I’ve read a lot of your posts. I know you’re an intelligent and reasonable person so I will take your word for it. If you agree with much of the changes then I will not argue and will better inform myself.
Thank you.
1 Like
Maybe even a 3rd party: I thought that quote might have been a bit of sarcasm, invented by the DoW host, to publicize the discussion.
1 Like
Probably, it’s too long to listen to all of it. I assume, from that wording that one of the DEV’s said it.
I’m of a different mind than you , the ability to pvp should you choose is there .
What these , military industrial complexes lack is excess . In order to survive they must advance so the investment in the next level of income is of primary importance , it s a natural progression . They have to invest to survive and to grow . So the more you impoverish industry the less people have to invest in the profit less military aspect .
People choose to pvp with what they can afford to lose naturally , the less they can afford to lose the less often and less they invest in the type of ship they use .
The more excess the more destruction .
I listened to the whole podcast and if I’m remembering correctly the host of the show made that comment in jest and there was chuckling in which I think it was swift jokingly agreed. It was them just taking the meme and using it as a poke in jest.
Thanks for the response here. Nice that you replied to me directly without me even pinging “@” you, shows that you are indeed reading these forums. Anyway, I guess one of the largest critiques I have is that I wish yall maybe took a more critical and in-depth look at how players will use and abuse changes. I know sometimes it’s difficult to compete the the knowledge and experience that we sometimes have at breaking and abusing things. Sometimes it feels like things are thrown together and you just see what happens.
I’m very excited to hear that structure rebalancing and changes may be on the horizon for 2022, and I can’t wait to see them because honestly… anything is an improvement at this point! REMOVE THEM!!!
3 Likes
You define EVE PvP as an activity in which players engage as a pastime; essentially something that players spend money on by doing some “roams” or whatever after they’ve farmed PvE content for a while.
That is fundamentally at odds with my understanding of EVE PvP—which is more in line with the game’s original creative vision—being an activity in which you engage for the sake of making progress and achieving goals. PvP is a means to an end, not an end in itself. EVE isn’t a deathmatch shooter game where the only thing to do is play “rounds” or “matches” against other players. The primary goal in EVE is empire-building (no matter how small that empire is, even if it’s just a single person), and PvP is a tool to be used to make progress in that regard, just like PvE, and politics, and economic trade.
Granted, the game does accommodate your vision of PvP as well. Players are entitled to grind up some money/resources, and then use them up on meaningless fights/encounters if they want to. But that accommodation is incidental, and not intentional.
This is why excess is detrimental to the health of the game. In your vision of EVE, excess is great because it means more deathmatch fights against other players. But by having excess, you eliminate the need to compete with other players for resources and power, and the drive toward empire-building slows down and dissipates, as is evident from how stagnant null-sec and wormhole space have become over the past couple of years.
Deathmatches can be fun for a while, but are ultimately forgettable, especially considering EVE’s “weak” gameplay as far as ship interaction is concerned. But being forced to carefully allocate assets, and undertake offensive and defensive campaigns against other players for the sake of securing additional resources or protecting what you already have, is what gives EVE’s gameplay true meaning.
It’s not just about destruction; it’s about meaningful destruction. And a system built upon excess won’t have the requisite winners and losers needed to create meaning in conflict. An EVE where two sides field last-ditch battlecruiser fleets against each other out of desperation to capture/protect space is a much more exciting EVE than one in which the two sides throw capital fleets at each other with no concern for the outcome, and nothing interesting ever happens.
5 Likes
I personally think what your talking about is more a function of population rather than wealth , the more people competing for limited resources the more conflict over it .
Obviously you cant shrink space so the best you can do is hope for ( or plan and design to attract ) higher population
/edit also I’d somewhat disagree with your assessment. In low sec say for gas if people had more funds to invest they would more likely field barges and porpoises rather than just ventures leading to more opportunities for piracy . In wormholes people would be more likely to field strats to claim loot from others wormholes rather than high seccers popping there heads in in a heron to claim a couple of hacking sites or ventures to try and ninja some gas again leading to more conflict over resources
Resources haven’t been truly limited for over a decade. Scarcity would’ve made resources limited again, but they cut it too short for that effect to be achieved.
I remember in the old days, like back in 2004-2007, I actually did a bit of null-sec mining, and the good rocks were truly limited. We had to divvy them up, and they’d all get mined out, and there would be no more. Same for the 6/10 - 10/10 DED sites.
These days you can just have infinite anomalies, or pop into a random wormhole, or run abyssal filaments, and the materials and ISK are effectively limitless.
Players using cheaper ships leading to there being less opportunity for piracy, etc., is a fallacy. Players would sometimes use cheaper ships, but the overall amount of activity would remain intact. And players would still strive to progress toward bigger and better ships and gear. Bigger kills would be more rare, but this would also make each one feel like a bigger achievement. It’s not always about the quantity.
2 Likes
I appreciate you started playing in a different era of the game than me and things have changed a lot obviously but to summarise what is your solution to increasing pvp and conflict over resources , in the here and now ?
Would like to comment here because I’m considering myself as target demographic for this. My indu playstyle involves analyzing the chains of production and pick the steps most profitable per time unit invested to do for income.
Unfortunately the indu changes failed so far, as they didn’t create profitable intermediate steps. In fact they removed profitability of certain steps, like hunting for faction and pirate ship blueprints. In general moving costs from BPC to materials makes BPCs worthless as you may remember from the Augmented drones and their Elite AI requirements.
The reasons for the indu changes to fail imo are:
- less people or noone builds the changed items, because the cost are too high compared to stocks and perceived value of item, or LP shops exist
- each step done by different people adds ~5% to the cost of the final product due to market taxation
- the BOM is imbalanced compared to T2/T3, the price is created by 1-2 materials, the rest is just filling material, and the exploration items are not the bottleneck
Because the end price is too high, people want to reduce cost, hence pressure on being vertical integrated because of step taxation, which is fostered further by imbalanced BOM. Hence no profit or market for components.
The BOM needs to be drastically simplified again. Going back to minerals only for all T1 and BPC + 1 additional bottleneck component gathered via (exploration) sites (different one per ship type). You can’t fight the drive for vertical integration unless you remove taxes, but you can get people in space and competing with that approach. The proliferation can be controlled by the number and location of sites to get the bottleneck material.
Which is the ultimate goal, to make the game fun. There are not enough players in the game who like the indu game purely for fun, but a lot who want to buy affordable ships to go out to New Eden.
5 Likes
I post less than I lurk. I agree with the sentiment that “players just want fun”, but fun/thrill is very closely tied to intrinsic/perceived value of the ships. That was the battle. We are optimistic that the we can completely turn our attention over to the things you mention, meta, fw, structures and high risk, high attention and high reward challenges.
3 Likes
Ber er hver að baki nema bróður eigi!
it’s probably an editorial by the hosts
1 Like
Great points, I will compare notes with the team
1 Like
I apologize for misquoting you, sir. o/
3 Likes
Let me clarify one point. In case the bottleneck is/was the BPC (e.g. pirate ships), then this ship line doesn’t need an extra element. Because if you have two bottlenecks, the profit for each may go below the threshold for people willing to engage in that activity to obtain it.
This is the general problem with a big diversified BOM, each playstyle for itself needs to be profitable for people to cooperate. That’s why my recommendation, to pick one bottleneck.
2 Likes
icelandic viking saying “without a brother, you are vulnerable to attack”
4 Likes
There is a lot of talk about what was wrong with the game coming from you and CCP in general. What was the problem? We had ships we could replace cheaply. We were able to have the largest war in EVE history. We had a booming economy. We had 20-35% more players. I am not seeing a problem!
The problem inside of Eve right now is everything is too expensive. Nothing rewarding enough for the extra grinding have to be done. The rewards have not been increased to reflect that. The insurance pay out haven’t been increased to reflect the new building requirement.
There is no moving on from this. What you and CCP have inflected on Eve is still on going and will be years. There is no getting better from this. It is do as CCP commands or to leave.
3 Likes
That’s not a problem inside of EVE.
It’s a problem inside of your brain.
2 Likes