These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

ISK sink via refining.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hroya
#21 - 2012-04-06 07:59:32 UTC
If reduction down to zero isk/mineral loss would mean you need skills to lvl 5 in ore and scrapmetal processing along with max standings with any given corporation to refine at, then yeah go for it, now.

You go your corridor but.
Adunh Slavy
#22 - 2012-04-06 08:14:38 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:

He's advocating changing the taxating in minerals when refining for a taxation in ISK.

This wil not disincentive anything. Only remove more ISK from the game is GOOD.


Yes I realize that, and it is a bad idea. Along with all similar bad ideas like docking fees, jump gate fees and half of the other silly notions that have been thrown around.

Reduction of the ISK faucets across the board, increasing the prices by limiting supply, increasing divisions of labor and benifit from specialization in productive endeavors, is the way to go.

Tacking on an ISK cost to activities that are not ISK creation is asinine and counter productive to the problem.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#23 - 2012-04-06 08:23:23 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Tobiaz wrote:

He's advocating changing the taxating in minerals when refining for a taxation in ISK.

This wil not disincentive anything. Only remove more ISK from the game is GOOD.


Yes I realize that, and it is a bad idea. Along with all similar bad ideas like docking fees, jump gate fees and half of the other silly notions that have been thrown around.

Reduction of the ISK faucets across the board, increasing the prices by limiting supply, increasing divisions of labor and benifit from specialization in productive endeavors, is the way to go.

Tacking on an ISK cost to activities that are not ISK creation is asinine and counter productive to the problem.


Actually, when you think about it, ISK sinks on things which generate ISK are truly the asinine feature as it is utterly counterproductive and actually serves no purpose. This is simply the injection of slightly less ISK, not the destruction of ISK.

Derp.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
The Pteradactyl
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-04-06 08:24:44 UTC
Jessie-A Tassik wrote:
Whenever someone refines ores, tax them ISK, not minerals. Figure out the tax by the value of the minerals refined.

Determine the market price(Jita or average of all +0.5 sec trades) of all minerals. Weighted by volume and an average across the past week. Any price more than +/-20 percent of last average is discarded. No more than 20% of total volume discarded. If more than 20% discarded, then average for all sales.

This is a very simple SQL query.

I understand charging minerals is "elegant" in that you don't have to determine market prices, but you are like ten years in.

Do the minimal work required to create this ISK sink.

I'm telling you right now if the programmers start whining at you..... something is very wrong with your programming department. This is very easy to do. I could do it. In like a day. Anyone who has used SQL of any kind should be able to.

If you don't have an SQL database for transactions. Well then. That is very interesting in itself.


This is a simple idea that would cause refining to go from being slightly bad for the economy to slightly good for the economy. If we apply this same thought process to a dozen other things we won't need a silver bullet to save us.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#25 - 2012-04-06 08:25:30 UTC
The Pteradactyl wrote:
Jessie-A Tassik wrote:
Whenever someone refines ores, tax them ISK, not minerals. Figure out the tax by the value of the minerals refined.

Determine the market price(Jita or average of all +0.5 sec trades) of all minerals. Weighted by volume and an average across the past week. Any price more than +/-20 percent of last average is discarded. No more than 20% of total volume discarded. If more than 20% discarded, then average for all sales.

This is a very simple SQL query.

I understand charging minerals is "elegant" in that you don't have to determine market prices, but you are like ten years in.

Do the minimal work required to create this ISK sink.

I'm telling you right now if the programmers start whining at you..... something is very wrong with your programming department. This is very easy to do. I could do it. In like a day. Anyone who has used SQL of any kind should be able to.

If you don't have an SQL database for transactions. Well then. That is very interesting in itself.


This is a simple idea that would cause refining to go from being slightly bad for the economy to slightly good for the economy. If we apply this same thought process to a dozen other things we won't need a silver bullet to save us.


I find myself +1'ing an obvious forum alt. Curious...

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Jessie-A Tassik
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2012-04-06 13:09:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Jessie-A Tassik
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Jessie-A Tassik wrote:
Any programmer who has worked with SQL could do it.

It is very obvious change.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. My comment was mocking your apparent, and somewhat condescending, belief that CCP do not know how to perform an SQL query and are also completely incognizant of the potential economic repercussions of game mechanics changes.

Nova Fox wrote:
According to the latest economy blogs it does not
Too many people are holding onto thier isk.

This, pretty much.

Rapidly increasing mineral/ship prices is good for one thing, getting money to move hands. Coupled with incursion nerfs, and the proposed future 10% bounties decrease it should combat anything terrible happening due to an increase in bounties from the drone regions whilst also making everything more expensive for everybody.

This is not only a much needed buff to the mining profession, who always seem to get the short end of the straw, it will also hopefully get some of that ISK moving again. And ISK that's moving hands is taxed, and tax is an ISK sink. Yay.

But anyway, inflation or no inflation, I look forward to risk/reward balance being returned to the game. And I sincerely hope ships begin to have value again, even if that does put carriers and supers safely out of the reach of idiots like this Jessie guy.


I'm curious why "people holding on to their ISK" is a problem. Cause you say it is? Cause you can become really excited when talking about it? Is that why?

If 10,000 players had 100,000,000,000 ISK each in their wallet and never ever spent it, that would be a problem how?

BECAUSE MITTANI SAID! And we have gotten all super excited about it!

So, how do you think, zippy, those people are going to react to Null Bears shaking them down for all their ISK?

I know, I know, they need to HTFU. Or leave. One or the other.
Jessie-A Tassik
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2012-04-06 13:19:55 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Tobiaz wrote:

He's advocating changing the taxating in minerals when refining for a taxation in ISK.

This wil not disincentive anything. Only remove more ISK from the game is GOOD.


Yes I realize that, and it is a bad idea. Along with all similar bad ideas like docking fees, jump gate fees and half of the other silly notions that have been thrown around.

Reduction of the ISK faucets across the board, increasing the prices by limiting supply, increasing divisions of labor and benifit from specialization in productive endeavors, is the way to go.

Tacking on an ISK cost to activities that are not ISK creation is asinine and counter productive to the problem.


Wow!

Mittani has CREATED A PROBLEM.

And now, he PROPOSES A SELF SERVING SOLUTION!
Spy 21
Doomheim
#28 - 2012-04-06 13:50:43 UTC
I have 8.3 standings with the corp where I refine at.
I pay no refining taxes.

Obfuscation for the WIN on page 3...
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#29 - 2012-04-06 13:54:59 UTC
Jessie-A Tassik wrote:
I'm curious why "people holding on to their ISK" is a problem. Cause you say it is? Cause you can become really excited when talking about it? Is that why?

If 10,000 players had 100,000,000,000 ISK each in their wallet and never ever spent it, that would be a problem how?

BECAUSE MITTANI SAID! And we have gotten all super excited about it!

So, how do you think, zippy, those people are going to react to Null Bears shaking them down for all their ISK?

I know, I know, they need to HTFU. Or leave. One or the other.

Because if people just accumulate ISK over time, without any meaningful expenditure, then when the time comes that the market is saturated and everything is available to everybody then fixing the issue is even more difficult and painful. Not to mention the fact that the "player driven economy" ceases to favor the players driving the economy, aka miners and industrialists.

The fact that you think Eve should be some space rich wonderland in which everyone owns everything doesn't matter, that is not popular opinion. Just read the threads on the subject of economic upheaval: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1079092#post1079092

Notice that the OP's post complaining about economic turmoil receives two likes, and is flamed for the next 10 pages. The second and third posts expressing optimism for the incoming changes received a total of more than 70 likes, and the opinions are mirrored in the posts that span the next ten pages.

Also, FYI I strongly suspect more than 10,000 players do have over 100b in their wallets. The truth is that in Eve today most players can afford almost any ship, and losing those ships has little meaning to them. You may think that is good, we disagree.

Guess you should just HTFU and be more careful with your ships, because this change is happening. Try to enjoy it.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Spc One
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#30 - 2012-04-06 14:39:34 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:


You misunderstand. The taxes would be in addition to the minerals.

Think about it, combat pilots expend ammunition and are then taxed.

Marketeers expend ISK and then are taxed for it.

The pattern is prevalent in all professions.

Why should refineries operate tax-free? Nobody's saying the tax should be huge.

But it might actually increase the profitability of being a "refiner" in Eve.

Now you can legitimately tell your buddies that there's overhead - and you're going to have to charge them for it. Evil

So as of right now it's all ballanced.
Miners don't get any isk tax, drone mission/anomaly runners don't get any tax too, because drones currently drop alloys.
ChYph3r
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2012-04-06 14:57:05 UTC
Jessie-A Tassik wrote:
Whenever someone refines ores, tax them ISK, not minerals. Figure out the tax by the value of the minerals refined.

Determine the market price(Jita or average of all +0.5 sec trades) of all minerals. Weighted by volume and an average across the past week. Any price more than +/-20 percent of last average is discarded. No more than 20% of total volume discarded. If more than 20% discarded, then average for all sales.

This is a very simple SQL query.

I understand charging minerals is "elegant" in that you don't have to determine market prices, but you are like ten years in.

Do the minimal work required to create this ISK sink.

I'm telling you right now if the programmers start whining at you..... something is very wrong with your programming department. This is very easy to do. I could do it. In like a day. Anyone who has used SQL of any kind should be able to.

If you don't have an SQL database for transactions. Well then. That is very interesting in itself.



Umm they cant do that because of the null sec stations have an option to charge members, or allies already.....and why are you all so freaking willing to give your isk to ccp all the time?

Want to find all the podcasts around EVE Online visit http://evepodcasts.com @chyph3r  on Twitter
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#32 - 2012-04-06 15:06:56 UTC
Better idea for an isk sink: Charge people for creating new topics on the forums.

Charge extra for poorly thought-out ideas.

Charge double for posts in the wrong sub-forum.

It would be a simple matter of an SQL query to do, it MUST be a good idea.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#33 - 2012-04-06 15:38:21 UTC
idea is good in principle. but im gonna say no.
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2012-04-06 15:56:26 UTC
Jessie-A Tassik wrote:
Whenever someone refines ores, tax them ISK, not minerals.

You got it wrong.

Cut the refine amount of modules in half, this should be the tax. Less minerals. Reasoning is, modules should be the item of desire not the minerals inside. We don't buy TVs to take home, split them up, then try to sell off the parts..

Leave ores and ice as is. This will then be the defacto source of minerals for EVE. As one source of minerals is reduced (mission loot generally), minerals will now have a high demand for the miners. Less competition, means more demand for the miners which should cause the market to flux up and down on the supply/demand depending how much they can keep up.

Because there will be a more finite (fluxuating amount) produced and the greatest supply would be from miners, more buyers will need to by straight from the miners and this means more market transactions. This is where you isk sink in the form of taxes.

tl;dr version

1. Nerf module refining, dries up market from mission loot produced and makes refining less profitable...more modules will stay as modules or you lose minerals if you reprocess it (why the **** do you build an item to reprocess it? ). Also makes missioning even less profitable and we all don't want that Cry

2. Less competition for the miners, more demand for them. Their prices rise and fall depending on how much they keep up with demand, as the point should be Mine -> Sell -> Build -> Blow up not Mine -> Sell -> Build -> Sell, fails -> Refine -> Build second item: Minerals never leave EVE!

3. You want to transport minerals, compress it. Good use for the Noctis and ORE industrial skill, repurpose it to compress minerals since after Inferno the loot ship will be even useless (Rorq still has multi-utility as side fro compression). Trust me, all those ECM / ECCM / 800 Cap Booster you get excluding the meta 0 loot which will be gone...crap! Hope CCP does something about adding more meta 1-4 loot drops.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#35 - 2012-04-06 15:58:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Nova Fox
Sigh...

For any and all of you who think mining is a isk faucet needs to go sit down in one of eve unis economic class. or soemthing.

Mining is an isk sink. Period. Failure to understand this concept is failure to grasp the eve economy.

What mining does is a open an Object Faucet however. Which plays into the cirlce of object life very well, Harvest Build Destroy is quite at a near healthy state. Other than profiliation of super capitals most things are getting destroyed pertty consistenly.

I supposed a higher refinery tax (which would almost require 9.0 standigns to nullify) would do worlds of good of encouraging outward growth of eve from high into low as well as lower efficency (overstressed refineries people being croocked)
Low secs threshhold should be much lower 5.0 standings or less.
Null should be allow to get to perfect relatively easily for allaince level efforts depending on the outposts and upgrades to the outposts.

An isk tax on refining wouldnt be as sensible as mineral loss via mineral tax.

The issue is you do not want to put eve into a position where if you where knocked down back your velator you should be able to recover from it. Empire sales taxes are about to go up, as well as transaction taxes from the SEC. There are alot of monkey wrenches being thorwn back in and at the rate of the economy turmoil we're quickly heading back to a era where deploying a battleship was soemthing you didnt do on a whim because they where replacable.

Carrier losses are going to hurt again.
With the frigate boost inbound expect more and more pvpers to migrate twoards bang for the buck options.

So TL;DR version

Isk tax on refines bad idea
Higher Mineral Tax on scapping a good idea.
Higher Mineral Tax on refining in empire and slightly lower than empire in low also a good idea.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
qDoctor Strangelove
Doomheim
#36 - 2012-04-06 15:59:08 UTC
Question : What should inflation be in EVE per month? 0.5% / 1% / 1.5% / 2% ???

Wouldn't Inflation be the BEST tool to combat the isk influx?


game has been going for 10 years, that is 120 months.

With 1% inflation per month, that means mex should be at 52 isk
With 1.5% inflation per month, mex should be 95 isk


1 plex used to give you 1 fitted BS
now you get 4.

Let prices stabilize at something that would be about 4x base value, and ALL off the economical issues will go away, and solve the T2 BPO issues as well.

Trit 4
pyer 16
mex 64
iso 256
Nock 1024
Zyd 4096
Mega 16384

I know that mega will not go that high, trit will go higher, pyer lower.
This is the BEST buff empire miners / producers could get.

T1/T2 item production times up 500% , sub-cap ships production times up by 300%

Create XL rigs for caps

Make more useful rigs.


All in all, this would remove the need for limiting isk influx, it would be just fine.
However, there would be a need for a buff in the anti BOT world, and a de-buff of concorde on 4-6 seconds across the board.
Jessie-A Tassik
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2012-04-06 18:41:34 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Jessie-A Tassik wrote:
I'm curious why "people holding on to their ISK" is a problem. Cause you say it is? Cause you can become really excited when talking about it? Is that why?

If 10,000 players had 100,000,000,000 ISK each in their wallet and never ever spent it, that would be a problem how?

BECAUSE MITTANI SAID! And we have gotten all super excited about it!

So, how do you think, zippy, those people are going to react to Null Bears shaking them down for all their ISK?

I know, I know, they need to HTFU. Or leave. One or the other.

Because if people just accumulate ISK over time, without any meaningful expenditure, then when the time comes that the market is saturated and everything is available to everybody then fixing the issue is even more difficult and painful. Not to mention the fact that the "player driven economy" ceases to favor the players driving the economy, aka miners and industrialists.

The fact that you think Eve should be some space rich wonderland in which everyone owns everything doesn't matter, that is not popular opinion. Just read the threads on the subject of economic upheaval: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1079092#post1079092

Notice that the OP's post complaining about economic turmoil receives two likes, and is flamed for the next 10 pages. The second and third posts expressing optimism for the incoming changes received a total of more than 70 likes, and the opinions are mirrored in the posts that span the next ten pages.

Also, FYI I strongly suspect more than 10,000 players do have over 100b in their wallets. The truth is that in Eve today most players can afford almost any ship, and losing those ships has little meaning to them. You may think that is good, we disagree.

Guess you should just HTFU and be more careful with your ships, because this change is happening. Try to enjoy it.


In the harsh uncompromising world of Eve, you fight for your ISK, and earn it, until Dev God decides to take it all away cause Null Bears told him to.

Eve only has 300,000 accounts because every other company is to stupid to make a MMO with spaceships.
Jessie-A Tassik
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2012-04-06 18:43:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Jessie-A Tassik
Nova Fox wrote:
Sigh...

For any and all of you who think mining is a isk faucet needs to go sit down in one of eve unis economic class. or soemthing.

Mining is an isk sink. Period. Failure to understand this concept is failure to grasp the eve economy.

What mining does is a open an Object Faucet however. Which plays into the cirlce of object life very well, Harvest Build Destroy is quite at a near healthy state. Other than profiliation of super capitals most things are getting destroyed pertty consistenly.

I supposed a higher refinery tax (which would almost require 9.0 standigns to nullify) would do worlds of good of encouraging outward growth of eve from high into low as well as lower efficency (overstressed refineries people being croocked)
Low secs threshhold should be much lower 5.0 standings or less.
Null should be allow to get to perfect relatively easily for allaince level efforts depending on the outposts and upgrades to the outposts.

An isk tax on refining wouldnt be as sensible as mineral loss via mineral tax.

The issue is you do not want to put eve into a position where if you where knocked down back your velator you should be able to recover from it. Empire sales taxes are about to go up, as well as transaction taxes from the SEC. There are alot of monkey wrenches being thorwn back in and at the rate of the economy turmoil we're quickly heading back to a era where deploying a battleship was soemthing you didnt do on a whim because they where replacable.

Carrier losses are going to hurt again.
With the frigate boost inbound expect more and more pvpers to migrate twoards bang for the buck options.

So TL;DR version

Isk tax on refines bad idea
Higher Mineral Tax on scapping a good idea.
Higher Mineral Tax on refining in empire and slightly lower than empire in low also a good idea.


And why would higher MINERAL taxes on modules be better?

CAUSE ONLY NULL BEARS DESERVE ACCESS TO ABC ore minerals!

Your naked selfishness is just swell.
Ashley SchmidtVonGoldberg
Doomheim
#39 - 2012-04-06 19:31:00 UTC
Everyone who agrees does not mine/collect modules


Everyone who hates the idea is a miner/mission runner

Standing in for Karn Dulake who was banned for saying bad words
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#40 - 2012-04-06 19:38:54 UTC
Ashley SchmidtVonGoldberg wrote:
Everyone who agrees does not mine/collect modules


Everyone who hates the idea is a miner/mission runner



Good thing Im neither

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
Previous page123Next page