Make 90% loot drops permanent for solo & small group kills

The increased loot drops during this 20th anniversary event, as well as previous events, have been awesome!


As primarily a solo nullsec/lowsec/wormhole pilot (I get around), they have been an amazing incentive for me to log in and ply my trade. I probably would be taking a hiatus from the game already, but I can’t see doing it while I’m getting these loot drops.

Let’s face it, solo and small group piracy (by which I mean hunting players for loot drops or ransoms) is a classic EVE career path which has been in decline for a long time. There are just a few diehard dirtbag pirates like me left at this point. It’s hard to make a living off normal loot drops. Some have even shamefully resorted to (gasp) PVE to cover their losses. It’s sad what the world has come to.

This is a great incentive and I don’t see why it should end. If the increased loot drops were limited to kills involving less than, say, 5 pilots, I don’t think the economic fallout would be excessive. From a realism perspective, it also kind of makes sense that if a hundred nerds primary a ship, then there wouldn’t be much left worth looting, but if 1-5 people make the kill happen then there should be a bit more there.

I think this would give a lot of love and incentive to participate in this classic EvE career.



1 Like

Going from 50% dropped loot to 90% dropped loot means the amount of modules leaving the economy through PvP drops by a factor 5.

Up to 5 times less demand for modules, if people loot their opponents.

While it’s fun for a temporary event, I don’t think the EVE economy can handle this in the long term, as EVE requires both creation and destruction of items to not overflow the market with modules and minerals.


That’s why I suggest it should only apply to solo and small group kills.

Honestly, it doesn’t need to be 90% either. Any increase would help to incentivize small scale piracy.

Why would you reward a Hurricane killing a Bestower “solo” in a “fight” that is in no way dangerous or demanding for the Hurricane? But not reward 20 Frigs/Destroyers that manage to keep a Capital Ship tackled and killed under constant risk of losing ships to a counter?


Because it would encourage people not to blob, and give an incentive for small groups and solo artists, like your Hurricane fellow, to get out there in space hunting targets, like your Bestower fellow. There are only so many Bestowers to go around, so this would also encourage competition between solo & small gang pirates over hunting grounds, and resulting goodfights.

I kind of hear you on your 30 frigs example though. Another way to do it might be to award loot percentages on a sliding scale, based on an algorithm something like how zkillboard calculates points, where both the numbers of pilots involved and the respective ship classes on both sides are taken into account.

I’m not necessarily married to the idea exactly as I proposed it, but I think increased loot drops are a powerful incentive to get people out there creating content.

So let me explain the numerous reasons why your idea isn’t going to work.

First of all, when it comes to null sec groups “blobbing” out small gang groups, they aren’t doing it for the loot. They are doing it to protect their people. When a ping goes out, they aren’t thinking about getting loot, they are thinking about defending their space. This is also going to apply in other areas of space as well. Do you seriously think a J-space corp is going to cap their response fleet at 4 to get more loot if someone jumps a ratting marauder? No, they are coming out with as many ships as they can to save that marauder. Because your loot isn’t going to likely cover the cost of the lost marauder.

Second, let’s talk about small gang groups themselves. How is it going to benefit a small gang group to tell someone they can’t come along because they would take the group over your limit? “Sorry, Bob… we know you want to come along, but we’d lose a good portion of potential loot if you came along?” If I’m Bob, I’m giving you the middle finger off-camera and going to look for a small gang group that cares more about getting their members in a fight than about loot.

Third, some people are extremely petty. Let’s say you jump my friend in his marauder. Our response fleet comes in and we know we can’t save the marauder. Depending on the friend, I might actually ask if he’s okay with me shooting his marauder to get that sixth ship on the killmail to deny you the extra loot. If I’m the marauder pilot and I know there is no chance of survival? I’m definitely telling my corp-mates to be petty and deny you the extra loot.

And these are just the issues I came up with off the top of my head.

I understand what you are looking to do: create a incentive to encourage small-gang and solo PvP. And I actually do appreciate the desire to encourage that style of gameplay as I do think its good for the game to have a wide variety of gameplay available. The problem is that your idea isn’t going to work and, in some respects (see my second point), discourage small gang content.


Well, tbh I would rather give a bonus or penalty to loot based on how quickly the target was destroyed, if anything. Lore-wise, the emergency shutdown systems have more time to separate reactor sections or crucial ship parts from fires, close emergency doors, extinguish fires etc. pp. u name it.

Aka: set a baseline, like 60 seconds (can be higher, can be lower, whatever the devs think). Every second the target is killed faster than baseline time lowers the dropchance for loot by x%. Every second it survived longer increases the loot chance by y%. Capped between 25% and 75% loot. That would at least be somewhat explainable and believable, at least more than artificial player number limits.

However, Gankers and Hotdroppers will cry bloody murder because all their targets usually die pretty fast as they usually completely outman and outgun their targets. :slight_smile: Now that I think about it, could be a pretty funny popcorn time at the forum seeing all these tears, threaten-to-unsub- and how-ganking-helps-the-economy-topics and dont-take-away-my-gamestyle-rants. I like! :rofl:

Exactly. That’s why they don’t need the increased loot drops. If everyone gets increased loot, then the economic impact would be more severe. Therefore it should be awarded as a way to encourage the kind of content we would like to see - in this case being solo & small gang piracy.

That’s exactly the point - to encourage people to get out there in smaller groups. EVE has always had shitty corporations that don’t treat their members well. I don’t believe that this change will fix that. It’s not intended to. Bob should quit and get a new corporation in this example, or put together his own small gang and get hunting.

As for your example of people deliberately attacking their dying corpmate to deny loot to the pirates, that sounds like a good thing too. That’s what we call “counterplay”. It’s always a plus when the victim of piracy has the possibility to do some clever counterplay.

I think you’re looking at it the wrong way. I agree that it would probably play out like you expect, but you’re looking at all that as negatives. Be a little more positive, friend. That’s all good stuff.


It’s much better for the economy if only my playstyle gets the extra loot, not everyone else. :roll_eyes:

1 Like

But it isn’t going to work. If people get to chose between an alliance that caps their fleets at 5 to get more loot and a small-gang group that tries to get their players involved, people are going to choose the second option. How do I know this? Because a study showed that 90% of children would rather play on a losing team than sit on the bench on a winning team. Yes, I know adults play Eve and not children; but, the idea is the same thing. People would rather be part of a group that gets them involved instead of a group that just wins.

Do you know what the two primary criteria I look for when I look to join a corp on Eve Online? Activity in my timezone (I play in a weird TZ) and compatibility. And I look in that order. No reason to join a group I’m compatible with if I won’t be getting any content.

You’ll end up with the same problem in small gang corps and alliances. People will join the groups that get them involved. So let’s talk about the groups that do set a limit of 5 pilots in their fleets. How big do you think that corp is honestly going to get? I’m sure you’re thinking it won’t cap because they can make multiple fleets, right? Except here’s the problem: its going to be hard to grow that corporation. If I’m constantly getting sidelined because we don’t have enough for a full fleet (and let’s be honest: Eve players are known for optimizing), I’m going to start looking for another group… not waiting until HR hires 3 or 4 more pilots.

That’s going to kill your small gang alliances. Because the groups with those caps are going to end up eventually losing members for the numerous reasons that people leave corps or quit Eve. And the people who might replace those lost players? Well, they are already in a small gang group that doesn’t worry about the loot cap. And why would they leave the relationships they’ve established in that group to join yours? For more loot. If they cared about more loot, they wouldn’t have left your group in the first place.

Its a dumb thing. The counterplay is going to be throwing a drone at someone for one hit, one cycling a warp disruptor on them, or any number of different options to make sure you don’t get the loot. Its so easily countered that an idiot like me came up with the counter while reading your post. And there are far more clever people out there than me.

So, you agree that it would probably play out exactly like I said… which means it doesn’t work. And you think CCP should use developer time to develop this? In essence, you’re saying that CCP should waste time and money that could be spent improving Eve on an idea you agree probably won’t work. Are you serious? At the end of the day, CCP is a company that needs to make money… that means no wasting it on something that will “probably not work”.

And no, I won’t be more positive. I’m being rational. I’m looking at your idea objectively. I’m looking for both pros and cons. And I do see the pros you think will happen; but, the issue is that you also have admitted that I’m right that it probably won’t work. This isn’t about feelings, “friend”; its about what’s best for Eve Online.

And what’s best for Eve Online is for CCP to not waste developer time and money on an idea that has so many obvious flaws in the system. Its nothing personal, “friend”.

I think you vastly overestimate the number of players who will make getting the maximum possible loot drops from pvp their primary motivator. I honestly doubt that it would cause such sweeping changes to the game. Making your income from loot is still going to be extremely difficult compared to, say, PVE.

What i would expect is that small scale piracy, a playstyle that is currently nearly extinct, will get a bit of a boost, and most people will carry on with whatever their non-piratical playstyle is, unaffected by the change.

That’s correct. It would breathe some new life into my playstyle. A classic playsyle, which has generated many of the best EVE stories over the years, but which has been in decline for many years and is currently all but extinct except for a handful of us diehards.

The point is not to just dump a crapload of loot into the game, it’s to throw a bone to the very small fraction of the community that PvPs for loot.

Again - you two keep stating the intended benefits of the change as if they would be a bad thing. Why be so negative?


Many of the best Eve stories over the years? Tell me, how many of those stories ended up in a polygon article? How about PC gamer? MassivelyOP? Gamerant? IGN? Yeah… I thought so. Not very many, if any. Now stories about the huge null sec battles, the heists, and the scams? Yeah, those stories made non-Eve news.

And while I dislike using anecdotal evidence, I’m going to add some here. The reason I’m back playing Eve Online is because of those news articles. A few years back, my wife and I were playing some boardgames with friends. The topic of MMOs came up and I mentioned I had played Eve Online. I got asked about all the crazy stories and what I knew about them. None of the stories asked were about small gang fights… sorry.

Now I’m not saying there are not great stories related to small gang warfare, but the stories that draw most people to Eve have almost nothing to do with small gang warfare. Again, this isn’t personal, its an objective statement.

You just said that it would probably play out the way I said it would be… which would actually not create any loot benefits for small gang groups because people would use simple and obvious ‘counterplay’ to deny the loot to you.

Again, its not being negative; its being objective. Why are you assigning an emotional response (negative) to objective statements? You might not like the fact that snow falls on your driveway and sidewalk; but, it doesn’t change the fact the snow is going to fall on your driveway and sidewalk. Quit appealing to emotion and stick to the facts at hand.

Now, let me explain why I’m being so “negative”? I need to ask you a simple question: how much do you know about computer programming? I’ll admit I don’t know a lot. I learned how to write very basic programs in BASIC when I was a kid. I took a class on C++ in school. And I’ve done a bit of coding on various MU* games. So to be clear, I have a very basic understanding of how code works and the effort to write computer code. I’m nowhere near a professional and I wouldn’t even call myself an amateur.

Why is that question important? Because for this concept of yours to appear in Eve Online, some developer is going to actually have to put forth the effort to write the code. Then the code will need to be tested. Then the code will need to be debugged. Rinse, repeat until it works correctly. That takes time. That means it takes money because you have to pay the developer.

CCP has a limited number of developers to work on stuff for Eve Online. And thus, they have to pick and choose what projects to take on. And CCP is a corporation and at the end of the day, they need to make money the best way possible. So, let me ask you a very simple question: why should CCP invest a lot of time and effort (because your idea will require adjustments to existing code which is harder to do than write new code) for a project that will only really benefit “a playstyle that is all but extinct except for a handful of us diehards”?

Look, I’d like to see more small gang warfare in Eve Online. Again, I like to see a wide variety of playstyles in Eve because I think it leads to a healthier game. But I don’t think CCP should throw money at a bad concept (you admitted it would probably play out as I said where people would just ‘counterplay’ the loot system). Come up with a better idea that will actually benefit small gang warfare and have a good return on the investment and I’ll happily give you a heart and sign your idea.

But this idea… is not a good idea.

If I continue to try to respond to your points we’re just going to be talking ourselves in circles here, so I’ll end on this note. I respectfully disagree with all your doom and gloom about the suggestion.

It would only really affect the gameplay of a tiny minority of players - those who PvP for the loot. The idea is to encourage a few more people to play this way, in order to stimulate the kind of content a lot of players want to see - a vibrant tapestry of solo artists and small groups running around, hunting targets and coming into conflict with one another. I doubt that the average player- who plays primarily for PVE content and only occasionally joins large PvP fleets (for which loot drops are not generally a driving concern) - will even notice the difference. It’s unlikely that this change would have the kind of sweeping effects that you foresee.

Other playstyles get buffs and quality of life improvements from time to time. Why not piracy too? While you clearly see little interest in the great pirate stories of EVE Online, a lot of us love them. It doesn’t all have to be about huge battles and nullsec empires. There’s other stuff happening here too that is equally deserving of attention.

I’m not going to engage with you anymore, but thanks for the debate.

Really? You literally said this prior:

I agree… we are going in circles. Because you see the faults in your system but can’t let go.

Have a nice day.

Nice discussion. I have witnessed the death of smallscale in Lowsec first hand, it’s a sad story. I begun in 2009 when there was a healthy pirate scene around, every region had their little 5-20 (active) people smallscale corps that lived there, did their roams, did their gatecamps and sometimes joined in for one or the other side when bigger entities battled over POSes or got something valuable tackled.

That this scene basically vanished completely within a few years has a reason. Exactly ONE. Hotdropping.

More and more of the medium groups had the resources, skills and manpower to stockpile large capfleets and after the famous Rooks & Kings Videos everyone and their dog got Titans to bridge. While in the beginning these groups were only a few and could be evaded, later things got completely out of hand. Over time there was not a single constellation that was not in range of some bridging Titan of someone and at some point it was said that more baitships with Cynos roamed around than real gangs. At first, the smallscalers adapted, so when mainly Carriers (Trigage) + Dreads were dropped, the Pirates changed to Skirmish-Gangs so they could at least disengage. But when basically every Cyno had a complete countergang with longrange-points, -webs, Logi, EWAR and DPS behind it, it was just no fun any more. We had more time to spend for scouting which group had which gang sitting on their titan than actually looking for targets. So many active people quit or joined larger groups. Now look around these days, BlackOps are the new Meta and dropping a dozen CovertT3, Bombers and BOs on a roaming Vexor is called “content”. I warned you, it’s sad.

If smallscale should ever have a chance in this game again, there is only one solution: massive restrictions to hotdrop escalation in Lowsec at least and/or make Pochven 500 Systems large, so one or two larger groups are not able to constantly control all of it and small groups can settle there and brawl it out without the constant threat of being obliterated from behind a magic portal.


This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.