EVE Information Portal

Hey Greyscale, not to nag but we really have potentially a lot of work ahead of us. Any chance we can get these?

Edit: We can't really do much in terms of solid feedback on the numbers until we have them either.

This is a fair statement, but the problem is your observation is not a proof either. And, there's no real safety net, the loss of player position (status, wealth, competitive edge) is not reversible and it's impact is not universally (or randomly) applied.

Prior quarterly reports (Q4 2010) show that the impact of PLEX on the EVE CPI with a 6% increase was massive even with bounties as the largest generator of currency (in the trillons). There are additional variables in play too like a drop in paid subscribers with point releases, an arbitrary increase in LP items that bypass taxes, the devaluation of skills (isk sink) and state standings (opportunity cost), etc... So my concern is that the full, nuanced relationship is not known nor are the consequences reversible. I am sufficiently invested in EVE timewise to be concerned.

If the CCP data in the quarterly reports is accurate, a drop in paid users (assuming them to be the one's with relatively larger wallets) means an exit of currency from the game for an unknown duration of time, there is also a loss of transaction opportunities. The loss of currency may not be so bad depending on how it was being used. However, If the velocity of transactions slow or markets dry up, inventories increase and marginal producers are pushed out and the disincentives of tax (currency destruction) rates combine for some unanticipated exponential impact.

Totally speculative, but we've seen, per CCP, that PLEX has a huge impact on the game, especially when PLEX creation outpaces any reductions in ingame cost. And, even worse, CCP cancelled the Quarterly Report. So the ability to have a discussion based on proof is hampered greatly.

I would just like to add to that technical analysis an anecdote of my own.

The short version is: never rely entirely on metrics!

I used to play SWTOR, actually straight from launch until Georg Zeller, the lead designer in charge of game balance, decided his metrics showed that endgame raids were too easy for players to clear, and instated such a severe nerf patch that was mainly aimed at healers but produced other side effects as well, that the game just became unfun to play from a general, landscape play, point of view. Your general, 1-50 gameplay, just became very tedious due to the overhaul in that patch.

I actually had a moment of clarity of taking myself out of the game and realizing how unfun the game had become and how much I missed playing the game prior to the "raid fixes" patch that ultimately didn't even succeed in doing that, and the entire game became free to play shortly after.

Never rely entirely on metrics!

Metrics say this, metrics say that. If we do change a), metrics say that will improve value b). Things like that can completely destroy the actual gameplay value for players that the change is not even directed at. Like me, because the metrics said raiding was too easy, they nerfed my class so badly that I found leveling and just playing the game so much of a chore, that I just couldn't play it anymore. It became, "not worth my time".

How is this relevant here?

Fun matters. Consider changes very carefully because if the game becomes too 'annoying' to play but the actual metrics tell you that your changes are correct, you are going to fall into the same trap. The average player won't understand the severe cost hike, won't understand why they have to suddenly move all their blueprints around, or make copies to move around, won't understand why they can't remote research anymore, won't understand why any of that is needed, and will give up on industry all-together, because the whole process just became 'unfun'. Read, too much of a hassle.

The 'hardcore raider' or in this case, the alliances that are very organized and can counter these changes, these changes won't matter to them because they are playing at a level that is "up here". And the average player is "down there", plus generally doesn't have the drive to play the game a 'hardcore raider' plays anyway. They don't want to.

That's just a fact for how games play out, if you cater your game to the highest end, largely it will suffer.

A healthy game population consists of casual players, players that just login to fly a new ship or try something new, to players that just literally use your game client to create portraits they like. These players actually exist in EvE! Along with players that play the game more, say, competitively. Not everyone has the same goals, or the same ambition to play the game a certain way. Some just play it to relax after a stressful day.

You, as designers, are tasked with interpreting metrics to account for all of that - to ensure the game remains fun to play, that when you login, it is "worth your time", even if you have small goals in mind. Otherwise you are left with a community of the truly hardcore and even if you retain that community, like in other games, the game cannot survive solely with a focus on that. It needs to retain all sorts of playstyles, in order for you to remain successful, as a business.

The game today, I think can sustain a wide variety of playstyles. The game that is coming in Crius, I think is going to be like a rude awakening to a large majority of players who may not receive it with welcoming arms.

Metrics are not everything!

Fun is everything. Ask yourself, "is this fun", before you enact a change, not by consulting a long trail of metrics or you will fall into a design trap.

So some absolutes are more absolute than others ;-) No, wait, I got something better... what do you think this is... a game?!?!

THIS. PLEASE. PLEEEEASE.
If we can do batch jobs, then I can play EVE while I play EVE.

Agreeing with that - it makes sense that having a composite of prices as basis makes it less susceptible to manipulation. And further, it makes sense both gamewise and lorewise to tax the input rather than the output.

In fact, I like Darin Vanar's proposition: Make it a simple, sensible equation, based on what production is about: volume of input or output (whichever is highest - space must be a valuable commodity inside stations), difficulty (tech level, i.e workforce quality) and price of input materials (leaving out the blueprint, it is not a material, it is a recipe). To this basis, you can add skills, system busyness, installations, teams and what have you, but please leave out product price, it is silly. All those values are readily available for each and every producable item in the game. Serverload-wise there can be no difference at all, and you would get a much more believable and robust figure.

I cannot see any "difficulty" multiplier that would keep prices relevant for T2 ships while preventing them from becoming ridiculous for ammo. The problem with sweeping suggestions is that there are like a billion edge cases in Eve which make them impossible.

For example, lets just throw some simple numbers out there:

Say it costs 7 isk per m^3 of the unpackaged item to manufacture with a meta level multiplier
That means that a thorax costs 784,000 ISK to manufacture... thats just over 7% which is what theyre aiming for IIRC
That means a deimos should cost 3,920,000 (784,000 * 5) which is just over 2% ... i guess thats ok

ok, so Antimatter M is 0.0125 m^3 and you make 100 rounds a run, so the run size is 1.25 m^3 which makes the manufacture cost 8.75... see the problem?

I have two problems with the above statement:

1. Eve is NOT a simulation ... If you think it is, i suggest you go take a physics class to see why ships in space dont need to bank to turn, and why you should not hear anything in space.
2. I believe they very carefully chose their formula, they want manufacturing to be inflation and growth proof. Your idea does not account for inflation and would need to be continually readjusted

On PLEX and their impact, a lot depends upon the size of the PLEX float (the number in circulation but not yet used).

Estimates of the liquid ISK in the economy are around three-quarters of a quadrillion ISK. (750 T). Total production less destruction in EVE is around 1.5Q per year (1500T) at the moment, so it's plausible that total assets are around 10Q.

If the PLEX float is 10k PLEX, then that's negligible (7T). If the PLEX float is closer to 500k PLEX, however, it's more significant a factor (350T) in the overall economy. If it's 2M PLEX (1.4Q) then that's a major factor.

I hope that, if the PLEX float is at the larger end of that spectrum (and I assume it is not and is closer to 100k), then that is factored into decisions about scaling factors. And I also hope that if the PLEX float is at the lower end of that spectrum (say 25k) that it is not considered in discussions of scaling factors.

You left out the scaling, Sigras.

What prevents the multiplier for getting out of control for ammo, is the scaling. Ammo compared to a ship, is very small, and would be assembled in a production line. Say, like one they use for candy bars. It might be a very complicated process, but what keeps it down is by attaching a 0.05% multiplier to it. A standard battleship hull for example would have a value of 1. And work them out in steps, with very broad classification. A frigate maybe 0.75%, for example.

This is already present in game, to an extent. (Look in Isis, all those icons when you hover over a ship, small, medium, large, that is what we would be looking for.)

Forget m3, -- not trying to work out things to precise values, but merely to classify them in broad scopes, that can be used in other calculations in order to represent things more accurately.

Putting things into "types" as opposed to trying something as complex as ordering them by their m3 value. Think for example, classifying fruits from vegetables. Apples from oranges. That type of thing. Classification. Every item in EvE can be given at least three classifications with almost absolute certainty. That would present you with a small number of categories, which can be easily understood at a glance, and more important, are very modular.

2. They did not choose a formula, but opted to use an estimated product value. There is no formula in their "formula" other than, "we are going to scale this value by how many orders are put up in a system". The current install cost for example, is a fixed value, but they did not attempt to create a formula for it, when revamping industry. Instead they took the top end, which is the estimated value of the final product, and broke it down into pieces and attempted to shove them into a reformulated slots system in order to derive a value. They don't actually have a formula to calculate install costs, which is what I was trying to point out.

I don't think they are doing this in an attempt to curb inflation - bounty payouts have not changed, mission payouts have not changed for years on end, but the developers are confident the current economy is anchored in bounty payouts and thus have no concern with the new cost model getting out of hand because the player is not going to pay too much for an item - relative to bounty payouts (I'm sure it's not just that, but it is the biggest reason that has been brought out). That is their plan in a nutshell.

There is no "formula" in their "formula", there is no fixed value, there isn't even a ceiling. You are reading too much into their plan. Fix inflation? I'm sure they are not doing this system to account for inflation - they are merely working from a "concept". It's a brave and ambitious concept, and could be a lot of fun to play, but it needs to be anchored in itself to an extent, not from outside means. Otherwise it can break the economy.

Do you have any concrete numbers and formulae around POSes yet? There are a lot of old posts arount intent and comments that this or the other are 'interesting' but I've seen nothing concrete to date. Given the projected SiSi release on the 10th, I'm hoping you have something and are simply too busy to post, but by the same token, I find the idea of reverse engineering what you have in front of you highly annoying.