These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Not enough stuff is being destroyed

Author
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2017-04-20 15:18:51 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Coralas wrote:


Ultimately there is no rule book for what _will_ work, but it is most certainly CCPs job to experiment and find out what entertains us.


And they fail sometimes. Look at Drifters.



and wormholes stuck just fine, as did highsec incursions, and we are talking about CCP who is ultimately a 1 game wonder studio at this point in time anyway. I do however expect that refreshing the PVE content is necessary to keep EVE alive, no matter how good or bad they are at it.

Quote:

Quote:

I do not expect it to be as exciting as pvp. I expect it to help make the elementary actions of pvp more familiar to non pvp pilots.


This is a terrible expectation. And it's built on even worse thinking, the general false and even dangerous idea that if PVE "teaches PVP" then PVE players will be less likely to victims in PVE situations (and perhaps they might even choose to PVP more).

The truth is that a person being a victim or not of pvp has to do with personal traits they bring to the game. You can't teach wisdom or prudence, these are things you have a capability for, or you don't.



that is a long way away from the thing that I said. I think that people should be exposed to the concept that if they get the first few seconds of some encounters right, they win, or at least go into overtime, but if they fail to get the initial chain right, they lose. L4s really aren't like that. They are more like grind at this thing and it will be done regardless.

I'm getting to the point of understanding why some CAS members rarely die in the messy adhoc pvp fights without fc's that can occur to us here, which really is only a leap I can make when I'm getting the first part of fights right. ie if I do x,y,z correctly I now know to look out for a-b-c which is easier to do when x-y-z is entirely automatic.

Quote:


That's a bunch of rationalizing. I say we book mark this post of your and revisit the issue 6 months after the feature is introduced. When that happens I will enjoy demonstrating to you why the past matters (ie why the Revenant tells the story that is about to be repeated with the Blood Caps) and why your thought process led you to believe things that aren't so.


it is a large bunch of facts. How you get "rationalizing' out of that, I don't know. I will however say that this reply plainly looks like rainchecking your way out of debating your viewpoint in light of the facts.

Blood raiders is an Its an event. More than happy to discuss whether the event succeeds or not later on.

I personally find the idea of 1000 npc's doing something other than individually moving to orbit distance and missing my ship with their terrible tracking to be a good thing. Lets go down that rabbit hole and see what can be found.
ChaosTheory.
#82 - 2017-04-20 15:32:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Coralas wrote:
Lets go down that rabbit hole and see what can be found.


The entire point is that CCP keeps going down that same rabbit hole (ie "pvp like PVE, fewer but smarter PVE adversaries), and we keep finding nothing. Incursions (little used compared to regular PVE), Drifters, Mining Operations and burner missions are all variations on the same theme that the new Blood Raider Capital Scheme will be.

It's like the season NPC events. CCP launched Crimson Harvest and people loved it. It was simple, elegant, and rewarding. The NPCs were a bit tougher than normal but weren't too tough to kill at all and didn't get all fancy with what they were doing.

So they kept going, kept 'evolving' them, to the point that Shadow of the Serpent came along and it was a pure overly complicated mess. I found myself thinking "the know CR style content works, WTF are they thinking". Eventually CCP returned to the very simple, elegant and rewarding Crimson harvest Style but they had to run around in circles a bit before they did that.

It's just not hard to understand. PVE should be simple, elegant, and appropriately rewarding for the risks involved. Easily accessible is important too, which is why people still do missions (where there is ONE place they need to dock at) while the same people rarely do Epic Arc missions that drag you around even though they are more rewarding and repeatable every few months.

If people want complicated and unpredictable and dangerous, they will pick PVP as their main focus. Some people who pve think they want this to, but the fact is they probably just don't know what they want.
Renaissance Federation
#83 - 2017-04-20 16:44:12 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


This does not change the fact that most mission runners avoid burner missions. This is the point of what I'm saying, CCP keeps making "fewer but smarter enemies" content when that is really a waste of DEV time.



While burners and incursions have done some good things they have some flaws.

Burners - Each Burner has a very specific ship and fit with only a couple of variations that can defeat that burner, Burners are also lvl 4 only. They still don't require you to fit a point to kill the burner. I've heard you need about 2 bil worth of ships & fittings to be able to do all of the burner missions. Don't have the isk to buy the ship yet or skills to actually win well automatic skip. I've also had people tell me that they don't do burner missions because they like to zen when doing missions, not much ccp can do for those players. The easiest way to kill Burners is to fleet up, but mission runners rarely do that because if you have to fleet up for a mission then its more time effective to just do a different mission. Also mission rewards scale badly once you add more than one ship, they get slightly easier and a lot faster but everyone's isk/hr goes down.

Incursions - Great income, ****** time having to travel to a new location every few days. Very specific ships & fittings that are actually allowed in fleets. Incursions have a top limit in number of players that can participate at any given time, very bad mechanic for a PVE thing. Players hear how good the income is in incursions so they go lookup a fit and skill for it and then maybe acquire the ship & fit then go try to join an incursion fleet. They might get lucky and get invited to a fleet and in short order start running sites. However then someone's gotta take a poop or 3 people time to log so then fleet stands down while they look for 3 new people etc. Or they might get unlucky and after a couple hours trying to get into a fleet they get an invite but they find out they're on the waiting list but its ok they're next in line needed for that ship type so they wait and an hour later the player finally gets to start actually playing the game.

PVE minder players value time to content just as much as income/time. Missions provide near instant time to content! Waiting for a fleet to form is boring in everyone's mind and I expect many pvpers that find themselves waiting for fleets often either do something else with an alt in the meantime or go watch TV or play a different game for the down period.
Renaissance Federation
#84 - 2017-04-20 16:58:38 UTC
Coralas wrote:

I do not expect it to be as exciting as pvp. I expect it to help make the elementary actions of pvp more familiar to non pvp pilots.


I think what you're looking for is being able to or being forced to pve with pvp effective fittings which if you fit some EWAR outside of very specific scenarios you're gimping your PVE capabilities. This is mostly a side effect of PVE ships know what they're going up against and optimize their ships for that. PVP will optimize their fits to catch a certain target type and ignore the others. There's very little CCP could implement to make PVE players want to fit scram/neuts/webs/ecm when all they're doing is shotting red shapes.

Also the mindset is different
you - i'm killing some rats to pay for my vexor that i expect to lose soon while keeping an ear on intel for some fun.
PVE player - i'm killing some rats in the most efficient way i can to be able to buy MOAR STUFF and keep it in my hangar.
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#85 - 2017-04-20 17:37:31 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
This will get me in trouble with the forum curmudgeons, but here's the one thing that will be sure to raise ship prices and increase ship destruction.

Attract more people to the game and give them stuff to do that will keep them interested in staying. I'd like to see 100,000 plus online when I log in. Not the 20,586 that I'm seeing right now.

Mr Epeen Cool


agreed, also gank all the things since everyone is such large fans of ganking

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

#86 - 2017-04-20 17:40:50 UTC
Well go on then! DESTROY STUFF!!! Big smile

Oh, and make sure it is mostly Cerberusses (or is it Cerberi???) and be sure to use lots and lots of missiles destroying named cerberusses (or cerberi, or whatever, u get my point P)
#87 - 2017-04-20 20:33:26 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
(...)
Yes combat PVE is mainly about the isk, but it's also a platform for creativity. CCP's additions to PVE since litterally 2009 have been anti-creativity. There are only a narrow handful of ways with a handful of ships to beat Drifters and Burners and Incursions etc, there are legions of ways to beat missions, complexes and anomalies.


Sonofab... Am I agreeing with you for the second time in two days? Shocked

And it's 100% agreement. The main reason why I spent years doing exactly the same missions (easy job, since none are never added) was because I did them in different ships, with different weapons, different tactics... it was like a jigsaw puzzle, you know how the picture will look but how you assemble the puzzle it's up to you.

Yet for some reason, CCP just develops increasingly complex and demanding content which can be run in one and exactly one way, and once optimized, it will punish any all attempts of creativity with failure. It's the less sandboxy content imaginable: a test with a single correct answer, as most of PvP is, btw.

So I agree. CCP is anti-creativity with PvE. Which just proves how clueless they are about PvE.
Teros Hakomairos
#88 - 2017-04-20 22:32:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Teros Hakomairos
I still can not believe how many people are blinding themselves with an "all is right" and "Eve has not to change" dogma.....

a 180° turnaround has to be made,the players are voting with their feets and some voices here repeat the "there is no problem" mantra....

"a test with only one answer like pvp" ist NOT the soulution....

People are leaving because of TOO MUCH pvp(ganks ect.) not less....

So convert PVE into some kind of "simulated PVP" will only cause MORE people to leave frustrated....
#89 - 2017-04-20 22:37:38 UTC
Teros Hakomairos wrote:
I still can not believe how many people are blinding themselves with an "all is right" and "Eve has not to change" dogma.....

a 180° turnaround has to be made,the players are voting with their feets and some voices here repeat the "there is no problem" mantra....

"a test with only one answer like pvp" ist NOT the soulution....

People are leaving because of TOO MUCH pvp(ganks ect.) not less....

So convert PVE into some kind of "simulated PVP" will only cause MORE people to leave frustrated....



Relevant
#90 - 2017-04-20 22:46:19 UTC
Teros Hakomairos wrote:

So convert PVE into some kind of "simulated PVP" will only cause MORE people to leave frustrated....


Depends a bit on the approach.

Doing C5/6 sites with capital escalations the group way is actually quite interesting - saddened me that increasingly people perfected techniques to streamline it with minimal number of players with minimum group dynamics.

More of Eve PVE should be like that.
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2017-04-21 06:02:03 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Coralas wrote:
Lets go down that rabbit hole and see what can be found.


The entire point is that CCP keeps going down that same rabbit hole (ie "pvp like PVE, fewer but smarter PVE adversaries), and we keep finding nothing. Incursions (little used compared to regular PVE), Drifters, Mining Operations and burner missions are all variations on the same theme that the new Blood Raider Capital Scheme will be.

It's like the season NPC events. CCP launched Crimson Harvest and people loved it. It was simple, elegant, and rewarding. The NPCs were a bit tougher than normal but weren't too tough to kill at all and didn't get all fancy with what they were doing.

So they kept going, kept 'evolving' them, to the point that Shadow of the Serpent came along and it was a pure overly complicated mess. I found myself thinking "the know CR style content works, WTF are they thinking". Eventually CCP returned to the very simple, elegant and rewarding Crimson harvest Style but they had to run around in circles a bit before they did that.



The serpentis event was fine, however the mistakes were (a) too grindingly long (b) bugs at release - which should be lessened with each iteration of events, and the NPCs were dull and predictable mission AI, and ultimately you were best served by only completing one of the event tasks.

The most important part was there was a public can with most of the loot value in it, which made being competitive a useful strategy for income, and advantaged anyone that understands how anom spawning works and anyone that kept track of what had died to know when to spam for the loot.

Quote:


It's just not hard to understand. PVE should be simple, elegant, and appropriately rewarding for the risks involved. Easily accessible is important too, which is why people still do missions (where there is ONE place they need to dock at) while the same people rarely do Epic Arc missions that drag you around even though they are more rewarding and repeatable every few months.

If people want complicated and unpredictable and dangerous, they will pick PVP as their main focus. Some people who pve think they want this to, but the fact is they probably just don't know what they want.


Here is an observation. If I stay still in caldari highsec space for an hour, I'll see like 10 anomoly respawns. Sometimes its hard to complete a den before a couple of refuges and another den has spawned.

If I go look at who is doing the anomolies, its an endless parade of faction cruisers flown by multi year old characters (mostly gilas). Again this is something you can log on during peak and identify yourself, and I'm going to put it out there that the total number of characters actively doing this during peak weekend time is as much as 200, in caldari space alone.

This is a more complicated task than mission running, it involves moving away from base to find the content, a skinnerbox escalation event, going to lowsec to complete the economic cycle and a skinnerbox loot event which requires many events to get income to be steady, and in some cases (den farmers) an end room that is probably as difficult as showtime unless you gate into low with something that fits an MJD. Those people are choosing to do that instead of running L4s.

By the time I add up the people that will do burners, the people that are outright hunting sigs, the people that are farming anomolies whilst they scan for sigs, the people that are just farming anomolies for escalations, and the incursion runners, then I'm starting to think that its possible that even right now, that the majority of combat PVE in highsec might not be the old pool of L4s anymore. Its not trivial to say that it is, and I'd have to go do a great deal of observation or getting CCP to help to even prove that it is.

Therefore I think that your estimates about willingness to perform effort, and about what people want to do for PVE are both aged and anecdotal and might reflect a significant minority, but not necessarily the majority of players, and I think that if the debate continues, its going to have to involve a lot more fact hunting.

Caldari State
#92 - 2017-04-21 16:00:16 UTC
OK, I will do it again (I have done it on another char a long time ago). I will be stupid enough to post something that will be immediately blown up, ridiculed and etc., by Jenn and Co. (By the way Jenn I respect you. A lot. I have read a lot of your posts/replies and I find that you are one of the rare sound mind forum warriors in here)

Stupid not only because it will be ridiculed, but also because, as many have already mentioned in this forum, CCP does not read/care about anything posted here.

First a direct answer (or the most obvious part of it) to the post's main topic:
1. Too much ore is mined in Null. (Try to calculate how much 10 boosted Hulks would get after mining 14 hours/day in an Enormous/Collosal ore site.)
2. New players (mostly Alphas) do not want to serve as cannon fodder and are leaving the game, so they are not buying ships that can be destroyed in either PVE or PvP.
3. Older PVE players (obviously not interested in PvP) have optimized their gameplay as to avoid being ganked/hotdropped. Fewer ships destroyed.
4. Older PvP players are flying in blingy ships with a gang of 5-10-50-100 standing by, on the other side of the cyno, so they are losing fewer ships too.

Now the stupid part: as much as some might want to deny it, Eve is mostly about PvE. There is a certain number of dedicated PvPers, some occasional PvPers and the vast majority of PvE players not interested in PvP at all.

I am one of them. I have been a carebear (a PvPer's swear word), a nullbear - ratting mostly, with occasional exploration. In both roles I have treated the PvP crowd as an annoyance to my gameplay. I have not lost one ship in High or Null Sec to PvPers in my almost one year of dedicated play. I lost ships in PvE though (did not read guides back then).

In High Sec I was making isk to buy the ships I wanted to fly. In Null I made about 20 billion and invested all of them in injectors so that I can decently use the ships I liked to fly.

Back to the point: I keep hearing that Eve is a niche game. I agree with that. The question that CCP might be asking themselves is: "Do we want to keep it "niche", keep losing old players, not acquiring new players and let the game just slowly die?"

Last year I made some suggestions on the forum how to attract more players. The ideas were, of course, blasted, but several months later CCP introduced NPE (probably I was on the same wave as CCP at that time).

The problem is, as Teros Hakomairos put it "CCP is clueless how to create good PVE".Or at least it appears so. After such an elated introduction ("You are a hero"), CCP is falling back to its "Here's a ship (Venture), go f**k yourself!"

I am sure CCP has debated which approach they will adopt:
1. Yebo Lakatosh's: "I'd rather play in -this- EvE with 30k players in peak times, than playing space-WoW with 60k". (Most of which will pay their subscription with in-game money.)
2. Or go the opposite way: "space-WoW with 60k+", and have players who are not interested in accumulating virtual wealth in a dying game, but want to have fun with spaceships.

At the moment it seems that CCPis trying to sit in between these "two chairs", so to say. By now they should see that it is not working.

My one-year subscription is expiring soon and I will not be renewing it. At least not now. Do not ask for my stuff :) (don't have much anyway), as I still hope that this game, with good potential, will survive and get back on its feet as a "space-WoW". I will probably be logging in from time to time as an Alpha.

In the unlikely event that someone at CCP reads/cares:
1. Give new players some interesting, meaningful PVE activities they can do from day 1.
2. Spare them from becoming cannon fodder for the stupid CODE's "kill a newbie, help them stay in the game" and like-minded players interference.
3. Make them feel special. There are lots of games out there that are good at that and make good money.
4. Switch to consentual PvP. (I know, that will be a different Eve, but it has a chance of becoming a prosperous game, not a dying (current) one)
5. Concentrate on developing things in the game that are usable/accessible and fun to new players, not Fortizar's, Azbel's, Raitaru's and the like. (Call me ignorant, dumb or whatever, I still can't see how these are helping me or likes of me have more fun). It helps wealthy old players become wealthier and nothing more. More money to buy PLEX with in-game currency.

OK, now let the s**t rain begin!
#93 - 2017-04-21 16:47:06 UTC
Jordan Rin wrote:
snip


I agree with a lot of what you posted. I'll just point out a couple of areas I disagree with.

1. (Most of which will pay their subscription with in-game money.) - All eve gametime is paid for with real money. Some bought the plex with real funds that you bought with isk. That's just a pet peeve of mine... people may play eve for free, but SOMEONE is paying. A real metric of "eve dying" will be when the cost of plex starts skyrocketing... that would mean a real problem with income for CCP.

2. Consensual PvP. I have no problem with making high-sec PvP more difficult. But to me this is a key feature of eve. You could even add a 3-month "concord insurance plan" on a ship that will cause concord to come 10 times faster in response to attacks on that ship... but there should always still be the danger of ship loss.

Other than that... I mostly agree. I'd like to see a lot more time on more "storyline" type missions to fill in space between the SOE arc and the super high faction standing arcs that exist today.

Perhaps a progression should be:

- Tutorial
- Career Agents
- new faction based frig/destroyer arc
- SOE arc
- new faction based Cruiser/BC arc
- new SOE based BS arc
- existing faction arc
Caldari State
#94 - 2017-04-21 20:23:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Krillus
Jordan Rin wrote:


First a direct answer (or the most obvious part of it) to the post's main topic:
1. Too much ore is mined in Null. (Try to calculate how much 10 boosted Hulks would get after mining 14 hours/day in an Enormous/Collosal ore site.)
2. New players (mostly Alphas) do not want to serve as cannon fodder and are leaving the game, so they are not buying ships that can be destroyed in either PVE or PvP.
3. Older PVE players (obviously not interested in PvP) have optimized their gameplay as to avoid being ganked/hotdropped. Fewer ships destroyed.
4. Older PvP players are flying in blingy ships with a gang of 5-10-50-100 standing by, on the other side of the cyno, so they are losing fewer ships too.


1. Give new players some interesting, meaningful PVE activities they can do from day 1.
2. Spare them from becoming cannon fodder for the stupid CODE's "kill a newbie, help them stay in the game" and like-minded players interference.
3. Make them feel special. There are lots of games out there that are good at that and make good money.
4. Switch to consentual PvP. (I know, that will be a different Eve, but it has a chance of becoming a prosperous game, not a dying (current) one)
5. Concentrate on developing things in the game that are usable/accessible and fun to new players, not Fortizar's, Azbel's, Raitaru's and the like. (Call me ignorant, dumb or whatever, I still can't see how these are helping me or likes of me have more fun). It helps wealthy old players become wealthier and nothing more. More money to buy PLEX with in-game currency.

OK, now let the s**t rain begin!


Most of what you say is true -- been playing 10 years now... anyway, truth is that EVE is a pvp game (yes I know you have heard it before several times) but it is an "old school" PVP game.
Most old timers are in it because of its close realism, action - consequence based in-depth gameplay. the gameplay is so immersive that you pretty much have to treat it like "real life".

^^ above has become the Achilles heal for the developers, any change to that would mean older players leaving. However it does not have to be that way. No new player goes randomly hunting these days hoping to find pvp.. nu uh

CCP needs to board the mordern train a bit, and I say that as an EVE veteran .. I am talking automatic PVP queues , matchmaking based on skp and ship types, mini PVP objective based games that a player can queue for .. yes you still lose your ships when you explode, no forgiveness there. Alliances like red and blue are "trying" to do such things but it would be a lot easier if there was a formal method in place so even new players can queue for and experience some pvp that could be fun instead of being ganked mercilessly in a 0.6..anywayy

Yes it would take a bit of coolness factor and seriousness from the game but cmon.. its time. Almost all games have these things these days, even if its released in antiquated format where you have to sit and wait for your queue in a special warp disabled area filled with rats.... so be it
Teros Hakomairos
#95 - 2017-04-21 22:00:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Teros Hakomairos
Jordan Rin.....

You are kind of naive.....

Do you REALLY think the PVP/gank "community would give up an inch of its so called "PVP game" if they are not forced to?

Their only interest is to keep the status quo alive,a status quo where everyone is a target and where everyone (except PVP) is playing the game "totally wrong".

They will fight against EVERY change of "their" game to a less PVP one.....even suggestions like non pvp flagging are chopped with the biggest carebear club foundable....

In their world the game belongs to PVP and it has to stay this way.....

There are even"suggestions" to make PVE MORE like PVP(the first WRONG step has been taken by CCP with those crappy "flexible missions) and even to DELETE PVE fits from the server so PVE player "have a better chance in PVP"....

So NO PVP player is really interested in a change to less PVP.....

And -btw- who threads a GAME,i don't care which one as "real life" or even thinks this would be necessary,should search for medical help the same day.....

And low has plenty of space for PVP there is no need for that in high...

bottom line....
The Volition Cult
#96 - 2017-04-22 01:13:19 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
manus wrote:
Hey. Prices on ships seem to be collapsing. What if there was more incentives to PVP and/or PVE and take more risk?

I can imagine some kind of challenge mode where you ship can only be fitted with Tech 1 stuff. But its a really hard mission? I dont know. What are your ideas? How can we create more incentives for people to risk their stuff?

-edit- maybe its not an issue
No, it's an issue. Huge numbers of players log in to just collect and build stuff to supply the market. When they find that no one wants to buy their stuff and thus pay for their subscription for their industrial efforts, they will stop logging in.

The answer is simple: get more people logging in and in space doing stuff, especially fighting over stuff. The problem CCP seems to be having is getting there. They are having a real problem implementing compelling conflict drivers and interesting PvE content in recent years. CCP has instead taken the approach to make us all safer and safer, and richer and richer in a seemingly doomed attempt to juice player numbers.

A market collapse is going to be the cause of, or possibly the result of, the max exodus that will signal the end of the game. That said, the market has shown to be pretty resilient, actually surprisingly resistant given how much more ISK is sloshing around these days, so I don't think sagging ship prices herald the end of Eve or anything. However, it will be that way until one day when it is not and the market crashes/PLEX skyrockets and that loss of such a significant motivator of player activity will have massive ramifications for the health of the game.

A lot of PvPers I know have stopped playing because of blob warfare. I know I know sandbox cant limit interaction numbers etc., but people are tired of getting cynoed in what is otherwise a decent fight. Its not about what you are flying anymore its about how many friends you can bring.
#97 - 2017-04-22 01:16:07 UTC
Obvious decline became more obvious with two specific changes...

Force projection and cap tracking nerf.

I agree with limiting force projection, but it has served to completely choke wars and stop the destruction of null harvested minerals. Cap tracking nurf has left supers totally vulnerable to roaming gangs of cruisers that can slowly peal away any hope of fighting free. Let the supers kill more sub caps... even if it's not getting free, make it fun.

Adjustments to both are warranted, but not restoring to previous levels.


There are other complications to restoring the fun, but they are more subjective and harder to implement.
The Volition Cult
#98 - 2017-04-22 01:24:03 UTC
AFK Hauler wrote:
Obvious decline became more obvious with two specific changes...

Force projection and cap tracking nerf.

I agree with limiting force projection, but it has served to completely choke wars and stop the destruction of null harvested minerals. Cap tracking nurf has left supers totally vulnerable to roaming gangs of cruisers that can slowly peal away any hope of fighting free. Let the supers kill more sub caps... even if it's not getting free, make it fun.

Adjustments to both are warranted, but not restoring to previous levels.


There are other complications to restoring the fun, but they are more subjective and harder to implement.

Not just supers, carriers in general. Carriers have been dying to the smallest ships in the game. There is something wrong with that. They've made everything below BC size OP as heck.
#99 - 2017-04-22 01:42:35 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
I am of the belief that if Implants were to be done away with, so that only the loss of a ship was incurred in pvp then more folk would take part in fighting - more pvp = more ship losses = somewhat higher ship prices.

New players (that I speak to) in particular, will probably have implants worth far in excess of any ship they might pvp in. The loss of training speed and the cost of replacing implants worries them more than the cost of lost frigates.

That's a good point! I would love to go out and join a fleet and make some boom happen. BUT I can't afford to replace my implants(no problem now, thank you ganker). I don't mind at all, I kinda wanted to get in PvP, but I'm not willing to really risk more than a cruser. I'm NOT going to risk it plus 50-150mil ISK implants.

I like the 3 character accounts, ISK maker on 1, maybe PvP on 2, maybe hauler or exployer on 3. But I just don't want to mess 3 separate guys, takes more than a year to train a half decent money maker, plus there is always a new skill needed somewhere so you can never really finish.

No cuts, no butts, no coconuts!

Forum alt, unskilled in the ways of pewpew!

Gallente Federation
#100 - 2017-04-22 04:07:13 UTC
Piugattuk wrote:
While it's true that the economy in eve is pushed along by conflicts I also think that the NPC economy while not as dynamic as the player driven economy is largely been ignored to take a greater roll in making both economies move, there is only trade of cheap goods the for the most part don't have any value to players beyond some industrial applications and thats about it.

There's really no 'sink' no reason to buy goods such as carbon, soil, garbage, etc, no reason to hold on to these goods and sell at a later date because the prices don't really fall or rise based upon a better system than time based algorithm that the NPC economy follows, sort of a clock rhythm, if Someone bought all the soil up it would be only a matter of time till the NPC trade system replaced it making the buyer stuck with soil they can't really 'unload' because the NPC economy is a clock based economy, it will always recharge.

The problem also arises that the fat cats of eve sit upon their mountains of ISK and have no place to put their money into, or rather no reason to spend it because they have everything they could possibly need or use, NPC's don't buy ships, modules, etc, nothing except the trade goods, and players have said it before, they don't want NPC's meddling around in the player economy, and that is the problem there, either we should have the NPC's buying ships and modules for their mineral value so that minerals are taken out of the game as much as they are being produced and at the same time have the distruction of NPC ships count as the 'need' so that all the missions, ratting, etc, have an effect on what they are buying, included in that algorithm the addition of the need for carbon, this, and that, etc to effect buy orders by NPC's, the more players play and destroy the more demand is created, the less players play and destroy less then the less value trade goods have, prices for buy orders by NPC's go down, in other words game play feeds itself, then maybe there will be reasons to sink ISK into carbon as an item to hold on to as prices rise and fall based upon players actually playing and destroying stuff (NPC), and not just player wars.

"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen. Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher. Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen." (Ein Single)

"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind." (Einer, dem es egal ist)

Forum Jump