I agree with this. Have playing sincr 2004. Ive seen the inflation raise to ridiculous heights. I blame not the isk entering the game. I more or lesd blame the isk sinks. They have been reduced over the years. A REAL WAY to fix isk. I would say it to make dome some artificial isk sink to alliances or corps based on size. Similar to a sov bill. But based on membet count. Now i know super alliances are gonna troll this. But im not saying bill them to death. But when your alliance has 10k-35k members. And you guys drop fleets upon fleets of super caps daily. Dont tell me a few billion is goong to hurt anyone. 5b in 2008. Had the buy power of 20 months subscription time. In 2012. 5b had the power of 10 months subscription time. Now it has the buy power of 2 months. Isk -> plex directly reflects on how inflation and saturation of isk had been affected over yhe years.
Let me clarity aswell. Removing wardecks will damage the economy. Ships, items and materials being destroyed. Isk an isk sink
Plex prices are not inflation. The CPI shows long term deflation with a very very mild upward trend in the last few years (still below original index though).
Other price raises can be directly linked to CCP changing a supply or demand via a significant balance adjustment such as no npc shuttles removing the cap on trit prices or moon mining going active. These are also not an inflationary effect. But a supply or demand change.
Ok, so, once again, let me point out that this āsolutionā has been proposed in the past as well, and reiterate what weāve said there, now:
Our response would be to simply spit into 6-12 āsmallerā alliances, ie: Goonswarm1, Goonswarm2, Goonswarm3, etc, to avoid the āfeeā, and coordinate through our extensive out-of-game infrastructure, just like we do now with TNT (2963 members), The Bastion (3878), LAWN (1050), The Initiative. (3493), Initiative Mercenaries (2035), and Snuffed Out (957).
Poof. Not trolling, just demonstrating that this idea, while it seems feasible on the surfaceā¦ would do nothing.
For aggressors to fight, they should be able to find their prey. Used to be doable, with watchlists and locators. These days I wouldnāt even know whether my targets are online, and they sure wonāt make my life easier by sticking to few well-known systems. There are few ways to poke them without watchlist, but itās generally a great pain in the neck.
As to ability to pick your fightsā¦ this is very basic Eve thing to me, commonly found in all engagement scenarios.
Nooooo. Im not saying only tax the large alliances. Im saying tax any alliance. Based on member size. Large or small. 1man or 1000. Or 10000. But equally. And im not saying an outrageous ammount. Something feasible and not something that will be missed. ā ā ā ā it can even be based on the bounties your allowance earns. Just like how there is a corp set tax. Maybe alliance set tax. But imposed by concord. But that way only really target ratting. Thats why i was thinking a flat but fair fee.(based on numbers of members)(but not exponentially raised) im noy trying to nerf large alliances. Nor make them more difficult to operate.
LOL A REAL EASY WAY. WHICH IS FAR MORE SIMPLE THAN THE CSM HAS THOUGHT. IS JUST SET A FLAT TAX ON ANYTHING BOUGHT OR SOLD. MARKET OR CONTACTS. MAYBE REMOVE SOME TRADE SKILLS AND GIVE BACK SP LIKE THEYVE DONE IN THE PAST. OR IMPOSE A NEW UNAVOIDABLE TAX. of course. Everyone mostly traders will probably all cryā¦
Flat rates are never fair. The people with the most money can afford to lose a percentage of it far more than the people with the least money. Institute an alliance tax, and thereās an incentive for corps to not join alliances in the first place, just to avoid it. We could set up a system where weāre making our money (as we mostly are now) off of things like transaction fees and processing taxes on drops and oresā¦ and āratting corpsā that are registered with our external services. Those characters all have ESI keys on record (as we currently do with alt-corps), and the corporations themselves register ESI keys to give the Alliance the ability to audit their booksā¦ except those ratting corps just have blue standings, and arenāt part of the alliances that own the space theyāre ratting in. Poof, no alliance, no CONCORD tax. They just pay a % to the owners of the systems theyāre ratting in.
Again, flat taxes hurt the little guys more than the guys with tons of cash. This is why income taxes in most nations are gradiated. Flat taxes like sales tax are demonstrably regressive, and impact the poor more than the rich.
From the IRS:
sales taxes are considered regressive because they take a larger percentage of income from low-income taxpayers than from high-income taxpayers.
What would you. Suggest. Because nerfing bounties. I see only hurts the liittle guys. And the botsā¦ like. Who ratsā¦ except those who REALLY need isk
A lot of people who can throw away VNIs or Ishtars, or risk supercapitals. Heck, there are ratting titans out there. Warp into anom, let the first wave spawn, spin up BFG, wait as it pulses through its firing period, then kill the last few ships in the last wave.
As for what Iād doā¦ I donāt know what the answer is. I do know that any solution is going to need to be very carefully considered and weighed.
Keep in mind. I havent listed or read his discussion. I just read the part about nerfing bountiesā¦
Hey. If you rat in a 100b isk ship. You arent making alot more than what you can in a 200m shipā¦ maybe double maxā¦ so i think when they say the people ratting in supers are hurting the isk pool are silly. Im sure more has been lost by rating in supers than gained.
Youāre wrong.
An Ishtarāll get maybe 25-30m per tick. A Hel can triple that, consistently, maybe push it higher if they go full-dps fit.
Jinātaan asks if they could have a breakdown of the ships generating the most bounties such as Vindicator Navy Issue or Gilas. CCP Larrikin says that the largest portion of bounties come in from Super Carriers and Carriers.
In addition, the supers have the EHP to survive long enough to light a cyno and get faxes jumping in to save them. They risk very little.
Remember when they removed the cloning centerā¦ that was a fair isk sinkā¦ you got 100m sp?? This is what your clone costsā¦ you have 150m?? Your clone costs thisā¦ i think it scaled well with those who had to buy new clonesā¦ and this is a small example of a perfect. Small. Fair. Isk sink was removed. Lol that being said. That feature alone would no way in hell prevent the epidemic we are on now. But more scaling sinks would of been effectiveā¦ and as for war decsā¦ did they change the fact it costs more isk for every additional war dec you start. Or why is someone crying about someone wardec 100 corpsā¦ i thought they imposed finacial burdens in 2012ishā¦
Theyve made eve to safeā¦ lol. With faxs. These new stations//pos replacments. And i think I personally they shouldnt have reimposed jump fatigue.
But i guess with how much isk is supplied in gameā¦ its easy to a pocket warrior. My job gets me 2b a tick. And i dont even need to risk a ship. But i have over played my days of being willing to farm. I wont even touch a wh anymore. But i see how this negatively affects new players, free to play players, and players who are highly active. Which in the end. We need a constant supply of new players coming into eve. Or the game dies. The golden age. 2010. When you would always see 45-50k players on was great. Null sec and high sec was full and activeā¦ alot more screen warriors nowā¦ myself included. What ever action is taken. Needs to be in the intrest of newbies
Removing the clone grades and the need to keep your clones updated removed a chunk of the risk aversion of the time. It was an unnecessary headache that accomplished nothing except adding a hidden cost to something you were already paying for: losing your ship, and possibly your implants.
Because the wardec corps just pass the increased costs on to the clients, like any other service industry.
Force auxiliaries need rebalancing, but they a single class of ship with a lot of different situational challenges. What makes Faxes unbalanced in small gang stuff isnāt the same problem they have in large capital warfare, isnāt the same problem they present in j-space, etc. There isnāt going to be an easy fix for them.
As for Citadelsā¦ theyāre not nearly as safe as you think they are, but yes, they need to have changes made to keep the Fort+ sizes from being too safe.
Exactly.
Your a smart guy. Seems we havee smilar understandings. Should of made you csmā¦
Iāve no intention of using all my vacation time to schlep out to Iceland and pay way too much for booze for a week, twice a year.
Lol thats why they need to come to you. I think and have always thought like post politicans. Csm candidates have hidden agendas, biased views, or have lost touched with the average player. Anyone who has the time and knowledge to run for csm. Get enough votes. Only shows they are over qualified and probably dont wear the same shoes most players do. I know they all have had good intentions. It just hasnt been the vision ccp has been hoping to achive