NPC Bounties, CONCORD and Empires

(Amarisen Gream) #1

I had an idea pop into my head last night. Probably over complicated and just a pain in the ass to do.

I would like to suggest that rat bounties be changed so that -

50% current bounty is paid by concord (this is the min)
The Empires that make up the pirate faction would pay up to half of the remaining 50%. The amount they pay would be based on their wallets and thus available funds.

How do the empires get funds - they get them from market taxes, war decs (concord divides the war dec cost into five parts), and other NPC fees. NPC sell orders for BPOs, other goods. ISK fees tied with LP store cost.

As a side point the ESS units can be updated so they the replace the 25% empire payout to pure LP. It would probably start at 20/25th and then move to after time to 30/25ths. (hope that makes since. just like the ESS now gives you a lower start up, you can earn more over time)

Examples: Provi ratters would get their bounties from Concord 50%, Amarr 25%, Caldari 25%.
This would bring in a lot more market warfare play styles. Wanna cause an income issue on a Null Bloc, attack their HS empire funding sources (aka trade hubs).

(Erethond) #2

Tying empire income to capsuleer activities is a bit much (they are empires, with huge populations, so presumably their income comes mostly from taxes they levy on their population), but I like the idea of a maximum on the faucet. It could possibly even be tied with the region, constellation or system. The Amarr would likely care a lot more about killing rats in the amarr system than way out in null sec (why does concord pay to kill rats in null any ways??).

The further from the core systems you go, the less “available funds” there are in a region/constellation/system. The more you rat in a region/constellation/system, the more the problem is under control, the less the NPCs care about it, the less isk they are willing to pay for a given rat.

Some bit of self-regulation could do wonders in the current system!

(Cade Windstalker) #3

You’d pretty quickly hit the minimum payout and more or less stay there, because quite a bit of ISK leaves the game via players quitting, bans, or similar methods.

This would also basically tank incomes across the board because of the above mentioned race to the bottom for bounty payouts. That would have pretty massive and immediately negative effects on the economy as a whole and you’d probably see a pretty rapid contraction in both economic activity, which would exacerbate the problem of low bounties and less economic activity.

Basically, just by spitballing and napkin math, if you wanted to cause a recession in the game this would be a fantastic way to do it.

As a control on PLEX prices though, not so much.

Oh yeah, and this is pretty flatly impossible. Even Burn Jita doesn’t actually shut down the market, and the overall player backlash from any organization that tried it would pretty quickly see that organization wiped from the game.

(Amarisen Gream) #4

I thought the CCP economist said the basic year income for a NPC is 1 ISK…

So they don’t get most of their income from their own populations.
Concord currently by lore pay for the bounties unless you have an ESS unit in space.

  • I plan on updating the OP - but I would split the payment into three groups.
    Min bounty is paid by concord - thats the faucet.
    Then the Empires who make up the tech for the rats pay the other 50% 50/50. I’m going back to the OP to address this.

(Amarisen Gream) #5

You bring up some really good points. How bad it would be, I don’t know…

You can’t control the ISK tied up from players leaving game, but banned players have all their stuff seized. The ISK could be transfer to the Empire of the players birth. Along with the assets which could be posted for a smart market value on behalf of the empire…

As we know. EVE players will min/max the crap out of any system CCP gives us. Which is why I’ve edited it, so that the income is divided by three groups vs 2. Plus there would be options to convert the ISK income to LP instead… Maybe to safe check the current LP stores, it could be a Empire LP that could be used at limited hubs in the Empire space. I don’t know about that fully as I don’t want to be to mean.

There would need to be a massive reworking of the system for this to work. Logs could probably be worked out that, would see how much each NPC corp/Empire has gained over the years, and that could be their starting amount.

No matter what, it would be a major hit to the economy right off the bat, but EVE would recover and adapt. We always do.

(Nevyn Auscent) #6

That was about 15 years ago, when they also believed that 1 Titan was a godly force and no-one would ever drop fleets of them. If you do maths by commodities such as water & food & livestock that we have access to, 1 isk has to be about $1. We are still amazingly wealthy since we count our income in the millions per hour normally if not the billions.

Also your idea really is terrible. And would result in even more wealth concentration in a few hands which is bad. Since it hits all the small income earners also.

(Cade Windstalker) #7

The majority of the ISK that leaves the game this way does so when players quit or go inactive, so bans wouldn’t win you back too much except in the case of super high profile ones.

Having CCP posting sell orders or something on the market be a mess and would get all sorts of criticism from the playerbase, so that’s not gonna fly.

The whole system now is still overall ISK positive though, which means that if you cut bounty payouts, which is what this would do, and then still have ISK leaving the economy through player inactivity, as well as ISK sitting in wallets then you’re still going to hit min payouts quickly.

This then slows down economic activity and the game as a whole because players act based on two factors, the ISK in their wallets right now and how quickly it can be replaced. AKA don’t fly what you can’t afford to lose. If I’m flying Carriers then I probably want 2-4 billion in my wallet at any given time, and this scales up or down as players age.

Converting ISK to LP would act as a further ISK sink, since LP requires ISK to be turned in, and it would devalue currently existing LP no matter what you did unless you make these new stores have completely separate items from the existing ones.

This isn’t correct. CCP fixes all the really stupid stuff and has done a lot to keep the economy healthy and regulated. Shaking the fishbowl like this should not be assumed to be a survivable event. Or as another part of the internet would say “this kills the fish”.

Again, no matter what you do with a system like this you’re going to hit close to minimum payout pretty quickly, and once you do there’s no clawing your way back up from that, because by nature the amount of money people put back into the system in taxes is going to be less than they earn, so with everyone pulling money out all the time there’s just going to be a thin trickle of just-above-minimum payouts after the well runs dry.

(Amarisen Gream) #8

As I said in my original OP, it was probably a bad idea.

I still think it would work, but a game would have to be built around it. It couldn’t be a system used to replace what already existed in a game.

Sometimes even bad ideas have good points and it fleshes things out; doesn’t make a bad idea a good one though.

(Amarisen Gream) #9

(Laying in bed and) I wonder what this would do to a group like Goons. Who for two+ months have brought in ~7 trillion ISK plus each month.
The ISK probably doesn’t mean ■■■■ to them. We got people hauling in so many minerals they are building stuff and then blowing it up for insurance because it pays more than shipping it out to a market.
We have 50+ rorqual mining, brining in that ore. That’s only the ones we really know about. All this in relative safety. How many supers and carriers are out rating? Making those dank ticks!

In essence, what I proposed is that we cut bounties in half, as you all say the max would be burned through quickly.
But would it really effect the well oiled and functioning power blocs?
We already know most LP stores need a major fix.

From watching the power play of many of the groups over the years, I think the large groups would adapt well. Small gangs and solo players would have it much harder. It isn’t an idea that could happen over night, and probably would need multiple steps to have the least amount of rippling effect.

Upwell structures have been a major change for many groups and players. Most have adapted, those who haven’t have probably left the game.

As I said, even I think it is a bad idea. Then again I don’t trust CCP to do it right the first time with major change. They have a history. :slight_smile:

(Cade Windstalker) #10

The problem is that even in the hypothetical where you’re designing a completely new game with this system as a core element what’s the point?

You’re not really controlling inflation much if at all, you’re just tuning your inflation around the base payout value for the NPCs.

I’m not even seeing any interesting incentives or other stuff associated with this, and to most players it’d just be a weird black box where NPC rewards sometimes go up a little for no reason.

It would push more people towards Rorqual Mining because you’re pushing down the ISK income from ratting pretty significantly, and if your goal is to buy a Carrier then pretty quickly it becomes more economical to mine the minerals and build it than to rat for however many hours are required to build it.

It would affect the line members. Most of the power blocks get their ISK through indirect means so while things like null rent might have to go down a bit it probably wouldn’t have much of an effect on the large scale.

Really not sure who this “we” is or why LP stores need a major fix. There’s nothing that I’m aware of that’s particularly broken about them. If you’re talking about prices or the fluctuations in LP value between stores that’s the fault of the players, not CCP.

Any game company claiming they can make a major change to their game and get it 100% right the first time is either lying or Blizzard, and half the time Blizzard is lying to themselves too. The only reason for the other 50% is because Blizzard can throw enough money at the problem so that we as players only see their sixth or seventh iteration where they’ve fixed all the problems. The amount of time and internal testing that takes is cost prohibitive though, so no one else does it.

(Amarisen Gream) #11

Another thing I am wondering, as I can pick your brain. The idea is flawed as I see it with the current ratting style of endless supply of rats.

So what kind of ratting system would have to be in place for something like this to work? Let’s think outside the current game play style.

Edit: for a long while I haven’t been a big fan of the current - open probe window and see all the goodies in space. I am looking forward to seeing what CCP gives us when they upgrade the PVE side of the game. I personally would like to see ore anomalies get baked into the standard belts and then reduce the number of belts while making those left massive (Rorqual fleets can be addresses with spacing or limits on # of cores in an area). Combat anomalies - I think should be based around mini-incursions (Built around the shipyards maybe).

I will remember to return to this idea once more details of CCPs plans come out.

Thank you for the discussion.

(Cade Windstalker) #12

This doesn’t work, it’s fundamentally economically flawed. What you’re trying to do is better accomplished by other systems or changes, rather than something that tries to move distinct amounts of currency around within the system.

Few problems here.

First off, making things have to be probed means you now need a probe launcher and for the most part that’s needless work. You know the sites are there, you basically just end up either scanning them down and switching ships or keeping one guy scanning and dropping corp bookmarks. None of that adds anything besides busy work.

As for the belts vs ore anoms thing, Ore Anoms are a hack to make belts scale to a certain extent. Belts are static objects, ore anoms aren’t, and that means that it’s easier for CCP to tweak things with ore anoms both in patches and in response to player activity in-game based on an algorithm. If you made belts truely massive then you’d be back to the old problem which ore anoms solved, which is the people who get on after DT get most or all of the ore because that’s when the belts refresh.

(Amarisen Gream) #13

Okay I think you misunderstood me on the probe window. That window should be for things I have to probe down, not for all the other stuff that is just there filling in. The overview could handle the other stuff - just as it does for the event sites and normal belts.

Also, besides Goons and a hand full of other groups, very few groups can fully mine out the ore anomalies everyday, so most of the stuff is picked. I am sorry to say HTFU, supplies should not be infinite in a single system.
You make belts go from the 30km to 250km that they are now and move to like a 2000 km to 8000 km, they become much larger with the ability to seed them. There could also be player features added to allow “restocking” durning the week. I would be open to letting belts respawn once a week. Work out ways to limit large groups from having 10k Rorquals in those belts and look at other balance tweets

(Cade Windstalker) #14

Oooooh, okay, yeah that makes sense I think it’s just a tech problem. The Overview doesn’t know about Anomalies and has no way to know about anomalies, because after the POS code the Overview is probably the oldest and scariest bit of Legacy Code in Eve. Less because it’s as janky as the POS code and more because if you break the Overview the entire game doesn’t work.

It’s not that I disagree exactly, it’s that I don’t think we should be setting that number at a single definite value, because that’s not future proof and has the potential to cause more problems than it solves if the game situation changes.

The problem with this line of thinking is that there’s nothing you can do to actually hurt operations like the Goons without hurting everyone else worse, because if Goons need to they can occupy a bit more space or spread out more without much cost, but other groups can’t. Plus Goons can always leverage their organization and sheer scale to solve a problem of logistics, which is basically what ore availability is.

The same applies to most of the other large groups but not so much to the small ones. Pretending otherwise is non-productive.

(Amarisen Gream) #15

So looking at your last bit. We would have to find out was to break groups down so they don’t exceed like 5-10k players.

Goons and the large groups that can will always N+1 the issue. One of the reason I stood behind the industrial core operation area limit instead of more nerfs to the drones and ships. It is a slippery slope trying to balance the game to keep big groups in check while not harming the small guy.
RL politics haven’t figured it out.

Edit: for the rest of it - afaik CCP is looking at updating what code they can, they are looking at changes to the LP stores (has to do with their desire to remove attributes if that is still a goal - blue post from a few years back.) they are making changes to rats and hopefully the current 100mn VNI meta that tied with carriers is flooding the game with ISK (which we also have an over flow of ore as the inject-a-rorqual at least has kept some things in balance.)

Trying to figure out ways that would drive the ISK income down, while also looking at perks for interacting with NPC Empires and going about causing mayham for other player groups so your group can be on top. Which speaking with you, helped mesh out that the current system wouldn’t work for it. But I am still interested in brain storming a system (or set/chain of systems) that could bring the flow of ISK down to a stable perspective!

(Do Little) #16

Negative feedback is a great way to stabilize a system. Have CONCORD tax the sovereign to raise the funds to pay bounties. In NPC sovereign space the tax would be invisible to players (except the bounty tax if you belong to an NPC corporation). In sovereign Nullsec, CONCORD would tax the sovereign alliance, who would tax their member corporations, who have the ability to tax bounties paid to their members - which seems complicated - maybe alliances should be able to tax bounties directly.

(Amarisen Gream) #17

It is late and my brain tired, so its coming up with more bad ideas (tied into this topic as a way to earn income for empires)

What if CCP was able to adapt NPC market orders (skill books etc) to use a dynamic marketing system that could take into account the inflation of the ISK.

So basic skill books/blueprints that cost a few thousand/million ISK would pretty much stay the same, but bigger skill books/blueprints would adapt in price. Thus, people looking to buy them would need to watch the flow of the market - it would also create opportunities for marketers to make ISK.

It would then be in the interest of the players to try to keep the inflation at a lower rate(?) if they planned on getting the most value for their ISK earned.

My dad used to get a soda pop for a nickel (five cents), but now a similar size drink could cost a dollar to two dollars. The inflation is there, with no control and no way to go back, unless everything was burned/reset.

As it stands, the NPC side of the market is static and not dynamic like the player side of the market, and there is no ‘control’ in eve to create the boundary for inflation. Very much like how the USA lost the value of its dollar (plus inflation control) when it moved off the gold standard and just started printing money at will. The gold standard was the ‘control’ - even has no ‘control’ for the ISK. (this is my opinion)

(Cade Windstalker) #18

There is literally no way to do this without destroying the sandbox nature of Eve, and the actual limit would have to be way below this if you wanted to create any kind of practical constraints on what people can pull off logistically. Keep in mind that something like B-R or Asakai involved under 5k total pilots and those fights involved entire power blocks clashing.

That’s because big groups will always have an inherent advantage brought on by manpower, whether that’s in logistics, organizational ability, or the ability to take, hold, and secure territory.

If you force Rorquals to have fewer on-grid with some kind of radius limit then a larger group will be able to spread out their miners better, take new systems, and in the event of a serious dispute mediate it and compensate the participants.

Meanwhile a smaller group is likely to be a victim of that push for more space to accommodate more miners if it happens, and they’ll be less able to organize their players, enforce that organization, and mediate disputes while still being subject to the same restrictions.

Yeah, but this is a pretty slow process. More so than most people realize.

I’ve seen basically nothing about this, do you have a link or any other information?

AFAIK they’ve talked about this internally but they never said anything about this being an actual decided intention.

They are, they said they’re looking at it in the last Carrier nerfs thread on the old forums.

Also, ironically, the Rorquals helped keep the ISK supply in check because Rorqual mining is an overall ISK negative activity since industry and selling ore are both ISK negative for the economy.

We don’t need more systems for something like this, we just need to tweak the values in existing systems or tweak how those systems work a little. Like changing rat rewards, site behavior, ect.

I don’t think there’s any need for any kind of “perks for interacting with NPC Empires” as they’re sort of supposed to be in the background for capsuleers. There’s also no need to try and do too many things with one idea or system. That sort of over complicated thinking tends to doom itself pretty quickly.

(Amarisen Gream) #19

it was talked about with the removing attribute stuff. so lots of years old. wouldn’t even know where to start looking.

(I’ve now learned to quote you better :stuck_out_tongue: )

A (few) fanfest or Vegas ago, they talked about making it so player standings to empires mean more. Which would then mean perks/punishments depending on your standing with the empires.

edit: would have to be in a video of one the events. google fails me

(Cade Windstalker) #20

Lol, I super like the new forum quotes features. Very easy, very intuitive.

But yeah, if it’s the same thing I’m remembering CCP has never actually said they’re definitely going to do that, some devs have just mentioned that they’ve looked at doing it. Personally I’m not sure they’re going to just because of the tradeoff between +5s, Pirate +4s, and Pirate +3s. Also how to allocate a remap matters, it just depends if they think the frustration of non-optimal training is worthwhile or not.

Yeah, I know they’ve talked about that a few times, but to me that’s not really the same thing as this sort of idea. Probably more tying it to the LP stores or something similar more, or access to new PvE content based on standings.

If those standings become too important to the game as a whole then a lot of players end up screwed because those standings are really easy to tank and pretty hard to grind back up.