These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Market Discussions

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Thoughts on the future cost of Isk?

First post
Author
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#21 - 2013-11-20 17:20:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Rthor wrote:
Oh please. When I hear that somebody is trying to help little people it is always going to get funny. When I get turned into a space communist arguing on the side of the space proletariat that is something.

You are arguing for lower pay for everybody. That is what reducing isk faucets means.


No, if you read my past weeks posts, I actually intend to get ISK faucets nerfed but not ISK income. It's two different things.


Rthor wrote:

Who here wants missions to pay less? Who here wants rats to have smaller rat bounties? Who here wants to sell their salvage for less.


I have a whole fleet of faction + deadspace fitted missioning ships, how do you explain that?


Rthor wrote:

and protect the value of your already earned isk.


I have little reason to want to "protect" what I have. It's not like I am going to lose it anytime soon, and my monthly expenses are *perhaps* 200M. Someone who only gains a fuktons of ISK and spends 200M a month, why should care to protect that against a variation of some % a year?


Rthor wrote:

If you want to help people economics will tell you that the best most efficient way is direct money transfer. Help them out by flying through space and dropping off some cash to randoms. It is fun.


I suppose you were not there when I gave away fitted Mackinaws, nor when I send 100M at a time to Solstice Project just so that he can have fun blowing other guys out nor when I send 100M at a time to prize guys who did something I liked (see the PLEX for good thread).


Rthor wrote:

How about we do not try to fix what is not broke?


Since CCP does not give numbers any more, nobody can know what's broken and what works. That's probably the reason why they don't release numbers to begin with.

Hey I am not affected at all but positively by this "not broken" situation. My stocks gain value just by sitting there, I liquidated 30B in isotopes 2 days ago but I still have an amount that could make you faint.

I don't sub with PLEX either so my convenience is ALL for this trend to go on forever!

If the game as a whole suffers, who cares, right?
Debra Tao
Perkone
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-11-20 17:56:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Debra Tao
You still have to prove that the game suffers from an increase in PLEX's price. That's far from obvious.
Rthor
Smugglers Inc.
#23 - 2013-11-20 18:25:40 UTC
You know VV sometimes people who made a lot of money feel the urge or the guilt to help others less fortunate ones. The fact that they made money gives them validation in their own eyes that they know what they are doing even if the people whom they are trying to help do not understand it because, you know, you know better that is why you are rich, and you have all this isk to prove that you are smart and right.

But I am a believer in theory of the second best and I am cognizant of unintended consequences. Road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I see value in not changing things too much because this produces a stable and predictable economy, which is good for the game in my opinion. We have some professions and I would not nerf them. Rather I think that it is good that you can move up to higher paying professions.

Give money away and continue to do so and that will be good. Kudos.

But if we must change the game I would move it towards free market instead of meddling and instead of moving in the opposite direction from the free market. If you have a free market things will self adjust. So for example I would get rid of insurance or make it player driven. Why would anybody want to insure ships that participated in the latest goon war? It makes no sense and it affects game decisions.
Debra Tao
Perkone
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-11-20 18:49:08 UTC
Rthor wrote:
If you have a free market things will self adjust.



You know that's just plain wrong, right ? The only thing that is garanteed in a free market is that it's Pareto optimal which basically means that someone somewhere enjoys the free market. Nothing proves that in a free market "things will self adjust" whatever that means.
Rthor
Smugglers Inc.
#25 - 2013-11-20 18:51:20 UTC
Debra Tao wrote:
Rthor wrote:
If you have a free market things will self adjust.



You know that's just plain wrong, right ? The only thing that is garanteed in a free market is that it's Pareto optimal which basically means that someone somewhere enjoys the free market. Nothing proves that in a free market "things will self adjust" whatever that means.


If something produces supernormal profits people will flock to it and there will be no more supernormal profits. Competition will happen. Why is this just plain wrong?
Debra Tao
Perkone
Caldari State
#26 - 2013-11-20 19:19:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Debra Tao
Because people may be restricted to enter a certain market :
- lack of technology
- lack of capital
and so on ...
And in general the dominating force in a market can probably push competition out using price war or other methods.

A good exemple of that would be OTEC, moons are free for all yet technetium was everything but a concurrencial market.

Another, more political exemple, is the health care system in the US. In the US health care is taken care of by privates companies. The end result is a sytem that costs a lot more per capita than more "socialist" systems like in Europe while the overall service provided to people is worse.
Rthor
Smugglers Inc.
#27 - 2013-11-20 20:28:19 UTC
Debra Tao wrote:
Because people may be restricted to enter a certain market :
- lack of technology
- lack of capital
and so on ...
And in general the dominating force in a market can probably push competition out using price war or other methods.

A good exemple of that would be OTEC, moons are free for all yet technetium was everything but a concurrencial market.

Another, more political exemple, is the health care system in the US. In the US health care is taken care of by privates companies. The end result is a sytem that costs a lot more per capita than more "socialist" systems like in Europe while the overall service provided to people is worse.


Regarding the first point, you have cartel in the first place precisely, so that you can have monopoly. The solution to it is war or smuggling. Cartels make for a good game thank you very much. Why else would you defend your space if you can make same money without having to defend your space? Your members would leave. You really want to regulate cartels in Eve? Maybe an inspector should write up a report on Delve every month and list code violations? Oh gosh that would not make for a fun game.

As far as US health care, this is what Milton Friedman had to say about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6t-R3pWrRw
Debra Tao
Perkone
Caldari State
#28 - 2013-11-20 22:03:14 UTC
I am not saying that a free market isn't fun in a game, you misunderstood my point. That's an entirely different debate.
I am saying that in a free market "things don't adjust themselves" and pushing towards a free market won't magically resolve any issue.

I don't want to discuss further the US health care, that's not the place to do so, nor the form to. I am not a big believer in forum when it comes to complex questions.
Adunh Slavy
#29 - 2013-11-21 00:04:21 UTC
Clowns still trying to make the argument that CCP should manipulate prices instead of let players find their own equilibriums?

The plans are different, but the planners are all the same.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Marsan
#30 - 2013-11-21 20:14:19 UTC
Man if only there was a way to track the price history of plex....
http://www.eve-markets.net/detail.php?typeid=29668&limit=500#history

Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community.

Antihrist Pripravnik
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#31 - 2013-11-24 07:11:37 UTC
One of the things that can kill EVE as a game is the value of ISK.

Just imagine a situation where you must pay a standard monthly fee in cash to play the game and then buy ISK by selling PLEX in order to do any meaningful active PvP. Take a look at 3 years from now, for example, and a PLEX price hitting 1 bil ISK (according to the previously posted graph, that will happen).

Now let's take a look at faucets:
- If they stay the same, value of the ISK will continue to drop as it is dropping now and it would become harder and harder for new players to do anything meaningful.
- If they are nerfed, the amount of ISK in circulation will stay, but only rise at a slower rate. Again, not very newbie friendly.
- If they are buffed, we'll only have faster and more potent inflation until the point where ISK does not have any meaningful value (I've experienced exactly this in RL, sadly.)

The thing is, there is a delicate balance that should be worked on and maintained that provides new players the ability to join the game. If anything that they can do to make ISK is worthless compared to the value of PLEX, then we have a problem. And this game, being over 10 years old, needs new players in steady streams in order to survive. People's lives change significantly over 10 years and you simply can not count on veterans holding the game forever.

Overall, the inflation must somehow be stopped or slowed down significantly if we want to see this game survive 2-3 years from now.
Rthor
Smugglers Inc.
#32 - 2013-11-24 12:37:33 UTC
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
One of the things that can kill EVE as a game is the value of ISK.

Just imagine a situation where you must pay a standard monthly fee in cash to play the game and then buy ISK by selling PLEX in order to do any meaningful active PvP. Take a look at 3 years from now, for example, and a PLEX price hitting 1 bil ISK (according to the previously posted graph, that will happen).

Now let's take a look at faucets:
- If they stay the same, value of the ISK will continue to drop as it is dropping now and it would become harder and harder for new players to do anything meaningful.
- If they are nerfed, the amount of ISK in circulation will stay, but only rise at a slower rate. Again, not very newbie friendly.
- If they are buffed, we'll only have faster and more potent inflation until the point where ISK does not have any meaningful value (I've experienced exactly this in RL, sadly.)

The thing is, there is a delicate balance that should be worked on and maintained that provides new players the ability to join the game. If anything that they can do to make ISK is worthless compared to the value of PLEX, then we have a problem. And this game, being over 10 years old, needs new players in steady streams in order to survive. People's lives change significantly over 10 years and you simply can not count on veterans holding the game forever.

Overall, the inflation must somehow be stopped or slowed down significantly if we want to see this game survive 2-3 years from now.


So you think that PLEX is too expensive.

Are you looking for space welfare as solution? One PLEX per account per month free or for a subsidized price? Or the game will die?

Really, you need in game welfare to play a game?
Antihrist Pripravnik
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#33 - 2013-11-24 17:13:25 UTC
Rthor wrote:


So you think that PLEX is too expensive.

Are you looking for space welfare as solution? One PLEX per account per month free or for a subsidized price? Or the game will die?

Really, you need in game welfare to play a game?


No, I don't mean that the PLEX is expensive. I mean that ISK is devalued and that if continues to be devalued, we will have a problem.
Rthor
Smugglers Inc.
#34 - 2013-11-24 18:50:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Rthor
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Rthor wrote:


So you think that PLEX is too expensive.

Are you looking for space welfare as solution? One PLEX per account per month free or for a subsidized price? Or the game will die?

Really, you need in game welfare to play a game?


No, I don't mean that the PLEX is expensive. I mean that ISK is devalued and that if continues to be devalued, we will have a problem.


Yes we will have space proletariat rise up and overthrow the isk hoarders in a glorious space revoluation. And then everything will be swell and PLEX prices will go down.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#35 - 2013-11-24 18:54:27 UTC
There is a tremendous amount of hilarious wrongposting in this thread for something that was originally a troll.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Rthor
Smugglers Inc.
#36 - 2013-11-24 18:59:06 UTC
mynnna wrote:
There is a tremendous amount of hilarious wrongposting in this thread for something that was originally a troll.


This thread is privileged to have you in it now. I salute you and your on topic input.
Rthor
Smugglers Inc.
#37 - 2013-11-24 20:32:17 UTC
Debra Tao wrote:
Rthor wrote:
If you have a free market things will self adjust.



You know that's just plain wrong, right ? The only thing that is guaranteed in a free market is that it's Pareto optimal which basically means that someone somewhere enjoys the free market. Nothing proves that in a free market "things will self adjust" whatever that means.


Your definition and understanding of Pareto optimality are wrong.

Pareto improvement is when somebody is made better off without making anybody else worse off.

Pareto optimum is when you cannot make anybody better off without making somebody else worse off.

If I am wrong I would like to know.

In context of this thread, if we nerf isk faucets just so that PLEX can be cheaper that is not Pareto improvement because even though PLEX buyers benefit isk earners suffer. So then you have to weigh the benefit to PLEX buyers vs isk earners suffering. If you do not care about Pareto improvement then you are just in business of redistributing wealth/resources.
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#38 - 2013-11-24 20:53:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Felicity Love
The "Amarrian Solution".

What problem? Just add more slaves to the "corporation" and send them off to do what slaves do.

Geeeeeesh, again with folks trying to make issues out of nonsense... Roll

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )

Rthor
Smugglers Inc.
#39 - 2013-11-24 20:57:50 UTC
Felicity Love wrote:
The "Amarrian Solution".

What problem? Just add more slaves to the "corporation" and send them off to do what slaves do.

Geeeeeesh, again with folks trying to make issues out of nonsense... Roll


The problem is that space slaves are becoming restless because they need to spend more and more time farming for PLEX. So they are unhappy. So they will quit game or else.
Debra Tao
Perkone
Caldari State
#40 - 2013-11-24 21:18:32 UTC
Rthor wrote:
Debra Tao wrote:
Rthor wrote:
If you have a free market things will self adjust.



You know that's just plain wrong, right ? The only thing that is guaranteed in a free market is that it's Pareto optimal which basically means that someone somewhere enjoys the free market. Nothing proves that in a free market "things will self adjust" whatever that means.


Your definition and understanding of Pareto optimality are wrong.

Pareto improvement is when somebody is made better off without making anybody else worse off.

Pareto optimum is when you cannot make anybody better off without making somebody else worse off.

If I am wrong I would like to know.

In context of this thread, if we nerf isk faucets just so that PLEX can be cheaper that is not Pareto improvement because even though PLEX buyers benefit isk earners suffer. So then you have to weigh the benefit to PLEX buyers vs isk earners suffering. If you do not care about Pareto improvement then you are just in business of redistributing wealth/resources.


A perfect free market will bring, when reaching equilibrium, a Pareto optimal situation. That's has been proved (don't remember the guy but that doesn't matter I can find it if you want).
However a Pareto optimum is hardly great in any case as you can find many exemples that are Pareto optimal while stll being ****** for everyone but one agent. If you do care about what is Pareto optimal and what isn't for practical purposes you are just dumb.

In the case of PLEX's price it's obvious that a shift in PLEX price, whether it is an increase or a decrease in price, isn't a Pareto improvment as there will always be one guy that want to push the price in the other direction. That's a decent illustration of why Pareto's notions are plain dumb in any practical cases. Pareto improvement are pratically non existents so I feel pretty good about not caring about them.
Previous page123Next page