EVE Information Portal

and the REASON is they are will no longer be gained only via the Subscription/time/character they will be a marketable item

The whole idea becomes as stupid as introducing a new a ship that can be bought, upgraded but never destroyed except through self destruction.

I support this and want to see it implemented.

Hmm thought Dust got headshot. Maybe the v2, Legion?

This is good news if it was backed by any evidence...

I like how you think pointing out professions that won't be affected by your proposal and are free to gain purchasable SP without fear of loss is somehow more relevant than me pointing out the areas where you are directly double penalizing loss.

Or is this one of those "loss for thee but not for me" proposals by intent?

"SP were never meant to be bought and sold as a tradable item on the market "so ... now it need balancing" "and because of that .. its time to start!" - Already addressed: "SP is designed to go up over time, not have an equal in:out to enforce beneficial scarcity like isk or materials. SP related capabilities are supposed to go up over time, and there is no specified rate for that since there are no economic considerations for SP as a medium save the suggestion that your idea is terrible because it will make tradable SP exclusive and much more expensive by putting it in constant demand for active combat pilots just to maintain their capabilities."

SP was meant to increase character abilities, that's all. And that is what it will continue to do even if trading is introduced. Trading does not interfere with that function, and thus brings no reason to sink SP.

Your idea on the other hand works contrary to the function of SP by removing it and reducing character ability. The only way that would be balanced is if performing tasks in game without loss directly rewarded SP in return without requiring it from another player, with or without SP trading and on top of normal sub SP gains, but that comes with it's own issues. SP would already be balanced by being forced to come from existing characters and thus still being limited by subs and training.

So your search for an actual reason to sink SP continues.

Duh! there is a sink built in it's the "diminishing returns" sink
and because it's TRADING skill points like any other trade made there should be a sink for the seller and the buyer NOT JUST THE BUYER

and so, we return to the bit where players are penalized for having playing the game longer and acquiring higher skill points

Hold on, let me make sure I've got this. You're looking at the reduced SP due to high character SP on the part of a buyer as a sink: Ok fine, we can agree there, and are looking to even that sink for sellers by creating SP penalties for ship loss: This is probably the most ill conceived reasoning I've heard in a while, and considering this thread that's saying a lot.

Think about it for a sec, as a seller with a farming character do you think I'll be undocking that character and putting my product at risk for no reason? No, I probably won't. I'll likely be making my profit generator immune to loss by docking it up permanently. I'll likely determine any compulsion to use the character as anything but an SP farm is an unacceptable risk because realization of that risk is potentially a nice chunk from my product gone.

And still the act of selling sinks nothing. But those sales will surely happen more often and for more isk to buyers who wouldn't otherwise even participate with TSP.

You talk of penalties to older players with TSP, but introduce a system that has those players paying up to 10x or more of what a newer player has to in TSP just to recover from a loss between the ship loss SP penalty you propose, diminishing returns on TSP being used to recover, and your prior idea of excluding mods/ships that newer players use.

And all this does is help the buyer because it doesn't sink anything from them. But it does increase demand. It just makes parking in Jita 4-4 and doing nothing but selling SP over time that much more viable and profitable.

So instead of the system "penalizing players for being here longer" you'd rather it be "penalizing players for being here, those who were here longer even moreso." Great improvement. Well thought out.

---

Edit: Speaking conceptually here there is never any "sink" for the sale of any good sold for the seller of that item save the fact that that seller no longer has the item after the sale (tax/fees aside). Aside from how poorly this idea functions for any reason you've given, the idea of a seller "sink" aside from parting with the stock is in itself fundamentally flawed.

Removing product from the buyer, which is what your idea does (effectively double sinking from older player buyers no less with the diminishing returns along side it), doesn't "sink" anything from the seller that he isn't already trying to part with on the terms he willing to do so, else he wouldn't be a seller. And further that seller isn't parting with anything differently with or without your idea, once again making it clearly terrible at achieving it's stated goal.

Seller, selling goods sold has brokers fees
Buyer buying said goods has Sales tax

Not with SP

There is great confusion here.
You have to understand that the only things with value in this equation are Subscription Monies and because its used in their creation Skill Points. Buyers & sellers must both be taxed on the transaction to make an effective sink but because ISK is just a fiat currency the tax must be in Skill Points (which are actually worth something).

So PLEX are converted to ISK with both Brokers fees & sales tax, Yet when Extractors are converted to SP with only the injector is paying 'SP Tax'

To complicate things further. Converting the extractor to SP should really have NO Tax because converting a PLEX into something of worth outside the game like game-time has no Tax.

There is no "SP tax" much like there is no "time tax" for exchanging PLEX. Also SP would be converted to isk "with both Brokers fees & sales tax" so why do you need an extra associated tax? If isk taxing works for one real money item, why not another?

Also your idea does nothing to create a tax for extracting. That is done without loss of any kind for the seller even with your idea of SP loss on ship destruction.

---

Edit:
Wait, when did this change into this concept? We were speaking about your idea for SP loss on ship destruction, which you tried to have viewed as a tax, and have now moved to something else (did I miss a transition somewhere? I guess I did?)? An actual tax?

Looking at that we're still having the same issues:
1) It's still trying to create a tax where there is none (diminishing returns isn't a tax)
2) It's still double penalizing high SP characters (now not only do the get less SP from TSP, they lose more SP from extractors)
3) It ignores the mechanics of selling extractors which generates an actual tax
4) It still would be a double tax, just for sellers since they still pay the market tax on top of the SP tax
5) It still doesn't explain why PLEX aren't taxed in the same manner, I can sell $19.95 worth of PLEX without my sub going down by a few days, so why is this different?

If you want to look at the price point difference between PLEX and a sub as a "tax" for PLEX, think for a moment about the function of the AUR cost of the extractor.

If you were a bit more specific about the "abusive" part we could quickly demonstrate why your opinion bears little weight in the future of TSP.