These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

ISK sink ideas
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#61 - 2015-11-26 19:05:41 UTC
Zimmer Jones wrote:
I'm going to get a hefty amount of immediate hate about this.

Scrap insurance as it is now, give players the tools to start their own insurance companies.

Same business as usual, a single ship transferral nulls the entire policy immediately. it'd be dicey to start with but eventually the proper statistical variables can be nailed down in limited api's and such as: Pilot age, number of deaths, by who and how they were killed( NPC, player, combination of both) resistance put up, (Dmg taken vs total ehp for the fit), damage returned, whether support was given( webbing/logi) , # of agressors, identity of agressors and sec level of place of death.

Open accounting of the insurance would be optional, but the wise would go for ones that can show links and reasons and anonymized payouts ( this ship died in this system, had this fit, paid out this much, and had "certificates" of this level for the dead ship. no names or times mentioned) list might have to be pared down to avoid correlating killmails with insurance publications.

"dead bear policies" could also be an option ( taken from the "dead peasant coverage," some large companies have individual policies on long term employees, it does happen).

It is an idea, and changes the insurance faucet into isk transferral with losses in transfer, or just plain removal of isk due to fraud and stupidity. Player tools>npc automation. Spreadsheet warriors get more fun, players have to more to lose for flying unaware.

begin the idea hole poking, cause this would require quite a bit of work to implement.


BTW, how would you deal with the issue of separating equilibria? Or would you not deal with it?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#62 - 2015-11-26 19:54:11 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Double the LP cost of CONCORD LP store items. Remove isk payouts by 50% from incursions.

Yes I'm making incursions 25% the profitability of what they used to be but they're one of the only sources of meta capital gear so I see it as self regulating.



Implicit to this is the assumption that TII capital mods won't significantly impact the market for the meta capital mods.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2015-11-27 00:45:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
shot a great hole in the private insurance idea in one go. There is no secure way to find if someone can be trustworthy enough to make an even dicey insurance risk. Not without really messing with players privacy and security.

in the links, good reading as always.

To bad, kinda liked the idea of having to deal with RL shysters in the game. No insurance is beat insurance when it comes to faucets I suppose

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Stephanie Rosefire
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#64 - 2015-12-05 14:41:05 UTC
Maybe CCP should fix T2 and T3 insurance costs? i actually dont know if this is a problem or not, but the T2/T3 insurance costs are very VERY low (same with the payouts)

Should they fix this or just leave it? people lose ships everyday, and im going to assume that a large chunk of them are T2/T3 ships, so maybe fixing insurance costs might be a good way to create an isk sink

(yes i know, insurance isnt that big of a isk sink, you make most of it back if you lose the ship)
Bobb Bobbington
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#65 - 2015-12-05 16:56:14 UTC
You know insurance isn't an isk sink, right? It's a faucet. You pay 1 mil to insure your ship, and when it dies you get 5 mil. Gratz, you just put 4 mil into the economy.

Also, I think T2 and T3 are designed to be low insurance, so that you lose more isk when you lose the ship. Diminishing returns on isk and all, so newbies can still use cheap ships and be useful but players with lots of isk can get better ships but lose more isk.

This is a signature.

It has a 25m signature.

No it's not a cosmic signature.

Probably.

Btw my corp's recruiting.
Paul Pohl
blue media poetry
#66 - 2015-12-07 01:15:03 UTC
Bobb Bobbington wrote:
You know insurance isn't an isk sink, right? It's a faucet. You pay 1 mil to insure your ship, and when it dies you get 5 mil. Gratz, you just put 4 mil into the economy.


It depends on the ship - the insurance doesn't always cover the market cost of replacement

And it doesn't cover the refitting cost

And it doesn't cover the cost of re-insuring

etc
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#67 - 2015-12-07 01:32:48 UTC
Paul Pohl wrote:

It depends on the ship - the insurance doesn't always cover the market cost of replacement

And it doesn't cover the refitting cost

And it doesn't cover the cost of re-insuring

etc



Which is nothing to do with if something is an isk sink or faucet.
Sinks and Faucets are about isk entering and leaving the overall economy. Transfers between players are neutral as far as sinks & faucets go. Though the wealth stockpiling in the hands of the elite has as much impact on EVE's economy as wealth inequality in the real world does as well.

So work out what you are trying to impact first.
Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2015-12-07 04:24:48 UTC
Stephanie Rosefire wrote:

Thoughts?


Not a broad enough appeal/usage.

A ton of ISK is generated from mission runners and the like so if you want to add a sink, that's the first place I'd look to add one.

I can has blogging skills!
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#69 - 2015-12-07 07:36:54 UTC
First and foremost - PLEX have nothing to do with amount of ISK people have.

The ISK faucets do need to be looked at -
Bounties, LP, insurance etc.

Insurance would be nice if they had a more RL policy like feel to them.
Also don't just insure a ship - have it be more like property insurance.

So basically it would provide a few options to players
Insurance would be based on Net Worth of Assets.
The player would select a 1-5% payment option; they would select if they want ships, ship equipment, and/or other assets in hanger.
How the system would work - player sets up policy, systems calculates the average value of assets. Charges player a % that.
Player is then free to go about their business, blowing stuff up, selling stuff, buying stuff, whatever.
At the end of the week - the insurance system would rescan all assets that fall in the insurance policy and charge the % fee.
It would also tally up all loses from the previous week, and make a payout based on the previous policy.

I was going to do an example - but realized I am really bad at math.

But anyone:
TL:DR Allow insurance to cover more than just ship hulls. And works like the iHub payments where it is a weekly fee

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
Paul Pohl
blue media poetry
#70 - 2015-12-07 09:21:06 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Paul Pohl wrote:

It depends on the ship - the insurance doesn't always cover the market cost of replacement

And it doesn't cover the refitting cost

And it doesn't cover the cost of re-insuring

etc



Which is nothing to do with if something is an isk sink or faucet.
Sinks and Faucets are about isk entering and leaving the overall economy. Transfers between players are neutral as far as sinks & faucets go. Though the wealth stockpiling in the hands of the elite has as much impact on EVE's economy as wealth inequality in the real world does as well.

So work out what you are trying to impact first.


I'm simply suggesting that the issue is not as clear cut as the memes you present
Paul Pohl
blue media poetry
#71 - 2015-12-07 09:27:41 UTC
Amarisen Gream wrote:

Insurance would be nice if they had a more RL policy like feel to them.
Also don't just insure a ship - have it be more like property insurance.



Or apply more exceptions

For instance if you have low standing with an NPC and get blown up by that NPC for being in their space - no cover
The same if you get blown up for having contraband etc
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#72 - 2015-12-07 13:10:54 UTC
Could we have the contents of citadels get destroyed when the citadel gets destroyed.

You guys are bickering back and forth about NPC taxes on one hand while the game is safeguarding player assets hand over fist.

Players aren't just isk rich, they are stuff rich. To make players un-rich in stuff you have to blow it up. To make players un-rich in isk - get rid of system upgrades, nerf anoms and nerf incursions. I"m just not seeing the importance in the line folks are drawing between isk and all the other forms of wealth. Everything is just too easy to come by.

Taxes suck and add no value, fun or interesting game play. Don't add suck to the game. Bounties are the first step - that is where all the isk is injected to the game.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#73 - 2015-12-07 15:47:27 UTC
Paul Pohl wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Paul Pohl wrote:

It depends on the ship - the insurance doesn't always cover the market cost of replacement

And it doesn't cover the refitting cost

And it doesn't cover the cost of re-insuring

etc



Which is nothing to do with if something is an isk sink or faucet.
Sinks and Faucets are about isk entering and leaving the overall economy. Transfers between players are neutral as far as sinks & faucets go. Though the wealth stockpiling in the hands of the elite has as much impact on EVE's economy as wealth inequality in the real world does as well.

So work out what you are trying to impact first.


I'm simply suggesting that the issue is not as clear cut as the memes you present


Except it IS clear cut. For insurance to not be a sink, you need to have the insurance level you collect expire over 2 times over and only collect on the 3rd. Heck it might be 4th but I can't check right now.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#74 - 2015-12-07 16:43:28 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Paul Pohl wrote:


I'm simply suggesting that the issue is not as clear cut as the memes you present



No, it's extremely clear cut.

The things it doesn't cover are utterly irrelevant. We're not talking about the amount of ISK in any individual's wallet, we're talking about the amount of ISK in the game.

The only time insurance ever truly acts as a "sink" is when it expires. Period. Full stop. Any insurance that is actually claimed is a net faucet. On balance, the amount of insurance that expires is nowhere near the amount that is paid out (the "free" payouts don't help, either), so on the whole, it's accurate enough to just say that insurance is a faucet.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Ageanal Olerie
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2015-12-07 17:42:38 UTC

See my NPC Bounty Hunter idea : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=458921&find=unread


When an NPC Bounty hunter takes out someone who has a bounty on them, that ISK reward goes to the NPC, thereby taking it out of circulation.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#76 - 2015-12-08 18:22:03 UTC
You may also sink your ISK into me.

Problem solved

/thread

Evil RatKid
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#77 - 2015-12-09 00:40:10 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Could we have the contents of citadels get destroyed when the citadel gets destroyed.

You guys are bickering back and forth about NPC taxes on one hand while the game is safeguarding player assets hand over fist.

Players aren't just isk rich, they are stuff rich. To make players un-rich in stuff you have to blow it up. To make players un-rich in isk - get rid of system upgrades, nerf anoms and nerf incursions. I"m just not seeing the importance in the line folks are drawing between isk and all the other forms of wealth. Everything is just too easy to come by.

Taxes suck and add no value, fun or interesting game play. Don't add suck to the game. Bounties are the first step - that is where all the isk is injected to the game.


The thing is destroying assets in this manner may lead to even more ISK entering the economy as players kill even more rats to recover their lost assets.

Taxes on the other hand are a pure ISK sink, ISK literally disappears from the game.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#78 - 2015-12-09 00:44:27 UTC
Paul Pohl wrote:
Amarisen Gream wrote:

Insurance would be nice if they had a more RL policy like feel to them.
Also don't just insure a ship - have it be more like property insurance.



Or apply more exceptions

For instance if you have low standing with an NPC and get blown up by that NPC for being in their space - no cover
The same if you get blown up for having contraband etc


You know its funny....

Many here run around hurling the term 'risk aversion' like it is an insult. "I'm not risk averse! You are!!"

But then here we are, reducing insurance payouts so that people will be....more risk averse.

I don't even know why cognitive dissonance is even a concept since it appears most people are completely fine holding contradictory beliefs at the same time.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Paul Pohl
blue media poetry
#79 - 2015-12-09 01:56:59 UTC
There are number of things that could be introduced to create isk-sinks maintenance on hulls, guns etc, docking fees, storyline tax rises for NPCs in time of war

However, CCP apparently don't see inflation as an issue, and if anything have been moving in the opposite direction with the changes to custom houses, and citadels etc - perhaps in the belief that if you give people more, they will have more to spend, and therefore more to fight about. Whilst not appearing to notice the people asking 'what is the point of holding sovereignty'.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#80 - 2015-12-09 02:28:14 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
See we're back to eve needs more explosions. Every player out blowing up other players doesn't have his gaping maw sucking on some isk faucet. PVP permanantly removes stuff from the game AND it occupies folks so they aren't running incursions or carrier ratting in some upgraded anom laden system.

You want to remove isk from the game - get rid of those pathetic system upgrades. The pandering that allowed them is a bane on the game. No need to fight over good space.... just deploy this upgrade to make all space worth not fighting for.

You shouldn't be able to 'rent' good space from CCP via system upgrades. You should have to go take the good spots and then have to hold them.


Someone is bitter that nullsec residents are able to make money from space that they have sunk money in to. How horrible.

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.