These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#261 - 2012-03-12 22:24:50 UTC
Andski wrote:
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

How does/should that even way in? How would you quantify the significance of it?
Endeavour Starfleet
#262 - 2012-03-12 22:25:31 UTC
Zleon Leigh wrote:
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 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.




He did not misspeak. He said it multiple times and said it wasnt even close.

And again PLEX is NOT a measure. For many reasons.
Kaivar Lancer
Doomheim
#263 - 2012-03-12 22:25:40 UTC
Well I'm a casual trader and crunched some numbers. While trading is probably THE most lucrative career in Eve, you're required to hold onto large volumes of ISK. Day by day my net wealth will fall unless I keep churning stock and make enough paper-profit to cancel inflation. Once your ISK is in the billions, finding lucrative trades becomes more difficult and your average profit margins fall. A monthly inflation rate of 5-10% is awful.
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#264 - 2012-03-12 22:28:46 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
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.

Damn. I thought you were getting it.

NO!!!! Bad baltec1! Bad!

Yes the flow of ISK into the game is a problem, but within the context of my proposed fix the lack of ISK flowing into the economy could conceivably be the problem because it would cause deflation. NO inflation and deflation are not equally "bad"... deflation would be worse because the lack of ISK in the economy could mean that it is a lot harder to pull together investment capital for large industrial projects and the economy would stagnate. Inflation is good for the economy and helps it to grow! Hyper-inflation is not here yet but we are getting there uncomfortably fast and that could be a whole other ball of wax/problems.

Gah. I'm over it. I don't even care. I'm rich. I have a hanger full of PLEX. You guys want to hyper inflate the ISK go ahead. I'm hedged to the hilt. The people who suffer most are going to be anyone who makes money from PvE (miners or producers exempt) and new players. I feel bad for the noobs, but the rest of you are doing it to yourselves.

~fin

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Endeavour Starfleet
#265 - 2012-03-12 22:29:25 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
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.


It is not going to be that simple.

Mainly because the bot runners have alot of leeway to counter nerfs. Including more accounts and more aggressive botting.

It won't counter the issue and therefore it will just cause more bullcrap about Incursions to be posted. What is obvious here is the need to get serious about botting.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#266 - 2012-03-12 22:30:13 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
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.


How long does it take to run any particular assault or HQ site, then?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Endeavour Starfleet
#267 - 2012-03-12 22:30:26 UTC
Kaivar Lancer wrote:
Well I'm a casual trader and crunched some numbers. While trading is probably THE most lucrative career in Eve, you're required to hold onto large volumes of ISK. Day by day my net wealth will fall unless I keep churning stock and make enough paper-profit to cancel inflation. Once your ISK is in the billions, finding lucrative trades becomes more difficult and your average profit margins fall. A monthly inflation rate of 5-10% is awful.


Its not 5-10 percent at worst it is 1....
Endeavour Starfleet
#268 - 2012-03-12 22:32:25 UTC
Andski wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
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.


How long does it take to run any particular assault or HQ site, then?


Varies WILDLY. You have to remember when you have a fleet size that big the time between sites is bad. I cant tell you how many times I have watched 15 mins go by sitting at the gate. Then there is type site, Spawn rate, preload or not, etc.. etc..

Nowhere NEAR as easy to call as a VG going site to site.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#269 - 2012-03-12 22:35:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
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.


It is not going to be that simple.

Mainly because the bot runners have alot of leeway to counter nerfs. Including more accounts and more aggressive botting.

It won't counter the issue and therefore it will just cause more bullcrap about Incursions to be posted. What is obvious here is the need to get serious about botting.


CCP are addressing the botting issue as per their recent news on the matter.

Also even if bots are effecting things, if they remain the same volume you havent changed the playing field on how things are effected have you, you only make the same situation earn less but lower incentives in certain areas for botting. But not by much if the percentages are relevant to earnings.

I will agree however that if a "substantial" amount of bots are removed from EvE that currently have a significant impact on bounty earnings then the need to reduce bounties globally to combat earnings would likley be less of an issue. But this is dependant of the current botting impact. I'm assuming this is less however than the total amount of genuine players.

However, I'm hoping that CCP will be taking all the relevant factors into consideration. If anything other factors like these afford for less of a kneejerk reaction, as the removal of bots reduces the amount needed to be changed for all genuine players as a result.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Adunh Slavy
#270 - 2012-03-12 22:36:27 UTC
Gogela wrote:
The people who suffer most are going to be anyone who makes money from PvE (miners or producers exempt) and new players. I feel bad for the noobs, but the rest of you are doing it to yourselves.



It's not like people have to keep doing the same thing day after day. Not like a noob has to go shoot rats and PVE, he can run off and start mining right away. Joe Noob can shoot at 25K rat, or go mine 300 ISK per unit trit ... hrm, which do you think he will choose?

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#271 - 2012-03-12 22:39:33 UTC
Kusanagi Kasuga wrote:
Andski wrote:
Seriously any post by Endeavour Starfleet in threads about incursions should just be glossed over entirely because he doesn't want his risk-free 150m ISK/hour fountain touched

ITT, nullbears vastly overestimate the income level of an income source they don't understand and thusly want nerfed.

Top level income for incursions is less than 100m/hour in optimal conditions. There is already noticable competition in sites to make ISK, and it's likely competition will increase as more people find it's not as hard/risky as it used to be. It's still not 100% safe though, I have seen faction battleships explode recently.

The fact that nullsec people seem to jump on every chance to try to attack the income sources of others makes this less of a discussion and more of a war. Perhaps you need to stop clamoring for everyone else's income sources to get nerfed until they are actually higher and/or more dangerous than yours.

Edit: I'll admit I know f*** all about nullsec bounty prizes, much like most of the people shouting for nerfs to highsec income know f*** all about a reasonable high-sec income. The people quoting mission running incomes of 60-100m/hour, and incursion incomes of >100m/hour are either woefully misinformed, or outright lying to support an agenda.


I have been doing it all, and I personally like to min-max. The problem with trying to discuss these things is that a) not everyone min-max and run optimal setups (and they're different for different people/targets), b) there's too little numbers to give accurate statistics c) there's factors going in that people don't seem to grasp, like how an inflow of cash, even if it's "only" 15-20% of the in-isk in EVE, can be severely affecting the economy as a whole - i.e. proportions.

This is highly subjective, but to make a raw comparison from my own experience:
* Both Incursion and lv4 bounty payouts is alot higher than beltratting and exploration - the first two can safely be done in highsec for almost same income as in lower sec, while the final two must be done in null to be remotely worth it
* WH is purely loot, exploration is mainly about loot as well so neither flood the economy with isk, same goes for lv5 where the tags/LP is the main income rather than isk from bounties
* Anomaly farming can be on par with lv4 when it comes to isk/hour, at a min/maxing situation, but you are put at significantly higher risks, they can stop spawn/bug out etc, missions is nonstop available. Incursion bounties/hour is king of the hill here, you need a fleet, be at the correct area, etc tho.

Basicly, you can do profitable NPCing from WH, lv5 or exploration, and neither have a really bad impact on the economy. Lv4, Incursions and Anomaly income is pure constant isk on tap. They're all very very profitable. And the irony is, two of them can be done in highsec, with barely any risk involved, and thus very little isk goes out of the system, prices keeps going up, money loses value, etc.

Isk needs to be put into system from somewhere, we couldn't go completely flat without it. But the simple fact is that module drops is (generally) more healthy for the economy, and risky NPCing is more healthy for the economy. Both should be promoted. But right now, it's the reversed situation, it's more appealing for everyone to avoid risks, it's more rewarding. The most sane thing to do with be to steer highsec NPCing more into non-isk rewards, i.e. LP, modules etc. While nullsec need an edge over high in terms of income, risks should be rewarded, and promoted.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#272 - 2012-03-12 22:42:17 UTC
Gogela wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
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.

Damn. I thought you were getting it.

NO!!!! Bad baltec1! Bad!

Yes the flow of ISK into the game is a problem, but within the context of my proposed fix the lack of ISK flowing into the economy could conceivably be the problem because it would cause deflation. NO inflation and deflation are not equally "bad"... deflation would be worse because the lack of ISK in the economy could mean that it is a lot harder to pull together investment capital for large industrial projects and the economy would stagnate. Inflation is good for the economy and helps it to grow! Hyper-inflation is not here yet but we are getting there uncomfortably fast and that could be a whole other ball of wax/problems.

Gah. I'm over it. I don't even care. I'm rich. I have a hanger full of PLEX. You guys want to hyper inflate the ISK go ahead. I'm hedged to the hilt. The people who suffer most are going to be anyone who makes money from PvE (miners or producers exempt) and new players. I feel bad for the noobs, but the rest of you are doing it to yourselves.

~fin


All of the ships I build have gone up 30% since the start of the year and are still rising fast. Hyper inflation is already here, by summer ships will be 50% higher if nothing is done.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#273 - 2012-03-12 22:43:27 UTC
Andski wrote:
Kusanagi Kasuga wrote:
Top level income for incursions is less than It wasn't what I was asking, but you did indirectly answer it. No, you do not participate in incursions, and they in fact are relatively lessening your income a little bit, but you are quite certain from an unbiased standpoint that they need nerfed. Coincidentally, so does Scissors.

The only thing coming out of nullsec of late is 'nerf highsec, nerf wormholes, lowsec is fine, buff nullsec' with little regard to the fact that you need income to support a PvP lifestyle, and if you nerf highsec enough, all you're going to accomplish is that the only way to get out of highsec is in the arms of an entrenched and bloated nullsec coalition.


Actually, this is already becoming the case because of supercapital proliferation, but that's for another thread.


You need to stop post. Like whoever posted before, agreeing with goons repeatedly does not feel good. Sad

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Adunh Slavy
#274 - 2012-03-12 22:45:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Adunh Slavy
baltec1 wrote:

The Isk flow must be dragged back, do that and everything including bots will earn less and inflation will go back to something more manageable.


This is not directed at you baltec1, so much as the statement and its consequences, a number of which I know you are aware and have said as much.

If the rate of ISK slows, or were to be stopped, the value of ISK climbs. This makes those with a lot of ISK more wealthy. Now is this good or bad? Depends on your perspective. If you already have a lot of ISK, it's good for you. If you don't have a lot of ISK, you better go get some.

Prices will fall, this will not make mining, PI, Moons more valuable. It will instead encourage people to go slurp from the ISK faucets, even if they are reduced. But we are already in an ISK faucet slurping state - There is an imbalance here.

Why are some goods and services not increasing in price? (Granted some raw materials are finally starting to reflect changes, mostly due to drone drop changes in the future, which just goes to prove the point.) This is what needs to be solved. If you can go out and mine veld and make 90m/hour, or go shoot some rats and make 50m/hour, which would you go do? If Fried Circuits had a price of 5,000 a unit instead of the 150 or whatever it is right now, would that change your behavior? Of course it would.

The problem is that when a rat pops, he not only gives ISK, he gives other stuff as well. When an incursion rat/area goes, players are getting ISK and LP. I say, scratch all that. Each resource should have its own activity, that includes ISK faucets, LP, minerals, moon goo, T3, Salvage, everything. By making each resource have its own activity, the value of each activity is increased. The more value there is in activities other than shooting rats, the less ISK will flow into the economy.

For example, when Joeblow goes out and mines veld, he causes an upward price pressure on Heavy Water, when he mines heavy water, he pushes the price of trit upwards. Why? Because of the opportunity cost - since he has the productive capacity to do one or the other, doing one means the other isn't being done.

Why is it then, when we shoot a red + sign, we get all kinds of rewards from it? This means that all activities that produce the same thing as the rewards, besides ISK, are made less valuable; there are more of those items on the market than what is being produced by players. The opportunity cost of production is being subsidized by Loot Tables and some of the other artificial caps imposed by NPC prices on player consumable items.

It is overall productive capacity that can hold inflation in check. The value of everything else needs to come up, not by nerfing ISK faucets but by nerfing ANY activity that produces more than one class of thing, especially those activities that generate ISK from the faucets and by increasing demand on raw materials.

Even if the rate of ISK is slowed to something "manageable", the imbalances will remain if nothing else changes.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Zircon Dasher
#275 - 2012-03-12 22:47:11 UTC
Interestingly enough you could probably build a case that by making asault/hq sites better relative to vg's might result in an increase in total ISK being pumped into the game because population can go up while the number of contested sites goes down.

Should be interesting to see that devblog.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Endeavour Starfleet
#276 - 2012-03-12 22:47:16 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Gogela wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
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.

Damn. I thought you were getting it.

NO!!!! Bad baltec1! Bad!

Yes the flow of ISK into the game is a problem, but within the context of my proposed fix the lack of ISK flowing into the economy could conceivably be the problem because it would cause deflation. NO inflation and deflation are not equally "bad"... deflation would be worse because the lack of ISK in the economy could mean that it is a lot harder to pull together investment capital for large industrial projects and the economy would stagnate. Inflation is good for the economy and helps it to grow! Hyper-inflation is not here yet but we are getting there uncomfortably fast and that could be a whole other ball of wax/problems.

Gah. I'm over it. I don't even care. I'm rich. I have a hanger full of PLEX. You guys want to hyper inflate the ISK go ahead. I'm hedged to the hilt. The people who suffer most are going to be anyone who makes money from PvE (miners or producers exempt) and new players. I feel bad for the noobs, but the rest of you are doing it to yourselves.

~fin


All of the ships I build have gone up 30% since the start of the year and are still rising fast. Hyper inflation is already here, by summer ships will be 50% higher if nothing is done.



You do realize speculation on Drone bounties and a war themed expansion are causing people to stock up right?
Endeavour Starfleet
#277 - 2012-03-12 22:48:36 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Interestingly enough you could probably build a case that by making asault/hq sites better relative to vg's might result in an increase in total ISK being pumped into the game because population can go up while the number of contested sites goes down.

Should be interesting to see that devblog.


Except that wont be able to count the other factors that affect those fleets. It is not simple to factor VGs.
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#278 - 2012-03-12 22:51:31 UTC
High Sec Miner wrote:
It's not fair that I can be suicide ganked while I'm mining in my Hulk!


Goonswarm Federation wrote:
It's not fair that high sec Incursion players are making ISK risk free!


I'm confused. How is one risk free and the other is not?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#279 - 2012-03-12 22:53:58 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
High Sec Miner wrote:
It's not fair that I can be suicide ganked while I'm mining in my Hulk!


Goonswarm Federation wrote:
It's not fair that high sec Incursion players are making ISK risk free!


I'm confused. How is one risk free and the other is not?


Inattentive AFK miners are a lot like incursion runners because

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#280 - 2012-03-12 22:55:39 UTC
Also it's very clear that only Goons are opposed to easy ISK in highsec

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar