Assembly Hall

Isk faucets available in highsec come hand in hand with isk sink. A nerf can potentially add net isk faucet by removing more isk sink than faucet (if more mission blitzers, or those who don't clear site fully, are driven off, than site clearers). Sanctums, on the other hand, is pure isk faucet, and can be nerfed or even removed safely.

Losing boats add isk faucet via insurance.

You're entitled to your opinions on how "risk" in Eve should be, but don't pretend it will help the economy instead of harming it.

See below:

Don't know if this count but bring QEN back or something.

Forcing bounty by looting will just herd players into either highsec or safe sov null tucked deep inside the blue ass of large alliances, where it's safe enough to do so. Isk cost of manufacturing equal to cost of insurance just brings massive inflation to ship prices netting to the same result as just removing insurance, but forcing players to pay more out of pocket.

There are safer ways to introduce isk sinks, in ways that are not hugely disruptive. Remove LP shop tag tradein, while increase isk tradein, to a point far higher than base tag prices. Drastically increase sov bills and npc office bills. Entities that get them can afford it. Drastically increase wardec costs. Etc.

Trying to "add risk" in order to force people to play their game a certain way, introduce problems, and has nothing to do with increase isk sink/decrease isk faucet. Don't tie the two together.

Those suggestions... they either vastly increase isk faucet via insurance, or chase highseccers (92% of total player base) to another mmo, likely both. Your other suggestions, like adding insurance value to manufacturing cost, is downright game breaking.

You are just interested in "risk vs reward" and trying to disguise it as isk faucet/sink issue, when all your suggestions make the isk situation worse. If you ever manage to come up with a good idea that creates isk sink/remove isk faucet, while also just happens to balance risk vs reward without breaking the game, I'm all ears. Until then, stop trying to push that thinly disguised agenda where it doesn't belong.

I'm not against your ideas because they increases risks. I'm against them because they ruin the economy.

Stats provided by CCP. A bit out of date, but I doubt it changed much.

All your ideas ruins the economy, in order to achieve your vision of what Eve should be changed into. It's an economy thread. Go push your unrelated agenda somewhere else. Btw, I now pronounce you the boss of what Eve should be.

remove drone poo...
ore to miners...

a little increase in prices is good for market/economic with big amounts of money... and for EVE itself (too easy to get big ships)
and more ppl will start to mine again - less ppl grinding isk in the economy.

that's a balance between that 2 things...

My general comment is that (as some people have already pointed out) botting seriously messes up the economy.

A friend of mine played this game back before the first titan was built, and he laughed at the idea that anyone would be able to any reasonable number of them ever. He was also afraid of lvl4s, because it supposedly took 5-6 coordinated people, much like incursions or c5/c6 HW sites.

If ships (especially caps and supercaps) were much much much more minerally intensive, nerfing them might not have been so important because there would not be nearly so many. People like cheap ships, but it was not that long ago that ship prices were set by insurance rather than minerals because minerals were so cheap.

I think the economy would be healthier if a serious effort to stop bot mining were made, not to mention help the poor miners that are actually people. (And for those people who say we wouldn't have any ships without botters, you have it wrong. If there were no bots, and nobody wanted to mine, prices would eventually rise to the point that mining would be more profitable than incursions/lvl4s, and then more people would mine, and then prices would fall, and then...it would work like a functional economy.)




Finally, on the whole isk source/sink thing. Problematically, CCP is determined to get rid of NPCs selling stuff, and not having massive inflation, while letting people get more and more isk. Good luck.

Stuff can be created and destroyed. Isk can be created, but it is much more difficult to find reasonable ways to destroy it. I think the best solution (not that this would happen in a million years, its just a theoretical suggestion,) is to get rid of all sources and sinks of isk. All of them.

Replace all rewards/costs that used to be isk with some physical item/mineral/tags that can be used and destroyed, and require transportation. Make skillbooks bought with some of this stuff.

Why you ask? Because isk will still be used as a medium of exchange. People who want fluid assets will trade their stuff/items for isk, as its much more convenient than stuff. People will still buy stuff they want with isk, but will no longer just be able to go and get isk form the isk tree, but instead will have to go and get stuff that other people find valuable enough to buy from them.

Isk becomes a medium of exchange, instead of a source/sink problem. If you still want some inflation for economic purposes, then give some to newbie players or something. Further, it encourages activities that actually contribute to the economy.

Basically, imagine Sleeper loot/salvage, only all of those ancient coordinate databases would be purchased by players because they are redeemable for skillbooks (instead of selling the databases to NPCs for ISK.)

EVE's long term health has to do with income to keep CCP in business and therefore EVE up and running. ALL else is secondary including everyone's fantasies of a 100% sandbox game. CCP gets to say how it goes and has the right to alienate thousands of potential customers and leave millions of ISK on the table if they want to. You don't get to.

CCP was at least smart enough to see that EVE as 100% null-sec would hamstring its growth otherwise don't you think they would have at least shrunk empire space by now if not made it smaller to begin with?

EVE has certainly held on and certainly has a devoted following but hasn't exactly been a smash hit. It is still a mostly unique game and although it opened almost a year and a half BEFORE WOW, it just celebrated 350K subscriptions. EVE has staying power yes, but isn't setting the world on fire.

What is the point of low-sec and null-sec if the payments are balanced against the risk? It's not like there's any real risk when death means nothing and a new ship is just seconds away provided one follows the rule to not fly anything one cannot afford to replace.

Humans as a group prefer living in high-sec type places rather than low or null-sec and the sooner people decide to accept that as reality the sooner they will be able to work out how to make this game more interesting for all players. Or they can keep going and keep the same subscription numbers.

This game needs treaties and trade and tribute more than it needs robbing from people who choose to play a style of game that CCP allows even though they might prefer more people spend more time screwing each other over, just to give the money to CCP's pet player segment.

The answer is shockingly simple. How come CONCORD pays you in Imperial Spacebuxx when you kill people in the lawless frontier? Why can you trade your Imperial Spacebuxx for things on the fringes of the galaxy?

In ye olde times, how much trade was accomplished by an agreed upon item? So my fix is simple. Cash made in different regions is only good for that region!

You wanna run HS missions all day? Good on you, you just made 1bil Imperial Insured Guaranteed "In God We Trust" Spacebuxx. Have fun only using that to shop in HS stations.

Lowsec income (lol) is the same, you get Black Market Spacebuxx. Only can shop in lowsec with it. Lowsec people dont trust Imperial Spacebuxx, only their agreed upon currency.

Same for 0.0. When the influence of the galactic governments is half a galaxy away ... I don't care how much they SAY their cash is worth/represents. Ill trade you a gun for that piece of metal.

Ya I could not agree more myself. I feel bpc's should be droping and not modules them selfs. On top of burning the Drone goo.

There are just to many sources of Min's out side of Mining. That needs to change. At least on NPC targets. Player targets it works just fine.


The current pure isk fauts are just fine. They would need that isk to pay the higher prices for things if you burn drone goo and change npc loot to bpc's.