Market Discussions

I have been playing with and promoting the idea of incapacity state for ships for many years, but I would like to ask a variation on the theme.

Would it benefit the overall economy in EVE if we could shift more destruction of assets onto installed equipment and less on actual ships?

My idea would be that Shield protect high slot, Armor Mid slots, and Structure Low slots. (edit: the types would add a partial protection modifier to the slot type, based on shield, armor, and hull)

The risk of getting modules destroyed during combat would shift combat mechanics a lot, and maybe make them less blob oriented. With the changes to availability of installed equipment the whole games logistics and industrial activity would shift. The lower bulk of materials of war would make it more interesting for smaller and newer players to get more integrated into null, and they would play a more important role?

The battlefield would also have more LIMPING OUT happening. Also the Titans Super caps and caps would be more "unknown" on the field since they would last long, but their output and activity level could change a lot from fight to fight?

I also suspect something like this could push gameplay to have more ejection and abandoned battlefields with derelict ships, that needed a lot of repairs and expensive installations to get operational again. Thus creating an actual boost to salvage professions?

I know this sound like a way too huge change to EVE, but would it not still be the same "fundmanetals" just shifting economy from bulky ships to more light weight equipment?

One thing is sure it would make loot drops a lot more interesting, since capacity on building would be straned enough to make drops more valuable, and less likely to get insta-recycled.

I am not sure but would something like this also make more teeth feeling combat relevant, and thus boost smaller gangs value as a strength probing?

The insurance feature is the balance to this.

And yes insurance is just a game feature and not a business. To tweak down the actual financial loss of having your ship blown up.

Practically all major conflicts in this game is won through attrition.

The price of materials would drop, reduced demand for the parts that are no longer being destroyed... Mining would get slightly less profitable.


I guess it would create a new field to fight on where you balance salvaging your own and the enemy's ships as opposed to just blowing up the wrecks so the enemy can't recover them.


I believe that the outcome would be the same. Attackers destroy wrecks when they win. Defenders salvage wrecks when they win since they have the nearby base. Defenders would receive an advantage in that a winning fight could mean they actually salvage more ships than they lost. Attackers would be at an even larger disadvantage than they are now.


I can't ever see my fleet bringing industrials to salvage wrecks 20-30 jumps through null.


Sort of a battle of the undead where the losing side is resurrected and the winning side made stronger despite losses.

I can definitely see adding a wildcard to the game would surly make combat on the extremes that much better, but perhaps smaller steps to test how the population reacts.

Overheating and nanopaste seems to have worked out quite well so far and said Idea in theory is good.

I don't know, but the change would be a bit to much to adapt to emediatly, people would be less willing to fight if cost of acquiring ship and chance of losing it, or seriously costly repairs begin to outweigh the benefits forcing fighting to decrease.

This also serves to make the poor poorer (the hungry do not understand the fed and the fed don't understand the hungry-old Russian saying), it sounds bad but this would be the reality without very careful planning atleast start off slow and naturally testing every phase, like with T1 module before introducing T2 remember- ancillary shields..

If all fails there must also be a planned route to go back to the current system to increase the chances of popular support and CCP acceptance.

I'd like to see one change which would encourage ship destruction: Hics being repairable while infini-pointing.

What this would do is make it much easier to keep titans on field. I don't think anyone, not even most titan pilots, actually likes it that titans can usually slip away from a losing fight and far too few titans are lost. In Pandemic Legion's 2012 financials just 1 titan was reimbursed.

Subcaps die by the hundred, don't think there's an issue. And post-combat looting is a fun minigame itself with opportunistic pvpers picking off some of the ragpickers.

There could be a skill, like tactical shield manipulation, that limits the damage getting through to the modules.

There should probably be a chance of damage getting through to any of the high, mid or low slot modules. Possibly the damage type could effect a certain class of modules. For example kinetic damage getting through to missile modules :)

The details of the mechanics is ofc an issue, and it would need to be balanced right.

I think it should be a bit like mentioned in the above comment. That its random chance based maybe on critical hits, and that you can reduce the chance with skills, boosters, and equipment type. The argument for the Shield, Armor and hull concept is to somehow add special advantages and disadvantages to ship and equipment types. So some loose guns before the propulsion, and some loose propulsion before longevity.

The paste and overheating mechanics would also play well into this by reducing and increasing the chance of equipment loss.

I believe it was a correct comment about introducing something like this in stages and relatively slow. Especially focusing on the smaller ships first, so they get a bit more longevity in current battles by adding more hull HP and maybe boosting their resistances towards damage. Then these mechanics would initially play a part of the smaller ships versus similar types battles. This would effectively be a boost mechanic for smaller gang activity. If it shows promise and works well it would be introduced to the bigger ships over time!?

The key point is adding an aspect that helps the risk averse and creates more content for the risk seekers.

Defeat and humiliation is a lot easier to deal with than "death"..

My main issue is that the trend towards insta-POP is becoming a lot like a frag fest in FPS.

To be really blunt. I think now that we have DUST if players want insta fast adrenalin they should go planet side, if they want strategic planning Fleet wars, positional strategy, hide and seek ambushing etc they should get into a Pod and play EVE.

To me it makes a lot of sense to increase the difference in gameplay intention from a game developer point of view.

Yes I know that combat is not that instant, but the either or aspect is.

Down the pipeline this would also integrate a lot better into industry and economy aspects.
Making ships more costly to build.
Tweaking Insurance (including a player driven mechanic)
Diversifying ammo damage effects. (buffs and debuffs)
Used ship contracts would increase
Ship history. (Ship ID, Ship Names, Ship Flags)
Player affiliation mechanics (Corp jumping, uniform mechanics, real and fake ID activity)
Captains Quarters (Invites and multiple player access, RP private meeting visuals, DUST strategic room etc.)

EVE is here to stay and will most likely get 10 more years. The ambition level needs to get back to max, with players and with devs. If we want improvements we need to look beyond status quo. More years of blobbing and SOV seesaw just really seems a bit boring to me.

Can you think of any really popular games with limb based combat? Yeah, me neither.

You would, in one fell swoop, eliminate armor tanking from the game, homogenize all the shiptypes, and completely mess with resistance profiles, and ammunition.

Read what he quoted. Realize you didn't read what he quoted before. Realize that he is right.

Also, if you think eft fits pre-determine battle outcomes you might want to actually go try pvp.