It’s not wrong. You are still only flying one at a time.
However, I did state I was being facetious. And your point that you might need to change ships for different purposes is still well made.
There was a rumor in an in-game channel yesterday that new minerals and/or mats are planned.
“Evidence” was something to do with people data mining changes to the code. Changes which have also been used to identify that there will be a Halloween Event in a couple of weeks. Whether this proves true for the “new material” or not, is pure speculation at this stage.
I think it really is the only way.
Despite common believe Eve is balanced such that you really can’t lose anything. Almost all your stuff is perfectly safe 100% of the time and there is no cost to maintain that safety. This means players are incentivized to squirrel away wealth and there are not very good reasons to attack each other.
CCP tried for a decade to drive activity by flooding the game with toys and wealth but it failed. “Just give everyone more stuff and they will be more likely to fight each other with it!”. That didn’t work at all, it just watered down the value of actions and items and made much of the competitive game meaningless. Adding more voluntary sinks isn’t going to work - players will just avoid them or min/max things so they are still richer at the end of the day.
The only way to drive real conflict/interactions is to make resources more scarce. If everyone has everything at their doorstep, there is very little reason to interact, competitively or cooperatively, with other players. Sure, we are all winners but how is that an interesting, sustainable or fun game, at least once you’ve min/maxed things?
I’ll agree though that it is also true that just making things super scarce and cut-throat isn’t a ticket to a fun and popular game either. There of course needs to be a balance and middle ground so players can actually progress, but their progression feels meaningful because it wasn’t guaranteed (or at least they think that). That balance though isn’t going to be the same for all players, so you get threads like this one and hundreds of others like it in the last 17 years where players argue their personal preference is correct, and the guy who likes it easier or harder is wrong.
I think the game is viable over a range of difficulties, but I also agree with CCP we have been creeping towards the “too easy” edge of this range for too long and it is time for intervention to bring the game back to a more healthy place.
2 Likes
Also the way WH get shafted is pretty epic IMO. No ores, no ice?
To build a T3 you need to run combat sites, data sites, relic sites, huff gases, do research, do reactions, do production.
What do you need to build Trig ships? Run enough abyssals where you just rat and stockpile everything you need skill books included and red loot on top of it. And trig ships are better than T3C in many situations too.
How about Abyssal space selfsufficiency?
If that’s true, the resource redistribution is not needed.
CCP are on this path because of the mess they did with the capital ships. The “high” demand of minerals is needed because of the capitals. With the minerals for 1 Orca you can make approx. 6-7 BS? As you said, how many spares do you need? And as you know, Orca is not considered capital ship…
Not quite… All your stuff is not perfectly safe 100%. Why do you say is safe 100%?
Almost all your stuff is perfectly safe, 100% of the time.
That’s something I tried to show several times. I can agree with no ice. As far as I know, there wasn’t Ice in WH-space from the start. I don’t agree with taking out the Ores.
Which stuff is perfectly safe 100% of the time if I live in WH-space?
You are ant-■■■■■■■.
Even including wormhole space, 99.9+% of wealth in this game is perfectly safe in NPC stations, Upwell structures protected by asset safety, or in wallets. Going into a wormhole is a choice that puts assets at risk, and granted living there puts even more at risk, but this risk is determined by the player and much of the wealth can be put in a 100% safe place if the player wants.
Kudos to you if you are a baller who keeps 95% of your wealth in a wormhole, but if you do you are a complete aberration. Everyone else but you regularly moves the bulk of their wealth to a perfectly safe place, even those that live in wormholes.
So therefore, it is the resource generation side of things were adjustments need to be made. Unless people are seriously proposing involuntary sinks where stored wealth degrades over time or can be destroyed/stolen. I think that might have been a possibility when Eve was designed, but it’s too late to add that now or at least it would be even less fun than resource scarcity.
In my opinion of course.
1 Like
As I understand it, the market fees are proportional to the value of the product(s) being bought or sold. I don’t think these fees change much in that regard.
If the transaction fees are sinking isk out of the game, the purchasing power of isk will go up as it becomes more scarce, so prices should fall if people, in general, have less money to spend.
When I said ‘people will use smaller ships’ I was thinking about people who expend ships as part of their operations. For mission runners who are more ‘one and done’, it may take longer to purchase their one ship, but it can still be purchased. If we want to throw gankers into the equation, their ships would also come at a higher relative cost if others are paying that higher cost to acquire their mission running ships. The relative balance of power looks to be nearly the same to me. If people insure their ships, their insurance payout goes up if the cost of the production materials goes up, too.
On the other hand, flat payouts, like mission pay, rat bounties, or the like are fixed amounts. The less isk there is in the economy, the more these fixed payouts are worth in buying power. I think the balance of the economy for or against new players is mostly determined by fixed costs, and fixed rewards. The higher the baseline pay of NPC rewards, the stronger new players will be, economically. The higher the fixed costs, the lesser. Because I value new players, I typically oppose any fixed cost increases to do anything in Eve. Relative costs, or changes that alter optimal strategies do not bother me, and I feel are more likely to throw a wrench into established players who’ve tooled for maximum efficiency for the current situation and don’t want to retool than players who are figuring out what strategies to use.
I mean, really. Once a player knows what they’re doing, I find it hard to classify them as ‘new’ anymore.
1 Like
Resource redistribution (enforced scarcity) would probably still be required, regardless. And for the reasons both @Siegfried_Tahl and @Black_Pedro have been making. There is potentially 3x material already out there, compared to what is needed, stockpiled as ores, minerals, mats, components and completed ships. Even if you introduce a new building mat, the rate of change to cause draw down/ attrition will not be enough.
(As an aside, there was also chatter that the Halloween event will involve multi-scramming NPC, that will rule me out being involved, but also a Crimson Harvest element. Latter means chromotricarboxyl. Or however it is spelled. That might mean nothing to you, but point is, if you were going to speculate on a new mat, this would be a good one. It has already been coded in-game previously and was target of different events as a refined product from both a new ore and later a new gas resource. Still speculation, but more conceivable than just inventing some new “Trig goo”.)
1 Like
There is always risk involved in moving your wealth from J-space to ‘safe’ K-space, which rather cuts into your ‘100% safe’ mantra.
The money sink I’m referring is not the transaction fee which as you pointed are % of the value (even that one can be reduced, for example: on 1 toon I have 3.8% from the standard 5%). The money sink I’m referring is the actual increased value of a ships which is going to be lost.
This a battle report for last night’s fight (I think is a part of it): Battle Report Tool
How would the goons replace the lost ships: approx. 130 Dreads and 700 BS, not taking into account all the other ships? By the use of their minerals stockpile. If they don’t have enough tritanium they are going to have to buy it from HS (especially if the HS is the only producer). What will happen then? Would I as a little guy be able to match the same price per tritanium? I guess not… Who is then losing?
Black Pedro isn’t saying that 100% of assets are 100% safe. Nor did he say assets in wormholes were safe. He’s saying that the overwhelming majority of assets in New Eden are protected, either by being in an NPC station, or by asset safety in an upwell structure. Player assets are only at risk if a player chooses not to avail themselves of one of the safety nets provided, but players obviously choose to protect their assets whenever possible.
1 Like
What safety nets are offered for WH? For the people established in WH at least 35% of their assets are in the hole as far I know. I have around 55% of assets in WH, 30% in LS asset safety, 10% HS and 5% Wallet.
I find it highly unlikely anyone will be able to dominate the tritanium market, especially given that it’s primarily produced in high security space.
I don’t see a loser in your proposed situation. I see miners as winning as the value of their minerals experiences a spike in value. Tritanium is available all over New Eden. The big blocs are unlikely to scour every region for every last little bit, and a little guy looking to replace a ship only needs a little bit. If it’s worth a ton, he or she may decide to mine it himself and add the profit from any extra to his bank account for later.
If one wants to ponder a situation that could conceivably happen that would harm ‘the little guy’ (or, indeed, any group they can think of), then they will probably come up with something. If we confine ourselves to what is likely, though, then I don’t see there being much to worry about.
The point isn’t that the game has risk somewhere. The point is that there is a 100% safe space that players can keep most of their wealth with no ongoing cost or risk. You can’t, no matter what you do, mess with most of the assets of other players in this game.
And that is fine. It probably is a big part of Eve’s success as a persistent universe game that has lasted decades. But it does present some problems and constraints for the game designers.
If everywhere was like wormhole space we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
1 Like
So you agree that the risk taken in WH space is much higher than in other space?
Do you think the removal of Ores from WH space is correct having in mind the higher risk?
Well if the Trig resources are anything to go by, aquisition of these theoretical new minerals will most likely be an Omega only task at source.
And how they are used will also be.
And ofc if they build ships, well guess what lol.
Dont get me wrong, I dont like Alpha as a concept, but how EvE is structured is being changed at every level slowly to conform to a new paradigm. One thats pretty much mostly complete as it stands.