These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why can't bounties be cut in all the server to help with inflation?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#21 - 2012-11-13 15:11:25 UTC
Typhis Deterious wrote:
You have the choice to do them and make the same money as carebears. You CHOOSE not to do them just as they CHOOSE to do them.

It's all choice and is not like you are being excluded. SO the idea of cutting bounties on NPCs only affects some, but not those who do no pve.

Tell me again how that is a fair system?


Risk vs reward.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#22 - 2012-11-13 15:12:52 UTC
Kara Vix wrote:
Everyone wants to nerf the other guys activities while buffing their own.


What if you participate in the activity to be nerfed? I run missions and join incursions fleets in empire when my null sec "home" is too "hot" (or when I just don't feel up to watching local/intel like a hawk). I make use of ti because it exists. But the fact that you benefit from a ting doesn't not make that thing the best for the community at large (and vice versa, just because a thing sucks for you doesn't mean it's not good for "society").

Historically there have been better rewards the further you go from "safety". This is no longer the practical case for EVE online .

For me personally the difference in my preferred null sec isk making activity (doing anomalies) and my preferred high sec activity (incursions) is 15 mil/hr (ie average 90 mil per hour once in incursion fleet vs 105 mil an hour using a mach alone in anomalies, the only way I make more in null is using 2 ships).

15 mil more to be in lawless space full of cloaky gankers wanting to gankerize me and where I have serious logistical issues, as oppsoed to slightly less isk but MOUNTAINS less stress in high sec incursions where I'm basically on autopilot because there is an FC to tell me what to do and that is never more than 12-13 jumps form a trade huh..........

I enjoy incursions and missions and high sec exploration, but it ain't right.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#23 - 2012-11-13 15:13:12 UTC
Or just add some isk sinks that aren't terrible.
Some Rando
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2012-11-13 15:14:32 UTC
Typhis Deterious wrote:
It's all choice and is not like you are being excluded. SO the idea of cutting bounties on NPCs only affects some, but not those who do no pve.

NPC bounties are by far the biggest ISK faucet in the game, so naturally it would be first on the block. Also, your injection of ISK into the economy affects quite a few people. Everyone, in fact.

CCP has no sense of humour.
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#25 - 2012-11-13 15:16:13 UTC
Typhis Deterious wrote:
You have the choice to do them and make the same money as carebears. You CHOOSE not to do them just as they CHOOSE to do them.

It's all choice and is not like you are being excluded. SO the idea of cutting bounties on NPCs only affects some, but not those who do no pve.

Tell me again how that is a fair system?



Uhm... pvp ships are not spawned from thin air?
Typhis Deterious
NO D1C3
#26 - 2012-11-13 15:25:32 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Typhis Deterious wrote:
You have the choice to do them and make the same money as carebears. You CHOOSE not to do them just as they CHOOSE to do them.

It's all choice and is not like you are being excluded. SO the idea of cutting bounties on NPCs only affects some, but not those who do no pve.

Tell me again how that is a fair system?


Risk vs reward.


SO those of us who run wormhole sites and kill sleepers for income are untouched by this "cut in bounties" while those who make their money running missions or ratting get their income cut? Not to mention those who strictly pvp are untouched as well. What risk vs reward are you talking about?

There is no fairness to that. Fairness suggests something affecting everyone in the game. Face it: you want more targets, this isn't about how much money carebears make. nullsec is a choice and there are rats a plenty worth a helluva lot more than your standard mission npc. Not to mention officer drops. Risk vs reward is already in place. You rat in nullsec you stand to get great rewards but risk gate camps and getting scanned down and popped.. You run hi sec missions you get good but not great income, and basically no officer/pirate drops unless you buy them for outlandish amounts or luck into a good exploration site that has a small chance to drop faction loot.

Most of these modules and such that cost in the 100s of millions to billions come from nullsec. Still not seeing how npc bounties are the problem.
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#27 - 2012-11-13 15:27:33 UTC
Typhis Deterious wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Typhis Deterious wrote:
You have the choice to do them and make the same money as carebears. You CHOOSE not to do them just as they CHOOSE to do them.

It's all choice and is not like you are being excluded. SO the idea of cutting bounties on NPCs only affects some, but not those who do no pve.

Tell me again how that is a fair system?


Risk vs reward.


SO those of us who run wormhole sites and kill sleepers for income are untouched by this "cut in bounties" while those who make their money running missions or ratting get their income cut? Not to mention those who strictly pvp are untouched as well. What risk vs reward are you talking about?

There is no fairness to that. Fairness suggests something affecting everyone in the game. Face it: you want more targets, this isn't about how much money carebears make. nullsec is a choice and there are rats a plenty worth a helluva lot more than your standard mission npc. Not to mention officer drops. Risk vs reward is already in place. You rat in nullsec you stand to get great rewards but risk gate camps and getting scanned down and popped.. You run hi sec missions you get good but not great income, and basically no officer/pirate drops unless you buy them for outlandish amounts or luck into a good exploration site that has a small chance to drop faction loot.

Most of these modules and such that cost in the 100s of millions to billions come from nullsec. Still not seeing how npc bounties are the problem.



I believe i mentioned and stated very well that blue loot should also get nerfed i m not leaving any group out, and the modules cost 100s of millions because they are price inflated if there was less isk they would cost much less as well.
Typhis Deterious
NO D1C3
#28 - 2012-11-13 15:29:14 UTC
Ager Agemo wrote:
Typhis Deterious wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Typhis Deterious wrote:
You have the choice to do them and make the same money as carebears. You CHOOSE not to do them just as they CHOOSE to do them.

It's all choice and is not like you are being excluded. SO the idea of cutting bounties on NPCs only affects some, but not those who do no pve.

Tell me again how that is a fair system?


Risk vs reward.


SO those of us who run wormhole sites and kill sleepers for income are untouched by this "cut in bounties" while those who make their money running missions or ratting get their income cut? Not to mention those who strictly pvp are untouched as well. What risk vs reward are you talking about?

There is no fairness to that. Fairness suggests something affecting everyone in the game. Face it: you want more targets, this isn't about how much money carebears make. nullsec is a choice and there are rats a plenty worth a helluva lot more than your standard mission npc. Not to mention officer drops. Risk vs reward is already in place. You rat in nullsec you stand to get great rewards but risk gate camps and getting scanned down and popped.. You run hi sec missions you get good but not great income, and basically no officer/pirate drops unless you buy them for outlandish amounts or luck into a good exploration site that has a small chance to drop faction loot.

Most of these modules and such that cost in the 100s of millions to billions come from nullsec. Still not seeing how npc bounties are the problem.



I believe i mentioned and stated very well that blue loot should also get nerfed i m not leaving any group out, and the modules cost 100s of millions because they are price inflated if there was less isk they would cost much less as well.


Officer drops in contracts were always inflated, this is not new. The only thing that IS new is they are available on the market now.
Some Rando
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2012-11-13 15:29:28 UTC
Typhis Deterious wrote:
SO those of us who run wormhole sites and kill sleepers for income are untouched by this "cut in bounties" while those who make their money running missions or ratting get their income cut? Not to mention those who strictly pvp are untouched as well. What risk vs reward are you talking about?

Hey, why not? Let's cut the value of blue loot too. Although, tbh, the risk/reward is pretty spot on already.

Typhis Deterious wrote:
There is no fairness to that. Fairness suggests something affecting everyone in the game. Face it: you want more targets, this isn't about how much money carebears make. nullsec is a choice and there are rats a plenty worth a helluva lot more than your standard mission npc. Not to mention officer drops. Risk vs reward is already in place. You rat in nullsec you stand to get great rewards but risk gate camps and getting scanned down and popped.. You run hi sec missions you get good but not great income, and basically no officer/pirate drops unless you buy them for outlandish amounts or luck into a good exploration site that has a small chance to drop faction loot.

Most of these modules and such that cost in the 100s of millions to billions come from nullsec. Still not seeing how npc bounties are the problem.

This man does not understand the EVE economy.

CCP has no sense of humour.
Typhis Deterious
NO D1C3
#30 - 2012-11-13 15:35:41 UTC
Some Rando wrote:
Typhis Deterious wrote:
SO those of us who run wormhole sites and kill sleepers for income are untouched by this "cut in bounties" while those who make their money running missions or ratting get their income cut? Not to mention those who strictly pvp are untouched as well. What risk vs reward are you talking about?

Hey, why not? Let's cut the value of blue loot too. Although, tbh, the risk/reward is pretty spot on already.

Typhis Deterious wrote:
There is no fairness to that. Fairness suggests something affecting everyone in the game. Face it: you want more targets, this isn't about how much money carebears make. nullsec is a choice and there are rats a plenty worth a helluva lot more than your standard mission npc. Not to mention officer drops. Risk vs reward is already in place. You rat in nullsec you stand to get great rewards but risk gate camps and getting scanned down and popped.. You run hi sec missions you get good but not great income, and basically no officer/pirate drops unless you buy them for outlandish amounts or luck into a good exploration site that has a small chance to drop faction loot.

Most of these modules and such that cost in the 100s of millions to billions come from nullsec. Still not seeing how npc bounties are the problem.

This man does not understand the EVE economy.

I understand it well actually as I have been trading on it for 6 years. I started out in industry and moved onto nullsec, and finally into w-space.

What i don't understand is the animosity toward those players who do not want to venture into nullsec and would rather mission in high sec.
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#31 - 2012-11-13 15:39:33 UTC
Typhis Deterious wrote:
Some Rando wrote:
Typhis Deterious wrote:
SO those of us who run wormhole sites and kill sleepers for income are untouched by this "cut in bounties" while those who make their money running missions or ratting get their income cut? Not to mention those who strictly pvp are untouched as well. What risk vs reward are you talking about?

Hey, why not? Let's cut the value of blue loot too. Although, tbh, the risk/reward is pretty spot on already.

Typhis Deterious wrote:
There is no fairness to that. Fairness suggests something affecting everyone in the game. Face it: you want more targets, this isn't about how much money carebears make. nullsec is a choice and there are rats a plenty worth a helluva lot more than your standard mission npc. Not to mention officer drops. Risk vs reward is already in place. You rat in nullsec you stand to get great rewards but risk gate camps and getting scanned down and popped.. You run hi sec missions you get good but not great income, and basically no officer/pirate drops unless you buy them for outlandish amounts or luck into a good exploration site that has a small chance to drop faction loot.

Most of these modules and such that cost in the 100s of millions to billions come from nullsec. Still not seeing how npc bounties are the problem.

This man does not understand the EVE economy.

I understand it well actually as I have been trading on it for 6 years. I started out in industry and moved onto nullsec, and finally into w-space.

What i don't understand is the animosity toward those players who do not want to venture into nullsec and would rather mission in high sec.



I have no animosity against anyone, i live everywhere, i get my isk from lvl 4 missions, i pay the game with plex, i kill people on low sec, i participate in fw, i get into station pvp games, and whenever i have enough spare isk i get into null to get blobbed or to drop bombs on blobs.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-11-13 15:41:08 UTC
Typhis Deterious wrote:
SO those of us who run wormhole sites and kill sleepers for income are untouched by this "cut in bounties" while those who make their money running missions or ratting get their income cut? Not to mention those who strictly pvp are untouched as well. What risk vs reward are you talking about?


Said mission runners would need to loot & salvage for their isk as stated in a previous post. This would help lower inflation & bring a sense of income balance when you compare it to lowsec & nullsec.

Apart from that, you have taken what I said & attenpted to twist it in to something it isn't. Perhaps you should step back & read it exactly ten more times.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Demolishar
United Aggression
#33 - 2012-11-13 15:41:28 UTC
Typhis Deterious wrote:


What i don't understand is the animosity toward those players who do not want to venture into nullsec and would rather mission in high sec.


Let's see:
They grind isk (causing inflation) which they spend on PLEX to sub their accounts (increasing PLEX price), and this is their sole purpose in EVE as their 99.9% risk-free environment means they do not create content for other players. They are basically parasites.

I think it's fully justified to have animosity towards people who are actively contributing towards the need for the rest of us to work harder to achieve the same things isk-wise that we have always done in the past.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-11-13 15:43:33 UTC
Typhis Deterious wrote:
What i don't understand is the animosity toward those players who do not want to venture into nullsec and would rather mission in high sec.


I have no animosity towards highsec players (they always have stuff to steal), I believe the potential income needs to be balanced out to fit the risk. This is currently not the case with highsec.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#35 - 2012-11-13 15:45:29 UTC
now now guys lets not get into a carebear vs nullbear topic, we all know both bears need something to mitigate their safety but that is not what this is about...
Typhis Deterious
NO D1C3
#36 - 2012-11-13 15:50:42 UTC
Before there was salvaging there was only rat bounties, loot, and mission rewards. this was before 2008. Many folks started out making not much money that way and are set in their ways. I used to chain belt rats in null to get an officer spawn (which was once in a blue moon). But when they DID spawn and dropped a great module I could sell that and make more that a mission runner at the time ever could off of the nullsec bounties alone.

Yes PLEX is a problem and contributes to inflation by being easy to get. But PLEX is a newer addition to the game as well, even newer than salvaging.

Inflation in the game has been around longer than PLEX or salvaging.
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#37 - 2012-11-13 15:50:44 UTC
I don't see a lot of inflation except in PLEX prices. Which I don't care about.

.
Typhis Deterious
NO D1C3
#38 - 2012-11-13 15:53:59 UTC
Agreed. I don't use PLEX. I pay up a year at a time.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2012-11-13 15:56:21 UTC
Let's talk about inflation in 2 parts:

1) Mineral prices: The adjustment we are seeing is simply an adjustment from removing massive mineral injection via drone drop and removal of meta 0 mission drops.

The drone regions were being heavily farmed (some claim botted) resulting in massive mineral injection, and mass amounts of meta 0 was being collected from missions and melted. The result was that mining was depressed. I could make 7 million ISK an hour mining or 20-30 million ISK an hour mission running. (Or, with my 3 accounts.... 14 million ISK an hour in 2 hulks and an Orca, or 40 million ISK an hour missioning, shooting with 1 toon and loot/salvage with the other with the 3rd not even logged in (or logged in, but just giving fleet bonuses.))

With the inflation we've seen, It is now more like 30 million an hour mining with 2 hulks and an Orca, or 40 million an hour missioning.

Just a TAD bit more inflation, and I'll stop mission running and switch to mining full time.

Yes, reducing bounties would stop inflation in its tracks as it adjusts the point where I stop mission running and spend more time mining. But, that switch is going to happen pretty soon, anyway.


2) The other issue is inflation in the total amount of ISK in the game. As the rich and powerful get ever fatter wallets, new money must constantly be injected so that the little people can keep the market liquid.

This is not unlike the REAL WORLD, where we're doing the same thing. As more an more money is accumulated by fewer and fewer people, we must rely on new money creation to keep markets liquid and maintain economic activity. Of course, in the real world, all that money creation results in offsetting debt. We don't have that issue in EVE, where those injecting the ISK via bounties are not accumulating mass quantities of offsetting debt.

In EVE, I think the solution to inflation of total ISK supply is pretty simple (if we think the ubber rich getting ever fatter wallets is a problem). Wallet tax. First of every month, CCP takes out 1% of your wallet balance as a tax. Temporarily, this would cause MASSIVE inflation as the ubber rich attempted to spend down their fat wallets, trading it for ANYTHING of value that is not subject to the tax. Long term, it would stabilize the total ISK supply at a level of about 100x the amount injected each month via bounties.


(And when that works in EVE, we can push that solution out to the real world and fix the economic issues we've been struggling with .)
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#40 - 2012-11-13 15:56:58 UTC
1 year ago i bough an abaddon for 110 mill.... nowadays i would be very lucky if i can find an abaddon for 230 mill.. i believe there is still quite some inflation...