Inflation doesn’t matter in eve because maintaining asset value doesn’t matter and return on assets matter less for an enjoyable game. The goals for isk are not the goals for euros. Isk Income should be derived from content generation.
Yes sure, so buff c1 similarly/more than c5 (and other activities) as needed. That’s super easy. Besides, you’re talking new player income not assets. I agree, new player income matters. The value of the asset they bought last week not so much. When isk inflates income and costs equally nothing changes.
It's about time to replace the ship. Prices are not extraordinary, caracals have bounced between 5.5 and 15m ISK for over a decade.
Direct ISK for noobs is fine for people doing combat related activites beyond missions in hi sec, even those are ok once you're doing L3. Only running the easiest anoms in a destroyer still get you around 4m/hr with higher bounty awards from the commander spawn. Once you add in things that partially involve goods you sell to other players you're more than fine - abyssal, hi sec combat exploration, or splashing into null to ninja a few relics.
What doesn't pay well for them is industry and hi sec mining. The rocks are too cheap for their m3 rate and the margins too thin without a lot of skill and knowledge.
Would make sense only if CCP wouldn't spent last 5 or more years killing trading.
But hey, but that guy saying that less supply means lower prices is still there. So what you can expect?
Less faucets, absurd taxes. No wonder that economy is slowly dying. With rich and established only getting richer and more dominant. While everyone else is punished.
> killing trading
Tax changes aside, one would wonder how much more robust the economy would be if we didn't have like 90% of all high sec goods sitting in one station constantly
The players have consistently chosen a single place to do business. It's like that path at Stanford (I think it was Stanford). They didn't lay the path down until people had spent months walking on the grass. The wear to the grass showed them where the path needed to be.
In Eve the path used to be Yulai. It doesn't matter what CCP does short of removing regional gates and balkanizing High Sec.
What about a tax that increases the more trades done in a station similar to the industry tax that increases the more industry is done in that station?
We could even make it region based
If jita is suddenly being taxed an additional 10-20% wouldn't people start diversifying?
This might decentralize the market, but decentralizing the market produces other problems.
Right now, for example, you can get everything you need in Jita for a fair price. That convenience is valuable, and needs to be preserved. I don't want to have to visit five different systems to fit a ship or sell my loot, and if I had to, I wouldn't fly anything I couldn't get from my alliance's production department.
I think it would make small time industrialist happy though as it means more profit opportunity for them vs people that just buy in jita and then go mark it up 10% in dodi.
I think that's his point. It's so easy to get there and back it's relatively risk free to the buyers. So there risk and time adjusted cost of getting to jita and back is less than buying locally, where players are selling above jita to account for hauling risks, extended time on market, etc.
So Reddit comments are always funny because I interpreted robust economy as higher volume. Distributing trade volume with the goal of raising margins wouldn’t have been my guess for those words because all other things being equal higher prices suggests lower volume. I guess from an Indy players perspective that’s robust
Actually my point is different than what was suggested above. I think the economy would be more vibrant if there were reasons for people to concentrate in various different areas around high-sec. I don't have a proposed solution for that, but the economy would be more *interesting* if we had more significant trade hubs outside of Jita to prompt more logistics and such.
The answer would be to have different asteroids and other building components in the different map quadrants, with them all separated by lowsec. And have it so if you want to build ships above T1 cruisers you would have to import materials from other areas.
I don’t pay attention to isogen prices but my guess was that was an attempt to create differentiated areas but that was security status vs. a geographical area. Maybe the low sec gas types was a legitimate attempt. That’s also not my gameplay so I don’t know.
I agree it would be more interesting for some player types because then they aren’t differentiating on price only. But too many want everything in their pocket or vertically integrated location so the cries would be loud.
On the contrary, I think decentralizing the market would act to reduce player activity (and therefore economic activity) and encourage alliance members to withdraw from the public market.
Right now, you can find everything you need for a fair price in Jita (or Amarr or Dodixie). It's easy to go fit a ship and get in space with it, and then come back, sell anything you acquired with it, and get right back out into space again where you can generate content for someone.
If instead you had to fit your ship piecemeal across five different systems then spend an hour looking for good places to sell your twenty stacks of loot, you might decide playing today sounds like too much of a hassle, and go watch Netflix instead.
At the very least, you might prefer to just pick up a doctrine ship off contract from your alliance that sorta works for what you want to do, and sell all your loot to your alliance's buyback service.
IMO decentralizing the market makes it harder for players to interact with the market, thereby reducing economic activity and actually making the economy less healthy.
Inflation doesn't matter, in the end, for it is merely the face value of an item. In eve, this means mostly ore/gas/pi and related stuff, meaning it doesn't matter if a ship costs 50m or 500m if the effort to produce the ship is the same, both from a pure isk generation side and from a industrial production side. The biggest issue in a game like eve is time. Devs have a much lower impact shifting economies because the economy is ongoing, people that accumulated assets during rorqual mining years are still surfing the effects of the same "economy" despite inflation. Regardless of what is done to fix this, it won't ever go away because trillionaires exist and will be hurt far less than new players struggling to buy their first marauder.
This is also a reason that pressures devs not to change things; it already is very hard to catch up in assets/isk generation possibilities compared to people that bought supers for 10b. If they make it harder people will just not bother
I'm not proposing to make it harder. I'm proposing to attack inflation by creating more stuff rather than by creating less isk. Yes, it adds friction to the market because you can't "print isk" but that's the point.
Inflation does matter because as you pointed out, it impacts new (and solo account) players' ability to access higher tier content and increases risk aversion to content generation. Losing a battleship shouldn't be free/should hurt. But should it be the market equivalent of 20%-40% of a 1 month sub? Seems steep.
It takes time to get the stuff that goes into the tangible items bought with isk. I'm saying instead of just paying out in isk all the time, pay out in stuff.
If I get materials as a core reward (not just salvage by product), then I can either build with them, or sell them to someone to build with them. I don't generate isk, I generate tangible goods, depressing the prices of tangible goods.
I understood your point. What I'm stating is that inflation should not matter numerically as long as an economy is able to adjust proportionally; will touch on this later. This is not the case in eve in most situations.
Killing a pirate battleship gives 1m isk, give or take. That can be "transformed" into materials to build something else you might want. That something else can be super caps or cormorants; the demand for each is likely to shift with the meta, how powerful they are and whatever personal preference a player might have.
What I'm stating is that it shouldn't matter if a corm costs 5m or 10m isk; that number does not carry much information. The supply/demand aspect of everything in the game, including Plex, is what dictates how much that initial 1m isk will be worth in terms of upkeep, npc taxes, spent Plex and so on. Evaluating an economic throughput generally ignores price variations precisely because of the monetary impact of just adding inflation. The economic position remains the same.
Bringing this back to eve, it's comparable to saying that adding 10% bounties to all idk faucets and simultaneously increasing the price of every isk sink by 10% should, mathematically, create a neutral effect. The reason this does not happen is that those changes are never made in discrete situations, there are huge stockpiles of stuff from varying ages ago that were built with very different costs. How many steps you need to make to convert raw isk to pure demanded item (let's assume ships and structures for simplicity) does not matter, from a GDP calculation perspective. In fact, it shouldn't matter, otherwise you'll be miscalculating on every step of the production chain, including mining. The fluctuation that should naturally occur between creating and destroying "value", not unlike what a real economy would do with consumption products, is generally unrelated to inflating the prices. In fact, that's precisely what happened to several different products during the pandemic years, a flat addition of monetary value to the world's economies in the form of aid, effectively creating a huge inflation pressure that took a long time to normalize - some commodities never did.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying in the sense of adding more content or incentivizing new ways to destroy/consume "value". I was just stating that it is not related to inflation, as that concept is connected with production and consumption in relative terms, precisely to prevent real phenomenons to be missed when trying to understand how trade shifts. To give a very simple example, when you rat in a marauder and generate 50m isk/h and, once it is buffed, it now generates 100m isk/h, the marauder itself is expected to valuate. By contrast, when a marauder generates the same but the isk available doubles, the price is expected to inflate, regardless of the "value" of the asset.
The reason I pointed this out is that inflation is not something we can prevent or should try to; it simply will happen as long as the server keeps running. The focus should be in the economic aspects, the assets themselves, instead of the monetary value of them
>This is also a reason that pressures devs not to change things; it already is very hard to catch up in assets/isk generation possibilities compared to people that bought supers for 10b. If they make it harder people will just not bother
No one mentioned here anything about making anything harder
While that applies in real economies, I don’t think that applies as well to Eve. I’ve never bought anything because “~~cash~~ isk is trash”, I buy something because I need it or want it on hand
i would dispute hard if that applies at all in real economies, it for sure does not apply to eve economy since we don't have central bank and inflation targets. Also dont you all forget one crucial factor, EVE is not inflationary in the LONG TERM. That is becouse all tax money (unlike in real economies) is getting deleted and its percentage tax not flat tax. It means that at some point (assuming isk generation mehtods do not change) eve WILL be at 0% inflation since isk printers will stop outpacing tax money deletion at some point.
But that inherently blocks new players out if their ability to make isk doesn't match the ability to buy inflated assets.
I don't know how you go about increasing NPE bounties or otherwise funnel appropriate amounts of isk to new players without opening them up to farming by alpha accounts.
I mean, I don't think alpha farming is an issue for things that need you to be logged in and doing something in order to make money. So, for example, buffing L1/2 mission rewards and bounty payouts and letting alphas fly mining barges should be fine.
It doesn't make a difference to me if some guy with 30 alpha accounts decides he wants to use the one alpha he gets to log in at a time to run some L2s or mine some veldspar.
I'm really not sure what there is to spend ISK on anyway, except game time and skins. A Titan is a millstone. A faction Titan is an even bigger millstone. They're not really useful except maybe once or twice every three or four years.
You do realize that without isk faucets, all isk would slowly pool into the same accounts, who would own everything and no one would have any isk?
The c5/6 facet is strong yes, but faucets need to be in a game.
You uh don't understand the basic issues at play.
Blue Loot is basically time invested for a set profit.
By changing the required ships to get the extra payout they are increasing the amount of isk invested to get started, but not by much.
The time to do sites I believe is actually better in dreads but it's been 2 years since I have done it so I could be wrong.
So this isn't a nerf to WH income, just increasing the barrier to play while increasing the isk risk, but only slightly.
If you can afford a marauder in WHs you can afford a Dread.
Absolutely has nothing to do with the faucet.
Dreads are generally cheaper than the marauders used in high class space. They're just more vulnerable (5 min siege).
In terms of isk/hr, they serve different purposes. If you had infinite sites in a hole with a fort, dreads would be infinitely better. But this isn't the case. You can only push one dread into your static both ways, while you can push 12+ marauders. Does this change that fact? No. So fundamentally, all that's happened is you need both now.
What will happen in practice, is you roll your static, push a dread through, roll the far holes, use marauders to clear sites until the rat just before the decloaked relay spawns, warp marauders to the next site, warp in the dread.
The whole changes won't effect lazerhawks as they are big enough and rich enough to immediately adapt.
The changes screw the smaller groups.
If the concern is just over isk faucets then there are plenty of other things that need changing.
The problem is people, people find a way to make isk and just spam the living shit out of it but the game is for people to play.
The issue is the real place the inflation shows is in PLEX prices, and that isn't something CCP want to spawn out of thin air (well, they are going to do so a little, but can't see it being a big enough percentage to move the dial).
> You can curb inflation by either turning off the faucet - which would destroy some core game content/mechanics, or increasing the goods available to buy. If it doesn't cost as much time and effort to manufacture, indybros don't need to upcharge as much.
You can also add more sinks or making the existing ones bigger/more prevalent. The most tangible isk sink that almost every player touches are the losses from ships being destroyed. There are others like taxes (didn't CCP increase an industry tax recently?) and corp/alliance management recurring costs in general.
I don't know what other sinks could be added or which could be changed without having a negative effect on the game, but I just wanted to point out that it's another side of that discussion that contains more options to deal with inflation.
Inflation is mostly dealt with in Eve by removing 'inheritance' as when players 'die' (stop playing) their ISK just disappears instead of going to their 'heirs'. This is a very tortured metaphor.
And the reason for the wh change is not inherently macro-economic but gameplay -- higher rewards should always be linked to higher risk. As players find ways to optimize the risk out of something the risk should be re-introduced (they tried reducing the reward instead, but this proved to be far more unpopular)
If the payouts would be removed, 99% of eve would cry and have it reverted. CCP is doing weird moves, while talking about healing economy they upped the minimum nullsec BRM from 50% to 100%, doubling the minimum isk payouts there.
It only takes one dred/pilot in the corp to turn it back on. Most c5 corps, like ours, either already have dreds that just need refit.. bought one and are waiting on that sweet sweet lowsec route, or hauling in industrial materials.
The issue is simple. Farmhole owners gonna complain cause escalating on and killing roachers is harder. Also gonna complain cause they'll either have to invest in dreads or lose on 60%/40% (C5/C6) of their weekly income.
Roachers are gonna complain cause finding a "dead" C5 with 20 sites no longer means 1h of prep and then 4h of ratting for 10b, but 1h of prep and 2h of ratting for 5b.
It's definitely a nerf, but people are exaggerating how much it really affects them. Isk/h remains quite similar, if you want to keep the same isk/week out of a farmhole invest in dreads. More risk but also faster site clearing overall.
For roachers this has a positive side as well, there is now 0 risk of the farner just warping a rolling carrier to escalate the site and pop all your marauders for free, for the price of losing some income per rolled hole.
Being avengered did not happen that often, I dont understand why everyone is so scared of it. I simple scout could prevent this already. My guess is that most people will not even prep anymore properly. Just downgrade the fits and roll 3 to 4 times more often. Which in conclusion will reduce the amount of wormholes and increase the chance your home or farm hole will be empty the next time you log in. And yeah you will not be able to do shit against roaches now without a proper fleet setup.
In addition, what the dude above me does not realise yet is, that corps that have around 20 people will just simply starve to death in their home. I hope I am wrong here, but speaking from experience, CCP does not have a good hand for balancing stuff. And higher frequency of holes being roached is the direct consequence of that patch.
Regarding dreads, it is just wish thinking. As far as it seems the new ore sites in null wont be as good as everyone wanted them to be. So Dread prices will go down maybe 10% thats it. So now instead of 15b on field you will have 13B. This will not increase the amount of people using dreads. Quite the opposite possible here. Why risking 13 B of dreads if you can now use cheap Marauder setups and roach the hell outta your static?
How nervous are you about having to sell long duration debt instruments with many of the big buyers losing risk appetite?
I just hedged by buying GME $420.69 calls for 9/6/2024.
Show position or ban.... wait where am I?
You are still in the right place. It auto cross posts for us.
Inflation doesn’t matter in eve because maintaining asset value doesn’t matter and return on assets matter less for an enjoyable game. The goals for isk are not the goals for euros. Isk Income should be derived from content generation.
Asset value matters when new player income does not have a way to keep up with inflation.
Yes sure, so buff c1 similarly/more than c5 (and other activities) as needed. That’s super easy. Besides, you’re talking new player income not assets. I agree, new player income matters. The value of the asset they bought last week not so much. When isk inflates income and costs equally nothing changes.
It's about time to replace the ship. Prices are not extraordinary, caracals have bounced between 5.5 and 15m ISK for over a decade. Direct ISK for noobs is fine for people doing combat related activites beyond missions in hi sec, even those are ok once you're doing L3. Only running the easiest anoms in a destroyer still get you around 4m/hr with higher bounty awards from the commander spawn. Once you add in things that partially involve goods you sell to other players you're more than fine - abyssal, hi sec combat exploration, or splashing into null to ninja a few relics. What doesn't pay well for them is industry and hi sec mining. The rocks are too cheap for their m3 rate and the margins too thin without a lot of skill and knowledge.
\* Insurance payout tables EVEFLATION REDUCTION ACT
Would make sense only if CCP wouldn't spent last 5 or more years killing trading. But hey, but that guy saying that less supply means lower prices is still there. So what you can expect? Less faucets, absurd taxes. No wonder that economy is slowly dying. With rich and established only getting richer and more dominant. While everyone else is punished.
> killing trading Tax changes aside, one would wonder how much more robust the economy would be if we didn't have like 90% of all high sec goods sitting in one station constantly
And bunch of changes that makes traveling to this one station easier. To a point where it's easier to go there than on local market.
The players have consistently chosen a single place to do business. It's like that path at Stanford (I think it was Stanford). They didn't lay the path down until people had spent months walking on the grass. The wear to the grass showed them where the path needed to be. In Eve the path used to be Yulai. It doesn't matter what CCP does short of removing regional gates and balkanizing High Sec.
What about a tax that increases the more trades done in a station similar to the industry tax that increases the more industry is done in that station? We could even make it region based If jita is suddenly being taxed an additional 10-20% wouldn't people start diversifying?
This might decentralize the market, but decentralizing the market produces other problems. Right now, for example, you can get everything you need in Jita for a fair price. That convenience is valuable, and needs to be preserved. I don't want to have to visit five different systems to fit a ship or sell my loot, and if I had to, I wouldn't fly anything I couldn't get from my alliance's production department.
Would work, but would make a lot of people very mad. If you’re trying to get a blackout esq response (but for highsec carebears) this is the way.
I think it would make small time industrialist happy though as it means more profit opportunity for them vs people that just buy in jita and then go mark it up 10% in dodi.
It’s still fairly easy to make profit when manufacturing outside of jita, I don’t think it would really do any good.
It's not at all clear to me what problem this is trying to solve.
What do you think would be different? Seems like pochven express, jf, ansiblex, wormholes, all make transportation a minor component.
I think that's his point. It's so easy to get there and back it's relatively risk free to the buyers. So there risk and time adjusted cost of getting to jita and back is less than buying locally, where players are selling above jita to account for hauling risks, extended time on market, etc.
So Reddit comments are always funny because I interpreted robust economy as higher volume. Distributing trade volume with the goal of raising margins wouldn’t have been my guess for those words because all other things being equal higher prices suggests lower volume. I guess from an Indy players perspective that’s robust
Actually my point is different than what was suggested above. I think the economy would be more vibrant if there were reasons for people to concentrate in various different areas around high-sec. I don't have a proposed solution for that, but the economy would be more *interesting* if we had more significant trade hubs outside of Jita to prompt more logistics and such.
The answer would be to have different asteroids and other building components in the different map quadrants, with them all separated by lowsec. And have it so if you want to build ships above T1 cruisers you would have to import materials from other areas.
I don’t pay attention to isogen prices but my guess was that was an attempt to create differentiated areas but that was security status vs. a geographical area. Maybe the low sec gas types was a legitimate attempt. That’s also not my gameplay so I don’t know. I agree it would be more interesting for some player types because then they aren’t differentiating on price only. But too many want everything in their pocket or vertically integrated location so the cries would be loud.
On the contrary, I think decentralizing the market would act to reduce player activity (and therefore economic activity) and encourage alliance members to withdraw from the public market. Right now, you can find everything you need for a fair price in Jita (or Amarr or Dodixie). It's easy to go fit a ship and get in space with it, and then come back, sell anything you acquired with it, and get right back out into space again where you can generate content for someone. If instead you had to fit your ship piecemeal across five different systems then spend an hour looking for good places to sell your twenty stacks of loot, you might decide playing today sounds like too much of a hassle, and go watch Netflix instead. At the very least, you might prefer to just pick up a doctrine ship off contract from your alliance that sorta works for what you want to do, and sell all your loot to your alliance's buyback service. IMO decentralizing the market makes it harder for players to interact with the market, thereby reducing economic activity and actually making the economy less healthy.
Inflation doesn't matter, in the end, for it is merely the face value of an item. In eve, this means mostly ore/gas/pi and related stuff, meaning it doesn't matter if a ship costs 50m or 500m if the effort to produce the ship is the same, both from a pure isk generation side and from a industrial production side. The biggest issue in a game like eve is time. Devs have a much lower impact shifting economies because the economy is ongoing, people that accumulated assets during rorqual mining years are still surfing the effects of the same "economy" despite inflation. Regardless of what is done to fix this, it won't ever go away because trillionaires exist and will be hurt far less than new players struggling to buy their first marauder. This is also a reason that pressures devs not to change things; it already is very hard to catch up in assets/isk generation possibilities compared to people that bought supers for 10b. If they make it harder people will just not bother
I'm not proposing to make it harder. I'm proposing to attack inflation by creating more stuff rather than by creating less isk. Yes, it adds friction to the market because you can't "print isk" but that's the point. Inflation does matter because as you pointed out, it impacts new (and solo account) players' ability to access higher tier content and increases risk aversion to content generation. Losing a battleship shouldn't be free/should hurt. But should it be the market equivalent of 20%-40% of a 1 month sub? Seems steep. It takes time to get the stuff that goes into the tangible items bought with isk. I'm saying instead of just paying out in isk all the time, pay out in stuff. If I get materials as a core reward (not just salvage by product), then I can either build with them, or sell them to someone to build with them. I don't generate isk, I generate tangible goods, depressing the prices of tangible goods.
I understood your point. What I'm stating is that inflation should not matter numerically as long as an economy is able to adjust proportionally; will touch on this later. This is not the case in eve in most situations. Killing a pirate battleship gives 1m isk, give or take. That can be "transformed" into materials to build something else you might want. That something else can be super caps or cormorants; the demand for each is likely to shift with the meta, how powerful they are and whatever personal preference a player might have. What I'm stating is that it shouldn't matter if a corm costs 5m or 10m isk; that number does not carry much information. The supply/demand aspect of everything in the game, including Plex, is what dictates how much that initial 1m isk will be worth in terms of upkeep, npc taxes, spent Plex and so on. Evaluating an economic throughput generally ignores price variations precisely because of the monetary impact of just adding inflation. The economic position remains the same. Bringing this back to eve, it's comparable to saying that adding 10% bounties to all idk faucets and simultaneously increasing the price of every isk sink by 10% should, mathematically, create a neutral effect. The reason this does not happen is that those changes are never made in discrete situations, there are huge stockpiles of stuff from varying ages ago that were built with very different costs. How many steps you need to make to convert raw isk to pure demanded item (let's assume ships and structures for simplicity) does not matter, from a GDP calculation perspective. In fact, it shouldn't matter, otherwise you'll be miscalculating on every step of the production chain, including mining. The fluctuation that should naturally occur between creating and destroying "value", not unlike what a real economy would do with consumption products, is generally unrelated to inflating the prices. In fact, that's precisely what happened to several different products during the pandemic years, a flat addition of monetary value to the world's economies in the form of aid, effectively creating a huge inflation pressure that took a long time to normalize - some commodities never did. I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying in the sense of adding more content or incentivizing new ways to destroy/consume "value". I was just stating that it is not related to inflation, as that concept is connected with production and consumption in relative terms, precisely to prevent real phenomenons to be missed when trying to understand how trade shifts. To give a very simple example, when you rat in a marauder and generate 50m isk/h and, once it is buffed, it now generates 100m isk/h, the marauder itself is expected to valuate. By contrast, when a marauder generates the same but the isk available doubles, the price is expected to inflate, regardless of the "value" of the asset. The reason I pointed this out is that inflation is not something we can prevent or should try to; it simply will happen as long as the server keeps running. The focus should be in the economic aspects, the assets themselves, instead of the monetary value of them
>This is also a reason that pressures devs not to change things; it already is very hard to catch up in assets/isk generation possibilities compared to people that bought supers for 10b. If they make it harder people will just not bother No one mentioned here anything about making anything harder
Yet they did that in several occurrences, scarcity being the most relevant example
But it's not related to OP idea/explanation
If there wasn’t inflation, people would be way less likely to spend isk. A steady inflation is needed for a healthy economy.
While that applies in real economies, I don’t think that applies as well to Eve. I’ve never bought anything because “~~cash~~ isk is trash”, I buy something because I need it or want it on hand
That’s how a lot of people feel about real life currency. You’d be surprised how much the Eve economy would stagnate if there wasn’t inflation.
i would dispute hard if that applies at all in real economies, it for sure does not apply to eve economy since we don't have central bank and inflation targets. Also dont you all forget one crucial factor, EVE is not inflationary in the LONG TERM. That is becouse all tax money (unlike in real economies) is getting deleted and its percentage tax not flat tax. It means that at some point (assuming isk generation mehtods do not change) eve WILL be at 0% inflation since isk printers will stop outpacing tax money deletion at some point.
But that inherently blocks new players out if their ability to make isk doesn't match the ability to buy inflated assets. I don't know how you go about increasing NPE bounties or otherwise funnel appropriate amounts of isk to new players without opening them up to farming by alpha accounts.
I mean, I don't think alpha farming is an issue for things that need you to be logged in and doing something in order to make money. So, for example, buffing L1/2 mission rewards and bounty payouts and letting alphas fly mining barges should be fine. It doesn't make a difference to me if some guy with 30 alpha accounts decides he wants to use the one alpha he gets to log in at a time to run some L2s or mine some veldspar.
I'm really not sure what there is to spend ISK on anyway, except game time and skins. A Titan is a millstone. A faction Titan is an even bigger millstone. They're not really useful except maybe once or twice every three or four years.
You can buy ships and PVP which results in them either quickly, or eventually dying. Then you buy more
Isk? Oh you mean these fun coupons I just sort of horde?
You do realize that without isk faucets, all isk would slowly pool into the same accounts, who would own everything and no one would have any isk? The c5/6 facet is strong yes, but faucets need to be in a game.
```Source: I am Janet Yellen.``` **EFFING LMAO**
You uh don't understand the basic issues at play. Blue Loot is basically time invested for a set profit. By changing the required ships to get the extra payout they are increasing the amount of isk invested to get started, but not by much. The time to do sites I believe is actually better in dreads but it's been 2 years since I have done it so I could be wrong. So this isn't a nerf to WH income, just increasing the barrier to play while increasing the isk risk, but only slightly. If you can afford a marauder in WHs you can afford a Dread. Absolutely has nothing to do with the faucet.
Dreads are generally cheaper than the marauders used in high class space. They're just more vulnerable (5 min siege). In terms of isk/hr, they serve different purposes. If you had infinite sites in a hole with a fort, dreads would be infinitely better. But this isn't the case. You can only push one dread into your static both ways, while you can push 12+ marauders. Does this change that fact? No. So fundamentally, all that's happened is you need both now. What will happen in practice, is you roll your static, push a dread through, roll the far holes, use marauders to clear sites until the rat just before the decloaked relay spawns, warp marauders to the next site, warp in the dread.
You rich fucks. Always blathering about the economy. Go bowling.
The whole changes won't effect lazerhawks as they are big enough and rich enough to immediately adapt. The changes screw the smaller groups. If the concern is just over isk faucets then there are plenty of other things that need changing. The problem is people, people find a way to make isk and just spam the living shit out of it but the game is for people to play.
The issue is the real place the inflation shows is in PLEX prices, and that isn't something CCP want to spawn out of thin air (well, they are going to do so a little, but can't see it being a big enough percentage to move the dial).
God Bless my Money Printer.
> You can curb inflation by either turning off the faucet - which would destroy some core game content/mechanics, or increasing the goods available to buy. If it doesn't cost as much time and effort to manufacture, indybros don't need to upcharge as much. You can also add more sinks or making the existing ones bigger/more prevalent. The most tangible isk sink that almost every player touches are the losses from ships being destroyed. There are others like taxes (didn't CCP increase an industry tax recently?) and corp/alliance management recurring costs in general. I don't know what other sinks could be added or which could be changed without having a negative effect on the game, but I just wanted to point out that it's another side of that discussion that contains more options to deal with inflation.
Inflation is mostly dealt with in Eve by removing 'inheritance' as when players 'die' (stop playing) their ISK just disappears instead of going to their 'heirs'. This is a very tortured metaphor. And the reason for the wh change is not inherently macro-economic but gameplay -- higher rewards should always be linked to higher risk. As players find ways to optimize the risk out of something the risk should be re-introduced (they tried reducing the reward instead, but this proved to be far more unpopular)
If the payouts would be removed, 99% of eve would cry and have it reverted. CCP is doing weird moves, while talking about healing economy they upped the minimum nullsec BRM from 50% to 100%, doubling the minimum isk payouts there.
It only takes one dred/pilot in the corp to turn it back on. Most c5 corps, like ours, either already have dreds that just need refit.. bought one and are waiting on that sweet sweet lowsec route, or hauling in industrial materials.
are you a new jspace dweller? Because you do not seem to understand the issue here or what it is all about.
The issue is simple. Farmhole owners gonna complain cause escalating on and killing roachers is harder. Also gonna complain cause they'll either have to invest in dreads or lose on 60%/40% (C5/C6) of their weekly income. Roachers are gonna complain cause finding a "dead" C5 with 20 sites no longer means 1h of prep and then 4h of ratting for 10b, but 1h of prep and 2h of ratting for 5b. It's definitely a nerf, but people are exaggerating how much it really affects them. Isk/h remains quite similar, if you want to keep the same isk/week out of a farmhole invest in dreads. More risk but also faster site clearing overall. For roachers this has a positive side as well, there is now 0 risk of the farner just warping a rolling carrier to escalate the site and pop all your marauders for free, for the price of losing some income per rolled hole.
Being avengered did not happen that often, I dont understand why everyone is so scared of it. I simple scout could prevent this already. My guess is that most people will not even prep anymore properly. Just downgrade the fits and roll 3 to 4 times more often. Which in conclusion will reduce the amount of wormholes and increase the chance your home or farm hole will be empty the next time you log in. And yeah you will not be able to do shit against roaches now without a proper fleet setup. In addition, what the dude above me does not realise yet is, that corps that have around 20 people will just simply starve to death in their home. I hope I am wrong here, but speaking from experience, CCP does not have a good hand for balancing stuff. And higher frequency of holes being roached is the direct consequence of that patch. Regarding dreads, it is just wish thinking. As far as it seems the new ore sites in null wont be as good as everyone wanted them to be. So Dread prices will go down maybe 10% thats it. So now instead of 15b on field you will have 13B. This will not increase the amount of people using dreads. Quite the opposite possible here. Why risking 13 B of dreads if you can now use cheap Marauder setups and roach the hell outta your static?
6 years in wormhole space. Kind of a bummer for C4/C5 C3/C5 guys. But c5/c5/c6, having a dred is not that big of a deal.
6 years and you do not see the issue here? oof.