EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
7 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

Not enough stuff is being destroyed

Author
#1 - 2017-04-19 12:41:12 UTC  |  Edited by: manus
Hey. Prices on ships seem to be collapsing. What if there was more incentives to PVP and/or PVE and take more risk?

I can imagine some kind of challenge mode where you ship can only be fitted with Tech 1 stuff. But its a really hard mission? I dont know. What are your ideas? How can we create more incentives for people to risk their stuff?

-edit- maybe its not an issue
#2 - 2017-04-19 13:00:18 UTC
This will get me in trouble with the forum curmudgeons, but here's the one thing that will be sure to raise ship prices and increase ship destruction.

Attract more people to the game and give them stuff to do that will keep them interested in staying. I'd like to see 100,000 plus online when I log in. Not the 20,586 that I'm seeing right now.

Mr Epeen Cool
#3 - 2017-04-19 13:43:56 UTC
manus wrote:
Hey. Prices on ships seem to be collapsing. What if there was more incentives to PVP and/or PVE and take more risk?

I can imagine some kind of challenge mode where you ship can only be fitted with Tech 1 stuff. But its a really hard mission? I dont know. What are your ideas? How can we create more incentives for people to risk their stuff?

-edit- maybe its not an issue
No, it's an issue. Huge numbers of players log in to just collect and build stuff to supply the market. When they find that no one wants to buy their stuff and thus pay for their subscription for their industrial efforts, they will stop logging in.

The answer is simple: get more people logging in and in space doing stuff, especially fighting over stuff. The problem CCP seems to be having is getting there. They are having a real problem implementing compelling conflict drivers and interesting PvE content in recent years. CCP has instead taken the approach to make us all safer and safer, and richer and richer in a seemingly doomed attempt to juice player numbers.

A market collapse is going to be the cause of, or possibly the result of, the max exodus that will signal the end of the game. That said, the market has shown to be pretty resilient, actually surprisingly resistant given how much more ISK is sloshing around these days, so I don't think sagging ship prices herald the end of Eve or anything. However, it will be that way until one day when it is not and the market crashes/PLEX skyrockets and that loss of such a significant motivator of player activity will have massive ramifications for the health of the game.
#4 - 2017-04-19 14:04:59 UTC  |  Edited by: manus
Mr Epeen wrote:
This will get me in trouble with the forum curmudgeons, but here's the one thing that will be sure to raise ship prices and increase ship destruction.

Attract more people to the game and give them stuff to do that will keep them interested in staying. I'd like to see 100,000 plus online when I log in. Not the 20,586 that I'm seeing right now.

Mr Epeen Cool


Agreed. Things were going really well for EVE online, 6 years in a row constant growth. But then it sort of plateuet, and player count seemed to begin to drop. Why is this you think?

Chart of player count

However, having 20,000 players online is no small feat, as we can see when we compare it with other games. It puts it in top 20 on steam.

Link

Black Pedro wrote:
They are having a real problem implementing compelling conflict drivers and interesting PvE content in recent years. CCP has instead taken the approach to make us all safer and safer, and richer and richer in a seemingly doomed attempt to juice player numbers.


I thought i was the only one who was concerned about this. The irony is their actions seems to have the opposite of the intended effect.
#5 - 2017-04-19 14:07:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Vash Bloodstone
Prices tell a story. The price of some ships might be falling, so maybe it's time to stop building those ships? Perhaps demand is too low and supply too high or maybe people just hate those ships. All you have to do look at the market, build things the market wants. If you were a farmer and had to choose what to farm, and you knew corn prices were falling and that soy bean prices were rising, would you plant corn? (This might even mean you don't build ships at all, but something else.)

Prices are signals that tell what the market wants. Low prices indicate the product isn't highly needed at the moment, while High prices tell you which are in highest demand. The people who make the most profit are those most able to respond to market demands.


Your "solution" to the farmer's dilemma isn't to plant soy beans, but instead to burn the cornfields of others or make other people eat your terrible corn. It's not a good solution.
#6 - 2017-04-19 14:25:11 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
This will get me in trouble with the forum curmudgeons, but here's the one thing that will be sure to raise ship prices and increase ship destruction.

Attract more people to the game and give them stuff to do that will keep them interested in staying. I'd like to see 100,000 plus online when I log in. Not the 20,586 that I'm seeing right now.

Mr Epeen Cool



Unless all the people coming in do manufacturing and mining.

Then the ship prices will drop even further.

To make prices go up you don't just need numbers... you need numbers who are focused on a particular aspect of the economy... the one that causes demand for ships in this case.
oiukhp Muvila
#7 - 2017-04-19 14:26:03 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
This will get me in trouble with the forum curmudgeons, but here's the one thing that will be sure to raise ship prices and increase ship destruction.

Attract more people to the game and give them stuff to do that will keep them interested in staying. I'd like to see 100,000 plus online when I log in. Not the 20,586 that I'm seeing right now.

Mr Epeen Cool



What if in order to attract that many more players some core fundamentals to this game had to be re-examined?

Would the current player base be willing to do that?


The assumption being that if Eve, as currently envisioned, could attain that many subscribers, it would have years ago.



I think Eve could be re-imagined in a way that would allow it to remain faithful to the vast majority of the tenants that makes this game unique.

But, I think this game has far too many obstinate edge-case players to allow it to happen.


The most unfortunate thing about this game is the "it could be so much more" aspect that so many realize.

And the significant number of players willing to cry woof over any changes that seem to threaten their chosen play style regardless of how it may broaden the appeal of the game.

Gallente Federation
#8 - 2017-04-19 14:29:52 UTC
Prices are collapsing because of whats happening in nullsec.

Changes to mining meant that massive chunks of highsec ore where not leaving anymore.

Trit collapse along with everything else and now all the prices are in free fall

Nothing to do with nothing dying.


Remember when Nox cost 120 isk each and some moon mining changes in nullsec kicked out all the larpers so there was no supply moving into highsec and those prices just shot up.


Same story different time
#9 - 2017-04-19 14:33:47 UTC
Vash Bloodstone wrote:
Prices tell a story. The price of some ships might be falling, so maybe it's time to stop building those ships? Perhaps demand is too low and supply too high or maybe people just hate those ships. All you have to do look at the market, build things the market wants. If you were a farmer and had to choose what to farm, and you knew corn prices were falling and that soy bean prices were rising, would you plant corn? (This might even mean you don't build ships at all, but something else.)

Prices are signals that tell what the market wants. Low prices indicate the product isn't highly needed at the moment, while High prices tell you which are in highest demand. The people who make the most profit are those most able to respond to market demands.


Your "solution" to the farmer's dilemma isn't to plant soy beans, but instead to burn the cornfields or others make people eat your terrible corn. It's not a good solution.


No, we actually agree. Notice i was asking for more incentives to risk stuff. I wasnt asking for freebies. And the trend i am talking about has existed since Nov 2016, at least in Rens. There could be an underlying problem. It would be interesting to hear peoples ideas of why Hurricanes have gone from 55M isk to 42M isk. This downtrend has existed since Nov 2016. And probably now is the cheapest hurricanes have ever been. I wonder why that is.
#10 - 2017-04-19 14:38:44 UTC
manus wrote:
Hey. Prices on ships seem to be collapsing. What if there was more incentives to PVP and/or PVE and take more risk?

I can imagine some kind of challenge mode where you ship can only be fitted with Tech 1 stuff. But its a really hard mission? I dont know. What are your ideas? How can we create more incentives for people to risk their stuff?

-edit- maybe its not an issue


Ship prices dropped largely because of the huge influx of minerals from the Rorqual. The prices will go back up when mineral prices recover. That's already started but it's going to be a little while longer yet before the market flushes out the excess it built up over the months of Rorqual strip-mining, and probably won't get back up to pre-Rorqual levels given the amount they're still mining.

You're not going to get players to actually risk more ships beyond what they're already doing. The two major limiting factors on ship destruction are Null wars and personal player income compared to ship cost. Ship costs are hardly "crashing" and incomes haven't changed much recently. There's also no major Null wars currently active.

PvE incentives don't work because any PvE dangerous enough to result in a net gain in ship destruction would have to be lucrative enough that it would cause major problems for the economy, since PvE is generally fairly safe since it needs to be ISK-positive over the long run.
#11 - 2017-04-19 14:49:39 UTC  |  Edited by: manus
You are assuming that people PVE solely to earn ISK. With challenge modes, they could be doing it for different reasons.

You could also add achivements. For example a category that was named "Ships lost". So you would have a category that said. Lost every kind of cruiser. I can imagine someone collecting such an achivement for fun. It will also compel players to try fits in ships they typically dont fly. You could have a category that said "PVP'ed with all Minmatar Battlecruisers" And this achivement thingie has potential to expand to other areas of the game. They do appeal to some players. I hope you get the idea.
#12 - 2017-04-19 14:58:48 UTC
Vash Bloodstone wrote:
Prices tell a story. The price of some ships might be falling, so maybe it's time to stop building those ships? Perhaps demand is too low and supply too high or maybe people just hate those ships. All you have to do look at the market, build things the market wants. If you were a farmer and had to choose what to farm, and you knew corn prices were falling and that soy bean prices were rising, would you plant corn? (This might even mean you don't build ships at all, but something else.)

No, the price of everything is falling. Three of the four economic indices are trending down, and the only one heading up - the Secondary Produce Price Index - is a direct result of the massive requirements for PI and salvage by the new Upwell structures which makes up a large portion of that index. Further, I picked the first 6 ships that came to mind to test this assertion by the OP, and all of them were down in price significantly over the last 12 months except for 1 (the Guardian for some reason). This all has a strong smell of deflation and will make it tougher for producers of all goods.

How is this possible when we have record levels of ISK being flooded into the economy? My guess is that PLEX and skill extractors are acting as massive sponges soaking up much of the excess free ISK while the increased industrial output along with decreased destruction numbers keep depressing prices.

There are still plenty of profitable niches to be an industrialist, but it is not simply that markets are changing in response to cyclical forces. There is a systemic weakness in the economy of New Eden, and it should be a little worrying, especially if you make your income by production or trade.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
PvE incentives don't work because any PvE dangerous enough to result in a net gain in ship destruction would have to be lucrative enough that it would cause major problems for the economy, since PvE is generally fairly safe since it needs to be ISK-positive over the long run.
I am not so sure about this. The economic numbers show the vast majority (95%+) of wealth leaves the game by people quitting and leaving it to rot in their hanger/wallet rather than being destroyed. If new PvE stimulates players to buy new ships or modules, it will still serve as demand for the market all the same as PvP losses, even if it is never destroyed. As long as the player never sells it back onto the market, then it is effectively consumed.

Sure, that's not as much demand as a player who loses an expensive ship each play session shooting other players, but if the PvE was interesting and varied enough to make a player invest in a new shiny ship every few weeks or months to add to their collection, that could be a significant source of demand for the market, especially given how much more PvE than PvP takes place in this game. Even if it just ends up collecting dust in their hanger for the rest of time.

#13 - 2017-04-19 14:58:52 UTC
manus wrote:
You are assuming that people PVE solely to earn ISK. With challenge modes, they could be doing it for different reasons.

nope, just for the isk. anything not worth doing for the isk just kinda sits there and stagnates.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

#14 - 2017-04-19 15:00:41 UTC  |  Edited by: manus
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
manus wrote:
You are assuming that people PVE solely to earn ISK. With challenge modes, they could be doing it for different reasons.

nope, just for the isk. anything not worth doing for the isk just kinda sits there and stagnates.


"Not worth doing for the isk" does not mean you have to be ISK positive when you are done.
#15 - 2017-04-19 15:20:02 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Vash Bloodstone wrote:
Prices tell a story. The price of some ships might be falling, so maybe it's time to stop building those ships? Perhaps demand is too low and supply too high or maybe people just hate those ships. All you have to do look at the market, build things the market wants. If you were a farmer and had to choose what to farm, and you knew corn prices were falling and that soy bean prices were rising, would you plant corn? (This might even mean you don't build ships at all, but something else.)

No, the price of everything is falling. Three of the four economic indices are trending down, and the only one heading up - the Secondary Produce Price Index - is a direct result of the massive requirements for PI and salvage by the new Upwell structures which makes up a large portion of that index. Further, I picked the first 6 ships that came to mind to test this assertion by the OP, and all of them were down in price significantly over the last 12 months except for 1 (the Guardian for some reason). This all has a strong smell of deflation and will make it tougher for producers of all goods.

How is this possible when we have record levels of ISK being flooded into the economy? My guess is that PLEX and skill extractors are acting as massive sponges soaking up much of the excess free ISK while the increased industrial output along with decreased destruction numbers keep depressing prices.

There are still plenty of profitable niches to be an industrialist, but it is not simply that markets are changing in response to cyclical forces. There is a systemic weakness in the economy of New Eden, and it should be a little worrying, especially if you make your income by production or trade.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
PvE incentives don't work because any PvE dangerous enough to result in a net gain in ship destruction would have to be lucrative enough that it would cause major problems for the economy, since PvE is generally fairly safe since it needs to be ISK-positive over the long run.
I am not so sure about this. The economic numbers show the vast majority (95%+) of wealth leaves the game by people quitting and leaving it to rot in their hanger/wallet rather than being destroyed. If new PvE stimulates players to buy new ships or modules, it will still serve as demand for the market all the same as PvP losses, even if it is never destroyed. As long as the player never sells it back onto the market, then it is effectively consumed.

Sure, that's not as much demand as a player who loses an expensive ship each play session shooting other players, but if the PvE was interesting and varied enough to make a player invest in a new shiny ship every few weeks or months to add to their collection, that could be a significant source of demand for the market, especially given how much more PvE than PvP takes place in this game. Even if it just ends up collecting dust in their hanger for the rest of time.


well I was going to type out a response like that but you did it for me Cool

most prices are in a long run decline, players simply farm more than we can use. There are a few bottlenecks so that creates a few valuable things, although that results in ohter things being less valuable as there are more of them entering the game than we can even use. Rorquals are a pretty cool thing right now, however they have been nerfed several times since the revamp as they are flooding too many minerals into the system. I'm looking forward to the moon mining changes as rorquals will have to choose between moon minerals and asteroid minerals.

and on the isk side bounty prizes are just dumping isk into the system, on one hand it is great people can use their cap ships to rat and make good money, it is far better that people can use their space rather than feel like they need to go to highsec to make their money. on the other hand injecting over 100m of isk every hour into the system is perhaps too much. High end power creep (ratting, burner missions, incursions) keeps pushing income up, but on the low end players don't see much benefit.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

#16 - 2017-04-19 15:45:31 UTC
Scialt wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
This will get me in trouble with the forum curmudgeons, but here's the one thing that will be sure to raise ship prices and increase ship destruction.

Attract more people to the game and give them stuff to do that will keep them interested in staying. I'd like to see 100,000 plus online when I log in. Not the 20,586 that I'm seeing right now.

Mr Epeen Cool



Unless all the people coming in do manufacturing and mining.

Then the ship prices will drop even further.

To make prices go up you don't just need numbers... you need numbers who are focused on a particular aspect of the economy... the one that causes demand for ships in this case.
To the underlined. This is a hugely unlikely hypothetical. But even if that unprecedented event happened, it would be a good thing.

Mining ships would go up in price significantly due to demand. Many would be lost due to wardecs and ganks. Gank ships would also go up in price as there are many more being used to keep the miners in their place. Mercenary corps would be destroying many more ships as industrialists hired them to punish gank corps.

But that's moot anyway as if you double the amount of miners in the game, you will likely also double the amount of people joining for the easy kills of mining ships.

There is no argument calling for the stagnation of the player base that will stand up to the most basic glimmer of critical thought.

Mr Epeen Cool
Caldari State
#17 - 2017-04-19 15:51:36 UTC
I happen to believe falling prices are a good thing. A lot of players don't PvP because crap is too expensive. It can take a casual player quite a while to save up and buy an expensive ship. Want me to risk it? Get prices down...a lot.
#18 - 2017-04-19 15:59:22 UTC
Lets consider two groups of players.
The first group gets a big rush from winning. They get a big rush just from the experience, even if they lose. For this group, losing a ship is not a big deal.
The second group gets a gentle feeling of accomplishment from winning. But losing can be devastating, and is not something they want to experience when playing a game for fun.

For both groups, these feelings are gut reactions to events, not something that one really has any control over. What each group does have control over is what they do in game. Group two players do activities that minimize the chance of a loss.

There is nothing you can do to encourage group two to risk ships. Its not why they play the game. Most of these players are also those who do mining, industry and PVE.

So, we should concentrate on group one players, those that have little issue with losing ships. But they will not do so without reason. We need to give that group reasons.

What would be the changes? I'm not sure. But think of things that give reasons for those who don't mind losing ships to go do so. Don't try and get the risk adverse to risk ships, they just will not do so.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

ChaosTheory.
#19 - 2017-04-19 16:13:43 UTC
Scialt wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
This will get me in trouble with the forum curmudgeons, but here's the one thing that will be sure to raise ship prices and increase ship destruction.

Attract more people to the game and give them stuff to do that will keep them interested in staying. I'd like to see 100,000 plus online when I log in. Not the 20,586 that I'm seeing right now.

Mr Epeen Cool



Unless all the people coming in do manufacturing and mining.

Then the ship prices will drop even further.

To make prices go up you don't just need numbers... you need numbers who are focused on a particular aspect of the economy... the one that causes demand for ships in this case.


The wooshing sound you just heard was your point going completely over that guy's head. People who want something never think that the thing they want could have a down side, the "moar players now" choir never really seems to consider this: more players could very well equal worse game experiences and outcomes for everyone.

We know that most MMO players will prefer PVE. Even in a notoriously pvp game like EVE, most characters and many many players stay exclusively in the section of space where pvp is most punished (high sec). "more players" means more mission runners, low end ded complex runners and miners. The amount of destruction happening is too low NOW, how is adding more people who probably don't want destroy things going to help?

On top of that, carebears attract gankers (which can exist in EVE because of the rules), more carebears would bring more CODE types to the game as well. Yet another thing the 'moar players now!" crowd does not consider.

Personally I think there is a comfort zone of payer numbers, and CCP could be doing more to attract the right kinds of players, but 100,000 players on at one time wouldn't mean anything good for the game, it would mean inflation and TiDi for all. The isks in all our wallets would transform into Zimbabwe Dollars.

The second wooshing sound we all just heard was the point flying over Mr Epeen's head for a second time in 5 minutes.


#20 - 2017-04-19 16:14:11 UTC
7 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump