Isk sinks

[Elena_Laskova]

We’re a bit off topic here, but in a good cause

I agree that the game as a whole definitely seems to be too safe. And that CCP really should deal with nullSec’s combination of safety and very high incomes. Urgently.

What concerns me is the pattern in the forum of equating the nullSec safety that permits the massive production of raw material and ISK with (1) Improving new player retention and (2) Discussions of relative safety for experienced high-income highSec dwellers.

I care about (1). But I think it’s only weakly connected to (2).

I’d have nothing against a realistic discussion about (2), but unlike (1) I don’t have a firm option either way. Maybe they already have it too easy Like you (I think) I want some data, and I’d go with the facts, not the loudest voice.

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Nep-Neps

Oh i see. Well, skillbooks and BP’s are a relatively niche market. Looking at a majority of the end products on the market, they’re built by players. Obviously, we can’t cover every case if some items have hardcoded values and others are player driven

Hardcoded ISK values are not a small niche though. Pretty much every ISK faucet and sink is hardcoded: NPC bounties per rat, mission rewards, skillbooks, insurance cost, insurance payout. The only ISK sink I can think of right now that isn’t hardcoded is the NPC market fees, because these depend on item prices set by players.

Bottomline is, ISK shouldn’t inflate or deflate to have a stable economy. So if you think the ratio mineral price : ISK is wrong, don’t touch the ISK side, but try to increase or decrease the amount of minerals.

[Nep-Neps]

@Gerard_Amatin

Hardcoded ISK values are not a small niche though. Pretty much every ISK faucet and sink is hardcoded

@Nep-Neps

To begin with, halving current sales taxes and brokers fees at NPC stations would be a good start. Everyone eventually sells items, either through contracts or the market, so everyone benefits.

@Nep-Neps

Finally, reduce manufacturing, research, reactions, copying and lp shop by 50% to help preserve the amount of isk in the game.

I realize that there are many values that are hardcoded, and that’s why i’m advocating to change them.

@Gerard_Amatin

Bottomline is, ISK shouldn’t inflate or deflate to have a stable economy. So if you think the ratio mineral price : ISK is wrong, don’t touch the ISK side, but try to increase or decrease the amount of minerals.

If there’s more isk, then more new players could buy the titan skillbooks they need. There’s no reason to not have more isk in the game, more isk just means we can get npc items for cheaper.

[Elena_Laskova]

Nep-Neps

Your question suggested you’ve studied Economics, so I went with the shortest possible answer.
Here’s a longer version, keyed to your followup post:

@Nep-Neps

Why do we need credit, and how does this change anything? I don’t believe i ever mentioned borrowing or lending isk, i’ve only mentioned factors that drive the market.

Most (think 90-ish%, not 51%) of the “money supply” in a modern economy is actually credit.
As you point out, EVE has almost none.

This makes CCPs options regarding ISK very different to e.g. a Reserve Bank’s.

@Nep-Neps

If you’re saying that players make the isk and thus inflation is unregulated, this is completely true. However, there are market forces that adjust for this because the market is also unregulated.

Your facts are correct …

… but my point is linked to the difference in tools for “monetary policy”. The main ones governments use aren’t available in EVE.

IRL, the amount of money is matched to the productivity of the economy “automagically”.
It fails quite often, but that’s because, while the financial systems of modern “free market” economies are very useful, they are also inclined the “stack the deck” and take more than they should. The process can be extremely destructive (e.g. the 2008 meltdown).

During the intervals when the relevant governments and government agencies do their job reasonably well, and the finance system doesn’t (more realistically isn’t allowed to) steal too much, the process of matching the amount of “money + credit” to “real” economic activity is “automagic”.

EVE isn’t much like that. The nearest thing to a natural balancing process is the goal of high-income EVE PvEers to optimize their ISK/hour income, including the split between mining ISK, mining ore, or mining SP. The process seems to have a lot more “rough edges” than RL when it’s all working well.

Apart from that, CCP have the kind of thing you’re discussing: making ISK herder/earlier to mine, making ore harder/easier to mine, etc. They may have ways to manage “SP mining” too, but I wouldn’t know. I wish Eveconomist hadn’t stopped posting - he/she seemed to understand SP mining very well.

BTW I could explain in more detail, and you’d almost certainly understand. But this isn’t a chat in a civilized bar - it’s the EVE forums. I CBA dealing with the lunatics.

There are a few people here who could do a better job than me though - perhaps one will add to (and if necessary, correct) this.

[Maekchu]

What if I don’t need the income from a R64?

If I can support my in-game activities with some random solo PvE, there really is no reason for me to engage with other players unless to be social.

If the government would send you enough money to satisfy your every real life need, would you have a reason to work other than professional pride and self-improvement?

My point is that most players are able to easily gain enough ISK to satisfy their in-game needs, removing the need to interact with other players besides social stuff. It stagnates the game, so the game becomes boring. It also doesn’t help that most of the PvE activities themselves are pretty boring mechanically compared to other game.

It all contributes to the game being less attractive for players to engage in.

[Nep-Neps]

@Maekchu

What if I don’t need the income from a R64?

Then don’t fight for it

@Maekchu

If I can support my in-game activities with some random solo PvE, there really is no reason for me to engage with other players unless to be social.

Well, if you’re content with what you have then is there any reason then you don’t need to. Eve is a sandbox, players decide what they want and if everyone decides they don’t want to risk their titans then sure, we can be risk averse. After all, everyone’s fine with that. It’s the players that don’t want to fight, CCP’s given plenty of reasons (R64’s, better space for ratting/mining)

[Maekchu]

I don’t think you understand my point.

If there is no reason to do anything, then the game becomes boring. There is no reason to play eve. It’s a sandbox after all, there is no raid progression or new equipment tiers released with each expansion. Players are the ones creating content.

To improve the game, I believe players needs a reason to log in and engage with others. As it is now, I don’t see this need for some player demographics.

I suppose it all comes down to, if you believe the current game mechanics are engaging enough to keep players interested.

[Nep-Neps]

@Maekchu

It’s a sandbox after all, there is no raid progression or new equipment tiers released with each expansion. Players are the ones creating content.

Here’s the thing. If you were dropping officer fit titans over lowsec and telling people you hid like 15 of them and if they found it they got to keep it, there would be a mad scramble for them. Tons of people would find that very interesting.
Now if you dropped them every day, i’m sure a lot of people more people would log in every day just to find them

Anyone who isn’t satisfied with the current mechanics is just collateral damage

[Maekchu]

Why would you want officer fit titans if there is no need to fight over stuff? This is my point.

ISK is just a means to acquire stuff to do things. If the reason to do things is removed, then the ISK is worthless. You literally cannot do anything with it.

There needs to be a reason for you to log into the game and player engagement seems to be the main reason many players are still sticking around.

[Nep-Neps]

@Maekchu

Why would you want officer fit titans if there is no need to fight over stuff?

Because it takes time to generate stuff still. If i can get a free officer fit titan that could be worth months of ratting, why not save that time?

@Maekchu

There needs to be a reason for you to log into the game and player engagement seems to be the main reason many players are still sticking around.

@Maekchu

To improve the game, I believe players needs a reason to log in and engage with others. As it is now, I don’t see this need for some player demographics.

There you go, that’s a big reason to log in and engage with others

[Maekchu]

@Nep-Neps

Because it takes time to generate stuff still. If i can get a free officer fit titan that could be worth months of ratting, why not save that time?

I don’t think you understand the point I’m trying to get across. Let’s just cut the discussion here, since we are just going round in circles.

@Nep-Neps

There you go, that’s a big reason to log in and engage with others

I don’t care enough for random people on the internet for me to feel, that it is my duty to artificially engage them in the game. It’s CCP’s business, so I’d say it’s CCP’s job to make an engaging game.

Not sure how you thought that would make an awesome argument.

[Nep-Neps]

@Maekchu

I don’t care enough for random people on the internet for me to feel, that it is my duty to artificially engage them in the game.

Well, then i think you’re playing the wrong game. I think there’s plenty of people who enjoy shooting others on the internet, and i believe CCP is marketing the game towards them

[Maekchu]

@Nep-Neps

I think there’s plenty of people who enjoy shooting others on the internet, and i believe CCP is marketing the game towards them

So you do agree that the game should promote shooting stuff and conflict, i.e. more safety is bad for the game.

Good thing we came to an agreement.

[Rich_Darine]

ISK sinks? Get out there more and risk getting blown up.

[Nep-Neps]

Sure, but if it just so happens that players don’t want to shoot each other it’s not CCP’s fault, the players drive the game

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Nep-Neps

Sure, but if it just so happens that players don’t want to shoot each other it’s not CCP’s fault, the players drive the game

If the optimal type of gameplay is that players won’t shoot at eachother, CCP is at fault. They are the ones that create the game and they create the mechanics that drive the player-driven conflict.

CCP is the one that should create a game where people want to shoot eachother.

[Nep-Neps]

@Gerard_Amatin

they create the mechanics that drive the player-driven

Apart from fountain, CCP hasn’t been the direct or indirect cause of any conflicts.

[Lone_Starrs]

I like your idea sir

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Nep-Neps

Apart from fountain, CCP hasn’t been the direct or indirect cause of any conflicts.

CCP has been the indirect cause of every conflict. They are the ones that created the game. They are the ones that for example, create rorquals so that small fleets can hunt for big mining ships that then need saving from a standing fleet because the big ship can survive on a timer because of a panic button… all created by CCP.

CCP creates the game. They indirectly are cause for every conflict. And if people won’t shoot at eachother, CCP did something wrong.

[Nep-Neps]

@Gerard_Amatin

CCP has been the indirect cause of every conflict.

Well, there you go. CCP has given enough reasons for conflict right?