These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fixing Technetium

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Luis Graca
#181 - 2012-06-15 20:46:34 UTC
I can already see the future of Technetium

1 - Goons will have to lose it's current home
2 - Technetium will be nerfed
3 - Technetium will be buffed due to a to big dysprosium
4 - New moon go cartel like dysprosium
5 - Wining at the forums to nerf dysprosium
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#182 - 2012-06-15 20:47:48 UTC  |  Edited by: corestwo
Weaselior wrote:
It's not necessarally bad and I think p/d was good for the game, but if you want moon value to have something between 'worthless' and 'tech'. The only ones that are not completely worthless are neo/dysp, because neo is very close to tech in usage, and dyspro has no stockpiles that built up while it was the king mineral (unlike like most minerals) and is mostly used.


Bottlenecking isn't necessarily bad at first but left unchecked, you have the effect SetrakDark noted, of "pulling all T2 value to them", as T2 materials are basketed, albeit loosely - a rise in one area tends to drive related minerals down, somewhat.


Anyway, I wanted to reiterate a different point that Weaselior has made. If you want to distribute things like moon mining to the players via ring mining, it must be effectively taxable.

As Weaselior noted, Goonwaffe does not bother placing refinery taxes in goonspace. It would impede our own importation for supercaps. That could be worked around, but the bigger problem is that it only hits "the little guy" - the casual miner who mines an hour a day and logs off. Our power miners, however, folks like Bloodtear & his crew, who mine out entire level 3-5 gravimetric anomalies on their own, can evade the tax if they want by simply compressing the ore and jumping it out to lowsec.

Thus, if you want ring mining taxes to replace moon mining, the alliance must be able to tax it in some non-evadable way. To parrot Aryth, PI did a very good job of this. The current mining system obviously does not.

Luis Graca wrote:
I can already see the future of Technetium

1 - Goons will have to lose it's current home
2 - Technetium will be nerfed
3 - Technetium will be buffed due to a to big dysprosium
4 - New moon go cartel like dysprosium
5 - Wining at the forums to nerf dysprosium


Dysprosium by its far more distributed nature would be far more difficult to cartel; tech is only cartelled because a) it's highly regional and b) we know a nerf is on the horizon anyway. Besides, PI and eventually ring mining are efforts to move away from alliance-based income like moons anyway.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#183 - 2012-06-15 20:51:00 UTC
howabout just not make player owned stations total garbage compared to NPC stations as far as refining or everything else goes?
Luis Graca
#184 - 2012-06-15 20:58:06 UTC
corestwo wrote:
Weaselior wrote:

Luis Graca wrote:


Dysprosium by its far more distributed nature would be far more difficult to cartel; tech is only cartelled because a) it's highly regional and b) we know a nerf is on the horizon anyway. Besides, PI and eventually ring mining are efforts to move away from alliance-based income like moons anyway.




Yeah that never happen before Roll
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#185 - 2012-06-15 21:02:59 UTC  |  Edited by: corestwo
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
howabout just not make player owned stations total garbage compared to NPC stations as far as refining or everything else goes?

You're trying to address the topic of taxing refining, I assume?

If so, the fact that outpost refines suck compared to NPC stations is not the problem with taxing mining...the lousy base refine level offered by outposts can be overcome with training and implants anyway.

The issue is that the "power miners" who stripmine entire belts on their own account for a large portion of the mining done in our space, if not the majority. However, they also have the logistical base required - rorquals and/or jump freighters - to simply take their ore to lowsec or highsec and refine it there. Meanwhile, the collective "little guy" who has no such option is the only one hit by the tax. To draw a real life comparison, it's sort of like how the wealthy IRL can use carried interest and cayman island bank accounts and stuff to avoid taxes, while you and I pay our full share. The net effect in both cases is that the taxing entity loses out on quite a bit of income.

That's why we've been emphasizing that ring mining needs to have a "guaranteed taxable" method.

Luis Graca wrote:
corestwo wrote:
Weaselior wrote:

Luis Graca wrote:


Dysprosium by its far more distributed nature would be far more difficult to cartel; tech is only cartelled because a) it's highly regional and b) we know a nerf is on the horizon anyway. Besides, PI and eventually ring mining are efforts to move away from alliance-based income like moons anyway.




Yeah that never happen before Roll


Dysprosium and Prom both went to very high prices in the past on the bottleneck effect alone (and Tech would get there on its own too, eventually). However, while there were regions that were superior to others (Delve/Querious, and some of the northern regions being the best), there was still enough in other regions so as to make a cartel like we're doing far more difficult at least, if not impossible. There also wasn't the "this will be nerfed soon" effect hanging over people which contributes to the cartel now.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#186 - 2012-06-15 21:04:14 UTC
The issue also isn't just losing out on income, but the unpleasantness/unfairness of running an alliance by taxing only the working schmoes while the robber barons avoid taxes entirely.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
SetrakDark
Doomheim
#187 - 2012-06-15 21:09:25 UTC
1%ers gonna 1%
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#188 - 2012-06-15 21:11:29 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
The issue also isn't just losing out on income, but the unpleasantness/unfairness of running an alliance by taxing only the working schmoes while the robber barons avoid taxes entirely.


Well yes. The idea that goons actually care about our line members is probably shockingly unbelievable to most people who aren't in the CFC though, so "lost income" is much easier to explain. Lol

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#189 - 2012-06-15 21:14:11 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
The issue also isn't just losing out on income, but the unpleasantness/unfairness of running an alliance by taxing only the working schmoes while the robber barons avoid taxes entirely.



When alliances depend on "working schmoes" aka "nullsec population" for their income, then they'll be encouraged to recruit and value them.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#190 - 2012-06-15 21:16:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Malcanis wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
The issue also isn't just losing out on income, but the unpleasantness/unfairness of running an alliance by taxing only the working schmoes while the robber barons avoid taxes entirely.



When alliances depend on "working schmoes" aka "nullsec population" for their income, then they'll be encouraged to recruit and value them.

The issue isn't taxing them, it's taxing only them. I love our ratting and pi taxes because they're unavoidable. But refinery taxes mean we only hit the little guy, and it'd be better if we could be catching everyone. I have no problem with bottom-up income in general, or it even mostly coming from the little guy.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#191 - 2012-06-15 21:20:13 UTC
And, you know, actually have a reason to own space other than the tech moons in it.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#192 - 2012-06-15 21:21:15 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
The issue also isn't just losing out on income, but the unpleasantness/unfairness of running an alliance by taxing only the working schmoes while the robber barons avoid taxes entirely.



When alliances depend on "working schmoes" aka "nullsec population" for their income, then they'll be encouraged to recruit and value them.

The issue isn't taxing them, it's taxing only them. I love our ratting and pi taxes because they're unavoidable. But refinery taxes mean we only hit the little guy, and it'd be better if we could be catching everyone. I have no problem with bottom-up income in general, or it even mostly coming from the little guy.



Well then that can generate some of that delicious internal conflict just like tech moon wealth does, yes?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#193 - 2012-06-15 21:21:35 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
The issue also isn't just losing out on income, but the unpleasantness/unfairness of running an alliance by taxing only the working schmoes while the robber barons avoid taxes entirely.



When alliances depend on "working schmoes" aka "nullsec population" for their income, then they'll be encouraged to recruit and value them.

The issue isn't taxing them, it's taxing only them. I love our ratting and pi taxes because they're unavoidable. But refinery taxes mean we only hit the little guy, and it'd be better if we could be catching everyone. I have no problem with bottom-up income in general, or it even mostly coming from the little guy.



If transport stuff wasn't that easy (jump freighters) this would probably not be a problem, or at least smaller.

What about directly tax mined amount in sov belts instead? -I know feels awkward but why not.

brb
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#194 - 2012-06-15 21:22:02 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
The issue also isn't just losing out on income, but the unpleasantness/unfairness of running an alliance by taxing only the working schmoes while the robber barons avoid taxes entirely.

This is the time when you should prostrate yourself to Oldma so he can mentor you on how to enforce 0.0 taxes on commodities.
Luis Graca
#195 - 2012-06-15 21:23:51 UTC
Luis Graca wrote:
corestwo wrote:
Weaselior wrote:

Luis Graca wrote:



Dysprosium by its far more distributed nature would be far more difficult to cartel; tech is only cartelled because a) it's highly regional and b) we know a nerf is on the horizon anyway. Besides, PI and eventually ring mining are efforts to move away from alliance-based income like moons anyway.



If it's possible people will do it and if it will always get nerf to be "fair" and there will be no difference between EVE and hello kitty online

Not to mention this treads will never end only changes the name
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#196 - 2012-06-15 21:24:15 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
The issue also isn't just losing out on income, but the unpleasantness/unfairness of running an alliance by taxing only the working schmoes while the robber barons avoid taxes entirely.


Well, how do we put moon goo into the hands of individuals, but make sure the individuals pay taxes on it? It doesn't have an obvious middle-man like a pos or poco.

Since it is already kind of a bad idea to add taxes to the little guy, how about shift some of the taxes that already exist into the corp wallet? Make it so that alliance can collect some or all of the existing sales tax, broker/contract or clone fees in alliance owned stations. That way the alliance still makes its money off alliance owned infrastructure without have to add any extra burden.
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#197 - 2012-06-15 21:25:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Mortimer Civeri
Why not import the PI code to work on moons? Solves the Taxation problem, and puts moongoo income in the line members hands.

EDIT: Altho that fsucks the idea of ring mining in the butt Ugh

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
Jori McKie
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#198 - 2012-06-15 21:32:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jori McKie
CCP Soundwave wrote:

No disagreement there. But what if we based it on a system where you for example could upgrade your space at the expense of someone elses space? Let that simmer for a while and people will be fighting in no-time Big smile

I'd rather rely on a mechanic where people poke each other than moons.


I'm not sure if my idea fits in your line of thoughts but mabye it can spark something
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=115357&find=unread
The title may be a bit misleading but the general idea is dangerous space equals more reward, combine/expand that to a sort of draining other system of resources/reward in favour of the more dangerous one.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#199 - 2012-06-15 21:34:29 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Well then that can generate some of that delicious internal conflict just like tech moon wealth does, yes?


Are you trolling? I can't tell. Regardless, no one wants conflict inside entities, they want conflict between them.

Malcanis wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
The issue also isn't just losing out on income, but the unpleasantness/unfairness of running an alliance by taxing only the working schmoes while the robber barons avoid taxes entirely.



When alliances depend on "working schmoes" aka "nullsec population" for their income, then they'll be encouraged to recruit and value them.

Or more likely, many of them will simply continue to use the system they do already, eg renting out space.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#200 - 2012-06-15 21:40:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
The issue also isn't just losing out on income, but the unpleasantness/unfairness of running an alliance by taxing only the working schmoes while the robber barons avoid taxes entirely.


Well, how do we put moon goo into the hands of individuals, but make sure the individuals pay taxes on it? It doesn't have an obvious middle-man like a pos or poco.

Since it is already kind of a bad idea to add taxes to the little guy, how about shift some of the taxes that already exist into the corp wallet? Make it so that alliance can collect some or all of the existing sales tax, broker/contract or clone fees in alliance owned stations. That way the alliance still makes its money off alliance owned infrastructure without have to add any extra burden.

What about making "T2 Ore" only transportable via ore bays like the Orca and Rorqual have, and the mining barges will soon all also have (if I'm reading the devblog right)? I mean, yeah you could still cyno your rorqual all the way to highsec, but it would make evading alliance taxes much more of a hassle then it is now.