Constructive Feedback on PvE Gameplay and High-sec Experience

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

This letter was originally sent to CCP Games as feedback. At the same time, I would also like to hear the opinion of the broader EVE Online community, especially players focused on PvE gameplay, as I believe this is a topic that affects a significant part of the player base.

"Subject: Constructive Feedback Regarding PvE Gameplay in EVE Online

Dear CCP Games Team,

I am writing to you as a long-time EVE Online player who genuinely cares about this game. My intention is not to request compensation or to complain about losing a ship. Instead, I would like to share some constructive feedback that I hope may contribute to future discussions about the direction of EVE Online.

First of all, I would like to thank you for creating one of the most remarkable MMORPGs ever made.

EVE Online is truly unique. Its player-driven economy, deep gameplay mechanics, freedom of choice, ship customization, industry, exploration, and long-term character progression create an experience unlike any other game. These are the reasons why so many players continue to return to New Eden, even after many years.

For that very reason, I believe it is important to discuss one aspect of the game that, in my opinion, deserves greater attention: the experience of PvE-focused players.

I am not asking for the removal of PvP.

I am not asking for complete safety.

I am not asking for EVE Online to become an easier game.

What I am asking is whether the current balance between PvP and PvE still serves both the game and its community in the best possible way.

As a player who primarily enjoys missions, Abyssal Deadspace, mining, exploration, industry, and long-term progression, I often feel that many PvE activities ultimately become gateways to unwanted PvP encounters—not because of poor decisions or lack of preparation, but because some situations are inherently predictable and therefore easy to exploit.

Abyssal Deadspace is an excellent example.

It is one of the most enjoyable PvE activities in EVE Online. It requires expensive ships, specialized fittings, months of skill training, game knowledge, concentration, and a willingness to accept significant risk.

Players willingly accept that challenge.

Inside the Abyss.

However, after successfully completing the encounter, they return to a fixed and predictable location where organized groups may already be waiting.

At that point, the challenge is no longer about mastering PvE content.

Instead, it becomes an unavoidable PvP encounter that many players never intended to participate in.

The frustration is not simply about losing a ship.

It is the feeling that success or failure was determined less by player skill and more by circumstances that could hardly be influenced.

A similar feeling exists in other PvE activities within High Security Space.

The term “High Security” naturally creates the expectation of a relatively safe environment, especially for newer and returning players. They soon discover that organized gank groups, multiple-account coordination, and highly predictable mechanics can turn even routine PvE activities into significant risks.

I fully understand that player interaction—including hostile interaction—is one of the core pillars of EVE Online.

I do not wish to change that philosophy.

However, I believe there is room to improve the experience of PvE players without compromising what makes EVE unique.

For example, mechanics such as Abyssal exits could perhaps be reconsidered in ways that preserve meaningful risk while reducing situations where players feel they had little or no opportunity to influence the outcome.

These are not demands.

They are simply ideas intended to encourage discussion.

I also believe it is worth recognizing the important role PvE players play within New Eden.

Miners, industrialists, explorers, mission runners, manufacturers, traders, and many solo players form the economic foundation of EVE Online. They produce the ships, modules, ammunition, and resources that sustain the entire player-driven economy—including the PvP community itself.

Supporting these players is therefore not contrary to the philosophy of EVE.

On the contrary, it strengthens the ecosystem that makes EVE Online so unique.

My intention is not to criticize the incredible work your team has done over the past two decades.

I simply hope that future development will continue to consider the needs of PvE-focused players, newcomers, returning pilots, and those who prefer to play independently.

I truly believe that allowing these players to enjoy meaningful PvE progression while preserving EVE’s identity would contribute to the long-term health and growth of New Eden.

Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts.

Regardless of whether you agree with my perspective, I sincerely appreciate your continued dedication to one of the most ambitious and unforgettable online games ever created.

With respect,

This letter was originally sent to CCP Games as feedback. At the same time, I would also like to hear the opinion of the broader EVE Online community, especially players focused on PvE gameplay, as I believe this is a topic that affects a significant part of the player base.

Does anyone else share this perspective?

Omega EVE Online Player

1 Like
2

and then asks for exactly this.

vOv

What’s worse is the real issue with Abyssals is that you can’t get into one to play with the person running it, they’re already too safe.

3 Likes
3

„I understand that perspective. My point is not about removing PvP interaction, but about situations where PvE success transitions into unavoidable and highly predictable PvP exposure. That distinction is important.“

4

Then why are you asking for removal of PvP at the end of abyssals?

Why are you asking for safety from PvP for this experience?

A common mistake. ‘High security’ is a relative term, not an absolute one.

The security measures in high security space are higher than those of low security or null security space, but nothing suggests the security is perfect.

High security space still has risks of PvP like any other part of the game, just less of them and of a slightly different nature because of the security measures that exist in HS space.

The game even explicitly mentions some of the dangers that exist in HS space.

image
image510×313 47.5 KB

*Controlled space with strong CONCORD enforcement. Illegal aggression triggers a rapid CONCORD response that destroys the offender, but attacks can still occur before punishment arrives. War delcarations, suspect mechanics, and suicide strikes are part of life here.

I’ve bolded the parts you say should not be part of HS space, which are explicitly part of HS space.

So, best get used to it that such PvP is in fact part of HS space and that it’s up to you to find strategies that minimize such risks, not to complain on the forums to get it deleted.

‘improve the experience’ you say, ‘reconsider ways that preserve meaningful risk’ you say, while at the same time implying the removal of those playstyles and removal of the meaningful risk.

It would help you and your readers a lot if you did not try to hide your message behind a way-too-long AI-written essay, but the message you tried to share seems clear:

You do not like ganks.

Sorry, but ganks are part of HS space, just like any other part of space faces risks of PvP while you do PvE. All besides the newbie-zone Exordium. You can play in Exordium if you want to fly in a PvP-free zone.

And if you wish to improve and ‘have opportunity to influence the outcome’ you can already do so if you are a bit more creative or ask fellow players what strategies they use to stay alive.

1 Like
5

Thank you for taking the time to read my post and for sharing your perspective.

I believe there is one important point where my intention may have been misunderstood.

My goal was never to ask for the removal of PvP from High Security Space, nor to eliminate ganking from the game. I fully understand that EVE Online has always been built around risk, and I respect that philosophy.

What I wanted to discuss is whether certain mechanics—such as the highly predictable exit from Abyssal Deadspace—still represent the best possible design for the long-term experience of PvE players and for player retention.

My concern is not about losing a ship. Ship loss is an essential part of EVE, and I accept that. My concern is about situations where the outcome can feel determined more by highly predictable mechanics than by the player’s own decisions.

It is entirely possible that the current system is the right one. At the same time, I believe it is reasonable to ask whether there might be alternative solutions that preserve EVE’s core philosophy while reducing unnecessary frustration for PvE-focused players.

The purpose of my post was not to demand changes, but to encourage a constructive discussion. Different opinions are valuable, and I appreciate everyone who takes the time to share theirs—even if they disagree with me.

After all, we all care about the future of EVE Online, even if we see that future from different perspectives.

1 Like
6

You choose which system to open your filament in.

You should choose one where there are no gankers.

2 Likes
7

That’s a fair point, and I agree that choosing the right system is one of the ways to reduce the risk. Experienced players already do that, and it’s part of learning EVE.

My question is slightly different, though.

I’m not asking whether players can adapt to the current mechanics—they clearly can.

I’m asking whether, after all these years, the current design still provides the best balance between meaningful risk and an enjoyable PvE experience, especially for newer, returning, or solo players.

Those are two different discussions, and I think both are worth having.

8

Let me respond on your comments here:

and here:

which I think show a misunderstanding of the challenges CCP faced when implementing abyssals in EVE online.

After all, it’s not a bad thing that you face the danger of PvP on a highly predictable exit, it’s a good thing and very much intentionally added to the game mechanics for reasons that I hope you understand soon.

One of the design challenges is that EVE is an open world PvP game where player interaction and possibility of PvP are a big part of anything you do while out in space.

This to me appears to be a hard requirement, as it is present in all of the designs of content in this game besides the newly added safe newbie Exordium region.

The other challenge is that of how CCP could make PvE content that is both challenging and rewarding, but cannot be made trivially easy.

One older solution to that has been to restrict the types of ships that can enter sites. This means the game can offer content that’s challenging for a cruiser but cannot be made trivially easy by doing it in a battleship.

This design still allows for PvP, because one cruiser in the site can be attacked by another cruiser following them into the same site.

However, this still doesn’t allow CCP to make truly challenging content with high rewards, because players could simply send in 5 cruisers to trivialize the content if the content was rewarding enough, instead of pushing the limits of a single cruiser.

So instead CCP came up with ‘instanced PvE areas’ that only allow a single ship to enter. Or in case of destroyers and frigates, respectively two and three max.

This design allows for challenging tiered PvE content that really push the limits of what a single ship and a single player can handle.

However, this design has a major flaw: instanced content is not compatible with the first requirement I mentioned, which is that the possibility of interaction and PvP should always be present. Without possibility to follow a player into their personal instance, this player becomes immune to PvP, which of course is a flawed design for an open world PvP game.

To fix this issue and to make this instanced content compatible with the requirement of the possibility of PvP interaction, CCP intentionally added PvP interaction to the end of every successful instance run with the following design elements:

  1. the instanced ship will return to a designated place in the open world
  2. at a designated time (within 20 minutes)
  3. and this place can be found by other players (with combat probes)
  4. and is for the higher tier instances only found in lower security space to allow a bigger window of interaction or ‘higher risk’ for the rewards you get

This means that the thing you’re complaining about, i.e. the chance of PvP upon returning to space, is very much by design a part of abyssal instanced content in this PvP game.

I hope you understand now why complaining about it is not the right cause of action, but that you should find other solutions to this problem which has intentionally been made a part of this game.

One solution would be to find a better system to do your abyssals in, away from threats like gankers.
Another solution is to find a better place in that system to do your abyssals in, i.e. not next to a gate or station where people can easily see the trace or spot it on dscan.
A third option I can think of is to ask a friend (or alt) to keep an eye out on your trace for possible danger upon returning. And scare them off with PvP ships of your own.

There are more strategies involved in abyssals that I know, and there probably are even more that I do not know about cause I rarely ever do abyssals.

You can probably figure something out. After all, figuring out how to face and avoid PvP danger is a big part of how EVE is played.

Good luck!

9

Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed explanation.

I actually understand and agree with most of what you wrote. Your explanation of why CCP designed Abyssal Deadspace this way makes sense, especially the challenge of balancing instanced PvE with EVE’s open-world PvP philosophy.

My question is slightly different.

I’m not arguing that the current design was a mistake or that it wasn’t intentional. I fully understand that it was.

What I’m asking is whether, after several years of player experience and feedback, the current implementation still represents the best possible balance between maintaining EVE’s core philosophy and providing a satisfying long-term PvE experience.

Game design evolves over time. Many mechanics in EVE have changed over the years without changing the identity of the game itself.

So my intention is not to argue against the original design, but to ask whether there might now be room for refinement while preserving the same core principles.

I genuinely appreciate your explanation because it helps me better understand the original design goals behind Abyssal Deadspace.

10

I think there is room for refinement when it comes to abyssals indeed.

One such refinement step I would argue is to ban abyssal traces from high security space. Or at least ban the higher tiers.

With risk comes reward, and such profitable PvE should never have been available in relatively safe parts of space where players can hide behind the threat of CONCORD.

1 Like
11

@Pico_Mega You keep talking about “Balance” as if that argument would show any numbers in favour of your “feedback”. But it really isn’t. 99% of all Abyssalrunners (probably more) simply aren’t ganked. So where is that balance issue? I mean I could understand your point if coming out of the abyssal would mean a 50:50 chance that you would have to deal with some PvPers waiting for you, but thats simply not happening.

Absolutely noone forces you to run Abyssals in extraordinary expensive fits, you can stick to T4 and run them in a 600M Heavy Assault Cruiser, mostly T2 fitted. You have your investment back in a handful of hours and everything after that is pure profit. So, even IF you are ganked once a month (which statistically wont happen), you’d still make huge profits.

I really don’t get how you can come to your point of view that an activity that pays very well and consistently should be made even more safe when statistics clearly show that PvP agression simply plays almost no role in the profit calculations.

3 Likes
12

Thank you for your perspective.

I agree that Abyssal Deadspace can be highly profitable, and I’m not suggesting that the activity itself is under-rewarded. Nor am I claiming that most Abyss runners get ganked.

My point isn’t primarily about ISK per hour or profitability.

It’s about player experience and game design.

Even if only a relatively small percentage of players are affected, it’s still reasonable to ask whether certain mechanics could be improved without undermining EVE’s core philosophy.

Sometimes discussions about game design aren’t driven by statistics alone, but by whether an experience feels engaging, fair, and enjoyable over the long term.

I appreciate your viewpoint, even if we ultimately reach different conclusions.

13

The thing is that EvE’s core philosophy is already undermined by abbysals, and the changes you want would only do it more.

1 Like
14

What exactly would be improved by making an activity that pretty much isn’t affected from PvP even more PvP-safe?

I tell you what CCP/FC should really do:

  • showcase Abyssal Deadspace PvE in the NPE & Air Training Program
  • let the players learn it and get better up to T2 (Agitated)
  • bind a suspect timer to any T3 and T4 Abyssal opened in HighSec, no matter where, so there is the clear message that the upcoming content is opening you up for PvP engagements in return for high possible rewards
  • block T5 and T6 Abyssals from being opened in HighSec alltogether, so if you want to run them, you have to fully expose yourself to attackers - aka make sure you don’t get caught or organize protection

THIS would have reflected “EVE’s core philosophy”.

2 Likes
15

Thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view in such detail.

I appreciate that you’ve moved the discussion beyond simply disagreeing with my feedback and have proposed your own ideas. That’s exactly the kind of constructive discussion I was hoping to encourage.

While I don’t necessarily agree with all of your suggestions, I do understand the reasoning behind them and why you believe they fit EVE’s core philosophy.

I think where we differ is in one fundamental assumption.

You believe that increasing PvP exposure strengthens EVE’s identity. I believe EVE’s greatest strength is that it offers many different ways to play. PvP is undoubtedly a core part of that identity, but so are industry, exploration, missions, mining, and other PvE activities.

My concern is not about avoiding PvP entirely. It’s about ensuring that players who genuinely enjoy PvE can also enjoy that playstyle over the long term without feeling that they are constantly being pushed toward a style of gameplay they did not choose.

To me, preserving different playstyles within the same universe is just as important as preserving EVE’s reputation as a harsh and dangerous game.

Neither of us can objectively prove which approach is better, and that’s exactly why I believe discussions like this are valuable.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts.

16

You are under the impression that “industry, exploration, missions, mining and other PvE activities” exist besides PvP. And you are wrong with that assumption. They are all partially PvP. You can’t even explain the problem for the fix you try to sell, because no numbers are backing up that there even is a problem to fix.

And your AI generator smells through every line, just sayin’

3 Likes
17

PvP exposure is a core part of EVE’s identity.

EVE’s greatest strength is that it offers a wide range of different activities within this PvP-exposed universe.

Industry, exploration, missions, mining and other PvE activities all are possible within this PvP-exposed universe, and so are abyssal filaments.

As a player who spends a lot of time on PvE activities and PvP activities I like this mix of danger where other players are what make the universe interesting and dangerous.

If I didn’t like such gameplay I’d be playing a different game.

Removing the core identity of EVE for some of these PvE activities because you cannot handle what makes EVE EVE is likely to piss off many players who play EVE because it is EVE.

I want to interact with real people, not just with scripted NPCs or soulless bots.

On the topic of soulless bots, could you please drop the LLM-use? Like in-game I much prefer to interact with other people on this forum too, instead of bots. It’s incredibly annoying and hard to read if you have your LLM produce entire essays with just a single message of your own hidden within, a message which again and again appears to be that you want PvP to be removed of abyssal content.

It would make it easier for you and definitely for your readers if you did not try to hide that message within many paragraphs of a chatbot trying to look reasonable and constructive.

18

So in the current model:

-You have fun in the abyss
-Aiko has fun blowing you up

And in your desired model:
-You have fun in the abyss

Seems like a net loss of fun to me. Fewer players having fun seems bad!

1 Like
19

Thank you so much for taking the time to share this — I really do appreciate the depth and nuance you’ve brought to the table here, and I want to start by validating that.

That said, I think it’s worth taking a step back and unpacking a few of the assumptions baked into your argument.

You’re framing this as PvP vs. PvE. But respectfully, I don’t think that’s quite the right lens. It’s not PvP vs. PvE — it’s risk vs. comfort. And when you zoom out, I think what you’re actually advocating for isn’t “preserving playstyles,” it’s insulating certain playstyles from the consequences that define the game around them.

Let’s unpack that for a second:

  • You say players should be able to enjoy PvE “over the long term” without pressure to engage with PvP. I’d gently push back on that framing.
  • You say preserving playstyles is “just as important” as preserving EVE’s harsh reputation. I’d argue that’s actually a false equivalence.
  • You say neither of us can objectively prove which approach is better. I’d offer that this is a bit of a cop-out — some approaches are, in fact, more aligned with the game’s founding design pillars than others.

At the end of the day, I think what we’re really talking about here is whether EVE should be a sandbox with teeth, or a sandbox with a soft, cushioned floor underneath it. I know that’s a bit of a reductive way to frame it, but I think it captures the crux of the disagreement.

I also want to gently flag that “many players have expressed” a desire for safer PvE space doesn’t necessarily mean the game should be designed around that preference. Popularity and design integrity aren’t always the same axis, and I think it’s worth holding space for the possibility that a louder contingent isn’t automatically the correct one. To be fair to you, I don’t think you’re arguing “louder = correct” explicitly — but I do think the underlying logic of your position leans on it more than you might realize.

And look — I don’t say any of this to dismiss the very real frustration that PvE-focused players feel. That frustration is valid, full stop. But validating a feeling and validating a proposed solution are two different things, and I think it’s important we don’t conflate them here. Sometimes the most respectful thing we can do for a community is tell them a hard truth rather than a comfortable one, even when that’s not the answer people were hoping to hear.

To be clear — I’m not saying your perspective isn’t valid. I’m saying it’s optimizing for a different game than the one that currently exists.

Really appreciate you engaging with this in good faith, and I think conversations like this one are exactly how we move the needle forward together. :folded_hands:

1 Like
20

Choosing where you do the abyss is a skill, one that mainly players choose to ignore and say they can’t help.

Fenris multiple times tells us that all space is dangerous, and yet players ignore this. Also, a lot of industry guys support and fund ganking either to control turf, or simply to keep mineral prices high or to prevent them from going lower.