These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Isk Sink.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frying Doom
#1 - 2012-08-07 09:21:41 UTC
There are some complaints about to many people having to much money and how EvE has a poorer class.

I would like to propose a new Isk Sink. Its kind of a standard though out the world today and it only effects the stupid err I mean rich. Luxury tax.

Why not impose an extra tax on the cost of T2 ships and Capitals to act as an isk sink in the game (and when they bring in the contracts that can hopefully include super caps)

On the market (and later in contracts) add on an extra transaction tax to the seller( which will immediately be passed on to the buyer, this is spreadsheets online after all).

I would suggest 10%, this way it only effects those rich enough to say hell yeah I can afford T2 or a capital and leaves newbies and low isk players alone.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#2 - 2012-08-07 16:54:30 UTC
So ... you want all T2 stuff to be traded in-station or on contracts? Because that's all that this would do.

You might have a bit of a nice idea, but it's a very very bad idea overall.
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#3 - 2012-08-07 19:26:30 UTC
A luxury tax would work, but I think it's a bit late in EVE's life to add it. A tax that high would cause more tax evasion, so you don't want it too high. An extra 100 mil for a faction battleship is a bit much. Something like 2% would be less obtrusive, but do more than you think. I would have the Accounting skill still affect it.

Any ISK ideas like this I am open to. EVE needs more ISK sinks badly:

CSM Minutes (pg85) wrote:
Two step was quick to point out that Tech isn’t actually creating any ISK and went on to state that half a trillion ISK comes into the economy every day, and for every 2 trillion coming in only 1 trillion is going out. He believes the many faucets this is coming from should be cut back across the board. (source)
Frying Doom
#4 - 2012-08-08 00:32:03 UTC
Obsidiana wrote:
A luxury tax would work, but I think it's a bit late in EVE's life to add it. A tax that high would cause more tax evasion, so you don't want it too high. An extra 100 mil for a faction battleship is a bit much. Something like 2% would be less obtrusive, but do more than you think. I would have the Accounting skill still affect it.

Any ISK ideas like this I am open to. EVE needs more ISK sinks badly:

CSM Minutes (pg85) wrote:
Two step was quick to point out that Tech isn’t actually creating any ISK and went on to state that half a trillion ISK comes into the economy every day, and for every 2 trillion coming in only 1 trillion is going out. He believes the many faucets this is coming from should be cut back across the board. (source)

Yes I believe Accounting should effect it but it definitely should not be lower than 5%, anything less is too little being it is just covering T2 ships and capitals. Perhaps with a higher tax for T3 ships and rigs perhaps 7.5%.

It is a tax on those people with enough money to afford it, yes it will mean a real newbie might have to stay in a T1 ship for an extra couple of days but it will remove a hell of a lot of isk out of the game.

Yes people could trade in station (as I already said it should cover contracts) to tax dodge but a lot of those tax dodgers will get scammed out of money, so it balances out.

As to this late in the game, hell they added Incursions late in the game and they are a big isk faucet so why not add in a new sink now or do we just keep watching the isk flow onto the floorLol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#5 - 2012-08-08 04:30:40 UTC
Start off small and see what the effect is. A lot of T2 ships are traded. Also, the lower the tax, the less the backlash. Remember, this doesn't have to solve a problem, just put a dent in it.

Btw, anomalies are now the top faucets:
CSM Minutes (pg86) wrote:
Soundwave clarified his earlier statement that the top ISK earners are all carrier pilots running anomalies.

As for Incursions, that has been over nerfed and has saddened CCP Soundwave:
CSM Minutes (pg87) wrote:
Two step followed up by saying even players running anomalies with carriers don't have the right risk/reward balance when compared to highsec, particularly incursions.

Soundwave sheepishly mentioned CCP broke incursions and showed the CSM a graph depicting the drop off in incursions activity. There were many "Ohhh snaps" around the table. Ripard Teg's analysis of incursion activity pre/post patch was mentioned by the CSM. The massive drop off of Vanguard sites was praised since they were relatively risk-free ISK.
...
Soundwave pointed out that people do die in incursions at rates higher than some other kinds of PvE content. He felt the main driver of incursions was social in nature, and the group PvE that the incursion sites provided was a good thing. The loss of it made him "a little bit sad" so fixes to denerf incursions would come out in June.

On the topic of ISK sinks, CCP is taking it seriously. I like this idea.
CSM Minutes (pg87) wrote:
Soundwave also wants to take a look at the LP store to make them more of an ISK sink, possibly giving people a way to cut around tags in offers by spending more ISK.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2012-08-08 09:20:41 UTC
Great idea! Make ships less affordable. That'll surely help with absolutely nothing while angering absolutely everyone!

Frying Doom for CSM 8!

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Revolution Rising
Last-Light Holdings
#7 - 2012-08-08 09:30:09 UTC
Yeah there's a plethora of reasons not to do this. I like flying my t2's and I am NOT rich, I'm pretty careful with them is all.

.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2012-08-08 09:32:43 UTC
I mean really how completely and utterly out of touch do you have to be to think that T2 ships of all things are some rich person's toy?

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Frying Doom
#9 - 2012-08-08 10:30:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Snow Axe wrote:
I mean really how completely and utterly out of touch do you have to be to think that T2 ships of all things are some rich person's toy?

T2 ships are effectively the Luxury versions of the T1.

Oh and if you buy a T2 frigate like Enyo are you not paying 50 to 100 times the cost of the T1 version. Definitely sounds like a luxury to me.

So yes people who choose T2 are richer than Noobs who can only afford to loose T1's and given the amount of a 5 or 10% increase on a T2 frigate noobs would have to stay in a T1 only slightly longer.

While a T2 battleship or a T2 Freighter are definately a Luxury Item.

Using this will give a new isk sink to the economy and it barely effects newbies and scales up the more you spend like any good tax.

Plus You comment "Great idea! Make ships less affordable. That'll surely help with absolutely nothing while angering absolutely everyone!" made me laugh.

Is it not the CFC with Goonswarm a member that has just finished raising technetium prices to make T2 ships a hell of a lot more expensive, by putting over 100% on top of the Cost of T2 ships?

No member of Goonswarm should complain about a 5 to 10% increase to T2 ships now that the tech price has dropped so much due to alchemy. Nor should they say that T2's are not rich peoples toys after they inflated the costs so much.

Edit: If they stuck this tax in today and called it a "Market Adjustment" with the price of tech suddenly falling to below half what it was most people would not even notice this tax in relation to the cost of T2 ships.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#10 - 2012-08-08 10:43:28 UTC
Actually the people this would effect most are the big Null sec alliances with there ship replacement programs.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#11 - 2012-08-08 10:59:59 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
There are some complaints about to many people having to much money and how EvE has a poorer class.

I would like to propose a new Isk Sink. Its kind of a standard though out the world today and it only effects the stupid err I mean rich. Luxury tax.

Why not impose an extra tax on the cost of T2 ships and Capitals to act as an isk sink in the game (and when they bring in the contracts that can hopefully include super caps)

On the market (and later in contracts) add on an extra transaction tax to the seller( which will immediately be passed on to the buyer, this is spreadsheets online after all).

I would suggest 10%, this way it only effects those rich enough to say hell yeah I can afford T2 or a capital and leaves newbies and low isk players alone.



As mxzf points out, a transaction tax this large would easily be evaded via direct trades or contracts.

Not that I agree a tax specifically targetting T2 is a good idea, but if you do want to pursue such a proposal, I suggest you implement the tax at the production stage, and make it small enough that it's not worth switching to POS manufacturing (3-5% max)

Better ways to reduce the ISK imbalance are to do things like:

(1) Completely replace the Agent ISK rewards for completing L4 missions with more LP, as LP are an ISK sink. This alone would reduce net inflowing ISK by hundreds of Billions of ISK

(2) Weight Incursion rewards further towards LP.

(3) Rework anomalies so that some of the rewards are material rather than ISK. Eg: increase the escalation rate, increase the faction spawn rate, add in hauler spawns.

(4) Revisit LP stores with dynamic costs for implants, so that for instance not all 5% hardwirings cost the same. This would increase the use of LP stores, as many of the items in them are completely unviable at the moment, but would be quite popular at reasonable prices. Increased LP store use would mean more ISK sunk, and would help maintain the value of the icnreased supply of LP from (1).

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Frying Doom
#12 - 2012-08-08 11:49:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Malcanis wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
There are some complaints about to many people having to much money and how EvE has a poorer class.

I would like to propose a new Isk Sink. Its kind of a standard though out the world today and it only effects the stupid err I mean rich. Luxury tax.

Why not impose an extra tax on the cost of T2 ships and Capitals to act as an isk sink in the game (and when they bring in the contracts that can hopefully include super caps)

On the market (and later in contracts) add on an extra transaction tax to the seller( which will immediately be passed on to the buyer, this is spreadsheets online after all).

I would suggest 10%, this way it only effects those rich enough to say hell yeah I can afford T2 or a capital and leaves newbies and low isk players alone.



As mxzf points out, a transaction tax this large would easily be evaded via direct trades or contracts.

Not that I agree a tax specifically targetting T2 is a good idea, but if you do want to pursue such a proposal, I suggest you implement the tax at the production stage, and make it small enough that it's not worth switching to POS manufacturing (3-5% max)

Better ways to reduce the ISK imbalance are to do things like:

(1) Completely replace the Agent ISK rewards for completing L4 missions with more LP, as LP are an ISK sink. This alone would reduce net inflowing ISK by hundreds of Billions of ISK

(2) Weight Incursion rewards further towards LP.

(3) Rework anomalies so that some of the rewards are material rather than ISK. Eg: increase the escalation rate, increase the faction spawn rate, add in hauler spawns.

(4) Revisit LP stores with dynamic costs for implants, so that for instance not all 5% hardwirings cost the same. This would increase the use of LP stores, as many of the items in them are completely unviable at the moment, but would be quite popular at reasonable prices. Increased LP store use would mean more ISK sunk, and would help maintain the value of the icnreased supply of LP from (1).


Ok as I have previously said when they rework contracts they should include this tax in the contracts system and as for trade some of the idiots trying to escape tax on T2 ships or capitals will get scammed so that is balanced out.

As to your points.
1) Wouldn't it just be easier to increase the cost for buying without tags and increase the options available for purchase without tags?

2) They tried Nerfing Incursions and they just died. So next.

3) So make rare items more common and increase the mineral flow of null sec minerals? No thanks I prefer pure sinks to nerfs and you are talking of nerfing low and Null which is not a good idea.

4) While I agree it would increase the isk sink over a period it would also flood the market with these unviable implants. Yes the LP store needs love but it needs a lot of love and this is entering into serious resource usage for an isk sink.

Edit: as to adding it to the production stage, an item can be built once but bought and sold many times. Yes some people would try to dodge it an would loose the safety of contracts or the market. So risk vs reward I suppose.
Given the massive hike that has occured in the cost of T2 ships I doubt many people would notice an extra 5 or 10% now the market is falling. As to capitals there price will start to fall again with the barge changes.

A luxury Tax makes sense except to the very people who fail to understand it where ever it is introduced...The Rich

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2012-08-09 04:19:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Frying Doom wrote:
T2 ships are effectively the Luxury versions of the T1.


Luxury doesn't just mean "more expensive". That's like saying an 18-wheeler is a luxury version of a pickup truck. T2 ships fit entirely different roles that their T1 counterparts simply cannot do - this example is strongest with Recons, Covops/SB, Dictor/Hictor, etc. You don't buy them simply because they have X amount of increased damage, you buy them because they fill entirely different roles.

A better idea of what a true "luxury" item is would be deadspace/officer mods. Higher base stats, easier fitting, but the purpose of say, an officer damage mod is exactly the same as a T1 or T2 damage mod.

Frying Doom wrote:
Plus You comment "Great idea! Make ships less affordable. That'll surely help with absolutely nothing while angering absolutely everyone!" made me laugh.

Is it not the CFC with Goonswarm a member that has just finished raising technetium prices to make T2 ships a hell of a lot more expensive, by putting over 100% on top of the Cost of T2 ships?

No member of Goonswarm should complain about a 5 to 10% increase to T2 ships now that the tech price has dropped so much due to alchemy. Nor should they say that T2's are not rich peoples toys after they inflated the costs so much..


Higher ship prices won't bother me personally. The problem I have with your half-baked as usual suggestion is that you've completely failed to realize just how far-reaching your changes will be. You've attempted to portray T2 ships as some kind of rich person luxury, and you're 100% wrong about that. Not misguided, just flat-out wrong. All this silly tax will do is punish players for daring to want to move beyond the limited roles that T1 ships can fill, and that's just...wait for it...wrong!

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Easthir Ravin
Easy Co.
#14 - 2012-08-09 04:44:27 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
There are some complaints about to many people having to much money and how EvE has a poorer class.

I would like to propose a new Isk Sink. Its kind of a standard though out the world today and it only effects the stupid err I mean rich. Luxury tax.

Why not impose an extra tax on the cost of T2 ships and Capitals to act as an isk sink in the game (and when they bring in the contracts that can hopefully include super caps)

On the market (and later in contracts) add on an extra transaction tax to the seller( which will immediately be passed on to the buyer, this is spreadsheets online after all).

I would suggest 10%, this way it only effects those rich enough to say hell yeah I can afford T2 or a capital and leaves newbies and low isk players alone.



-1

Greetings

Yes because we want our game to be like real life. What are you, 12?

IN THE IMORTAL WORDS OF SOCRATES:  " I drank WHAT?!"
Revolution Rising
Last-Light Holdings
#15 - 2012-08-09 06:06:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Revolution Rising
Snow Axe wrote:
Higher ship prices won't bother me personally. The problem I have with your half-baked as usual suggestion is that you've completely failed to realize just how far-reaching your changes will be. You've attempted to portray T2 ships as some kind of rich person luxury, and you're 100% wrong about that. Not misguided, just flat-out wrong. All this silly tax will do is punish players for daring to want to move beyond the limited roles that T1 ships can fill, and that's just...wait for it...wrong!


Yeah this is my opinion, as stated above this would add ridiculous costs to my t2 recons and I'm definitely not "rich".

Unless you can see a way around that particular set of facts, I'd say "idea debunked" Smile

And don't get me wrong, I'd love more isk sinks for "rich" people in the game, the fact is a lot of them have gotten rich off illegal gains (RMT), awful game mechanics (drone regions, technetium et al) which have since changed and some of them - flat out exploit use (moon goo refining bug to insurance payments, you name it).

I'm not saying ALL, but a lot of those people.

Isk Sinks good, but this would effect far too many people who aren't super rich.

.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#16 - 2012-08-09 06:38:49 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:


As to your points.
1) Wouldn't it just be easier to increase the cost for buying without tags and increase the options available for purchase without tags?


We could do that as well, but that would reduce the value of tags, which would in turn reduce a major source of missioner income. But turning 2 mill ISK in Agent/Time rewards into 2000LP means that you're getting 2 mill in ISK sink, a net difference of 4 mill in the economy. It's a very effective method of reducing net ISK inflow.

Frying Doom wrote:

2) They tried Nerfing Incursions and they just died. So next.


Who said anything about "nerfing"?

Frying Doom wrote:

3) So make rare items more common and increase the mineral flow of null sec minerals? No thanks I prefer pure sinks to nerfs and you are talking of nerfing low and Null which is not a good idea.


Again, it's not a nerf, it's a rebalancing of rewards. And most hauler spawns are low-mid end minerals; the chance of getting a 50 million unit trit drop in a 0.0 station system isn't a 0.0 nerf - it's a boost. As for the rare items, I'm not sure that the demand is quite as perfectly elastic as you assume.

Frying Doom wrote:

4) While I agree it would increase the isk sink over a period it would also flood the market with these unviable implants. Yes the LP store needs love but it needs a lot of love and this is entering into serious resource usage for an isk sink.


But they're not inherently "unviable", they're just unviable at the price that the LP store forces on them. A -5% cap for remote reppers implant would be nice for me because I'm in Logis a lot. But it's just not worth 150 mill. If they were 15M or so, I'd use them routinely. An implant that gives +5% damage to medium Hybrid turrets is nice to have if you occasionally fly a Proteus, but it's obviously less useful (and therefore less valuable) than an implant that gives +5% damage to all turrets. Yet the LP store charges the same for both. And so on. So it's best to have dynamic LP store prices and let the market settle out the true value of these 'unviable' implants.

Frying Doom wrote:

Edit: as to adding it to the production stage, an item can be built once but bought and sold many times. Yes some people would try to dodge it an would loose the safety of contracts or the market. So risk vs reward I suppose.
Given the massive hike that has occured in the cost of T2 ships I doubt many people would notice an extra 5 or 10% now the market is falling. As to capitals there price will start to fall again with the barge changes.

A luxury Tax makes sense except to the very people who fail to understand it where ever it is introduced...The Rich


People would definitely notice an extra 10%. Within a day or two at most, word would spread that you can save 15-30 mill by buying your T2 ship through contracts (or 80-100m for Marauders!). With that price delta, it's definitely worth doing so, especially if you're buying multiple ships. So all you've done is make the market useless for T2 ships and **** a lot of people off by effectively forcing them to use the slower, clumsier contracts systems.

It wasn't that people didn't notice the recent T2 price hikes, it was just that there was no way to avoid it.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#17 - 2012-08-09 07:16:35 UTC
Ugh, forums ate my post.

Nerfing anomalies (again) to reduce the problem of capitals generating ridiculous amounts of ISK is dumb. Address that with a scalpel. Screw over Joe Nullbear in his ratting Thanatos, sure - don't screw over Bob PvPer who occasionally jumps into his Naga to run a few hubs to fund his PvP. I don't want to see nullsec become a desert full of weekend warriors in supercaps funded by hisec incursions.

Know what else produces stupid amounts of ISK? Faction battleships in Incursions. I'm sure they're more common than carriers in anomalies and they print ISK to an extent that really should not be possible under CONCORD protection.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Frying Doom
#18 - 2012-08-09 07:25:36 UTC
Easthir Ravin wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
There are some complaints about to many people having to much money and how EvE has a poorer class.

I would like to propose a new Isk Sink. Its kind of a standard though out the world today and it only effects the stupid err I mean rich. Luxury tax.

Why not impose an extra tax on the cost of T2 ships and Capitals to act as an isk sink in the game (and when they bring in the contracts that can hopefully include super caps)

On the market (and later in contracts) add on an extra transaction tax to the seller( which will immediately be passed on to the buyer, this is spreadsheets online after all).

I would suggest 10%, this way it only effects those rich enough to say hell yeah I can afford T2 or a capital and leaves newbies and low isk players alone.



-1

Greetings

Yes because we want our game to be like real life. What are you, 12?



Because EvE economics are so different from Earth economics they hired an economist from Saturn.

What are you, stupid?

Go back to GD the grown ups are talking.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#19 - 2012-08-09 07:32:33 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
T2 ships are effectively the Luxury versions of the T1.


Luxury doesn't just mean "more expensive". That's like saying an 18-wheeler is a luxury version of a pickup truck. T2 ships fit entirely different roles that their T1 counterparts simply cannot do - this example is strongest with Recons, Covops/SB, Dictor/Hictor, etc. You don't buy them simply because they have X amount of increased damage, you buy them because they fill entirely different roles.

They are a better version of the T1 with more features and abilities. sound like going up model to me.

Snow Axe wrote:

A better idea of what a true "luxury" item is would be deadspace/officer mods. Higher base stats, easier fitting, but the purpose of say, an officer damage mod is exactly the same as a T1 or T2 damage mod.

Yes these are also luxury models but would not form a large enough isk sink.
Snow Axe wrote:
Higher ship prices won't bother me personally. The problem I have with your half-baked as usual suggestion is that you've completely failed to realize just how far-reaching your changes will be. You've attempted to portray T2 ships as some kind of rich person luxury, and you're 100% wrong about that. Not misguided, just flat-out wrong. All this silly tax will do is punish players for daring to want to move beyond the limited roles that T1 ships can fill, and that's just...wait for it...wrong!

Yes and as players move into T2 for instance frigates the added cost now tech has gone down will be a lot less than the cost the CFC just put on to newer players with the OTEC.
You can hardly be part of something that makes T2 ships a lot more expensive and then state something that will add a small amount in comparison on to the same is a horrible thing. Otherwise all your saying is that the CFC's actions on tech were just plain Wrong!

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#20 - 2012-08-09 07:42:39 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


We could do that as well, but that would reduce the value of tags, which would in turn reduce a major source of missioner income. But turning 2 mill ISK in Agent/Time rewards into 2000LP means that you're getting 2 mill in ISK sink, a net difference of 4 mill in the economy. It's a very effective method of reducing net ISK inflow.

To be honest I'm not that great when it comes to LP and missions, I would rather bash my head into a wall. Even incursions I could not say what the alteration of isk to LP would be.

Malcanis wrote:
Again, it's not a nerf, it's a rebalancing of rewards. And most hauler spawns are low-mid end minerals; the chance of getting a 50 million unit trit drop in a 0.0 station system isn't a 0.0 nerf - it's a boost. As for the rare items, I'm not sure that the demand is quite as perfectly elastic as you assume.

It is a mining Nerf, if you increase the supply of minerals you decrease the amount of demand remaining. See drone regions...
With any item if you increase the supply the price will fall.

Malcanis wrote:
But they're not inherently "unviable", they're just unviable at the price that the LP store forces on them. A -5% cap for remote reppers implant would be nice for me because I'm in Logis a lot. But it's just not worth 150 mill. If they were 15M or so, I'd use them routinely. An implant that gives +5% damage to medium Hybrid turrets is nice to have if you occasionally fly a Proteus, but it's obviously less useful (and therefore less valuable) than an implant that gives +5% damage to all turrets. Yet the LP store charges the same for both. And so on. So it's best to have dynamic LP store prices and let the market settle out the true value of these 'unviable' implants.

Same thing lowering the price would increase the supply and lower the price of these implants on the market . But again the LP store while I have used, I have not studied it.


Malcanis wrote:
People would definitely notice an extra 10%. Within a day or two at most, word would spread that you can save 15-30 mill by buying your T2 ship through contracts (or 80-100m for Marauders!). With that price delta, it's definitely worth doing so, especially if you're buying multiple ships. So all you've done is make the market useless for T2 ships and **** a lot of people off by effectively forcing them to use the slower, clumsier contracts systems.

It wasn't that people didn't notice the recent T2 price hikes, it was just that there was no way to avoid it.


As I said this Tax and the current tax should be worked into the new contract system to limit "Tax Dodgers"

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
123Next pageLast page