DUST Search - One Universe, One War, Two Economies

Bling Blaine wrote:

CCP Nothin wrote:

The presentation we gave with Dr. EyjoG at Fanfest this year has 48 minutes worth of informational goodness regarding this very topic. Check it out if you're interested in a deep-dive on our thinking in terms of merging the economies.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pzODp6-hO8

As far as the short term plans go, we are looking to enable taxed currency transactions between EVE and DUST (and perhaps player-to-player trading of items within DUST). This is coming as soon as we have the necessary features in place to support it and have a good feel how the economy is balancing out within DUST. Then, we'll carefully observe what happens, analyze the results and determine the next steps forward. Having full-on secondary market are high on the list of priorities for the subsequent economy features.

I appreciate your longwinded report but, a player to player trade feature Can't be that difficult to design and implement can it?

Also Eve to Dust isk transfers wouldn't hurt the economy? Are you thinking ok? Your affraid you might hurt the economy with any wrong moves yet your willing to let eve give billions to dust mercs? I dont get it?


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)

CCP Nothin C C P C C P Alliance 236	Posted - 2013.05.28 04:07:00 - [1] - Quote The presentation we gave with Dr. EyjoG at Fanfest this year has 48 minutes worth of informational goodness regarding this very topic. Check it out if you're interested in a deep-dive on our thinking in terms of merging the economies. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pzODp6-hO8 In a nutshell, the long term plan has always been to eventually merge the two economies fully and to have a player-driven manufacturing economy with free trading, but the process of getting there resembles a marathon more than a sprint. The EVE economy originally started just like the DUST economy did with NPCs seeding significant portions of the market and has grown to its current state through ten years of development. While it probably will be much faster to get DUST in a similar state, getting there still requires a lot of design, feature development and careful cycles of observation and iteration. Having a measured approach to developing the DUST economy and its connection to EVE is necessary for several reasons. It reduces the risk of introducing too much volatility at once. Some volatility is always good as it creates opportunities for people to exploit, but on the other hand we want to avoid shocks that have the potential to break the economy. One example for a potential source for such a shock would be fully opening currency transactions without searching for evidence of a balance first. Similarly, proceeding carefully reduces the risk of introducing economy-wrecking bugs or exploits by allowing more time for design, programming and testing. As far as the short term plans go, we are looking to enable taxed currency transactions between EVE and DUST (and perhaps player-to-player trading of items within DUST). This is coming as soon as we have the necessary features in place to support it and have a good feel how the economy is balancing out within DUST. Then, we'll carefully observe what happens, analyze the results and determine the next steps forward. Having full-on secondary market are high on the list of priorities for the subsequent economy features.


CCP Nothin C C P C C P Alliance 238	Posted - 2013.05.28 05:50:00 - [2] - Quote Bling Blaine wrote: CCP Nothin wrote: The presentation we gave with Dr. EyjoG at Fanfest this year has 48 minutes worth of informational goodness regarding this very topic. Check it out if you're interested in a deep-dive on our thinking in terms of merging the economies. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pzODp6-hO8 As far as the short term plans go, we are looking to enable taxed currency transactions between EVE and DUST (and perhaps player-to-player trading of items within DUST). This is coming as soon as we have the necessary features in place to support it and have a good feel how the economy is balancing out within DUST. Then, we'll carefully observe what happens, analyze the results and determine the next steps forward. Having full-on secondary market are high on the list of priorities for the subsequent economy features. I appreciate your longwinded report but, a player to player trade feature Can't be that difficult to design and implement can it? Also Eve to Dust isk transfers wouldn't hurt the economy? Are you thinking ok? Your affraid you might hurt the economy with any wrong moves yet your willing to let eve give billions to dust mercs? I dont get it? Implementing player-to-player trading isn't a trivial, but definitely doable in the short term. We are working on it and hoping to get it in if not for the next release, then the one after that. I would love to help speed up the process, but I don't think you want me touching the code unless you are willing to risk universe-shattering dupe bugs and the like. I'm an economist after all, not a programmer When it comes to managing the EVE-DUST ISK transfers, there are several different factors that play into the meaningfulness of the ISK flows from EVE towards DUST. One of the important ones is the NPC price level in DUST. By adjusting the DUST prices, we can increase or decrease the value of EVE ISK towards DUST. Such price adjustments don't have long term effects on the internal DUST economy, either. While initially devaluing savings (i.e. the ISK in your wallet), long term effects would be limited since the instant battle rewards are essentially a interlinked cycle of consumption and rewards. When the prices go up, so do the rewards. In other words, when HAVs worth 50M get destroyed in battles, a similar amount of ISK is given out as a reward. The overall goal is to find a meaningful balance before we fully open up ISK transactions. People should be able to sponsor their DUST characters with EVE ISK, but the cost of doing so should neither be trivial nor prohibitively expensive. But it should be meaningful.