Player Features and Ideas Discussion

It doesn't matter. If you slow the rate of wealth accumulation, you still make the rich significantly richer in real terms because they already have stockpiles.

It's essentially trying to create negative inflation, which as I say sustained over time magnifies the spending power of the rich only.

I one guys has 100B today and another guy has 10B and the isk/hour is 1b/hour (for ease) then the second guy can "catch up" to the first guy with 90 hours activity (assuming the first guy is idle). If the isk hour drops in real terms, he's even more behind in terms of time.

I realise people aren't all talking about dropping isk/hour but the net effect of dropping isk/hour or increasing cost of living is the same - because any values are going to be absolute and not percentile, you hammer the less rich guys every time. If you make it percentile the older, richer guys will just game it.

Somewhat overly simplistic, but yes, there is insurance to consider, but equally there is ammo, T3/T3 ships, lost drones manufacturing costs, research costs, module loss and cargo destruction, nanite repair paste.

It's (much) more complex than is made out.

However the end result would be the same, those on piles of "old money" just get even richer in relative terms.

Quite correct, however being clever bunnies and a distinct lack of tax evasion laws and an IRS - it would never work.

TQ inflation isn't bad either, if you want a real eye opening, go look at Serenity...

I didn't way it was wrong, I just said what would essentially be the only sink that would not leave the rich rich while the poor/new could not climb as fast as the rish did. Any other sink leave the current rich with their already accumulated wealth. If you really wanted to craete a new sink that was technically "fair" it would kind of have to be like that.

That does not mean I think it's a good idea to do either.

Not so much.

It's a mistaken idea that dropping isk from the economy will cheapen PLEX.

It won't.

It might lower the isk pricetag, but it will do nothing to lower the time to earn one.

It's rearranging deckchairs on the titanic.

it's not the way to go, but fixing LP stores so that more gets bought from them is probably a good start......

But you aren't slowing, that is the point.

Again, look at the simplified economy...wealth is growing even though ships are blowing up.

And please, I'm not saying blowing things up is bad, in fact I think it is good since our little virtual economy here has no depreciation. Your ship can't wear out, parts wont break through normal use (yes, there is overheating). So ship and asset destruction takes its place, IMO. It is an unmitigated good thing...not only for the economy, but because it is fun.

As for the income/wealth distribution I'd be worried about it if you could buy political power--e.g. use your ISK to influence CCP. That would be rather hard, IMO.

As for the cost of living, with more ISK coming in that will tend to go up (all other things constant). However, we are also ignoring another pretty serious sink for ISK, players who walk away from the game. When a guy who has played for 8 years up and leaves...well all his wealth and ISK are effectively removed from the game because there really isn't a financial sector in Eve.

Our financial sector is almost literally that of the feudal erra. If things were tweaked...oh boy would a **** ton of liquidity flow into the market, and then you'd see some interesting things.

Frostys didn't say there was anything wrong with being rich, but noting that if one wanted to do something about it you'd need a tax, most likely on one's wallet.

Not sure I agree with that. but yeah we'd have to basically expropriate some of their wealth....which probably isn't a good idea in a game.

Not sure this would work too well. For insurance to work the event you are insuring against has to be both rare and undesirable. For example, in RL nobody likes a car crash, so insurance markets work.

Take a look at health care (uh-oh, this could go horribly off the rails....) and you see lots of things covered that...well...shouldn't be covered. Classic example is child birth. It is both common and usually not seen as a bad thing--i.e. people want to be parents and have a child. In this kind of insurance market the premiums would be pretty damn close to the actual costs.

Quick (simple--I could make it more complicated, but it wouldn't add anything for this discussion) example:

If you have 100 people and the bad event happens 1/100 and it costs $100, you'd expect to have 1 person experience the bad event, so the premiums would be $1. Everyone pays the $1 the total is $100, and when the bad event happens the $100 is transferred to the person experiencing the bad event.

Now suppose the event happens 9/10. Now the premiums will be $90, which is pretty close to the $100/individual cost.

To get back down to the $1 range you'd need some pretty hefty subsidies....which is what happens in most countries. They heavily subsidize health care.

[Please note, I am not making any sort of statement about the moral aspects of this, just describing how a market for insurance would work...]

So, with EVE and that we all love blowing up each other's space ships, it is no longer uncommon and quite possibly not even a bad thing (provided you had fun doing it).