These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CSM notes on faucets & sinks

Author
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#81 - 2013-01-18 19:13:13 UTC
I covered that already. Given a lengthy enough period of time, demand would have been crushed. Speculators would have run out of money and fled the markets (or dumped back into them, making matters worse) and you'd have seen them crash. But two factors - the fact that it didn't run that long, and the fact that CCP confirmed well in advance of even the originally planned date that it would be fixed (thus guaranteeing speculator profit) meant that it did not.

I know you mentioned "pure consumer demand" before but that is not all that matters, especially in this case.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#82 - 2013-01-18 20:47:21 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
So demand doesn't matter? Roll


Not in a discussion the amount of ISK sunk via LP stores, unless you are claiming that significant amounts of LP were left unredeemed to prevent over-supply.

Do you have anything to present that suggests that any significant amount of LP was left unredeemed?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Illest Insurrectionist
C5 Flight
Fraternity.
#83 - 2013-01-18 20:54:35 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Bump manufacturing fees in highsec. If my estimates are correct, changing it from the current negligible system to a mere quarter percent of estimated value of the production job is worth upwards of 3-6T isk/month in sinks while having negligible effects on the sale price of items between players.

Different approach: Eliminate isk payouts and time bonuses for missions, replace them with an LP payout instead. This approaches the problem by both removing a faucet (roughly ~6T/mo by Diagoras' old numbers) and adding a sink (the isk required to spend that LP, which is typically 1000 isk per LP on the most convenient cashout items.) This also allows them to dial mission income around a bit, depending on the rate that they replace the isk payouts with LP at. For example, if they replace it at a 1000 isk per LP rate, then a mission runner would have to buy items with that LP that are worth a final sale price of 1000 isk/LP to maintain his previous income...but could increase his income by taking a more thoughtful approach to redeeming his LP than "buy as many implants as possible and dump to buy orders."



So unless I'm off base here you're the next CSM chair ya?

What do you consider an appropriate growth in the isk supply?

If your two suggestions were implemented we would still have ~18T or more coming in per month.

Do you have any suggestions for switching over wormhole items to counter that source?
Rengerel en Distel
#84 - 2013-01-18 21:15:25 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Rengerel en Distel wrote:

Your numbers are a bit off though, the old formula looked more like:
Tier 1: 4000 LP + 4000 ISK = 1 item
Tier 2: 2000 LP + 2000 ISK = 1 item
Tier 3: 1000 LP + 1000 ISK = 1 item
Tier 4: 500 LP + 500 ISK = 1 item
Tier 5: 250 LP + 250 ISK = 1 item

That is why people cashed out at T5 or if desperate T4. It's why the new tiers don't change either the LP or ISK in the stores, only how much LP you gain for doing tasks. You could easily make 4000 isk/lp in the old system, while now 1000+isk/lp is great*.

*Haven't looked at the prices across the entire market recently, but that's what it was last I looked. Of course, some items might still give high payouts, I'm talking general items without crashing the market.


The specific numbers don't matter. All that matters is the fact that the ratio of ISK sunk to LP converted stays constant within any given LP store offer.


My only point was that he said that 4 items were created for the same cost, and you said that was incorrect. He was indeed correct that at tier 5, you could buy 4 items at the cost of tier 3 (the other LP stores). So when someone cashed out at T5, they could buy 4 times the amount of implants as someone buying it from Emperor Family.

Sorry to go off topic, just wanted that cleared up :P

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.

DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#85 - 2013-01-18 23:23:38 UTC
Illest Insurrectionist wrote:


Do you have any suggestions for switching over wormhole items to counter that source?


What do you mean by that?
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Illest Insurrectionist
C5 Flight
Fraternity.
#86 - 2013-01-18 23:27:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Illest Insurrectionist
DarthNefarius wrote:
Illest Insurrectionist wrote:


Do you have any suggestions for switching over wormhole items to counter that source?


What do you mean by that?


Well there were suggestions for dealing with other faucets, i was wondering if he had ideas about dealing with that one. 10T/mo according to two step's blog.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#87 - 2013-01-18 23:39:23 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Illest Insurrectionist wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Bump manufacturing fees in highsec. If my estimates are correct, changing it from the current negligible system to a mere quarter percent of estimated value of the production job is worth upwards of 3-6T isk/month in sinks while having negligible effects on the sale price of items between players.

Different approach: Eliminate isk payouts and time bonuses for missions, replace them with an LP payout instead. This approaches the problem by both removing a faucet (roughly ~6T/mo by Diagoras' old numbers) and adding a sink (the isk required to spend that LP, which is typically 1000 isk per LP on the most convenient cashout items.) This also allows them to dial mission income around a bit, depending on the rate that they replace the isk payouts with LP at. For example, if they replace it at a 1000 isk per LP rate, then a mission runner would have to buy items with that LP that are worth a final sale price of 1000 isk/LP to maintain his previous income...but could increase his income by taking a more thoughtful approach to redeeming his LP than "buy as many implants as possible and dump to buy orders."



So unless I'm off base here you're the next CSM chair ya?

What do you consider an appropriate growth in the isk supply?

If your two suggestions were implemented we would still have ~18T or more coming in per month.

Do you have any suggestions for switching over wormhole items to counter that source?


Member almost certainly. Chair would be nice.

"Appropriate growth" isn't something I can really give a firm answer to because there's a lot of information I'm missing. You do want some level of growth in the isk supply though, as the player supply is always growing. A fixed or even shrinking amount of isk for an ever-increasing (or so we hope) number of players is a bad thing.

I'd note that the two previous suggestions I made would have a greater effect than that. Rewards and time bonuses removes a 5t/mo faucet, replacing them with LP at a 1000:1 ratio means that another 5T/mo (give or take, the ratio for LP redemption isn't always 1000:1) is removed to redeem it. Then there's the estimated 3-6T on top of that.

Eliminating bluebooks would require further iteration on wormholes to add value to replace it...at least some of it. Wormholes aren't my forte and I'm not really sure how much of their income is from the bluebooks vs other items, but an outright and complete removal is probably inadvisable. Partial replacement might be a welcome change from the wormhole crowd, but it's not something I've thought too much about as far as concrete ideas. ;)

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#88 - 2013-01-19 05:39:35 UTC
mynnna wrote:

Eliminating bluebooks would require further iteration on wormholes to add value to replace it...at least some of it. Wormholes aren't my forte and I'm not really sure how much of their income is from the bluebooks vs other items, but an outright and complete removal is probably inadvisable. Partial replacement might be a welcome change from the wormhole crowd, but it's not something I've thought too much about as far as concrete ideas. ;)


Eliminating bluebooks would be away too harsh thing to do and they are a good payout mechanic IMHO
it takes ALOT of work (logistics) to move them out. If CCP where to do the 10% across the board bounty reduction
that CCP soundwave suggested then it'd be fair to hit it too in kind. CCP though after the hamfisted Incursion hammering seems to be backing away from simply taking the ISK away with hardening of site's content thru adding DPS or changing the AI to reduce income. So far WH sleepersites have been untouched for a couple years. I bet though if POS's where revamped to allow T3's to change modules WH residents would gladly in exchange suffer thru sleepersite reworks that reduced thier ISK faucet there.
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#89 - 2013-01-19 06:23:25 UTC
Debra Tao wrote:
If you lose a Hulk you lose a ship but you don't lose isk so the total amount of money in the game stays the same and is even increased by the insurance payout. I really don't see how you can disagree with me on that. :P


When a player purchases a hulk they are basically converting their isk into potential isk.

You can sell the hulk for 200 million isk potentially.

If you lose a hulk you lose the potential for 200 million isk. It doesn't remove isk from the market, but it does remove the potential isk of the player who owned the ship.

Potential isk is just as important as actual isk. I mean if everyone had 10 hulks and 1 million isk. The hulk wouldn't be worth 1 million since everyone had a hulk.

That said, inflation is not as bad as deflation when talking about economics. Its always better to have some inflation than deflation. You don't want rampant inflation but deflation always slows down the economy.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server

RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
#90 - 2013-01-19 16:39:14 UTC
2 and a half suggestions:

1 Insurance Payouts. Don't pour the ISK directly into a players wallet anymore. Instead, give him an option to collect a ship at a reduced rate, through the 'redeem items' venue. This will turn off the faucet and actually sink a few ISK along the way. Kill two birds with one stone. Double impact and all that.

2 Make implants an NPC item. Aside from the LP conversion, they are essentially a sink the second you install them anyway, as they cannot be removed or resold. Place them in limited locations, so marketers can still work them over if they wish.

2.5 Choose other small market items to add to the NPC retail chain. Items that will affect a very small portion of the *jobs* in EVE.

I stress *small* items, *small* changes, because I believe in baby steps first.


1A. Insurance payouts/reimbursements could potentially be higher with this system.
My reasoning is this:
Insurance used to pay better. On a Raven for instance, Ship cost + insurance + rigs + fittings used to be like...135 million. Insurance payed out 106 million or so, and the loss was just about the cost of rigs only. Myself, I exploded ships freely, because the loss was not that painful.
I notice that ships cost so much these days, players are afraid to risk them. EvE has turned into 'Frigates Online' in recent years. Which results in much less asset loss.


Long post. Almost 2 different topics. Hope you see where I was comeing from.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#91 - 2013-01-20 02:33:32 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
CSM minutes wrote:

Dr.EyjoG repeated his statement from FanFest 2012 that the sinks and faucets in the game are not correct (which is relevant to the previous discussion) and pulled up a chart demonstrating this. By far the largest faucet in the game is NPC Bounty Prizes, at over 30T ISK/month. The biggest sink is Skill Books, at a mere 6T ISK/month.


compare that to http://twostep4csm.blogspot.com/2012/03/its-econmony-stupid.html

As a sink skill books have dropped from ~7trillion to 6 as the highest sink ergo lp sink has dropped to under 6 trillion even with the FW lp summer bonanza to probably under 6 trillion from last year February's 6.2 trillion!
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#92 - 2013-01-20 03:49:47 UTC
While you're probably technically right about the LP sink (due to Sreegs' continued actions against bots), you can't or at least shouldn't make any assumptions whatsoever regarding isk sinks in general just because skill books have dropped in size as a sink.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#93 - 2013-01-20 05:24:52 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
DarthNefarius wrote:
CSM minutes wrote:

Dr.EyjoG repeated his statement from FanFest 2012 that the sinks and faucets in the game are not correct (which is relevant to the previous discussion) and pulled up a chart demonstrating this. By far the largest faucet in the game is NPC Bounty Prizes, at over 30T ISK/month. The biggest sink is Skill Books, at a mere 6T ISK/month.


compare that to http://twostep4csm.blogspot.com/2012/03/its-econmony-stupid.html

As a sink skill books have dropped from ~7trillion to 6 as the highest sink ergo lp sink has dropped to under 6 trillion even with the FW lp summer bonanza to probably under 6 trillion from last year February's 6.2 trillion!


Fanfest 2012 was in late March, Two-Step's blog post was from March. The Faction Warfare button orbiting started with Inferno, in May.

You're comparing 2 numbers from March and claiming that one represents the state of affairs after May, when a patch that is known to have caused a massive increase in LP store usage was released in May.

Or, if Dr. EyjoG was talking about the current state of affairs, you're talking about ISK sunk by LP stores before and after Button-gate, with no information about the amount of ISK sunk during button-gate.

March... April... May...

Anyway, got any evidence to suggest that people were leaving LP unredeemed to support your assertion that the Tier system resulted in less ISK sunk at high tier?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#94 - 2013-01-20 09:09:47 UTC
Candy Oshea wrote:
this is what happens when a mechanical engineer argues with ecomonics major's isn't it


I really hope that isn't accredited.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#95 - 2013-01-20 11:54:42 UTC
More hi-sec taxes

yk
Debra Tao
Perkone
Caldari State
#96 - 2013-01-20 23:52:38 UTC
mynnna wrote:


"Appropriate growth" isn't something I can really give a firm answer to because there's a lot of information I'm missing. You do want some level of growth in the isk supply though, as the player supply is always growing. A fixed or even shrinking amount of isk for an ever-increasing (or so we hope) number of players is a bad thing.

I'd note that the two previous suggestions I made would have a greater effect than that. Rewards and time bonuses removes a 5t/mo faucet, replacing them with LP at a 1000:1 ratio means that another 5T/mo (give or take, the ratio for LP redemption isn't always 1000:1) is removed to redeem it. Then there's the estimated 3-6T on top of that.

Eliminating bluebooks would require further iteration on wormholes to add value to replace it...at least some of it. Wormholes aren't my forte and I'm not really sure how much of their income is from the bluebooks vs other items, but an outright and complete removal is probably inadvisable. Partial replacement might be a welcome change from the wormhole crowd, but it's not something I've thought too much about as far as concrete ideas. ;)


This is why i will give you half my votes, because you are actually competent.


Captain Tardbar wrote:


When a player purchases a hulk they are basically converting their isk into potential isk.

You can sell the hulk for 200 million isk potentially.

If you lose a hulk you lose the potential for 200 million isk. It doesn't remove isk from the market, but it does remove the potential isk of the player who owned the ship.

Potential isk is just as important as actual isk. I mean if everyone had 10 hulks and 1 million isk. The hulk wouldn't be worth 1 million since everyone had a hulk.



That's why we need to gank exhumers Pirate
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#97 - 2013-01-21 07:28:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tauranon
RavenPaine wrote:
2 and a half suggestions:

1 Insurance Payouts. Don't pour the ISK directly into a players wallet anymore. Instead, give him an option to collect a ship at a reduced rate, through the 'redeem items' venue. This will turn off the faucet and actually sink a few ISK along the way. Kill two birds with one stone. Double impact and all that.



When I was seriously (for me) ship building, I was pulling 9bil of mins a week from the market. At the time, an unbonused hulk earned about 12mil/hr in highsec. Presuming 20mil/hr counting null ores and boosts, thats 450 hulk hours of ore I was going through a week or probably 30 players efforts.

Having CCP nationalize that business via insurance would pretty much destroy the ship builder market, which would flood people and capital into other construction tasks, and flood miners into bounty collection as mineral consumption dived.

if bounties are provably too high (they aren't), then reduce bounties.

Quote:


2 Make implants an NPC item. Aside from the LP conversion, they are essentially a sink the second you install them anyway, as they cannot be removed or resold. Place them in limited locations, so marketers can still work them over if they wish.



LP is a currency. Homogenizing the currency to isk won't solve the percieved too much currency problem. Matter of fact its worse, because you'll have to provide more isk and less LP to sustain the LP value, so all you've done here is produce more raw isk.
Andres Talas
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#98 - 2013-01-21 12:34:54 UTC
I'd do it by boiling frogs.

Start with mission reward -> LP. Similarly, have Tier officer drops give Concord LP rather than cash.

Nerf insurance by edging up the prices of insurance, and declining to cover self-destruction. I dont think you could simply refuse to insure ships in Null, but a man can dream, right ?

Bring back drone poo rather than bounties.

Nerf Hub isk income by dropping the bounty payments, but compensate by having the miniboss always appear and dropping an appropriate Tier officer drop.

I'd increase manufacturing slots by making the cost dynamic - the more manufacturing/ME/whatever slots are in use in a station, the higher the price goes.

Oh, and on insurance ... this one's radical. Replace the cash component with less cash plus Concord loyalty points.






RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
#99 - 2013-01-21 16:08:13 UTC
Tauranon wrote:
RavenPaine wrote:
2 and a half suggestions:

1 Insurance Payouts. Don't pour the ISK directly into a players wallet anymore. Instead, give him an option to collect a ship at a reduced rate, through the 'redeem items' venue. This will turn off the faucet and actually sink a few ISK along the way. Kill two birds with one stone. Double impact and all that.



When I was seriously (for me) ship building, I was pulling 9bil of mins a week from the market. At the time, an unbonused hulk earned about 12mil/hr in highsec. Presuming 20mil/hr counting null ores and boosts, thats 450 hulk hours of ore I was going through a week or probably 30 players efforts.

Having CCP nationalize that business via insurance would pretty much destroy the ship builder market, which would flood people and capital into other construction tasks, and flood miners into bounty collection as mineral consumption dived.

if bounties are provably too high (they aren't), then reduce bounties.

Quote:


2 Make implants an NPC item. Aside from the LP conversion, they are essentially a sink the second you install them anyway, as they cannot be removed or resold. Place them in limited locations, so marketers can still work them over if they wish.



LP is a currency. Homogenizing the currency to isk won't solve the percieved too much currency problem. Matter of fact its worse, because you'll have to provide more isk and less LP to sustain the LP value, so all you've done here is produce more raw isk.



You are soo right about the ship builders point of impact. Miners. All that. I feel dumb for not seeing that straight off.
*It seemed like a good idea at the time*
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#100 - 2013-01-21 17:50:17 UTC
Andres Talas wrote:
I'd do it by boiling frogs.

Start with mission reward -> LP. Similarly, have Tier officer drops give Concord LP rather than cash.

Officers pay a lot more in bounty than regular rats but are so rare as to be a drop in the bucket, so taking away their bounty isn't really going to do anything.

Andres Talas wrote:
Nerf insurance by edging up the prices of insurance, and declining to cover self-destruction. I dont think you could simply refuse to insure ships in Null, but a man can dream, right ?

I think insurance ought to go away entirely, but I'm not really sure.

Andres Talas wrote:
Bring back drone poo rather than bounties.

No. The addition of bounties to the drone regions probably added a trillion or so a month to the total faucet that is bounties, but that's a relatively small increase compared to the total size of that faucet. Moreover, drone poo pretty much prevents any attempt at making mining worth doing in null.

Andres Talas wrote:
Nerf Hub isk income by dropping the bounty payments, but compensate by having the miniboss always appear and dropping an appropriate Tier officer drop.

The more general theme here of replacing some of the bounty in nullsec with some kind of loot is a good one. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to make it officer loot, however.

Andres Talas wrote:
I'd increase manufacturing slots by making the cost dynamic - the more manufacturing/ME/whatever slots are in use in a station, the higher the price goes.

This already happens, though the effect is miniscule. Jita 4-4 is probably the most heavily used station in empire and it costs a mere 807 isk per hour (up from 333 base). The vast majority of other stations are the base 333 isk/hr. The problem is not that costs don't scale (although it certainly could and should scale more like the way offices do), but that they're ridiculously low to begin with, thus my proposal back on page 1: Change it from isk/hour to a flat percentage of estimated value of input. That allows the total size of the sink to grow (considerably) without doing something silly like making really cheap, fast to build modules cost more in build fees than the module is actually worth.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal