These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Increase Isk Sinks
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tsobai Hashimoto
State War Academy
Caldari State
#21 - 2013-11-30 19:42:28 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Linkxsc162534 wrote:
I dunno guys, Everyone always talks about making more isk sinks, and making the existing ones bigger.
Why not just turn the faucet down
Less Bounties from Rats (hits missioners and low/null ratters/plexers)
Knock incursions down, either that or make them much stronger. More ships should be blown up by incursions then are happening right now.

Less overall money generated in game. Instead shift a portion of PVE income to more module drops and such.

Not going to work. Because of inflation and prices rising CCP has to adjust (increase, add new) isk faucets. Decreasing them now will make a lot of players unhappy. On other hand reasonable increase in ISK sink will most likely be accepted.

.


Agree here 100%, but I think CCP is working on the issue, and they are doing just that, they are changing how isk is made by PVE players, to be less of a pure isk faucet....like when bounties where reduced awhile back, not by much, but a tad.

Honestly the best ISK sink CCP created was FW Cashouts, this is players grinding plexs and missions to make ISK, but it is removing ISK from the game....with zero bounties on the Rats, and having to pay 1,000 isk per LP you cash out to the LP store ( on most items) it takes isk out of the game, but it makes the person doing said action, richer.....

this is a great way to remove isk from the game.....I wonder if they will use that system, or something like it, in other parts of EVE
AKA Mordiki
Perkone
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-12-01 17:47:00 UTC
Tsobai Hashimoto wrote:
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Linkxsc162534 wrote:
I dunno guys, Everyone always talks about making more isk sinks, and making the existing ones bigger.
Why not just turn the faucet down
Less Bounties from Rats (hits missioners and low/null ratters/plexers)
Knock incursions down, either that or make them much stronger. More ships should be blown up by incursions then are happening right now.

Less overall money generated in game. Instead shift a portion of PVE income to more module drops and such.

Not going to work. Because of inflation and prices rising CCP has to adjust (increase, add new) isk faucets. Decreasing them now will make a lot of players unhappy. On other hand reasonable increase in ISK sink will most likely be accepted.

.


Agree here 100%, but I think CCP is working on the issue, and they are doing just that, they are changing how isk is made by PVE players, to be less of a pure isk faucet....like when bounties where reduced awhile back, not by much, but a tad.

Honestly the best ISK sink CCP created was FW Cashouts, this is players grinding plexs and missions to make ISK, but it is removing ISK from the game....with zero bounties on the Rats, and having to pay 1,000 isk per LP you cash out to the LP store ( on most items) it takes isk out of the game, but it makes the person doing said action, richer.....

this is a great way to remove isk from the game.....I wonder if they will use that system, or something like it, in other parts of EVE




It is a good strategy but is not very scalable imo. Honestly the null sec isk waterfall is what needs repaired the most. Nullsec needs to have a good 50% of its total passive isk potential removed from the game.. This way its only 50x more profitable than highsec instead of 100x more profitable than highsec.
Psychoactive Stimulant
#23 - 2013-12-01 17:55:00 UTC
Game needs more sinks.

Game needs more people to gank.

Ganking is a good sink.

Gank more.

Sink more.

Better prices for everyone.
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#24 - 2013-12-01 18:02:31 UTC
Psychoactive Stimulant wrote:

Ganking is a good sink. <- false

Ship loss is an ISK faucet due to current insurance system. While it wont allow you to gain profit, it still adds ISK to the system from nowhere.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
Linkxsc162534
Silent Scourge
#25 - 2013-12-01 18:05:17 UTC
Psychoactive Stimulant wrote:
Game needs more sinks.

Game needs more people to gank.

Ganking is a good sink.

Gank more.

Sink more.

Better prices for everyone.



Ganking really isn't that great of a sink though. So you might get a missioner here or there with an expensive 2-3bil ship. But thats merely a drop in the raging waterfall that is nullsec ratting, and incursions. Heck due to the tornado, more and more missioners have been flying cheaper ships anyways for fear of getting ganked. So in the end if ganking becomes even more popular, after a short time it'll stop being the sink that you assume it to be now.

Also nothing wrong with null being more profitable then highsec, it should be. But that profit should come as minerals, and industrial might. Rather then several thousand people just doing anoms all day. But if you do to much in that direction, a lot of players will be pissed because many people find mining boring and don't wish to partake in industry.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#26 - 2013-12-01 18:40:37 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Psychoactive Stimulant wrote:

Ganking is a good sink. <- false

Ship loss is an ISK faucet due to current insurance system. While it wont allow you to gain profit, it still adds ISK to the system from nowhere.


This is a misconception.

On average, a lot of ISK gets sinked out of the game for each ship being destroyed, as a snowball effect.

It does "add" isk, but it is on average less than the isk that got sinked out during its eventual creation, sale, and loss.

If you destroy a ship, only a percentage of the modules it has are dropped. The rest are destroyed, potentially along with cargo as well.

Believe it or not, goods moving around on the market and being built is a substantial sink. That market tax adds up fast. Not to mention, the destruction of goods incentives the creation of more goods to replace them, which follows risk, more destruction, and more tax.

Also, the juicy gank targets are T2, which offer a pathetic amount of insurance for their worth. Easily less than what was taxed out during the average production/sale.
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#27 - 2013-12-01 18:46:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Pinky Hops wrote:
This is a misconception.

On average, a lot of ISK gets sinked out of the game for each ship being destroyed, as a snowball effect.

It does "add" isk, but it is on average less than the isk that got sinked out during its eventual creation, sale, and loss.

If you destroy a ship, only a percentage of the modules it has are dropped. The rest are destroyed, potentially along with cargo as well.

Believe it or not, goods moving around on the market and being built is a substantial sink. That market tax adds up fast. Not to mention, the destruction of goods incentives the creation of more goods to replace them, which follows risk, more destruction, and more tax.

While some ISK are removed from the game during production and sale process it is alot less than ISK created by insurance system. Ships blowing up is good material sink, but at the same time it is an ISK faucet.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#28 - 2013-12-01 19:11:28 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:
This is a misconception.

On average, a lot of ISK gets sinked out of the game for each ship being destroyed, as a snowball effect.

It does "add" isk, but it is on average less than the isk that got sinked out during its eventual creation, sale, and loss.

If you destroy a ship, only a percentage of the modules it has are dropped. The rest are destroyed, potentially along with cargo as well.

Believe it or not, goods moving around on the market and being built is a substantial sink. That market tax adds up fast. Not to mention, the destruction of goods incentives the creation of more goods to replace them, which follows risk, more destruction, and more tax.

While some ISK are removed from the game during production and sale process it is alot less than ISK created by insurance system. Ships blowing up is good material sink, but at the same time it is an ISK faucet.


But that just isn't true.

Run the numbers and think about it.

It's not just one or two transactions that make ships and modules. It's MANY. If you have ever participated in trade, industry, etc, you would understand this.

T1 ship destruction might be a slight isk faucet, but considering the amount of trade going on in Jita, and their low absolute value cap, it's pretty minor.

T2 ship destruction is absolutely 100% an isk sink. The insurance payout is minimal, and the amount of infrastructure and market activity required to make them and sell them is pretty remarkable.
AKA Mordiki
Perkone
Caldari State
#29 - 2013-12-02 22:50:12 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:
This is a misconception.

On average, a lot of ISK gets sinked out of the game for each ship being destroyed, as a snowball effect.

It does "add" isk, but it is on average less than the isk that got sinked out during its eventual creation, sale, and loss.

If you destroy a ship, only a percentage of the modules it has are dropped. The rest are destroyed, potentially along with cargo as well.

Believe it or not, goods moving around on the market and being built is a substantial sink. That market tax adds up fast. Not to mention, the destruction of goods incentives the creation of more goods to replace them, which follows risk, more destruction, and more tax.

While some ISK are removed from the game during production and sale process it is alot less than ISK created by insurance system. Ships blowing up is good material sink, but at the same time it is an ISK faucet.


But that just isn't true.

Run the numbers and think about it.

It's not just one or two transactions that make ships and modules. It's MANY. If you have ever participated in trade, industry, etc, you would understand this.

T1 ship destruction might be a slight isk faucet, but considering the amount of trade going on in Jita, and their low absolute value cap, it's pretty minor.

T2 ship destruction is absolutely 100% an isk sink. The insurance payout is minimal, and the amount of infrastructure and market activity required to make them and sell them is pretty remarkable.


As part of a major industry corp I can attest that it takes lots of parts to build ships :-), seriously thou no ccp responses to this yet that they read it?
AKA Mordiki
Perkone
Caldari State
#30 - 2013-12-04 00:53:24 UTC
How many people replying here will it take before CCP replies with any response?
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#31 - 2013-12-04 01:48:44 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:
T1 ship destruction might be a slight isk faucet, but considering the amount of trade going on in Jita, and their low absolute value cap, it's pretty minor.

T2 ship destruction is absolutely 100% an isk sink. The insurance payout is minimal, and the amount of infrastructure and market activity required to make them and sell them is pretty remarkable.

(almost)All systems in EvE are interwined and (partially)balance each other. But if you take an act of ship destruction as separate system - it is an isk faucet.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
AKA Mordiki
Perkone
Caldari State
#32 - 2013-12-05 12:43:07 UTC
Back up we go to get CCP's attention
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#33 - 2013-12-05 17:32:45 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
It was suggested numerous times already but in a bit different form: apply full broker fees on every market order change, but allow to change volume of goods in order. This way older pilots can take advantage of better skills and standings and play "0.01 isk war" a bit longer (not by much) than newer players, but overall that would remove market 0.01isk bots because after 4-5 order changes it ceases to be profitable.


I don't really like that idea. There are way too many morons out there in the isk-war on the market. They could just reduce the price with one order to a degree so that everyone else who underbids them makes an automatic loss. I also notice regularly that people like to play games and annoy other market participants with troll orders and troll order adjustments. If the current system was to be changed, it would put most players in a disadvantage and only leave the one player to sell their stuff who gets to the point of an undesireable profit margin first.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
AKA Mordiki
Perkone
Caldari State
#34 - 2013-12-06 00:02:53 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
It was suggested numerous times already but in a bit different form: apply full broker fees on every market order change, but allow to change volume of goods in order. This way older pilots can take advantage of better skills and standings and play "0.01 isk war" a bit longer (not by much) than newer players, but overall that would remove market 0.01isk bots because after 4-5 order changes it ceases to be profitable.


I don't really like that idea. There are way too many morons out there in the isk-war on the market. They could just reduce the price with one order to a degree so that everyone else who underbids them makes an automatic loss. I also notice regularly that people like to play games and annoy other market participants with troll orders and troll order adjustments. If the current system was to be changed, it would put most players in a disadvantage and only leave the one player to sell their stuff who gets to the point of an undesireable profit margin first.


The purpose of this idea is to make those trolls as you call them pay a lot more for every change they make. This is an incentive for them to not spend all day long on multiple orders just changing the price down by a penny.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#35 - 2013-12-06 00:23:10 UTC
Linkxsc162534 wrote:
I dunno guys, Everyone always talks about making more isk sinks, and making the existing ones bigger.
Why not just turn the faucet down
Less Bounties from Rats (hits missioners and low/null ratters/plexers)
Knock incursions down, either that or make them much stronger. More ships should be blown up by incursions then are happening right now.

Less overall money generated in game. Instead shift a portion of PVE income to more module drops and such.



there would be a lot more isk being spent if faction warfare complexes were more deadly.
AKA Mordiki
Perkone
Caldari State
#36 - 2013-12-06 19:54:21 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Linkxsc162534 wrote:
I dunno guys, Everyone always talks about making more isk sinks, and making the existing ones bigger.
Why not just turn the faucet down
Less Bounties from Rats (hits missioners and low/null ratters/plexers)
Knock incursions down, either that or make them much stronger. More ships should be blown up by incursions then are happening right now.

Less overall money generated in game. Instead shift a portion of PVE income to more module drops and such.



there would be a lot more isk being spent if faction warfare complexes were more deadly.


This could be said for any NPC in belts, missions, etc. Has anyone from CCP read this thread yet.. thoughts?
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#37 - 2013-12-06 20:11:43 UTC
Sooo... inflation? This hits the low isk earners harder than the big isk earners.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#38 - 2013-12-06 20:21:15 UTC
AKA Mordiki wrote:
So I was changing the prices on some market orders and saw that broker fee for changing your price is only 100 isk. This looks to have not changed in 10 years. I think the cost should be based on the cost of the item being sold.

Less than 100k = 100
100k-1m = 1k
1m-10m= 10k
10m-100m= 100k
100m-1b=1m

I also think that the cost of using public build slots should go up as well based on the cost of the materials used to put the job in.

I know this wont be popular but we also know everyone will just raise the prices of their stuff for sale to compensate for the change. There is no shortage of isk in the economy that these would hurt even small builders, traders etc.



The broker's fee does go up if you're raising the price. If you're lowering the price then you've already paid a fee based on the higher price.

It sounds like you just want to have people adjust their orders less, which is important if people want to be able to put up orders for large quantities of goods.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#39 - 2013-12-06 20:23:40 UTC
AKA Mordiki wrote:

It is a good strategy but is not very scalable imo. Honestly the null sec isk waterfall is what needs repaired the most. Nullsec needs to have a good 50% of its total passive isk potential removed from the game.. This way its only 50x more profitable than highsec instead of 100x more profitable than highsec.


Aside from the fact that the rest of your post is utter nonsense, I would specifically like to point out that there is no such thing as a "passive isk faucet" in nullsec.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#40 - 2013-12-06 20:36:58 UTC
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:


Less overall money generated in game. Instead shift a portion of PVE income to more module drops and such.



there would be a lot more isk being spent if faction warfare complexes were more deadly.


This could be said for any NPC in belts, missions, etc. Has anyone from CCP read this thread yet.. thoughts?


Then perhaps yes take the original idea further and have incursion strength rats spawn more frequently in all areas of space. Also reducing the cost in tags for many FW items and re assessing how tags are generated would go a long way to sinking isk in to the system.

Perhaps the real argument is to allow for loans to be taken from some kind of Central eve bank and get charged interest? Big alliances won't be too affected but the masses of incursion runners and l4 runners looking to invest in something to improve their fit would be the target audience. Failure to pay could be handled quite a few different ways including kill rights I suppose
Previous page123Next page