Jita Park Speakers Corner

Supercaps and caps being able to tackle other supercaps means once two supercap fleets are committed to battle you can't clear tackle and escape: you have to actually kill enough of the other side (and/or leave your tackled friends to die) to escape.

Something that I'd like to see added (perhaps in a future document) are some potential solutions to the ISK surplus in the game- that is, the amount of ISK entering the economy vs the amount leaving.

One suggestion that is to change the way that insurance payouts work.

Right now, players sink ISK to insure their ship. This is already functioning as a sink in some cases, where insurance expires without having a claim- which is OK.

The issue with insurance (related to ISK surplus) is that when insurance pays out on a claim, it is netting the player ISK in return for Minerals that are destroyed. Therefore, minerals leave the market, while ISK continually flows into the market. Not only does this mean that players net ISK to purchase more minerals (ships), but this is compounding the demand for minerals for a fixed amount of ISK.

Below is an example. The numbers are completely arbitrary and I'm ignoring manufacturing profit and mods.
-Player budgets 100 million ISK for a ship hull for PVP
-Player purchases ship for 80 mil, spends 20 mil on insurance (80 mil worth of minerals total).
-Ship blows up, player receives approximately 80 million as a payout.
-Player then purchases ship for 65 mil, spends 15 mil on insurance (140 mil worth of minerals total)
-Ship blows up, player receives approximately 65 million as a payout.
-Player then purchases a ship for 65 mil and forgets to purchase insurance (205 mil worth of minerals total)
-Ship blows up, player receives approximately 15 million as a payout.

To summarize the above (based on completely arbitrary and innacurate numbers to make a point):
-Player has a net loss of 85 million ISK
-Player sank 35 million ISK into Insurance
-Insurance paid out 160 million
-Player caused the destruction of 205 mil worth of minerals

Therefore- A total of 125 million ISK entered the economy, and 205 million worth of minerals left the economy- all from the initial budget of 100 million.

My suggestion is to change the payout from ISK to a non-currency item or LP. Ideally, when insurance is purchased, the insured should be able to choose whether they want (Minerals?) or Loyalty Points for a faction that they have standings with (or some other form of non-currency credits). If this were changed, Insurance would no longer contribute to the ISK surplus in the game (and could help stabilize mineral prices!).

This is an important question, one worthy of further elaboration. A warning though - I'm not really going to go into the "nullbear" bullshit - arguments about this group or that group complaining the most are almost always extremely subjective - and I struggle with whether to have a serious discussion with someone who clearly wants to stereotype and dismiss tens of thousands of paying customers to begin with.

But to talk specifically about safety levels in 0.0 is something we can do objectively, without all the "those people" nonsense. You are correct - 0.0 is, in many places, unpopulated and relatively safe. This is very much to be expected - it should be of little surprise that a moderate reward, high risk (from a strictly mechanical perspective - how easy it is for other players to trap you and kill you) area of space will less desirable to live in that has high reward (Faction Warfare rewards being the current winner) but low risk (again, from a mechanical perspective). It is very easy in lowsec to protect your assets if you dont want to lose them - you are guaranteed 100% access to anything you stash in a station (NPC alts can always dock, everywhere) and travel is much, much safer without bubbles. Gatecamps exist - but are still trivial to bypass using a variety of methods, if your true intention is to not get killed.

Thus, we end up a system where 0.0 is practically safer, although not mechanically safer. This is an important point of distinction - because you are actually advocating worsening a major problem with the game by basing your recommendations off of the bad side effects of the current situation. It's circular logic - saying we shouldn't fix 0.0 because no one lives there, when the reason no one lives there is because its not in a healthy enough place begin with. And yes, of course I'm exaggerating when I'm saying "no one", there are obviously MANY citizens of 0.0 - but as you've already pointed out, not nearly populated enough to become fiercely competitive and dangerous, especially for smaller entities. We will never see that level of individual risk unless CCP makes it worth pursuing wealth out there when compared to what one can earn in Empire space.

Say whatever you want about my loyalties, but I'm easily the most smug CSM member when it comes to what Retribution is delivering for "my people". New ships, massive rebalancing, a completely revamped Crimewatch, bounty hunting, wardec fixes, and Faction Warfare iterations - its a low sec resident's wet dream of an expansion compared to just about every release since well, before I started playing the game. I literally couldn't be more excited about a feature set to have direct input on. But those of us that live in low sec still form a small fraction of the overall playerbase, whose interests I am also obligated to defend to CCP regardless of who elected me. Vote however you like in the future with that in mind, won't bother me a bit either way.

Bravo to CSM and CCP for publishing the framework they are using to discuss the future of EVE!

Putting the framework on the table makes it much easier for players to comment constructively.

In 2002, John Mashey reprised a talk he first gave in 1977, "Small is Beautiful and Other Thoughts on Programming Strategies".

One thing Mashey discusses is "Creeping Featurism", from which EVE-online suffers greatly.

Iceland's maritime heritage should help CCP understand the two approaches to dealing with this affliction:

The Lifeboat Rule: Once you reach the point where adding another passenger to the lifeboat will swamp it and kill everyone, the only way you can let a new passenger aboard is first to throw an old passenger overboard to the sharks.

The Sinking Lifeboat Rule: If the lifeboat has a leak, you may have to throw a passenger overboard from time to time, without letting anyone new come aboard.

The framework lacks any provision for identifying existing content and features to eliminate.

Is 600 mil/month enough? Let's estimate.
If we agree 1% per day sounds reasonable, then it should be about 1 bil ISK per day for a Titan. Nowhere even close to 20 mil/day for plexing.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that we should reduce the number of supers in the game, not in this thread. Instead, I'd like to see opinions of people who are actually involved in sov. warfare about proliferation. But if you folks agree there is an issue with it - here is the remedy.

Friend bought sc on his main, Officer fit t2 rigs, super shiney,

Logged out of eve on all chars, never logged back in.

The time for the supercap proliferation argument was 5 years ago. Stop beating this dead horse.

They'd have to be cheaper before people look at it that way. Which would then lead to more proliferation.

It has to be tackled from both ends, probably.

Issler

Er... are you channelling Issler Dainze, or have they just stolen your login?

It's custom to repeatedly mock anyone who signs their own posts on a forum when their name is literally attached to the content already written.

Issler