These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#81 - 2015-05-04 06:36:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Dots wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


The OP is not discussing ISK sources/sinks, but mineral source/sinks.


Mineral source/sink is an irrelevant metric. Ores respawn infinitely. One can't discuss the market without talking about flow of ISK.

Edit: Just to be clear, Ish has presented some kind of argument about mineral procurement and destruction. She hasn't demonstrated why this metric is important at all when everything she mentions can be reduced to ISK and time.


Irrelevant? No amount of ISK can manufacture minerals out of thin air, but with minerals, you can farm NPCs for ISK.

And very notoriously, CCP thiks that there is something wrong with minerals since CCP Fozzie applied the second aritficial boost to nullsec mining in a few months. *Somehting* is wrong, and as a miner I have a few clues on it.

Admittedly the whole mineral thing looked better in the morning than yesterday afternoon -likely the data will show that ships totally ROTFLstomp ammunition as a mineral sink.

That doesn't changes that PvE could absorb more mineral sinking by the methods I suggested, in the event that PvP failed to destroy enough minerals.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Black Pedro
Mine.
#82 - 2015-05-04 06:49:38 UTC
Cataca wrote:
You cant force players to do something they dont want to do (or think they dont want to do). You can tell players to go to a pvp enviroment to enjoy better pve content all day every day, but the content there is not better either. Its a much riskier enviroment and the same boring missions (plexes/sleeper sites/incursions are not much better). I dont blame anyone not doing that.

Lets face it, pve content is utter crap in eve. High risk enviroments makes it more fun and bearable for some, but for the rest that absolutely want to stay in their highsec fortress of solitude, you cant just sandbox some PvE content yourself.

PvP is Sandbox, Market is Sandbox, PvE is a content framework provided by CCP. If CCP makes better, healthier pve content that somewhat resembles a PVP enviroment, maybe some people will even switch and provide you with more pew. win/win.
And dont tell me you dont secretly wish that pve content would be somewhat better.

Of course better PvE content would be better, but that is not what this game is about. When looking at developing it, you quickly run into several problems. First, solo grinding of missions is the opposite of the vision of Eve, articulated by CCP Seagull as a player-driven universe where players can make their own stories. I am sure missions can be made more social which would be a good thing, but that is not the type of new content you seem to be asking for.

Second, more related to this thread is the danger that would do to the economy. If everyone is grinding missions in safety in highsec, nothing ever gets blown up. You have run-away inflation and no reason for anyone to risk anything. There is a reason CCP put the most "end game" PvE content outside of highsec. It is so that players would actually have to take a risk and expose themselves to attack if they want to pursue it, providing content for other players and increasing the rate of destruction.

I guess PvE content could be made more risky, so that players actually lose ships on a regular basis to balance the PvE rewards flooding into the economy, but that would be incredibly difficult to tune and these same risk-averse players who are too cautious to ever leave highsec will not run it. They play Eve as a traditional, linear MMO and so they want victory and the maximum ISK/hour at the end of the day. They do not actually want the challenge of more life-like AI, or random missions because that challenge comes with the risk of loss and they do not like losing ships. They will just stay in the traditional missions, grinding away at saving the Damsel for the 100th time, just to watch their ISK counter go up.

If people want to grind missions for no greater reason, they can, just like they can shoot rocks forever just to watch some number go up and never do anything else. But CCPs numbers show that these people do not stay nearly as long with the game nor is that what gets people excited to join the game in the first place. Therefore, Eve should not be balanced around (or developed for) these outlier players, and in fact more mechanisms should be in place to actively discourage new players away from these so-called "careers". Eve is designed around PvP conflict and player interaction, and the PvE has always just been something to fight over and gate resource entry into the universe.

If you want to make PvE so that it consumes more minerals, just make it more risky in highsec. Remove gates so that gankers can warp in more easily or have it so that Drifters randomly drop in from time-to-time and Doomsday your battleship (or your Skiff) if you are not paying attention. If you just do it with consumables, it is essentially just a tax on mission runners/ratters that means more of their income goes to miners to cover costs. I am not sure that makes the game better in any way, nor would it be sufficient to sink all those minerals.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#83 - 2015-05-04 06:53:21 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:

"Pure" PvP games have a limited lifespan as they split every new player into either a winner or a loser.


Yeah, just like Poker, that game that nobody plays anymore. Roll


Now take a deep breath and try to find a difference between gambling and individual contact sports...

How does a boxer win? With a lucky draw? Or by being better than his opponent in terms of attack, defense and endurance?

What's the difference between a sprinter and a runner? How many sprinters are, compared to how many runners?

Sprinting is PvP. Either you're the fastest or you lose. Not the most popular sport, is it?
Running is PvE. Your opponents are fatigue and the environment. In the longest races, finishing is winning. Tens of thousands gather to face the challenge.

People hates losing. But they bloody love a challenge.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#84 - 2015-05-04 07:15:38 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:

"Pure" PvP games have a limited lifespan as they split every new player into either a winner or a loser.


Yeah, just like Poker, that game that nobody plays anymore. Roll


Now take a deep breath and try to find a difference between gambling and individual contact sports...

How does a boxer win? With a lucky draw? Or by being better than his opponent in terms of attack, defense and endurance?


By keeping both eyes open and using both hands Blink

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Solecist Project
#85 - 2015-05-04 07:19:48 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
But they bloody love a challenge.
If that was true for everyone, PvE wouldn't even exist.
Because the last thing PvE ever is ... is challenging.

Especially compared to competing with other players.

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

13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#86 - 2015-05-04 09:09:10 UTC
I'm here to tell you that the short answer is yes. Sure, people can be bad at the game and get blown up by rats, but by and far the biggest isk sink is PVP. If people never lost ships, demand plummets and then you're selling a magnate for 10,000 isk.

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices

Black Pedro
Mine.
#87 - 2015-05-04 11:15:59 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:

"Pure" PvP games have a limited lifespan as they split every new player into either a winner or a loser.


Yeah, just like Poker, that game that nobody plays anymore. Roll


Now take a deep breath and try to find a difference between gambling and individual contact sports...

How does a boxer win? With a lucky draw? Or by being better than his opponent in terms of attack, defense and endurance?

What's the difference between a sprinter and a runner? How many sprinters are, compared to how many runners?

Sprinting is PvP. Either you're the fastest or you lose. Not the most popular sport, is it?
Running is PvE. Your opponents are fatigue and the environment. In the longest races, finishing is winning. Tens of thousands gather to face the challenge.

People hates losing. But they bloody love a challenge.

Playing a game without the the chance of losing isn't really playing a game at all.

If you don't want to lose, perhaps you shouldn't enter the sprinting contest. Eve is a competitive, PvP sandbox game, not a Sunday run in the park. Instead of spending your time arguing with the race officials that they should change the rules to suit you, you should use that energy to find a game that suits you better. There are plenty of other games out there where you can "challenge" yourself to do things without the risk of losing to other players. Eve just happens to not be one of them.

Unfortunately for you, the meaningfulness and complexity of the Eve economy comes from the fact (almost) everything can be blown up and you are never safe to other players. Without PvP, the economy would collapse, and without the economy, PvP would also be much less meaningful and interesting. The two are intrinsically linked and need each other. That is a major ingredient in the special sauce that is Eve.

Time to grow up. If you can't handle losing you probably shouldn't be playing a game built on loss and destruction.



Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#88 - 2015-05-04 11:47:51 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:

Now take a deep breath and try to find a difference between gambling and individual contact sports...


Take a minute, and try to realize you've been outmaneuvered.

"Pure" PvP games, the games with winners and losers? Are the most popular and long standing games and sports in the history of humankind.

What do you think the Olympic Games are? I mean, besides the oldest sporting event in the world. They are competitive, you are competing against other people.

It seems to me like you're bemoaning the fact that you're allowed to lose at all. If so, then you are very much playing the wrong game, Chunks.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Cataca
Aspiring Nomads
#89 - 2015-05-04 11:50:18 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
snip


It really doesnt matter what you think this game is, or how it is "meant to be played" or how you think the developers "intended the game to be".

This game is a sandbox, and people will play it however they damn please. If it is their thing to play in their hisec fortress of solitude, let them. Abysmal PvE content is not helping anyone tho.

Because at the end of the day, the numbers of CCP show us one thing, People start with PvE and quit. If there was some thing you could strive to do, in your highsec fortress of solitude, they wouldnt. If that content somehow eased people into a more pvp(ish) enviroment, and players realize how much fun it is, dont you think that people would start pew pew ing?

If you made those missions hard, high risk (ships get blown up) and the reward would be faction modules (no isk faucet) it would be completely healthy for the game. Maybe make faction mods a bit cheaper, but far from detrimental to the market.

I also dont quite understand why you'd care how others play in their sandbox. You might not need PvE players (you do need pve to support your pew tho) but you certainly need miners. Also, a certain amount of isk needs to be in the market to keep things healthy. That keeps your crap cheap, after all.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#90 - 2015-05-04 11:55:35 UTC
Cataca wrote:
If it is their thing to play in their hisec fortress of solitude, let them.


No. As you said, it's a sandbox. If I feel like shooting them, then I get to do so.

This is a sandbox. Not a single player game.

You do not get to be alone, and burying your head in the sand to pretend like you are can and should have consequences.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Cataca
Aspiring Nomads
#91 - 2015-05-04 12:14:57 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Cataca wrote:
If it is their thing to play in their hisec fortress of solitude, let them.


No. As you said, it's a sandbox. If I feel like shooting them, then I get to do so.

This is a sandbox. Not a single player game.

You do not get to be alone, and burying your head in the sand to pretend like you are can and should have consequences.


I said nothing about you not beeing able to gank them.
Solecist Project
#92 - 2015-05-04 12:29:05 UTC
Yeah people start with PvE and quit.
Of course they do.

They shouldn't get into the position of doing PvE in the first place ...
... then it would be much less likely for them to quit the boringness.

People who call for better PvE because of noobs ...
... ignore that it's their own griefing carebears who make noobs do PvE ...
... and thus ultimately make them quit.

Who deserves blame is these griefers and all the "PvP"ers who do not cover the rookiecorps.
It's them who are at fault for letting griefers have control over new players.

Not CCP.

And trust me I tried making people aware.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON I EVER TALKED TO ONLY HAD TWO INTERESTS:

.) Ranting
.) Himself, because helping is no fun.
.) Himself


And what happens now is that the nullsec forces take over recruiting ...
... with the potential of making it worse for everyone else ...
... because what leaders want is human labor, not thinking people.


So after letting this a while run I would like to point out
that there are people who completely took this issue out of your hands already.

I just wished ANYONE would really care and help kicking griefers out of the game.
But you don't. You all just suck on your own words as if they meant anything.

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
#93 - 2015-05-04 13:04:58 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
(doesn't gets an effin clue, but:)

PLAY MY WAY OR GO AWAY!



Very original. Never heard that before.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Black Pedro
Mine.
#94 - 2015-05-04 13:10:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Cataca wrote:


It really doesnt matter what you think this game is, or how it is "meant to be played" or how you think the developers "intended the game to be".

This game is a sandbox, and people will play it however they damn please. If it is their thing to play in their hisec fortress of solitude, let them. Abysmal PvE content is not helping anyone tho.

Because at the end of the day, the numbers of CCP show us one thing, People start with PvE and quit. If there was some thing you could strive to do, in your highsec fortress of solitude, they wouldnt. If that content somehow eased people into a more pvp(ish) enviroment, and players realize how much fun it is, dont you think that people would start pew pew ing?

If you made those missions hard, high risk (ships get blown up) and the reward would be faction modules (no isk faucet) it would be completely healthy for the game. Maybe make faction mods a bit cheaper, but far from detrimental to the market.

I also dont quite understand why you'd care how others play in their sandbox. You might not need PvE players (you do need pve to support your pew tho) but you certainly need miners. Also, a certain amount of isk needs to be in the market to keep things healthy. That keeps your crap cheap, after all.

I am not telling anyone how to play the game, nor do I really care how they play they game. I am telling you how the game actually is. It is a competitive PvP sandbox game. It is also important to note that the developers intend Eve to be a competitive PvP sandbox game, not a single player missioning game. Engage with this game however you want, however do not come to the forums and bemoan the fact that Eve isn't what you want it to be because it is in fact how the developers want it to be.

But I will agree better with you that PvE would be better. I too would love for PvE to be more risky and interesting, but this is not what the main design of Eve Online is centered on. This game is structured to be about Everyone vs. Everyone, not solo missioner vs. NPCs so do not expect much in the way of new solo PvE content anytime soon.
Amarrchecko
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2015-05-04 13:18:22 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
"TL;DR: sinking minerals is key for the economy and I challenge the asumption that PvP is the main source of such destruction, then suggest a way to obtain hard data on the real weight of player activity in order to asess who plays a larger role to keep the wheels of economy turning, either PvPrs or PvErs..."

...because TL:DRs are hard to read. Roll


Just ballpark a fairly extreme example to see if it could possibly be true that ammunition destroys more minerals than PVP does.

Look at the different missile classes to see which is the least efficient in terms of damage caused per minerals destroyed, assume level 4 in all relevant skills and use of a ship that doesn't get huge bonuses to damage with that type of missile, and figure out how many minerals you'd need to do all of that player vs. npc damage. It might take... 20 minutes to do that?

If even THAT doesn't show a bigger mineral sink than PVP (remembering that PVP involves some ammo mineral sink too), then the reality of a lot of damage being caused more efficiently in terms of damage per minerals won't even be close. On the other hand, if that shows a much larger mineral sink than PVP, you can at least say with great confidence that PVE is a "very significant" mineral sink relative to PVP.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#96 - 2015-05-04 13:18:38 UTC
Cataca wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
snip


It really doesnt matter what you think this game is, or how it is "meant to be played" or how you think the developers "intended the game to be".

This game is a sandbox, and people will play it however they damn please. If it is their thing to play in their hisec fortress of solitude, let them. Abysmal PvE content is not helping anyone tho.

Because at the end of the day, the numbers of CCP show us one thing, People start with PvE and quit. If there was some thing you could strive to do, in your highsec fortress of solitude, they wouldnt. If that content somehow eased people into a more pvp(ish) enviroment, and players realize how much fun it is, dont you think that people would start pew pew ing?

If you made those missions hard, high risk (ships get blown up) and the reward would be faction modules (no isk faucet) it would be completely healthy for the game. Maybe make faction mods a bit cheaper, but far from detrimental to the market.

I also dont quite understand why you'd care how others play in their sandbox. You might not need PvE players (you do need pve to support your pew tho) but you certainly need miners. Also, a certain amount of isk needs to be in the market to keep things healthy. That keeps your crap cheap, after all.


The problem with PvE is that it doesn't allows players to generate content. The only content a PvE player can make, is to challenge himself to set goals and achieve them (picture the runner who wants to better his time in 2 minutes). Yet that runner is forced to run the same track over and over and over again. He can't leave the track. He can't build a different track. And in case he wants to compete, he needs to learn a totally different sport that never interested him, like boxing.

"But oh, you've come to a sports center famous for its boxing!" Yet that sports center happens to have the best running track in the place, and 62% of all members never ever leave the track and couldn't bother less about the boxing ring. Which explains why the running track is neglected by the owners.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Amarrchecko
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#97 - 2015-05-04 13:19:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Amarrchecko
Black Pedro wrote:
It is a competitive PvP sandbox game.


The competition would be a lot more fierce if net resources were more limited.

Well... maybe. I guess the competition might, instead, be a lot more blue-bally if net resources were more limited.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#98 - 2015-05-04 13:24:20 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
But they bloody love a challenge.
If that was true for everyone, PvE wouldn't even exist.
Because the last thing PvE ever is ... is challenging.


Sadly, that's true for this game. But it doesn't need to be.

CCP could take a cue from many other multi-player games. From first person shooters to combat flight sims, many of these have one thing in common. The PVE is for training, not a separate game within a game. Graduating from missions into player on player is smooth and painless.

Now look at EVE. The transition is like learning to drive a Ford Model T and then being asked to jump into a Formula One car. They're somewhat the same on the outside but completely different in how they need to be driven. Like this game. PVE and PVP looks sort of the same but is actually two completely different games.

Unlike other games, the PVE in this game is not in any way helping to train for PVP. Different fits. Different modules. Different strategies. It's exceedingly difficult to make the transition from one to the other. That needs to change. CCP needs to rethink the entire PVE experience. Make it a training ground instead of teaching you to be a fish in a barrel.

Get to the point where you welcome a player opponent in your dynamically generated mission instead of being terrified. Because these missions have used an AI with similar actions to a player, requiring you to fit for PVP. It should be so smooth that you might not even notice that one of the bots is actually another player.

How great would it be that when people start to get tired of PVE combat, they can jump straight into PVP without have to relearn the game.

Mr Epeen Cool
Lady Ayeipsia
BlueWaffe
#99 - 2015-05-04 13:25:24 UTC
So in an hour you burned through 1500 cruise missiles, that takes 250k trit.

In that same time, my fleet killed 17 cruisers. 1 vexor requires over 500k trit. There were 9 of us in fleet on average and the same with the enemy fleet. This does not count ships we lost or the frigs we killed. So our 18 peopleburned through more trit doing PvP per person than your mission ammo. This does not include all the other minerals, ammo we spent, etc. And remember cruise mid s iles only require trit, pyrite, and zydrine. Ships need other materials. And we did not generate any new materials through Npc drops, only consumed.

Yes, eve could yes improvements to PvE, but PvE is no where near the mineral sink that PvP is.
Lady Ayeipsia
BlueWaffe
#100 - 2015-05-04 13:26:45 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
But they bloody love a challenge.
If that was true for everyone, PvE wouldn't even exist.
Because the last thing PvE ever is ... is challenging.


Sadly, that's true for this game. But it doesn't need to be.

CCP could take a cue from many other multi-player games. From first person shooters to combat flight sims, many of these have one thing in common. The PVE is for training, not a separate game within a game. Graduating from missions into player on player is smooth and painless.

Now look at EVE. The transition is like learning to drive a Ford Model T and then being asked to jump into a Formula One car. They're somewhat the same on the outside but completely different in how they need to be driven. Like this game. PVE and PVP looks sort of the same but is actually two completely different games.

Unlike other games, the PVE in this game is not in any way helping to train for PVP. Different fits. Different modules. Different strategies. It's exceedingly difficult to make the transition from one to the other. That needs to change. CCP needs to rethink the entire PVE experience. Make it a training ground instead of teaching you to be a fish in a barrel.

Get to the point where you welcome a player opponent in your dynamically generated mission instead of being terrified. Because these missions have used an AI with similar actions to a player, requiring you to fit for PVP. It should be so smooth that you might not even notice that one of the bots is actually another player.

How great would it be that when people start to get tired of PVE combat, they can jump straight into PVP without have to relearn the game.

Mr Epeen Cool


Burned missions do this quite well.