These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

EvE's Ecology
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Black Pedro
Mine.
#61 - 2017-03-23 18:45:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Mr Mieyli wrote:
You do all realise that arguing 'a safe space that can generate income will ruin the economy' is surely admitting 'eve players would live in safety if they could but they aren't allowed'. I think a suitable level of income would be one where it took some time to buy and fit a T1 cruiser or battlecruiser. Yes there is much more ships out there you can experience if you dip your toes in the real game but that's a choice for you.
Of course they would, wouldn't you? That is the very reason why it cannot be allowed. Every rational Eve player will gravitate towards where the best risk vs. reward is, and a safe and even moderately lucrative space would be such a strong black hole it would suck in large amounts of activity and smother the rest of the game. Arguably our current highsec is doing this already.

If you are arguing that you could have a safe space if you made the rewards low enough I agree with you. I just think the rewards would have to be so low to prevent multiboxing no-life veterans from abusing it, that no one would bother living in that space and therefore CCP's time would be better spent elsewhere. As much as some carebears say they just play Eve for 'fun' or to 'relax', they really are doing it largely for the ISK and the satisfaction accumulating space pixels brings. They aren't going to stick around the safe space long if you pay them 0.1M/h or 1M/h or whatever it would have to be to keep the game balanced.

Actually I'd love if CCP implemented your safe but poor space. Its emptiness would be definitive proof of the greed and lies that are in the heart of your average carebear and the basis of their constant agitation to have the competitive game that is Eve Online tilted in their favour. They aren't looking for a place to have fun - there are plenty of places to just have fun both in New Eden and beyond. They are just looking for the game to declare them winners without actually competing or putting them at risk of losing to another player.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Jason OPhee
Vulcan Jedi Masters Of Krypton
#62 - 2017-03-23 19:15:21 UTC
Burn Jita
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#63 - 2017-03-24 06:07:27 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

Actually I'd love if CCP implemented your safe but poor space. Its emptiness would be definitive proof of the greed and lies that are in the heart of your average carebear and the basis of their constant agitation to have the competitive game that is Eve Online tilted in their favour. They aren't looking for a place to have fun - there are plenty of places to just have fun both in New Eden and beyond. They are just looking for the game to declare them winners without actually competing or putting them at risk of losing to another player.



Indeed. Nobody wants risk with their income streams. That is if a player has a choice between income stream X and some degree of risk and income stream X and no risk only a complete dumb **** would pick the risky option. If you want a zone with little or no risk it should have little or no income.

And that of course will likely to lead to an incessant influx of whine threads to buff the rewards for this safe zone. But the rewards should be commensurate with what you see in a starter system or the test server.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#64 - 2017-03-24 12:27:14 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
You do all realise that arguing 'a safe space that can generate income will ruin the economy' is surely admitting 'eve players would live in safety if they could but they aren't allowed'. I think a suitable level of income would be one where it took some time to buy and fit a T1 cruiser or battlecruiser. Yes there is much more ships out there you can experience if you dip your toes in the real game but that's a choice for you.


This is the problem with selfishness, it makes wrong things look "ok" to people who want unreasonable things.

No, you do not and should not get to affect the EVE Economy from safety. Every mission one runs, every bit of Ore someone mines, every npcs they kill, every market order they place, these things affect every.single.other player. Every ISK or Loyalty Point you generate lowers the relative value of every isk or LP that I and everyone else holds.

EVE is the most equal game I know of, because at it's base it says "if YOU can negatively affect someone else, THEY can negatively affect you too". What you (again, selfishly) want is for CCP to give you a safe space so you can have an impact on others (by generating income) but they can't have an impact on you.


The forum rules prevent me from really and truly telling you exactly which personal physical orifice your wants should be firmly and forcefully shoved into.
Alexander Bor
Polaris Global
#65 - 2017-03-24 18:14:39 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
EvE's four areas are separated from each other by one distinction, that is security level, although wormholes bring extra differences.


Nice material. Your try is appreciated.

But what if we look on current system of space division only with terms "safe" / "dangerous" just because the current level of the in-game society development is low? Really - EVE society now is kind a one that been in the Stone Ages.

What if highs-lows-nulls (+Anoikis) can be considered from the degree of freedom? With possibilities increase on the direction from highs to nulls. Not the chaos by the way but potential development people can run.

This is how I see this.
Jubilum
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#66 - 2017-03-25 10:51:17 UTC
I'm going to make a suggestion that could make both sides happy...or not. Why not another server running "Eve lite". I have thought for years why doesn't ccp do something like this. This sever would have no interaction with tranquility but you could jump clone back and forth depending on what you felt like doing that day.

The only way this could work if is the economies were separate. I would even make the in game currency different let's call it "Kredits In Space" or (KIS) to discourage RMT. Or at least it will have no effect on the main game. You could bring nothing with you from the "lite" just as when you jump clone now. But you could have your fully fit PVP ship sitting in a hanger ready for those times when you want to pew pew. This would allow those you wish to mindlessly mine or mission to do so, without worrying about getting ganked.

The only time you could not jump clone to the "lite" is to avoid a war dec. If you are in a corp currently at war you would have to drop corp (just as you can now) to jump to the "lite" server. You could also not jump with a negative sec. status don't want those criminals hiding out on the lite server.

Tranquility would not change at all. Or you could make it more attractive who play for the pvp.

There can't be anybody against an idea like this. Except myaybe gankers who would loose potential targets. But they are the same ones telling everybody who doesn't like it to find a new game to play, so what should they care.

I would at least like to see this done for a 1 year trial just to see how many players the "lite" server would attract and ccp could decide at the end of the trail whether it is worth it or not.

Of course this is just a basic overview of my thoughts. I actually have many more ideas for this "lite" server but wont bore you with it all.
Salvos Rhoska
#67 - 2017-03-25 14:55:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Jenn aSide wrote:
EVE is the most equal game I know of, because at it's base it says "if YOU can negatively affect someone else, THEY can negatively affect you too".


I wish this was true, but it isnt,

Not because there is another more equal game (of this scope and context), which I agree there isnt.

But because EVE itself perpetuates various inequalities internally.

Its heuristically, logically, clear that larger/experienced entities can affect smaller others far more negatively than they can back.
This is the basis of Malcanis' Law.

The concurrent thread on LS mechanics regarding cynos/caps demonstrates this.

Established corps can lol-cyno through LS, and drop caps, whereas new ones cant, and must use gates at risk and cannot deal with cap drops.

This is an inversion of Malcanis' Law, and equally dysfunctional as a violation of that law.
Greater/established entities have capacity in LS, far beyond that of smaller ones there.
Not only can they lol-cyno past/through LS, they can drop cap fleets in LS.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#68 - 2017-03-25 19:25:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
EVE is the most equal game I know of, because at it's base it says "if YOU can negatively affect someone else, THEY can negatively affect you too".


I wish this was true, but it isnt,

Not because there is another more equal game (of this scope and context), which I agree there isnt.

But because EVE itself perpetuates various inequalities internally.

Its heuristically, logically, clear that larger/experienced entities can affect smaller others far more negatively than they can back.
This is the basis of Malcanis' Law.

The concurrent thread on LS mechanics regarding cynos/caps demonstrates this.

Established corps can lol-cyno through LS, and drop caps, whereas new ones cant, and must use gates at risk and cannot deal with cap drops.

This is an inversion of Malcanis' Law, and equally dysfunctional as a violation of that law.
Greater/established entities have capacity in LS, far beyond that of smaller ones there.
Not only can they lol-cyno past/through LS, they can drop cap fleets in LS.


Jenn said nothing about the magnitude of the effects, but merely that there is equality in that players can affect each other. And while Jenn used the word negatively, there is also considerable room for cooperative game play and positive effects too.

As for your inverse of Malcanis' Law, I don't agree. Much of the game is like an evolutionary process, and as such even the small entities can have a disproportionate impact at various times.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Bing Bangboom
DAMAG Safety Commission
#69 - 2017-03-28 21:46:23 UTC
Jubilum wrote:
I'm going to make a suggestion that could make both sides happy...or not. Why not another server running "Eve lite". I have thought for years why doesn't ccp do something like this. This sever would have no interaction with tranquility but you could jump clone back and forth depending on what you felt like doing that day.








Trammel killed Ultima.

Highsec is worth fighting for.

By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.  www.minerbumping.com
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#70 - 2017-03-28 21:52:40 UTC
Jubilum wrote:
I'm going to make a suggestion that could make both sides happy...or not. Why not another server running "Eve lite". I have thought for years why doesn't ccp do something like this. This sever would have no interaction with tranquility but you could jump clone back and forth depending on what you felt like doing that day.

The only way this could work if is the economies were separate. I would even make the in game currency different let's call it "Kredits In Space" or (KIS) to discourage RMT. Or at least it will have no effect on the main game. You could bring nothing with you from the "lite" just as when you jump clone now. But you could have your fully fit PVP ship sitting in a hanger ready for those times when you want to pew pew. This would allow those you wish to mindlessly mine or mission to do so, without worrying about getting ganked.

The only time you could not jump clone to the "lite" is to avoid a war dec. If you are in a corp currently at war you would have to drop corp (just as you can now) to jump to the "lite" server. You could also not jump with a negative sec. status don't want those criminals hiding out on the lite server.

Tranquility would not change at all. Or you could make it more attractive who play for the pvp.

There can't be anybody against an idea like this. Except myaybe gankers who would loose potential targets. But they are the same ones telling everybody who doesn't like it to find a new game to play, so what should they care.

I would at least like to see this done for a 1 year trial just to see how many players the "lite" server would attract and ccp could decide at the end of the trail whether it is worth it or not.

Of course this is just a basic overview of my thoughts. I actually have many more ideas for this "lite" server but wont bore you with it all.

What's wrong with SiSi?

The extra server already exists. Non-consensual pvp is banned in all systems except 2 (6-CZ49 and PVH8-0, with no capitals in PVH). Every other system is free to play in and plays just like TQ.

With / commands players can be setup almost exactly on SiSi as they are on TQ. Yet SiSi hardly attracts large crowds of players. Why would yet another server?