This angle has already been explored countless times, in seriousness and in jest. This proposal fundamentally ignores the fact that players who engage either in PvPvE or exclusively in PvP don’t want to be subjected to an economy that supports players who are able to engage in PvE that is safe. Effectively, this is PvEers telling PvPers that the former should do all of the earning, while the latter does all of the spending, and trying to pass off the system as somehow equitable; it isn’t.
For example, as a pirate/privateer, it’s not in my interest for items and money to be so devalued from risk-free PvE that when I make a kill, it’s worth almost nothing. An issue that would be compounded by the fact that kills themselves would become much rarer, as the majority of the population would elect to not be susceptible to violence.
It’s just not a good angle to attempt again since it’s not at all fresh.
This is conjecture; you don’t know if the server would be more popular or not. So this is no different than if I say that we should eliminate PvP in its entirety, because that would be even more popular than the model you “propose,” so we should go for my “idea” instead.
I don’t. And even if I did…I do not think that stating so utterly ad nauseum would be anything other than trolling.
When I posted to express disappointment about being ‘killed’ in ships one is not even in…I posted 3 posts on the matter, and let it drop. I did not spend week after week after week going on and on and on and on and on like a stuck gramophone record.
They are already subjected to an economy manipulated on a massive scale by untouchable nullsec groups that steer developers and by bots that cruch income 24/7. It’s crazy to me that people then get upset because someone might pay for a sub to shoot veldspar in safety.
I don’t think things would be “worth almost nothing” either but what you would see is more targets, because people would be more comfortable losing ships if they were more affordable.
I don’t know, but I can be pretty sure. I’m 100% sure that the reason for the reductio ad absurdum is that the people saying it are concerned that a fresh server with a PvE safezone would be more popular. I don’t think PvE content in EVE is good enough to support a pure PvE server and since a lot of the economy is built around supplying large-scale warfare, it wouldn’t be sustainably rewarding.
OK, but I’m not you. I have views on what I think should be changed to improve this game and I’m hapy to discuss them. What I don’t appreciate is when people start telling me off for having an opinion they don’t like. If you are unable to have a constructive disucssion then consider this my last response to you.
And people have answered with counter-arguments and facts that you refuse to even acknowledge.
Discussion is not an endless repetition of the same, nor an endless ignoring of counter-arguments.
To begin with you don’t acknowledge that this is a full-on pvp game, where “nowhere is safe”, let alone the fact that the game’s economic model is designed on that very foundation.
Second, even in your “suggestion” you give zero attention to the impact of safe zone resource gathering on the economy, knowing full well that the largest volumes are being gathered in hisec !!
Third, “bots don’t matter because they are too hard too catch” and “people who like hisec in its current format can still play in the new format” and “I do not think the impact would be great” and “I do not think that is true” are the weakest arguments you can possibly make. You have zero data that would suggest the contrary of what has already happened in the game during its two decades.
You’ve stated your business, we read it. We tried to discuss with you, but nothing anyone tells you even matters. If you keep on repeating this grand “vision” you become a nuisance and a zealot.
You created a forum alt to have your little ways on the forum. No one looks at it kindly. This isn’t your thread to begin with, so there’s zero reason for you to try to overpower and dominate it.
It’s about time we call in the services of the @ISD.
Having high sec become a 100% safe pve zone sounds great on paper until you actually think about it. Imagine fleets of Orcas and Hulk’s sucking up all the asteroid belts, moons, and ice anoms in perfect safety. The market would very quickly become saturated with resources and their value would drop to nothing. Gankers are no longer losing ships, so no need to replace them. Haulers are no longer losing freighters, so no need to build them anymore either, etc …
I remember making an ironic thread about this, when trigs mass-killed rookies on the undock of a starter system while it was happening. The thread got promptly locked by then ccp falcon. Yep, the trigs were griefers, lmao.
The trigs back then would have roaming fleets, showing up anywhere in a system, until ccp altered that behavior.
You’re right. People did complain back then, the trigs with their new AI model were a bit too smart, and some players a bit too uninformed or negligent to handle them properly.
Still my favorite hisec npcs by a long shot
One of us is confused and I genuinely don’t know which one of us it is. From my perspective you’ve been constantly hostile, insulting and dismissive while I’ve tried to have discussions with multiple people, several of which have been very constructive. Now you’re calling in a moderator, calling for what, me to be banned for having an opinion you don’t agree with?
Yes, please bring back emerging conduits and roaming trig patrols in high sec. Those were fun and you could actually take them on and kill them in a properly fitted Skiff. Good times…
Yep. I used to kill conduits using 2 Skiffs, then warp in an Orca and mine all of the Tallasonite. That was before the changes to exhumers. They had more mids and you could put an insane tank on a Skiff…
good times with the public fleets as well, and the gankers that followed us around in liminal systems (or w/e they were called).
2 skiffs sounds awesome. I ran them with a rattle, and had my little tricks to shift the trigs’ aggro to anyone trying to steal the site, lol (got a few of them killed too)
I used T2 Minmatar medium drones and damage amplifiers on top of the Skiff’s drone bonus. Kill the neuters first, then the reppers, then the rest. Sometimes another player would warp in to kill the boss, but that was fine with me. I was just there to mine the ore anyway…
Someone breaking the rules isn’t an excuse to change a system in a way that would primarily affect those who do not break the rules.
For example, just because some players cheat in FPS games like Counter-Strike or Overwatch, and use aimbots that instantly take down enemies when they appear on screen, doesn’t mean that the games should be changed in a way that makes it impossible for one player to kill another player quickly (e.g. “let’s disable all headshot damage multipliers”).
So I refuse to subscribe to the logic of “bots are already generating nearly-infinite stuff, so it’s okay if we let high-sec players do it too!” Two wrongs don’t make a right. Fix the bots instead of baselining them into your game’s economic calculus.
This has been proven time and again to not be the case. Even in EVE, as the years went by and high-sec became safer, the proportion of high-sec residents to the game’s total population has remained quite stable.
Items within the in-game economy have also become considerably more affordable over the years, in terms of the amount of time required to acquire them, because the market has always moved in the direction of a glut. Yet that never resulted in a greater tolerance of risk.
Players who supply the markets are obligated to take on a certain level of risk of loss for the system to function. It’s unreasonable to expect the PvEers to make all the money while the PvPers take all the losses. How would a system like that even function?
I’ll present 2 hypothetical systems:
PvE players keep 100% of their net generation, while the PvPers lose 50% of their net generation to PvP. The net effect is that the economy has a 150% growth factor, with the PvEers making twice the wealth of the PvPers.
PvE players lose 30% of their net generation to PvP, keeping the other 70%. PvP players lose 50% of their net generation, and keep 50% of what the PvEers lose (50% of 30%, which is 15%), for a net loss of 35%, leaving them with 65%. The total economic growth factor is 135%. PvP and PvE players are roughly equally well-off.
Which economy seems healthier to you? The one with massive net income disparity and overproduction, or the more sustainable one with everyone getting a similar slice of the pie?
I’m not saying it is a reason to change, I’m saying that if people aren’t heavily impacted by bots there’s no reason to assume they’ve be impacted by legitimate players grinding out PvE. Maybe the goal should be to replace bots with casual players.
It always will be high and stable though, because people elsewhere have highsec alts. The thing is, if the proportion is stable then adding more highsec players will add players in other areas of space. If it didn’t, you’d see the proportion of highsec characters increasing relative to the other sectors.
Some things are more affordable, sure. And most of that is down to nullsec groups going crazy with bot ratters and rorquals. Judging by pre-scarcity activity and activity now, there absolutely was more acceptance of risk before the change. The move to make things harder to obtain has decreased activity.
Highsec PvE players don’t lose 30% of their net generation to PvP though, but the game loses player numbers by alienating the market you’ve accepted is out there not wanting to be constantly at risk of being attacked. In either hypothetical though, CCP would have to manage the economy in the same way they are doing now. Things like dynamic bounty and LP rewards, regional resource depletion, in-space effects and NPC threats would all need to come into play.
It’s not really so simple as to say “which economy is healthier”. Generally more growth is better than less growth, but you also have to factor in that many players don’t just do PvE or PvP, they have characters for each. You’re also not factoring in other areas of space making far more than highsec with far less effort which wouldn’t change if highsec players no longer had a threat of unwanted PvP, so only part of the economy would be affected.
So? You and people that make the same arguments as you keep being obsessed with player numbers. Let people play the god ■■■■■■■ damn game they want to play. The fact that other players play something other than Eve is NOT A LOSS for Eve Online.
People keep explaining to you that no, it doesn’t need to attract the WoW/GW2/FFXIV crowd and associated numbers to be a healthy game. It needs quality players with the right mentality of accepting the dangers of the universe. You want to shrink the sandbox, everyone else wants to keep the sandbox the same size and find other ways to attract players.
You keep talking and replying as if there is a discussion going on. There isn’t. You’re grandstanding and talking at people.
If it’s so easy to make ISK in null sec with minimal effort, then why isn’t everyone doing it? A change in one part of the economy affects every other part of the economy. A change in high sec affects low and null, just like a change in null affects low and high. For example, there is no Tritanium in null or WH space. If high sec was 100% safe, then players in null would have no need to buy it from high sec miners. They could just mine in high themselves with massive fleets and jump freighter it out in perfect safety and cut out the middle man…
The goal isn’t to replace one unfavorable outcome with another unfavorable outcome, but to create a favorable outcome.
That holds true for the system in the form that it exists in today, and would not necessarily apply to the system you are proposing.
The primary driver for activity in a video game is the amount of satisfaction people get from playing it. If players truly enjoyed PvP, if ships and equipment became more expensive (as a function of time invested), players would still engage in PvP; they’d just do it more affordably.
If overall activity per capita has decreased, that’s indicative of a problem with the game design itself, and not pure economics. Here’s a chart of public sentiment with regard to the game for the past two years:
You can see that the ratio of positive to negative reviews has shrunk, as did overall external engagement with the game. This dissatisfaction correlates positively with the lack of engagement inside the game itself.
We don’t seem to be exploring any other possible reasons for the decrease in in-game activity, which could very well be driven by burn-out, stagnation, et cetera, and not “fewer items on the market.”
And a pizza place will alienate the hamburger-eating market. What’s your point? That every single game in the world needs to offer the exact same type of gameplay in order to capture the biggest possible audience?
In real life, sure, but definitely not in a video game in which the economy’s entire scope is to replace losses. In EVE, we aren’t able to take the surpluses we create from economic growth and apply them to new ventures and progress; we can only make more of the same limited amount of stuff we always could. So no, more growth is definitely not better than less growth in EVE.
As I said before, two wrongs don’t make a right. Null-sec, as it exists today, should be burned straight to the ground. It just won’t ever happen because too many mortgages rely on thousands of Gilas operating like an ant colony, and 90% of the CSM being dominated by those who harbor them.
