Maybe push for that first, before trying to change derivative gameplay elements that hinge on it.
I can use that very same logic to say that you’re not fairly treating ganking.
Except I acknowledged all the pre gank actions already, while you tend not to acknowledge all the other work that goes on with miners. We’ve been over this plenty in other threads, stop treating me like a moron.
As for ‘derivative’, ganking is in no way derivative of mining, the two are only linked in so much as the entire EVE ecosystem is linked because it’s a semi real economy.
There is no need to change mining mechanics before changing ganking. The two have no real direct link.
Have you ganked?
Because I’ve ganked and mined. So when I say that mining is a mostly brain-dead activity, it comes from experience.
Ganking miners is absolutely a derivative activity of mining. How can it not be?
But ganking does not require miners. You can gank anyone.
By that argument you can’t change ganking till you do literally everything else in the game, because you can gank someone doing anything (except station trading I suppose). And that’s just silly.
I disagree with this. Like I said earlier, hi sec is not the place to earn good ISK. As high-sec would inevitably become more saturated from being safer, this would push the average income down too, so the overall value of ISK creation may be higher, but it’s split between more players. Therefore it is not actually the problem you think it will be.
I very much doubt things would become worthless. Cheaper? Sure, but cheaper prices also means more attractive to consumers. It’s nice to buy cheap ships for PVP. It sucks to buy an expensive PVP ship.
EVE already has an extremely high player turnover, which is one of the reasons they are putting a great deal of effort into player retention, and rightly so. Having your labour destroyed is as bad as your labour being worthless. Both will make players quit the game. I spoke to a new player last week who said he was quitting because he lost everything he had after a month of playing to a gank. Now ‘welcome to EVE’, I get the message, but at the same time, I don’t think it’s very healthy for the game that a new player can lose everything just because they have not learned how the game works and are not aware of the risks they are taking. Like it or not, new players coming into the game are expecting their to be a safe space where they can learn the game.
EVE is only going to die if high sec is too punishing for new and casual players and causes them to quit. If high sec is too safe, the game will be just fine. If it causes some kind of mineral inflation or something like that, CCP will likely do something about it anyway, as they have been doing so far.
By my argument, ganking has already been changed enough, and doesn’t need any more changes, unless those changes go in a completely opposite direction. It’s already a fringe activity as is, and largely relies on the gankee’s consent by virtue of not being present at the computer. Any entropic elements of ganking, which don’t merely deal with an “if-then” player activity relationship, have been patched out of the game many years ago.
If highsec is perfectly safe, everyone full faction/deadspace fits, income goes up.
A lot of people in highsec T2 fit with carefully selected faction modules for maximum efficiency within a certain budget to avoid becoming a gank magnet.
Edit to address a second point
Also you do get that this makes PVP meaningless. And is exactly what resource scarcity is designed to fix.
if nothing dies then it does not need to be replaced, with no gankers who are you going to lose your bling boat to, your "fair 1v1 " isnt eve lol. If no loss then no need for manufacturing also no need for mining.
You can disagree with anything you want, but I’m consistently noticing that everything you say is rooted in a deep ignorance of both basic economics, and an understanding of game mechanics. Now, I don’t think you’re a bad person, but I am led to believe that you are a bad player.
This is just an example of being ignorant of the truth.
This is you taking my exact argument, trying to make it yours while disagreeing with me, and not even realizing what you’re doing.
Ignorance, once again. You are unaware of the hyperbolic nature of the supply/demand relationship in a closed economic system. The economy exists in an equilibrium right now, which can only exist in a certain range in a closed system. If you eliminate half of all destruction in the game, things aren’t just going to become twice as cheap; they’ll start becoming exponentially cheaper with time.
Games (all games are closed economic systems) deal with this issue in two ways: either via destruction, like in games like EVE, or power creep, like in games like WoW. Unless you’re advocating for power creep to be introduced into EVE, eliminating high-sec’s share of destruction will throw the economy into an unrecoverable inflationary spiral.
Said like someone who’s never done any PvP before, and is making assumptions about what PvPers want.
No, it doesn’t. It has a very low new player retention rate, not a high turnover.
Then by your own admission, that player would quit had they not been ganked, and played long enough to “make one of everything” before reaching terminal boredom. It makes little practical difference why they quit, in this regard, because the outcome will be the same.
“Safe space to learn the game” and “major component of the game world in which 70% of the population resides, which accounts for the majority of the game’s economic activity” don’t have to be mutually inclusive.
Well it hasn’t happened yet. In fact, as high-sec has been getting made more and more safe over the course of the game’s existence, the game’s population has actually declined.
Good luck with that.
Please don’t delete those posts calling me out. I quite enjoyed them!
1 Like
Removed a bunch of rules violating posts and associated comments. Please follow the rules and have a lovely night!
3 Likes
Here it does.
You’re playing a game where non-consensual pvp is the norm. In fact it’s the point.
If that’s not your thing, maybe you shouldn’t be here.
Since wars are OPT-IN, i have to ask which idiot thought it was a good idea to join a wardeccable corp whilst believing the correct thing to do is not fight?
1 Like
The game isn’t only high sec you know.
I wish he would’ve left those posts up, lol.
They were so good.
@Garnet_Rourke you should make a thread in the Crime & Punishment section instead. I promise to consent to the expression of whatever sentiment about me that you have.
1 Like
maybe but this thread is about high sec only, you know?
1 Like
I feel that if pvp was hypertheoreticaly moved to low or nul then ccp would then need to increase difficulty of the ai npc as there must be destruction to the point where industry maintains the demand.
or highsec nerfed out of existence
I studied mathematics so I do understand these kind of interactions well. You are missing the fact that destruction will increase elsewhere as a result of cheaper prices. If every ship was the price of a years worth of ISK farming, nobody would ever undock. If every ship was 0 ISK, people would be undocking continuously and blowing each other up. A balance exists in between. Yes, the balance will shift, but it will not disappear like you claim it will.
Is there some sort of “I cant PLEX in high, so no one else should” subtext going on here?
1 Like