EVE General Discussion

I think there are just many people who weren't here a few years ago? It was probably 2012 (can we get chats for this?) When things I notice started going down. It was when I went less active not long after. Cause being nothing engaging for me in terms of gameplay. That tangents into other ongoing topics so will leave it at that.

When I used to play, log in numbers of 20 thous or more were easily the norm. Weekend peaks of 50k got not infrequent (iirc). However, I would also like to see these numbers applied to other stats. How many of these accounts were alts for farming and hauling? Multiboxing F1 assign cap fleets etc?

An impossible to grasp number would be instead of log in numbers, how many individual people are playing. Ergo the guy running his own mining fleet would still count as one.

Are we less in players or less in alts? For all I know, maybe we have more individual players and a large reduction in multiboxing. At the moment, this is bad for CCP's bottom line but if it means we can make it more of a populated game without sacrificing core Eve. Is that not worth it? Hopefully the changes mean we can get something that we, the players, can proudly promote to draw people back.

I would rather have 50k players creating 60k log ins instead of 35k players creating same number of log ins. That means the game is more enjoyable, meaning we all win (well, those of us who pride on player skill and not API data)

Edit:

Market talk above. What would happen in markets if we put in transasction threshholds?

So anything less 100 isk can have the 0.01 increments. Less 1,000 have 0.1 increments, 10,000 is at 1 isk increments and so forth. Simply put, type in new price, and it rounds it to the appropriate increment level automatically.

This will mean that the pricing game will force more dramatic pricing fluctuations. It would encourage players to develop and plan more lucrative market locations. That can lead to more hubs and what not potentially.

I am going to put this in the features and idea thread.

I would be curious about this statistic too.

I have a character that hasn't logged in for three months now just because I don't *have* to log in every 24 hours to play skill queue online.

Here

Also, Incursions are such a non-factor given that Blue loot from wormholes blows it away and NPC buy orders on goods make it look like a side hobby of snobs.

Jenn just likes to sensationalize that which he doesn't like

I agree.

In a sandbox game with player driven economy / content, declining population is even a bigger problem than MMO's with a lot of PvE content.

Wrong again. Bounties have no counter. Missions, Incursions, trading all have sinks that help balance the faucet.

Bounties from ratting and missions are 100% facuet. LP from Missions are huge sinks. There is no sinks from Null ratting.

Even blue loot has sinks in the form of taxes on transactions (NPC Buy Orders)... but these are relatively small.

1) I agree. More players on less accounts (as in people reducing account number and focusing on the remaining fewer) promotes community and real interaction.
The more accounts people have concurrently, the less their interdependancy is on other actual players.

2) The isk increments of your threshold suggestion are so small, that it pragmatically matters not at all.
Basically it amounts only to an automated system which moves the decimal point along, for the same result as now.
Even at enormous volumes of units, I dont think it would make any real difference.
Even if the increment was increased to far larger margins, this would result in disenfranchisement of other traders, on a "first come, first served" basis, and lead to utter domination of hubs on commodities by whomever gets their first with enough volume, whom then set the price against which everyone else has to take a substantial loss in order to compete. Not good.

My counter suggestion, is increasing trading taxes nominally without recourse through skilling.
Especially and crucially in HS, which anyways is unduly safe for transit of product once within, and from within, CONCORD ensured expanse.
This is the one BEST place to house an isk sink, and work the market against inflation.
Why?
Because before any market sourced product is destroyed, it has to pass through this system, unless sourced locally directly from manufacturers or procurers. Everything else, including especially insured ships, have to overcome this first, inorder to recoup cost. Even combat sourced modules would be cheaper as bought directly from the procurer, than from the market, IF you know the guy who has them.

Production by yourself, or in corp/alliance, takes a huge jump in fiscal sense, locally and "within the family", as it is not subject to the trader tax. Corps can and will reimburse the difference. Better to you, than to an NPC.

This is especially relevant o HS markets, where thr biggest and most numerous traders lie, in safety.
Trading tax, especially in HS, should be raised so as to promote dissemination of product, sourcing and production elsewhere theoughout the EVE universe. Jita is convenient, but also, exploited, and to the detriment of the trading game because of essential monopoly. Yes, the market there works. But it would be even better, for everyone, and thr game, if trading was dispersed throughout it.

And ohshit, Im drunk posting again...

Again?! LMAO No. You really are desperate, aren't you?

Top tip: “again” only counts if there are at least two errors. So far, there are zero.

Because yes they do, partly due to how a large portion of bounties are tied to LP, and partly because you can't actually get those bounties without sinking a lot of ISK. That's just how the game inherently works: you can't create ISK without destroying ISK (or vice versa). It's just that, in no case are they balanced 1:1 (because that would be bad for the economy).

Sure, but that still doesn't let you disentangle the monolithic “LP Store” item we have available. Agent rewards are designed pretty much the same, but with some added fuzziness due to sec level, but as you point out, we don't know who does what with their cash. So the best we can do if we want to look at the faucet-sink balance is to lump all the related activities together, which defeats the purpose of what we're trying to do.

Oh, that makes excellent sense actually (the stuff I took out). It does bring up an interesting concept. Somebody playing the hardcore 0.01 isk game. If changing that little bit each time somebody changes order, well suddenly you are losing isk on the deal because you ate up your profit margin on brokerage taxes. Hit on a pretty sweet area of focus actually. If changes to orders take time (potentially taken off market for short period of time) then will need to be a much more savvy trader. Forecasting where you think the price is heading, how much undercut, etc.

My Ishtar + drones was a flat investement that paid itself over and again and it destroy 0 ISK to get more ISK paid in the form of bounties. Should CCP check my account for hacking or I'm missing something that destroy my ISK to generate ISK?

Bounties are not tied to LP. Mission completion are, FW kills are, CONCORD incursion payout are but raw bounties are not unless you happen to rat under an ESS and those aren't exactly used all that much from what I see.

Kill rat ----> collect bounties on the next 20 minutes marks.

Just because it is small does not mean you can just ignore it — you had to sink ISK to get that ISK. Again, that's just how the game is set up.

There is a portion of bounties that are only affected by the market fees (same as blue loot, which is another huge faucet), yes, but that still leaves a portion that comes from activities where the cash you earn is supposed to be fed into an LP store.

And you are wrong: rat bounties have the same sink as everything else does. In fact, if there is one faucet I'd say has no corresponding sink, it's NPC goods, but even then it's only on the technicality that the trade does both at once and it ends up as an indivisible net faucet.