These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Wow CCP, you are really rolling the dice on the economy
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#81 - 2012-04-05 17:45:29 UTC
mickydees wrote:


wow you must be a poor nobody.

Poor? Not hardly. Not vastly wealthy in-game, but more than enough ISK to indulge in playing any way that occurs to me. Mining keeps the main's wallet topped-up and well-supplied with munitions.

Nobody? If you say so. I'm certainly not playing to impress you. Frankly, whether or not anyone is impressed with me immaterial. I'm here to entertain my self. All else is a bonus.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
Spurty
#82 - 2012-04-05 17:47:48 UTC
Don't think bounties need touching. Just remove *all* drops from belt rats.

Only place stuff drops:

- Missions
- Complexes
- Anoms
- PVP

This *is* a pvp game after all.

Belt rats should just be for standing grinds and to pwn solo miners (doing it wrong).



There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#83 - 2012-04-05 17:51:02 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
Poor? Not hardly.
So actually really. Blink
Enkryption
Intergalactic Pool Boys
#84 - 2012-04-05 17:56:14 UTC
Spurty wrote:
Don't think bounties need touching. Just remove *all* drops from belt rats.

Only place stuff drops:

- Missions
- Complexes
- Anoms
- PVP

This *is* a pvp game after all.

Belt rats should just be for standing grinds and to pwn solo miners (doing it wrong).





There is pvp in this sandbox, yes, but that's not everything the game is. A huge part is industry. I don't think the no meta 0 drop change is going to effect too much tbh, it might raise mineral prices but I doubt it will be THAT noticable.
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#85 - 2012-04-05 17:57:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
Poor? Not hardly.
So actually really. Blink

Heh. I like how you failed at reading there. I could buy 20 bc hulls with my current wallet, and fit them all. That's not vast wealth, but it's not poverty, either.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
Zircon Dasher
#86 - 2012-04-05 18:00:14 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
Tippia wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
Poor? Not hardly.
So actually really. Blink

Heh. I like how you failed at reading there. I could buy 20 bc hulls with my current wallet, and fit them all. That's not vast wealth, but it's not poverty, either.


Rich and Poor are relative terms and I think you severely underestimate what it takes to be "rich" in this game.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Jacob Staffuer
Doomheim
#87 - 2012-04-05 18:02:47 UTC
Amity Lane has big cheeks.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#88 - 2012-04-05 18:02:48 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
Tippia wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
Poor? Not hardly.
So actually really. Blink

Heh. I like how you failed at reading there.
You mean reading, quite correctly, how you negated a negation.

“Poor? Hardly” → “Poor? Not really” → “Poor? No.”

…except that you wrote:

“Poor? Not hardly” → “Poor? Fully.” → “Poor? Yes.”

Double negatives are bad for you. Blink
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#89 - 2012-04-05 18:03:11 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
Heh. I like how you failed at reading there. I could buy 20 bc hulls with my current wallet, and fit them all. That's not vast wealth, but it's not poverty, either.

Wasn't a failure at reading, it was a literal reading of your post. "Poor? Not hardly." should actually read "Poor? Hardly."

/grammar lesson

E: Damn, ninja'd.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
D3F4ULT
#90 - 2012-04-05 18:03:13 UTC
This OP goes to prove they know nothing about economics, they don't know a single fact about the current economic status and what inflation is. The OP also doesn't know that only about 8-10% of the population really interacts mostly with Marketing/Trading.

Prices go up causes isk to flow, no clogs, More isk sinks means less inflation coming into the game (more stable economy), and with PLEX as 25% of the market, uh... yeah.. need some moderation there and a little bit of control if it gets stupid.

CCP has some economists in their hands that are handling it with careful consideration, they aren't just poking at it with a stick. With 10 years under their belt you're nothing more than a Doomsday Sayer so go crawl back under the rock you came from.

o7 good day.

"Bow down before the one you serve, you're going to get what you deserve"
Adunh Slavy
#91 - 2012-04-05 18:04:30 UTC
bldyannoyed wrote:
This is all well and good but there is one small-ish problem.

MINING IS A ******* AWFUL GAME MECHANIC.


Yeah, mining needs a change, something interactive that won't scare CCP's network admins, and can't be hacked client side.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#92 - 2012-04-05 18:06:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
Tippia wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
Poor? Not hardly.
So actually really. Blink

Heh. I like how you failed at reading there.
You mean reading, quite correctly, how you negated a negation.

“Poor? Hardly” → “Poor? Not really” → “Poor? No.”

…except that you wrote:

“Poor? Not hardly” → “Poor? Fully.” → “Poor? Yes.”

Double negatives are bad for you. Blink

Damn. You are, embarasingly, quite right.

I stand corrected.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#93 - 2012-04-05 18:09:34 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
Tippia wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
Poor? Not hardly.
So actually really. Blink

Heh. I like how you failed at reading there. I could buy 20 bc hulls with my current wallet, and fit them all. That's not vast wealth, but it's not poverty, either.


Rich and Poor are relative terms and I think you severely underestimate what it takes to be "rich" in this game.
You are, of course, quite right that 'wealth' is a relative and subjective term. I define 'wealth' as "having the resources to be able to do whatever occurs to me, immediately."

By that standard, I qualify quite handily. Ultimately, it's my own play the concerns me, so that's all that matters.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
Jacob Staffuer
Doomheim
#94 - 2012-04-05 18:11:12 UTC
Amity Lane wrote:
Vince Snetterton wrote:
But nobody in their right mind would change so many things in such a complicated system in such short order as you are.

Vince Snetterton wrote:
If a real life economist suggested making all these changes in such a short span in a 400,000 person economy, they would be fired on the spot.

Tell that to Franklin Roosevelt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

Seemed to work out OK. vOv


Yeah and America's economy is the envy of the world.
Zircon Dasher
#95 - 2012-04-05 18:19:02 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
bldyannoyed wrote:
This is all well and good but there is one small-ish problem.

MINING IS A ******* AWFUL GAME MECHANIC.


Yeah, mining needs a change, something interactive that won't scare CCP's network admins, and can't be hacked client side.


And hopefully something that encourages multiple players banding together, not just 1 player running 6-12 accounts.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Chokichi Ozuwara
Perkone
Caldari State
#96 - 2012-04-05 18:22:20 UTC
Amity Lane wrote:
Tell that to Franklin Roosevelt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

Seemed to work out OK. vOv

This is a joke, right? The New Deal was an economic disaster.

Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round.
Scarlett LaBlanc
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2012-04-05 18:32:58 UTC
When I first arrived in EVE my first job was industry. I looked up frigate and dystroyer fits on battle clinic to see what the popular modules wereand then trolled the markets to see what had good profit margins.

I spent day looking at the markets in two regions confused at how nearly all those modules could possibly be selling at or below cost. It was about that time I joined my first corp. a corp mate clued me in about all those meta 0 loot drops.

I was originally drawn to EvE by the thought that (most) everything was player made. Always blew my mind that perhaps the biggest exception were the things a new player would use, and that a new industrialist could afford to make.

To the change in loot drops +1

As to the the changing mineral prices, I don't see the issue. While some people won't mine because they simply don't like it, many more don't because anything other activity earns more ISK. If mineral prices rise, more of those people will start to mine as it becomes more profitable. More people mining increases supply and suppress prices.
Adunh Slavy
#98 - 2012-04-05 18:35:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Adunh Slavy
Zircon Dasher wrote:

And hopefully something that encourages multiple players banding together, not just 1 player running 6-12 accounts.



Agreed, it scales too well for one human. It's just too easy to sit there and watch TV. This is also a good thing in some respects, but it should come at a cost compared to being more active.

I've long advocated for two mining modes, the lazy I wanna watch TV mode, that reduces current yields by up to 80% in high sec, and a active mode that would give up to 20% more yield than current in high sec. There would be no penalty for passive mode in low sec and null, where you need to be keeping an eye on things. Active mode in those areas would be 30% and 50% above current.

What the active mode would be, it's hard to say what is best, there have been ideas on these forums for years. Trusting the client is the difficult part.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Jacob Staffuer
Doomheim
#99 - 2012-04-05 18:37:23 UTC
Scarlett LaBlanc wrote:
When I first arrived in EVE my first job was industry. I looked up frigate and dystroyer fits on battle clinic to see what the popular modules wereand then trolled the markets to see what had good profit margins.

I spent day looking at the markets in two regions confused at how nearly all those modules could possibly be selling at or below cost. It was about that time I joined my first corp. a corp mate clued me in about all those meta 0 loot drops.

I was originally drawn to EvE by the thought that (most) everything was player made. Always blew my mind that perhaps the biggest exception were the things a new player would use, and that a new industrialist could afford to make.

To the change in loot drops +1

As to the the changing mineral prices, I don't see the issue. While some people won't mine because they simply don't like it, many more don't because anything other activity earns more ISK. If mineral prices rise, more of those people will start to mine as it becomes more profitable. More people mining increases supply and suppress prices.


I wonder if anyone realizes that removing meta 0 loot drops and drone poo at the same time will end up being a zero sum game...?
Jacob Staffuer
Doomheim
#100 - 2012-04-05 18:39:34 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Zircon Dasher wrote:

And hopefully something that encourages multiple players banding together, not just 1 player running 6-12 accounts.



Agreed, it scales too well for one human. It's just too easy to sit there and watch TV. This is also a good thing in some respects, but it should come at a cost compared to being more active.

I've long advocated for two mining modes, the lazy I wanna watch TV mode, that reduces current yields by up to 80% in high sec, and a active mode that would give up to 20% more yield than current in high sec. There would be no penalty for passive mode in low sec and null, where you need to be keeping an eye on things. Active mode in those areas would be 30% and 50% above current.

What the active mode would be, it's hard to say what is best, there have been ideas on these forums for years. Trusting the client is the difficult part.


You've obviously never mined in null-sec. It's actually a cakewalk.

Also you're adding artificial controls and penalties to punish players for not mining the way you want them to.

It really bothers you that miners get to take a leak while their lazers continue to pull in ore, doesn't it?