It may mean something to someone, untill it doesnt. Loss is a part of playing EVE. Dont think like a carebear. Eve is PvP and we have to remind people about it. Make titans die easier.
It happened often enough, but youâre probably right in this case.
So, thinking again about this⌠I have to laugh a bit about myself. Itâs easy to slip back into the mode of discussion of what would be âgood for the gameâ and thereby pretty much ignoring what the reality of the game is and has been for a long while.
The âsolutionsâ that come up are, I have to admit that, not much more than poking with a stick, rather than saying it clear: this whole concept does not work for me. I donât claim that this is the same for others, just for me a little change here or there does not grasp what I actually consider âthe problemâ.
âThe problemâ of course derives from a positive image that I have, quasi a kind of ideal state of the game and contrasting that against what I perceive actually happens. The positive image would be an EVE where at any state of your own development as a player or group, there are a number of very different but equally valid choices. This does not mean to guarantee equal outcome, but to not have one or two all around optimal choices, even after considering different base playstyles and different player wants at different stages of their career.
Connected to that is the idea, or maybe just assumption, that we would have more fluidity in terms of what happens, where it happens and who makes it happen. Not the total absence of stability, but less stagnation and less the feeling of a theme park, where you can decide against the beaten path, but will only see that there is not much else out there. For me, comparing this with the current state of things, does not start or end with Sov Null and there is certainly not a little button to press, a little change to make, to create this complexity of choices and more chaotic and less one-dimensional experience. Not only are there a multitude of reasons why this currently canât happen, but there are also positive factors missing to make it possible.
Even if this was more than my personal idea, letâs say a developer goal, this would not be an easy thing to do, as beyond âfixingâ the now, it would require constant action by Devs to make sure the sandbox stays a sandbox and isnât developed into a parking lot by players. Which naturally happens, I think as an unavoidable consequence of the unavoidable limits to the sandboxyness of the sandbox.
As I understand it, or want to understand it, any great challenge in the game comes from other players, not from mechanics. The nature of these possible challenges is directly connected to the variety of meaningful choices for every player - or the absense of it. In reality the difficulty of the concept is the interconnection of the different layers. For instance, a variety in choices of ships for PVP does not automatically mean a variety of choices of ships, if other layers of choices practically determine a few optimals for that choice.
I wonât bore you with the many approaches I see that would create a more complex and fluid base as tools for players to keep on challenging each other. CCP probably knows its customer base and it might just be that because EVE is so hard, players really strive for that moment when the challenge finally stops and they are not thrown back into the mud again. If that is so for the majority, the game is working as intended.
Thatâs not âthinking like a carebearâ. Itâs thinking like a person. Nobody, not even PL, throws expensive things away happily. If it took you a lot of effort to get it, you wonât part with it easily. Thatâs just human nature.
Iâd tend to agree with that as an âideal stateâ, yeah.
Again, I agree. I feel like EVE needs to be overhauled in a holistic way that makes all parts of space distinct from one another, but lets them still impact one another, and be places where player activity and choices has a significant effect. And thatâll take work.
Right. And the reasons for this are many and varied, but they can be boiled down to a (somewhat oversimplified) summation of âthere are more players than devsâ. More players means the players, as a collective body, have more brains to throw at things, so theyâre going to eventually think up things the devs didnât anticipate. And theyâre the ones interacting with each other all the time. So not only are the players going to find more âoptimalâ solutions to problems, the nature of competition means that theyâre going to have to keep changing to keep up with the changes being mad by other players.
The meta tends to settle into certain ships being used for certain things because theyâre the math-hammered optimal choice⌠or theyâre the optimal choice for a certain level of effort.
Feroxes, for example. Are Eagles superior? Yep. Individually, they are. Itâs a lot easier to put 700 ferox pilots on the field than 700 eagle pilots, though. Training time is less, and it costs something like 5-6x more to field those eagles⌠and the performance just isnât 5-6x better.
Certainly possible, yeah.
1 Like
You overestimate impact that it would have on players and what amount of them it would be. That players will leave in droves or such. People who would like to have fun kiling caps, raiding Delve, are more than those who use them. Just instead of using 50 smartbombers for 30 minutes, let them kill rorqual or other capital in just 5. Game fun for more people. Sitting in multiple ships and doing barbaric raiding, sacking Delve. 
History knows such happenings. Vandals have to come to Rome.
Hmm yes I see the Angels Hideaways I run in Molden Heath
1 Like
What makes you think weâd login to let them kill us?
As for history⌠you know the Vandals actually perpetuated Roman culture, right? The sack of Rome came as a result of Roman attacks on Vandal holdings in an attempt to re-assert control over Africa, not the Vandals being a bunch of marauding savages.
You dont have to log in, its enough that you leave structures in place, and they will be without asset safety, like it should have always been everywhere, not only wormholes.
Just like it was in sack of Rome, when it was stripped clean from valuable things without much bloodsheed, when romans were so afraid they opened the gates for vandals, so they can take what they want.
Vandals then lived happily for long time in north africa, fending off many roman attacks, ultimately reaching peace with romans when romans did not had strength to fight with them anymore. Vandals were winning against romans, but not berbers anyway. So that CCP would need to have the ârock, paper, scisorsâ thing going for sure with ships. Ultimately only a death of army leaders broke their fighting spirit and then Vandal Empire fell. But lets leave it to CCP what they will decide.
From december patch notes:
Adjustments have been made to the respawn rates of certain nullsec anomalies. These adjustments are part of a gradual ongoing process that will see further tweaks for this type of content.
Hehehehe. 
Well, thatâs a whole 'nother thing youâre now ladling on top of it all. But no, thereâs no reason to think weâd leave the easy-to-kill structures up.
Also, the Vandals lived pretty well as Romans for a few hundred years before the sack of Rome, too. Again, youâre attempting to make a ravening horde out of a fairly civilized bunch.
And yeah, theyâve adjusted the rate of âcertainâ anom respawns. So? Thatâs not going to mean a damned thing in the big picture. Anything that slows us down slows everyone else down more.
They were fairly civilized, for barbarians. They were still so distinct as to call themselves Vandals. I only say someone could even try to make Imperium completely tear apart from inside.
In null.
And there is still so much to change.
I need some help/clarification please. So on letâs say the secondary producers price index, for the price change in the basket over time, blue cells represent a rise in price and red are a drop in price? Then on the secondary producers price index, for total trade value in the basket over time, red cells represent an increase in the trade value then, and white cells are no change or a decrease?
Also what exactly is in the âaccessoriesâ group? I keep trying to figure this out as it seems to be a major part of the economy baskets in general but doesnt include skins as that is part of a different category. Are they talking about augmentations like slave implants and such or are we talking clothing, visual augments, etc.?
What? Why? To be more precise why do you think zero money growth is good when the real economy in game is growing? You do know what this leads too, right?
Do you understand all the implications of this? Probably not. A cut like this will likely lead to a much larger reduction in ISK creation.
Grow up.
How many players are there in Delve vs. other regions? What is the ISK and/or mining value per player relative to other regions?
You really whine alot. Why are you so butthurt about Delve? Is it causing inflation? Is it causing deflation? Seriously what is the problem other than a highly aggregated graph shows a very âhighâ bar in a bar chart?
HahahahaâŚI love this. The other player is always ârisk averseâ, as if that is a bad thing, because they donât simply throw ships away to die. And the player making this accusation is apparently risk seeking (but not really).
I am doing risky stuff like everyone playing this game. More or less risky.
Anyway, ISK influx was a lot less years ago and game was doing better than now, so I dont know what you are talking about. But maybe situation is beyond broken and not feasible to manage further, just to milk players out of their $ to the bitter end, like on Serenity. And building RMT bot empires untill it all collapses, then moving to other game, breaking it.
CCP brings it on their own heads by making stupid gameplay and mechanics decisions. Caslculated but lacking further insight to what the decision means in a long term. Like Alpha clones and thousands of free bot accounts that anyone can make.
My point is we are all risk averse. This doesnât mean we take no risk, it means we take risks we find acceptable. Here is how one should look at it:
You have two options:
- You get 500,000,000 ISK with no risk.
- You do [insert an activity] where youâll lose 400,000,000 ISK with a probability of 0.5 or youâll earn 1.4 billion ISK with a probability of 0.5.
If you pick 1 you are risk averse. If you pick 2 you are either risk seeking or risk neutral. Note that the expected pay off to 2 is the same as the pay off to 1. -400,000,000*.5 + 1,400,000,000 = -200,000,000 + 700,000,00 = 500,000,000.
Now, if the sure thing, number 1, has itâs pay off dropped to say 250,000,000 ISK then even though you are risk averse you may very well pick number 2 because the expected payoff is larger than the sure thing.
So people hurling around ârisk averse/aversionâ like it is an insult is like saying, âYou are an idiot for playing smart!â Every time I see that comment I think, âWhat a moron.â
Okay, Iâll explainâŚif you have a growing real economy and a money supply that is not growing or even shrinking you get deflation. A little bit is okay. Alot is not, much like alot of inflation is bad. In fact, this is what happened in the Great Depression. The money supply collapsed and it lead to wide spread deflation which makes it very hard to produce things. We donât want deflationâŚwe donât want inflation. In looking at the metrics for inflation things look relatively stable. As such worrying about the ISK supply are largely unfoundedâŚat least we should not be reducing anomaly value by 50% that big a decrease would be devastating for the in game economy.
Further, ISK creation is part of an in-game process. Basically, players convert time into ISK. This rate of conversion is not set in stone either. That is, a sudden upsurge in the amount of ISK in game will lower the value of the exchange rate between time and ISK leading to less time ratting. Same thing if there is a sudden drop in the amount of ISK. ISK is more like a commodity backed currency than a fiat currency. The commodity backing ISK is timeâŚin fact ISK is probably more like Bitcoin where the cost of electricity is part of what determines the rate at which Bitcoin are mined.
In looking at the data. I bet if you extended out the growth rate from 2015, pre-alpha clones to today weâd see a higher ISK supply than we currently do. So I am not sure that I agree with this. Yes there has been more volatility since 2015 in the growth rate of ISK, but overall I am not seeing a crisis. Maybe some tweaking, but certainly not trying to balance the growth in the money supply to zero.
I do risky stuff every morning riding on my bicycle. I dont even know what it will be this time that ends my life, some drunken man or maybe a meteorite. I dont find that acceptable. 
I would not ever compare ISK to a bitcoin, bitcoin is a limited resource. There is a finite amount you can mine. If you mined in beginning, you made 1 BTC easily, and you look at it now, the same 1 BTC, its now worth a lot more than back in 2003 when you compare production costs then and now. With ISK if you earned 1 ISK back in 2003 it is worth a lot less when you have it now, the same 1 ISK from 2003, when you compare productions costs then and now. ISK is infinite, amount of bots can be too.
I think ISK can be compared to cryptocurrencies as a whole lot of them tho.
People can develop new shitcoins at an astonishingly fast rate.
I would argue both are examples of what George Selgin calls synthetic commodity backed currencies. (Hopefully that link is still ungatedâŚ)
Although synthetic commodity money might be regarded as nothing more than a particular kind of a rule-bound fiat money, I think it proper to distinguish between these. The difference warranting the separate designations is that real resource costs alone limit monetary base growth in a synthetic commodity-money regime, whereas in rule-based fiat money regimes, as these are conventionally understood, base growth is limited by positive transactions costs, including any penalties to which rule-violating authorities are subject.
ISK canât be traded for $ and gets wiped out if server shuts down.
Where were we at? Uh, Imperium industry and krabing outperforming rest of EVE combined. Impressive, most impressive.
Oh for crying out loudâŚgo down load the MER files and double check that. Never mind I know you wonât bother.
Mining value by region:
Delve: 15,559,863,839,196 ISK
The Rest of New Eden: 41,159,184,485,157 ISK
NPC Bounties:
Delve: 12,552,878,932,447 ISK
The Rest of New Eden: 64,920,024,161,801 ISK.
Imperium is not only Delve. By how much % am I wrong? Need 6âth least significant digit and accounted for inflation.
Ok, itâs not 200%, more like 50% of total value. Still very impressive, shows how powerful citadel/ rorqual sov can be if used correctly.