This would encourage experimental fits using less popular modules. I like it.

Very interesting idea. Potential for abuse though depending on how its set up.

What would stop a group of players with large amounts from ISK, mass stockpiling high end gear one week, thus driving the price up extremely high the next week, and then terrorizing players with Proto gear that the players can not afford because of the price hike?

The moment something is introduced as a direct forced grind is the moment that dust really will die.

The lack of content already doesn't warrant a grind but people see the freedom at the end of the tunnel with fittings.

And you want to take that away basically?.

And possibly make it completely impossible for newbs to run even an ADV weapon because of us?.

Wow, thank you for the bumps but you really are trying to demonize this.

There is nothing saying that it couldn't be capped, something like "no more than a 25% increase/decrease per week" or who is to say that the inflated prices on the market increase the NPC corporations profit margins which allows them to increase pay somewhat?

It is far from a "complete feature" at this point, but there is no need for you to be such a negative nancy about it.

There is nothing saying that it couldn't be capped, something like "no more than a 25% increase/decrease per week" or who is to say that the inflated prices on the market increase the NPC corporations profit margins which allows them to increase pay somewhat?

It is far from a "complete feature" at this point, but there is no need for you to be such a negative nancy about it.

There's nothing negative about what I said.

I'm sorry it touched you so deeply lol.

None of this would bother me but its definitely not healthy for the game. It would be fine if dust was going places because people would pay yo unlock early, not care and bypass meta.

This idea removes freedom in choice which is all that dust has going for it at the mo.

I guess some quick cash will be made in aurum before people really do quit dust for good.

Yes there is



"definitely not healthy for the game" sounds negative to me.


^^purely opinion since it doesn't force people to make any choice, it merely simulates economic shifts


oh noes, doom and gloom, #dustisdying #soundfamiliar? #thisagain?

5 of the 7 posts before my response are from you fearmongering and injecting doom and gloom into the thread.

I'd call that negative.

The thing to bear in mind with an idea like this, is that you'd either have some dude at CCP having to set the prices on every item in the game every week (a full-time job), or they'd have to develop an entirely new method for updating the price on items in the backend.

Either way, it's a much larger investment than it may seem.

I love the idea, but my immediate thought on viewing it, is that there are smaller time investment projects than can reap far better rewards for the players than this.

Just keep in mind supply vs demand.

So you're looking at one side of the equation... demand. As demand for an item increases, at a constant supply, its price would naturally increase. Your idea would, in theory, simulate this to some degree.

but... what about supply? In any market structure, EVE's included, if the demand for an item continues to increase then the market will react by (eventually) producing more of that item.

In fact, items with extremely high demand, end up saturating and the price goes very low as a result. People will produce for less per item profit if they can push massive volumes.

A good example would be the store we all love to hate... Wal Mart.

This idea goes the other way as well... as demand for an item plummets.. the price doesn't necessarily plummet as a result. Most producers will just stop producing it and the few that will, will produce in limited runs for high per-item profit at lower overall revenue due to lower volume of sales.

This is also why you have 'trade hubs' in eve and why the price for most items outside of those trade hubs is higher.

How would you simulate production changes and variable supply into this model? It could become very complex (and not worth the time to implement) or it could just be something a third year economics undergrad could write up in a day... hard for me to say/know... I'm not an economist.

The first thing we should ask is 'how does this affect new players?', they are the lifeblood of the game.

Most of us would simply shrug off the extra cost or just keep using aurum.

What about new players?.

What is the actual point exactly in implementing a mechanic that simply keeps vets cosy and screws newer players?.

Im not exactly sure how a market system screws new players? Assuming that you can simulate a market to behave 100% like say, EVE, it would be self regulating. If **** gets too expensive, people just won't buy it, and thus demand and prices drop until people are willing to buy it.

The prices going up wouldn't affect new players?.

It wouldn't be a market either. Just a mechanic where x weapon is being used x amount, do therefore it goes up x amount.

It wouldn't be a market.

Well as I pointed out before in a previous post, maybe you missed it, you would need to address prices going down for other items as part of an overall supply/demand scheme. If A increases and B decreases, eventually people will start using more of B which will raise the price of B and decrease A. This is typical in macroeconomics, and while the market can flux, overall its trend it towards equilibrium.

Except in dust, us vets would never care about a price rise so its broken from the get go.

I hear what you are saying but its only new/newer players that will be affected by this, we will continue spamming and directly affect those players with a slice of laughing at them.

If this got implemented, I buy my aurum items in stacks of 600-1000.

So that right there is fked unless aurum wouldn't factor?.

Well heres my point. Most vets use Advanced and Proto gear, that's just the nature of the beast, this means that the demand for standard gear would go down, thus lowering the price. Since most new players are running standard gear, they would actually have an easier time.

The point I was trying to make is that if you work in a supply-side situation, the ability to 'produce' standard gear is much higher than proto gear. This means that its easy to quickly supply cheap gear to meet the markets need, and that the loss of a sale of proto gear means a lot of standard gear can be produced if needed.

So essentially the lower tiered items are more resistant to market fluxations because the sale of a single standard item has mess of an impact on the overal supply, whereas a proto item has far more weight.

Again, I'm an engineer not an economist so I'm by no means an expert on macroeconomics haha, but I do know a bit.

Yeah, I don't think it should include aurum items. That would not go over well if they suddenly increased dramatically in price.

It would just come off as a money grab.

Besides, I think that the fact aurum is actually correlated with real money brings an aspect of risk that is not present with ISK transactions. I think part of what makes this idea great is that it would create much greater risk/reward as the most popular items will also be the highest cost items.

Yeah, I don't think it should include aurum items. That would not go over well if they suddenly increased dramatically in price.

It would just come off as a money grab.

Besides, I think that the fact aurum is actually correlated with real money brings an aspect of risk that is not present with ISK transactions. I think part of what makes this idea great is that it would create much greater risk/reward as the most popular items will also be the highest cost items.

I see what you are saying aye.

I know a fair bit as well and none of this would have a negative impact on me ever, I just care about the newbs.

I guess it depends on how you look at it.

AUR items admittedly are the real wrench in the works because you get risky if you start making those change, and if they don't change, you're guaranteeing that high demand items are better purchased with AUR than ISK. So that is a major problem.

EVE gets away with it because AUR items cannot be produced and are unique items that cannot normally be purchased otherwise. But if you could buy in-game items with AUR like ships and whatnot....well that gets messy very quickly.

Nah I hear ya man, I'm always trying to look out for the newbies too. Dust is overly harsh on them.

Suffice it to say free markets are extremely complicated and difficult to track, and even harder to simulate accurately, especially in a game setting.

Overall its an interesting idea, not sure if it's really feasible for Dust but its an interesting idea nonetheless. Its just one of those things thats VERY difficult to get right, and getting it wrong would be catastrophic. If it could be done right? Freaking sweet. Just be careful moving forward.

Regardless it's cool stuff to discuss, and its good that people are thinking about stuff like this.