Monthly Economic Report - November 2018

devblog
official

(Nana Skalski) #62

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.


(zluq zabaa) #63

It happened often enough, but you’re probably right in this case.

So, thinking again about this… I have to laugh a bit about myself. It’s easy to slip back into the mode of discussion of what would be “good for the game” and thereby pretty much ignoring what the reality of the game is and has been for a long while.

The “solutions” 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 don’t claim that this is the same for others, just for me a little change here or there does not grasp what I actually consider “the problem”.

“The problem” 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 can’t happen, but there are also positive factors missing to make it possible.

Even if this was more than my personal idea, let’s say a developer goal, this would not be an easy thing to do, as beyond “fixing” the now, it would require constant action by Devs to make sure the sandbox stays a sandbox and isn’t 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 won’t 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.


(Arrendis) #64

That’s not ‘thinking like a carebear’. It’s 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 won’t part with it easily. That’s just human nature.

I’d tend to agree with that as an ‘ideal state’, 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 that’ll take work.

Right. And the reasons for this are many and varied, but they can be boiled down to a (somewhat oversimplified) summation of ‘there are more players than devs’. More players means the players, as a collective body, have more brains to throw at things, so they’re going to eventually think up things the devs didn’t anticipate. And they’re the ones interacting with each other all the time. So not only are the players going to find more ‘optimal’ solutions to problems, the nature of competition means that they’re 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 they’re the math-hammered optimal choice… or they’re the optimal choice for a certain level of effort.

Feroxes, for example. Are Eagles superior? Yep. Individually, they are. It’s 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 isn’t 5-6x better.

Certainly possible, yeah.


(Nana Skalski) #65

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. :sunglasses:

History knows such happenings. Vandals have to come to Rome.


(Eric Kalfren) #66

Hmm yes I see the Angels Hideaways I run in Molden Heath :sunglasses:


(Arrendis) #67

What makes you think we’d 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.


(Nana Skalski) #68

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 “rock, paper, scisors” 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. :smirk:


(Arrendis) #69

Well, that’s a whole 'nother thing you’re now ladling on top of it all. But no, there’s no reason to think we’d 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, you’re attempting to make a ravening horde out of a fairly civilized bunch.

And yeah, they’ve adjusted the rate of ‘certain’ anom respawns. So? That’s not going to mean a damned thing in the big picture. Anything that slows us down slows everyone else down more.


(Nana Skalski) #70

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. :smirk:

In null.

And there is still so much to change. :smirk: