open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked Economic Issues for the Good Doctor
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Imperator Jora'h
Posted - 2007.09.05 19:44:00 - [1]
 

Like many others I was not overly thrilled with CCP Dr.EyjoG's recent Dev Blog. It was fine as far as it went and I guess he has to start somewhere and of course the beginning is a good place so we can cut him some slack. Nevertheless there are a good many issues the industrial community in EVE is falling over themselves for information about or waiting/hoping for fixes to be made.

Here I will list some of the primary issues I believe are front and center in the industry debates. This list is by no means exhaustive nor am I pretending this is THE list because I know everything. Rather it is to get such a list produced with the help of others here. Hopefully Dr.EyjoG will read this and perhaps respond in a future Dev Blog or here or at least let him know what is on our minds and needs attention from him.

For starters I will just list items and not debate them. Of course if any of you wish to debate a point fine (good even). Just please make a clear title at the start of your points so people can easily discern which particular subject(s) you are on about at a glance.

Again, add to this list or argue something should be taken off as you like. Feel free to make your case for any given point(s) as well if you like.

In no particular order:

1) Mineral Compression
2) Artificial caps/floors on mineral prices
3) Market wars 0.01 ISK at a time (or as I like to call it "Death by a Thousand Cuts")
4) Market Hubs
5) Minerals from Rat Loot
6) Minerals from Drone Regions (or just Drones in general)
7) Insurance
8) Low Sec (broad but roughly economic improvements to encourage people out there)
9) NPC Trade Goods (not sure this merits a spot...opinions?)
10) Nothing...just wanted 10 items for the aesthetic appeal rather than nine items (doubtless I missed something anyway).


Imperator Jora'h
Posted - 2007.09.05 20:04:00 - [2]
 

Low Sec:

I'd like to expand on this point as it is overly broad I think. This is one point where changes I feel are not only from the economic side of the game but from the pew pew side as well. Low Sec will never be fixed by merely adding more valuable rats or ore out there. It is simply too dangerous to be worth the effort. Certainly as it stands today but even if you tossed Crokite in there or something.

Rather than reinvent the wheel I will link a post I made a few months ago in General Discussion: Buff Carebears...Save PvP and Everything Else.

That thread got a great deal of response and good deal of healthy debate. I am not saying all of the ideas I propose there are great ones but I like to think some are good ideas and with some tweaking and polishing and perhaps some other ideas to boot it is a good start. In short though my effort there was to provide methods for industry types to feel they could make a proper go in low sec while not overly nerfing those who want to shoot us (or indeed even improving things for them). It is not an easy balance to strike but that was certainly the goal.

Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.09.05 20:11:00 - [3]
 

I don't know how much I agree on with any of those 10 points to be honest.

My 10 points would have been completely different. But in the interests and the highly unlikely chance that the doctor realises there is a market discussions forum which (amazingly) is used for market and economic discussions, I will refrain from trolling or causing any trouble that may cause him to turn and run

(with the exception of this thread, apologies)

Imperator Jora'h
Posted - 2007.09.05 20:26:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Ricdic
I don't know how much I agree on with any of those 10 points to be honest.

My 10 points would have been completely different.



No problem.

Please include a list of your own then. I by no means am trying to pretend what I listed can be the only things to be considered. Maybe it is utter crap and your list would be a beacon in the darkness.

Whatever but something more than a nod that my list stinks would be much more useful. Even if only to other players if CCP never reads this.

Daeva Vios
Posted - 2007.09.05 20:42:00 - [5]
 

2) Artificial caps/floors on mineral prices.

Removing these could very well cause hyperinflation. Enough people have enough isk to guarantee new players wouldn't be able to afford anything but the most basic mining gear.

That's just the way I see it. I could be wrong.

Don't have the desire to comment on the rest, but pretty much agree with Ricdic.

Imperator Jora'h
Posted - 2007.09.05 21:14:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Daeva Vios
2) Artificial caps/floors on mineral prices.

Removing these could very well cause hyperinflation. Enough people have enough isk to guarantee new players wouldn't be able to afford anything but the most basic mining gear.

That's just the way I see it. I could be wrong.


I've never seen price controls like this work in real life. Perhaps in a game they are necessary. I tend to have faith in the market and think EVE's market system is robust enough to trust in market forces but it could be you are right given this is still a game and limited in some ways. Certainly worth discussion.

Quote:
Don't have the desire to comment on the rest, but pretty much agree with Ricdic.


So you have no other items to add that are better to be looked at? EVE's industry is in a Golden Age of awesomeness with no issues? Mineral Compression has not been a hot topic discussion for weeks? Trading at 0.01 increments has not spawned countless threads? Low Sec is just peachy?

If my list sucks and there are more pressing issues fine. Say what they are. In my view your response makes it sound more likely you benefit from many of these issues and cannot actually defend them but do not want to see them changed.

Daeva Vios
Posted - 2007.09.05 23:52:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Daeva Vios on 06/09/2007 00:02:58
Edited by: Daeva Vios on 05/09/2007 23:52:46
Alright, fine. Want my feelings on it?

Quote:
3) Market wars 0.01 ISK at a time (or as I like to call it "Death by a Thousand Cuts")


I'm on the record here several times saying I don't believe .01 increments are a problem. There are countless ways to combat them and take the market for yourself. Limiting how many options people have in updating their orders creates a market that is no longer free, and a free market is good. You don't have to participate in the .01 bidding wars.


Quote:
1) Mineral Compression


I largely don't care. Nerfed, I have to adjust my prices to reflect increased difficulty obtaining minerals. Buffed, the prices of my goods will change over time to reflect decreased difficulty obtaining minerals.

Quote:
4) Market Hubs


The only problem location is Jita. The only way to truly fix this issue, in any event, is to limit the amount of orders able to be placed at any given station, or increase the cost of taxes/broker fees depending upon how much each station is used. Even then, the problem just becomes decentralized. The problem is not the hubs.

Quote:
5) Minerals from Rat Loot


What's the problem?

Quote:
6) Minerals from Drone Regions (or just Drones in general)


The availability of minerals in the drone regions should be on par with the availability of minerals in every other 0.0 region. This isn't an "issue" it is common sense.

Quote:
7) Insurance


What's the problem?

Quote:
8) Low Sec (broad but roughly economic improvements to encourage people out there)


I don't think people are afraid that isk is going to pod them, in low sec.

Quote:
9) NPC Trade Goods (not sure this merits a spot...opinions?)


The value was reduced to eliminate farmers. This is a good thing.

Disclaimer: On those "issues" where I asked "What's the problem?" I don't necessarily mean there is no problem, I am asking what you believe the problem is.

Now, my list of issues I feel are more pressing:


1) Macro utilities, exploits, other methods of cheating
2) ISK spammers, sellers, and buyers

Both of these have a high impact on the economy and can be countered using economic methods.

Another thing I'd like to see? In-game implementation of a stock market. That issue is, in my mind, the single most pressing issue in the EVE economy. How to do it without opening the door for innumerable scams without increasing the costs for CCP to the point where their game becomes entirely unprofitable would prove Dr. EyjoG a god among mortals, imo.

Shar Tegral
Posted - 2007.09.06 06:39:00 - [8]
 

Daeva Vios swings!

Daeva Vios connects!

Daeva Vios knocks this thread out of here!


You list a number of hot topic issues for the unenlightened. Which would work better in COAD or something where mob/sheeple mentality persists. Here people tend to think about the actual market, how and why it works.

Your 10 list (or 9 list as it were) is weak. It lists things that are not broken.

1) Mineral Compression = Good.
Exploiting fittings to move much more compressed items - Bad. (Not for the Good Doctor.)

2) Artificial Caps/Floors = Good.
It allows CCP to exercise some control over this simulation. Besides you ignore the fact that economies are often (semi-)controlled in real life and the illusion of free market mechanics that most people think dominate the world is just that... an illusion.

3) 0.01 isk wars = Good
Anything else would be someone else deciding for me what I can charge. Just because you can't beat me in PVP, market or otherwise, is no reason for you to have the game rules redesigned for my defeat. (Besides why do you assume you can suddenly beat them in the future when you can't today??)

4) Market Hubs = Inevitable
Just do some history reading. Just how do you think the bigger towns/cities/capitals came to be?? Consolidation of power, be it political or economic, will always happen and it is often very very hard to predict, prior to the consolidation, where and how it will happen. But it is a historical precedent throughout time immemorial.

5) Minerals From Rat Loot = Freedom
Again stop asking for game redesign to make captive markets. If you can't compete in this market, stop and do something else. Wait, you are whining... I guess you found that something else.

6) Minerals & Drones = See #5 It's the same damned thing.

7) Insurance = "Where's the Problem"
The only change I'd like to see with insurance, again non-economic, is the voiding of insurance coverage when committing a criminal act. While it would be argued that accidents often happen that is what GM's are paid for as I understand it. Far better to have a semi-realistic legal system instead of this Gank-Cop system that protects criminals more than the victims. But I digress.

8) Low Sec = Dangerous.
You do realize that 0.0 is safer than Low Sec? Well perhaps you don't, who knows. The problem with low sec is not some sort of economic handicap in those areas. I'll leave it at that.

9) NPC Trade Goods = You didn't have a point to make but you put it in anyway.

Like I said, all mob mentality hot topics but non-starters for anyone with some understanding of the market(s) in or out of game. Sadly I'm trying to figure out why I even bothered responding other than to clarify that you started looking good, even a nice title, but this thread (from post #1) isn't even a flash in the pan no matter how upset you get.

Dr Slurm
General Commodities
Posted - 2007.09.06 07:57:00 - [9]
 

1) Mineral compression. This was absurdly not well thought out.

3) 0.01 isk bids, non-issue the market polices itself in this manor.

7) Insurance: Insurance is a problem because it is an unnecessary ISK faucet that seemingly has no real drain other then the players who use it for what it was intended. It allows players guaranteed methods of creating ISK, literally. Not to mention the fact you get insurance from committing illegal acts.

I would really like to see the effect major changes by CCP has on the market, keeping in mind the surge of subscription rates around new content deliveries. Often the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I found when I played Ultima Online the more changes they implemented the worse the game got and the more "exploits" occurred. Exploits don't really exist but in name. They are really game features. This is because the creator of the game has absolute control over the world that they provide. If a feature makes its way into the game world it is the fault of the developers and testers, not the player who abuses it.

I recall in Ultima Online when they created (Young) status for players. This essentially meant that you were a noob and needed your hand held. In doing this they gave young characters special advantages over the older veteran players. One of these advantages was you could purchase an unlimited amount of any item a vendor stocked without having to worry about the price going up. Needless to say it didn't take long for long time players to realize this and abuse the living hell out of it by buying young characters themselves. This was a change that should never have happened.

All the content in UO that was added after the original dev team left was done without forethought. The changes were made to appease the carebear masses who wanted the game ruined because they couldn't hack it outside of town. I was a great fan of the Ultima series and came to UO after it left beta. In the time that Origin was not owned by EA was the best time to play that game. It was fun and exciting. Now you walk around ingame in what is supposed to set in the middle ages only to see a bunch of idiots in neon colored clothing. A once great game was ruined because the company behind it bowed to the carebears. If I was Richard Garriot and dead I would be rolling in my grave. Another thing to note is all the private servers not run by EA that are available for UO.

This all makes me think of the mineral compression changes. It seems absurdly poorly planned. The reality is CCP should have just adjusted the size of the module to fit the amount of minerals it refined to. In fact it should have never been the case in the first place. All the modules that were exploited via mineral compression were introduced after the fact. I don't know why they weren't checked for the loophole when created, but this just points to a rush poorly thought plan.

As for the good Doctor, I suspect he has no responsibility to us market goons. I don't think he was hired to appease us. I think he was hired to help CCP get its **** straight. Otherwise I think he would have made his presence more known in this forum. We certainly tried to reach out to him, but have thus far been ignored. So be it. We have much more inciteful minds here anyways. What we lack is access to the data.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2007.09.06 08:39:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Imperator Jora'h

1) Mineral Compression
2) Artificial caps/floors on mineral prices
3) Market wars 0.01 ISK at a time (or as I like to call it "Death by a Thousand Cuts")
4) Market Hubs
5) Minerals from Rat Loot
6) Minerals from Drone Regions (or just Drones in general)
7) Insurance
8) Low Sec (broad but roughly economic improvements to encourage people out there)
9) NPC Trade Goods (not sure this merits a spot...opinions?)
10) Nothing...just wanted 10 items for the aesthetic appeal rather than nine items (doubtless I missed something anyway).



1) Is getting changed. Just wait.
2) Hopefully it will get fixed. But im afraid it will increase prices on ships alot.
3) Cant do anything anyways
4) Market hubs are good.
5) What about this? Useless point
6) See #5
7) See #6
8) Theres plenty market in some 0.0 areas, for certain thing. No need for fix here, but maybe increasing low-sec population. But i doubt this will happen
9) Dont go there. Its not worth anything.
10) Price on capital ships going down = Bad. Mkay?

Montaire
Krusual Developments
Posted - 2007.09.06 09:30:00 - [11]
 

What I dont like about Rat Loot mins : It means that the primary source of minerals is not mining.

I having the rat loot so easily refined to low ends is whats stopping them from doing something about the inefficiency of mining low ends is the rat loot.



LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2007.09.06 09:43:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Montaire
What I dont like about Rat Loot mins : It means that the primary source of minerals is not mining.

I having the rat loot so easily refined to low ends is whats stopping them from doing something about the inefficiency of mining low ends is the rat loot.




But some dev stated that they are working towards more loot rather than bounties, which is clean isk spawned from thing. And thats bad. Mkay?

Verite Rendition
Caldari
F.R.E.E. Explorer
EVE Animal Control
Posted - 2007.09.06 10:42:00 - [13]
 

A bit off-topic, but the good doctor really needs a real EVE name. EyjoG isn't really pronounceable (well at least I can't pronounce it as an American) and as amusing as it is to watch everyone call him the "good doctor" it also seems a bit bit rude given the cliché nature of the term.

Daeva Vios
Posted - 2007.09.06 10:50:00 - [14]
 

It's not rude. It's a term of endearment Very Happy

Also, I don't think it's quite fair to cast judgments just yet. It would be (very!) nice to see him replying in this forum, considering we deal in what he's here to manage and the communication would be great...

BUUUUT

You have to remember he's a relative newb. He sure has access to a lot of info, but there's nothing like experience and that is what he doesn't really have. I'd say give it a while before passing any judgments on him.

Imperator Jora'h
Posted - 2007.09.06 14:02:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Daeva Vios
Edited by: Daeva Vios on 06/09/2007 00:02:58
Edited by: Daeva Vios on 05/09/2007 23:52:46
Alright, fine. Want my feelings on it?

Quote:
3) Market wars 0.01 ISK at a time (or as I like to call it "Death by a Thousand Cuts")


I'm on the record here several times saying I don't believe .01 increments are a problem. There are countless ways to combat them and take the market for yourself. Limiting how many options people have in updating their orders creates a market that is no longer free, and a free market is good. You don't have to participate in the .01 bidding wars.


A free market certainly is good. Camping the market channels in a GAME endlessly tweaking numerous market orders 0.01 ISK at a time is not good.

I certainly am not suggesting people are prohibited from 0.01 ISK changes to their orders but a significant cost (broker fees most likely) for doing so would be in order. In the real world there is a cost associated with fiddling with prices for goods. I cannot think of ANY merchant who tweaks prices $0.01 at a time 50+ times a day on each and every good they have.

That or let people buy from higher priced orders rather than defaulting to the lowest price. There have been many times I wished I knew who the seller was and before I knew better I used to intentionally buy from people who were 0.01 ISK more expensive hoping to "punish" (as it were) people who engaged in this practice (I know the higher priced guy probably did it too...but I tried).

Quote:
Quote:
1) Mineral Compression


I largely don't care. Nerfed, I have to adjust my prices to reflect increased difficulty obtaining minerals. Buffed, the prices of my goods will change over time to reflect decreased difficulty obtaining minerals.


The point of this is not what YOU care about but what would make for a better game. Mineral compression is certainly off the charts in absurdity. 430:1 compression ratios? There was a HUGE hew and cry over this and CCP sadly caved to the whines. But it definitely needs sorting and frankly their 80% refine efficiency nerf (last I heard as what they were aiming for) I do not think solves the issue.


Imperator Jora'h
Posted - 2007.09.06 14:20:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 06/09/2007 14:37:06
Quote:
Quote:
4) Market Hubs


The only problem location is Jita. The only way to truly fix this issue, in any event, is to limit the amount of orders able to be placed at any given station, or increase the cost of taxes/broker fees depending upon how much each station is used. Even then, the problem just becomes decentralized. The problem is not the hubs.


Decentralizing the problem is the point. To an extent hubs are natural. CCP does not make them. They are an emergent feature. Nonetheless having some sort of scalable cost associated for doing business in such places would make sense. Certainly this is how the real world works. Yes, I know this is a game and "real world" does not necessarily make it a good reason to be in a game but in this case I think it would. The hub would remain to an extent but places to buy items would spread out some.


Quote:
Quote:
5) Minerals from Rat Loot


What's the problem?


Rat loot melted impinges on the mineral market. The primary source of minerals should come from miners (doubtless it is the primary source today but a significant amount still devolves from melted loot).

Further, rat loot narrows the list of items builders will build. How many people bother to build things like 10mn MWD's? Most people have piles of the things in their hangars. Some put them on the market but being from rat loot they tend to be cheaper than a manufacturer would ever build them for.


Quote:
Quote:
6) Minerals from Drone Regions (or just Drones in general)


The availability of minerals in the drone regions should be on par with the availability of minerals in every other 0.0 region. This isn't an "issue" it is common sense.


I am not saying drone regions should become a wasteland. Certainly whatever happens those regions should be roughly on par (value wise via rats, roids or what have you) with similar areas elsewhere.

Did you read the dev blog? Did you not notice perhaps the most striking feature in all the pretty charts where min prices (particularly zydrine) took a serious nose dive after drone regions came in?

Again, mineral supply should mostly be the province of miners.


Quote:
Quote:
7) Insurance


What's the problem?


Insurance for criminal acts is a very frequent complaint across the forums. Do you think that makes sense? Because of what insurance enables have you ever sat outside Jita 4-4 and watched the fireworks? This makes sense to you?


Quote:
Quote:
8) Low Sec (broad but roughly economic improvements to encourage people out there)


I don't think people are afraid that isk is going to pod them, in low sec.


Here I think you are just trolling. Low sec has been HUGELY underpopulated for a long, long time (open your map anytime and check). 0.0 is perversely safer.

So a remarkable chunk of the game, due to mechanics, is largely a no-go zone. No one I know likes the status quo. Most think it needs some sort of adjustment. Of course making adjustments that doesn't infuriate some people is a problem. The thread I linked to in my second post was a stab at changes that did not overly nerf one side or the other.



Imperator Jora'h
Posted - 2007.09.06 14:33:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 06/09/2007 14:41:37
Quote:
9) NPC Trade Goods (not sure this merits a spot...opinions?)


Perhaps not. In the scheme of things it may not float near the top. It does however link into mineral price floors/ceilings. There are also the cases where via jump bridges people were making 2 billion ISK/day for maybe 15 minutes of work in complete safety. Such things are an imbalance and should be looked at (no idea if CCP sorted that particular issue).


Quote:
Now, my list of issues I feel are more pressing:


1) Macro utilities, exploits, other methods of cheating
2) ISK spammers, sellers, and buyers

Both of these have a high impact on the economy and can be countered using economic methods.


I am not sure how many macros are actually used in EVE beyond, perhaps, farmers.

I agree farmers/ISK sellers are an issue. But how much of a problem are they really? I do not know. I would LOVE to see some charts on this one but I am betting such a thing CCP will never, ever share.

Further, while an issue, I doubt these are problems for our resident economist to sort.


Quote:
Another thing I'd like to see? In-game implementation of a stock market. That issue is, in my mind, the single most pressing issue in the EVE economy. How to do it without opening the door for innumerable scams without increasing the costs for CCP to the point where their game becomes entirely unprofitable would prove Dr. EyjoG a god among mortals, imo.


An in-game stock market would be very cool but I think that may be too complex a creature to work well even in EVE (for reasons you mention). As such while cool as hell it is a feature so out of the ball park I did not think it worth mentioning here.

Imperator Jora'h
Posted - 2007.09.06 14:39:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Daeva Vios
It's not rude. It's a term of endearment Very Happy

Also, I don't think it's quite fair to cast judgments just yet. It would be (very!) nice to see him replying in this forum, considering we deal in what he's here to manage and the communication would be great...

BUUUUT

You have to remember he's a relative newb. He sure has access to a lot of info, but there's nothing like experience and that is what he doesn't really have. I'd say give it a while before passing any judgments on him.


I agree to all this.

Certainly when I say "Good Doctor" I do not mean it in any sort of derogatory fashion and use it as a fond nickname.

If it really is seen as derogatory by him I hope he says so and I'll stop.

Icarus Carlyle
Gallente
Streel Corporation
Posted - 2007.09.06 16:37:00 - [19]
 

For this post I will focus on Low Sec

I agree with you that just throwing more monetary incentive and rewards at players will not necessarily get them to move to low sec. I think there are some different flaws that low sec has that make it more of a hassle for non-pirate or non-ganker types. For purposes of this discussion I will call them carebears, no offense intended. Low sec in some ways needs to be like 0.0 and I submit the following:

Rework security penalties in low sec. Remove security penalties for aggression and combat in general away from the grids containing gates and stations similar to 0.0. This allows carebears to defend themsleves proactively without worry of taking security hits. I think that many carebears have no desire to get a negative security rating but the mechanics of low sec do not allow this without putting you in a bind. This also allows carebears to defend a belt or pos etc in low sec without fear of a sec hit for initiating the aggression. Pirates and gankers also don't get a penalty but they really don't care.
Around the stargates and stations (just say the whole grid that contains them) security penalties for aggression rules still apply. Think of these areas as limited automated Concord zones as they are today. In addition, in low sec the thresholds for negative security that someone can automatically initiate aggression against you without penalty or reprisal from gate guns needs to be made tighter to say anyone with a -2 security status or lower. This allows carebears to defend themselves (and go on the attack) at gates against such players without worry.

Allow the use of interdiction spheres and warp disruptor bubbles anywhere but the grids for stations and gates in a similar way to the rules above. This at least allows some use of these items without going overboard in preventing travel similar to the way 0.0 operates. Pirates/gankers can still do what they do today in those areas today. This does allow you to pin down targets in belts or at planets, moons, starbases etc. similar to 0.0 though. This can help in a limited capacity vs. the invincibility of Mom's and Titan's in low sec. Granted they still are uber around gates and stations but at least this gives opportunity for some risk in certain locations that was not there before.

Not necessarily an all low sec item but allow the assignment of Kill Rights to other players. This allows possible repurcussions for players that kill another that may not necessarily be at a skill level to challenge that player. This also could be a step towards a bounty hunter profession in that they could attack the mark anywhere with the conferred kill rights.


Now as far as economic incentives just to bring this back (somewhat loosely I admit) towards a subject for the markets for this forum I would look at giving some additional incentive for low sec over high sec, even boosting 0.0 in some areas to compensate as needed if it is deemed too much. Some thoughts:

Remove the restriction on starbase moon mining and reactions in .4 systems. They are low sec so treat them like the other low sec systems.

Move Hedbergite and Hemorphite asteroids up into .3 systems and not just mainly in .1 and .2's. If need be, boost the roids on the amount of minerals they give to make them more attractive and boost any higher end ores to balance out.

Improve low sec belt rat spawns. Yeah, I know, not likely to help all that much but with my above suggestions a little extra incentive can't hurt.

Allow random spawning of 3-5 roids of lowend 0.0 ores (Spod, Gneiss, Dark Ochre) in .1 and .2 systems. Do not tie the spawns to occur always after downtime and keep the number low so they don't compete with exploration mining sites. These are just "cake" to possibly give an incentive into low sec belts.

***Continued in next post******


Icarus Carlyle
Gallente
Streel Corporation
Posted - 2007.09.06 16:39:00 - [20]
 

And finally I think you could possibly look at allowing corporations to own something in empty low sec systems. People will be more inclined to risk being in low sec if they can have something to call their own. A structure that is not on par with an 0.0 outpost but allows a small station of sorts that is a hybrid between a station and starbase, call it a mining platform.

It must be constructed at moons. It has one office for the building corp so no rent worries or possibilities but the office is like a normal station office with corp hangars. It has a limited total size on the corp hangars that is a fairly large amount but not practically infinite like normal stations. Personal hangars are also limited in amount of space allowed. It's refining capability is on par with minmatar outposts but the refining amount is limited similar to starbase refining structures in that a limited amount can be done at a time and it is not instantaneous (balance the space and time as seen fit).

It has to be fueled similar to a starbase and it requires starbase charters for the faction's space it is built in (faction standing not required). Give it powergrid and cpu like a starbase and allow those types of structures to be anchored around it just like a starbase. It has to be built similar to a 0.0 outpost and cost around 2 billion minimum to build with the caveat that it can be captured similar to an outpost. Whatever is in the corp hangars becomes the property of the capturing corporation! Personal hangar items are also property of the capturing corporation. Upon capture personal hangar items are dumped into an impound hangar and the capturing corporation has 72 hours from capture to clear out the impound hangar before it's contents are destroyed. This allows risk and keeps a limit on what and how much a corporation will keep in the platform.

Also it has no market ability so you can't sell stuff from it, people outside the corporation cannot dock at it (but they can get in the shields like a starbase). No repairshop facilities, it has fitting facilities. Of course these could be allowed in 0.0 space as well. For the 0.0 faction controlled space there should be starbase charters for those factions sold through their LP stores to allow this in that space as well. Only three allowed per system and no stations or outposts of any sort can be in the system (think of the wars that could start over resources in choice systems if multiple platforms are built by competing corporations). There is no fuel savings on the platform if you or your alliance happen to have system sovereignty.


Diehard carebears will still probably not risking building a mining platform but maybe some of the changes to security hits for aggression will improve odds that groups of moderates will actually venture into low sec in a limited manner. You will NEVER get players who don't want to be "interfered" with by other players to go out of high sec space. They will quit before doing that.

Icarus Carlyle
Gallente
Streel Corporation
Posted - 2007.09.06 16:46:00 - [21]
 

Concerning some of your other points:

2) I think caps/floors on mineral prices should be removed. The players should set prices.

3) Market wars are fine. I don't like them but I don't see a good reason to start putting restrictions in.

4) Market hubs are fine as others have mentioned, they are inevitable.

7) Insurance should definitely not be paid for someone committing criminal activities in high sec space. I personally would like to see at least platinum insurance removed to make losing ships a bit more of a burden on players.



Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.09.06 19:23:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
before I knew better I used to intentionally buy from people who were 0.01 ISK more expensive hoping to "punish" (as it were) people who engaged in this practice (I know the higher priced guy probably did it too...but I tried).


Not sure if "before I knew better" indicates that you know this now, but regardless of which sell order you buy from in a station, the lowest sell will get the money.

Quote:
But it definitely needs sorting and frankly their 80% refine efficiency nerf (last I heard as what they were aiming for) I do not think solves the issue.


Well you need to look at the big picture. That nerf also affects rat hunters and mission runners as they are melting their loot as well. So making it too low on the 50 odd items CCP have separated would probably have a bit of a dent on a lot of players.

Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.09.06 19:34:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Nonetheless having some sort of scalable cost associated for doing business in such places would make sense. Certainly this is how the real world works.


I am not arguing that hubs should or shouldn't change, but there is definetly a scalable cost already associated with them. Office, research and production rental costs will usually far exceed those of a non-hub system. This is in-line with real life where placing your business in a central or metro location will result in increased costs such as rent, parking and the likes. I guess the real difference, is that in RL, these companies choosing central locations usually mark up their prices to compensate for increased costs. In-game it seems to go the other way where the lowest prices on goods and ships can be found in hubs.

This is probably a result of the ability for businesses to bounce around moving their stock to these hubs, which wouldn't really be realistic in real life (short of places like markets or car boot sales).

Quote:

Further, rat loot narrows the list of items builders will build. How many people bother to build things like 10mn MWD's? Most people have piles of the things in their hangars. Some put them on the market but being from rat loot they tend to be cheaper than a manufacturer would ever build them for.


I agree with this comment. I would like to see all rat loot be provided in a different form somehow. Can't think of any ways atm, short of increasing bounties to compensate and only allowing meta/faction/commander level loot drops from npcs. I do believe that normal loot drops have an adverse effect on the market economy, small but still sufficient enough to warrant attention



Quote:
Insurance for criminal acts is a very frequent complaint across the forums. Do you think that makes sense?


I agree with you, but there are two sides to the fence, and this has probably been argued over hundreds of pages combined in these threads so I won't delve into it.


Quote:
Quote:

I don't think people are afraid that isk is going to pod them, in low sec.


Here I think you are just trolling.


I think he was more pointing to the fact that this probably isn't something that should be handled by the economist.

Daeva Vios
Posted - 2007.09.06 19:42:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Daeva Vios on 06/09/2007 19:49:10
Edited by: Daeva Vios on 06/09/2007 19:46:51
Regarding low sec, I was referring to the fact that you started this thread on an economic premise in the Market Discussions forum, and the idea that the problem with low sec is directly related to the in-game economy is absurd. I addressed each issue from an economic/financial standpoint and the notion that a free market economy is ideal for the sort of game EVE is.

Regarding the .01 wars:
I'm not losing in the market game. I like the market as it is. I play the .01 isk game from time to time. I can't update my orders 23/7, but I still make money hand over fist. If you can't figure it out, you need a new profession. Seriously.

Edit to reflect my habit of posting before thinking Smile

Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.09.06 19:58:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Ricdic on 06/09/2007 20:05:15
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h

I agree farmers/ISK sellers are an issue. But how much of a problem are they really? I do not know. I would LOVE to see some charts on this one but I am betting such a thing CCP will never, ever share.


I believe this is a far larger problem than you think. I believe there are at least 500-1000 farmers mining in this game at any one time. Now, these guys are working around the clock. Lets assume for arguments sake that a hulk brings in about 1 million units of trit/hour (could be way off). So, assuming even 50 farmers (I reckon there are far more, as I usually see them in groups of 20-40), that is 50m units of trit an hour, or 1.1 billion units of trit per day. This comes to 30 billion trit per month, or around 75 billion isk per month (2.5 isk per unit value).

Obviously macros don't refine, they usually just sell to highest buy, but this should give a very rough indication on their abilities to hammer the market, and I used very loose values.

Quote:
An in-game stock market would be very cool but I think that may be too complex a creature to work well even in EVE


Agreed, I don't see this ever happening. However, rather than implement one, CCP could attempt to enhance the existing ones.

* Force confirmation dialogues on share transfers
* Allow the lockdown of shares to a corporation
* Fix the lockdown bug that allows CEO to get the gear anyway
* Provide descriptions tabs on dividends
* Confirmation box on dividend payments
* Allow the lockdown of corporate funds
* Fix the show info interface on a corporation so it shows accurate numbers of shares.
* Allow corporate creation to choose public and private, with certain rules in place for public that are optional at conception. Things like:

Minimum Vote Length - ….. [dropdown box deciding between 1/3/5/7/14 days]
Maximum Vote Length - …. [dropdown box deciding between 1/3/5/7/14 days]
Allow shareholder to view wallet balance – [YES………..NO]
Allow shareholder to view locked down assets – [YES……NO]
Allow shareholder to view corporate wallet transactions – [YES….NO]
Allow shareholder to view locked down shares – [YES….NO]
Starting share amount - ……… [number field where one can choose any given number]
Maximum CEO Amount - ……[Dropdown box allowing up to 5 CEO’s]
Allow Director Voting-….[YES…NO]
Require CEO vote to access master wallet - ….[YES….NO]
(this last part was to allow funds to be completely secured inside a corporate wallet, and only able to be accessed upon a successful CEO vote (between the 1-5 ceo’s)


Obviously a public corporation would not need to have all of these in place, but the options would be available so different corporations can set up different rules, so that prospective shareholders could check the rules in place before deciding whether or not to invest.



edit: typo on trit amounts.

Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.09.06 20:00:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Icarus Carlyle
stuff


I think a lot of the lowsec changes you are promoting would keep people away from low-sec permanently to be honest.

Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.09.06 20:01:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Icarus Carlyle
Concerning some of your other points:

2) I think caps/floors on mineral prices should be removed. The players should set prices.


Agreed 100%. Let the players decide the value on items, not npc orders provided by CCP.


Daeva Vios
Posted - 2007.09.06 20:24:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Daeva Vios on 06/09/2007 20:30:31
Quote:
I certainly am not suggesting people are prohibited from 0.01 ISK changes to their orders but a significant cost (broker fees most likely) for doing so would be in order. In the real world there is a cost associated with fiddling with prices for goods. I cannot think of ANY merchant who tweaks prices $0.01 at a time 50+ times a day on each and every good they have.

That or let people buy from higher priced orders rather than defaulting to the lowest price. There have been many times I wished I knew who the seller was and before I knew better I used to intentionally buy from people who were 0.01 ISK more expensive hoping to "punish" (as it were) people who engaged in this practice (I know the higher priced guy probably did it too...but I tried).


Setting a higher cost for changing prices by .01 isk would prohibit setting orders by .01 isk. You're just giving your restrictions a different name. I play on games with restrictions very similar to what you're asking for here, and the economy in those games is entirely screwed up. Someone with no idea about market mechanics can, and will, completely destroy a market out of simple ignorance. To limit the market in the method you're suggesting would be bad for the free market economy.

Quote:
The point of this is not what YOU care about but what would make for a better game. Mineral compression is certainly off the charts in absurdity. 430:1 compression ratios? There was a HUGE hew and cry over this and CCP sadly caved to the whines. But it definitely needs sorting and frankly their 80% refine efficiency nerf (last I heard as what they were aiming for) I do not think solves the issue.


The point is very much what I care about. I don't do mineral compression. I recognize that it influences the prices of my goods. Nerfing it means the cost of goods will increase universally as the cost of transporting minerals increases and industrialists realize their overhead is growing.

Quote:

Rat loot melted impinges on the mineral market. The primary source of minerals should come from miners (doubtless it is the primary source today but a significant amount still devolves from melted loot).


Have you thought that perhaps, instead of impinging on the mineral market, rat loot helps to drive it? Recycling in the real world certainly harms mine owners' bottom line, but in the end it does help reduce the overall cost of minerals as mine owners have to scale their costs to compete with new sources of raw materials. I don't believe minerals from rat loot represent a significant portion of the mineral market, in comparison to minerals from mining. I do, however, believe it's significant enough to keep the mineral market as active as it is.

It is worth noting here that I am largely playing devil's advocate in this one case, but I wouldn't raise the issue if I didn't believe it's a potential problem.

Quote:
Did you read the dev blog? Did you not notice perhaps the most striking feature in all the pretty charts where min prices (particularly zydrine) took a serious nose dive after drone regions came in?


Yes, I did notice. I also noticed they rose again once CCP reduced the refine rate. Reducing or eliminating minerals from rat loot would have this same effect across the board. EVERY SINGLE ITEM would be touched by this, even rat loot.

Quote:
Further, rat loot narrows the list of items builders will build. How many people bother to build things like 10mn MWD's? Most people have piles of the things in their hangars. Some put them on the market but being from rat loot they tend to be cheaper than a manufacturer would ever build them for.


I agree basic items need to be removed from rat loot tables.

Mr Minmatar
Minmatar
Minmatar Munitions and Tactical Assets Repository
Zzz
Posted - 2007.09.06 22:12:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Ricdic
I would like to see all rat loot be provided in a different form somehow. Can't think of any ways atm, short of increasing bounties to compensate and only allowing meta/faction/commander level loot drops from npcs. I do believe that normal loot drops have an adverse effect on the market economy, small but still sufficient enough to warrant attention

It's simple really, the ideas of drone alloys and salvage, do away with loot drops altogether (other than special items such as mission objectives, implants, faction/officer, etc.) Like Metal Scraps we have now, but more than just trit and hopefully better cargo volume/units of minerals ugh

It seperates the issues of mission loot replacing minerals and mission loot displacing T1 manufacturing, eliminating the latter.

As for the former, since farmers are by far the largest source of low-end minerals (your estimate of 500-100 seems extremely low to me, and trit/hour should be 2 or 3x as much, not to mention the pyerite, mexallon and isogen when they find it), I don't think many people have a problem with loot displacing their income. Maybe if CCP ever starts to care about eliminating them it will be worth looking at the impact on real miners.

Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
Posted - 2007.09.07 02:30:00 - [30]
 

something i've been troubled about since invention:

static moon mineral supply - increasing demand

well, while for now it couldn't hurt to have some industrial POSes pay off earlier, where does it end?

we may well be one year away from "disaster" but we know what happened when one link of the chain limits T2 and that was BPOs.
if some reeeaaally rich guy decided to just manipulate the market and buy the entire chain of T2 ingredients; then just tenfolds the prices and resells, other moon miners will just sell theirs for the same price -0.01isk etc.
then reactions will follow and of course ingredient manufacturers aswell.
T2 will be determined by POSes and thus by the larger entitites again and the prices for modules and ships will enjoy the same curve as last year.

lots of big "if"s, certainly, but i have been thinking of acquiring a fort knox on my own. just not in gold but all kinds of raw materials.


Pages: [1] 2 3

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