Well if people won’t shoot eachother through whatever reason, CCP should improve the game by giving those players more reason to shoot eachother. It’s their game. They own the sandbox.
We players are merely content that tries to optimise our gameplay. But if the optimal gameplay is boring, CCP did something wrong.
Well, maybe for the minority this is true. Luckily, those people are cast off as collateral damage
Keep in mind, CCP cares about the bottom line. Just because a few people don’t find it fun, doesn’t mean they’re losing anything significant
No.
The problem is caused mainly by Delve and multiboxing Rorqs. Just take a look at the MERs, its not exactly difficult to see.
Fix that and you will fix the issue going forward. For a more immediate solution you need a mineral sink, not ISK sink, at the source, not elsewhere, so you don’t ■■■■ up everyone in the whole game for it but only the people causing it.
Alternatively, what needs to happen is that exports out of Delve need to get blown up a lot more. This would address not just minerals but would also help with distorting the Eve economy as a whole.
I believe the logic behind it is that more people having more money in their wallets means they have more money for buying more things, thus raising prices. In general can I agree that, when people get used to having more money, their spending habits adjust accordingly, causing prices of everything to increase.
The OP is basically saying that there isn’t enough destruction happening and that it should be compensated by reducing the removal of ISK from the game.
I don’t see how the removal of isk sinks is going to help with that. The sums saved by cutting all taxes/etc in, say, half isn’t going to be meaningful to the vast majority of players.
The only thing that will stop minerals from being so cheap is the reduction of supply. Whether that means less people mining, more people blown up while transporting, or blowing up the ones mining it, the supply has to stop increasing for the price to fall. The demand hasnt changed a lot and won’t change much in the long run, so destroying the supply is the only viable option.
I mean, it’s not a significant amount to begin with but over time it will save a considerable amount of isk for everyone
I never stated i wanted an isk sink, i want to reduce them.
Also, directly targeting a group because you can’t beat them doesn’t seem very fair
first of all, you dont have to do it just because I suggested it. Second, gou don’t go into War expecting to lose, fair isnt exactly part of the rulebook.
I giggle at how people think my idea’s are stupid yet how they fix the problems so perfectly.
For example, null safety is due to large entities, and sharing of intel. Now, you could scale down a large amount of the safety by tackling one of the two, or you could massively reduce saftey by addressing both.
This is why i advocate for smaller coalition/corporation/alliance sizes, and a direct hardset control on system count (to 15 per alliance) @ 1250 per alliance @ 250 per corp).
Additionally, changing all locals (unknown and known) To a middle ground of both KS and UKS, where you have local but it delays showing the info until 5 minutes after being in system. this gives enough time for roaming groups to get past being reported by ratters, but a short enough time that people just occasionally have to pay attention. the impact is low for most, but improves the danger of null significantly by invalidating intel.
its a better option then removing player channels out right, and with more smaller factions, you will get more pvp.
As others have said, smaller factions won’t make for more PVP. It’ll increase overhead and costs slightly, but ultimately gives no reason for players to fight each other in that area. So what could you do to give reason for them to actually fight others, or at least each other?
Intel honestly won’t matter much either since we have third-party tools that can manage that. You can also get around your Intel suggestion with dcan and a third-party tool, provided one is made (like a dscan version of near2). Or, you know, heavy dictors at gates.
Not saying he has a perfect example of how to do it but local chat in wormholes does reduce traffic and help keep entities from doing too much, at least on the scale of goonswarm.
I would personally love to see the implementation of player made communications channels in sov null with the modules/structures to boot; adm low or entosisied by enemies? no local channel… less viability or ease of intel channels and renting i think, dont you?
I think the power projection large alliances have is entirely down to that, and i dont like that one alliance can easily make attacks on another living at the other end of the map… and then simply go back to ratting and mining in home systems for the night only to repeat it the day after.
Doesn’t quite feel right y’know.
What also doesnt feel right is that sanshas do these massive incursions in like i dunno, 3 constellations; that other npc pirates have dreads and carriers and so on… but in all of sov space and some null areas (like stain) they literally just play in the dumbest way - i mean it stands to reason that they would group up more and more the harder theyre hit not just keep being like ''oh look, 3 titans and 20 super capitals on this athanor, i’ll just jump over on my own cus thats a really good idea"
I think the OP needs work reading a graph.
CPI, PPI, SPI are all growing in 2019.
Therefore all other co conclusions are invalid.
You’ve apparently never heard of fractional reserve banking. When the government prints $100, citibank uses it to loan out $5000.
Please educate yourself.
Um, wat? Any artificial maximums would be worked around by creating more alliances. You won’t fix the problem through mechanical limitations like that. You’ll only annoy and piss off your player base instead.
This is the most amusing thing I’ve read this month. Did I login to the My Little Pony Meet Smurfs Love Fest Online forums on accident?
Exactly. I think op misunderstands RL economics and eve economics don’t function the same way.
Again: coalitions! How can you not see your “solution” is not a solution at all.
Lord Kalus
Nep-Neps suggestion isn’t workable as presented. And FWIW I don’t think even a “tuned” version would be the best approach for EVE.
But the problems are real, and it’s good to see discussions here.
CCP has allowed EVE’s economy to spin out of control. Or they did it on purpose, perhaps believing they could sell more PLEX4cash without negative side-effects.
IMO it’s not unlike “Dutch Disease”. Except In EVE the “sector” that’s in poor shape is every player that doesn’t have access to elevated nullSec-owner-level incomes.
CCP are lucky it’s not too obvious, because despite some prices falling, it’s another factor that increases the startup threshold for EVE. And widespread, large-scale botting, which can’t be completely hidden, is a very reliable indicator for it.
I’d just like to add that in the long run, maybe even the short, the effect of the massive outpouring of ISK, materials and products from nullSec is bad for those who are in null as well. Some people in null will still have (comparatively) low incomes, some people outside null will still have very high incomes… but everyone is affected by the fact that, when ISK, materials and produced goods far outweigh the sinks/destruction of same - there becomes very little reason to fight for anything, and much more reason to ‘maintain the status quo’.
Interesting game changes become less likely, because anything that rocks the boat will disturb the massive expenditures people have laid out (in ISK and Subs and Plex) to attain the even more massive resource/ISK flow that they now command.
Are the Goons/null alliances likely to react well if null incomes/production gets hit? Are subs at risk? Subs that EVEs’ growth profile show, once lost, that is income CCP likely won’t get back? This makes it very hard for CCP to find an approach to deal with the corner they’ve painted themselves into.
Some radical shakeup is required to deal with the situation, and unfortunately CCP has boxed themselves into a very narrow revenue stream that likely cannot weather such radical change. As a 15+ year old game with a declining player base, they can’t really afford to take years to gradually change, either.