Economy and Trading Dead

Communications Center General Discussion
1

Took a couple years off. Came back. Was going to resume light industry and trading game as that was always my favorite.
What it’s become is a mess.

The relist fees have slowed the market momentum to a crawl.
The 4 digit tick amount is fine, that was enough. Kill the relist fees and make it an increasing wait time between changes.
Killed competitive trading with the “bot boogeyman”.

This will surely send me back away from this game.
Shame. Eve is the only game with a real market economy and CCP is mismanaging it.

2

Getting my popcorn and recliner.

Another EVE is (insert gameplay area) is dead thread.

Another forum alt who wants to make some trouble. Money is that OP is long gone and won’t care in a few days.

Remember this if you want to post in this thread.

Bye!

3 Likes
3

Yes, lets introduce the bot nonsense again because someone who hasn’t played in eons thinks it should.

4 Likes
4

To be fair, the new market fees have very little to do with fighting bots. Bots are still very prevalent in the market, and will still undercut you instantly, because even with these higher fees, it still makes more economic sense to undercut to keep your order up because you make more money that way compared to waiting for your competitors to sell out.

CCP did this primarily for one reason: ISK was becoming hyper-inflated compared to all the other resources in the game. They couldn’t shut off the faucets because most players would erroneously perceive that as an “income nerf” when in reality it wouldn’t be, just like the mining changes weren’t an income nerf for miners, but were perceived as such anyway. So they accomplished their goal in a way that would be noticed by as few players as possible.

4 Likes
5

The re-listing fees really, truly suck though. I don’t if that’s really deterred bots much (I seem to literally be outbid as soon as I list), but I’m finding I sell a lot of stuff straight to buy orders as it’s just not cost effective to pay the fees for re-listing…

1 Like
6

This sounds like a good idea.

I agree that relist fees did not help fight bots. Bots just place smaller batches more often … which they can easily do.

But even with increasing delay it would change nothing, except bots would need to use two accounts to have enough market orders.

7

are excessive. Imagine if you owned a grocery store, and you had to pay the government a tax if you changed the price of eggs - that’s asinine. The relisting fees kill trade outside of Jita, like why list anywhere else? It’s not worth the risk.

4 Likes
8

And apparently didn’t do anything to deter bots, so I tend to agree.

2 Likes
9

That’s what happens when you let your true economist in the team go. I wonder if they at least try to get some input from former CCP Dr Eyjo. Most of their decisions, however, tell a different story.

2 Likes
10

I wish they’d introduce other isk sinks that have nothing to do with the market. Primarily isk sinks that people or alliances who make large amounts of money would find valuable, but can’t be used to fuel direct isk generation.

1 Like
11

Isk sinks not tied to the market would make traders even more powerful compared to other play styles.

1 Like
12

Not really, you’d just be decreasing the overall circulation of isk in the system. I’m not saying CCP should remove the isk sinks in the market, just add more in other places.

For example, hiring npcs to protect structures. They wouldn’t have bounties, or any loot worth killing them for, but it would create a fairly large isk sink when it’s all tallied together.

Another potential option would be an npc courier system. They could be attacked without concord intervention (just a suspect flag) so it wouldn’t be something people would use to move large amounts of valuables, but enough people would use it to move trash they’d normally keep stashed in random locations that it would end up being a decent isk sink.

The prior idea would also encourage more people to use region buy orders, thus more of an isk sink through the market as well.

A refurbished bounty system, complete with the ability to take out a contract on a specific person, which would give the player remote access to locator agents. There’s 3 isk sinks in that sentence. (Bounty list fee, contract accept fee, and remote locator agent fees everytime a request is made.)

Introducing “farms and fields” structures that could be destroyed without concord interference. Space farms for growing organics, manufacturing for w/e is grown at those locations, intel tools for exploration, ect. There’s several isk sinks in involved in all of that too. (Initial structure bpc / bpos, anchor fees, operation fees, and all of these items are potentially targets for those npc defenders too.)

Crew and Officers. If done in a lazy way, crew would just be an annoyance, but it could be a generally interesting addition to the game.

As you see, there’s several options I listed there, and it’s no where an exhaustive list.

1 Like
13

This is a player driven game.

This is a player driven game. You just made people who do space trucking obsolete regardless of what limitations you set to it.

This is not the way.

2 Likes
14

Poses have had automated defenses forever. It’s not that big of a deal.

Negative. It’s too big of a risk to send a courier with valuables that can be destroyed with very little risk to the aggressor. I’m sure some people would do it, but the more successful they’d be at doing it, the more likely they would be to lose their items doing that in the future. (npcs using auto pilot routes would be fairly easy to kill.)

And players are too expensive to hire to transport for low value items.

15

The best ISK sink would be to turn ISK into a physical item that needs to be transported like everything else, with a banking system integrated into the game that would allow for digital transfers at a cost.

16

That doesn’t really make sense in a digital world. Even in our world, governments want to do away with physical money, in part to prevent counterfeiting.

17

ISK isn’t a currency anyway, it’s a resource. It functions like, is generated like, and is consumed like other resources in EVE. PLEX is much more akin to a genuine currency.

Also, that’s not really true. Physical cash is very important, and governments are very much aware of that. They might be looking for ways to make digital and physical currencies integrate more seamlessly, but they most definitely don’t want to get rid of cash for good.

18

That’s a bit of a stretch.

But it’s irrelevant anyway. It’s true that there’s too much of it in circulation, and having more ways of taking it out of circulation is a good thing.

They’ll be replacing them with cash cards. Not only does it get rid of “easily” spoofed currency, it also allows them to see what people are doing with it. It’s a bit evil of them, but there is a general shift toward that way of thinking.

19

The issue isn’t that there’s too much ISK being generated, but that there’s too much ISK in proportion to other commodities. This can have a “runaway” effect that creates a chain reaction that overvalues/devalues other commodities and shifts the game toward a barter-style economy.

In theory, they could solve the “too much ISK” issue by increasing the generation rates of other resources like minerals, PI, faction modules, LP, etc., and not rely in increasing ISK sinks alone.

1 Like
20

It’s only isk that’s out of proportion in relation to everything else, so the easiest thing to do is create more ways of destroying it.

Furthermore, it’s a self regulating system if you have those sinks that are unrelated to the market, because people will just not interact with them if their cost is too high relative to the value of what isk is worth. Thus, they can act as a relief valve when isk becomes too devalued.