EVE General Discussion

Someone will run them. Don't want to risk it, have fun spending 4 days to buy a battlecruiser. It would likely bring prices down on exotic stuff, because there would be a LOT less isk in the system.

Eve's virtual economy does indeed thrive on consumption. And it thrives just as much on production. Simply because mission running is not on the side of "consumption" doesn't mean they are not contributing. Not everything must involve a kill to add content. That's part of it or a way, but not the whole equation.

Isn't test already there

Man listen, instead of trying to convince me of how scared i'm supposed to be of you, make me scared.

And your post is A way to miss the point. Who said anything about killing?

I'm talking about balance. In other pve areas (incursions, null sec anomalies and FW though it wasn't an isk faucet per se etc) there have been balance measures taken because too much isk was being injected into the economy. This dispite the fact that ships do frequently die while players are engaging that content.

Yet Missions are allowed to continue to collectively spew isk into the system with no counterbalancing consumption save ammo (and not even mocu of that if the mission runner runs missions in amarr space and uses laser boats)and the the early cost to noob mission runners of replacing condors and rifters (lol).

That's an imbalance (as seen here) and while some growth is good, a extra Trillion a day because EVE doesn't have enough isk sinks isn't all that great in the long run. Missions are a part of this imbalance.

Are you simple?
Missions aren't construction, they are an isk faucet. They work as long as people are losing ships in them, as the faucet provides a reason for player to mine materials, produce ships then sell them to transfer your isk to the rest of the player base.

What happens when a faucet runs while no loss is occurring is a buildup of isk, and an inevitable devaluation of isk. While there's not much risk of this at the moment, it's something that could happen before long down the line. Eventually so much isk is in the system, that people pay higher and higher prices as they compete with equally wealthy people. What you end up with is a system where the isk:item ratio is all askew. That's when a market crash would occur.

Isk sinks (losing ships for example) balance out isk faucets. and promote a healthy circulation of currency, keeping the universe in balance. Levels 4's are pretty easy to grind at nearly 0 risk making them a dangerous faucet to leave as is.

What if we made the LP store cost much more ISK to buy items? It would effectively slow the injection of ISK in the game by deleting more of the bounty/reward from the mission. Could it possibly be enough to reduce the injection of ISK enough?

Ship loss beside supercap are an isk faucet not sink. It's a cost to the guy who lost the ship but it inject ISK in the economy in the form of insurance payout. The only way it would be a faucet is if the transaction tax to buy the ship + isk cost for the production line removed more ISK than the insurance payout inject.

You can't solve the increased amount of ISK in the economy in the game by blapping ships. You will never succede.

What if we add a 0 to the ISK cost of every LP items? Can it cover enough to burn ISK instead of injecting?

I'm done arguing. Sucker. I was in the NPC corp before you called me a a "B'. Excuses.

Youre just a candyass nullho pretending he's badass gate camping all day.