|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
74
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 16:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
Billi Gene wrote:To mesh the economies without breaking DUST beyond repair, will require an exchange rate and possibly a transfer cap.
I'm not sure that's true, because the idea expressed here...
Galvan Nized wrote:Logically you cannot achieve equilibrium between the 2 games. In Eve you fund super expensive star ships but in Dust you are funding only a soldier. They can never be similar in price because it makes no sense.
... is premised upon the idea that items in Eve and Dust have an objective value, unrelated to the time players spend to earn resources. Time spent by human beings playing each game is what drives the current exchange rate between Dust and Eve (which is about [Dust isk 1 to Eve isk 5] and [Eve isk 10 to Dust isk 1]). I presume that exchange rate is holding somewhat consistently because in aggregate, it is somewhere between 5x and 10x easier to earn an isk in Eve, compared to Dust.
The exchange rate is currently driven by the ease with which isk is earned in each game, but can potentially be driven by the effect each game can have on the other. We're not seeing much of that effect on the exchange rate yet, except in the most wildly speculative sense.
I've converted about 30B Eve isk and 5 or 6B Dust isk between the games, over the course of about 150 transactions. The unofficial exchange hasn't destroyed Dust. To the contrary, I think its fostered interest in Dust among Eve players, and interest in Eve among Dust players. CCP should build an official exchange that makes it easy for Dust players to take their saved Dust isk, convert it to Eve isk, buy a plex (sold to them by an Eve player who paid CCP RL money for that plex) and keep playing Eve after their free trial runs out. CCP should build an official exchange that makes it easy for Eve players to fund Dust corps while they fight on the ground in a way that help their efforts in Eve. PC should be more than a friendly-locked isk printing machine, particularly while Dust isk is so much more valuable than Eve isk.
A currency serves a purpose and arises organically even in the absence of an official medium of exchange. When you argue for a second currency, its characteristics should serve the intended purpose. A second currency that has the same problem of being less wealth producing for a player's time spent earning it, doesn't resolve the desperate earning potentials between Eve and Dust. The only lore solution is to deflate the value of Dust isk toward parity with Eve isk. You can't do that with a second currency; you can only do that by causing price inflation within Dust to catch up with Eve prices.
You want something like parity? Multiply every isk held by a Dust player or Corp, and every payout and price in Dust by x7.5. Bingo, price equality, and easy market integration. Lore can not overpower the actual economic incentive players experience.
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
75
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 22:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
anaboop wrote:I would like to see an isk reset, isk at the time being on dust is unbalanced due to PC and when CCP sold your salvage items that were outdated, some got mega rich while people that are new or didnt go for certain suits vehicles etc got left behind. I myself have 100mil plus, and even that is way to much. Once eve can transfer isk over, it will get even worse.
Its like real life, rich get richer, poor are reduced to skin and bone. Resetting Dust isk would only exacerbate the wealth disparity between Dust and Eve players. Diminishing the importance of Dust isk, by making the difference between militia and proto gear more slight, would diminish the effects of the wealth disparity you seem to lament, without exacerbating the wealth disparity between Dust and Eve players.
However, let me urge you to reconsider whether wealth disparity is in fact a bad thing. Wealth disparity is a sign that people are free to focus their energy on different things. Solving the "problem" of wealth disparity is usually advocated by political partisans, for the sake of distracting from their goal of bringing about greater power disparity. Political, social, and organizational "wealth" is far more important in both Eve and Dust, than how much isk anyone has.
anaboop wrote:Hindsight tells me this idea wont be popular, but the only people whinging are the ones that got mega rich for stupid reasons, and are just to greedy to give it up. Attributing greed to anyone who opposes your idea, makes every bit as much sense as reducing your position to an expression of envy. Maybe we can give each other more credit than that?
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
75
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 23:03:00 -
[3] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:The principle issue we are ignoring here is the lack of ISK sinks in Dust.
On the nose. Although, if CCP eventually wants to create a Dust player-driven market, and then merge it with Eve's, then in the mean time, they need to get enough Dust isk in circulation to bring Dust and Eve isk closer to parity. After they've got roughly as much Dust and Eve isk circulating, relative to their playerbases, then they'll need Dust isk sinks.
Let's hope they're only pumping Dust isk into the game for now, with that goal in mind, and with a plan to introduce Dust isk sinks that won't disproportionately discourage new players. Something like making proto gear and tanks wildly more expensive might serve that purpose. I'm hoping the eventual solution involves PvE, planetary interation, and planetary commodity export taxes. If CCP overhauls the way Dust players get between planets, transportation costs might help too. Despite the approach of what maybe another Tanks514 patch in 1.8, I'm weirdly optimistic about CCP eventually getting the economies between Dust and Eve right.
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
75
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 23:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
anaboop wrote:As I said its not a popular idea, and I never stated that anyone that doesnt like it is greedy, only those that got there isk through stupid reasons, such as PC farming or the sale of outdated items that seen some get rich while most didnt. I would gladly sacrifice all my isk for a fresh start on isk gaining.
When they sold off the tank items, I had a total of 650 million isk rounded off. Since then ive donated most of it to fellow corp members that have absolutely nothing and even then I dont see many of them playing anymore. Over the past few months im lucky to have spent 10million isk on vehicles and dropsuits IF THAT.
So take your attacks and suck on them lols, in the nicest way possible
I apologize for incorrectly reading your description of anyone who whines about your suggestion as greedy, to mean all opposition to your idea. My reading was overly broad.
There are lots of unpopular ideas I like. While I generally oppose calls to diminish wealth disparity, I specifically support stripping some of the wealth gained by friendly-locking PC districts. CCP's poor design choice (PC Corps weren't exploiting a bug) coupled with a PC battle experience that is by far the worst lag I've ever experienced in Dust514 should have brought about a swift adjustment. |
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
76
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 04:29:00 -
[5] - Quote
Billi Gene wrote:wait a minute.. you've transferred isk between the games? Yea, I've been operating an isk exchange since last October. The isk exchange thread Customers give me isk in one game, and my alt pays their alt in the other game. They exchange their isk between games, through me.
Billi Gene wrote:when it comes to it, i would think that inflating the cost of a militia fit medium suit to cost 500,000 would be beyond a joke." Luckily, no one has suggested the values you just offered. I don't get the joke. If the problem you're trying to solve is that Dust mercs aren't as cheap as you think they should be, try adjusting the lore to the economics of the game, instead of other way around.
An eve pilot might move his consciousness across space into another clone, as much as once a day. A Dust merc can wake up in a new clone and almost immediately perform, sometimes as often as 20 times in half an hour. Dust mercs are rarer than Eve pilots. Why would their equipment, particularly prototypes that can perform significantly better than their peers, be less expensive than the wildly more common space ships hauling garbage between space stations?
Multiplying the prices and payouts in Dust by 7.5 would make milia fits costs rise from about 5k to 37k; advanced fits costing 20k would rise to 150k; proto fits costing 150k would rise to over 1M; tanks costing 2M would rise to 15M. A proportional rise in payouts would leave no net effect on the time it would take to support someone's play style. I'm not saying that should happen. I'm saying that if that's where CCP's headed, it would make sense, if they want Dust and Eve isk to have roughly the same value.
You can't link the economies of both games, without taking the player's time in to account.
Billi Gene wrote:edit: your argument for an inflated DUST isk to reach parity, and your argument against a DUST currency because its inherent value would be less than on par with an isk, are self defeating. I don't understand your first edit. I'm not arguing for a particular outcome, I'm describing contingencies. |
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
76
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 04:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
Kristoff Atruin wrote:The trick is to force prices to adjust slowly, so that the value players truly place on these things can be found without economic shocks killing trade. Adding yet another currency merely hides all of this (poorly) behind a flimsy curtain. It changes nothing and adds unnecessary complexity to cross-game trade. The intention is for us to provide resources that eve players want. When you're making those trades you want the process to be as simple as possible. Exactly. This is one of the functions performed by players who invest in the markets, buying stock when they see a price fall, taking profits when a price spikes. Investors dampen wild price fluctuations. Even where manipulators try to drive wild price fluctuations, investors will opportunistically ride their coat tails, and diminish the severity of price fluctuations.
I find Eve's economy to be its most interesting facet. The idea of retarding Dust's integration with it would be pretty hard to justify to my satisfaction. I'm probably biased in favor of "integrate, and damn the short term consequences, they'll work out in the long run."
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
76
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 04:54:00 -
[7] - Quote
anaboop wrote:No harm, no foul.
I understand that the solution may not be reseting all isk, but it seemx the only logical way to do it without someone being able to abuse a solution to put the game back where it it, an idea that just popped into mind would be to pool all the isk I dust and spread it out evenly amongst the playerbase, but even that will see players with alts getting more then others (maybe per ip address) and even that will see family members playing on the same ip address missing out, its just a very sensitive thing that can easily make or break.
CCP, may need to ditch the current player base and take a step back (which ultimately might be a step forward in the long run) make a new server alongside the one we play now forcing players to start over either altogether or to transfer your character over at the cost of all your isk and may even cutting your sp In half or all of it.
Either way I would be up for that as well. Keeping all the players that just wont give it up a chance to keep doing what they want on there own server and vise versa for newer players to enjoy themselves and to build a better playerbase.
Keep in mind these are just ideas, and flaws will appear
Sorry for the delay, and responding out of order.
One of the merits of a possible price and payout inflation in Dust (without multiplying our wallet holdings) would be achieving a lesser version of your proposed isk reset. If everything costs about seven times as much and all the payouts are seven times greater, every Dust player's relative wealth would diminish to 1/7th its current buying power. I think that's much more likely than CCP fragmenting the game on separate servers (beyond the Test servers and the Chinese server) or redistributing wealth.
I've seen nothing that indicates that the folks who run CCP are particularly bothered by wealth disparity among the player base. I think they're unlikely to "solve" it, because its just not really a "problem." Eve vets who've been playing since the beginning can easily have hundreds of billions of isk, if they're even mildly frugal and have caught even half of the patch note driven investment opportunities. All this talk about money makes it easy to blow right past the most important thing I've said in this thread, "Political, social, and organizational 'wealth' is far more important in both Eve and Dust, than how much isk anyone has."
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
76
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 14:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
Billi Gene wrote:what you are doing is offering a service that skirts the inability to transfer isk, you are not actually transferring isk. Let's back up a moment and make sure we're on the same page, rather than talking past one another. Dust and Eve already have separate currencies. I'm honestly not sure what you're proposing in the OP. Renaming Dust isk to something else? Avoiding any eventual merging of the Dust and Eve economies? I really don't know what you're proposing. Even if Dust isk is renamed to some planetary currency, it will still have an exchange rate with Eve isk.
"Transferring isk" What does that phrase mean? Since from my customer's perspective that's precisely what's happening, I'm not sure you can really say that I'm not "actually transferring isk." If you deposited 5 ounces of gold with a Rothschild in Rome in the 16th Century, got a piece of paper for it, and withdrew 5 ounces of gold, or even its equivalent value in silver, in Paris, would it make sense for someone to say that you hadn't really transferred your gold from Rome to Paris, because the gold or silver coins in Paris weren't the same ones you deposited in Rome?
Your objection sort of misses the point of what a currency is. If I exchange Canadian Dollars for U.S. Dollars, am I not exchanging dollars because I didn't carry some bills across a border? Its an exchange, not a hauling service. :D
Billi Gene wrote:It may be that there is no reason to adjust the lore...
The costing of mercenary gear vs capsuleer, is not a matter of rarity nor technological complexity (both lore wise and mechanically), costing should be based upon and production cost with a profit margin based upon demand and supply. Ok. Maybe this is where we were talking past one another. You appear to believe in objective economic value. Let me suggest that objective economic value is a myth. Exchanges happen because economic values are entirely subjective and routinely different between people. It seems more complicated at first, but avoids all sorts of errors where your estimation of something's value doesn't jive with someone else's. Forget the lore. I only threw some out there because I thought your dissatisfaction with current or potential Dust and Eve economics was driven by concern over lore (unless you want to count concern over objective economic value as a kind of Marxist lore).
Billi Gene wrote:To make a mercenary fitting cost as much as a frigate similarly fitted for aggression is taking the scale too far, the aggregate material costs are not proportionate, nor based upon scale of end product could they be. ...Once again, you cannot ignore the material cost of the product. Because a gun can't cost more than a car or a boat? Because a computer can't cost more than a ton of sand and copper ore? How many failed production attempts are there for every prototype that gets sold? How do you limit the cost of advanced or prototype weaponry to their material costs, without regard for the material, and labor costs of the failed prototypes that never make it to market? Objective economic value is a ham-fisted myth used to sell economic equality to laborers, to convince them to surrender their political equality. I urge you to discard the idea immediately. It only confuses matters.
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
76
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 14:27:00 -
[9] - Quote
Billi Gene wrote:Inflating DUST isk artificially and to a point where basic game and market mechanics are ignored, in order to maintain it as a currency is both inelegant and overly convoluted. Do you think Dust isk's current value isn't artificial? Your assumptions about material costs and objective economic value, aren't "basic game and market mechanics."
Billi Gene wrote:By giving DUST its own currency and then establishing an exchange rate, you bypass the need to inflate DUST's economy and you bring forward the date by which time we can expect Eve Production to begin supply of merc gear (also known as merging the markets). I don't understand your point here, because Dust already has its own currency, and there already is an exchange rate between Dust and Eve's currencies (currently driven by market participants, not something static or selected by CCP).
Billi Gene wrote:I would guess that you are bleeding off isk generated from locking districts ... Neither I, nor any proxy of mine has any PC districts, locked or otherwise. I won't go near PC again until the lag is vastly improved. However, I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if some of my exchange customers had locked-district income.
Billi Gene wrote: ... to suggest that a suit which will likely see one production run=100 units should then cost more than a frigate hull simply to satisfy a desire to maintain a single unit of currency across two very different games, with very different attrition rates and very different methods of warfare. Neither of us need to impose our values (the values we assign to anything) on other market participants. Your desire to avoid breaking with your impression of what things should cost, is not a good reason to maintain two separate currencies between people who want to do business with one another. That barrier between Dust and Eve already exists. CCP doesn't need to do anything, for that barrier to remain. However, if CCP wants to integrate the Dust and Eve economies, players will need some means of exchanging value. Whatever that is will become the primary currency for both games.
Billi Gene wrote:... a seperate currency because its inherent value would be less than an EVE isk... I'm not arguing against the current separate currencies. Currencies like Dust and Eve isk don't have an inherent value. Again, I think we're talking past one another, perhaps because you're carrying around this completely unnecessary idea of objective economic value. Things have value because we as individuals value them. You can aggregate those values, but they simply don't exist apart from subjective value judgments. If no one will pay a penny for that shuttle, it is worthless, no matter how much veld was consumed in producing it. If that Thales cost 1k worth of materials to produce, but I need it to win a PC battle that will result in locked-district income, I'd be perfectly reasonable to spend millions to get it. |
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
76
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 14:36:00 -
[10] - Quote
Billi Gene wrote:I hear the idea of using inflation to push DUST into viability, but a part of me wants to resist that path because my (limited) knowledge of EvE's industrial and market place systems provokes within me disquiet at the thought of DUST being used to provide incomes for Eve to the detriment of DUST players.
This is just a sentiment with me, if i have intuited wrong i apologise, and education was always the harder (for me) when hot feelings are involved, please none the less, educate me to my errors.
This is a perfectly valid concern. I think lots of us want to see CCP succeed with this very ambitious vision for Dust and Eve. The purpose of a currency is to reduce trade friction. That's the trouble with a bartering system. What if you don't need the three chickens your customer is offering? The entire point of a currency (historically precious metals) is to use the most potable, easiest commodity available as a medium of exchange.
Separate currencies do serve a purpose: maintaining the sovereignty of a government that maintains its own fiat currency (paper with no "inherent" value, unlike the copper coin that could be melted and formed into electrical wiring.) To the extent that competing governments within the Eve universe wanted to restrict trade with other empires, separate currencies would make sense, but a government that makes its fiat currency less convenient than other available currencies sacrifices control instead of maintaining it. (This happens frequently in places where price controls result in grey markets, which might prefer U.S. Dollars over the local currency.)
I don't see that pupose here between Dust and Eve. Whether the present separate currencies are maintained, or integrated, won't affect the relative value of a Dust or Eve player's services. There will be a mild efficiency gain if a redundant currency is eliminated, or simply falls out of use because one currency becomes the preferred medium of exchange among both game's players.
|
|
Gyn Wallace
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
76
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 22:36:00 -
[11] - Quote
Billi Gene wrote:I like the idea of fluctuating price levels, driven by supply and demand. This seems to me an indicator of a healthy market (?). And unless i've edited it out during the writing process, i am fairly sure that i've said as much earlier, ill have to reread i guess.
on revision, the central point of my initial suggestion is that i do not believe that the economies will ever reach parity. There is much talk about increasing the amount of isk floating around DUST till a normalised average comparable to a per capita Eve wealth index, or some such(?). Yet the only way to feasibly achieve this For the vast majority of DUst players is to inflate their incomes. Inflating incomes without inflating costs would ruin the game, so the hand in hand approach would be to inflate costs as well. I could easily have misread your post. I thought you were dissatisfied with the potential results of prices driven by supply and demand, if they resulted in Dust weapons costing more than some Eve frigates.
Re: the hand in hand approach, exactly. I don't see the downside to that approach that would deter CCP from pursuing it, specifically because a big part of the web of supplies and demands that determine prices and opportunity costs, is each players time, whether they play Dust or Eve.
Billi Gene wrote:Hopefully isk transfers become available some time soon. >.< ( in game), so i can fund my DUST adventures with my EvE toons You can fund your Dust toon with your Eve toon, today. You can exchange 600M Eve isk for 60M Dust isk, routinely delivered in less than 24 hours. On the other hand, you can plex your Eve account if you can earn an extra ~130M Dust isk per month on your Dust toon. The previous two sentences should be good selling points for each game.
I agree though, I'm also looking forward to the ease of an official CCP currency exchange and unified marketplace. Soon(TM). |
|
|
|