And?
The price for an item is the price people are willing to pay…
That is all you need to know…
Isn’t anyone gonna point out it says changes to asset safety? 
3 Likes
No it’s not. What you are describing is, the price people are willing to pay.
Therefore, yes you don’t understand the issue with inflation. Go back to wow.
Eve IS PVP. Just because you don’t like it, does not mean that it is false. It’s not minority, it’s not majority : it’s 100% part of Eve.
There is competition everywhere, and activities that would be worth are not worth because PVP keeps the extreme fits in check. Without that PVP there would be a huge inflation.
2 Likes
That was going to be my question! I am surprised it is not being discussed more in this thread.
Because this isn’t the thread to discuss it?
Asset safety has been endlessly argued in a great many threads already.
The time to argue it is when CCP actually talk specifically about it, this thread is about the overall Ecosystem plan.
1 Like
any plan to fix spawn mechanic of rat in gas haven and station sanctum?
So, in the long run, everyone can expect to get 50% less income.
Because that is exactly how CCP sees it according to this chart.
1 Like
Yes, I know.
But getting into an endless fight over asset safety when we have no idea what the changes are intended to be is pointless, and therefore should wait till CCP actually start discussing that particular item, not just presenting a plan.
And I say this as someone with very strong feelings over it, that this is not the thread to debate asset safety, it’s been argued enough already it can wait.
5 Likes
That’s fair enough. It has no effect on me at all, I was just surprised considering how many have strong feelings regarding asset safety, it took 300+ posts to be mentioned.
1 Like
remember : If everybody has 50% less income, then actually nothing changes, except for prices that are fixed (only station hangar in NPC station that I know of).
4 Likes
exactly! except for those who already have some T’s ISK, right?
PS: …will the price of plex be cut in half?
About game balance and mining: Rorquals + Exhumers/mining barges. Can it be argued that Rorquals themselves are not overpowered, but the problem is in the game design that people can multibox 5-25 multiple Rorqual + Exhumers/Miningbarge fleets?
My point is that Rorquals should be powerful as both miners and boosters since they are capital ships. But mining or any other activity in eve should be interesting and active enough that you really cannot multibox more than 2 to 3 ships simultaneously?
The simple solution there is to limit industrial core activation. Make it like activating it turns you into a mini structure basically, and since structures have distance limits so should industrial cores.
I’m not sure if that comes with downsides I haven’t thought of though
1 Like
Past. Could
It is already so. By adjusting the volume of the ore anoms it is already a cramp to serve several ships.
Even though I think it’s okay.
If the price for the minerals rises, maybe more Rorquals will be used again. At the moment it is simply not worth exposing several B expensive ships to the danger for several million ISk.
1 Like
I generally dislike nerves to anything, I think it can demotivate players, but as said something should go in the direction of less multiboxing Rorqfleets, like you just said, or like @Nevyn_Auscent said in limiting the distance for industrial cores.
Yes, but until there is detail, there’s not much to discuss.
It’s there, just as “add elements of risk or commitment to certain outlier activities” is there.
Until there is any detail about them, speculation is aimless (as befits the forum though).
Anyone can do that, log in to Singularity, and you can farm and grind and everbody leaves you alone. So your problem is solved.
1 Like
Thanks everyone for the feedback, a lot of good points here, and importantly, we have/had all of them identified on our list of opportunities for improvement.
We are looking forward and learning from the past, not lamenting or arguing over it.
Happy to try to clarify some specifics further, keeping in mind that we are being deliberately vague in some cases, to minimize speculation risk, and also because we have to be able to course correct based on each step of this journey.
6 Likes
We wanted to come out with a strong statement about the current state of affairs, that we recognize their are issues at hand our intent to fix them. Thanks for the support!
4 Likes