These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Fix the economy

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Naj Panora
The Seekers of Ore
#1 - 2013-09-10 05:53:37 UTC
We need some serious overhaul to how isk is removed from the game. Sov doesn't cost enough for large alliances to make a difference (goons have proven this), market fees are laugh able. This isk gained vs removed ratio is way out of wack and needs fixed before any other part of eve otherwise that will be the eve killer.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2 - 2013-09-10 14:53:02 UTC
Naj Panora wrote:
We need some serious overhaul to how isk is removed from the game. Sov doesn't cost enough for large alliances to make a difference (goons have proven this)

The sov even for the relatively small amount of space controlled by GSF, much less the enormous swathes held by the CFC collectively, is actually quite expensive. We've merely been highly effective at marshaling the resources necessary to pay for it. So has the N3 coalition, which you can see on the map controls a considerable amount of space in their own right, albeit more fragmented amongst many smaller partners and renters.

So what is wrong, exactly, with a group of players coming together to command the resources to overcome some large cost?

Naj Panora wrote:
This isk gained vs removed ratio is way out of wack


[Citation Needed]

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Rengerel en Distel
#3 - 2013-09-10 16:30:53 UTC
The goons proved it's easy to pay for sov by being forced to take on renters to help pay the costs? Pretty strong argument there.

As for the economy in general, what problem are you seeing?

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Leigh Akiga
Kuhri Innovations
#4 - 2013-09-10 19:14:21 UTC
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
As for the economy in general, what problem are you seeing?


I just took it as a bland: "I wanna rant about 0.0" post.
Naj Panora
The Seekers of Ore
#5 - 2013-09-10 20:06:11 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Naj Panora wrote:
We need some serious overhaul to how isk is removed from the game. Sov doesn't cost enough for large alliances to make a difference (goons have proven this)

The sov even for the relatively small amount of space controlled by GSF, much less the enormous swathes held by the CFC collectively, is actually quite expensive. We've merely been highly effective at marshaling the resources necessary to pay for it. So has the N3 coalition, which you can see on the map controls a considerable amount of space in their own right, albeit more fragmented amongst many smaller partners and renters.

So what is wrong, exactly, with a group of players coming together to command the resources to overcome some large cost?

Naj Panora wrote:
This isk gained vs removed ratio is way out of wack


[Citation Needed]
Naj Panora
The Seekers of Ore
#6 - 2013-09-10 20:07:14 UTC
Leigh Akiga wrote:
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
As for the economy in general, what problem are you seeing?


I just took it as a bland: "I wanna rant about 0.0" post.



And I take it as a bland you don't have the balls to show who you really are.
Naj Panora
The Seekers of Ore
#7 - 2013-09-10 20:20:08 UTC
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
The goons proved it's easy to pay for sov by being forced to take on renters to help pay the costs? Pretty strong argument there.

As for the economy in general, what problem are you seeing?



Empires with an unlimited source of isk are a detriment to this game. We need a better way to help regulate and create a balance of isk earned from sources like null sec and missions and balance it with taking isk out of the market. One way to deal with the Null sec issue would be to have the first 5-10 systems an Alliance controls cost X isk. Then every 5 or so systems after that the maintenance cost to own the system will go up by 25-33% of the previous tier. Example: an alliance holds 15 systems. the first 5 cost 100 million a month each to own. The next 5 cost 125 million a month each. The final 5 cost 156 million each. Using this we limit the use of passive isk sources like moons.

Now I won't just punish the Null sec dwellers. Lets find an answer that will use high sec to remove isk from the economy. One answer is to create a corp maintenance fee based on player size. If a corp doesn't have a Null sec office it is considered a High Sec corp and thus subject to a fee per member to stay open. I'm open for better ideas from others (though I doubt the Coalition for Cowards will offer any). This is about fixing a broken economy which has unchecked inflation.

The answer may be as simple also as CCP increasing the bounties on rats every month depending on what the economy does. Lets have some constructive ideas now.
Crasniya
The Aussienauts
#8 - 2013-09-10 21:29:59 UTC
Naj, the problem is, it only costs a billion ISK to make another alliance. Then you just get Goons 2.0, Goons 3.0, and Goons 4.0, each holding 5-10 systems. Over time, the alliances pay for themselves. A design so easily exploited is a bad design.

As a side note, the reason Bitcoin is a bad currency, is that currency is actually SUPPOSED to inflate. Because if the economy deflates, then people are better off hoarding money for later, so the economy slows, less progress is made. Inflation ensures that people feel the need to SPEND their money as they earn it, maintaining a healthy and active ecosystem.

Soraya Xel - Council of Planetary Management 1 - soraya@biomassed.net
Naj Panora
The Seekers of Ore
#9 - 2013-09-10 22:47:08 UTC
Crasniya wrote:
Naj, the problem is, it only costs a billion ISK to make another alliance. Then you just get Goons 2.0, Goons 3.0, and Goons 4.0, each holding 5-10 systems. Over time, the alliances pay for themselves. A design so easily exploited is a bad design.



That is fine because it will diffuse the isk over several entities which sooner or later one will want better systems and the wars will start anew. We have too many fat cats with too much isk. Now with this model there will be a ton of changes to capitals that will need done. Inflation is ok but Eve's is out of control.
FightingMoose
Chroma Corp
#10 - 2013-09-10 23:09:45 UTC
Your system won't fix "passive income like moons," because sov isn't required for moons. You then say that if, for example, Goons were to create a bunch of sub-alliances in order to get around the financial cost, this would be good because it would diffuse the ISK over several entities which will go to war.

You're missing the point here. Goons will create Goons2, Goons3, Goons4, and Goons5 as shell alliances. The membership will stay within Goons prime, so there won't be a battle. You're seeking an artificial game-based solution for (what you see as) a meta problem. You're also missing the fact that almost all of the ISK being removed from the game is removed by ships going KABOOM, and one of the more significant contributors to ships going KABOOM (especially the big ones that require lots of ISK input) is

Proud owner of an Ibis.
Adunh Slavy
#11 - 2013-09-12 06:16:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Adunh Slavy
FightingMoose wrote:

You're missing the point here. Goons will create Goons2, Goons3, Goons4, and Goons5 as shell alliances. The membership will stay within Goons prime, so there won't be a battle.



Well ... maybe.

First I don't give a crap about goons one way or the other, but it is an interesting topic. Second, I do agree with the basic premise of the OP, but not for Economic reasons. My preference would be that as the number of systems an alliance controls goes up, the more expensive each system will be in fees, maybe on the order of a 25% increase. Cost would become increasingly prohibitive.

Anyway back to the topic.

Yeah goons would make goons1 goons2 so on and so forth. However, the administrative overhead of management and control would increase. There would be more opportunity for differences of opinion to emerge. Different tax rates would emerge, there would be different policies on how to deal with different things. Some goon groups would have more resources than others, this would create some tension.

Likely goons would devolve to a sort of feudal confederation and have their own internal conflicts on a minor scale but then all band together when the need arises.

It might be the most fun the goons could have. Plus the opportunity to drag others into their "lol civil wars" would be good laughs for all concerned.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Rengerel en Distel
#12 - 2013-09-12 11:35:16 UTC
I still say the biggest fix for the economy will be when they actually do modular POS, making them character launched instead of corp. Then they can remove the npc production lines and make people set up their space factories. In empire, you need charters (I'd extend that to low with the change), in sov space, it's a tax/rent, giving them a ground up source of income. More modules have to be built, more fuel used, etc. etc.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Crasniya
The Aussienauts
#13 - 2013-09-12 14:42:30 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Yeah goons would make goons1 goons2 so on and so forth. However, the administrative overhead of management and control would increase. There would be more opportunity for differences of opinion to emerge. Different tax rates would emerge, there would be different policies on how to deal with different things. Some goon groups would have more resources than others, this would create some tension.

Likely goons would devolve to a sort of feudal confederation and have their own internal conflicts on a minor scale but then all band together when the need arises.

It might be the most fun the goons could have. Plus the opportunity to drag others into their "lol civil wars" would be good laughs for all concerned.


Yeah, no, that wouldn't happen. At all. Like seriously, LOL.

Soraya Xel - Council of Planetary Management 1 - soraya@biomassed.net
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#14 - 2013-09-12 15:16:35 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Yeah goons would make goons1 goons2 so on and so forth. However, the administrative overhead of management and control would increase. There would be more opportunity for differences of opinion to emerge. Different tax rates would emerge, there would be different policies on how to deal with different things. Some goon groups would have more resources than others, this would create some tension..


It could easily be run by one guy with alt accounts and a few minutes of clicking over morning coffee a few times a month.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Adunh Slavy
#15 - 2013-09-12 17:13:04 UTC
LOL, what makes your crystal ball better? We are speculating on what 5000 might do, and you think you know for sure? Haha, right.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
FightingMoose
Chroma Corp
#16 - 2013-09-12 18:21:39 UTC
In the case of Goons, it would be trivial for Mittens to plex two accounts, giving six possible alts/alliances. I agree that it would be interesting to have some mechanics changes which would encourage smaller alliances, but it needs to be done in a way that can't be easily bypassed.

Proud owner of an Ibis.
Incizion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#17 - 2013-09-13 22:04:25 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
LOL, what makes your crystal ball better? We are speculating on what 5000 might do, and you think you know for sure? Haha, right.


Assuming you're referring to Crasniya's crystal ball, what makes it better is that it is sitting in CFC space. Being part of the CFC, we see first-hand how cohesive the goons are. They will not dissolve into civil war just because these shell alliances would have to be formed. As one poster commented, it's more than likely that every single one of your rank-and-file goon would be in the same alliance: GSF. GSF2, GSF3, etc would be all but vacant.

Even if a mechanic was put in place to require the division of the goons, it wouldn't matter. They would still all stage out of the same system, rat and mine together in the same regions, post on the same forums, talk on the same voice comms, same chats, etc, etc.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#18 - 2013-09-14 04:31:41 UTC
FightingMoose wrote:
You're also missing the fact that almost all of the ISK being removed from the game is removed by ships going KABOOM


This supposed fact of yours which is wrong by the way requires further explanation.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#19 - 2013-09-14 04:34:20 UTC
Naj Panora wrote:
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
The goons proved it's easy to pay for sov by being forced to take on renters to help pay the costs? Pretty strong argument there.

As for the economy in general, what problem are you seeing?



Empires with an unlimited source of isk are a detriment to this game. We need a better way to help regulate and create a balance of isk earned from sources like null sec and missions and balance it with taking isk out of the market. One way to deal with the Null sec issue would be to have the first 5-10 systems an Alliance controls cost X isk. Then every 5 or so systems after that the maintenance cost to own the system will go up by 25-33% of the previous tier. Example: an alliance holds 15 systems. the first 5 cost 100 million a month each to own. The next 5 cost 125 million a month each. The final 5 cost 156 million each. Using this we limit the use of passive isk sources like moons.

Now I won't just punish the Null sec dwellers. Lets find an answer that will use high sec to remove isk from the economy. One answer is to create a corp maintenance fee based on player size. If a corp doesn't have a Null sec office it is considered a High Sec corp and thus subject to a fee per member to stay open. I'm open for better ideas from others (though I doubt the Coalition for Cowards will offer any). This is about fixing a broken economy which has unchecked inflation.

The answer may be as simple also as CCP increasing the bounties on rats every month depending on what the economy does. Lets have some constructive ideas now.


First you should probably explain why inflation is such a big issue.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Sera Kor-Azor
Amarrian Mission of the Sacred Word
#20 - 2013-09-22 10:29:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Sera Kor-Azor
Naj Panora wrote:
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
The goons proved it's easy to pay for sov by being forced to take on renters to help pay the costs? Pretty strong argument there.

As for the economy in general, what problem are you seeing?



Empires with an unlimited source of isk are a detriment to this game. We need a better way to help regulate and create a balance of isk earned from sources like null sec and missions and balance it with taking isk out of the market. One way to deal with the Null sec issue would be to have the first 5-10 systems an Alliance controls cost X isk. Then every 5 or so systems after that the maintenance cost to own the system will go up by 25-33% of the previous tier. Example: an alliance holds 15 systems. the first 5 cost 100 million a month each to own. The next 5 cost 125 million a month each. The final 5 cost 156 million each. Using this we limit the use of passive isk sources like moons.

Now I won't just punish the Null sec dwellers. Lets find an answer that will use high sec to remove isk from the economy. One answer is to create a corp maintenance fee based on player size. If a corp doesn't have a Null sec office it is considered a High Sec corp and thus subject to a fee per member to stay open. I'm open for better ideas from others (though I doubt the Coalition for Cowards will offer any). This is about fixing a broken economy which has unchecked inflation.

The answer may be as simple also as CCP increasing the bounties on rats every month depending on what the economy does. Lets have some constructive ideas now.


The inflation problem in EVE has been discussed for a few years now.

One of my suggestions was to have a security tax. This would be based on the security status of the station you are in, so 1.0% in a 1.0 system, and .01% in a .01 system. Police and the Military in the real world have to be paid, they have expenses, they are not for profit, and their equipment costs money. It's taxpayer dollars that go towards paying their salaries and buying the equipment that they need.

Shouldn't it be the same way in EVE? Shouldn't CONCORD and the Factional NPC Navies be paid from a/ the transaction tax from every financial transaction at a high sec trade hub? Aren't they the ones keeping your system safe?

When I suggested this, some people screeeeaaaamed. "I am a high sec Market trader! I make billions of ISK a day! I don't want to pay ANY taxes AT ALL!" and so on, and so on.

Well, that might be some of the cause for inflation right there. Some people just stay docked up and just relist things over and over again until they make a tremendous profit. They seem to want all of the benefits of living in high sec space, without contributing anything (tax wise) to maintaining the security of that space, AT ALL.

Now, if market traders wanted to move to mid-sec systems such as 0.5 in order to avoid paying tax, that's fine. I think the more trade hubs the better. Trade hubs in 0.5 mid sec areas would help encourage people to move to low-sec and null sec too.

Another suggestion I had was to introduce more consumables. Not just illegal booster drugs, but maybe food, alcohol, tobacco, and so forth. These are a major part of our lives, and would add a lot of dimension to the backdrop of EVE.

I think a lot of people would buy food and drinks for the same reason they would buy clothes (that no one else can see yet), which is game immersion. I don't think this would affect you in space, you could say that your character doesn't feel hungry unless they are docked and online. You could make food another 'booster', which has beneficial effects when active and some negative effects when it wears out. 'Better' foods would of course cost more money than cheaper foods, and the same would be true for alcoholic drinks.

The walking in stations thing went nowhere, but people might pay a lot of ISK to have the same kinds of useless ornaments that people pay a lot to have in Second life, such as furniture, pets, hand weapons, ground vehicles, art and artifacts, and so on. This does not have to be an intricate graphic, it could just be a hangar called 'personal quarters' that holds one's personal commodities. Real estate purchased on a planet could also be another ornamental ISK sink, providing some status but having no real effect on your character in game.

Having exclusive associations and clubs with a monthly membership fee might be another effective ISK sink. Imagine a chat channel group/ mailing list which costs 1Billion ISK a month to belong to for example. Why would you belong? Business contacts.

Gambling could change things a lot too. I would restrict this to low sec. There are already a lot of out of game EVE gambling sites, such as EVE poker for ISK. I think that CCP is really missing out on some opportunities here. Gambling is one activity where you could make or lose a fortune in the blink of an eye....and no.....I don't think station trading is the same thing as gambling.

"A manu dei e tet rimon" - I am the devoted hand of the divine God.
123Next page