These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP broke the no intervention on Market rule

First post
Author
Mephiztopheleze
Laphroaig Inc.
#41 - 2017-06-12 16:24:31 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
It is frankly a joke that Sov Null is now so safe that bounty prizes can be so distorted by a tiny percentage of the player base in Null.

A sickness crept into this game between ex-Null sec developers, Null sec CSMs and Null sec bitching. Now the game is warped to the point where Sov Null has become the safest most profitable option.

We need a surgeon to cut out this cancer.


Why shouldn't Sov Null be the *safest option* when being said *safest option* requires co-ordination and co-operation of hundreds of pilots?

*Part* of the problem is actually Jump Fatigue. With fatigue mechanics, it's very safe to use a super or carrier for ratting (or Rorq for mining) so long as you're confident that no-one is in range to come whomp you and that if someone does come, you have an alliance to back you up and try to save your ISK Printer.

The bulk of the tears and rage aren't so much about PvE, they're about the nerf to the PvP capabilities of carriers. If CCP wants to nerf their PvE ISK Printing ability, then target changes at THAT one problem, not just a lazy, blanket nerf.

It'll be interesting to see what the actual changes will be.

Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze

This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura

Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#42 - 2017-06-12 16:32:08 UTC
Mephiztopheleze wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
It is frankly a joke that Sov Null is now so safe that bounty prizes can be so distorted by a tiny percentage of the player base in Null.

A sickness crept into this game between ex-Null sec developers, Null sec CSMs and Null sec bitching. Now the game is warped to the point where Sov Null has become the safest most profitable option.

We need a surgeon to cut out this cancer.


Why shouldn't Sov Null be the *safest option* when being said *safest option* requires co-ordination and co-operation of hundreds of pilots?

*Part* of the problem is actually Jump Fatigue. With fatigue mechanics, it's very safe to use a super or carrier for ratting (or Rorq for mining) so long as you're confident that no-one is in range to come whomp you and that if someone does come, you have an alliance to back you up and try to save your ISK Printer.

The bulk of the tears and rage aren't so much about PvE, they're about the nerf to the PvP capabilities of carriers. If CCP wants to nerf their PvE ISK Printing ability, then target changes at THAT one problem, not just a lazy, blanket nerf.

It'll be interesting to see what the actual changes will be.

Yes but the problem is that CCP has made that Safest option, a very valuable option as well.

The fact that you can have a large standing army and the income to comfortably support them is what has killed Null.

There is no competition for scare resources that drive conflict. CCP has given to much and needs to massively reduce the income streams in Null.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#43 - 2017-06-12 16:38:10 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Mephiztopheleze wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
It is frankly a joke that Sov Null is now so safe that bounty prizes can be so distorted by a tiny percentage of the player base in Null.

A sickness crept into this game between ex-Null sec developers, Null sec CSMs and Null sec bitching. Now the game is warped to the point where Sov Null has become the safest most profitable option.

We need a surgeon to cut out this cancer.


Why shouldn't Sov Null be the *safest option* when being said *safest option* requires co-ordination and co-operation of hundreds of pilots?

*Part* of the problem is actually Jump Fatigue. With fatigue mechanics, it's very safe to use a super or carrier for ratting (or Rorq for mining) so long as you're confident that no-one is in range to come whomp you and that if someone does come, you have an alliance to back you up and try to save your ISK Printer.

The bulk of the tears and rage aren't so much about PvE, they're about the nerf to the PvP capabilities of carriers. If CCP wants to nerf their PvE ISK Printing ability, then target changes at THAT one problem, not just a lazy, blanket nerf.

It'll be interesting to see what the actual changes will be.

Yes but the problem is that CCP has made that Safest option, a very valuable option as well.

The fact that you can have a large standing army and the income to comfortably support them is what has killed Null.

There is no competition for scare resources that drive conflict. CCP has given to much and needs to massively reduce the income streams in Null.


CCP needs to massively reduce the income streams ACROSS EVE. You know that people are just going to go back to clogging up the Incursion lines in high sec if null gets nerfed too much right? Or FW or whatever.

People don't compete for resources, they compete for 'content'.it's always been that way, CCP (and many players) have always failed to understand that, and you end up with the DEVs trying to give rewards for things when they should make players have to make interesting choices.

This is why CCP making lvl 5 missions for low sec didn't start a stampede to low sec. This is why this change did not spur war, it spurred renting.


You've had years to observe the game, yet you keep coming to conclusions that real events with the game prove just don't work. I don't understand that.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2017-06-12 17:59:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Coralas
Jenn aSide wrote:

CCP needs to massively reduce the income streams ACROSS EVE. You know that people are just going to go back to clogging up the Incursion lines in high sec if null gets nerfed too much right? Or FW or whatever.

People don't compete for resources, they compete for 'content'.it's always been that way, CCP (and many players) have always failed to understand that, and you end up with the DEVs trying to give rewards for things when they should make players have to make interesting choices.

This is why CCP making lvl 5 missions for low sec didn't start a stampede to low sec. This is why this change did not spur war, it spurred renting.


You've had years to observe the game, yet you keep coming to conclusions that real events with the game prove just don't work. I don't understand that.


Nah the pre 2011 flat system was more desirable for renting, as is the current havens for everybody system, but the rental empire just can't be half the map anymore because of fozzie sov, and like everything in the game, effectiveness of exploitation is a thing that moves as knowledge of how to do it grew - rental empires in 2014 were simply better understood than in 2010, and when goons exploit a thing, they min/max it to its ultimate.

Locally the behavior is so different. NC and then MC kicked init out of syndicate/cloud ring where I live and they just left the cloud ring systems to rot. That is not the way dominion worked. Whilst wand-sov sucks it has the major benefit of stopping people wanting to pick up sov unnecessarily, which opens smaller scale holdings.

Also majors view piracy locations as more desirable than bad sov systems, which is why MC holds the prime syndicate choke with a 24x7 camp, in preference to bad truesec sov in cloud ring. Amish picked up the most campable of locations along the pipe that init was kicked out of, etc. Having smaller scale holdings behind that is no longer a security problem, its now a traffic source.
Salvos Rhoska
#45 - 2017-06-13 07:17:30 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
CCP needs to massively reduce the income streams ACROSS EVE.


"Everything is fine."

"Malcanis' Law"

"Carebears crying"

"Some people do nothing but yell for change"

"EVE is dying"

Etc.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#46 - 2017-06-13 09:46:44 UTC
There are people believing that CCP don't interfere with market? Waaaat? CCP even admited it on some fanfest panel about economy in EvE.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Salvos Rhoska
#47 - 2017-06-13 10:23:04 UTC
Aside from CCP re-introducing contraband PLEX from banned accounts to the market, I dont know of any CCP interference in markets.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#48 - 2017-06-13 11:51:00 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Aside from CCP re-introducing contraband PLEX from banned accounts to the market, I dont know of any CCP interference in markets.

There was an presentation at 2014 fanfest about PLEX, they were interfere with PLEX market directly.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#49 - 2017-06-13 16:56:43 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Aside from CCP re-introducing contraband PLEX from banned accounts to the market, I dont know of any CCP interference in markets.

There was an presentation at 2014 fanfest about PLEX, they were interfere with PLEX market directly.


Yes, using the method described in the quoted post. This does not make it a new thing or something people should be up in arms about.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome

Salvos Rhoska
#50 - 2017-06-13 20:53:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Aside from CCP re-introducing contraband PLEX from banned accounts to the market, I dont know of any CCP interference in markets.

There was an presentation at 2014 fanfest about PLEX, they were interfere with PLEX market directly.


Just selling confiscated PLEX from banned accounts back into the market.
They have always done that.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#51 - 2017-06-14 05:01:19 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
DARK SYCOPATA wrote:
This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach just is to manipulate the economy, incresin prices, decreasing global isk incoming and a no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment?

PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversións until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy why sems no longer offert demand in the rule.

CCP have always controlled the amount of cash created via bounties ect and the like and the amount of cash destroyed by isk sinks.

When one is out of balance with the other it causes problems in the economy.

The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade.


You missed the parts about how decreasing the growth rate of ISK in the game is going to actually raise prices..... Shocked

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Salvos Rhoska
#52 - 2017-06-14 06:19:13 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
DARK SYCOPATA wrote:
This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach just is to manipulate the economy, incresin prices, decreasing global isk incoming and a no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment?

PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversións until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy why sems no longer offert demand in the rule.

CCP have always controlled the amount of cash created via bounties ect and the like and the amount of cash destroyed by isk sinks.

When one is out of balance with the other it causes problems in the economy.

The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade.


You missed the parts about how decreasing the growth rate of ISK in the game is going to actually raise prices..... Shocked


The amount of isk from anoms wasnt changed.

What ship people run them with is still a players own choice,

If there is a drop in the disproportionate amount of isk that was being printed via carrier ratting, it will be a result of player choices.

I expect prices will drop rather than increase as a result, as the demand monetized by carrier ratting drops by x amount.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2017-06-14 08:04:31 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
DARK SYCOPATA wrote:
This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach just is to manipulate the economy, incresin prices, decreasing global isk incoming and a no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment?

PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversións until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy why sems no longer offert demand in the rule.

CCP have always controlled the amount of cash created via bounties ect and the like and the amount of cash destroyed by isk sinks.

When one is out of balance with the other it causes problems in the economy.

The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade.


You missed the parts about how decreasing the growth rate of ISK in the game is going to actually raise prices..... Shocked

Yes but you could be telling people that their Carriers and Super Carriers are a sunk cost Big smile

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Ryder 'ook
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#54 - 2017-06-14 13:17:22 UTC
In my first Corp after my long hiatus I was told to train (or better inject) myself into a carrier because "they are the new battleships now and elite-null-pvp doesn't need no sub cap support anymore" (quoting my -then CEO).

That's why I went on to BRAVE. Because I actually enjoy flying smaller, faster ships.

So, all the people complaining about the carrier nerf for pvp want this trend to continue? - To marginalize any and all sub cap ships in the face of ever growing cap fleets built around a carrier backbone with minimal (if any at all) sub cap support?

Really?


I dont, so I call this change a good one.

Every atom in our bodies was forged in the furnace of ancient stars - it's time we return home.

ISD Stall
ISD STAR
ISD Alliance
#55 - 2017-06-14 13:39:37 UTC
DARK SYCOPATA wrote:
This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach is just to manipulate the economy, increasing prices, decreasing global isk incoming, and first time no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment?

PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversións until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy, why sems no longer offert demand is the rule.


To be fair, my interpretation of the "No market intervention" rule is that CCP do not change the code that dictates market transactions, limiting the prices that items can sell for or outright changing the cost of items on the market. You can sell or buy any item at any cost you want if you can find someone to sell to or buy from.

To say that CCP never interfere with the market is just wrong. Every single time CCP does anything that affects the ships and their balance they in one way or another affect the market. By changing anything pilots will find a new optimal piloting experience, ships, modules, skill books and other items will go up or down in demand changing the price and so on.

If a player was to insist that CCP stayed out of the market, they would have to sit back and not make a single change to the game. Players would get bored and well you know.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#56 - 2017-06-14 13:45:43 UTC
Ryder 'ook wrote:
In my first Corp after my long hiatus I was told to train (or better inject) myself into a carrier because "they are the new battleships now and elite-null-pvp doesn't need no sub cap support anymore" (quoting my -then CEO).

That's why I went on to BRAVE. Because I actually enjoy flying smaller, faster ships.

So, all the people complaining about the carrier nerf for pvp want this trend to continue? - To marginalize any and all sub cap ships in the face of ever growing cap fleets built around a carrier backbone with minimal (if any at all) sub cap support?

Really?


I dont, so I call this change a good one.


So... when your old corp had a roving interceptor band in their space they'd send out dreads and carriers to take care of them?

Huh.
Vash Bloodstone
State War Academy
Caldari State
#57 - 2017-06-14 15:44:37 UTC
ISD Stall wrote:
DARK SYCOPATA wrote:
This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach is just to manipulate the economy, increasing prices, decreasing global isk incoming, and first time no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment?
PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversións until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy, why sems no longer offert demand is the rule.

To be fair, my interpretation of the "No market intervention" rule is that CCP do not change the code that dictates market transactions, limiting the prices that items can sell for or outright changing the cost of items on the market. You can sell or buy any item at any cost you want if you can find someone to sell to or buy from.
To say that CCP never interfere with the market is just wrong. Every single time CCP does anything that affects the ships and their balance they in one way or another affect the market. By changing anything pilots will find a new optimal piloting experience, ships, modules, skill books and other items will go up or down in demand changing the price and so on.
If a player was to insist that CCP stayed out of the market, they would have to sit back and not make a single change to the game. Players would get bored and well you know.



Something about this seems off. First, I would ask, what really is a market? There seems to be two main components to a marketplace, the goods and services being sold, and the actual people buying or selling said good or services.

CCP obviously always "interferes" with the goods and services part, in that it occasionally offers different stuff they can buy, also they created the market in the first place and it's currency. However, what they are doing now, is not merely changing the goods or services, they are trying to manipulate the people in that marketplace because they don't like the decisions those people have made. And I think this is part of the reason why some are mad at this. Basically, you are trying to manipulate the behavior of people through the economy, whereas before, your previous manipulations merely added more choices, and not eliminated them.

In fact, I got nothing against changing player behavior, but it should be made through game design, not economic manipulation. Lets take a real world example. Let's say you have an alcoholic, do you try to help him by increasing the cost of alcohol, or would you rather try to help him by taking him to a AA meeting? The choice is yours.




Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#58 - 2017-06-14 16:36:11 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:
PvP is fun, anomalies are boring anyway.

Of the two things CCP choose to nerf the wrong thing, they nerfed weapon and not the means of aquiring bounties by them.


The mean of acquiring bounties in the reckless way is to use fighter squadrons. That's why they nerfed fighter squadrons.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#59 - 2017-06-14 16:40:49 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


I expect prices will drop rather than increase as a result, as the demand monetized by carrier ratting drops by x amount.


There are a lot of unknown factors like how many go from one ratting account with a carrier/super to multiple with VNI/AFKtars.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#60 - 2017-06-14 16:42:12 UTC
Vash Bloodstone wrote:
ISD Stall wrote:
DARK SYCOPATA wrote:
This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach is just to manipulate the economy, increasing prices, decreasing global isk incoming, and first time no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment?
PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversións until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy, why sems no longer offert demand is the rule.

To be fair, my interpretation of the "No market intervention" rule is that CCP do not change the code that dictates market transactions, limiting the prices that items can sell for or outright changing the cost of items on the market. You can sell or buy any item at any cost you want if you can find someone to sell to or buy from.
To say that CCP never interfere with the market is just wrong. Every single time CCP does anything that affects the ships and their balance they in one way or another affect the market. By changing anything pilots will find a new optimal piloting experience, ships, modules, skill books and other items will go up or down in demand changing the price and so on.
If a player was to insist that CCP stayed out of the market, they would have to sit back and not make a single change to the game. Players would get bored and well you know.



Something about this seems off. First, I would ask, what really is a market? There seems to be two main components to a marketplace, the goods and services being sold, and the actual people buying or selling said good or services.

CCP obviously always "interferes" with the goods and services part, in that it occasionally offers different stuff they can buy, also they created the market in the first place and it's currency. However, what they are doing now, is not merely changing the goods or services, they are trying to manipulate the people in that marketplace because they don't like the decisions those people have made. And I think this is part of the reason why some are mad at this. Basically, you are trying to manipulate the behavior of people through the economy, whereas before, your previous manipulations merely added more choices, and not eliminated them.

In fact, I got nothing against changing player behavior, but it should be made through game design, not economic manipulation. Lets take a real world example. Let's say you have an alcoholic, do you try to help him by increasing the cost of alcohol, or would you rather try to help him by taking him to a AA meeting? The choice is yours.






I'll just point out that "sin taxes" are in fact a real thing and are intended to lower the number of people who consume the items being taxed in that manner (like alcohol).

In fact... in many governments they are MUCH more likely to create a "sin tax" then they are to publicly fund a recovery group like AA.

I don't think that particular analogy works.