open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Keep on hunting your enemies
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic

Marshallin Santerese
Posted - 2011.04.04 16:07:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Trin Javidan

How about fixing pvp so more stuff gets blown up? Combine this with a review of the T2 ME BPO needs and u can solve alot of problems at once. Solve the prom/dyspo/neo/thul/tech problem. Second make t2 recons/ hac's/ dicters/hic's/logi's (currently a avarage pvp ship cost 130 mil. Thats 130/ 40 = 3,25 hours or boring anomaly whoring) cheaper. Now people can buy more and care less about losing so more pvp = better isk sink (side effect; implants get lost more)


PVP ship destruction isn't an ISK sink. It does improve consumption (which is not an unalloyed good, but is basically positive) but it doesn't change the amount of money in the system.
Implant destruction leads to an increase the use of the LP stores, which is a small ISK sink, but I doubt increasing the number of poddings is a particularly effective way of sinking large amounts of isk from the system.
Dr. E. mentioned that plex creation currently outstrips usage by about 25%, which means either (a) plex prices will trend downwards until that's no longer the case or (b) there are significant stockpiles of plex in system.
Plex is a useful economic indicator, and it's also an interesting conduit for isk, but its effect on the overall economy is difficult to judge.

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.04.04 16:15:00 - [62]
 

Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 16:15:34
Originally by: Marshallin Santerese
Originally by: Trin Javidan

How about fixing pvp so more stuff gets blown up? Combine this with a review of the T2 ME BPO needs and u can solve alot of problems at once. Solve the prom/dyspo/neo/thul/tech problem. Second make t2 recons/ hac's/ dicters/hic's/logi's (currently a avarage pvp ship cost 130 mil. Thats 130/ 40 = 3,25 hours or boring anomaly whoring) cheaper. Now people can buy more and care less about losing so more pvp = better isk sink (side effect; implants get lost more)


PVP ship destruction isn't an ISK sink. It does improve consumption (which is not an unalloyed good, but is basically positive) but it doesn't change the amount of money in the system.
Implant destruction leads to an increase the use of the LP stores, which is a small ISK sink, but I doubt increasing the number of poddings is a particularly effective way of sinking large amounts of isk from the system.
Dr. E. mentioned that plex creation currently outstrips usage by about 25%, which means either (a) plex prices will trend downwards until that's no longer the case or (b) there are significant stockpiles of plex in system.
Plex is a useful economic indicator, and it's also an interesting conduit for isk, but its effect on the overall economy is difficult to judge.


From what i have seen Plex Prices have gone up So that to me says people are trading them more than they are buying

Knug LiDi
N00bFleeT
Posted - 2011.04.04 16:24:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: StuRyan
Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 16:15:34
Originally by: Marshallin Santerese
Originally by: Trin Javidan

How about fixing pvp so more stuff gets blown up? Combine this with a review of the T2 ME BPO needs and u can solve alot of problems at once. Solve the prom/dyspo/neo/thul/tech problem. Second make t2 recons/ hac's/ dicters/hic's/logi's (currently a avarage pvp ship cost 130 mil. Thats 130/ 40 = 3,25 hours or boring anomaly whoring) cheaper. Now people can buy more and care less about losing so more pvp = better isk sink (side effect; implants get lost more)


PVP ship destruction isn't an ISK sink. It does improve consumption (which is not an unalloyed good, but is basically positive) but it doesn't change the amount of money in the system.
Implant destruction leads to an increase the use of the LP stores, which is a small ISK sink, but I doubt increasing the number of poddings is a particularly effective way of sinking large amounts of isk from the system.
Dr. E. mentioned that plex creation currently outstrips usage by about 25%, which means either (a) plex prices will trend downwards until that's no longer the case or (b) there are significant stockpiles of plex in system.
Plex is a useful economic indicator, and it's also an interesting conduit for isk, but its effect on the overall economy is difficult to judge.


From what i have seen Plex Prices have gone up So that to me says people are trading them more than they are buying


If 25% more PLEX are created than used, that means folks are hoarding them; keeping stock ahead of perceived increases in PLEX value. If the price of PLEX continues to rise, then it will be harder for folks to play to pay for their account. However, the upside is that paying for PLEX will generate you more ISK. The smooth movement in price of PLEX either up or down in a sign of health. Sudden jumps, up or down, decreases confidence in the value of ISK/PLEX which will ultimate hurt the EVE economy. Whether prices are going up or down is irrelevant, what is important is that the movement in prices should be gradual.

Jack Gilligan
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.04.04 16:24:00 - [64]
 

And so we see why CCP won't do anything about the botters/RMT. Sales of PLEX is shooting through the roof and they don't want to jeopardize all that extra revenue they need to develop those other two MMOs that aren't EVE.

Rikki Sals
Caldari
Posted - 2011.04.04 16:29:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Jack Gilligan
And so we see why CCP won't do anything about the botters/RMT. Sales of PLEX is shooting through the roof and they don't want to jeopardize all that extra revenue they need to develop those other two MMOs that aren't EVE.



On the other hand, botters/RMT cause CCP to lose potential revenue from those who would subscribe if they didn't perceive EVE as being a botter/RMT paradise. Smile

Knug LiDi
N00bFleeT
Posted - 2011.04.04 16:31:00 - [66]
 

Oh, and agreed that the compression on the PDF version is too high. The quality of the images is very poor. Compare to previous editions:

QEN_Q4-2009 - 4,179 KB
QEN_Q1-2010 - 3,707 KB
QEN_Q2-2010 - 2,193 KB
QEN_Q3-2010 - 4,680 KB

QEN_Q4-2010 - 1,591 KB

The compression is overdone. While many with bandwidth issues may appreciate the drop in data volume, for those of use that print out the QEN and bind it the drop in quality is very undesirable.

I for one would greatly appreciate access to a higher quality version of the QEN. Would that be possible ? Please ?


Jita Gilligan
Posted - 2011.04.04 16:32:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: Knug LiDi

If 25% more PLEX are created than used, that means folks are hoarding them; keeping stock ahead of perceived increases in PLEX value. If the price of PLEX continues to rise, then it will be harder for folks to play to pay for their account. However, the upside is that paying for PLEX will generate you more ISK. The smooth movement in price of PLEX either up or down in a sign of health. Sudden jumps, up or down, decreases confidence in the value of ISK/PLEX which will ultimate hurt the EVE economy. Whether prices are going up or down is irrelevant, what is important is that the movement in prices should be gradual.


Which happens soon as this ridiculous 0.0 nerf goes into effect Wednesday.

Clearly CCP wants to make it impossible for people who are not bots to pay for their own needs in ships, etc with what they can make in a few hours a week so that we end up buying PLEX. This will do nothing but encourage botting.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.04.04 16:38:00 - [68]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 04/04/2011 16:45:25
Originally by: StuRyan
Originally by: Bagehi
Also, this type of situation is impossible as supply and demand would balance that out. Everyone buying something and no one selling it is the infinite price point on a supply and demand graph. Why are we arguing about something as theoretical as that?



It was just one extreme to the model of plex as i try to explain why i the true reason behind the nerf to 0.0 is to do with the fact that too many poeple can now play for free.


I think it would be useful to see statistics on that. Are the majority of plex sold to null sec players or empire players? That is the statistic required to make that conclusion. I don't see it in the QEN.

Bounties across the board are up in December 2010, but 80% of the population is in high sec, and that coincides with the Incursions release, not the sov release 6 months prior to that. Based on that, I would guess that the increase in bounties has more to do with Incursions and less to do with plexing in null sec. So, PLEX are likely being sold more to empire players than null sec players, and thus the problem can be pinned on Incursions.

However, short statistics on the distribution of consumption and the increases in distribution, it is purely speculation what the cause is for the current increase in demand for PLEX.

Jireel
CANUCK ENGINERING
Fade 2 Black
Posted - 2011.04.04 16:44:00 - [69]
 

Edited by: Jireel on 04/04/2011 16:45:32
Originally by: Marshallin Santerese
Originally by: Trin Javidan

How about fixing pvp so more stuff gets blown up? Combine this with a review of the T2 ME BPO needs and u can solve alot of problems at once. Solve the prom/dyspo/neo/thul/tech problem. Second make t2 recons/ hac's/ dicters/hic's/logi's (currently a avarage pvp ship cost 130 mil. Thats 130/ 40 = 3,25 hours or boring anomaly whoring) cheaper. Now people can buy more and care less about losing so more pvp = better isk sink (side effect; implants get lost more)


PVP ship destruction isn't an ISK sink. It does improve consumption (which is not an unalloyed good, but is basically positive) but it doesn't change the amount of money in the system.
Implant destruction leads to an increase the use of the LP stores, which is a small ISK sink, but I doubt increasing the number of poddings is a particularly effective way of sinking large amounts of isk from the system.
Dr. E. mentioned that plex creation currently outstrips usage by about 25%, which means either (a) plex prices will trend downwards until that's no longer the case or (b) there are significant stockpiles of plex in system.
Plex is a useful economic indicator, and it's also an interesting conduit for isk, but its effect on the overall economy is difficult to judge.

As an opposite, PVP actually INCREASES the amount of ISK in the system, as insurance payouts provide players with money in exchange of the minerals used to create them.

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.04.04 16:53:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: StuRyan
As more people can afford to play via ISK, when will they need to pay $17.50?

The model assumes there is a constant supply of new accounts that need to pay $17.50 becuase they don't have the Skill to make the ISK to pay for PLEX.


The people who create a PLEX by giving CCP $17.50 then sell it in game for ISK. This is so they do not have to spend in-game time and effort to make isk, usually because the hate "grinding", or they happened to have major losses and want a new ship sooner rather than later.

Malovich
Caldari
Posted - 2011.04.04 17:00:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: StuRyan
As more people can afford to play via ISK, when will they need to pay $17.50?

The model assumes there is a constant supply of new accounts that need to pay $17.50 becuase they don't have the Skill to make the ISK to pay for PLEX.


Every PLEX created, ever, represents an income to CCP of $17.50 from the moment it enters existence. The only way a PLEX is created (currently) is via redemption of a time code which is already paid for.

Again, people who pay their subscriptions via PLEX are not "paying with ISK"; they are paying another player for gametime and this second player in turn is paying CCP. At no point is anything truly "free" in this system. CCP long ago collected the real money represented by every PLEX in the game.

As such, there is a finite supply of PLEX, represented by those with real money who wish to exchange it for ISK via PLEX. There is no realistic scenario where the entire game is fueled by PLEX.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.04.04 17:06:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: StuRyan
As more people can afford to play via ISK, when will they need to pay $17.50?

The model assumes there is a constant supply of new accounts that need to pay $17.50 becuase they don't have the Skill to make the ISK to pay for PLEX.

It has little to do with "skill" and a lot to do with efficiency of time. If you can make $17.50 in less time than it takes to make 350m isk (roughly the current price of PLEX), and you find grinding for isk to be roughly as fun as your job, then it is in your best interest to buy PLEX and sell it for isk. The higher the isk-based price for PLEX gets, the greater the percentage of the player population there will be who finds it more efficient to sell PLEX for isk.

Esan Vartesa
East Khanid Trading
Khanid Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.04.04 17:09:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Knug LiDi
If 25% more PLEX are created than used, that means folks are hoarding them; keeping stock ahead of perceived increases in PLEX value. If the price of PLEX continues to rise, then it will be harder for folks to play to pay for their account. However, the upside is that paying for PLEX will generate you more ISK. The smooth movement in price of PLEX either up or down in a sign of health. Sudden jumps, up or down, decreases confidence in the value of ISK/PLEX which will ultimate hurt the EVE economy. Whether prices are going up or down is irrelevant, what is important is that the movement in prices should be gradual.


Maybe if we take a step back and look at this from another angle, the bickering might subside.

As has been established above, buying PLEX costs $17.50, whereas buying another 30 days of play time directly costs $15.00. Therefore, a rational player would not buy PLEX to cover their own subscription. It then follows that the only reason a rational player would buy a PLEX is to essentially turn real life money into ISK by selling that PLEX to other players.

The initial inherent value of a PLEX is determined by a comparison on the part of the buyer of real dollars to the ISK value of the PLEX on the current market. That buyer will immediately sell the PLEX on the market. The in-game purchaser of that PLEX is making a completely different value comparison, however. He is looking at the value of 30 days of play time versus the ISK cost of the item. No real money comparison is involved, which is why the perceived value of the item is different for these 2 players. That second player's valuation of ISK is determined largely by the ease of generating that ISK.

Now lets follow that chain backwards, starting with the nerf of a null-player's ability to generate ISK. If it's harder to generate ISK, it becomes more valuable. This makes an ISK for PLEX trade less appealing, which we'll translate into a lower demand for PLEX at the current in-game price point. Over time, this lower demand for PLEX (remember to draw a distinction between demand for PLEX in ISK terms on the market from demand for PLEX in real money terms from CCP) which causes the market to move to a new, lower ISK price for PLEX.

Now, if the value of a PLEX in ISK terms is now lower, then the value of PLEX compared to real money is lower. This decreases demand for PLEX from initial buyers. So, the argument that CCP is nerfing null because they're greedy is debunked.

Note, however, that the $2.50 difference between PLEX and subscription cost is not a profit for CCP, it's purely an offset for administrative costs. Frankly, CCP makes pretty much the same money no matter how you pay for your game time.

This isn't about PLEX at all. PLEX is just a really good way to look at the "exchange rate" between real money and ISK. The fact is, PLEX prices are rising because the value of ISK is decreasing, and that simply reflects the fact that too much ISK is being created in the game.

The null nerf is indeed meant to constrict the ISK faucet slightly. But there are lots of faucets and lots of ways to constrict them, so why this one? Well, I would suggest that CCP did their homework, and decided that this WOULD add more conflict to null, that it WOULD hurt botters more than the average account, that it WOULD be good for the game.

My point is, relax, they know what they're doing.

Rasz Lin
Caldari
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
Posted - 2011.04.04 17:11:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: StuRyan
Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 15:51:22
Originally by: Rikki Sals
@StuRyan
If "everyone" in the game was paying their subs by buying PLEX with isk, that would mean a small group of people would have to be paying CCP hundreds of thousands of dollars each month to generate enough PLEX to meet that demand.

CCP does not lose money from PLEX being traded.


If everyone who played via plex no plex would generated. and then it becomes an incredibly lucrative trade. My question is when someone buys time via real money where do the plex come from and are they given a price say the same as JITA prices?


Stop posting already, this is clearly beyond you.

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.04.04 17:16:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Rasz Lin
Originally by: StuRyan
Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 15:51:22
Originally by: Rikki Sals
@StuRyan
If "everyone" in the game was paying their subs by buying PLEX with isk, that would mean a small group of people would have to be paying CCP hundreds of thousands of dollars each month to generate enough PLEX to meet that demand.

CCP does not lose money from PLEX being traded.


If everyone who played via plex no plex would generated. and then it becomes an incredibly lucrative trade. My question is when someone buys time via real money where do the plex come from and are they given a price say the same as JITA prices?


Stop posting already, this is clearly beyond you.


Recess is that way ->

missminer69
Posted - 2011.04.04 17:26:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
Originally by: StuRyan
As more people can afford to play via ISK, when will they need to pay $17.50?

The model assumes there is a constant supply of new accounts that need to pay $17.50 becuase they don't have the Skill to make the ISK to pay for PLEX.

It has little to do with "skill" and a lot to do with efficiency of time. If you can make $17.50 in less time than it takes to make 350m isk (roughly the current price of PLEX), and you find grinding for isk to be roughly as fun as your job, then it is in your best interest to buy PLEX and sell it for isk. The higher the isk-based price for PLEX gets, the greater the percentage of the player population there will be who finds it more efficient to sell PLEX for isk.



And then i suppose the question becomes when will people a. fight for more opportunities to hit the bigger rats. b. Join who ever already owns the rights or c. quit becuase real money is becoming a factor.

Rixiu
The Inuits
Posted - 2011.04.04 17:34:00 - [77]
 

WOW at the supercap numbers. Those things are really getting out of hand for each month.

Concern regarding isk sinks though, wouldn't decreasing the isk supply be better? Creating more sinks would probably make people grind more to get what they want which means that the end result is the same. Having isk recycle instead of some sort of "isk is created and then destroyed" sounds a lot more fun to be honest, and also "cooler"...

J Kunjeh
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.04 17:35:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: StuRyan

TL:DR Truth be told: Guys too many people are playing the game for free. We need to make these changes to reduce the amount of isk in the game


Actually, nobody truly plays for free, they're just having their sub paid for by somebody else. CCP is still getting paid for the sub regardless of who pays for it.

StuRyan
Posted - 2011.04.04 17:35:00 - [79]
 

Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 17:35:52
Originally by: Bagehi
Originally by: StuRyan
As more people can afford to play via ISK, when will they need to pay $17.50?

The model assumes there is a constant supply of new accounts that need to pay $17.50 becuase they don't have the Skill to make the ISK to pay for PLEX.

It has little to do with "skill" and a lot to do with efficiency of time. If you can make $17.50 in less time than it takes to make 350m isk (roughly the current price of PLEX), and you find grinding for isk to be roughly as fun as your job, then it is in your best interest to buy PLEX and sell it for isk. The higher the isk-based price for PLEX gets, the greater the percentage of the player population there will be who finds it more efficient to sell PLEX for isk.



The model assumes that someone is always going to be there to pay real money for game time which will generate the plex for someone to buy.

J Kunjeh
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.04 17:46:00 - [80]
 

Esan Vartesa: you sir, win Eve. Thanks for that post.

Mister Rocknrolla
Posted - 2011.04.04 17:50:00 - [81]
 

Edited by: Mister Rocknrolla on 04/04/2011 17:50:53
LOL...
Originally by: QEN, page 44
On the other hand, the [Nanite Repair Paste] blueprint's second place position on the material efficiency [research] list is somewhat unfortunate. In all, 908 players did almost 1.3 million research runs on the blueprints. Every single run was wasted. <snip> ...all three ingredients in Nanite Repair Paste under the heading of Extra Material. Material efficiency has no effect on such extra materials.


LaughingLaughing I guess it's good practice.

Doc J
Posted - 2011.04.04 17:58:00 - [82]
 

Edited by: Doc J on 04/04/2011 18:01:36
Edited by: Doc J on 04/04/2011 18:00:50
Originally by: Esan Vartesa
Originally by: Knug LiDi
If 25% more PLEX are created than used, that means folks are hoarding them; keeping stock ahead of perceived increases in PLEX value. If the price of PLEX continues to rise, then it will be harder for folks to play to pay for their account. However, the upside is that paying for PLEX will generate you more ISK. The smooth movement in price of PLEX either up or down in a sign of health. Sudden jumps, up or down, decreases confidence in the value of ISK/PLEX which will ultimate hurt the EVE economy. Whether prices are going up or down is irrelevant, what is important is that the movement in prices should be gradual.


Maybe if we take a step back and look at this from another angle, the bickering might subside.

As has been established above, buying PLEX costs $17.50, whereas buying another 30 days of play time directly costs $15.00. Therefore, a rational player would not buy PLEX to cover their own subscription. It then follows that the only reason a rational player would buy a PLEX is to essentially turn real life money into ISK by selling that PLEX to other players.

The initial inherent value of a PLEX is determined by a comparison on the part of the buyer of real dollars to the ISK value of the PLEX on the current market. That buyer will immediately sell the PLEX on the market. The in-game purchaser of that PLEX is making a completely different value comparison, however. He is looking at the value of 30 days of play time versus the ISK cost of the item. No real money comparison is involved, which is why the perceived value of the item is different for these 2 players. That second player's valuation of ISK is determined largely by the ease of generating that ISK.

Now lets follow that chain backwards, starting with the nerf of a null-player's ability to generate ISK. If it's harder to generate ISK, it becomes more valuable. This makes an ISK for PLEX trade less appealing, which we'll translate into a lower demand for PLEX at the current in-game price point. Over time, this lower demand for PLEX (remember to draw a distinction between demand for PLEX in ISK terms on the market from demand for PLEX in real money terms from CCP) which causes the market to move to a new, lower ISK price for PLEX.

Now, if the value of a PLEX in ISK terms is now lower, then the value of PLEX compared to real money is lower. This decreases demand for PLEX from initial buyers. So, the argument that CCP is nerfing null because they're greedy is debunked.

Note, however, that the $2.50 difference between PLEX and subscription cost is not a profit for CCP, it's purely an offset for administrative costs. Frankly, CCP makes pretty much the same money no matter how you pay for your game time.

This isn't about PLEX at all. PLEX is just a really good way to look at the "exchange rate" between real money and ISK. The fact is, PLEX prices are rising because the value of ISK is decreasing, and that simply reflects the fact that too much ISK is being created in the game.

The null nerf is indeed meant to constrict the ISK faucet slightly. But there are lots of faucets and lots of ways to constrict them, so why this one? Well, I would suggest that CCP did their homework, and decided that this WOULD add more conflict to null, that it WOULD hurt botters more than the average account, that it WOULD be good for the game.

My point is, relax, they know what they're doing.


never thought of it that way, i think i just see what i need to do to make the isk to play for free... even if it $17.50 equates to 4 hours work, and now its going to be 7. as long as i make the isk to pay for my account thats all im bothered about. I just hope there will be enough people paying for the timecards to keep demand and supply constant so the price in ISK doesn't increase even more.

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.04.04 18:21:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Esan Vartesa
Originally by: Knug LiDi
If 25% more PLEX are created than used, that means folks are hoarding them; keeping stock ahead of perceived increases in PLEX value. If the price of PLEX continues to rise, then it will be harder for folks to play to pay for their account. However, the upside is that paying for PLEX will generate you more ISK. The smooth movement in price of PLEX either up or down in a sign of health. Sudden jumps, up or down, decreases confidence in the value of ISK/PLEX which will ultimate hurt the EVE economy. Whether prices are going up or down is irrelevant, what is important is that the movement in prices should be gradual.


Maybe if we take a step back and look at this from another angle, the bickering might subside.

As has been established above, buying PLEX costs $17.50, whereas buying another 30 days of play time directly costs $15.00. Therefore, a rational player would not buy PLEX to cover their own subscription. It then follows that the only reason a rational player would buy a PLEX is to essentially turn real life money into ISK by selling that PLEX to other players.

The initial inherent value of a PLEX is determined by a comparison on the part of the buyer of real dollars to the ISK value of the PLEX on the current market. That buyer will immediately sell the PLEX on the market. The in-game purchaser of that PLEX is making a completely different value comparison, however. He is looking at the value of 30 days of play time versus the ISK cost of the item. No real money comparison is involved, which is why the perceived value of the item is different for these 2 players. That second player's valuation of ISK is determined largely by the ease of generating that ISK.

Now lets follow that chain backwards, starting with the nerf of a null-player's ability to generate ISK. If it's harder to generate ISK, it becomes more valuable. This makes an ISK for PLEX trade less appealing, which we'll translate into a lower demand for PLEX at the current in-game price point. Over time, this lower demand for PLEX (remember to draw a distinction between demand for PLEX in ISK terms on the market from demand for PLEX in real money terms from CCP) which causes the market to move to a new, lower ISK price for PLEX.

Now, if the value of a PLEX in ISK terms is now lower, then the value of PLEX compared to real money is lower. This decreases demand for PLEX from initial buyers. So, the argument that CCP is nerfing null because they're greedy is debunked.

Note, however, that the $2.50 difference between PLEX and subscription cost is not a profit for CCP, it's purely an offset for administrative costs. Frankly, CCP makes pretty much the same money no matter how you pay for your game time.

This isn't about PLEX at all. PLEX is just a really good way to look at the "exchange rate" between real money and ISK. The fact is, PLEX prices are rising because the value of ISK is decreasing, and that simply reflects the fact that too much ISK is being created in the game.

The null nerf is indeed meant to constrict the ISK faucet slightly. But there are lots of faucets and lots of ways to constrict them, so why this one? Well, I would suggest that CCP did their homework, and decided that this WOULD add more conflict to null, that it WOULD hurt botters more than the average account, that it WOULD be good for the game.

My point is, relax, they know what they're doing.


This is a good post. Perfect explanation of why this change is good in the long run.

Mister Rocknrolla
Posted - 2011.04.04 18:27:00 - [84]
 


Re: bottom graph on page 47- Where are you buying your salvager IIs??


Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.04.04 18:29:00 - [85]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 04/04/2011 18:41:02
Edited by: Bagehi on 04/04/2011 18:37:17
Originally by: StuRyan
Originally by: Bagehi
Originally by: StuRyan
As more people can afford to play via ISK, when will they need to pay $17.50?

The model assumes there is a constant supply of new accounts that need to pay $17.50 becuase they don't have the Skill to make the ISK to pay for PLEX.

It has little to do with "skill" and a lot to do with efficiency of time. If you can make $17.50 in less time than it takes to make 350m isk (roughly the current price of PLEX), and you find grinding for isk to be roughly as fun as your job, then it is in your best interest to buy PLEX and sell it for isk. The higher the isk-based price for PLEX gets, the greater the percentage of the player population there will be who finds it more efficient to sell PLEX for isk.



The model assumes that someone is always going to be there to pay real money for game time which will generate the plex for someone to buy.


People are already willing to pay money for PLEX to convert to isk at the current 350m/PLEX exchange. Of course there will be people willing to pay if the exchange rate improves. The only situation where you could conceivably lose supply is if the Eve economy completely collapses (weakening value of isk dramatically). Increases in demand do not cause decreases in supply. It just doesn't work that way. This is some pretty basic economic theory.

Di Mulle
Posted - 2011.04.04 18:36:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: StuRyan



Recess is that way ->


You, dear Sir, clearly have demonstrated you are one meticulous traffic regulator. Now, it is time to demonstrate yet you have some clue in a basics economics.

Doc J
Posted - 2011.04.04 18:44:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
Edited by: Bagehi on 04/04/2011 18:41:02
Edited by: Bagehi on 04/04/2011 18:37:17
Originally by: StuRyan
Originally by: Bagehi
Originally by: StuRyan
As more people can afford to play via ISK, when will they need to pay $17.50?

The model assumes there is a constant supply of new accounts that need to pay $17.50 becuase they don't have the Skill to make the ISK to pay for PLEX.

It has little to do with "skill" and a lot to do with efficiency of time. If you can make $17.50 in less time than it takes to make 350m isk (roughly the current price of PLEX), and you find grinding for isk to be roughly as fun as your job, then it is in your best interest to buy PLEX and sell it for isk. The higher the isk-based price for PLEX gets, the greater the percentage of the player population there will be who finds it more efficient to sell PLEX for isk.



The model assumes that someone is always going to be there to pay real money for game time which will generate the plex for someone to buy.


People are already willing to pay money for PLEX to convert to isk at the current 350m/PLEX exchange. Of course there will be people willing to pay if the exchange rate improves. The only situation where you could conceivably lose supply is if the Eve economy completely collapses (weakening value of isk dramatically). Increases in demand do not cause decreases in supply. It just doesn't work that way. This is some pretty basic economic theory.



Why would you want to pay real money for game time espeesially when 350m is a fairly easy thing to do.

zloxlo
Posted - 2011.04.04 18:48:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Di Mulle
Originally by: StuRyan



Recess is that way ->


You, dear Sir, clearly have demonstrated you are one meticulous traffic regulator. Now, it is time to demonstrate yet you have some clue in a basics economics.


Not sure why you are trolling this guy, he has created a good discussion and im not entirely sure why you waste your time posting with useless garbage. From what i have read and filling in the gaps, more people are able to pay for plex via ISK, no biggy, obviously someone at CCP saw this and thought if we aren't careful I hope there is a currency for ISK becuase thats what my wage could be if we allow more and more people to grind sanctrums all day.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.04.04 18:56:00 - [89]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 04/04/2011 18:56:29
Originally by: Doc J
Why would you want to pay real money for game time espeesially when 350m is a fairly easy thing to do.

Because, in the best of situations, it would take over an hour to make 350m isk (on average) and I can work for less than half the time to obtain the same income. Therefore, to be efficient about my time, I pay for PLEX to have isk in game. I rat only for sec status. I could sit and grind to make isk easily, but it is much easier and more efficient for me to spend that time working in RL.

Elzon1
Caldari
Shadow Boys Corp
Bloodbound.
Posted - 2011.04.04 18:58:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: bitters much
Bounty prizes up 8.1t compared to Q3 2011 (no comparison to Q4 2010, unfortunately), to 75.7t. Shocked

And you ( whiners ) wonder why CCP is nerfing 0.0 anomalies.





"In Q4, 2010, EVE‘s subscriber count grew by 9%, which translated into an increase in money supply. The money supply rose by 11% in Q4 2010"

"The main cause for the increase in money supply is that the bounty prizes increased by 8.1 trillion ISK in Q4 compared to Q3"

"or from 67.6 trillion to 75.7 trillion."

It seems you have misread something? Neutral

And no, the soverignty upgrades are not the leading cause of inflation, its how the game is built.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only