These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

TIme for LP to go away: introducing Shares

First post
Author
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#41 - 2015-06-30 17:49:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Aliventi
I disagree with any form of the share buy back store access being restricted by standing. That would effectively bring this idea back to LP. Shares are designed to remove some of the roadblocks stopping people from accessing a share buy back store due to lack of shares, lack of standings, etc. Not everyone wants to grind missions. If you have no interest in mission running (industrialists, market traders, PvPers, etc.) there should be no reason why you shouldn't get access to the share buy back store.

If you wanted to implement some sort of additional loyalty benefit through standings (such as a .25% discount per point of standing or .5% bonus to share payout per point of standings per mission) that would be fine. I am not against you getting additional benefits from your standing with a corp. You just have to make sure they are balanced.

Syrias Bizniz is correct that this will increase the supply of gankable goods. If you have a Gallente corp's shares and you want to sell them in Jita you must redeem the shares in a station that corp owns, ship them to Jita, someone buys them, ships them back, then redeems them for faction items, then hauls them back to Jita. So instead of the share being vulnerable once (redeemed to items and sent to JIta) they are vulnerable three times. Also, since there are three trips it will likely increase the number of pilots in space.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#42 - 2015-06-30 18:43:37 UTC
Aliventi wrote:
I disagree with any form of the share buy back store access being restricted by standing. That would effectively bring this idea back to LP. Shares are designed to remove some of the roadblocks stopping people from accessing a share buy back store due to lack of shares, lack of standings, etc. Not everyone wants to grind missions. If you have no interest in mission running (industrialists, market traders, PvPers, etc.) there should be no reason why you shouldn't get access to the share buy back store.

If you wanted to implement some sort of additional loyalty benefit through standings (such as a .25% discount per point of standing or .5% bonus to share payout per point of standings per mission) that would be fine. I am not against you getting additional benefits from your standing with a corp. You just have to make sure they are balanced.

Syrias Bizniz is correct that this will increase the supply of gankable goods. If you have a Gallente corp's shares and you want to sell them in Jita you must redeem the shares in a station that corp owns, ship them to Jita, someone buys them, ships them back, then redeems them for faction items, then hauls them back to Jita. So instead of the share being vulnerable once (redeemed to items and sent to JIta) they are vulnerable three times. Also, since there are three trips it will likely increase the number of pilots in space.



it will also increase the number of high volume purchases.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2015-06-30 20:39:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
Aliventi wrote:
I disagree with any form of the share buy back store access being restricted by standing. That would effectively bring this idea back to LP. Shares are designed to remove some of the roadblocks stopping people from accessing a share buy back store due to lack of shares, lack of standings, etc. Not everyone wants to grind missions. If you have no interest in mission running (industrialists, market traders, PvPers, etc.) there should be no reason why you shouldn't get access to the share buy back store.

If you wanted to implement some sort of additional loyalty benefit through standings (such as a .25% discount per point of standing or .5% bonus to share payout per point of standings per mission) that would be fine. I am not against you getting additional benefits from your standing with a corp. You just have to make sure they are balanced.

Syrias Bizniz is correct that this will increase the supply of gankable goods. If you have a Gallente corp's shares and you want to sell them in Jita you must redeem the shares in a station that corp owns, ship them to Jita, someone buys them, ships them back, then redeems them for faction items, then hauls them back to Jita. So instead of the share being vulnerable once (redeemed to items and sent to JIta) they are vulnerable three times. Also, since there are three trips it will likely increase the number of pilots in space.


And what volume would these shares be? Because unless they have the same volume as the module you would need to move instead then they willeasily be transported in fast cloakies or interceptors. Just how vulnerable would they really be then? Surely this would simply allow another way for large amounts of effective isk to be moved more easily and in fewer trips/more safety?
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#44 - 2015-06-30 21:40:28 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
And what volume would these shares be? Because unless they have the same volume as the module you would need to move instead then they willeasily be transported in fast cloakies or interceptors. Just how vulnerable would they really be then? Surely this would simply allow another way for large amounts of effective isk to be moved more easily and in fewer trips/more safety?

I can point you to any number of ALODs of untanked haulers, interceptors, CovOps, or frigates that thought their speed, cloaking, align time, etc. would save them from being ganked. Some make it. Some don't. Now due to the value of the shares (typically at least 1000isk/share) means every 1000 share will be a million isk. It won't take but a few thousand shares to drop to pay for a cheap gank thrasher, catalyst, or Vexor, etc. So I am not worried at all about the profitability and gank-ability of share carrying ships.

I think 10k shares to an m3 would be fine. 1 mil shares would fit in 100m3. Idk how many people want to jam 1 bil isk worth of shares into a ceptor, but if they do I can't wait to read the ALOD.
Ben Ishikela
#45 - 2015-07-01 07:52:14 UTC
I'd like these Shares to appear on the market, while LP stay in game. then after a while, when prices settled reevaluate!
Spontaneously i imagine something like this:
Reward.......................LP cOst ................. ISK Cost ............... Required Items...................Buy
Federation Navy Voucher...1 LP............... 0 ISK.....................................--..........................buy
[none].............................. -1 LP.................0 ISK.......................FederationNavyVoucher.....buy

yes, negative LP should add LP to your wallet!
yes, you could put a resistance to trade velocity in there by raising the ISK Cost.

So now that we figured out, that Loyalty and LP is completely different. Id like to propose to you the loyalty-rule on LP-Store-mechanix. Make Standings matter. Although the UI has to be updated, id like to add a new column of required minimum standing. Optional: get better deals with better standing or get rarer/powerfuller items. But i am not sure about this. Whats your thoughts?

Reward.......................LP cOst ................. ISK Cost ............... Required Items...................minstanding......Buy
Federation Navy Voucher...1 LP............... 0 ISK.....................................--......................................0.0.......x
[none].............................. -1 LP.................100 ISK...................FederationNavyVoucher.................1.0........x
[none].............................. -1 LP.................20 ISK.....................FederationNavyVoucher.................5.0........x
[none].............................. -1 LP.................10 ISK.....................FederationNavyVoucher.................9.0........x
Battleship BPC..................N LP..................M ISK..................................--........................................2...........x
Battleship BPC..................N LP..................M/2 ISK...............................--........................................9...........x

I dont know if that even incentifies interesing gameplay (promotes grinding/etc). Im sure Vouchers do (market pvp)... and standings may... meh, no idea. halp! xD

ps: i vote for "1voucher has 0.05m3". This is (at 1000isk/lp) 100m3 per 20.000LP which is 20.000.000ISK. Because then there is a meaningful choice between ceptor or hauler.

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.

Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2015-07-01 11:13:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
I still have not seen any compelling argument other than "I want tradable LP" which suggests that someone has lots of LP from a corp that competes with a FW store and is undervalued.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#47 - 2015-07-01 16:28:11 UTC
Ben Ishikela wrote:
I'd like these Shares to appear on the market, while LP stay in game. then after a while, when prices settled reevaluate!
Spontaneously i imagine something like this:
Reward.......................LP cOst ................. ISK Cost ............... Required Items...................Buy
Federation Navy Voucher...1 LP............... 0 ISK.....................................--..........................buy
[none].............................. -1 LP.................0 ISK.......................FederationNavyVoucher.....buy

yes, negative LP should add LP to your wallet!
yes, you could put a resistance to trade velocity in there by raising the ISK Cost.

So now that we figured out, that Loyalty and LP is completely different. Id like to propose to you the loyalty-rule on LP-Store-mechanix. Make Standings matter. Although the UI has to be updated, id like to add a new column of required minimum standing. Optional: get better deals with better standing or get rarer/powerfuller items. But i am not sure about this. Whats your thoughts?

Reward.......................LP cOst ................. ISK Cost ............... Required Items...................minstanding......Buy
Federation Navy Voucher...1 LP............... 0 ISK.....................................--......................................0.0.......x
[none].............................. -1 LP.................100 ISK...................FederationNavyVoucher.................1.0........x
[none].............................. -1 LP.................20 ISK.....................FederationNavyVoucher.................5.0........x
[none].............................. -1 LP.................10 ISK.....................FederationNavyVoucher.................9.0........x
Battleship BPC..................N LP..................M ISK..................................--........................................2...........x
Battleship BPC..................N LP..................M/2 ISK...............................--........................................9...........x

I dont know if that even incentifies interesing gameplay (promotes grinding/etc). Im sure Vouchers do (market pvp)... and standings may... meh, no idea. halp! xD

ps: i vote for "1voucher has 0.05m3". This is (at 1000isk/lp) 100m3 per 20.000LP which is 20.000.000ISK. Because then there is a meaningful choice between ceptor or hauler.


While it is an interesting idea, I fully disagree with your idea that any shares bought on the market can be reverse redeemed back into your wallet. This would allow shares to be transported safely without any risk of being ganked. To achieve the same effect as removing them from the economy you could just buy them off the market and let them sit in your hangar.

I also disagree with any attempt to restrict the store items behind standings. One of the main design goals of this is to allow people who have no interest in grinding standings or missions running access to the store if they are willing to pay. Putting up walls of standings means we gain nothing over the LP system.

I also disagree with making the share volume as large as your recommend. While I agree there is a necessity to make sure that one can't pack tens of billions of isk in shares into a ceptor for travel, very few people are going to gank a ceptor hauling 20 mil isk in shares. I think something more towards a bil isk makes it balanced as a person with more than a million shares can't haul them all in a ceptor, while making it very profitable to gank ceptors hauling a bil isk in shares.

Omnathious Deninard wrote:
I still have not seen any compelling argument other than "I want tradable LP" which suggests that someone has lots of LP from a corp that competes with a FW store and is undervalued.

Then perhaps you should go re-read the reasons for making this change and the many posts of additional benefits this brings to the game that people have posted.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#48 - 2015-07-01 17:03:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Aliventi wrote:
Then perhaps you should go re-read the reasons for making this change and the many posts of additional benefits this brings to the game that people have posted.

No downsides, hm?


  • It adds an additional layer of management to the purchase of LP store items. Right now you simply click a button and have the items. Then, you need to make sure to have the shares in an by the LP store accessible hangar, which means potentially you need to move them out of storage cans where you stowed them away so that they do not clutter your hangar. You even potentially need to stow them away in the first place as they are yet another item cluttering your hangar and in order to guarantee safety and not fall for scams. So: added circuitousness and less convenience of use.
  • It adds as well additional effort for comparing prices so that you do not buy shares on the market while existing BPC on the contracts/modules/ships on the market are cheaper. Even more comparison and calculation effort for no gains and just more risk for the sake of more risk.
  • It adds more items people can manipulate just for the sake of it. These share prices would be easy to warp and manipulate, especially of lesser used corps or to coffer in market manipulation profits. Something you listed as upside is a downside at the same time. At the same time, it adds volatility to the market where no volatility is direly necessary. What this creates is just another easy to game system.
  • More ALODs are downsides as well. Just because some people only want to blow up stuff does not remove the fact that there is someone on the receiving end as well, for whom your upside is certainly not so fabulous.


In total: More effort, more risk, more vulnerability to system gaming, more volatility, more manipulation for no gains.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#49 - 2015-07-01 17:15:50 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Aliventi wrote:
Then perhaps you should go re-read the reasons for making this change and the many posts of additional benefits this brings to the game that people have posted.

No downsides, hm?


  • It adds an additional layer of management to the purchase of LP store items. Right now you simply click a button and have the items. Then, you need to make sure to have the shares in an by the LP store accessible hangar, which means potentially you need to move them out of storage cans where you stowed them away so that they do not clutter your hangar. You even potentially need to stow them away in the first place as they are yet another item cluttering your hangar and in order to guarantee safety and not fall for scams. So: added circuitousness and less convenience of use.
  • It adds as well additional effort for comparing prices so that you do not buy shares on the market while existing BPC on the contracts/modules/ships on the market are cheaper. Even more comparison and calculation effort for no gains and just more risk for the sake of more risk.
  • It adds more items people can manipulate just for the sake of it. These share prices would be easy to warp and manipulate, especially of lesser used corps or to coffer in market manipulation profits. Something you listed as upside is a downside at the same time. At the same time, it adds volatility to the market where no volatility is direly necessary. What this creates is just another easy to game system.
  • More ALODs are downsides as well. Just because some people only want to blow up stuff does not remove the fact that there is someone on the receiving end as well, for whom your upside is certainly not so fabulous.


In total: More effort, more risk, more vulnerability to system gaming, more volatility, more manipulation for no gains.

So...
#1 is 30 seconds of additional effort. Hardly much of a downside.
#2. is something you would have done anyway because you want to min/max your isk making.
#3 is a benefit. Eve is a sandbox. Eve uses a free market. Don't like it, don't use it.
#4. is a benefit. Eve is a sandbox. Choices and consequence. Don't like the consequence, don't make that choice.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#50 - 2015-07-02 03:22:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Aliventi wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
when you crack all the mirriors and blow away the smoke all this does is take a straightforward game mechanic and make it obtuse.

-1

Which means CONGRATULATIONS!

CCP lives for this kind of obtuse crap so i fully expect them to implement it in the next week or so.

What makes it obtuse? It is literally the same thing as before just with an additional step of converting the Share vouchers into a physical item.

ill just copy this here and let you read your own words.

And as i menrioned in the final accounting nothing positive comes from it, it is just the current system with added headache and zero upside.

Actually. now that i think about it the value of lp a cross eve is not a constant. I make my lp at a highsec station and have limited value options of things i can buy with it. If you implement this system why risk nullsec lp work when you get equal value lp doing stuff in highsec?

i can spare you the anticipation of whether CCP will even sorta entertain this idea, they will not.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#51 - 2015-07-02 09:30:23 UTC
I have problems with the arguments for this idea,

- Players are already hauling LP items to market hubs which is more content than small liquid LP shares. Consider a player who runs pirate missions, instead of having to haul implants or pirate battleships into jita, he hauls a bunch of shares much more quickly, safer and easier in a T3.

- There are already exchange rates when you sell an LP item and you can already get around the grind by buying any LP item of the market with isk. You might have to buy it at a premium price, which is the price of someone elses hard work.

- Big group LP items can be acquired by Corp taxing LP. This would in fact be another benefit to being in a player Corp. (not social Corp).

- You can scam with LP items.

The net result of the op is that liquid LP makes everything easier to trade, making every item that can be bought with it cheaper and the ability to pool between alts. Not much else.

I prefer the clunky way we have now. It pushes up premiums and items are harder to haul. The only change id like to see is Corp tax On LP.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Maria Dragoon
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2015-07-02 11:03:00 UTC
I don't see a reason to not adding this feature. For one main reason.

It creates more middle men, more middle men, means more niched jobs, means more roles for people to fill, means more things people can do, means, more places people can get their foot hold in, and start climbing the wall that we call Eve's learning curve.

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. Confucius

"A man who talks to people who aren't real is crazy. A man who talks to people who aren't real and writes down what they say is an author."

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#53 - 2015-07-02 11:21:44 UTC
Because it's too much 'work'to manipulate LP let's change the name to shares and tweek the mechanics a bit so that it's much easier to manipulate.

No (+1 for trying)

Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2015-07-02 11:32:53 UTC
Aliventi wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
I still have not seen any compelling argument other than "I want tradable LP" which suggests that someone has lots of LP from a corp that competes with a FW store and is undervalued.

Then perhaps you should go re-read the reasons for making this change and the many posts of additional benefits this brings to the game that people have posted.

None of those are compelling reasons and most of them are just trying to appeal to the gank crowd saying that if you support this and it gets implemented there will be more gank targets.
You have provided no example to support this from someone who currently converts LPs to isk from the LP store.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Leoric Firesword
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2015-07-02 14:25:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Leoric Firesword
Aliventi wrote:

There are even mission runners who would rather sell the Shares than buy a bunch items, babysit the market orders, and finally buy what they need after the items sell.


So I must be missing something in this statement. If a mission runner sells his LP (shares) on the market does he not have to baby sit those just like any other sell order he/she makes? unless of course you mean they'll start selling their LP(shares) to buy orders to which I have to say "riiiiiight" because if they were going to do that then they'd just do that with the items they're selling anyway.

I totally get the market trader part, but not the mission runner part.

EDIT:

How about CCP just add a button "convert to isk" for the average isk/lp ratio of the items (yes I know this will make buying some items completely useless, but if that's the case maybe CCP should look into why that item sucks so bad in the first place.)
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#56 - 2015-07-05 18:32:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Aliventi
After a nice relaxing weekend on the beach y'all were nice enough to post some replies!

Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
ill just copy this here and let you read your own words.

And as i menrioned in the final accounting nothing positive comes from it, it is just the current system with added headache and zero upside.

Actually. now that i think about it the value of lp a cross eve is not a constant. I make my lp at a highsec station and have limited value options of things i can buy with it. If you implement this system why risk nullsec lp work when you get equal value lp doing stuff in highsec?

i can spare you the anticipation of whether CCP will even sorta entertain this idea, they will not.

I think CCP would love this idea. That's why I posted it. The reason why you would earn your LP in nullsec is you can't earn many types of nullsec LP in highsec. There aren't level 4 pirate missions in highsec AFAIK (Aside from SoE). So that LP will be very valuable. If the risk isn't worth the rewards (I am sure it will be. Harder and riskier things to get are typically more valuable) then move on to something that is until the price recovers.

The value of LP is not supposed to be constant. Some LP will be more valuable than others. That is why the player set exchange rates are so important.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
I have problems with the arguments for this idea,

- Players are already hauling LP items to market hubs which is more content than small liquid LP shares. Consider a player who runs pirate missions, instead of having to haul implants or pirate battleships into jita, he hauls a bunch of shares much more quickly, safer and easier in a T3.

- There are already exchange rates when you sell an LP item and you can already get around the grind by buying any LP item of the market with isk. You might have to buy it at a premium price, which is the price of someone elses hard work.

- Big group LP items can be acquired by Corp taxing LP. This would in fact be another benefit to being in a player Corp. (not social Corp).

- You can scam with LP items.

The net result of the op is that liquid LP makes everything easier to trade, making every item that can be bought with it cheaper and the ability to pool between alts. Not much else.

I prefer the clunky way we have now. It pushes up premiums and items are harder to haul. The only change id like to see is Corp tax On LP.

I assure you that there is a volume of shares in which you can haul many of them and their size will be far larger than the exchanged share size of implants or modules. They should be harder to haul than modules, but not an unholy pain.

There is nothing stopping players from selling their shares at a price that is worth their time. If they don't like the market price they can sell them higher or exchange them for items that give them the isk/share they want.

I agree that if CCP implements this they should implement a share tax for corporations. I know it would go a long way to helping FW groups.

You can scam with LP items. You can also scam with share items. Or shares themselves. Nothing stopping you from giving someone a choice to make that has consequences they might not like.

I can think up dozens of new avenues this gives players to create their own story in Eve. This would be a very valuable addition to Eve is it increases the choices and consequences and brings one of the last segments of the economy to the free market.

Maria Dragoon wrote:
I don't see a reason to not adding this feature. For one main reason.

It creates more middle men, more middle men, means more niched jobs, means more roles for people to fill, means more things people can do, means, more places people can get their foot hold in, and start climbing the wall that we call Eve's learning curve.

Well said.

Serendipity Lost wrote:
Because it's too much 'work'to manipulate LP let's change the name to shares and tweek the mechanics a bit so that it's much easier to manipulate.

No (+1 for trying)

I probably will never manipulate shares. it sounds like far too much work for me. I make my isk in easier ways. But if someone desires to put in the time and effort to manipulate share then I am eager to give them the opportunity. I hope they are handsomely rewarded and they tell their story to people someday. That is Eve in a nutshell.

Omnathious Deninard wrote:
None of those are compelling reasons and most of them are just trying to appeal to the gank crowd saying that if you support this and it gets implemented there will be more gank targets.
You have provided no example to support this from someone who currently converts LPs to isk from the LP store.

Look: you can get ganked now hauling your faction items. This won't change much for ganks. If people haul more than they should they will get ganked. That Eve. This isn't designed to raise the number of gankable targets. It's designed to remove barriers and increase the free market of Eve.

I am a person who has in the past converted LP to isk through the LP store. I have also bought LP through items from others. I would prefer dealing with shares. It's hard to find people who have the millions of LP to covert to items I wanted to buy. It's not always easy to sell my LP that I converted to items because I don't want to baby sit orders in Jita. This is an ease of use option. If you don't like it you don't have to use it.
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#57 - 2015-07-05 18:37:26 UTC
Leoric Firesword wrote:
Aliventi wrote:

There are even mission runners who would rather sell the Shares than buy a bunch items, babysit the market orders, and finally buy what they need after the items sell.


So I must be missing something in this statement. If a mission runner sells his LP (shares) on the market does he not have to baby sit those just like any other sell order he/she makes? unless of course you mean they'll start selling their LP(shares) to buy orders to which I have to say "riiiiiight" because if they were going to do that then they'd just do that with the items they're selling anyway.

I totally get the market trader part, but not the mission runner part.

EDIT:

How about CCP just add a button "convert to isk" for the average isk/lp ratio of the items (yes I know this will make buying some items completely useless, but if that's the case maybe CCP should look into why that item sucks so bad in the first place.)

The mission runner will have a choice: trade their shares for items that sell for 1500 isk/share, or just sell the shares on market for 1400 isk/share. Is it worth the extra 100 isk/share to deal with market orders and getting .01 isked in JIta, Amarr, Dodixie, Rens or Hek? To some it will be. Those that would rather skip that step and just keep missioning will now have a quick and easy option to convert their shares to isk. Will you use it? Maybe. Maybe not. It's a choice that has consequences. That is what Eve is all about.

A direct isk to shares option is bad for the game. LP/shares are designed to be an isk sink (through isk fees for items and market taxes with shares). A direct shares to isk option would be an isk faucet. We need fewer of those in game.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#58 - 2015-07-05 22:23:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Aliventi wrote:


There is nothing stopping players from selling their shares at a price that is worth their time. If they don't like the market price they can sell them higher or exchange them for items that give them the isk/share they want.



my issue here is that right now when i grind for big items, i am NOT competing with players grinding for small items. But by making LP sales all the same and near infinitely dividable you must compete at the share price level for both big items and small.

For example, right now i can grind for a few hours and get a +4 implant, and then put that on the market at a crap margin (because the time/work investment is small and everyone can do it). Or, i can grind for days, maybe a couple weeks, and get a epsilon pirate implant with a much higher margin (because there are less people putting this time commitment in).

With your proposal the players who are investing small amounts of time will be forcing down the price of shares, and with them the price of the LP items. And thats ALL LP items, including the ones that used to require large time investments.

Quote:
I can think up dozens of new avenues this gives players to create their own story in Eve. This would be a very valuable addition to Eve is it increases the choices and consequences and brings one of the last segments of the economy to the free market.


I dont think it actually increases many choices. Aside from allowing players to share LP between alts, i think it merely changes the existing options by making LP more liquid.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#59 - 2015-07-06 01:11:09 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Aliventi wrote:


There is nothing stopping players from selling their shares at a price that is worth their time. If they don't like the market price they can sell them higher or exchange them for items that give them the isk/share they want.



my issue here is that right now when i grind for big items, i am NOT competing with players grinding for small items. But by making LP sales all the same and near infinitely dividable you must compete at the share price level for both big items and small.

For example, right now i can grind for a few hours and get a +4 implant, and then put that on the market at a crap margin (because the time/work investment is small and everyone can do it). Or, i can grind for days, maybe a couple weeks, and get a epsilon pirate implant with a much higher margin (because there are less people putting this time commitment in).

With your proposal the players who are investing small amounts of time will be forcing down the price of shares, and with them the price of the LP items. And thats ALL LP items, including the ones that used to require large time investments.

A well made point. That is something I hadn't considered. What would you consider fair compensation for the loss of this?
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Shadow Cartel
#60 - 2015-07-06 06:31:16 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
An
James Baboli wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
No to trading LPs they are called Loyalty for a reason.


Lore =! gameplay.
Loyalty in FW makes sense. Loyalty to some navies makes sense. But loyalty to Genolution corp? wat?

I shop at the same food store all the time. I have gotten to know the managers and employees and as a result I can make offers on different products because they know I am a loyal customer I will be back still and buy other products.
so yes there can be loyalty to a corporation


You cannot possibly be suggesting that loyalty points in their current form represent anything resembling "loyalty."

Because that would be laughable.