Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Nice! Well said, lol. I think that for the unemployed, the perspective may be that Eve is a career. Love the part about putting the killboard on our CV! OMG, busting my sides here! ha3!

The focus on forcing pve to do pvp is merely from the greedy and lazy point of view that pve ships give valuable drops, high ISK on the kb, are easy and fast to kill, AND (if that all wasn't enough) present little threat in return against the attacker. Then there is the expectation that the pve ship should really just be a pvp ship in a big pvp fleet clearing anoms, except that pvp players don't enjoy shooting red crosses. If you are going to force pve players to play like pvp players and to like pvp, too, then if you are successful, they are going to get hooked on the adrenaline surge of pvp and then forsake pve. Is that what you want? (Would be nice if someone ever answered my questions about if "that" was what they want..)

Lucas, they may not realize it, but what they want is a system which easily kills all players who engage in pve with pve fits. The only ones they want to survive are the ones that use pvp fitted cruisers in large fleets with logistics always ready for the hotdrop. They don't realize that there already is a system which promotes this called incursions.

Hey "local" guys! Go join incursions fleets. Incursions may not trick you to think that you are ready to handle pvp in null, despite the strong fleet tanks, but you will be able to defend yourself against a pvp hotdrop as long as you fly and fit cheap enough. Or you could pretend that you are doing incursions out in null with your friends. I have absolutely no idea how your mining fleets could implement an incursions-based approach; you do like your mining, right?

Admit it, "local" guys: You are trying to promote the incursions style pve on nullsec on pain of cyno ganking.

I am wondering if we can get to 200 pages without a single intelligent/relevant response from CCP on this dumb mechanic? Is this their most ignored issue ever? Across all the threads on AFK cloaking I'd guess we are up to about 2,000 pages - without a single relevant response or any change in 7-8 years?

And I believe the only reason this thread is still goin on is because otherwise a new "fix AFK cloaking" thread would spawn every day.

Its not hard at all. PVP consequences of imbalance are infinitely larger. PVE imbalance result in what? 10% more or less income per hour. PVP imbalance leads to staganation and failure of main game content and ships estroyed in seconds.


PVP balance should always come ahead of PVE balance. You balance PVE when you have already solved all the serious balance issues with PVP. PERIOD. Any other approach is lunatic

This. Both need to be considered.
You can't just force PVP on everyone and say "if you don't like it, go to high sec". There has to be a balance between the two.
Personally I think the current balance is fine. PVE ticks along at a steady enough pace to keep market fluctuations
healthy, and PVP seems near constant.
I'm just in no hurry to turn the game into a giant wormhole, since on a grand scale, neither PVE or PVP happen much in wormholes.

Regarding rat bounties and the utility of them, well there could come a time when increasing them makes sense. After all, increasing the amount of money in circulation can be a good thing...e.g. the Great Depression. Countries that went of the gold standard (an inflationary move--FYI, the U.S. went of the Gold Standard and economic growth took off very, very shortly afterwards...of course, then NIRA was enacted and that growth pretty much stopped) early had an easier time than those that stuck it out.

As for PLEX prices, think of them as a mechanism for redistributing in game wealth. If player A has buckets of isk, and player B does not and B is also time constrained but is not RL money constrained, he can use a PLEX to increase his wealth...by selling that PLEX to player A. So what makes their linkage to real life money interesting is that the RL cost of a PLEX is pretty stable, but in game their value has increased, in other words there is an increasing shift towards wealth redistribution.

And measuring inflation in terms of one in-game commodity is perhaps not the best metric. For example, there could be seasonal and other cyclic factors that ideally you'd want to account for. The idea would be to look at a sample (or basket) of goods that most if not all Eve players buy routinely and then using a suitable price index (e.g. the geometric means) you could then construct a measure of the overall price level in Eve. You could do it with all goods bought in game, but that would require much more computation and we'd be ignoring various emergent game play aspects of the Eve economy such as the buying and selling of super capitals, the various third party services and pretty much everything that goes on with regards to the contracts as well. So you'd still, have some stuff you'd miss. (FYI, I used to work for the Bureau of Labor Statistics here in the U.S., so I know fair bit about price and cost of living indices such as the geometric means index is preferred since it treats price increases and decreases symmetrically whereas the Paasche and Laspeyres do not.)

And no, gold is not the foundation of any reserve currency I know off. It does not back, for example, the U.S. dollar and has not since 1971 when the U.S. terminated the Bretton Woods agreement and the U.S. dollar became a fiat currency. In fact, most reserve currencies are fiat currencies. A fiat currency, in short, is a currency that has purchasing power because people believe it has that purchasing power--i.e. fiat currencies have no intrinsic value, cannot be redeemed into some other commodity (e.g. a gold standard or silver standard) and is declared to be legal tender by the government.

So I'm not sure about why you think PLEX prices are so important given their connection to RL money. If anything, the higher the value of PLEX in game relative to RL money, the more attractive they become as a mechanism for redistributing (in game) wealth...and in a voluntary way.

I have to say, this is still a weird turn for this thread....who'd of thought this topic would come up 50 pages back? Not me.

This is a highly selective comparison designed specifically to make it look like the two are the same, however they are not. Sure, in both you can manage your risks down to a reasonable level, and you can solo if you want. But in both, there are benefits to not soling. The difference between the two is still there though. In null PVE, to achieve the reasonable level of safety, you must be at your PC fully concentrating 100% of the time. In high sec you do not.

Be it missions or mining, in high sec, I can quite happily target what i want to mine/kill, pop drones, push F1 and walk away. I do not need to be there to do anything, so my safety, beyond my choice of location and fittings is granted to me freely. In null I can't do that. 10 seconds of looking away is all it takes to get killed in null, less now with the interceptor changes.

Giving valuable drops is in part due to choices the PvE pilot makes in regards to fittings.

And Eve is a sandbox, which means players can do whatever they want so long as it does not violate the rather limited set of rules CCP has laid down.

Being a sandbox does not mean you are free from interacting with other players, even if you don't want to interact with them or said interaction is not consensual. In another words, Eve was designed specifically so that PvP pilots can "force" PvE pilots to interact--i.e. engage in PvP.

This is a design feature and suggestions to change this to make it harder is to move away from the sandbox aspect of the game.

Asakai would never have happened with Andy's suggestions in place.