These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Sinking minerals: is PvP what makes the EVE economy go round?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Solecist Project
#41 - 2015-05-03 14:10:25 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Your mistake is assuming that PvP players only do PvP, they know how the other bits of the game work and see them as extensions of their traditional PvP activities.
I see this all the time.

For some reason carebears believe that ...
... because they only carebear ...
... combat oriented players only do that.

From the same root grows the silly idea that ...
... without carebears ...
... we'd have no ships.


This is one of the best points to show how Ignorance is dictating their views.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Otso Bakarti
Doomheim
#42 - 2015-05-03 14:42:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Otso Bakarti
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
CCP define Eve as a PvP game, IIRC one of the cornerstones of it is that "someone can ruin your day at any time".
"Mining is the backbone of EVE" -1st Line of the Industrial Tutorial-

What a load of crap. Good try. It looks like you're actually making an argument here. However, using every method and tactic I said you would to further an argument against what I said? It's proof I'm correct. You don't understand the dynamics of the situation. You have an agenda.

There just isn't anything that can be said!
Black Pedro
Mine.
#43 - 2015-05-03 15:02:23 UTC
Otso Bakarti wrote:
What a load of crap. Good try. It looks like you're actually making an argument here. However, using every method and tactic I said you would to further an argument against what I said? It's proof I'm correct. You don't understand the dynamics of the situation. You have an agenda.


From the New Pilot FAQ:

CCP wrote:
7 PVP (PLAYER VERSUS PLAYER)
The essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox
environment. As has been mentioned in previous sections any player can
engage another player at any time in any place.


and:

CCP wrote:

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?
No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be
completely avoided.


Eve was conceived of as a single-universe, sandbox PvP game. It it a complex game where you can do many things, but at its core it is a competitive PvP game.

That is not crap. That is the truth and explicitly what CCP says.


The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Otso Bakarti
Doomheim
#44 - 2015-05-03 15:21:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Otso Bakarti
Black Pedro wrote:
Otso Bakarti wrote:
What a load of crap. Good try. It looks like you're actually making an argument here. However, using every method and tactic I said you would to further an argument against what I said? It's proof I'm correct. You don't understand the dynamics of the situation. You have an agenda.


From the New Pilot FAQ:

CCP wrote:
7 PVP (PLAYER VERSUS PLAYER)
The essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox
environment. As has been mentioned in previous sections any player can
engage another player at any time in any place.


and:

CCP wrote:

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?
No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be
completely avoided.


Eve was conceived of as a single-universe, sandbox PvP game. It it a complex game where you can do many things, but at its core it is a competitive PvP game.

That is not crap. That is the truth and explicitly what CCP says.



The "crap" was his lengthy parsing of my post which did nothing to further any point. The alteration in CCP's thinking, kowtowing to a minority mob mentality is a done deal. The massive migration of senior players was completed two years ago. The result is, the two "greatest alliances" created a stagnated map. Such are the glories of the PvP-ers and their unqualfied game improvement. Oh, but that will be "fixed" in June.

There just isn't anything that can be said!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#45 - 2015-05-03 15:55:28 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
From keeping a casual eye on reddit, at least 3 supercarriers have been destroyed this week.

A quick Flyby of Mr Ronuken's extremely useful website gives the material cost of a Nyx as 22.2 billion ISK. If you're sufficiently motivated, you could use it and zkillboard to get a reasonable order-of-magnitude estimate of how big a mineral sink PvP is.

Let's keep our maths easy and say that those 3 ships alone, together with their associated capital modules, fighters/fighter bombers &c, cost of ice products used to move the materiels, running the POS to build them, etc etc, altogether represent 70 billion ISK worth of minerals.

The highest buy price for a scourge cruise missile in Jita is right now 178 ISK

To give that a perspective, the loss of those 3 supercarriers destroyed an equivalent mineral value of 400 million cruise missiles.

Now looking at my mission CNR, it fires 8 CMLs every 8.2 seconds. Let's just call it 1 per second, shall we? Taking downtime into account, there are near as dambit 600k playable seconds per week in EVE. Let's assume that our PvE player plays for 60,000 of them and is actually shooting for 50,000 of those seconds (they are very industrious players!). So they use 50k CMLs each week.

Just those 3 ships lost this week, never mind the dozens of carriers, even more dozens of dreads and thousands of subcaps lost, used as many minerals as eight thousand highly active PvEers can fire off, (and that's assuming they're using a rather greedy ship like a CNR, not just AFKtars, laser boats, etc.

It's an interesting investigation. I think it's reasonable to conclude that PvE activy consumes a non-trivial amount of minerals, but that amount is much less than what is used to replace PvP losses.


I'd rather use server data on HP/ammo converted to ammo x mineral. ISK cost always includes other costs not related to minerals (everything related to manufacturing costs, plus items with zero mineral cost like salvage).

I like napkin calculations, but ISK does not correlate to mineral usage.



I await your results with interest. it's your investigation and if you want to work out better figues than my quick and dirty napkin math can provide, I'll be fascinated to see both the numbers and the results of you doing something for yourself instead of trying to complain that other people aren't doing it for you in just the way you want.


Don't worry, I'll write to CCP Quant to check whether the data exist. Please be kind to correct me if there's a better Dev to ask about this. Cool


CCP Quant is probably a good dev to ask. You could also try contacting a CSM rep for this. I suggest Steve.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#46 - 2015-05-03 16:02:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Epeen
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:


Disclaimer: I am not suggesting to get rid of PvP. But maybe CCP should start looking at the role of PvE in the economy with different eyes... or just start looking at it AT ALL.


I can't disagree.

CCP has touted over and over that the 'holy trinity' (gather/build/destroy) is the fuel that runs the engine that is EVE Online.

As I see it from my perspective, this is way out of balance right now. Too much of the first two and not enough of the third. Ship destruction through PVP is sorely lacking in the equation for whatever reasons and has been for some time. One of these reasons is most certainly the natural aversion to risk that most combat pilots have. They become too invested in KB stats and ignore the fun to be had in just blowing stuff up and getting blown up.

There are three options. Reduce mineral yield, raise the cost of building, or provide more avenues for destruction. With a decades worth of stockpiled minerals and ships sitting in hangars all over New Eden, the only viable solution is the last one. More destruction.

Player on player ship destruction has hit its peak, in my opinion. It would be great to see more of it. A lot more of it. But without a fundamental change in the human condition, we won't. As much as we tell ourselves this is a game, deep down we don't want to lose a ship. We're just wired that way. So we avoid combat unless it's a sure thing. And there is simply not enough sure things to allow destruction to keep up with the pace of construction.

One option is to take a look at expanding the PVE side of the game. Rework it though. Make it an actual risky venture and not a wallet filler for the perceived step up into PVP combat. That doesn't work. If it did, we'd not be in this situation. It needs to be a thing unto itself. A risky thing requiring PVP fits and a real need to be at the keyboard.

One of the fundamental errors was creating two different games in one. Until that is rectified we will continue to see stagnation. How can you PVP when you've been trained to PVE? It's like trying to play Chess and Checkers on the same board. It doesn't work. Once PVE becomes a PVP game with bots instead of a way to make ISK while AFK, I think we'll see not only more destruction, but more inclination for people who start in PVE to become more likely to fight other players. And the more we'll see some fun back in the game while bringing back balance to the gather/build/destroy equation.

Mr Epeen Cool
Luna Arindale
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#47 - 2015-05-03 16:20:12 UTC
Fun fact, pvp doesn't always mean shooting other players. Of course people think that PvP means flying around blipping every person they come across, and they aren't wrong either. Industry is a very pvp centric profession in the eve sandbox, you have to compete for prices and volume. In many ways it directly parallels the global markets in the world. But it is also pvp just not shooting ships.

In many ways I have no idea what the OP was trying to prove, or point out. I see more conflict occurring because of the new sov system, more ships being destroyed, more ammo being replaced and used. If the OP was trying to suggest that it would ruin Industry prices then the OP clearly has no idea how much backbone there is, back architecture, to the core professions of eve which are mining and production of the goods needed to shoot people.

But hey this is a sandbox, just relax and take a few breaths.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#48 - 2015-05-03 16:24:21 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:


Disclaimer: I am not suggesting to get rid of PvP. But maybe CCP should start looking at the role of PvE in the economy with different eyes... or just start looking at it AT ALL.


I can't disagree.

CCP has touted over and over that the 'holy trinity' (gather/build/destroy) is the fuel that runs the engine that is EVE Online.

As I see it from my perspective, this is way out of balance right now. Too much of the first two and not enough of the third. Ship destruction through PVP is sorely lacking in the equation for whatever reasons and has been for some time. One of these reasons is most certainly the natural aversion to risk that most combat pilots have. They become too invested in KB stats and ignore the fun to be had in just blowing stuff up and getting blown up.

There are three options. Reduce mineral yield, raise the cost of building, or provide more avenues for destruction. With a decades worth of stockpiled minerals and ships sitting in hangars all over New Eden, the only viable solution is the last one. More destruction.

Player on player ship destruction has hit its peak, in my opinion. It would be great to see more of it. A lot more of it. But without a fundamental change in the human condition, we won't. As much as we tell ourselves this is a game, deep down we don't want to lose a ship. We're just wired that way. So we avoid combat unless it's a sure thing. And there is simply not enough sure things to allow destruction to keep up with the pace of construction.

One option is too take a look at expanding the PVE side of the game. Rework it though. Make it an actual risky venture and not a wallet filler for the perceived step up into PVP combat. That doesn't work. If it did, we'd not be in this situation. It needs to be a thing unto itself. A risky thing requiring PVP fits and a real need to be at the keyboard.

One of the fundamental errors was creating two different games in one. Until that is rectified we will continue to see stagnation. How can you PVP when you've been trained to PVE? It's like trying to play Chess and Checkers on the same board. It doesn't work. Once PVE becomes a PVP game with bots instead of a way to make ISK while AFK, I think we'll see not only more destruction, but more inclination for people who start in PVE to become more likely to fight other players. And the more we'll see some fun back in the game while bringing back balance to the gather/build/destroy equation.

Mr Epeen Cool


"Pure" PvP games have a limited lifespan as they split every new player into either a winner or a loser. Losers quit the game (nobody pays for losing) and winners become better at winning, until new players stand no chance of winning and so every new player becomes a loser and quits. Then the old players grow bored of easy wins and/or too afraid of losing against better players and they quit too, and then the game dies.

EVE lasted 12 years because of PvE, not PvP. If you ask some people, they'll tell you that EVE survived 12 years in spite of PvP...

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Hipqo
Tyde8
#49 - 2015-05-03 16:31:10 UTC
Can we get a TL:DR on the TL:DR??
Its to long....

A life is best lived, to not step into your grave in a well preserved body. Instead, to slide in side ways, all battered and bruised, screamming, "Holy SH**! What a ride!"
Otso Bakarti
Doomheim
#50 - 2015-05-03 16:41:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Otso Bakarti
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
"Pure" PvP games have a limited lifespan as they split every new player into either a winner or a loser. Losers quit the game (nobody pays for losing) and winners become better at winning, until new players stand no chance of winning and so every new player becomes a loser and quits. Then the old players grow bored of easy wins and/or too afraid of losing against better players and they quit too, and then the game dies.

EVE lasted 12 years because of PvE, not PvP. If you ask some people, they'll tell you that EVE survived 12 years in spite of PvP...

If you really want to understand the picture, this tells it well. If you don't like what you see, meh. An objective reading of the facts is what it is. Touting an agenda and creating your own reality....whatever.

I have to claim it seems dubious to assert one knows how many ships have been destroyed in relation to all the other game dynamics, to diagnose this thing...if there is a thing to diagnose. I will say the most vocal have been given what they want, and they keep coming back saying it's not what they want. As I've said, they've managed to stagnate the map in their great PvP-ishness.

What I've failed to say this time around is, there is NO true PvP game as MMOs aren't PvP models. The great unsaid is, the true PvP format is the FPS. Why so-called rabid PvP-ers are in this environment trying to get their Ya Yas out, instead of in a legitimate FPS situation tends to look suspiciously like, you can't gank anyone in an FPS. Which means these PvP-ers we have here....they aren't really PvP-ers. That's why I call them gankers. Their presence and din distorts this reality. We wind up discussing everything but EVE. (We wind up discussing them, actually. And, there's no there there.)

This model lends itself well to its original intent. Corporations claim space, and begin enterprises - research/production/mining/marketing. They grow. Others around them grow. Interests begin to overlap, then clash. Resources become the point of contention, as well as markets. Large corporate warfare results. Instead, we have "rental", brought to us by the ones who have laden this forum most heavily with the BS verbiage of "creating content" and "PvP". There's actually a treaty to control hostility to ensure "profitability." That is the most carebear thing I ever heard of. But, the two doing it have mighty warrior reputations.

It doesn't take a weatherman to see which way the wind blows.

There just isn't anything that can be said!
Minmatar Citizen 534612187
Citizen Corp.
#51 - 2015-05-03 18:37:09 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai, this is an excellent post. I don't understand why there seems to be this war between people who like PvE and people who like PvP. You've presented a sound argument and sound methods of testing it; that's it. That should be embraced and encouraged.

I would suggest one thing, though: Stop posting responses to most of the people in this thread. It's successfully taken what I thought to be a pretty solid post/hypothesis and bastardized it, turning this thread into another... kind of nonsensical political debate, I guess. Imagine if, when trying to formulate some point—someone objectively stated a hypothesis and provided methods of testing it.

We should make an EVE Science group.
Solecist Project
#52 - 2015-05-03 19:25:26 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:


Disclaimer: I am not suggesting to get rid of PvP. But maybe CCP should start looking at the role of PvE in the economy with different eyes... or just start looking at it AT ALL.


I can't disagree.

CCP has touted over and over that the 'holy trinity' (gather/build/destroy) is the fuel that runs the engine that is EVE Online.

As I see it from my perspective, this is way out of balance right now. Too much of the first two and not enough of the third. Ship destruction through PVP is sorely lacking in the equation for whatever reasons and has been for some time. One of these reasons is most certainly the natural aversion to risk that most combat pilots have. They become too invested in KB stats and ignore the fun to be had in just blowing stuff up and getting blown up.

There are three options. Reduce mineral yield, raise the cost of building, or provide more avenues for destruction. With a decades worth of stockpiled minerals and ships sitting in hangars all over New Eden, the only viable solution is the last one. More destruction.

Player on player ship destruction has hit its peak, in my opinion. It would be great to see more of it. A lot more of it. But without a fundamental change in the human condition, we won't. As much as we tell ourselves this is a game, deep down we don't want to lose a ship. We're just wired that way. So we avoid combat unless it's a sure thing. And there is simply not enough sure things to allow destruction to keep up with the pace of construction.

One option is too take a look at expanding the PVE side of the game. Rework it though. Make it an actual risky venture and not a wallet filler for the perceived step up into PVP combat. That doesn't work. If it did, we'd not be in this situation. It needs to be a thing unto itself. A risky thing requiring PVP fits and a real need to be at the keyboard.

One of the fundamental errors was creating two different games in one. Until that is rectified we will continue to see stagnation. How can you PVP when you've been trained to PVE? It's like trying to play Chess and Checkers on the same board. It doesn't work. Once PVE becomes a PVP game with bots instead of a way to make ISK while AFK, I think we'll see not only more destruction, but more inclination for people who start in PVE to become more likely to fight other players. And the more we'll see some fun back in the game while bringing back balance to the gather/build/destroy equation.

Mr Epeen Cool


"Pure" PvP games have a limited lifespan as they split every new player into either a winner or a loser. Losers quit the game (nobody pays for losing) and winners become better at winning, until new players stand no chance of winning and so every new player becomes a loser and quits. Then the old players grow bored of easy wins and/or too afraid of losing against better players and they quit too, and then the game dies.

EVE lasted 12 years because of PvE, not PvP. If you ask some people, they'll tell you that EVE survived 12 years in spite of PvP...



This is a myth. It's being spread by people like you.
All I know. Even reallife.

It's nuts.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#53 - 2015-05-03 19:36:47 UTC
Minmatar Citizen 534612187 wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai, this is an excellent post. I don't understand why there seems to be this war between people who like PvE and people who like PvP. You've presented a sound argument and sound methods of testing it; that's it. That should be embraced and encouraged.

I would suggest one thing, though: Stop posting responses to most of the people in this thread. It's successfully taken what I thought to be a pretty solid post/hypothesis and bastardized it, turning this thread into another... kind of nonsensical political debate, I guess. Imagine if, when trying to formulate some point—someone objectively stated a hypothesis and provided methods of testing it.

We should make an EVE Science group.


Well, I already emailed to CCP Quant to check whether there's solid data.

As for the "war", it's just conservatism and minmaxing. "Don't take my content and gimme more", which for PvP means "make other players easier to kill and gimme more chances to kill them" and for PvErs mean "gimme more NPCs to kill and keep PvPrs away".

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#54 - 2015-05-03 19:41:24 UTC
As a member of an actual lo sec pvp alliance, I can safely say that we are involved in lots of non-PVP activities too. For example, building capital ships for sale on the open market.

The premise of this thread is the false dichotomy that PVP players never do anything but PVP.

Besides, once you remove your blinders and look at the big picture you'll see things like R32 and R64 moons in lo sec (and nullsec too I'm sure) being highly valued commodities. Go reinforce an R64 mining POS and see what happens when income is threatened. Don't expect a good fight though, since in that situation it only makes sense to take the shortest, least expensive, path to victory.

So is an R64 moon a PVP or PVE asset? Well, it's kind of both.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Cataca
Aspiring Nomads
#55 - 2015-05-03 19:46:35 UTC
The thing about pvp is that its a relative poor income enviroment, sure, you'll loot the ocassional faction mod, but you'll never get rich doing it. Most pvpers will pve to keep up with their isk demands for replacements, but usually not enough to generate isk more than is needed to replace their ships.

Pure pve just prints isk, sure, it increases mineral demand but with a very isk rich enviroment comes inflation. There were always isk printing mechanics in eve, but the market over the years has been rather stable despite of it. This simply means that the current combination of pvp and pve was just enough to keep inflation at bay.

That doesnt mean that you need, say a pvper for every pve player to keep the market from exploding, but a heavily lopsided mix of that will inadvertedly either oversaturate or deplete the market, both of which are bad for the game.

Now, as for making pve more engaging, i dont see anything wrong with that at all. But how exactly are you going to do that? Increased danger to ships? More spawns? High risk enviroment? Dynamic missions?

More players and more risk is always a good idea, and anything is better than level 4 missions. (dont even try to argue that they are fun in their current iteration)
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#56 - 2015-05-03 19:53:42 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:


Disclaimer: I am not suggesting to get rid of PvP. But maybe CCP should start looking at the role of PvE in the economy with different eyes... or just start looking at it AT ALL.


I can't disagree.

CCP has touted over and over that the 'holy trinity' (gather/build/destroy) is the fuel that runs the engine that is EVE Online.

As I see it from my perspective, this is way out of balance right now. Too much of the first two and not enough of the third. Ship destruction through PVP is sorely lacking in the equation for whatever reasons and has been for some time. One of these reasons is most certainly the natural aversion to risk that most combat pilots have. They become too invested in KB stats and ignore the fun to be had in just blowing stuff up and getting blown up.

There are three options. Reduce mineral yield, raise the cost of building, or provide more avenues for destruction. With a decades worth of stockpiled minerals and ships sitting in hangars all over New Eden, the only viable solution is the last one. More destruction.

Player on player ship destruction has hit its peak, in my opinion. It would be great to see more of it. A lot more of it. But without a fundamental change in the human condition, we won't. As much as we tell ourselves this is a game, deep down we don't want to lose a ship. We're just wired that way. So we avoid combat unless it's a sure thing. And there is simply not enough sure things to allow destruction to keep up with the pace of construction.

One option is too take a look at expanding the PVE side of the game. Rework it though. Make it an actual risky venture and not a wallet filler for the perceived step up into PVP combat. That doesn't work. If it did, we'd not be in this situation. It needs to be a thing unto itself. A risky thing requiring PVP fits and a real need to be at the keyboard.

One of the fundamental errors was creating two different games in one. Until that is rectified we will continue to see stagnation. How can you PVP when you've been trained to PVE? It's like trying to play Chess and Checkers on the same board. It doesn't work. Once PVE becomes a PVP game with bots instead of a way to make ISK while AFK, I think we'll see not only more destruction, but more inclination for people who start in PVE to become more likely to fight other players. And the more we'll see some fun back in the game while bringing back balance to the gather/build/destroy equation.

Mr Epeen Cool


"Pure" PvP games have a limited lifespan as they split every new player into either a winner or a loser. Losers quit the game (nobody pays for losing) and winners become better at winning, until new players stand no chance of winning and so every new player becomes a loser and quits. Then the old players grow bored of easy wins and/or too afraid of losing against better players and they quit too, and then the game dies.

EVE lasted 12 years because of PvE, not PvP. If you ask some people, they'll tell you that EVE survived 12 years in spite of PvP...



This is a myth. It's being spread by people like you.
All I know. Even reallife.

It's nuts.


You should bear in mind the differences between life and videogames. Notoriously, you can quit a videogame if you don't like it, and can quit without throwing the baby with the bath water.

I've quit EVE a few times. Each time I've come back to it to do what I liked to do, and each time I have ignored what I don't like to do.

I know why I play EVE. And I will play it as long as it exists. Of course, I would like a bigger, better game for me. Who doesn't wants more of what he likes?

In the larger scheme of things, additional NPCs are way more affordable than additional players. Computers, unlike people, never grow tired of losing...

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#57 - 2015-05-03 19:54:26 UTC
Cataca wrote:

Now, as for making pve more engaging, i dont see anything wrong with that at all. But how exactly are you going to do that? Increased danger to ships? More spawns? High risk enviroment? Dynamic missions?


For a start, random missions would be nice. Freelancer / X3 had the right idea with having patterns for missions that varied each time. They would be of similar difficulty within a level, but could become unexpectedly difficult if the dice roll wrong. You shouldn't be able to just look up rooms, spawns, damage types and resists in a table and be at 0 risk in the mission.

I think burners are the right direction. Fewer spawns of more realistically fit ships. Ideally I'd like to see the massive waves of enemies in level 4s and 5s replaced by a handful of realistically fit and skilled PVP ships (with much higher bounties and better loot tables to compensate).

This also serves to give a realistic intro to PVP. Currently PVP combat and PVE combat are (mostly, maybe minus wormholes and incursions) worlds apart and assumptions that work great in one get you killed in the other.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#58 - 2015-05-03 20:07:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Cataca wrote:
The thing about pvp is that its a relative poor income enviroment, sure, you'll loot the ocassional faction mod, but you'll never get rich doing it. Most pvpers will pve to keep up with their isk demands for replacements, but usually not enough to generate isk more than is needed to replace their ships.

Pure pve just prints isk, sure, it increases mineral demand but with a very isk rich enviroment comes inflation. There were always isk printing mechanics in eve, but the market over the years has been rather stable despite of it. This simply means that the current combination of pvp and pve was just enough to keep inflation at bay.

That doesnt mean that you need, say a pvper for every pve player to keep the market from exploding, but a heavily lopsided mix of that will inadvertedly either oversaturate or deplete the market, both of which are bad for the game.

Now, as for making pve more engaging, i dont see anything wrong with that at all. But how exactly are you going to do that? Increased danger to ships? More spawns? High risk enviroment? Dynamic missions?

More players and more risk is always a good idea, and anything is better than level 4 missions. (dont even try to argue that they are fun in their current iteration)


How you make PvE more engaging? By letting players control it. My favorite approch (and one which haves the advantage that CCP already did it) it's collectible card games.

Players could "build a deck" of NPCs by PvEing for them, then use those NPCs to generate missions which, if performed succesfully, will hurt the NPCs of other player. Missions are assigned randomly so nobody can farm his own missions and they're offered in a open "mercenary" market so players who don't play the metagame can enjoy new content too. Higher grade NPCs, accessible only through specila missions from appropiate NPCs with enough "gratitude", can affect directly players who didn't bother to build a minimal defense line of friendly NPCs.

That, bear in mind, without removing the current PvE, rather adding new missions with each release so PvErs can explore them and write the guides for resolving them.

It only takes the will and the understanding that retaining that 62% who doesn't buys PvP is the actual key to the survival of EVE and CCP... and all the noisiy spoiled hyperactive PvP children. P

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#59 - 2015-05-03 20:19:42 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
Cataca wrote:

Now, as for making pve more engaging, i dont see anything wrong with that at all. But how exactly are you going to do that? Increased danger to ships? More spawns? High risk enviroment? Dynamic missions?


For a start, random missions would be nice. Freelancer / X3 had the right idea with having patterns for missions that varied each time. They would be of similar difficulty within a level, but could become unexpectedly difficult if the dice roll wrong. You shouldn't be able to just look up rooms, spawns, damage types and resists in a table and be at 0 risk in the mission.

I think burners are the right direction. Fewer spawns of more realistically fit ships. Ideally I'd like to see the massive waves of enemies in level 4s and 5s replaced by a handful of realistically fit and skilled PVP ships (with much higher bounties and better loot tables to compensate).

This also serves to give a realistic intro to PVP. Currently PVP combat and PVE combat are (mostly, maybe minus wormholes and incursions) worlds apart and assumptions that work great in one get you killed in the other.



Burner missions are a good wrong move. It's a good move because they are challenging, but it's wrong because they are rich man's toys. "Wanna learn PvP? Learn first to complete PvE missions where each failure sets you back by 180 million ISK" is not a very sensible approach, but !!CCP!!

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Adunh Slavy
#60 - 2015-05-03 20:26:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Adunh Slavy
Yes PVP consumes minerals and a lot of them. Yes ammo consumes minerals, but not as much as ships going boom. No they are not the only things that make the eve economy go round. Yes eve needs more consumables, lots more, though they do not have to be only minerals.

The eve economy, despite its size, is rather simplistic. It is broad but has little depth.


  • There is not a fully expressed division of labor across all of the possible resources.
  • Specialization is very simplistic and rather easily obtained.
  • There is a tiny capital market that is hardly worth mention.
  • There isn't much room for expressions of wealth.
  • There is zero room for true research except in the meta space.


There's more but bittervetitus says, whatever.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt