These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Mad inflation

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#241 - 2012-03-12 22:04:21 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:


Because you'd have more people doing assaults & HQ's if their ISK/hour were mre on par with Vanguards... if it were not for the time to set these fleets up they are ALOT more fun then Vanguards and more ships are lost more often because of the higher Alphas. The less ISK/ hour because they are not such a grind makes them worth it but talking people into doing them with the extreme dispaity in profit per hour always makes it a difficult proposition especially for NCN's


So nerf vanguards to the point that HQs are worth it then. Same result and less isk injected into the system.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#242 - 2012-03-12 22:07:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Kusanagi Kasuga wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

You honestly consider LP conversion to ISK to be enough of a PITA that you don't include it in your personal ISK calculations, yet that's exactly how all the "high level missions" make the high level ISK they report. In other words, you can't make a lot more ISK in missions.
-Liang


Are you personally experienced in these matters? If so, I'd gladly chat with you about getting more out of my LP, but it would be offtopic for this thread.


Yeah, I'm personally experienced in these matters and last time I missioned in high sec I was pulling in ~80M/hr including LP conversion.

Quote:

Liang Nuren wrote:

For reference, I'd estimate that including LP conversion and looting tags via a Marauder, its hard to make more than ~60M/hr running pirate missions - despite the fact its hostile/NPC 0.0 and you wreck your empire standings. ;-)
-Liang


Do you have information on the anomalies that are, as far as I've heard, where the ISK is at in nullsec (not including moongoo, which everyone agrees needs to be nerfed, and yet CCP does nothing)


No, and I wasn't referring to anomaly running. I was very specific with my question. Stop changing the subject. ;-)

-Liang

Ed: In case you forgot the question, let me rephrase it for you:

Should high sec incursions pay more and be easier than running pirate missions in 0.0 despite the fact that these pirate missions wreck your empire standings in a way far more permanent than any -10 ever did, as well as are almost arbitrarily more dangerous?

:)

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Grey Azorria
Federation Industries
#243 - 2012-03-12 22:09:08 UTC
Has anyone actually considered how much of an ISK sink Dust 514 might be?

Think about it, we pay one group of dust bunnies a bunch of ISK (which they then get blown up) to go and blow up another group of dust bunnies ISK.

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Sometimes when I post, I look at my sig and wish that I'd follow my own god damned advice.
Grey Azorria
Federation Industries
#244 - 2012-03-12 22:09:17 UTC
Damm forums

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Sometimes when I post, I look at my sig and wish that I'd follow my own god damned advice.
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#245 - 2012-03-12 22:09:49 UTC
I can't wait for that incursion dev blog.
♥ I am waiting for you honey.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#246 - 2012-03-12 22:10:13 UTC
people will just blitz HQs instead of vanguards

any kind of payout boost is terribly unnecessary!

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#247 - 2012-03-12 22:10:29 UTC
Gogela wrote:


Well as more than a few people have pointed out, ISK entering the game right now isn't a problem. What I suggested doesn't need to be applied globally... I'm just saying it could be. I totally agree though, deflation of any kind would actually be a bad thing, and is a lot more dangerous than inflation because if deflation go out of control it would really wreck the game experience.


Yes the current flow of isk into the system is a problem right now. Inflation and deflation are both just as harmfull to the game.
Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#248 - 2012-03-12 22:12:49 UTC
Grey Azorria wrote:
Has anyone actually considered how much of an ISK sink Dust 514 might be?

Think about it, we pay one group of dust bunnies a bunch of ISK (which they then get blown up) to go and blow up another group of dust bunnies ISK.


Knowing EVE and the way it works, Dust ISK sink will only get to the point of cost to run PI in high sec, then it will shift away from Dust driven PI.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#249 - 2012-03-12 22:13:23 UTC
Grey Azorria wrote:
Has anyone actually considered how much of an ISK sink Dust 514 might be?

Think about it, we pay one group of dust bunnies a bunch of ISK (which they then get blown up) to go and blow up another group of dust bunnies ISK.


The bulk of eve will have little to no interest in it.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#250 - 2012-03-12 22:14:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
I'd be careful about kneejerk reactions to a global bounty nerf.

It's likley due to the volumes of people affected and the large numbers involved, that the effective change wont be substantial.

If it was the sole contributer as an isk faucet and assuming that inflation is still 1% per month. Then assuming a total view to remove all inflation which may not be the best interests will obviously only reduce earnings by 1% per month. So if you were earning 100m isk a month you'd be getting 99m isk.

However it's more likley that a combination of isk faucet changes and sinks will be combined as a re-structuring exercise to combat perceived inflation issues.

So I think its a bit early to start the scare-mongering with the view that dramatic changes will occur as a result.

Bounty Hunting - Soon (™): Retribution (Winter 2012)

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#251 - 2012-03-12 22:14:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Misanth
Tippia wrote:
Misanth wrote:
2/10
He's right, you know…

…but even so, promoting PvP is a good idea since it drives production, which helps counter-balance the production of ISK.


Insurance money doesn't spring out of nowhere, like NPC bounties.

It's true that insurance is paid out by NPC's, just like bounties, and gets thrown into the economy 'from nowhere'. But that ship has been created by minerals, using BPO/BPC, and at certain points in the chain there is definately isk gone out through blueprints, taxes, etc.

It's a bit borderline argument, but if we're nitpicking you can't really compare isk inflow from insurance, with isk inflow from killing NPC's. That's why I considered his post trolling, it's mostly useless, at best a poor sidenote.

The real interesting things to look at is:
* Pure isk inflow created out of nothing, i.e. bounties, mission reward etc. And then you can compare most stuff including NPC shooting, ranging from missioning, incursions, exploration, belt ratting and whatnot
* Risks for isk losses while making said money, this is not a static/fixed number and can fluctuate, but it's relevant in the sense that it does provide isk sinks (or not/barely). Incursions and lv4 being at the bottom here, barely any risk involved and very few dying. Ratting in null, belts, exploration, anomalies etc is alot more risky. It is often related to PvP as well, unlike highsec NPC'ing, and in that sense we have even more 'related' isk sinks.

In light of those main subjects, even mentioning insurance payouts is as I said, at best a sidenote. It has a very tiny impact on anything, and even tho minerals/materials are 'free' (created items, not isk), there was still costs involved in blueprint, taxes and whatnot. It's very hard to take any such comparisons seriously.

Ptraci wrote:
Sal Landry wrote:
Misanth wrote:

* Promote PvP


Wrong. PvP is an isk faucet due to insurance. Try harder.


Not only that, but PVP increases demand for ships and module, which puts upwards pressure on prices.

PVP is healthy for the EVE economy and the manufacturing sector, but too much PVP can also be a bad thing.


..and that is the other reason I considered that trolling. PvP is not only insurance payout. There's plenty of modules involved, and there is (technicly, even tho not direct) an isk sink through faction/t2/supercap hulls. TL;DR Sal is commenting on step 1, I see the whole chain/bigger picture.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Seleia O'Sinnor
Drop of Honey
#252 - 2012-03-12 22:16:06 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
We're looking at the economy constantly and looking at our options.

One of the fundamental issues we have is that we're making everyone "better" at making money, so the effect kind of snowballs. Right now we're considering everything form increasing taxes to lowering bounties across the board.


Or just remove incursions.

Odyssey: Repacking in POS hangars for modules +1,  but please for other stuff too, especially containers. Make containers openable in POS hangars.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#253 - 2012-03-12 22:16:37 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
How about these nullbears start reporting blue bots before screaming about incursions?


Not possible right now. Like all political bodies, the CSM is corrupt on some levels. You have null representatives who punish their own members who report blue bots. RMT is big business when the convesion ratio is highly profitable in a country that has a broken economy or if you currently are not employed at all.


I have never seen CCP out people who report bots. The report must be done and move on like you saw nothing.

Tho if you are talking about things like shutting down SRPs and other activities funded by blue bots in retaliation well here is the deal folks. Blue bots are NOT your friends. Would you rather they get banned while there is peace and you have time to build up resources legitimately or potentially have them banned when you need that SRP the most during war?

They are cheating you
They are cheating your corp and alliance
They are cheating everyone

Report them.


AFK cloaking is an excellent counter to bots, too.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#254 - 2012-03-12 22:18:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
No, that's incorrect. The massive jumps we see in terms of isk almost always come when we make adjustments to anomalies. The last change we did was pretty drastically increase the isk floor across the board on anomalies and the isk coming into the economy jumped after that.



--- Thread



He could easilly end these threads by providing the numbers that prove what he says.

But if he leaves us with no numbers except what we have regarding incursions then its hard for anyone with a brain to ignore incursions as a cause of inflation.

Let us see the numbers on how much more isk was generated by bounties before and after this floor.

If it was several times more than what incursions bring in then yeah I will agree incursions aren't the main issue. If it was less than incursions bring in then incursions would be the bigger issue. If it was equal to what incursions bring in then I will consider them both equally to blame.

Does that seem reasonable?

I'm trying to see if you will admit to some things before we get the numbers so that after we get them you don't just keep spinning them. It would demonstrate you are not completely biased.




I don't care if you think I am biased or not. All I care about these days is if you are going to start actually using the report bot function or just blame something else.

As for numbers that is likely waiting for a dev blog. Or a tweet. And how will you factor in the Anom nerf and boost? How will you factor in bots and bot growth?

You would need a hell of alot more data than a couple of before and after charts. I only care about the fact that as of recently bounties are injecting several times the isk as Incursions and that in my opinion a large chunk of that is bot based. If all I cared about what "NERF IT ALL!" Why am I not supporting the rumored bounty nerf? As an incursion runner I should be jumping for joy at the thought of nullsec folks getting punished no? I am not because while large alliances do need a change the bounty nerf will harm legit players a hell of alot more than bots.



Well like I said if you gave some idea of what numbers you thought would tend to show incursions were in fact the issue (or not) before we actually got the numbers it would demonstrate you are not biased. Otherwise you just look like an incursion cheerleader.

Now you were claiming ccp soundwave ended the thread by mentioning the bounty floor was a big cause of inflation. How much more isk do you think that brought in? Because if you are interested in the facts you would likely want to know.

OTOH, if you are just interested in shouting "yay!" at everyone who says incursions are fine and "Boo!" at everyone that thinks they are a problem, then I guess you don't really need to concern yourself with the facts.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#255 - 2012-03-12 22:19:48 UTC
i think a lot of people in this thread are conveniently disregarding the fact that the lion's share of that "insignificant" amount of ISK being printed in incursions is being generated in three constellations at any given time

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#256 - 2012-03-12 22:19:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Fronkfurter McSheebleton
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
gfldex wrote:
[quote=CCP Soundwave]
Love makes pretty blind, you know. We all know how much you love your baby that is Incursions. Please don't cuddle it until it dies


You're aware that we're making adjustments to Incursions right? I've never said we didn't need to look at Incursion income in isolation, the point I made was that in terms of money coming into the economy, bounties are a massive issue. I'm not entirely sure why some of you keep insisting that it's either or.

Do Incursions need looking at? Absolutely, that's already been done and is awaiting deployment. Are Incursions the big issue in terms of isk coming into the economy? Not even remotely.



Which I assume what you mean by adjustments are changes to VGs to remove blitzing while boosting assault and HQ income right

Side question when will we see a dev blog about those changes? After fanfest right? And will we have plenty of time to test them on Sisi to make sure there arent any surprises right


Yet thanks for yet again pointing how wrong many are about Incursion Inflation. They just don't get it. In my opinion all they see is rage from Incursions providing an alternative to broken nullsec.



I'll leave the details to the devblog but I'd say there is a chance the changes might be (among other things) exactly what you wrote.


PLEASE tell me it's more than just upping the overall payout on HQ and Assault? Right now it's not so much that the payout is too low, as much as both HQ and Assault have one site out of the three that takes a ridiculously long time to complete. Completely remove the cruiser side from the Nation Consolidation Network assault site, and assaults will be much more balanced as far as site completion time goes. Likewise, remove the entire middle room from the True Power Provisional Headquarters as well as shortening the space between gates in the remaining first room, and HQs will be much more balanced.

For example, currently, a good HQ fleet takes about 15 minutes per NRF, 20 for a TCRC, and a whopping 40-50 for a TPPH. An assault fleet running NCNs can take an hour or more to complete one, roughly triple the time of the other two sites. I have seen fully manned assault fleets break up, rather than run NCNs.

thhief ghabmoef
Grey Azorria
Federation Industries
#257 - 2012-03-12 22:21:15 UTC
Seleia O'Sinnor wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
We're looking at the economy constantly and looking at our options.

One of the fundamental issues we have is that we're making everyone "better" at making money, so the effect kind of snowballs. Right now we're considering everything form increasing taxes to lowering bounties across the board.


Or just remove incursions.

Nah, even I think thats to mean. They are, as has been repeatedly pointed out, just one small part of an incredibly complex puzzle.

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Sometimes when I post, I look at my sig and wish that I'd follow my own god damned advice.
Endeavour Starfleet
#258 - 2012-03-12 22:23:25 UTC
Andski wrote:
people will just blitz HQs instead of vanguards

any kind of payout boost is terribly unnecessary!



Yep you have no clue about HQs either in my opinion.

You can't Blitz them. Atleast nowhere near what you can with a VG.
Zleon Leigh
#259 - 2012-03-12 22:24:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Zleon Leigh
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:


Should I quote CCP about Incursions again? They aren't the issue here.


I believe CCP misspoke - the Incursion income is overshadowed by the size other sources, but it is almost completely unbalanced (how many ships are lost in the shiny Inc fleets nowadays? .01% maaaybe?). PLEX being the logical outlet - PLEX prices skyrocket, since once that unstoppable Inc shiny has been purchased it floats indefinitely.

Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital. CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day

PvP's latest  incentive program ** Unified Inventory **  'Cause you gotta kill something after trying to use it
Endeavour Starfleet
#260 - 2012-03-12 22:24:10 UTC
Misanth wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
How about these nullbears start reporting blue bots before screaming about incursions?


Not possible right now. Like all political bodies, the CSM is corrupt on some levels. You have null representatives who punish their own members who report blue bots. RMT is big business when the convesion ratio is highly profitable in a country that has a broken economy or if you currently are not employed at all.


I have never seen CCP out people who report bots. The report must be done and move on like you saw nothing.

Tho if you are talking about things like shutting down SRPs and other activities funded by blue bots in retaliation well here is the deal folks. Blue bots are NOT your friends. Would you rather they get banned while there is peace and you have time to build up resources legitimately or potentially have them banned when you need that SRP the most during war?

They are cheating you
They are cheating your corp and alliance
They are cheating everyone

Report them.


AFK cloaking is an excellent counter to bots, too.


Sure if they werent AFK and reporting said bots.