open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked A diffrent way to control the economy than reducing the supply
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

0oO0oOoOo0o
Posted - 2011.08.19 02:42:00 - [1]
 

Hi CCP, can we some artificial demands for ISK, mineral and LP instead of nerfs ? I know that the market is over-saturated, but instead of reducing the saturation process, which is the core game-play for many players (such as miners or mission-runners), you could also stabilize the market by adding more things, which the minerals/ISK/LP/etc. can be used for.

Example (this isn't a worked-out proposal, just a simple concept to illustrate what i mean):

Paying a combination of Minerals and/or ISK and/or LP (e.g. 10000 ISK, 100 Tritanium, 50 Zydrine, 10 Nocxium) will add 0.1 % of armor hitpoints to any ship the pilot flies (works like a skill). There is no limit or cap on how many times a player can buy such an upgrade. But every time it gets more expensive than the previous time, letís say by a factor of 1.5. Means second upgrade of the armor attribute costs 15.000 ISK, 150 Tritanium, 75 Zydrine, 15 Nocxium. Third upgrade 22.500 ISK, 225 Tritanium, 113 Zydrine, 23 Nocxium. And so on, ad infinitum. Every attribute (for example turret/missile/drone-damage, shield/armor/hull-hitpoints, speed, agility etc.) could have different mineral/ISK/LP composition baskets.

I didn't use realistic number, they should be set up that an average player can buy letís say additional 3-5% to the attribute, the extremely rich player should be able to afford 5-6% and ultra rich legends like Chribba, Entity or other trillionaires could afford 7-10%.

Result: No matter how many people mine or do missions or whatever, there will always be a vivid demand, no economy over-saturation and frustration of miners, no need to nerfs that create a huge community rage, no need to kick missionrunners in the nuts by reducing the reprocessable mission loot etc. Again, thatís just a simplified thought, not a concrete idea, of course it has to be worked out properly, but itís a better way to handle the market than frustrating people with nerfs or market malfunctions (such as the current LP over-saturation).

Shartifartblast
Minmatar
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2011.08.19 02:47:00 - [2]
 

lol, gluing asteroids to your hull to work as armour.

Har Harrison
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2011.08.19 02:57:00 - [3]
 

Not sure this is a good idea - this will just make the uber rich null sec alliances with super cap blobs even stronger as their super caps will get an EHP increase...

Fix Lag
Posted - 2011.08.19 03:07:00 - [4]
 

wat

Bombay Door
Posted - 2011.08.19 03:13:00 - [5]
 

Hell no!
CCP, you better ****ing nurf high-sec payouts and bounties.....


0oO0oOoOo0o
Posted - 2011.08.19 03:13:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Har Harrison
Not sure this is a good idea - this will just make the uber rich null sec alliances with super cap blobs even stronger as their super caps will get an EHP increase...


Yes, this will increase the difference/disparity amongst players a little bit, so that the game will be a bit less egalitarian compared to now (which might offend players with a communist mindset). But it doesn't have to be high, a few % aren't game-breaking, that's less difference than t1 and t2, but it's permanent and therefor it is reason enough to invest enormous assets, which will create an indefinite demand and stabilize the market. This is more beneficial to the game IMHO than a slight increase of disparity amongst players. It will give to those, who are really dedicated to the game, the option to become a tiny bit stronger, maybe even become legends because they spent e.g. 40 billion ISK for a 0.1% damage output increase update.

Shartifartblast
Minmatar
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2011.08.19 03:29:00 - [7]
 

lol mine2win



(yes we all know its drone regions 2 win really)

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.08.19 08:00:00 - [8]
 

In a world (Eve) of infinite supply, there is no infinite demand, which is quite backwards from the real world, and everyone wonders why the economy in Eve is a bit quirky ... duh.

Thornat
Posted - 2011.08.19 08:39:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Thornat on 19/08/2011 08:40:28
Edited by: Thornat on 19/08/2011 08:39:34
Quote:

Hi CCP, can we some artificial demands for ISK, mineral and LP instead of nerfs ? I know that the market is over-saturated, but instead of reducing the saturation process, which is the core game-play for many players (such as miners or mission-runners), you could also stabilize the market by adding more things, which the minerals/ISK/LP/etc. can be used for.



Ok lets get something straight, the reason the market is saturated is because of Bot Mining, plain and simple. Its a bloody pendemic in the game right now and the root and only cause for the outragous resource market splatter.

There are items in the game today that are being sold well below cost simply because resource no longer actually have a value. If you can bot mine 24/7 even if your selling stuff made with it below cost you are making a killing.

Its simple. Go after the botters full force. We need one GIANT ban stick and more people like me making it their personal mission to harrass botters relentlessly.'

I call for more suicide ganking!

Jaari Val'Dara
Caldari
Deep Space Nomads Corp
Posted - 2011.08.19 09:11:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Shartifartblast
lol, gluing asteroids to your hull to work as armour.

That's the minmatar way.

Miss Rabblt
Posted - 2011.08.19 09:49:00 - [11]
 

i would to throw another idea: change repair procedure. Now you only pay ISKies for repairing. Let's say repairing facility requires some amount of minerals to repair ship and module. With amount of like 1.2x of total cost of part needs to be repaired. Like in real life: after you got some amount of damage you simply throw away item because new will be cheaper.

NO NO, i don't say onboard armor reps should require minerals! Shocked
Laughing

Brooks Puuntai
Minmatar
Nomadic Asylum
Posted - 2011.08.19 09:55:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Brooks Puuntai on 19/08/2011 09:56:31
Creating more mineral sinks would be a better solution then nerfing mineral availability. One thing I found quite humorous was the fact that instead of using minerals for POSs, POS mods, Sov structures, etc they decided to use mostly PI crap instead.

But you wont see this.. Since nerfing availability is simpler and easier then actually having to think and create more sinks.

Marchocias
Posted - 2011.08.19 10:10:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Marchocias on 19/08/2011 10:14:06
Originally by: Miss Rabblt
NO NO, i don't say onboard armor reps should require minerals! Shocked
Laughing


Actually... that might not be such a bad idea... you could masively reduce the cap requirement of armour reps, and introduce some kind of compressed mineral fuel which they use up. Maybe even allow industrialists to create drone compounds, and use them as the fuel... better drone compounds might give a better HP boost.

Just throwing an idea out there, that might spice up the game by increasing the differention between active shield and active armour tanks.

Edit: the expense to HP ratio need not be proportional to the actual mineral cost of those HP... it might not be considered reasonable to have to burn through many times the cost of the ship hull, whilst actively repairing its armour. Shocked

Llyandrian
Amarr
Livestock Science Exchange
Posted - 2011.08.19 12:42:00 - [14]
 


Make armour repair consume minerals and slightly lower the cap requirement to compensate.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2011.08.19 12:53:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Omara Otawan on 19/08/2011 12:53:33
Originally by: Marchocias
Edited by: Marchocias on 19/08/2011 10:14:06
Originally by: Miss Rabblt
NO NO, i don't say onboard armor reps should require minerals! Shocked
Laughing


Actually... that might not be such a bad idea... you could masively reduce the cap requirement of armour reps, and introduce some kind of compressed mineral fuel which they use up. Maybe even allow industrialists to create drone compounds, and use them as the fuel... better drone compounds might give a better HP boost.



Changing armor reppers to require nanobot charges that are injected instead of cap has been discussed a few times already.

It would be a nerf to cap-stable setups, but those are mainly used in pve anyways and in a pvp setting you would gain one (or even two for some setups) midslots though plus the invaluable immunity to neuting.

If these advantages would compensate for the inability to repair damage free of charge is up for grabs, I personally think it would more than compensate.

Velicitia
Gallente
Open Designs
Posted - 2011.08.19 12:53:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Marchocias
Edited by: Marchocias on 19/08/2011 10:14:06
Originally by: Miss Rabblt
NO NO, i don't say onboard armor reps should require minerals! Shocked
Laughing


Actually... that might not be such a bad idea... you could masively reduce the cap requirement of armour reps, and introduce some kind of compressed mineral fuel which they use up. Maybe even allow industrialists to create drone compounds, and use them as the fuel... better drone compounds might give a better HP boost.

Just throwing an idea out there, that might spice up the game by increasing the differention between active shield and active armour tanks.

Edit: the expense to HP ratio need not be proportional to the actual mineral cost of those HP... it might not be considered reasonable to have to burn through many times the cost of the ship hull, whilst actively repairing its armour. Shocked


make 'em work like cap boosters...

cycle time is all pretty much the same... so, you just need a stash of "ammo" that does various repair amount...

but then, it might be unbalanced in favour of shield tanks even more (now you need ammo to run an armour repair?)


Omara Otawan
Posted - 2011.08.19 12:55:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Omara Otawan on 19/08/2011 12:55:28
Originally by: Velicitia

but then, it might be unbalanced in favour of shield tanks even more (now you need ammo to run an armour repair?)



They basically need ammo in the form of cap charges anyway as far as pvp goes.

The same could be done for shield boosters, though these could run on cap charges from a RP perspective.

Miss Rabblt
Posted - 2011.08.19 14:14:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Omara Otawan
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 19/08/2011 12:55:28
Originally by: Velicitia

but then, it might be unbalanced in favour of shield tanks even more (now you need ammo to run an armour repair?)



They basically need ammo in the form of cap charges anyway as far as pvp goes.

The same could be done for shield boosters, though these could run on cap charges from a RP perspective.

hm.... removing "cap stability" will heavily reduce maneuverability in game. Will add new task to big fleet operations: hauler for repair materials. And new profession: saboteur for those haulers....

Ciar Meara
Amarr
Virtus Vindice
Posted - 2011.08.19 14:37:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Ciar Meara on 19/08/2011 14:39:45
Originally by: Miss Rabblt
i would to throw another idea: change repair procedure. Now you only pay ISKies for repairing. Let's say repairing facility requires some amount of minerals to repair ship and module. With amount of like 1.2x of total cost of part needs to be repaired. Like in real life: after you got some amount of damage you simply throw away item because new will be cheaper.

NO NO, i don't say onboard armor reps should require minerals! Shocked
Laughing


This is a good one, repairs = minerals & money.

On a further note:

Nanite Paste to use your armour repair sounds logical actually.
Shield booster charges sounds logical also.
Cap charges could be upped just a little in minerals just like ammo and become slighty more expensive and would drain (in total) alot of extra money and minerals.

Cipher Jones
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.19 14:55:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: 0oO0oOoOo0o
Hi CCP, can we some artificial demands for ISK, mineral and LP instead of nerfs ? I know that the market is over-saturated, but instead of reducing the saturation process, which is the core game-play for many players (such as miners or mission-runners), you could also stabilize the market by adding more things, which the minerals/ISK/LP/etc. can be used for.

Example (this isn't a worked-out proposal, just a simple concept to illustrate what i mean):

Paying a combination of Minerals and/or ISK and/or LP (e.g. 10000 ISK, 100 Tritanium, 50 Zydrine, 10 Nocxium) will add 0.1 % of armor hitpoints to any ship the pilot flies (works like a skill). There is no limit or cap on how many times a player can buy such an upgrade. But every time it gets more expensive than the previous time, letís say by a factor of 1.5. Means second upgrade of the armor attribute costs 15.000 ISK, 150 Tritanium, 75 Zydrine, 15 Nocxium. Third upgrade 22.500 ISK, 225 Tritanium, 113 Zydrine, 23 Nocxium. And so on, ad infinitum. Every attribute (for example turret/missile/drone-damage, shield/armor/hull-hitpoints, speed, agility etc.) could have different mineral/ISK/LP composition baskets.

I didn't use realistic number, they should be set up that an average player can buy letís say additional 3-5% to the attribute, the extremely rich player should be able to afford 5-6% and ultra rich legends like Chribba, Entity or other trillionaires could afford 7-10%.

Result: No matter how many people mine or do missions or whatever, there will always be a vivid demand, no economy over-saturation and frustration of miners, no need to nerfs that create a huge community rage, no need to kick missionrunners in the nuts by reducing the reprocessable mission loot etc. Again, thatís just a simplified thought, not a concrete idea, of course it has to be worked out properly, but itís a better way to handle the market than frustrating people with nerfs or market malfunctions (such as the current LP over-saturation).



Result, Tengus with SC HP. Nuff said.

Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2011.08.19 15:15:00 - [21]
 

POS fuels to replace in a station instead of +stat implants in a pod. For about 7 million a week, you get +5 to any stat you want, but it needs to be maintained with a total of 7 days worth of fuel max. Cost factors over a course of 6 months is about the same cost as a +5 implant. +side, you are no longer loosing expensive implants, now training at full possible speed, more people risking PVP combat ships without fear of loosing those expensive implants, more accessible because 9 million is chump change. Or you can pay a full 1 time cost and still be using the same +5 implants without jumping clone almost 2 years later while there is no incentive to go to lowsec Rolling Eyes. Normal implants in 6-10 don't change.

octahexx Charante
Posted - 2011.08.19 15:46:00 - [22]
 

yeah its great idea capcharges that i can fit in the caldari space oh wait i need my missiles there...oh but we can increase cargospace massivly to compensate oh wait now i got a drake tanked hauler armed to the teeth.


yay lets shift every aspect of the game so traders can earn more isk on minerals.

Mixedblood
Posted - 2011.08.21 12:48:00 - [23]
 

The point is just to make a mineral sink, so make em ultra compressed & there go the cargo concern issues...

baltec1
Posted - 2011.08.21 12:53:00 - [24]
 

Or we can move minerals around so you have to put some effort into getting them and start rewarding risk takers. If that means the spineless have to chew on veldspar so be itTwisted Evil

Simetraz
Posted - 2011.08.21 14:39:00 - [25]
 

IF the markets are over saturated do nothing.

There is no need to tweak anything as the market can correct itself.
Mineral prices to low, people will eventually stop mining till there is enough profit to do it again.
Too many ships on the market, producers will switch to something else.

Market go through cycles as people adapt and shift.
Nothing new, and nothing needs to be forced.
Actually people should be looking forward to the cycle.
This is when a smart player can make there fortune if they play it right.
And those that where riding the old money train well, .....adapt.





Aquana Abyss
Posted - 2011.08.21 15:04:00 - [26]
 

I think you fail...

...to see that every time CCP introduce "improved stats" for ships, the baseline simply raises for 99% of pilots to the new "improved stats" is a must before pvping.

For example: See Tech 2, Rigs, implant sets, gang boosters (safed up) etc...

This makes it much harder for new players, and also ruins the balance of using vanilla t1, and makes a lot of ships completely functionally redundant/imbalanced.


0oO0oOoOo0o
Posted - 2011.08.22 13:14:00 - [27]
 


Originally by: Simetraz
IF the markets are over saturated do nothing.
There is no need to tweak anything as the market can correct itself.
Mineral prices to low, people will eventually stop mining till there is enough profit to do it again.
Too many ships on the market, producers will switch to something else.

It doesn't work like this in EVE, Adunh Slavy meantioned the reason above: there is an infinite supply of ISK and minerals, the demand on the other hand is very limited, there are not enough ship losses (and even them create ISK out of nowhere due to insurance payout). As a result we see CCP nerfing income aspects of the game here and there and it seems like more such nerfs might happen in the future. Or people are frustrated because their favourite ingame activity, such as mining or doing missions, suddenly becomes unattractive. Not every miner wants to go PVP just because the mineral prices get lower and lower. The economy in EVE needs regulation in order to keep people happy and the problem of an over-saturated economy was mentioned by several DEVs on several occasions, itís not only a theoretical problem.



Originally by: Aquana Abyss
I think you fail...

...to see that every time CCP introduce "improved stats" for ships, the baseline simply raises for 99% of pilots to the new "improved stats" is a must before pvping.

For example: See Tech 2, Rigs, implant sets, gang boosters (safed up) etc...

This makes it much harder for new players, and also ruins the balance of using vanilla t1, and makes a lot of ships completely functionally redundant/imbalanced.


No ship becomes redundant/imbalanced if the %-age of the improvements is kept small, like proposed above. The first few % are affordable to most players, they are getting progressively more expensive and people will have to make a choice whether they want to invest assets worth 20 billion for the next 0.1% upgrade or not Ė what this creates is what we call in German a ĄFass ohne Bodenď (=a bottomless pit / money sink) - an indefinite demand but with extremely limited advancement increments. So how many % will be a Ąmustď before pvping ? Is that 2-3% that may cost for example ~600 million ISK or are that 5% that cost 40-50 billion ? This works different than fixed improvement increments like t2 modules or rigs and it has a completely different effect on the economy because of that infinite demand (t2 items / rigs are only demanded if someone equips a new ship and ship losses are not in step with production/supply).

Urgg Boolean
Posted - 2011.08.22 15:41:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Shartifartblast
lol, gluing asteroids to your hull to work as armour.

I want to be able to glue frozen corpses to my hull for a true meat shield. Or like a decorator crab - glue all sorts of debris to my hull just because.


 

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