Player Features and Ideas Discussion

because it is... ABC's, faction, deadspace, officer loot, ice, etc... if none of that PVE was in null... why would any one even consider going to null?

We like conflict, yes. But what would be the point of owning your own little corner of space if you couldn't even support yourself in it? If null had no PVE, the PVP element of null simply wouldn't exists. Nobody would be able to afford the ships, there would be none built out there and even the sov bills themselves would go unpaid. PVP costs a LOT of isk. Sov costs a LOT of isk. You think we all sit around buying GTCs to afford it all or something?

Put it this way. If all we wanted was conflict and fighting for our territory, we'd all be in faction warfare instead.

Of course null PVP wouldn't exist. It would be impossible for it to exist without null PVE. For starters, without null PVE, nearly all T2 production would halt, since the production and processing of T2 materials is a PVE activity. Titans and supers would not exist either since their production, again is a null PVE activity. The production of a station again is something that gets done in null.

Then you have to think that to build those things, you need null miners and PI producers. The sheer volume of materials makes it impossible to get them from anywhere but null. Even the biggest null income source, rental income, comes from renting out space to PVE players.

Sorry bud, but you are simply wrong here. Null PVP would not exist without null PVE.

Well, I'm pleased to see the discussion is less heated.

A couple of quick points:

I agree with Andy, I'm not convinced CCP will do anything about local Soon™, but it is possible, hence my use of the word, 'might'.

I also agree (to a large extent) with Vas and Lucas that PvE, or more broadly what industry and PvE is in null is important. Most wormholers do a fair amount of PvE...granted they like the PvP too, but they do it. PvE, broadly defined, is good for null and PvP is good for null (and by null I include WHs which are also null sec--i.e. no security save what you and your friends provide). It is a symbiotic relationship, IMO. I would also like to see more people doing stuff other than PvP in null (partly because it provides more opportunities for PvP).

Regarding risk/rewards....I think null can get a boost there too. Especially if there are any changes to local that result in more risk...then absolutely, more reward.

That's it for now, got other stuff to do, just wanted to toss this out there.

Personally, I'd like to talk about scanning cloaked ships next. I read Andy's concerns on that and so nobody thinks I'm gonna toll that, I want to see if there isn't a workable solution. My fear is that Andy's idea about dodging "intel structures" could be too much of a buff to cloaking ships.

I might even go steal a post I saw on improving d-scan and post it here too. I think that is another feature that could use some work. I linked to one of Malcanis' posts that I thought was very funny and accurate, it went something like:

SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN SCAN **WAIT I THINK IN FINALLY SAW SOMETHING**

There is no chance that any increase in rewards would be linked to any increases in risk. You will always be competing against wormholes and incursions, which are the dominant factors in plex prices. Also, people do not care about your rewards when they increase your risk.

Still waiting for the response on the Ostrich analogy that putting the head in the sand with lowering visibility of hostiles to any degree and for any length of time simply allows those AFK cloaky aggressors to become active and attack whenever they are hidden. It also forces wise players to either limit their ops to very cheap ships or move to high sec and dodge war decs.

I agree with the issue on the buff to cloaking ships, but consider that it is much easier to maintain a defense fleet against a black ops gang than against a massive, long-range, full non-cloaky pvp Titan bridging gang. The cyno needs to be addressed before local is changed, lest added complications complicate the required solutions for the cyno and for the super.

Again, adjustments to cyno mechanics are needed regardless of what is done to local or cloakies: for instance, adding
1) The inability to point during cyno lighting or a full minute after jumping.
2) The ability to cyno out even if pointed. Points and bubbles affect only the warp drive; the jump drive uses wormholes to move around. Capacitor neuts prevent jump drives from engaging if the cap is reduced beyond the amount of cap required.

I agree that dscan needs fixing too. Continual scan mode with the ability to highlight changes to results or reveal specific kinds of results. I always hated the constant clicking required in wormholes. And then missing a result/change was always the worry.

Added: What do you think of my proposal for cloaked ship scanning?

Point 1 is that you never make a concession on condition of a reward, because the concession will be accepted and the reward forgotten. Fact is that wormholes and incursions drive the cost of plex much harder than null, so any changes to null will have minimal impact on anything.

Point 2 reveals that intel-based solutions solve nothing for the Cloaky Cyno Camping dilemma. Any Intel based change is an attempt to hide the threat in some way. Hidden threats activate whenever a player accepts the risk of the hidden threat. Acceptance of a hidden threat ONLY makes sense for baiting. Scanning for cloaked ships will only force the Cloaky Cyno Camper to become active, but with the ability to hide, he will most certainly be only waiting for any player to accept the risk. Unless you are baiting, you will most certainly lose to the hotdrop. Baiters may also lose, and the only point of accepting risk is the gamble that your side is larger than the other side; a game of blobbing. Unless the threat can ALWAYS be removed by cloak scanning, AFK cloaky camping will merely be replaced by active cloaky hunting in a blobbing baiting game. Is that what you want?

On Point 3, I do like re-usable cyno jammers or low cost one-time cyno jammers (one time use doesn't really make sense anyway). My point was that allowing BLOPS to avoid Local was countered somewhat by limitations to cloaky tank and dps while allowing ships to avoid Local through wormholes and regular cynos was countered through the mobile intel structure and through the overviews of ships friendly to sov.

On your response to Point 4, AFK cloaking only stops when PVE may be hunted more effectively with hidden threats AND PVE targets accept the risk (stupid IMO), thus making AFK cloakies become active. Again, is your goal merely to make AFK cyno cloakies active when stupid (or baiting) players allow themselves to become vulnerable? Baiting is not an effective method for PVE because most of the support fleet is waiting on the Titan for the bridge on the hope that the bait is taken.

Haven't checked your Point 5 link, but it sounds interesting.

Point 1, I tend to not make assumptions regarding what can or cannot be balanced. Unless the devs actually say it, I won't assume any aspect as significant as reward is being taken off the table.

Point 2, the intel solution is not relevant to the passive camper, it exists to balance the ability to hunt the active camper.
The threat CAN always be removed by a hunting ship. A hostile relying on stealth will have no opportunity if under hot pursuit.
Like any game, the effort of the hunter is opposed by the effort of the hunted. Unless one side actually makes a mistake, they could possibly stalemate each other, BUT the PvE pilots are no longer at risk. The moment a hostile stays in one place long enough to be locked down, they can be, and that prevents them from seriously attacking a PvE asset.
(The bank robber, while being actively pursued by authorities, is highly unlikely to find opportunity to rob another bank during the chase)

Point 3 is specific to one solution, by the sound of it. I am missing some context, so will hold responding for now.

Point 4 seems to have been misunderstood. I am not advocating that cloaked ships need help, I am pointing out how players who want to target PvE ships will use whatever they see as being effective.
I do not feel we have the right to arbitrarily block access to a players target of choice, although existing game mechanics have resulted in an emergent condition where only a limited number of tactics can expect to reach PvE targets, or really any non consensual players before they are able to successfully evade such threats.
I am making the point, that if a different means exists to target opposing PvE activities, one that allows the PvE players to make an opposing effort in their own defense, then it becomes a game where both sides can resolve issues more readily.

If PvE is treated like a sacred cow, then it will diminish that part of the game to mindless AFK grinding, and the policy of preventing bots could become the next debate, regarding why PvE needs to even pay attention, why not automate harvesting, etc.

Never thought it would be difficult to see the connection of rewards to plex. Basically, it goes like this: Plex is the primary standard of the value of ISK with respect to time and real money. Many players earn ISK for Plex via Incursions, while others earn it through wormholes. ISK is the great conversion medium, like real money, between the various activities and their value in pursuing them. Sometimes people even compare activities using the term ISK/hour. Activities are chosen based on the comparison of real ISK/hour, after risks are factored in (net profit).

If rewards are increased by decreasing the availability of a resource like minerals or even ISK through increased risk, then the increased worth of the resource justifies more risk. If, however, the rewards are increased directly, then inflation kicks in. Even if risk reduces the availability of a resource, the direct reward increase will still induce inflation. Inflation means that the resource is worth less than it was worth before, on a per unit basis.

In layman's terms, you can increase the bounties directly and expect inflation to lower your purchasing power as the price of PLEX increases. Or you can try to limit the profit through increased risk. If other resource sources (like wormholes) produce enough profit, then reduction in availability of the null resource source will have minimal impact on the resource availability. Changes to null resource availability has minimal affect on the buying power of the resources and therefore does not increase the rewards.

Conversely if you increase both the risk and the rewards "equally" the number probably won't move much. Which may not be a bad thing.

I'm sorry, but I find the above amazingly convoluted.

I get the part of using a Plex to convert Isk to real world money, but not sure what to make of that? I, personally, don't decide in my "PvE" activity based on a real world dollar value. This isn't a job, so trying to do something like that doesn't even seem relevant. After all, if I were to do that then the actual rational metric would be my real life hourly (after tax) wage rate and only then between the choice of should I take some leisure time or work and earn the money.

Personally, I pick the PvE based on the amount of isk I make relative to the amount of time I spend doing it.

For example suppose you had two activities in game and lets call them something clever like A and B.

A makes you 1.2 billion a month and you have to log in about 6-7 times for about a 1.5 hours at a time for a total of 10 hours.

B makes you 80 million and hour.

Which do you choose?

Right now most might go for A because more isk/hour.

But some people might like B so even though the isk/hour is less they do that.

The better way to put all of this is not in terms of isk/hour but in terms of welfare or...just fun. Isk/hour can be a function of that, but it is not the deciding factor. For example, I find much of the "PvE in Eve to be tedious and unfun", therefore something like Option A is awesome. Another player may really enjoy B and choose that and spend more time at it and make more isk than me.

Both choices are valid. Both choices depend on variables other than just isk/hour.

As for the inflation part of it, you are making an implicit appeal to the quantity theory of money here, IMO.

M*V = P*Q.

M is money, or isk. V is how "fast" a unit of isk moves through the Eve economy. P is the general price level, and Q is the real value of output in the game (i.e. all the stuff people make).

If V is relatively stable and Q cannot increase, then an increase in M, must necessitate an increase in P.

However, extrapolating from this that an increase in a source of isk must result in an increase in P is a bit problematic.

For example, suppose we buff PI. Now those who engage in PI and those who move into that area of the game due the buff will see, for a time an increase, in their incomes. But will P, and recall this is the general price level, go up? Not necessarily. A buff to PI--i.e. an increase in planetary output--will result in more PI products and a reduction in their price. Thus, over time the income of people doing PI might be higher, the same or lower than it was before. And the overall price level may very well, ceterius paribus, be lower than before the buff.

This is why I dislike macro economics/monetary economics, which is where you'll find most people going on about the quantity theory of money. It is a top down approach and treats things like Q as this big amorphous blob called output and that aggregation often cause a loss of important information or necessitates simplifying assumptions that can by themselves lead you astray.

So, no I don't agree that a buff to the rewards of null have to lead to more inflation.

Typically discussions of inflation in economics is where the Federal Reserve or the central bank creates more money in the system and its effect, but no real goods are created. For example, if the Fed buys government bonds that will usually be see seen as the Fed trying to inject more money into the economy. The idea here is that the act of buying the bonds puts money back into the economy. This is different in one substantial way from my example above using PI...in that example a real economic good (well, real relative to the fictional economy at any rate) is created.

Apologies for that wall of text. And the irony that I was complaining about convoluted...lol