longer worth repairing.
In order to duplicate that in EVE (at least to some degree), you'd need to be unable to ever repackage any items that are ever used.
Then add a "condition" attribute to each and every one of them, and have "condition repairs" use up a bit of materials, those that were used to build the item in the first place AND have that repair also decrease the "max condition" proportional to how much of a repair you've made.
Then, apply some sort of chance of failure and/or catastrophical failure depending on current condition and the max theoretical condition for that item type.
So... yeah, sure, you COULD do that.
But it's first needlessly complicated, it generates an even stronger shortage of materials (like we didn't already have enough of a dysprosium problem) and doesn't really add anything gameplay-wise.
You already have a very good item destruction sink - it's called PvP. The cheaper things get, the more they get used in PvP, the more they're eventually destroyed, the more demand rises and prices stabilize.
Bottom line, such a RL-similar decay system... it's neither necessary nor desirable.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
MailDeadDrop
Globaltech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 06:56:00 -
[9]
Actually, some of the widgets in Eve have this "used" behavior: laser & mining crystals, R.A.M. tools (used in invention/manufacturing), perhaps others. BPOs don't "wear out", but they do have a "used" versus "new" state.
MDD |
Iridescent Moon
Caldari
Iridescent Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 07:21:00 -
[10]
Was gonna post something, decided it was not important but, Veritech really well done avatar there. Good lighting, great pose. Distinct. A+ |
Aimel
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 07:37:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Veritech knight
maybe adding some sort of markings to an item after it has been assembled could be good. for some items the value could increase ("chribba used this item!"), but for most they might decrease a bit as people might want to be the first and only owners of a certain item.
It'd be coding hell for CCP though so I doubt we'll ever see this, but one can always dream.
it could be a good idea but I'm not sure if that's the actual source of the problem you'r trying explain
|
Revolting
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 07:51:00 -
[12]
Entropia Universe has a system where everything deteriorates with use. It can be repaired in NPC stations and is used as a moneysink as that game has no set monthly fee but instead relies on real money being exchanged for ingame currency.
The markets there are filled with items that are used and new, but there is no bargains available since anyone can repair the items back to full in a NPC dispenser and awareness of this is high. Certain items are unrepairable and carry a high cost since they are better than the standard stuff. I cant say that that is a better economic model. Eve is the market leader when it comes to ingames economies.
__________________________
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you! |
Forceflow
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 08:52:00 -
[13]
Rather than durability, I would rather see an index for efficiency on items.
Rather that items build with have an 'efficiency' factor based on the skills, BPO/C and amount of materials.
A higher efficiency will have greater bonuses compared to lower efficiency items that may have a minor penalty to them but yet have lower cost/skills to build.
One side effect it'll have is that the entry level for producers will be lowered as with people blowing each other up, some folk will probably choose the less efficient models to outfit their ships.
The market window will probably need an overhaul and with this, ingame advertising will probably finally become viable.
|
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente
TarNec
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 09:12:00 -
[14]
Well what your pointing out and advocating is a rather relevant issue. I just think it would demand a balance change that players wont wantand ccp would never grant..
The wear and tear issue would demand a rather big change to make any sense.
Easy model would be to simply add more economic impact on repairs, and thus make it harder to get your ship back to perfect condition. An easy way would be to make it so you could never repair structure, armor and shields back to 100% condition, and simply let this decrease over time.
This could simply be based on ships age.
To back this you could simply make assembly and repackage be priced at 0-5% of item base value. This way you would get rid of much of your issue really..
NOTE: This change would be small, but the impact huge on player behaviour, thus cause a lot of displeased players. Such things are not likely to happen, since ccp seem to be more focused on overall satisfaction these days.
Back on point. Making all repairs quality based and never able to repair 100% of current damage would really be interesting. This way you would slowly loose ship value, and thus combined with repackage fees you would end up getting your players used item market. This by itself would be a really interesting new feature to the game. A lot of weird new niche business..
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 13:28:00 -
[15]
In a game model such as EVE, item depreciation through entropy is not required. There already exists a massive sink in the form of PvP. The reason this system works is because things can be destroyed anywhere at anytime.
Remember concord only exists to punish, not to protect. |
Alowishus
the united
Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 14:44:00 -
[16]
In Eve the money sink of depreciating values is replaced by destruction. In real life your car, TV and cell phone aren't going to be taken into combat or blown up by pirates. *shrugs* |
Confuzer
Volition Cult
The Volition Cult
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 14:47:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Alowishus
In Eve the money sink of depreciating values is replaced by destruction. In real life your car, TV and cell phone aren't going to be taken into combat or blown up by pirates. *shrugs*
O really? And then you meet my gf... |
Veritech knight
Envoy Corps
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 15:25:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Forceflow
Rather than durability, I would rather see an index for efficiency on items.
at first glance, I rather like this idea. But I havnt sat down yet to really think of a solution or possible changes. I was just wondering how I had made my isk during this year.
Yes, PVP is an isk sink, but it still seems weird to me that I could buy a pvp-used ship, and sell it as "like new". (Most of the things I bought to resell came from PVPers; loot from their kills, or their own ships when they needed isk).
in any case, it has been interesting to read everyone's ideas .
regards,
vk
ps to Iridescent Moon: lol I still can't figure out if you're being sarcastic regarding my avatar... can't take too much credit, as it was mostly "random"
|
Artimis Scout
Caldari
Wormhole Cartography
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 15:33:00 -
[19]
In a universe were we can repair items on the molecular level how can anything be considered used.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |