These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

isk as items
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Van Doe
#41 - 2017-02-18 16:42:31 UTC
Also imagine your on bank a want to buy in b territory.
"dark no cash with me and don't want to pay tax"

Hey look over there a citadel lets see if the owner is on bank a to.
"nice he is and he hoffers atm service for a way les tax"
Ill take 10bil.

...meanwhile gankers gather outside the citadel.

You leave the station gankers start to shoot.

"puhh lucky I was tanked enough till concord arrived"

Head to your destination buy what you wanted.
Be happy on a such lucky day.


The thing is this could bring player owned structures in highsec to be frequented more often and make a shift in the focus of other players.

And also the owner will profit from it.

I'm not trolling, I create content for everyone to enjoy. afk cloaky in a system near you while posting in this forum.
Van Doe
#42 - 2017-02-18 16:49:31 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Van Doe wrote:
I order of rmt this won't change anything.
Chort explanation how its done today.
Buy plex in e-bay meat up with a guy someware in space that hase plex in his noob ship.
Pop him take the loot.
Buy isk on e-bay same meat up with a guy with cargo worth the isk pop him take loot.
Sell loot.
Repeat till you got the isk you bought on ebay.
Loot fairy says no, and CCP can track any successful illicit transactions anyway.

Quote:
Also there is a way to drop it in a can in space.
But they are likely to use the regular pop and loot mechanics
Because its harder for ccp to be sure that this is a trade or happened by regular pvp
Team Security aren't dumb, they know exactly how RMT transfers happen. If the transfer occurs in-game it is recorded in the database and is thus trackable.

Quote:
Ways ccp could counter this buy setting up a false trade see who the guy is look in his behavior bann all related participants.
What makes you think that they don't already do this?

Quote:
Also since alpha introducing its easier to set up proxys to make rmt
Machine IDs are unique, unless you have multiple computers or VMs CCP can and will be able to associate proxies with their owner.

I don't said ccp don't know what they are doing.
I only made the statement introducing cash to the game won't change anything in order to rmt

I'm not trolling, I create content for everyone to enjoy. afk cloaky in a system near you while posting in this forum.
Dolorous Tremmens
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2017-02-18 19:49:50 UTC
"I are wanting more isk without effort. I has bad idea."

*insert bad idea from before electronic transfers existed*

"Why you not like idea, you are the dumb, I has bad reasonings and says you are not hasing logic"

*logic supplied*

"Not my logics, I are correct you is still the dumb"

*repeat*

Get some Eve. Make it yours.
Van Doe
#44 - 2017-02-18 20:12:52 UTC
Dolorous Tremmens wrote:
"I are wanting more isk without effort. I has bad idea."

*insert bad idea from before electronic transfers existed*

"Why you not like idea, you are the dumb, I has bad reasonings and says you are not hasing logic"

*logic supplied*

"Not my logics, I are correct you is still the dumb"

*repeat*

You are correct.
I want isk and electronic isk completely removed.
I want to trade with rocks and bones. Like they did in the stone age.
It's not that introducing cash could coexist to regular money transfer.
Its not like people in rl use both concepts to pay there stuff.
And its not like they both got there benefit over each other.

I hope you strand someday in some afgan village. You might figure out how much your apple pay or visa is worth.

And its not that visa or PayPal is accepted even in the us everywhere.
And at that point you are pretty much screwed without a atm near you or cash in the poket.

And you still failed to provide a argument why this could not lead to a reasonable use of public structures.
And why they won't profit from the attention they could get offering this service.

Not even mention the gankers this might attract

I'm not trolling, I create content for everyone to enjoy. afk cloaky in a system near you while posting in this forum.
Dolorous Tremmens
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2017-02-18 21:29:33 UTC
Spaceships, space stations. hmmm. Does not seem to be an ass backwards afghan village.
Your argument is invalid, assumes no technology exists above the primitive level. I don't expect this will have any effect on your trolling, but hey, I don't live in whatever regressive utopia you do.

Get some Eve. Make it yours.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2017-02-18 23:13:01 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
This is Eve, history shows us that any banks in Eve will be at least as bent as those in the real world.


At least in EVE they aren't bailed out with tax payer dollars. By that score EVE banks are vastly superior. P

"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
#47 - 2017-02-18 23:28:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Van Doe wrote:


Sorry I forgot your the guy with the eve diploma.
I I only mentioned earlier.
1. Isk sink due to pvp (good)
2. Isk sink due to tax (good)
3. Professions around isk transport (good)
4. Add complexity (good)
5. New opportunitys for scammers (good)
6. A way to disguise money transfer (good)
7. Impact on trading behavior (not sure) local markets might get stronger.

Sorry I didn't mention this early dr. Prof. Eveology aka the smartest guy in history.


Why is an ISK sink always "good"?

Everyone says there is massive inflation in Eve....is there? Yes, I know a battleship costs more than it used to, but then again didn't CCP change mineral requirements? To evaluate inflation you need to factor our price changes for non-monetary reasons.

Where is the evidence of high inflation which would suggest we need more ISK sinks?

Even looking at the various price indices CCP puts out I'm not seeing it.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Jan_2017/9d_economy.indices.png

Frankly, this presumption that we need more ISK sunk out of the game strikes me as dubious at best.

Edit: Also, keep in mind CCP uses a chained Laspeyres index which is probably going to be biased upwards. So the deflation in the game suggested by the graphs may actually be larger.

"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
mkint
#48 - 2017-02-19 03:55:48 UTC  |  Edited by: mkint
There would be all kinds of problems, but it would be an interesting idea. It would make regional markets matter more. It would add another desperately needed isk sink, or several.

Obviously adds complexity, but the question is if it would be good complexity or bad complexity. In a lot of ways, I think it would be good complexity. Would add a lot of niches. A lot of opportunities for conflict. There's still the option to ignore the complexity at the cost of higher taxes. It would need to be implemented very carefully to not ruin the game, but I think the idea has merit, even if the OP is a little trollish.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#49 - 2017-02-19 04:45:42 UTC
mkint wrote:
There would be all kinds of problems, but it would be an interesting idea. It would make regional markets matter more. It would add another desperately needed isk sink, or several.

Obviously adds complexity, but the question is if it would be good complexity or bad complexity. In a lot of ways, I think it would be good complexity. Would add a lot of niches. A lot of opportunities for conflict. There's still the option to ignore the complexity at the cost of higher taxes. It would need to be implemented very carefully to not ruin the game, but I think the idea has merit, even if the OP is a little trollish.


It is a horrible idea in that it makes markets less liquid and less stable.

And this near religious view that we need more ISK sinks when in looking at the actual ******* data there is deflation in the game. Here is a hint: an economy can handle both small degrees of inflation and deflation, large degrees of inflation or deflation on the other hand are incredibly destructive.

We do NOT need more ISK sinks. Not at all. There is literally no evidence to support this. None. In fact, the evidence is that we need more ISK sources.

"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
mkint
#50 - 2017-02-19 05:12:07 UTC  |  Edited by: mkint
Teckos Pech wrote:
mkint wrote:
There would be all kinds of problems, but it would be an interesting idea. It would make regional markets matter more. It would add another desperately needed isk sink, or several.

Obviously adds complexity, but the question is if it would be good complexity or bad complexity. In a lot of ways, I think it would be good complexity. Would add a lot of niches. A lot of opportunities for conflict. There's still the option to ignore the complexity at the cost of higher taxes. It would need to be implemented very carefully to not ruin the game, but I think the idea has merit, even if the OP is a little trollish.


It is a horrible idea in that it makes markets less liquid and less stable.

And this near religious view that we need more ISK sinks when in looking at the actual ******* data there is deflation in the game. Here is a hint: an economy can handle both small degrees of inflation and deflation, large degrees of inflation or deflation on the other hand are incredibly destructive.

We do NOT need more ISK sinks. Not at all. There is literally no evidence to support this. None. In fact, the evidence is that we need more ISK sources.

Even without taking the sink/faucet into account, it would still open up options for interesting gameplay. I'm not making any stance (for or against) except that it might open up enough interesting things to be worth some thought.

edit: usually most of the ideas in F&I are just outright terrible. I only showed up tonight to make people feel bad about their bad ideas, but this one actually feels worth exploring at least on an intellectual level. It's still probably a bad idea, but the effects would be complex enough to be interesting.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#51 - 2017-02-19 05:23:34 UTC
mkint wrote:

Even without taking the sink/faucet into account, it would still open up options for interesting gameplay. I'm not making any stance (for or against) except that it might open up enough interesting things to be worth some thought.

edit: usually most of the ideas in F&I are just outright terrible. I only showed up tonight to make people feel bad about their bad ideas, but this one actually feels worth exploring at least on an intellectual level. It's still probably a bad idea, but the effects would be complex enough to be interesting.

And it will close off a bunch of other already existing game plays such as the regional trade hub trader who takes advantage of price margins between trade hubs, by adding in double the risk (at least) for them and introducing far more tedium into their job.
It's a terrible idea, it's one of the worst I've seen frankly and is based on outright fantasy.
Cade Windstalker
#52 - 2017-02-19 06:41:51 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
And it will close off a bunch of other already existing game plays such as the regional trade hub trader who takes advantage of price margins between trade hubs, by adding in double the risk (at least) for them and introducing far more tedium into their job.
It's a terrible idea, it's one of the worst I've seen frankly and is based on outright fantasy.


This. The only reason something like this would be even remotely needed is if there was a massive imbalance between ISK sinks and faucets and that is not currently the case in the game. In fact last month the game was actually slightly ISK negative overall because so many people have been going out and mining instead of shooting rats and mining and selling minerals is an ISK negative activity for the economy.
Van Doe
#53 - 2017-02-19 08:00:41 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
And it will close off a bunch of other already existing game plays such as the regional trade hub trader who takes advantage of price margins between trade hubs, by adding in double the risk (at least) for them and introducing far more tedium into their job.
It's a terrible idea, it's one of the worst I've seen frankly and is based on outright fantasy.


This. The only reason something like this would be even remotely needed is if there was a massive imbalance between ISK sinks and faucets and that is not currently the case in the game. In fact last month the game was actually slightly ISK negative overall because so many people have been going out and mining instead of shooting rats and mining and selling minerals is an ISK negative activity for the economy.


Mr. There is no inflation in eve.
Lol

The price margins wouldn't change much.
Ant trading will be even more profitable.
Since the demand in the local hubs will rise.

Probably buy outside jita sell in jita is hard enough of game design to you guys.
I actually believe your not that dumb to understand you could also trade in other hubs.

But you making it hard for me.

I'm not trolling, I create content for everyone to enjoy. afk cloaky in a system near you while posting in this forum.
Previous page123