Generally I tend to agree with most of your posting but here I have to say.
{citation needed}
3 Likes
For what? That itâs a menial grind? Thatâs like saying water is wet. Once you figure out how to do it and build an appropriate farming ship the vast majority of EVEâs PvE becomes completely mindless. Zero chance of failure (outside of PvP interruptions), zero challenge, just press F1 until you get tired of pressing F1 and move on.
Now, can I prove that few people are interested in it? No. But games that donât offer any challenge donât tend to generate long-term interest and I donât see anything that EVEâs PvE offers that would suggest that it could break the trend.
That did happen. It was around for years, with absolutely no use for gameplay at large. It was scrapped for a reason.
3 Likes
Thatâs a convenient position to take âItâs a PVP game, because PVE doesnât countâ.
Players kill 250 NPC ships per 1 player lost ship on average, including PVP loss.
According to the results, players kill an NPC on average every five to six minutes. Killing another playerâs ship? The average player in EVE doesnât kill another playerâs ship during an average play session.
the average number of ships lost in a three-hour play ranged between 0.12 and 0.17 ships. I should remind everyone that the figure doesnât mean that is how many ships are killed in PvP. Because Dotlan does not provide a breakdown between PvP and PvE losses, the number of PvP kills per 3-hour play session is less.
Itâs an older article, but Iâm pretty sure it checks out still.
6 Likes
âItâs a PvP game because the majority of the gameâs content is PvP and the PvE content would not be a viable game without the PvP to support it.â
Players kill 250 NPC ships per 1 player lost ship on average, including PVP loss.
Whatâs your point? âNumber of NPC ships killedâ is a completely meaningless statistic, you might as well compare number of ship spins vs. mining lasers activated per hour to calculate interest in bringing WiS back.
If âthe average number of ships lost in a three-hour play ranged between 0.12 and 0.17 shipsâ that means that for every single PVP player who made a kill during his session, there were 8 PVE players who killed 2000 NPC ships during that same time.
Now 1 PVP player to 8 PVE players is an interesting ratio. Yet you still stating its 8 PVE players are there to support that 1 PVP player, not the other way around.
Thatâs a convenient position to take âItâs a PVP game, because PVE doesnât countâ.
5 Likes
Oh yea, it was suppose to be more like walk around in station find missions, sell stuff and socialize. Kind of like the game privateer use to be. Now Iâm kind of dating my self. How ever walking from a space dock to your cell ( habitat )wasnât like it was suppose to be. Even the star wars one was better than that. Your right there was no use for game play at large. However it was never completed the way it was suppose to be or the way it was implied that it was suppose to be.
2 Likes
Itâs also a false ratio. Were those NPCs killed by players whose focus in EVE is PvE, or were they killed by PvP players doing PvE to fund their PvP? Were the play sessions of equal length, or was it 3 hours of PvP by one player and 23 hours of PvE by one RMT bot? Etc.
And thatâs in addition to the question of which direction the support goes. If PvP didnât exist to drive the market and the rewards from PvE became almost worthless how many people would still do PvE? On the other hand, if PvE didnât exist then the PvP content would stand just fine on its own.
No, that was just empty marketing hype. CCP never had a viable path to make any of those ideas into reality, WiS was nothing more than some cheap EVE assets thrown into their WoD engine as a quick side project. Once WoD died there was zero reason to develop WiS any further.
Does it really matter what they are doing it for? They are doing PVE, they are PVE players at that moment.
Please, go read the article. The numbers are legit.
Nobody claims only PVE should exist, or that it is more meaningful. Its your strawman to fight.
No it would not. Not as a sandbox marketed game at least. A MOBA. Like WOT. Perhaps youre better go play that?
6 Likes
Yes, of course it matters. Otherwise every single mission runner or nullsec farmer who gets ganked counts as a âPvP playerâ. Killing NPCs to work towards a PvP goal makes you a PvP player.
Please, go read the article. The numbers are legit.
I read the article. The author pulled the 3 hour session number out of their ass and without that assumption your entire 8:1 ratio falls apart.
Nobody claims only PVE should exist, or that it is more meaningful.
Please read what is actually posted instead of what you want to see. The issue is not whether or not PvE should exist, itâs about which of them could stand on their own as a viable game. PvP can, PvE canât. EVE is a functioning PvP sandbox game with some PvE elements awkwardly tacked onto it because back in 2000 CCP felt pressure to include genre-standard mechanics like attribute scores and questing.
No it would not. Not as a sandbox marketed game at least. A MOBA. Like WOT. Perhaps youre better go play that?
Utter nonsense. A PvP-only game would still include the competitive capitalism aspect of EVEâs industry and would work just fine as a sandbox. Killing helpless NPC punching bags for loot is not an essential component of a sandbox game.
Merin literally said you should keep playing. Not to mention nothing in that reply to you was rude. Frankly, Iâd say that kind of stuff to someone face to face quite happily.
So, as a PvP only game, are players not supposed to mine, run missions, or kill NPCs?
Few questions:
- how would you do industry without this PvE side of the game?
- how would players gain access to faction, deadspace, and officer modules?
- how would you get new ships after your current one gets blown up?
If itâs meant to be free ships at any station after unlocking them, like unlocking different chars in a MOBA, then it would be just a MOBAâŚ
IMO, PvE could probably survive on itâs own, but would become boring quite fast without any competition, and everyone being able to do as they like, with barely any risk or consequences.
Might as well play on the test server for PvE only enjoyment if thatâs what the player wants.
As for the various changes⌠still loads of bugs to fix
- ore anomalies still showing up on the agency in high sec, even though they donât exist
- asteroid belts being completely empty in null, which should be either âshadowedâ, in case these changes will be reverted in the future, or removed completely
1 Like
Iâm not sure about which part of my post you are talking. have you read it?
Hey Merlin, Iâm waiting for your citation 
I do PvE (and PI, and mining) purely to fund my PvP activities. You could equally say that someone fetching ammunition in a cargo ship to load into their PvP shipâs guns is âa logistics player at that momentâ - totally meaningless statement.
I havenât denied anything. Iâve merely pointed out that being adversarial is in the eye of the beholder. If you choose to think that interactions are adversarial then, in your view, they are. The reverse of that is also true.
It does not make someone bad at the game if they choose to have a more positive outlook.
This basically, no players (maybe the CSM members) have any idea how many of us PvP or PvE.
The only people with those numbers are CCP, everything else is a finger in the air guess.
Iâm not even sure how you could decide which group a player falls into? Never activated a hostile module on another player maybe? 
Ahhh Merin, still pushing your agenda here I see buddy. Other than trolling (in which case, fair play I guess?) I really donât see what youâre trying to achieve here. Clearly you play Eve for the PvP, and why not - itâs great! But, because of the sandbox nature of the game, plenty of folks play for the PvE.
Iâve already expanded on the industry side of things - which could fairly be said to be in support of PvP, but only insofar as thatâs who buys the stuff. If it was NPCs that bought the stuff, it wouldnât change the indi guysâ play at all, so itâs a strange point to make in my eyes.
Youâre still grossly mis-informed (or, more likely, wilfully mis-representing) about the PvE side of the game however. Abyssals are hardly F1 rinse repeat. Pirate FOBs and Incursions are a little more involved. Both elements have plenty of folks that have been enjoying that content. Trig invasion? Majority of that was PvE (with a good splash of PvP on top) which seemed a really nice intro to PvP fleet mechanics for the newer player.
As for âPvE only would never survive as a gameâ, Iâd agree that there wouldnât be as many people playing on the same server (what would be the point?!), but the X series seems to have been chugging along for years doing exactly that.
6 Likes
how would you get new ships after your current one gets blown up?
Mining is part of the âcompetitive capitalismâ industry side of EVE and would remain.
how would players gain access to faction, deadspace, and officer modules?
Who cares. None of those things are essential, and TBH Iâd like to have them removed. The only reason they exist is because back in 2000 CCP did a bunch of genre-standard things for their new game and purple loot was one of them.
Which is a false claim. âAdversarialâ is defined by the structure of the game mechanics, not by player opinion. For example, selling an item on the market is indisputably an adversarial interaction because you are competing with other players to make the sale and any sale you successfully make comes at the direct expense of another player who wanted to make it instead. You can attempt to ignore the adversarial nature of the market, but that just makes you bad at competitive capitalism.
1 Like