These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP broke the no intervention on Market rule

First post
Author
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#61 - 2017-06-14 16:44:34 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


I expect prices will drop rather than increase as a result, as the demand monetized by carrier ratting drops by x amount.


There are a lot of unknown factors like how many go from one ratting account with a carrier/super to multiple with VNI/AFKtars.



I'm confused by this.

If they already could use multiple accounts to rat... why aren't they using multiple carriers (or one carrier and a bunch of VNI's if they don't have the skill)?

I mean... 6 accounts at 20m a tick in VNI vs 6 accounts at 200m a tick in carriers... why would they only start mutliboxing ships when carriers are nerfed? I'd assume they already are.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#62 - 2017-06-14 16:48:10 UTC
Scialt wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


I expect prices will drop rather than increase as a result, as the demand monetized by carrier ratting drops by x amount.


There are a lot of unknown factors like how many go from one ratting account with a carrier/super to multiple with VNI/AFKtars.



I'm confused by this.

If they already could use multiple accounts to rat... why aren't they using multiple carriers (or one carrier and a bunch of VNI's if they don't have the skill)?

I mean... 6 accounts at 20m a tick in VNI vs 6 accounts at 200m a tick in carriers... why would they only start mutliboxing ships when carriers are nerfed? I'd assume they already are.


Well multiple carrier/supers is a no go unless you literally are a piano virtuoso + expert multi tasker. You really have to take care of the squadrons now so you can't really multi box.

Carrier + VNIs probably have some people doing that but the hassle of extra account if you already make "enough" with just the carrier probably put off some people.

The key issue about future PLEX prediction si that we don't know how many will go the try-hard way and create many new accounts which would increase the PLEX demand.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#63 - 2017-06-14 16:51:58 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
DARK SYCOPATA wrote:
This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach just is to manipulate the economy, incresin prices, decreasing global isk incoming and a no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment?

PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversións until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy why sems no longer offert demand in the rule.

CCP have always controlled the amount of cash created via bounties ect and the like and the amount of cash destroyed by isk sinks.

When one is out of balance with the other it causes problems in the economy.

The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade.


You missed the parts about how decreasing the growth rate of ISK in the game is going to actually raise prices..... Shocked

Yes but you could be telling people that their Carriers and Super Carriers are a sunk cost Big smile


1. They aren't sunk if you can sell them and recover your investment.
2. If they are sunk costs, those costs are irrelevant to any calculation from that point forward.

"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
#64 - 2017-06-14 19:43:01 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
DARK SYCOPATA wrote:
This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach just is to manipulate the economy, incresin prices, decreasing global isk incoming and a no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment?

PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversións until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy why sems no longer offert demand in the rule.

CCP have always controlled the amount of cash created via bounties ect and the like and the amount of cash destroyed by isk sinks.

When one is out of balance with the other it causes problems in the economy.

The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade.


You missed the parts about how decreasing the growth rate of ISK in the game is going to actually raise prices..... Shocked


The amount of isk from anoms wasnt changed.

What ship people run them with is still a players own choice,

If there is a drop in the disproportionate amount of isk that was being printed via carrier ratting, it will be a result of player choices.

I expect prices will drop rather than increase as a result, as the demand monetized by carrier ratting drops by x amount.


Actually it did increase. The rate of increase after October 2016 the rate of increase in bounties went from 1.5T ISK to 3.2T ISK. March 2016 ISK from bounties was 37.6T ISK, March 2017 it was 66.650T ISK, about a 77.2% increase.

And that is where you can get a problem. If the money supply is growing faster than the real economy, then you can get inflation.

"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

Djsaeu
Doomheim
#65 - 2017-06-14 20:32:26 UTC
How many have said it? Now it is my turn.

I LOVE YOUR TEARS!!!
Salvos Rhoska
#66 - 2017-06-15 05:40:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Teckos Pech wrote:
Actually it did increase.


I meant the isk value of anoms did not change.