These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Resource Scarcity in EVE Online - Can It Be Done?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
#81 - 2012-01-17 03:20:50 UTC
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
*snap*

With resource scarcity, you can now have regions being two-to-three times more profitable, giving all participants a reasonable incentive to fight for.

But the implications of scarcity do not stop here: assuming only two major alliances start war over "High-Income Region A" [HIRA] and alliance 1 has 1000 members while alliance 2 has 2000 members. Alliance 2 takes possession of HIRA but soon realizes the region can only support 500 active members... I leave it to your imagination on the dozens of the possibles outcomes from here. My personal favorite is "alliance 2 trims the fat and reduces its size to 500 members... then gets overrun by alliance 1... "

How do you avoid these:

1) populations swarm out and occupy all of space similarly dense after some amount of time (if scarcity depends on harvesting-rates of resources)

2) populations in high income areas dominate forever (if scarcity is hardwired into the landscape)

The solution obviously must be some kind of random/external factor and can't come from within. And no, I'm not proposing a flat out random reshuffling of resources (moons, plexes, etc. pp.) on top of current game mechanics, which would probably only create a case 2) with the dominating populations to be of nomadic kind.
WAuter
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2012-01-17 15:59:58 UTC
I agree,

from now on no more gates only beacons.

All ships have a jumpdrive and consume massive amounts fuel from ice in the process!
The farther you jump the more you consume..

...we probably need some more ice-belts.

ships jump to the beacons in star systems and always land in a 20 km radius from the beacon.
You can jump from anywhere in a star system to a beacon..
You need to leave the beacon radius before you can jump or warp due to interference!

Also introduce ship-aging in steps, every week a ship isn't destroyed it needs more minerals to keep it flying!
A ship older than 5 months will need a maximum amount of minerals to keep it operational
Introduce some skills to reduce the mount of minerals or to make it everye 2, 3 or 4 weeks before your ship needs new teeth..

Selling a ship with ducktape on it will reduce it's value and will require more nanite repair paste due to bad gel packs.

...and more mineral consuming solutions.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#83 - 2012-01-17 16:11:17 UTC
WAuter wrote:
MAD MINER WANTS MORE ISK


UMADBRO?

I know, let's totally make this a game where you have to track maintenance on each one of our PvP ships, even the ones we don't use often. Let's also kill the database by not letting it recycle ID numbers when we repackage and stack ships. Let's kill the market and make every single transaction be of a unique item type. Let's kill stocking up to invest in market rises. Let's kill the economy, kill the logistics crew of everyone who doesn't live in Hisec, and utterly ruin the game for everyone but the miner, and still miss the problems that causes mining pay to suck.

Drone Regions, Minerals I Mine Are Free, and Easy Multiboxing.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Adunh Slavy
#84 - 2012-01-17 20:36:04 UTC
Tres Farmer wrote:
Don't forget ease of travel in this...

The infrastructure of today compared with what was possible 4-5 years ago is impressive.
Where you had to escort industrials or freighters and could only live out of POS you now have outposts and all kinds of shortcuts.



True, Eve has become much smaller. Time for space to be reformed too.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#85 - 2012-01-18 00:18:55 UTC
Tres Farmer wrote:
Thor Kerrigan wrote:

...

How do you avoid these:

1) populations swarm out and occupy all of space similarly dense after some amount of time (if scarcity depends on harvesting-rates of resources)

2) populations in high income areas dominate forever (if scarcity is hardwired into the landscape)

The solution obviously must be some kind of random/external factor and can't come from within. And no, I'm not proposing a flat out random reshuffling of resources (moons, plexes, etc. pp.) on top of current game mechanics, which would probably only create a case 2) with the dominating populations to be of nomadic kind.


You bring excellent points to the table. But it would never stagnate as there is always a slightly bigger predator. If the threshold is 500 players for a given region, you either stay weaker and try to harvest it as long as you can until 600 players knock at the door or you remain as big as possible and harvest as much as you can until you need to move on to the next region.

You can also revisit the region-specific resource distribution so that controlling an entire region does not make you the most efficient at harvesting all the resources and subsequently manufacture everything you need. This would only be attainable by either: controlling the whole universe (HE-MAN style) or establishing profitable trading agreements between the surrounding forces.

I like the model and the general concept of booster production for instance. Same goes for cosmos loot. These models are seriously underused since the most basic resources are all obtainable within a single highsec system, for instance. We could make certain groups of modules or ships much much easier to produce in certain regions of space.

Having CCP manage any prospective "hard capped" resource while also introducing new elements (resources, technologies or factions) would also provide lots to make this idea healthy.
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#86 - 2012-01-19 22:43:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Thor Kerrigan
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Tres Farmer wrote:
Don't forget ease of travel in this...

The infrastructure of today compared with what was possible 4-5 years ago is impressive.
Where you had to escort industrials or freighters and could only live out of POS you now have outposts and all kinds of shortcuts.



True, Eve has become much smaller. Time for space to be reformed too.


There is actually a few ways CCP could solve this without necessarily adding a new galaxy.

- Expanding the far edges of nullsec as was suggested before, unclaimable yet rewarding to the players venturing there.
- Expanding w-space
- Opening Jove Space

I suggest perhaps looking at expanding the world map by stretching it to twice it's size and adding new "claimable by capsuleer only" systems between. You could only get to those systems (which would not be connected by stargates yet) using new technologies or wormholes and being able to construct stargates on both sides - jump lines would be present but grayed out if no stargate connection exists yet. Just a thought.
ASadOldGit
Doomheim
#87 - 2012-01-19 23:00:55 UTC
Thor Kerrigan wrote:

I suggest perhaps looking at expanding the world map by stretching it to twice it's size and adding new "claimable by capsuleer only" systems between. You could only get to those systems (which would not be connected by stargates yet) using new technologies or wormholes and being able to construct stargates on both sides - jump lines would be present but grayed out if no stargate connection exists yet. Just a thought.

If you're interested in more on that concept, there's a long-running thread in F&I on "Deepspace" https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=29191&find=unread.
But, I get the impression (from Soundwave, I think) that they'd rather use existing space more efficiently, than create more space.
Aren't there a whole lot of nullsec systems that aren't used now? So, it then becomes a question of how do you stop a large alliance from claiming territory, then effectively abandoning it? Should sov decline over time? (if that's the problem) (and, I believe there's a bunch of threads on that, too Cry)

This signature intentionally left blank for you to fill in at your leisure.
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#88 - 2012-01-21 01:15:53 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


To poison the well a bit, You just like your Rifters cheap, dontcha? Lol


Yes, yes I do. Pirate

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#89 - 2012-01-21 06:48:48 UTC
The advantages to "blowing out the borders" and adding new regions around the edges is that it would re-introduce some of the logistical issues of trying to own deep null-sec space. It would introduce a new gold rush era and would shake up the territories a bit. Doesn't help with trying to do "resource scarcity", however.

(And adding another 3000 w-space systems, would bring back some of the "unknown" dynamic to w-space, as it would be 3x harder to roll the hole to get the system that you want.)
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#90 - 2012-01-21 07:02:03 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
The advantages to "blowing out the borders" and adding new regions around the edges is that it would re-introduce some of the logistical issues of trying to own deep null-sec space. It would introduce a new gold rush era and would shake up the territories a bit. Doesn't help with trying to do "resource scarcity", however.

(And adding another 3000 w-space systems, would bring back some of the "unknown" dynamic to w-space, as it would be 3x harder to roll the hole to get the system that you want.)



As for "resource scarcity", the reasoning behind adding new space is for CCP to introduce new resources when others run out. A galaxy is compromised of millions of solar systems (the milky way itself has billions of stars), yet New Eden only has a few thousands connected by stargates. Seems to me like plenty or space is full of resources but so far unreachable as it was not colonized when the original settlers arrived.

It would makes sense that if resource scarcity is introduced, we capsuleers also gain the ability to explore new solar systems.
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#91 - 2012-01-22 13:10:39 UTC
Professor Humbert wrote:
Almost all activities in EVE have some element of competition; anomalies, mining high-end minerals, moonmining, securing a public copy slot, etc etc. Even trading in a small scale has fierce competition among the users.
These competitive elements lead to user conflicts, be it a direct shootout or just a matter of who can be online longer... These conflicts make EVE what it is.

However, missioning is the only activity that lacks any competitive element.

Currently all missions are handed out instantaneously when you ask an agent, leading to the unlimited resource issue OP mentioned.

How about if we change the mission system into public biddings?

For example:

An agent lists X number of his/her missions (along with the infos on the mission type, location, max. available reward budget, time limit, bonus reward, etc) every Y minutes open for Z minutes.

When the bid is closed, the pilot who submitted the lowest reward gets the mission.






What if instead of tracking all the lowest bids, you simply have the system we have going now, but making missions slowly less lucrative coupled with an increasing delay between offers.

To compensate, you add a feature where a player can always ask the agent "Hey man, have you heard of some more lucrative work in your corp?" to which the agent can then take a few minutes and send a mail with 3-5 better quality agents within that respective corporation.

It only makes sense they would know where the work is considering they are in that corporation!

I feel that's a feature that has been missing in EVE for a long time - agents referring you to better quality ones based on availability.
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
#92 - 2012-01-22 16:54:53 UTC
You should consider that those players who run missions are to a great extend people that worked the last 8-10 hours and are now relaxing, by shooting some npc in their full blown CNR..

What other soloable, anytime, anywhere content is there in eve that doesn't increase your stress level, but instead rewards you with some exploding pixels for pushing some buttons?

I don't think CCP has got this group of players in their books when they design stuff.. and I'd bet that approx 30-40% of the playerbase are exactly such players..
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#93 - 2012-01-22 16:57:34 UTC
I *really* like the idea, but this is such a complete overhaul of how null works that it could easily break more things than it fixes when implemented.
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#94 - 2012-01-22 20:13:15 UTC
Tres Farmer wrote:
You should consider that those players who run missions are to a great extend people that worked the last 8-10 hours and are now relaxing, by shooting some npc in their full blown CNR..

What other soloable, anytime, anywhere content is there in eve that doesn't increase your stress level, but instead rewards you with some exploding pixels for pushing some buttons?

I don't think CCP has got this group of players in their books when they design stuff.. and I'd bet that approx 30-40% of the playerbase are exactly such players..


When we consider changes to income will be noticeable over a year or so, I doubt it will affect the casual players much more than relocating every once in a while around a general HQ. Not only that, but they will already get suggestions on where to relocate for better income if they so wish. Some might even get better rewards over time by already being in systems that are underfarmed. On another note, should balance really be based off "casual players" even if they compromise a significant portion of the playerbase? Casual players are just as likely to sub only 6 months during a year, just something to consider. Modelling the game for those who actively play the game seems more logical to me.

Akirei Scytale wrote:
I *really* like the idea, but this is such a complete overhaul of how null works that it could easily break more things than it fixes when implemented.


Hence the discussion Blink - I will post actual changes proposed in a features and ideas thread if I we manage to tackle pretty much every aspect of EVE that would be affected. It would however certainly be a challenge to implement properly, relying rather on gross values and averages rather than every single digit being taken into the equation. The simpler the system the easier to program and observe.
Hainnz
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2012-01-22 20:23:05 UTC
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
Casual players are just as likely to sub only 6 months during a year, just something to consider.


Casual MMORPG gamers are a pretty hard core bunch, considering. We ain't talking Angry Birds here. :)

I think casual players generally just want a fair shake, and the feeling that the game is being designed with them in mind too. If they feel like they have nothing fun or "worthwhile" to do (in the game environment), they *will* move on, usually.
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
#96 - 2012-01-22 22:21:57 UTC
Mara Tessidar wrote:
Even CCP, whose grasp of economics can be likened to that of a two-year-old holding on to a sippy cup...


If CCP's grasp of economics is this bad then what does that say about other MMO developers. I wonder if they are even aware of the concept...
Professor Humbert
Project Fruit House
#97 - 2012-01-23 11:44:36 UTC
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
Professor Humbert wrote:
Almost all activities in EVE have some element of competition; anomalies, mining high-end minerals, moonmining, securing a public copy slot, etc etc. Even trading in a small scale has fierce competition among the users.
These competitive elements lead to user conflicts, be it a direct shootout or just a matter of who can be online longer... These conflicts make EVE what it is.

However, missioning is the only activity that lacks any competitive element.

Currently all missions are handed out instantaneously when you ask an agent, leading to the unlimited resource issue OP mentioned.

How about if we change the mission system into public biddings?

For example:

An agent lists X number of his/her missions (along with the infos on the mission type, location, max. available reward budget, time limit, bonus reward, etc) every Y minutes open for Z minutes.

When the bid is closed, the pilot who submitted the lowest reward gets the mission.






What if instead of tracking all the lowest bids, you simply have the system we have going now, but making missions slowly less lucrative coupled with an increasing delay between offers.

To compensate, you add a feature where a player can always ask the agent "Hey man, have you heard of some more lucrative work in your corp?" to which the agent can then take a few minutes and send a mail with 3-5 better quality agents within that respective corporation.

It only makes sense they would know where the work is considering they are in that corporation!

I feel that's a feature that has been missing in EVE for a long time - agents referring you to better quality ones based on availability.


Well, I thought if there are too many pilots bidding for the same mission the reward will be so meaningless that people will be forced either to disperse across the universe or look for other profitable activities, making the in-game life more dynamic.

Also, this could motivate corps and alliances to keep their favorite agents out of reach from other pilots, be it simple gate/station camping in null/low secs or wardeck fest in highsecs.
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#98 - 2012-01-23 11:53:54 UTC
We already have limited resources in some areas of gameplay with max possible yields over time or in absolute quantity "written in stone". For example, T2 BPO's, Moon Minerals - neither of which is particularly good implementation in my opinion.

Moon minerals are most similar to your proposal.

I do not like your proposal.

Systems implemented in EVE should scale reasonably well and be sort of "self balancing". It is one thing to have dynamic true sec or "agent quality" (witch is sort of reasonable I guess) and entirely another can of forms having "hard cap" on the number of pilots EVE as a game can support.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
McRoll
Extraction and Exploration Ltd.
#99 - 2012-01-23 13:27:52 UTC
I like the variable resource degradation approach. CCP kinda has implemented that in PI already, when you mine at the same spots on a planet for an amount of time, the yield decreases. It should be the same way with everything in Eve, for example when many capsuleers fly their missions in system x, the rat amount and their bounties should decrease and/or a new mission is avaiable only after x amount of time has passed. This forces players to either distrubute more equally around New Eden or to compete harder for resources.

The resources shouldnt deplete completely however.
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#100 - 2012-01-23 23:55:11 UTC
Carniflex wrote:
We already have limited resources in some areas of gameplay with max possible yields over time or in absolute quantity "written in stone". For example, T2 BPO's, Moon Minerals - neither of which is particularly good implementation in my opinion.

Moon minerals are most similar to your proposal.

I do not like your proposal.

Systems implemented in EVE should scale reasonably well and be sort of "self balancing". It is one thing to have dynamic true sec or "agent quality" (witch is sort of reasonable I guess) and entirely another can of forms having "hard cap" on the number of pilots EVE as a game can support.


You don't seem to fully understand the concept of resource scarcity. I believe PI is most similar to what is being discussed - more people harvesting a resource in a area makes that resource more rare over time. A "soft cap", which is what most people seem to think would work best for EVE as it shifts areas of profit dynamically around the galaxy at a slow enough pace one can keep up. It's the kind of modularity associated with a fluctuating market rather than one-time only cosmos mission.

Moons (tech for example) are the exact case of how badly EVE needs resource scarcity imo. These moons being constantly drained should eventually yield less resources. I also know the CSM and CCP are looking at rebalancing r64 moons, something to keep in mind when faced with the tech bottleneck.

To state resource scarcity exists through "time investment" seems a little silly since everything is capped by "time investment", infinite or not. EVE already has hard caps: given a monstrous influx of players, it would be possible to deplete all static asteroid belts before downtime. Nodes could be at overcapacity everywhere. Those are the kinds of limits that bring nothing to gameplay value. Will resource scarcity make the game more dynamic by adding limits achievable within our lifetime? Yes. Will it reduce the hard cap of EVE players? Yes. Can CCP compensate by upgrading their servers and adding new content? Yes.

T2 BPO's are not a resource. They are a commodity like a limited-issue ship such as the Utu. One could almost consider blueprint copies as a resource, since it is consumed, but even then the ISK needed to produce them is the actual resource since it is the most basic element in the game needed to obtain them.

You may disagree with the concept, but you still have not presented a reason why the current system would be better.