These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
12Next page
 

An idea for wealth redistribution, and control blobbing in Eve

Author
Mercur Fighter
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2017-07-25 16:54:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Mercur Fighter
I think Eve has a few issues:

1. PLEX keeps going up because not enough people are selling them (specifically, the newer players who need to sell them). Valkyrie and Alpha Clones did not achieve their goal of retaining a massive amount of new players.

2. A majority of the PLEX is purchased by a few (because a majority of the wealth is controlled by a few). Because the rental empires are controlled by a few. The moon empires were controlled by a few, but now that's being addressed.

3. Eve is a blob fest.

This is not unexpected for a game with a Laissez-faire policy, but none of the existing successful countries in the world have a Laissez-faire policy. Most countries that have adopted Laissez-faire have repealed it because it turned to ****.

The phrase "everything in moderation" applies to everything in the universe even to the atomic level. The hard question is how much control to give to the Players.

A supporter of Eve's Laissez-faire policy might argue "the only reason Eve has lived for so long is because there is no intervention whatsoever". But we can't time travel so we will never know for sure. You might even be correct that Eve survived this long because players can do whatever they want, with no control. But given the current state of Eve, I think it would be helpful to have a few boundaries.

What I am proposing is the following:

- Implement an exponentially increasing Corp / Alliance tax, based on the "Aggregate SP" of the players that a Corp / Alliance has. (I am not a technology wiz, but I assume if this is too troublesome to calculate in real time, it would be possible to calculate once per day at downtime). The exponential increase starts after a certain point set by CCP.

- Implement an exponentially increasing "Ally Tax" based on the "Aggregate SP" of the Alliances that you are setting Blue. (if someone wants a story behind this for role playing purposes, you could even say in Real Life it costs money and resources to maintain allies. Just look at how much America's foreign policies cost the country). The exponential increase starts after a certain point set by CCP.

- Fundamentally change Logistics and Fleet Boosts so they will only work on Blues. They will have no effect on neutrals. (because in real life, do you give neutral countries access to your country's military logistics / intelligence network?)

Exactly how the exponential function would work is a question for CCP, they are much better at math than I am. I"m just throwing out an idea.

I think if we implement the above changes, it will reduce blobbing in Eve by a great amount. It will also reduce the size of the large rental empires, and redistribute the wealth amongst smaller corps / alliances / rental empires. Also some decision making will be much more strategic - like which alliances you want to set blue, which corps you want to recruit, Etc.
Cade Windstalker
#2 - 2017-07-25 17:46:25 UTC
I'm seeing a lot of assumptions here based on not a lot of evidence or actual fact and a few blatantly incorrect things here.

First off, rental and moon empires have little to do with PLEX. Most of that income goes to Alliances and Corps to allow them to replace losses incurred by members during the group's operations, not towards PLEX. PLEX is generally bought by individuals and outside of a few very notable individuals (FCs and other high level officers) rich players in Eve tend to make their money through the markets not through moons.

It's also not really true that Eve is purely a blob fest. If you don't want to fight in or against blobs there are places you can go and ships you can fly that will let you do that. Whether it's flying something small and fast in Low and Null to just run away from blobby fights or flying in Wormholes where fights are pretty much capped in practical size.

Also CCP doesn't have a Laissez-Faire policy with regards to the game or PLEX. CCP makes changes all the time with the intent of affecting the market, they just don't go in and directly interfere with the market directly. Not doing that though is not the same thing as an actual Laissez-Faire policy. CCP holds sales and does other things to increase the PLEX supply and also makes changes to regulate the flow of ISK and other economic conditions.



As for your actual suggestions:


  • An SP based tax is a pretty generally terrible idea. For a start that's not a great way of determining how powerful an Alliance is or how much money they have. On top of that it's not actually targeting any actual problem, it's just punishing players for grouping together which is contrary to one of the main goals of Eve specifically and MMOs in general. The game format relies on players meeting and grouping together both for cooperation and opposition.

  • As for a "blues tax". Okay, my 'blues' are now all 'reds' and anyone who is neutral is shoot on sight. I've now completely circumvented your system. If you make it based on blues and reds everyone is neutral and I'll use a third party tool. Again, this isn't a particularly good mechanic it's just punishing players for cooperating.

  • Changing Logistics and Fleet Boosts like this would fundamentally break quite a few play-styles and parts of the game. No more purple fleets for one, and the groups that hold those Ops are some of the most active in Eve. I don't see this ever happening.


Basically these ideas are pretty terrible and hamfisted. Players would find ways around these pretty quickly and then CCP has to run around playing whack-a-mole to enforce something the majority of players wouldn't even be happy with in the first place.

In general if you want to discourage the escalation of a behavior that is otherwise desirable you need to do it with incentives, not punishments. The balance of carrot and stick here is way off and it's questionable whether or not the goal being sought after is even desirable in the first place. After all a large part of Eve's appeal is its scale and single shard universe. If you want a small scale and hard-limited fight then you're probably playing a different game.
Mercur Fighter
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2017-07-25 18:05:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Mercur Fighter
Cade Windstalker wrote:


In general if you want to discourage the escalation of a behavior that is otherwise desirable you need to do it with incentives, not punishments. The balance of carrot and stick here is way off and it's questionable whether or not the goal being sought after is even desirable in the first place. After all a large part of Eve's appeal is its scale and single shard universe. If you want a small scale and hard-limited fight then you're probably playing a different game.


Apparently the appeal is not very big within the MMO gaming market, given the effects of Valkyrie and Alpha Clones on the population.

PLEX is going up because there are not enough sellers, I guess you have your interpretation of "not enough sellers", but mine is not enough appeal to newer players. And the people who are buying up the PLEX are old players in general, whether they are wealthy from moon empires, rental empires, or just industry/trade.

And what I proposed does not discourage working together. It just "encourages" working together in smaller groups. Yes, it punishes you for working together in too large of a group, but that goes back to the control I was talking about.

There might be workarounds / exploits - we're no strangers to exploits just like Rick Astley is no stranger to love. It eventually gets worked out by CCP like all the other exploits in the past. But I think you are "assuming" that there will be a devastating exploit that cannot be worked out - just like I was "assuming" things.
Cade Windstalker
#4 - 2017-07-25 18:34:30 UTC
Mercur Fighter wrote:
Apparently the appeal is not very big within the MMO gaming market, given the effects of Valkyrie and Alpha Clones on the population.


Valkyrie is a separate game and has little to nothing to do with Eve as a whole besides being based in the same lore. There's no reason to expect that people that enjoy a twitch-based VR fighter game like Valkyrie would also enjoy Eve in any significant numbers.

Alphas had a pretty significant impact on the population and got a lot of people to try the game. That most of these didn't stick around isn't really surprising...

On top of that Eve has always been a fairly niche game. CCP knows it and admits it, the players know it, and pretty much everyone is fine with this since the alternative is jettisoning most of the things in Eve that make it interesting and unique.

Mercur Fighter wrote:
PLEX is going up because there are not enough sellers, I guess you have your interpretation of "not enough sellers", but mine is not enough appeal to newer players. And the people who are buying up the PLEX are old players in general, whether they are wealthy from moon empires, rental empires, or just industry/trade.


Except if you look at the volume of PLEX being traded on the market the amount listed hasn't gone down much if at all, so the cause has to be something impacting the demand side of the equation, so the idea that the current market conditions are caused by fewer new players has to be false even if you accept that new players are the majority of the ones buying PLEX to sell, which I personally find questionable. Most of those I know buying PLEX to sell are older players who are more invested in the game but with limited free time compared to the depths of their wallets.

Mercur Fighter wrote:
And what I proposed does not discourage working together. It just "encourages" working together in smaller groups. Yes, it punishes you for working together in too large of a group, but that goes back to the control I was talking about.


It discourages working together period the way you've phrased it here, and really it's discouraging it period even if you include something like a point where no tax is applied. Though that opens up loopholes and further makes your idea infeasible.

This is still something discouraging working together with other players no matter how you try to qualify or justify it, you're putting a penalty on being part of a corp.

Also this sort of size limit encourages a sort of elitism. That's why in-game organizations rarely have meaningful size restrictions, because the goal of these sorts of limits isn't really to limit the size of the player group it's just to moderate growth and put a cap for backend code and performance reasons. The devs of any MMO don't want people going "well, we need to kick this guy because we found someone better" since that just creates bad blood and a bad social environment.

Mercur Fighter wrote:
There might be workarounds / exploits - we're no strangers to exploits just like Rick Astley is no stranger to love. It eventually gets worked out by CCP like all the other exploits in the past. But I think you are "assuming" that there will be a devastating exploit that cannot be worked out - just like I was "assuming" things.


Working out this sort of thing is dependent on the base concept being sound. That's why CCP is getting rid of POS shields, because the base concept and mechanics of POS shields makes it open to exploits, abuse, and weird interactions of mechanics. CCP couldn't fix everything so they just banned everything they couldn't fix as a stop-gap until they could get rid of the whole mess.

The more rules in a system the more likelihood of an exploit or issue. This is a universal fact of systems design. The less desirable it is to work within the limits of a system the more motivated people are to find exploits. Your system is both undesirable to the majority of players and will require a large number of rules to be workable. This basically guarantees that people will both find and readily exploit loopholes in it.

In short it's a bigger assumption to assume that a system like this can be designed perfectly than it is to assume that there will be problems and exploitable loopholes in a system like this.
Mercur Fighter
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2017-07-25 18:47:30 UTC
I know "you think it's a bad idea, period".

Well, I think "it's a good idea, period".

You have made your point and I'm sure CCP will read it.

Teckos Pech
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2017-07-25 22:56:05 UTC
Mercur Fighter wrote:
I think Eve has a few issues:

1. PLEX keeps going up because not enough people are selling them (specifically, the newer players who need to sell them). Valkyrie and Alpha Clones did not achieve their goal of retaining a massive amount of new players.

2. A majority of the PLEX is purchased by a few (because a majority of the wealth is controlled by a few). Because the rental empires are controlled by a few. The moon empires were controlled by a few, but now that's being addressed.

3. Eve is a blob fest.


1. PLEX does redistribute wealth. Players who buy ISK in game and use them for game time, dual training, etc. (i.e. where PLEX leave the game) are moving ISK from those who have it to those who do not. Further, my guess is the recent run up in PLEX is at least partly related to small skill injectors.
2. First off what evidence do you have of this? Second so what? I buy PLEX and I use them (i.e. they leave the game). I also buy PLEX as an investment, which takes my ISK and puts it in the hands of those who feel they do not have enough (which likely correlates with low wealth players). Your second sentence is a non-sequitur, I could just as easily note that on a few men have landed on the moon and it would be about as useless. Similarly your third sentence. Moons are typically alliance level assets. That is to take and hold a moon you will need the resources only found at the alliance level. Yes, the largest and most well organized alliances will tend to hold the most moons. My guess this will be true after the patch for moon mining as well, although the groups holding various moons might change. The idea of a small group holding a moon probably will not happen.

Quote:
This is not unexpected for a game with a Laissez-faire policy, but none of the existing successful countries in the world have a Laissez-faire policy. Most countries that have adopted Laissez-faire have repealed it because it turned to ****.


You suggest a false dichotomy of laissez-faire at one end and….IDK at the other. In fact, the reality is a continuum and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a more market based economy is going to have a higher growth and improving standards not just for a few, but for everyone. And an additional point of fact, socialism is every a complete and utter **** show. Look at places like Venezuela, our newest and current failed state where socialism was tried…and failed. The human misery is appalling and was totally avoidable.

Quote:
The phrase "everything in moderation" applies to everything in the universe even to the atomic level. The hard question is how much control to give to the Players.


That is a nice variation of Benito Mussolini’s viewpoint on freedom. “We were the first to assert that the more complicated the forms of civilization, the more restrict the freedoms of the individual must become.”

Quote:
- Implement an exponentially increasing Corp / Alliance tax, based on the "Aggregate SP" of the players that a Corp / Alliance has. (I am not a technology wiz, but I assume if this is too troublesome to calculate in real time, it would be possible to calculate once per day at downtime).

- Implement an exponentially increasing "Ally Tax" based on the "Aggregate SP" of the Alliances that you are setting Blue. (if someone wants a story behind this for role playing purposes, you could even say in Real Life it costs money and resources to maintain allies. Just look at how much America's foreign policies cost the country).


What I would like is an explanation of why this will accomplish a reduction blobbling. Yes, I see the “obvious” explanation, an alliance with more SP will be taxed more and thus will face pressure to break up. Similarly with the allies. But players have proven to be rather adroit at finding ways to solve such problems. For example, using personal blue lists by FCs and target callers might accomplish a work-around.

Seriously, I wish the technocrats and social engineers in the world would kindly **** off and let the rest of us get on with things.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2017-07-25 23:00:24 UTC
Mercur Fighter wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:


In general if you want to discourage the escalation of a behavior that is otherwise desirable you need to do it with incentives, not punishments. The balance of carrot and stick here is way off and it's questionable whether or not the goal being sought after is even desirable in the first place. After all a large part of Eve's appeal is its scale and single shard universe. If you want a small scale and hard-limited fight then you're probably playing a different game.


Apparently the appeal is not very big within the MMO gaming market, given the effects of Valkyrie and Alpha Clones on the population.

PLEX is going up because there are not enough sellers, I guess you have your interpretation of "not enough sellers", but mine is not enough appeal to newer players. And the people who are buying up the PLEX are old players in general, whether they are wealthy from moon empires, rental empires, or just industry/trade.

And what I proposed does not discourage working together. It just "encourages" working together in smaller groups. Yes, it punishes you for working together in too large of a group, but that goes back to the control I was talking about.

There might be workarounds / exploits - we're no strangers to exploits just like Rick Astley is no stranger to love. It eventually gets worked out by CCP like all the other exploits in the past. But I think you are "assuming" that there will be a devastating exploit that cannot be worked out - just like I was "assuming" things.


First off your proposed solution for blobbing will do nothing for PLEX, or at least you have provided precisely zero connection between your proposal and PLEX prices. You'd be on much better footing if you literally said, "Magic."

Using in game mechanics as they were designed is not an exploit. Using in game mechanics in ways that they were not designed or even intended in a sandbox game is not an exploit. And do we really want to start an arms race in terms of exploits and work arounds for what is basically human nature: forming social groups to accomplish goals and objectives? Why would you want to do that in a sandbox game.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#8 - 2017-07-25 23:03:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Mercur Fighter wrote:
I know "you think it's a bad idea, period".

Well, I think "it's a good idea, period".

You have made your point and I'm sure CCP will read it.



Well I think you do not understand the nature and philosophy of a sandbox game. That is why I think this is a bad idea.

Oh and before you go full bore stupid...look at my corp history. If that doesn't help you, ask and I'll explain why a "Grrrr, Goons!" response would be full bore stupid.

Aaaand another thing, your suggestion does not just punish "big groups" it also punishes smaller groups of older players. Why would you want to do that when that, smaller groups, is precisely what you want.

Sorry, crap idea is crap.

-1.

Edit: And it punishes smaller corps of new players using skill injectors to improve their skills relative to older players. Again, why would you want to do that?

This idea gets worse and worse the more I think about it.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Mercur Fighter
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2017-07-25 23:11:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Mercur Fighter
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mercur Fighter wrote:
I know "you think it's a bad idea, period".

Well, I think "it's a good idea, period".

You have made your point and I'm sure CCP will read it.



Well I think you do not understand the nature and philosophy of a sandbox game. That is why I think this is a bad idea.

Oh and before you go full bore stupid...look at my corp history. If that doesn't help you, ask and I'll explain why a "Grrrr, Goons!" response would be full bore stupid.

Aaaand another thing, your suggestion does not just punish "big groups" it also punishes smaller groups of older players. Why would you want to do that when that, smaller groups, is precisely what you want.

Sorry, crap idea is crap.

-1.


I never said PLEX prices are going up solely due to blobbing. There's no need to mix my words, just because you are for whatever reason going into rage mode, saying socialism is a **** show, and comparing my quote to Mussolini.

I guess passion from players like you is one of the reasons that keep this game living for so long, but it's also this same passion that will keep this game from becoming more mainstream, and stay forever as a cult game - which I'm sure you prefer.
Teckos Pech
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2017-07-25 23:38:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Mercur Fighter wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mercur Fighter wrote:
I know "you think it's a bad idea, period".

Well, I think "it's a good idea, period".

You have made your point and I'm sure CCP will read it.



Well I think you do not understand the nature and philosophy of a sandbox game. That is why I think this is a bad idea.

Oh and before you go full bore stupid...look at my corp history. If that doesn't help you, ask and I'll explain why a "Grrrr, Goons!" response would be full bore stupid.

Aaaand another thing, your suggestion does not just punish "big groups" it also punishes smaller groups of older players. Why would you want to do that when that, smaller groups, is precisely what you want.

Sorry, crap idea is crap.

-1.


I never said PLEX prices are going up solely due to blobbing. There's no need to mix my words, just because you are for whatever reason going into rage mode, saying socialism is a **** show, and comparing my quote to Mussolini.

I guess it's passion from players like you that keep the game living for so long, but it's also this same passion that will keep this game from ever becoming more mainstream, which I'm sure you don't want to happen.


Look your idea is bad on many fronts. Your views on laissez-faire are largely irrelevant (by the way, according to economic historian and economist Dierdre McCloskey the average wage from 1800 to today has risen about 30 fold, or about 3,000% That did not happen because of larger and more pervasive government, but due to economic liberalization). But hey, you threw it out there....

Do you have an answer to my objections? A corporation of 100 guys with 100,000,000 SP each will face a far, far higher tax than on a corporation with 250 guys and each one having 32,000,000 SP each...why? Why should long time players be screwed over so badly in this case?

Oh wait, I know...you'll just modifying the formula to account for the number of players...gee, I don't see any problems with that. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Mercur Fighter
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2017-07-25 23:45:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Mercur Fighter
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mercur Fighter wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mercur Fighter wrote:
I know "you think it's a bad idea, period".

Well, I think "it's a good idea, period".

You have made your point and I'm sure CCP will read it.



Well I think you do not understand the nature and philosophy of a sandbox game. That is why I think this is a bad idea.

Oh and before you go full bore stupid...look at my corp history. If that doesn't help you, ask and I'll explain why a "Grrrr, Goons!" response would be full bore stupid.

Aaaand another thing, your suggestion does not just punish "big groups" it also punishes smaller groups of older players. Why would you want to do that when that, smaller groups, is precisely what you want.

Sorry, crap idea is crap.

-1.


I never said PLEX prices are going up solely due to blobbing. There's no need to mix my words, just because you are for whatever reason going into rage mode, saying socialism is a **** show, and comparing my quote to Mussolini.

I guess it's passion from players like you that keep the game living for so long, but it's also this same passion that will keep this game from ever becoming more mainstream, which I'm sure you don't want to happen.


Look your idea is bad on many fronts. Your views on laissez-faire are largely irrelevant (by the way, according to economic historian and economist Dierdre McCloskey the average wage from 1900 to today has risen about 30 fold, or about 3,000% That did not happen because of larger and more pervasive government, but due to economic liberalization). But hey, you threw it out there....

Do you have an answer to my objections? A corporation of 100 guys with 100,000,000 SP each will face a far, far higher tax than on a corporation with 250 guys and each one having 32,000,000 SP each...why? Why should long time players be screwed over so badly in this case?

Oh wait, I know...you'll just modifying the formula to account for the number of players...gee, I don't see any problems with that. Roll


Nobody is getting screwed over anymore than they want to get screwed over.

The decision of who to recruit is still yours. The decision of who to ally is yours.

The Corporations, and Alliances, will have a strategic decision to make - who do they want to ally, and who do they want to recruit.
Teckos Pech
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2017-07-25 23:58:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Mercur Fighter wrote:


Nobody is getting screwed over anymore than they want to get screwed over.

The decision of who to recruit is still yours. The decision of who to blue is still yours.

The Corporations, and Alliances, will have a strategic decision to make - who do they want to blue, and who do they want to recruit.



Bravo Sierra. I have a 140 million plus SP. I tend to take my alts with me. I alone can boost a corps taxes signifcantly in that I can bring probably close to 300 million SP in doing so. If I did that with say a small corp of new players, say I wanted to help out a batch of new bros we'd be hit with a very large tax bill....so I tell my merry band of new bros, go rat, mission, and mine we have to pay the tax bill? Remember it is exponential so it can get large very fast. Or in joining a larger corp that already has a fair amount of SP, I might be rejected due to the tax burden.

BTW, you did not address my point about a smaller corp having a higher tax bill due to each player having more SP than a larger corp with a lower level of SP. The smaller corp will be "blobbed" by the larger corp.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Mercur Fighter
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2017-07-26 00:07:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Mercur Fighter
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mercur Fighter wrote:


Nobody is getting screwed over anymore than they want to get screwed over.

The decision of who to recruit is still yours. The decision of who to blue is still yours.

The Corporations, and Alliances, will have a strategic decision to make - who do they want to blue, and who do they want to recruit.



Bravo Sierra. I have a 140 million plus SP. I tend to take my alts with me. I alone can boost a corps taxes signifcantly in that I can bring probably close to 300 million SP in doing so. If I did that with say a small corp of new players, say I wanted to help out a batch of new bros we'd be hit with a very large tax bill....so I tell my merry band of new bros, go rat, mission, and mine we have to pay the tax bill? Remember it is exponential so it can get large very fast. Or in joining a larger corp that already has a fair amount of SP, I might be rejected due to the tax burden.

BTW, you did not address my point about a smaller corp having a higher tax bill due to each player having more SP than a larger corp with a lower level of SP. The smaller corp will be "blobbed" by the larger corp.


That would depend on how the exponential function works wouldn't it? Let's say if the exponential increase starts at 1 trillion SP - then you have nothing to worry about because your newbros have nowhere close to the amount of SP.

Yes, they can still get blobbed. You see how this system still retains the same freedoms as before? When this happens, they can Ally with another alliance - and the "Ally Tax" will be based on how much SP the other alliance has.

The Blobbing alliance can also try to create a bigger blob - but they will also face an "Ally Tax" as well, based on aggregate SP.

So the Ally tax is exponential after a certain amount of aggregate SP as well (determined by CCP).
Teckos Pech
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2017-07-26 00:09:56 UTC
Annnd yet another problem....

Why should a HS industrial corp face a tax for having high SP members? Yes, lets make our escapist video game more like real life where we have to work to pay the SP tax.

It is hilarious how on the one hand we have a whine thread about big corporations/alliances and on the other we've had whine threads about people going to NPC corps...which this change may very well exacerbate.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#15 - 2017-07-26 00:11:35 UTC
Yes...you guessed it, one more problem.

Corporations and alliances are not going to pay this tax out of the kindness of their hearts. They'll look to raise the revenues from their members. Depending on what the corporation/alliance can and cannot tax, the high SP characters might have ways to avoid that tax burden leaving it to lower SP players.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Mercur Fighter
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2017-07-26 00:13:14 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Annnd yet another problem....

Why should a HS industrial corp face a tax for having high SP members? Yes, lets make our escapist video game more like real life where we have to work to pay the SP tax.

It is hilarious how on the one hand we have a whine thread about big corporations/alliances and on the other we've had whine threads about people going to NPC corps...which this change may very well exacerbate.


Of course an Industrial Corp / Alliance should face the same exponential SP tax / ally tax.

I would think it's a strategic decision that any organization / country has to make - how much to allocate to infrastructure, how much to military, how much to education. Also who do they want to establish an alliance with, instead of just making everyone an ally.

Teckos Pech
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#17 - 2017-07-26 00:14:43 UTC
Mercur Fighter wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mercur Fighter wrote:


Nobody is getting screwed over anymore than they want to get screwed over.

The decision of who to recruit is still yours. The decision of who to blue is still yours.

The Corporations, and Alliances, will have a strategic decision to make - who do they want to blue, and who do they want to recruit.



Bravo Sierra. I have a 140 million plus SP. I tend to take my alts with me. I alone can boost a corps taxes signifcantly in that I can bring probably close to 300 million SP in doing so. If I did that with say a small corp of new players, say I wanted to help out a batch of new bros we'd be hit with a very large tax bill....so I tell my merry band of new bros, go rat, mission, and mine we have to pay the tax bill? Remember it is exponential so it can get large very fast. Or in joining a larger corp that already has a fair amount of SP, I might be rejected due to the tax burden.

BTW, you did not address my point about a smaller corp having a higher tax bill due to each player having more SP than a larger corp with a lower level of SP. The smaller corp will be "blobbed" by the larger corp.


That would depend on how the exponential function works wouldn't it? Let's say if the exponential increase starts at 1 trillion SP - then you have nothing to worry about because your newbros have nowhere close to the amount of SP.

Yes, they can still get blobbed. You see how this system still retains the same freedoms as before? When this happens, they can Ally with another alliance - and the "Ally Tax" will be based on how much SP the other alliance has.

The Blobbing alliance can also try to create a bigger blob - but they will also face an "Ally Tax" as well, based on aggregate SP.

So the Ally tax is exponential after a certain amount of aggregate SP as well (determined by CCP).


If you weaken it too much you do nothing to the "blobs".

And what about blue lists for FCs and target callers? That might be a partial work around to this mechanic. You going deem that an exploit.

And yes, in answer to your question about mainstream, if making Eve mainstream means turning the game into a theme park or limiting what people can do in the sandbox, I don't like it. I think that is part of the problem in terms of number of players currently online...making the game less harsh, more appealing to the mainstream. People who show up to the forums and cry about the unfairness of it all.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2017-07-26 00:17:56 UTC
Mercur Fighter wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Annnd yet another problem....

Why should a HS industrial corp face a tax for having high SP members? Yes, lets make our escapist video game more like real life where we have to work to pay the SP tax.

It is hilarious how on the one hand we have a whine thread about big corporations/alliances and on the other we've had whine threads about people going to NPC corps...which this change may very well exacerbate.


Of course an Industrial Corp / Alliance should face the same exponential SP tax / ally tax.

I would think it's a strategic decision that any organization / country has to make - how much to allocate to infrastructure, how much to military, how much to education. Also who do they want to establish an alliance with, instead of just making everyone an ally.



Why are you penalizing a group of players that is not even part of the problem?

Here is a thought experiment. Next time I get some bad news, can I take $100 form you? Seems reasonable, right? You have nothing to do with the bad news, so yes I should be allowed to take your $100.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#19 - 2017-07-26 00:20:39 UTC
BTW if a 250 man corp is going up against a 100 man corp and they each have say a 40% participation rate, you'll have 100 guys going up against 40 guys. A ratio of 2.5 to 1, or blobbing. Blobbing is not dependent on absolute numbers but relative numbers. You are not solving blobbing, even if it works as intended. You are merely changing the scale of the problem.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Mercur Fighter
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2017-07-26 03:02:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Mercur Fighter
It is not punishing a group of players who is not a part of the problem. If you are an alliance administrator it is your choice how many industrial pilots to recruit, how many industrial alliances to set blue, etc.

Also in your scenario: "if a 250 man corp is going up against a 100 man corp and they each have say a 40% participation rate, you'll have 100 guys going up against 40 guys"

Then that is their problem if they are outnumbered in this situation.

Like I said you still retain most of the freedom as you did before. So I'm not sure if you are intentionally trying to twist around what I said in my OP. The solution I talked about is to have at least some degree of control over the Eve landscape - and to encourage smaller alliances or power blocs (whatever you want to call it), instead of massive alliances and blue donuts. The decision of who to set blue will be much more strategic, instead of bluing everyone in sight.
12Next page