These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Market Discussions

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Does Eve need more Taxes?

Author
Matrix Operator
#61 - 2012-04-23 06:40:49 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
No new item should have been introduced in the past few years which depend on a single material source (such as "only minerals" or "only PI inputs").


Much, Much truth here. I agree. Wonder if CCP has the gumption to fix it.


Adunh Slavy wrote:
If the problem CCP wants to solve is monetary inflation, then solve that problem by whacking the problem at its source, the generation of ISK. Attempting to play all these other hidden tax and fee games is quite honestly foolish.


See post #34
Adunh Slavy
#62 - 2012-04-23 06:44:47 UTC
Matrix Operator wrote:

See post #34



See post #33

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

papamike
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2012-04-23 06:52:46 UTC  |  Edited by: papamike
I think we have a semantic problem here.

NPC 'taxation' isnt really taxation in the true sense of the word. A controlling organisation or group is not drawing wealth from the population (ie you) to then re-invest or redirect into government controlled ventures (usually employing the population in producing these endeavors).

Taxation in Eve is not as taxation in RL, so analogies from RL are somewhat flawed if taken too literally.

Taxation in Eve equates to taking money out of the system completely and essentially burning it.

It is true of course that the bounty system magically puts money into the system as well...

Perhaps bounty prices should be based on taxation amounts, otherwise a faction could well go bust paying for us to defend their space?

I am of course kidding about the above proposition. Way too unnecessarily complicated. I will say that at least anecdotally I am noticing the level of inflation in the game. I started playing Eve in 2006 and while I understand that overall GDP would of increased, its just somewhat ridiculous the amount of isk the 'average' player has, let alone the high end players.

Whether you guys like it or not, inflation in Eve is a big **** sandwich and we all have to chow down on it.
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#64 - 2012-04-23 13:04:03 UTC
Mmm, impact of corp/alliance bills on a monthly basis:

- A flat per-month fee per corp would ensure that long-dead corps get disbanded and their tickers get recycled.
- A per-month fee for the alliance would do the same for alliance tickers.
- It would act as an additional ISK sink.

Per-corp fees could be as low as 100-500k/mo. Alliance fees in the range of 10-20M/mo. Maybe alliances pay 2M ISK/mo per member corp. Maybe corps pay a fee of 1k ISK/member each month to buy membership capacity.

(shrugs) It's probably a horrid idea.
Prophet Avater
Imperium Technologies
#65 - 2012-04-23 13:10:30 UTC
Instead of having few large taxes it best to have smaller one, since the majority of the game live in high sec, high sec should be the main target, ccp can hit two birds with one stone, increasing the transition from high sec to low , null and wormhole space.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#66 - 2012-04-23 13:42:30 UTC
asi i already posted here, the best way to get ISK out of the system would be to introduce upkeep costs for mundane tasks such as docking, storing items etc.

I should buy an Ishtar.

Johnny Frecko
Violence is the Answer
Wormhole Society
#67 - 2012-04-23 19:06:44 UTC
and ofcourse it's the best way because you said it is.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#68 - 2012-04-23 20:52:37 UTC
Johnny Frecko wrote:
and ofcourse it's the best way because you said it is.

yes. also because of the first rule of tautology club.

I should buy an Ishtar.

Johnny Frecko
Violence is the Answer
Wormhole Society
#69 - 2012-04-23 22:03:07 UTC
i'm humbled by such logic
Matrix Operator
#70 - 2012-04-23 22:42:41 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Mmm, impact of corp/alliance bills on a monthly basis:

- A flat per-month fee per corp would ensure that long-dead corps get disbanded and their tickers get recycled.
- A per-month fee for the alliance would do the same for alliance tickers.
- It would act as an additional ISK sink.

Per-corp fees could be as low as 100-500k/mo. Alliance fees in the range of 10-20M/mo. Maybe alliances pay 2M ISK/mo per member corp. Maybe corps pay a fee of 1k ISK/member each month to buy membership capacity.

(shrugs) It's probably a horrid idea.


This is an interesting idea. Question is, how much isk will it be successful at sinking per month? We would need to know the total number of active corps and alliances to know. If an entire alliance is only paying 20mil per month then that the equilivent to the amount a single incursion runner 'faucets' into the game in 2 incursions.... would it make enough of a dent in the problem?
Durin Sarga
Lionhearted Investment Services and Planning
#71 - 2012-04-23 22:53:26 UTC
Um... guys... alliances already pay 2M ISK/month/member corp. FYI.
Fish Hunter
Un4seen Development
Sev3rance
#72 - 2012-04-24 00:43:00 UTC
Why is simply lowering the isk generation of ratting the wrong option. Lower the standard by 10-20 %.

Minerals rose up to prices that it is now as profitable to mine as run empire missions and have stopped increasing as of late. There were several forces that contributed to the low mineral prices up til now. bots, drone poo, rat loot. All of these have been diminished and thus mineral prices rose because ratting income has remained constant. For as long as i can remember the highend deadspace equipment which is rare enough has hovered around the same prices. If we were really having a runaway isk problem this stuff would be running up. Good officer stuff has run up so maybe that is the indicator.

Of course the current problem we have is there is so much isk in game that for many players a reduction in isk/hr income wouldn't be felt anytime in the forseable future but newer players & pvpers would feel it right away.
Chiralos
Chiral's Angels
#73 - 2012-04-25 13:48:33 UTC
I like the ideas of floating NPC service costs, and possibly size scaled docking and storage fees (also floating). This might really come into its own when eventually the starbase and outpost system gets revamp.

It might tackle insufficient ISK sinks, but I think that would be less important than making player industry more interesting. Note one of the other long term things from the Fanfest presentation was the desire to take things out of NPC control and put it into player hands.

More generally, I think highsec security and convienience should cost more. You can think of highsec as an NPC limit on the security market. In the same way that NPC shuttle sales once set a ceiling on the trit price, CONCORD sets a (low) upper limit on the price of security. While in theory alliances might compete and fight over nullsec economies, in practice everything tends to slide into highsec - who can compete with CONCORD protected NPC corp alts, fixed price manufacturing lines and unlimited free storage space ? This probably needs to be tackled on both ends: taxing hisec more as well as making nullsec more productive (not just more ISK productive).


Tobiaz
Spacerats
#74 - 2012-04-25 21:08:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
All the reprocessing should be done by reprocessing slots, requiring an ISK fee and time.

Then for all slots (industry, research and reprocessing) the fee goes up 5% if more then 75% of the slots are are occupied throughout the week. And every week less then 25% are occupied, the prices drop 5%. Then cut all fees according to standings, so excellent standings gets you a competitive edge.

Carebears will hate it, but it will improve the health of empire by a lot. POS also become more viable as alternatives.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!

Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
#75 - 2012-04-25 23:22:34 UTC
All they need is more items sold by NPC's for isk.

As the player driven economy is a huge part of game play the items need to be sort of detached from any in game utility other than vanity.

Special color limmited edition ships and colorful drones.

To keep pricing dynamic, the sales should not be unlimmited and the process should be done by a blind auction where they announce that 100 of an item will be sold to the 100 highest bidders at say 6pm server time each day or week or whatever.

"blind" means that people cannot see each others bids. Another wrinkle in a blind auction is not everyone pays the same. While its good if they disclose the threshold price, to be sure that you get an item you might have entered a price twice the threshold and you would still pay what you bid. The 101nth highest bidder would need to wait till the next auction.. or if it was a single issue.. never have a chance to buy it.

.

Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#76 - 2012-04-26 00:22:14 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:
All the reprocessing should be done by reprocessing slots, requiring an ISK fee and time

Then for all slots (industry, research and reprocessing) the fee goes up 5% if more then 75% of the slots are are occupied throughout the week. And every week less then 25% are occupied, the prices drop 5%. Then cut all fees according to standings, so excellent standings gets you a competitive edge

Carebears will hate it, but it will improve the health of empire by a lot. POS also become more viable as alternatives.


This is really an awesome ideas.

Having slots on recycle, reprocess, and maybe even repairs. Would really be interesting. The floating price dynamic really needs to be introduced on a lot more of EVE game mechanics

I also would like a small idea I dabbled with. In any station the npc slots not only shifts up and down in price, but also corp standing demands and security status demands depending on history, So always using the average of the last days state. NPC facilities should all do this, and thus when player services got plugged into npc stations, the whole game mechanics would start being fixed. When npc rents services to players on behalf of players they would add tax/vat that was depending on your standing towards them

Example:
So say you rent out a copying slot at high sec price 7904 per hour (highest price in Sinq Mirilene) public, you would ofc need to undercut that price. I would expect daily changes and 5% increments only on new bids. So you would go in with around 7500 per hour. TO this the npc station add 15% VAT -1% per standing point with corp

If the station services 40 research slots. a system with 20 moons and avg 2 slots per player owned POS. Slots for rent was set as Active perma running a print/voucher from the station corp. LP store item (isk sink) When all the slots are filled the average security status would be calculated and when a slot clears any new demands would have to be above that, or above npc corp standing.

Also the players would have the option to rent to other corp, alliance or ID player (not in npc corp) This would be considered a private rental, and not public. The station brokering this rental would get flat 10% tax on the rental and not adjustable.

A boost to slots might be needed. These services could also work as PI "Populated" installations. So the combo of POS and PI would grant enough slots according to demand. PI slots should be inferior to POS though, at least until DUST and integration of that functionality is more clear

Similar mechanic for all the mentioned mechanics would be preferable, to keep things close to simple. With this we might finally be able to get rid of the npc facility problem

Would also be nice if npc seeds of reports was nerfed a bit. Or all copying demanded an added player generated item. Something like maybe scientists, that could be generated on populated PI planets?! So say any type of population could be converted to other types? Using installations with preloaded/fixed schematics. (something for future visuals considered)...


Alabaster Ra
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#77 - 2012-04-26 00:25:16 UTC
All right, I'll bite.

Why is inflation a problem here? If I follow: the argument assumes that we have a relatively fixed supply curve. However, the demand grows because people have greater disposable income. "ISK faucets" are giving out more than they have in the past for the same investment of time and effort.

This isn't real life. Little old grandmothers don't rely on social security and other fixed incomes. As long as prices adjust in tune with the relative ease of acquiring isk, where is the problem? There would be a problem if price level was rising while the relative ease of acquiring isk was not. However, if this is the case, I missed the post which argued it.

If there is no problem, there is no reason to fix anything.
Perramas
DreddNaut
#78 - 2012-04-26 02:54:20 UTC
Whatever the new taxes are they need to be progressive taxes. The more isk in your wallet the higher your tax rate. That way new players wont have to grind out even more crappy low level missions while they train the skills for more lucrative endeavors.

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people- Eleanor Roosevelt

papamike
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2012-04-26 03:58:35 UTC
Perramas wrote:
Whatever the new taxes are they need to be progressive taxes. The more isk in your wallet the higher your tax rate. That way new players wont have to grind out even more crappy low level missions while they train the skills for more lucrative endeavors.


Thats going to be a hard sell. Surely it would be better to be a VAT/ GST sort of tax.

Plain speak: A tax on goods and services rendered by NPC corporations. Problem here of course is that it would effect high sec ALOT more then it would 0.0 alliances. Not necessarily a bad thing but considering the population demographic it again would be a hard sell, just for different reasons.
Ireland VonVicious
Vicious Trading Company
#80 - 2012-04-26 04:37:15 UTC
If inflation is high then indy is paying well.
This will move more players to indy.

Which will bring back down prices a bit.

Also amount of isk in system being used toward taxes goes up as prices go up.
It will find a balancing point.

If it is long term inflation then you do things to make indy more profitible but do so in a way that help produce more total product as to keep prices down and will in turn give players a bit more items/ships to get blown up.

The most important aspect of the isk faucets are how balanced are they between eachother.

The indy will always balance back out with the isk producing jobs.