EVE General Discussion

I know why, it's because nobody including myself is generally willing to even remotely back down from their side of a debate. They get more and more dead set that they are right and other people are wrong that they won't budge. Worse, it's not even good enough if the other person walks away, they need to feel like they've defeated their opponent.

Reading your post, and the post it addressed, I was struck with a thought.

Ill try to articulate it.

EVE is a PvP game.
All player action has repercussions on all other players, whether near or far, immediate or delayed, big or small.
Having said that, ship destruction, in particular, constitutes only a small part of that entirety, of said PvP, and of interaction in EVE.

My thought, was that perhaps, as you point out, ship destruction in and of itself, as something which results in relatively little reward, has become overstated. Attempting to systemize its occurance, problematic.

Is it not reasonable, that PvP (as ship destruction), should be incentivised as a means to support other concurrent forms of PvP and interaction from which greater net benefits are gained? That the violence is a necessary (though itself unprofitable) as a means inorder to clear the way of opposition, so that other forms of PvP can generate the actual benefit?

I think this has always been the premise and underlying purpose, but maybe CCP and we, have forgotten that for what it entails and how it could direct design decisions.

Im trying to formulate that though combat PvP is and will remain a means to an end, its incidence of combat PvP simply for combat PvPs sake, is and should remain essentially unprofitable, unless it is attached to and commensurate to some other form of PvP from which greater benefit can be gained.

Am I making any sense?

This is happening right now, ofc, to a degree.
In HS with wardecs and CODE like entities (unfortunately with no recourse to trade hubs), LS with intense territorial aggression, WHs with various mechanics, Null through Sov, FW nominally through node control (Poorly, crap farm mechanic).

But perhaps more can be done to incentivize the other, non-combat forms of PvP, so that violent aggression becomes more of a means to an end, rather than a means onto itself. In terms of player retention, meaning providing more incentive for entitites to want to include players engaged in other non-combat forms of PvP, as the source that provide the profit/benefit to the actual combat PvP players, once those combat PvP players have cleared the way of the opposing violently aggressive players. Combat is its own reward for excitement and action, but the fiscal/opportunity payout comes from other forms of non-combat PvP therafter.

Something more akin to a real world model, where a military arm defends when necessary, and aggresses when expedient, so as to secure the opportunities of non-combat PvP arms to provide benefit to them, and themselves.

Yes, EVE is a PvP game, through and through.
But as is shown, violence in and of itself, as one facet of PvP, is essentially unprofitable.
So the motivation (aside from excitement, killboard and glory) has to come from some other resultant net benefit.
So that when you go to war, its not the war itself that pays you, you are paid when players move in and develop the space you have cleared, to commensurate benefit. This provides more motivation and impetus for ship violence, to the result of more fights. This provides more motivation and impetus for non-violent PvP, to the result of more player activity not only for these players to move in and capitalise, but the also combat capsuleers that cleared the territory.