|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Naj Panora
VC Academy
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 05:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
We need some serious overhaul to how isk is removed from the game. Sov doesn't cost enough for large alliances to make a difference (goons have proven this), market fees are laugh able. This isk gained vs removed ratio is way out of wack and needs fixed before any other part of eve otherwise that will be the eve killer. |
Naj Panora
VC Academy
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Naj Panora wrote:We need some serious overhaul to how isk is removed from the game. Sov doesn't cost enough for large alliances to make a difference (goons have proven this) The sov even for the relatively small amount of space controlled by GSF, much less the enormous swathes held by the CFC collectively, is actually quite expensive. We've merely been highly effective at marshaling the resources necessary to pay for it. So has the N3 coalition, which you can see on the map controls a considerable amount of space in their own right, albeit more fragmented amongst many smaller partners and renters. So what is wrong, exactly, with a group of players coming together to command the resources to overcome some large cost? Naj Panora wrote:This isk gained vs removed ratio is way out of wack [Citation Needed]
|
Naj Panora
VC Academy
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:07:00 -
[3] - Quote
Leigh Akiga wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:As for the economy in general, what problem are you seeing? I just took it as a bland: "I wanna rant about 0.0" post.
And I take it as a bland you don't have the balls to show who you really are. |
Naj Panora
VC Academy
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:The goons proved it's easy to pay for sov by being forced to take on renters to help pay the costs? Pretty strong argument there.
As for the economy in general, what problem are you seeing?
Empires with an unlimited source of isk are a detriment to this game. We need a better way to help regulate and create a balance of isk earned from sources like null sec and missions and balance it with taking isk out of the market. One way to deal with the Null sec issue would be to have the first 5-10 systems an Alliance controls cost X isk. Then every 5 or so systems after that the maintenance cost to own the system will go up by 25-33% of the previous tier. Example: an alliance holds 15 systems. the first 5 cost 100 million a month each to own. The next 5 cost 125 million a month each. The final 5 cost 156 million each. Using this we limit the use of passive isk sources like moons.
Now I won't just punish the Null sec dwellers. Lets find an answer that will use high sec to remove isk from the economy. One answer is to create a corp maintenance fee based on player size. If a corp doesn't have a Null sec office it is considered a High Sec corp and thus subject to a fee per member to stay open. I'm open for better ideas from others (though I doubt the Coalition for Cowards will offer any). This is about fixing a broken economy which has unchecked inflation.
The answer may be as simple also as CCP increasing the bounties on rats every month depending on what the economy does. Lets have some constructive ideas now. |
Naj Panora
VC Academy
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 22:47:00 -
[5] - Quote
Crasniya wrote:Naj, the problem is, it only costs a billion ISK to make another alliance. Then you just get Goons 2.0, Goons 3.0, and Goons 4.0, each holding 5-10 systems. Over time, the alliances pay for themselves. A design so easily exploited is a bad design.
That is fine because it will diffuse the isk over several entities which sooner or later one will want better systems and the wars will start anew. We have too many fat cats with too much isk. Now with this model there will be a ton of changes to capitals that will need done. Inflation is ok but Eve's is out of control. |
Naj Panora
VC Academy
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.28 04:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
Red Templar wrote:Varius Xeral wrote:Significantly higher hisec fees and taxes are a great idea, but not because of some ill-conceived inflationary bugaboo. Agreed. If you live in empire space, you should pay all kind of taxes, thats how empires work. If you dont like it, go to null and make your own little kingdom. As for the OP, im not sure how proposed increased prices for null sov is gonna fix entire eve economy. Are you seriously suggesting that null players should be the only one to pay? I havent seen any metrics lately (i wasnt looking though), but as i remember only about 10% of eve population live in null sec. The rest are high-sec dwellers, and im pretty sure they are doing something in their time that brings ISK into the game. So maybe we should ask money sinks for them? Seeing how their contribution to inflation is probably larger that of null sec residents.
Not saying Null players are the only ones. Null would just be a starting point. Again This is meant to fuel discussion and get Ideas on paper.
My targeting of Null sec is based on how much isk a system can generate vs. how much it costs to maintain. Thinking and kicking more ideas around if we don't want to make it a number of system based price system for increasing how much isk it cost to maintain more systems how about requiring all sov holding alliances to declare a "Home system". Every system that has a gate to that system costs the same as the current prices are set for each jump past that price to maintain a system goes up between 5 and 15%.
Ok now lets look back at high sec. I like the station tax idea. It would need a few tweeks. One thing I would suggest is to halve the tax rate for corps that have office in a given station. Also maybe have the tax rate adjust depending on how many players dock per hour not sure if this idea would really work or just drive prices up more because of station traders. |
Naj Panora
VC Academy
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 03:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:Terrible ideas to address an imaginary problem...par for the course around here.
Pretty sure it's not imaginary but you are entitled to your opinion. |
|
|
|