EVE General Discussion

Oh, I can provide such a list. Yet some of its items are as complex as the sovereignty system in EVE, so they don't really make sense in a one-liner.

- add regularly more dungeons (get in, perform task, get reward)
- allow dedicated players access NPCs and obtain advantages specific and exclusive to die hard PvErs.
- add long-term PvE tasks which require many hours to complete but can be completed in short incremental batches of gameplay
- add purely cosmethic indestructable structures without effects on other players, either as rewards for PvE, Microtransactions or The Grind
- as general direction, don't remove the existing PvE content, just build on top or beside of it
- as general direction, if PvP provides a reward for a new opportunity, a similarly valuable reward should be obtainable for a new PvE opportunity
- as general direction, PvE should be viable as a perennial activity (endgame)

Bear in mind that I'm not stupid and I am aware of the complexity of some proposals, their potential backdraws and the solutions to those backdraws. You wanted a concise bulletpoint list and that is provided even if matters are a bit more complicated than what fits in a one-liner.

-1) Add regularly more dungeons (get in, perform task, get reward)
I have nothing against this, in principle. However this can lead to item supply imbalances, and the abandonment of other PvE dungeons as obsolete (thus wasting the effort of their implementation (for example HS Drone Combat Signature sites are complete crap)). CCP also runs occasional PvE oriented events and limited duration dungeon systems (such as the Blood Harvest).

Noteably, daytripping into WHs also constitutes the form of a dungeon, albeit one beset with other players, that you enter with only with what you have. Get in, perform your task, take reward, get out. Arguably activities anywhere that are not secured, is a dungeon. There are untold riches there, but there may also be competitors for the same PvE content.

-2) Allow dedicated players access NPCs and obtain advantages specific and exclusive to die hard PvErs.
These currently exist as LP rewards/stores and the Standing boosts.
Heuristically, or "intuitively", if you prefer, CCP seems to be following a direction of more NPC dynamics as with mining fleets. I expect there will be more, especially regarding the importance of standing in how the NPC environment reacts to player action.

-3) Add long-term PvE tasks which require many hours to complete but can be completed in short incremental batches of gameplay
These currently exist as Escalations, Expeditions and the various storyline quests, such as COSMO and SOE.
Sure, why not add more, considering however the caveats in point 1.

Iirc, NPC Mssions also escalate into a storyline mission with special rewards after completing a set number (was it every tenth?), thus requiring you to grind incrementally through the others to get to that.

The essentially PvE careers of research, manufacture and PI (and trading) also constitute this, as requiring many hours, but the progression of value is achieved incrementally. If you are sourcing your own materials, that too takes hours of incremental playtime.

-4) Add purely cosmethic indestructable structures without effects on other players, either as rewards for PvE, Microtransactions or The Grind
Can you elaborate on some examples of what you mean as "cosmetic indestructible structures"?

-5) As general direction, don't remove the existing PvE content, just build on top or beside of it
I dont see that this general direction has been violated. What PvE content was removed? The hacking can loot minigame? I think Ghost sites where removed from HS during my absence (can anyone confirm?). This was detrimental to my profits and made my dedicated hull useless for that, but Im not all that mad. I just focused on other tasks instead.

-6) As general direction, if PvP provides a reward for a new opportunity, a similarly valuable reward should be obtainable for a new PvE opportunity
I dont see how this general direction has been violated. There have been several resource ships released (Porpoise) alongside combat ships (which are also used for PvE). Citadels are implemented along EC, for use by industrialists.

In rebuttal, I would further point out that PvP is for its overwhelming majority, not profitable. There are any number of arguably PvE activities which far outstrip isk/hr of PvP. The "reward" from PvP, is largely in defeating/denying the enemy, thrill of combat vs humans etc. There is usually very little actual concrete reward.

Furthermore, any and all materials won (or destroyed) in PvP, are ultimately sourced from PvE.
With the exception of CCP gifts/awards, everything in EVE originates from PvE.
PvP does not generate any items as rewards, it only destroys them or exchanges their owners.
Thus all material reward from PvP, is linked to PvE rewards, not the other way around.
PvE sources and provides materials.
PvP destroys them and facilitates their exchange of owners (either by looting or trading).
Thus the more PvP destruction there is, the higher the value of PvE sourced materials, and vice versa.

Ergo: PvP defines the value, in reward, from PvE.
Now re-read and reconsider formulation of your 6) above.

-7) As general direction, PvE should be viable as a perennial activity (endgame)
Incursions comprise this general direction, as does on a smaller scale advancement into L4 missions, and then to Burner missions. Carrier or even Titan ratting is an enormously lucrative PvE endgame that takes aaages to skill into.

Combat PvE is gated in this fashion. You can only earn a certain amount in a certain ship class, in a certain sector of space. If you want to earn more, you must fly larger ships in sectors with more demanding content.

As to industry related PvE, acquiring the skills, resources and safety to provide for construction of the largest and most expensive items in EVE, is certainly a very distant and demanding endgame.

As to trading, the endgame is eventually becoming an investor/banker dealing in x billions.

EVE is not like WoW where you have to give crowd every expansion some more powerful armor and abilities and new dungeons. for them to be entertained and to feel a kind of purpose to log in. Those people would play WoW already anyway. Or some clone of it.

I can only imagine EVE PvE like its modelling for people who dont want to have stuff on shelves. You spend a lot of time to make a lot of ISK and when you have it you buy nice looking ship and upgrade it with shiny modules and SKIN. When its ready you put it in hangar, and go do another round of missions to make another and put this in hangar. When you have enough ISK you buy PLEX and can do a bit of exploration in low sec to change environment, advance in difficulty and feel this risk factor, while still saying to yourself "Oh gosh, I need that cloaked ship to fly in low sec, this one will be my money maker to buy me some more new shiny stuff".

This is not entirely accurate.

There is a very real SP gate regarding access to many forms of PvE content across different space sectors.
There is also much larger risk.
And most importantly, whether you have a supporting corp, or not.

Some players truly just dont have the SP yet to step into that content.
Some players truly dont have the wealth to risk it.
And most importantly, some players dont have the corp to support them.

That's a design flaw, because just about every (OK, a large majority of) new player starts because of the Player interaction stories they've heard about. They want to get into the PvP, but many of them don't. That's a design flaw, and a problem with the corp tools available, and the nature of a game which is founded on alt character play. It says very little about he desires of the new players.

Design flaw or not, it's what exists at present.

There is also the inverse.
Without sufficient PvE, PvP will become increasingly expensive and unsustainable, leading to more PvE behavior to sustain losses.

Thanks, Major Tautology. No **** it's "what exists at present". But it's worthless for diagnosing the preference of new players.

(...)

(On second thought, I better answer tomorrow)

Trying to figure out the preference of new players is a WAG - I simply stated that they start out with PvE. The opinion of whether this is a design flaw is moot (for all you know this is intended).