Player Features and Ideas Discussion

If the "blue donut" is causing that effect, then people in the blue donut get not increase in rewards, but just an increase in risk then.

This isn't just risk to losing the rewards, it is risk to losing the ship and pod too. So small increases in risk require large increases in reward to counterbalance. Rewards increases inflation by increasing the resource supply. So you can buy less. Risk reduces the net profit, so that you have less in the end and decreases the supply. Thus increasing risk and increasing reward even more may net zero in the resource supply change, but decrease how much you have in the end due to the risk. So it is not a wash, but instead a drain on profits with every increase.


It seems "convoluted" because it is basic economics theory, which in general is very difficult to understand. We are focusing on expansion of the money supply from the bounties increases, and basic money supply theory is hard to grasp. The mineral supply is just another form of the money supply. It is well accepted that expansion of the money supply causes inflation. Governments can try to print their way out of debt, but the result is that their money becomes worthless. Sometimes not even worth the paper it is printed on. I get the feeling you may understand (at least in part) how I am applying the expansion of the money supply to changes in bounty in Eve and the resulting effects on lowering the value of ISK as more ISK is injected into Eve in a given time period.

Well if you can have infinite numbers so can I, right?

You mentioned a defense fleet to a potential cyno threat. If you really believe there is a 60 man gang sitting on a titan and you can't put together enough people in the right ships...then don't engage. If you can get the people, then go for it. You can ping too you know.

I have been in fleets where we have been outnumbered, but the opponent had a crap composition and we mopped the floor with them. Bridging in a fleet 2x the size of your target, but with a hodge podge of ships is likely going to end badly if your target is in a unified doctrine and knows how to use it.

If your alliance simply cannot do this...well, maybe time for a new alliance. Or, if you are a renter, check the rental agreement. Call in the PvP alliance that you rent from, if it is covered in your rental agreement.

And no you don't have to blob. Fight smart and you can go against bigger guys. Use a uniform doctrine, don't fly those ships if you can't fit them according to the doctrine. Often a fight is decided by logi, so bring plenty.

So no, it isn't always about who brings the bigger blob.

And those 60 guys...they don't always know when a target is bait or not....the uncertainty, it works both ways.

While the above is, largely true (i.e. government's can't print their way out of debt, well okay they can but it comes with some pretty bad down sides such as a currency crisis and potentially hyperinflation) that is not quite what I was talking about. The kind of money change your are talking about is a sudden increase in the money supply, not necessarily a buff to null sec rewards. "Printing" more money is not like buffing PI in null, or asteroid composition, or null ice belts. Buffing those could put more money in a player's pocket and influence the over all price level, but it also puts real goods into the game (and by real goods, I mean goods that have a use in game, not something like financial instruments like stocks or bonds or derivatives).

Dropping a billion isk in every player's wallet right now would likely be bad as it would pretty much just push up prices and probably not even increase output. After all, if all prices go up by 5% there is no profit opportunity there (think of it this way, the item your are selling had its price go up by 5%, but your costs also went up by 5%, so profits are unchanged). That is more in line with the "printing your way out of debt."

Buffing null sec by simply buffing rat bounties would likely be bad as well because it would more like dropping isk in player's wallets. Changing what kind of loot drops or how it refines in null on the other hand, while it could put isk in a player's wallet it would also put more "goods" into the Eve economy too.

Basically, buffing null sec rewards, so long as it puts real goods into the Eve economy need not be inflationary. Dropping isk into the wallets of Eve players or simply changing null sec rat bounties would almost surely be only inflationary.

This brings us back to Vas' comment about more people in null. If null is buffed in the "right way" (and to be clear I'm not saying I know what the right way is, I'll leave that to CCP who has far, far more data than I do) then that could entice people into null.

And before anyone goes off half-cocked about hyper-inflation I don't even think it is possible in the Eve economy without CCP Devs going insane and dropping something like a trillion isk in every player's wallet. Hyper-inflation is more along the lines of what happens when people lose faith in their nations currency--i.e. a currency crisis. Every country right now relies on what is called fiat money. Every currency has purchasing power because every citizens/consumer in that country believes it has that purchasing power. Undermine that belief...and there you go, hyperinflation.

Also, Isk/hour is a limited metric.

Instead you'd want use what economic theory would call a utility function. The utility function basically represents the individual's welfare, or in this case fun. That was my A vs. B scenario. If you have 20 hours of game time a month the total take from B is 1.6 billion. Isk/hour wise it "wins". But if B is something like ratting and the person actually enjoys ratting then B might win over A even though on an isk/hour metric A is the clear winner.. Or to put it diferrently:

For Teckos:

A p B, that is Teckos prefers A to B.

For Andy it could be:

B p A, that is And prefers B to A.

Both of there are totally valid. Even though Andy is choosing to do something that pays less isk/hour if he is having fun and getting the isk he needs...then that's all that matters.

We are not talking infinite numbers. We are talking significantly more numbers being cyno'd in than you have on grid. A crap FC will not know what he needs to take you out, but most people out in null understand enough of the basics to ensure that they are bringing enough to win easy. I have seen it happen to others time and again; quite common.

Introduce a mechanic that allows the defense fleet to look through the unlit cyno to see what will come through, and then people will know the composition of the opponent and will know what they need to bring and if they should engage. Otherwise, the defense is reacting in real-time to the ships visible on grid and sacrificing everyone that was caught the moment they realize that they were not prepared for the attacker who had the luxury to know exactly what to prepare for easy victory. If the defense can get a fleet together to win against the aggressor thanks to meta-game intel, then we are looking at is NOT PVE, but BAITING, pure and simple. Is your desire to force an end to PVE so that baiting can take over as the only natural response to the possibility of a cloaked cyno ship?

So the attacker blobs to win; not infinite, just enough to easily and quickly win. Additionally, even if you have a good defense fleet, it is only relevant if they can't get in fast enough to save their friend or point any of the attackers. Blobs insta-pop their targets so that they can engage in quick evasion of any defensive fleet responses. What mechanics would enable the defensive fleet to land right on top of the attackers instantly? My idea of enabling broadcast of the hostile cyno for the defense fleet to use accomplishes exactly that objective.

Okay, let me put it this way.

PvE absolutely needs to remain a risky proposition.

If this were not the case, then PvE (I'm referring mainly ratting here) would result in that inflation you were worried about in couple of posts back upstream.

Monetary policy in the game, as in real life, has a number of policy instruments. One of them is the cyno. Remove the cyno and to keep the inflation in check CCP might nerf the **** out of rat bounties.

Best of luck targeting rewards in such as way that they can't just be grabbed by anyone.

THIS

That is why I am hopeful regarding the new changes with interceptors.

If this creates an outlet for interaction in the PvE areas, previously forced into cloaked ships limited usefulness, then those actually seeking PvP have new options, and counters against them.

Those preferring psyche warfare still have their options too, but with fewer by the same amount of those who switch to the new options.

That's a circular argument.

It always feeds back onto itself, since the purpose of PvE in your explanation is merely to supply PvP.
The difference of where the PvE occurs, becomes meaningless because you can ask the same question from null as well.

What is the purpose of holding this space? I'm making ISK so I can turn around and defend the space just so I can make more ISK so I can defend the space....

If you aren't enjoying the game when you are making the ISK, then you are only playing when you PvP. The rest of the time, you are paying to work at a job, so you can support the game. And this, coming after you PLEX'd or paid your monthly subscription.

You might be amused by my bio, come to think of it.... click on it and have a laugh.

But it is circular. I PVE to supply the PVP that supplies the area to do the PVE. I enjoy all sides of it. Force out the PVE, and the PVP becomes pointless, I may as well just PVP in low and save the hauling from high to null. It pretty much has to feed itself otherwise you would reach an end, and that would be that. im lucky that I can see that cycle across just myself, but consider it from a grander scale. Push out PVE and you push out renters. Push out renters and you push out the primary source of null income, so null activity drops.

You realise people don't generally play this game as a career right? It's not like we're going to show our killboard stats on our CV or something. People do what they find fun, for me, that's all sides, as I like to mix it up. for some it's PVE. For some it's PVP. What you want to do is force the PVE group to have to do PVP, and you somehow think the game will be better that way. And it will, for you. It won't be for the other half of the players though, and that other half is what makes it possible for you to PVP. Some basic functions simply couldn't happen without PVE. You bridge out to a location for a fight. PVE players built that titan you're being bridged from.