These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Isk Sink.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frying Doom
#21 - 2012-08-09 07:44:23 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Ugh, forums ate my post.

Nerfing anomalies (again) to reduce the problem of capitals generating ridiculous amounts of ISK is dumb. Address that with a scalpel. Screw over Joe Nullbear in his ratting Thanatos, sure - don't screw over Bob PvPer who occasionally jumps into his Naga to run a few hubs to fund his PvP. I don't want to see nullsec become a desert full of weekend warriors in supercaps funded by hisec incursions.

Know what else produces stupid amounts of ISK? Faction battleships in Incursions. I'm sure they're more common than carriers in anomalies and they print ISK to an extent that really should not be possible under CONCORD protection.

Personally I am after sinks not Nerfs, people complain a tell of a lot if an isk faucet is slowed.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#22 - 2012-08-09 07:47:54 UTC
Revolution Rising wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
Higher ship prices won't bother me personally. The problem I have with your half-baked as usual suggestion is that you've completely failed to realize just how far-reaching your changes will be. You've attempted to portray T2 ships as some kind of rich person luxury, and you're 100% wrong about that. Not misguided, just flat-out wrong. All this silly tax will do is punish players for daring to want to move beyond the limited roles that T1 ships can fill, and that's just...wait for it...wrong!


Yeah this is my opinion, as stated above this would add ridiculous costs to my t2 recons and I'm definitely not "rich".

Unless you can see a way around that particular set of facts, I'd say "idea debunked" Smile

And don't get me wrong, I'd love more isk sinks for "rich" people in the game, the fact is a lot of them have gotten rich off illegal gains (RMT), awful game mechanics (drone regions, technetium et al) which have since changed and some of them - flat out exploit use (moon goo refining bug to insurance payments, you name it).

I'm not saying ALL, but a lot of those people.

Given the nerf on tech and the prices falling, even with this tax your T2 ships would still be a lot cheaper than they were. Your way around is simply the price of T2 ships is now falling massively.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#23 - 2012-08-09 07:54:07 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
T2 ships are effectively the Luxury versions of the T1.


Luxury doesn't just mean "more expensive". That's like saying an 18-wheeler is a luxury version of a pickup truck. T2 ships fit entirely different roles that their T1 counterparts simply cannot do - this example is strongest with Recons, Covops/SB, Dictor/Hictor, etc. You don't buy them simply because they have X amount of increased damage, you buy them because they fill entirely different roles.

They are a better version of the T1 with more features and abilities. sound like going up model to me.

Snow Axe wrote:

A better idea of what a true "luxury" item is would be deadspace/officer mods. Higher base stats, easier fitting, but the purpose of say, an officer damage mod is exactly the same as a T1 or T2 damage mod.

Yes these are also luxury models but would not form a large enough isk sink.



Aha! You're actually taxing the middle class!

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Frying Doom
#24 - 2012-08-09 08:01:34 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
T2 ships are effectively the Luxury versions of the T1.


Luxury doesn't just mean "more expensive". That's like saying an 18-wheeler is a luxury version of a pickup truck. T2 ships fit entirely different roles that their T1 counterparts simply cannot do - this example is strongest with Recons, Covops/SB, Dictor/Hictor, etc. You don't buy them simply because they have X amount of increased damage, you buy them because they fill entirely different roles.

They are a better version of the T1 with more features and abilities. Sounds like going up model to me.

Snow Axe wrote:

A better idea of what a true "luxury" item is would be deadspace/officer mods. Higher base stats, easier fitting, but the purpose of say, an officer damage mod is exactly the same as a T1 or T2 damage mod.

Yes these are also luxury models but would not form a large enough isk sink.



Aha! You're actually taxing the middle class!

Shhh we call it a luxury Tax and no one notices Lol

But seriously yes the middle class would pay some extra while the super rich would pay more and huge alliance with T2 ship replacement programs the most.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2012-08-09 08:04:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Richard Desturned
my law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will burden older, richer players" is invariably to the greater disadvantage of newer, poorer players.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2012-08-09 08:07:18 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
They are a better version of the T1 with more features and abilities. sound like going up model to me.


Exactly, not luxury but utility. Why do you want to tax utility?


Snow Axe wrote:
Yes and as players move into T2 for instance frigates the added cost now tech has gone down will be a lot less than the cost the CFC just put on to newer players with the OTEC.
You can hardly be part of something that makes T2 ships a lot more expensive and then state something that will add a small amount in comparison on to the same is a horrible thing. Otherwise all your saying is that the CFC's actions on tech were just plain Wrong!


Of course CFC's actions on Tech were wrong. Anything that had anything to do with Tech since the R64 nerf that led to the Tech bottleneck has been wrong. Tech becoming so valuable is quite literally a huge mistake by CCP that they're only now getting around to fixing.

I'd ask you what your point is, but we both know you don't have one and you're just making **** up as you go because this idea is bad even by your already painfully low standards.


"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Frying Doom
#27 - 2012-08-09 08:08:57 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
my law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will burden older, richer players" is invariably to the greater disadvantage of newer, poorer players.

Newer poorer players use a lot fewer T2 ships and definately not capitals.

And with tech going through the floor it will still make the ships cheaper than last week.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2012-08-09 08:10:11 UTC
Hey Frying Doom, thought exercise time: Why is an isk sink a good thing?

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2012-08-09 08:13:30 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
my law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will burden older, richer players" is invariably to the greater disadvantage of newer, poorer players.

Newer poorer players use a lot fewer T2 ships and definately not capitals.

And with tech going through the floor it will still make the ships cheaper than last week.


Newer poorer players actually do fly T2 ships and capitals.

Is your idea of the "older, richer" players in the game those who fly disposable carriers and logistics ships? Or the ones flying the ships that your proposal would not be able to tax with current mechanics (i.e. supercapitals)

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2012-08-09 08:14:42 UTC
I mean literally the only way to accomplish something like that would be a progressive market tax (heh) but that'd /easily/ be evaded by buying in small chunks, which isn't exactly difficult.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Frying Doom
#31 - 2012-08-09 08:16:33 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
They are a better version of the T1 with more features and abilities. sound like going up model to me.


Exactly, not luxury but utility. Why do you want to tax utility?


Snow Axe wrote:
Yes and as players move into T2 for instance frigates the added cost now tech has gone down will be a lot less than the cost the CFC just put on to newer players with the OTEC.
You can hardly be part of something that makes T2 ships a lot more expensive and then state something that will add a small amount in comparison on to the same is a horrible thing. Otherwise all your saying is that the CFC's actions on tech were just plain Wrong!


Of course CFC's actions on Tech were wrong. Anything that had anything to do with Tech since the R64 nerf that led to the Tech bottleneck has been wrong. Tech becoming so valuable is quite literally a huge mistake by CCP that they're only now getting around to fixing.

I'd ask you what your point is, but we both know you don't have one and you're just making **** up as you go because this idea is bad even by your already painfully low standards.



My point is you can hardly be in a corp that drives up the prices a lot more than what I am talking about and say the minor increase is bad but the massive increase caused by the CFC was an error by CCP. The net result of the actions of the CFC were a lot more than what I am taking about. The only real difference this time is that members of the CFC would have to foot the bill with the rest of EvE.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#32 - 2012-08-09 08:17:43 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Hey Frying Doom, thought exercise time: Why is an isk sink a good thing?

Do you mean besides the decrease in inflation?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2012-08-09 08:18:16 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
My point is you can hardly be in a corp that drives up the prices a lot more than what I am talking about and say the minor increase is bad but the massive increase caused by the CFC was an error by CCP. The net result of the actions of the CFC were a lot more than what I am taking about. The only real difference this time is that members of the CFC would have to foot the bill with the rest of EvE.


CCP enabled us to do that with technetium by concentrating it so much that the holders could easily cartelize.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Frying Doom
#34 - 2012-08-09 08:23:08 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
my law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will burden older, richer players" is invariably to the greater disadvantage of newer, poorer players.

Newer poorer players use a lot fewer T2 ships and definately not capitals.

And with tech going through the floor it will still make the ships cheaper than last week.


Newer poorer players actually do fly T2 ships and capitals.

Is your idea of the "older, richer" players in the game those who fly disposable carriers and logistics ships? Or the ones flying the ships that your proposal would not be able to tax with current mechanics (i.e. supercapitals)

I believe with the new contract system they are talking about it could include super caps.

When I say the newer player I mean the newer players as to poorer players they will be flying the lower t2 ships so it will effect them the least.

Just a quick look on EvEmon is showing that from new to a carrier is about 145 days plus being able to afford it instantly plus the time to actually use it properly is another 100 plus days. Most characters don't just jump into T2 ships instantly it takes time and given the cost we have just seen for T2 ships it would be a fair while before a new player could jump into a T2 ship.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#35 - 2012-08-09 08:27:16 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
My point is you can hardly be in a corp that drives up the prices a lot more than what I am talking about and say the minor increase is bad but the massive increase caused by the CFC was an error by CCP. The net result of the actions of the CFC were a lot more than what I am taking about. The only real difference this time is that members of the CFC would have to foot the bill with the rest of EvE.


CCP enabled us to do that with technetium by concentrating it so much that the holders could easily cartelize.

Yes I completely understand that but if the argument is newer players could not afford this tax, they definitely could not have afforded T2 ships during the tech crisis.

Now the tech crisis is over and ship prices are falling payers could more easily afford this tax than they ever could the tech hike.

Note: I will admit the benefit to proposals here is very few people ever come here, especially when it's not CSM candidate voting time.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2012-08-09 08:50:12 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
I believe with the new contract system they are talking about it could include super caps.

When I say the newer player I mean the newer players as to poorer players they will be flying the lower t2 ships so it will effect them the least.

Just a quick look on EvEmon is showing that from new to a carrier is about 145 days plus being able to afford it instantly plus the time to actually use it properly is another 100 plus days. Most characters don't just jump into T2 ships instantly it takes time and given the cost we have just seen for T2 ships it would be a fair while before a new player could jump into a T2 ship.


Again, "taxing the middle class."

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Frying Doom
#37 - 2012-08-09 10:01:04 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
I believe with the new contract system they are talking about it could include super caps.

When I say the newer player I mean the newer players as to poorer players they will be flying the lower t2 ships so it will effect them the least.

Just a quick look on EvEmon is showing that from new to a carrier is about 145 days plus being able to afford it instantly plus the time to actually use it properly is another 100 plus days. Most characters don't just jump into T2 ships instantly it takes time and given the cost we have just seen for T2 ships it would be a fair while before a new player could jump into a T2 ship.


Again, "taxing the middle class."

The middle class use a lot less T2 and capitals than the rich and super rich. TBH I'm not sure what income "The middle class" would be considered as being in EvE.

But they will only be mildly affected by the tax and as the ability to spend increases in amount so does the Tax. Noobs are completely free of this Tax and the rich will pay as they spend. And as I pointed out the Tax will be a lot less of a cost to players than the Tech crisis did.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Revolution Rising
Last-Light Holdings
#38 - 2012-08-09 10:09:59 UTC
If you really want to stop the super rich from getting richer, a serious amount of acceleration being put on the changes to t2 moon goo -> asteroids/comets/whatever would be the way.

I mean I know of a corp sitting in low-sec and I'm sure others have similar experiences where they have literally sat in low-sec domain for 5 years now earning free money from moon mining while taking advantage of the non aggression of CVA controlled space.

Completely untouchable, and earning billions a month in medium earner moons.

Want to stop the rich getting richer? Stop the moon mining.

.
Frying Doom
#39 - 2012-08-09 10:13:08 UTC
Revolution Rising wrote:
If you really want to stop the super rich from getting richer, a serious amount of acceleration being put on the changes to t2 moon goo -> asteroids/comets/whatever would be the way.

I mean I know of a corp sitting in low-sec and I'm sure others have similar experiences where they have literally sat in low-sec domain for 5 years now earning free money from moon mining while taking advantage of the non aggression of CVA controlled space.

Completely untouchable, and earning billions a month in medium earner moons.

Want to stop the rich getting richer? Stop the moon mining.

Actually the aim is to come up with an isk sink that would not impact on new players to begin with and then slowly increase as they got richer.

Stopping moon mining does not create an isk sink it just means the money entering the EvE universe gets spent on other goods at the market place. A small percentage of this would fall into other sinks but the majority of it would just float around the market.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2012-08-09 10:35:48 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
The middle class use a lot less T2 and capitals than the rich and super rich.


You can repeat this all you want, it's not going to make it any less false.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["