The Economy isn't Broken, and Destruction is not Good

There’s a lot of poorly-informed opinion floating around the forums (and apparently at CCP HQ) lately, about how the economy is broken, loss is meaningless, and what’s needed to fix it is more “destruction of player assets”.

Most people simply re-state their preferences and opinions and the mindset they’ve frozen into over years of opposing anyone who thinks differently than they do. Or in CCP’s case, they just don’t understand good game design and ecosystem approaches, and have no clue what to do except fall back on some outmoded concept from two decades ago in a futile attempt to “reset EVE back to its’ roots”.

Let’s try to balance some of that noise with a quick scan of a few facts:

  • Nov.2020 MER shows that production is heading steadily down, mining is heading down, and except for a few spikes when CCP introduces “cool new make it all explode!” surprises, destruction is heading down. These numbers have been heading down for over a year. Production is at two-thirds of what it was 2 years ago. Trading volumes are also down. This is not an economy spiralling out of control - this is an economy headed for recession.

  • Gila prices have cycled between roughly 180M and 220M ISK for 2 years now, with a few short spikes and slumps driven by speculation and dumping after various news/update events.

  • Multispectrum Shield Hardener II modules, a mainstay in many builds, has been averaging 2.5M ISK over the past 2 years, although in this case it’s a falling trend moving from about 2.8M to 2.2M over that period.

  • Multispectrum Energized Membrane II, another mainstay, has cycled around the 700M ISK point, although in this case the recent trends have been slightly more up than down.

  • Ravens cycled around 140M, trending downwards, until the recent market changes altered the way trades are posted, and then the current poverty campaign, pushing prices to 250M ISK and upwards. Dominixes were similar, cycling around 150M ISK until 2020’s “kill the economy” initiatives have sent it to 250M and upwards.

Making losses, ships and the items players need to engage in combat more expensive and hard to get, is not going to stimulate the economy, nor is it going to force players to endure even greater risk of loss in combat with each other. It’s not ‘fixing’ anything.

Here’s the actual issue: There’s a lot of ISK and resources cycling around the game, and that’s because the design of EVE says “losses are expensive and you need to have resources to cover them. So build lots and lots of resources and then you can afford any loss that occurs”. So of course, players hook up the best farming operations they can, and proceed to amass great resources against those potential losses. Partially because humans are naturally wired to gather resources, and partially because CCP’s main initiatives over the past decades have been in resource control (Null Sov, Rorqs, PvE farming with drones/caps/supers) and NOT in combat encouragement.

The missing part of the “massing resources against potential losses” equation is the fact that EVE is not designed to encourage losses to occur. Players build wealth to ensure they can withstand loss, but once their wealth-building setup is working, there is no reason to incur loss. It becomes near-pointless to do so. Why spend all that time acquiring a massive ship with a great build just to fly out and get it blown up? All the design of EVE encourages “build wealth, and don’t get blown up and lose it”.

Over the years, the changes in EVE have mostly discouraged people who just want to do PvP combat because it’s non-sustainable. You have a few minutes of fun and then have to spend hours recouping the cost. EVE has winnowed all those players out and has been left with a few basic types:

  • The ones who PvP for profit, high sec gankers mostly. This actually hurts the game overall, because every happy ganker means dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of unhappy “productive” players.
  • The ones who avoid PvP and amass wealth, because PvP is chancy and lossy, but wealth building always gives you more. They imagine that someday they will “do something” with that ‘more’, or maybe they just enjoy having it, but they mostly aren’t PvPing with it.
  • The ones who avoid PvP and don’t really amass wealth, but do things like missioning and exploration just because they like to fly ships in space and need something to do. Eventually this gets boring because the PvE side of EVE is pretty boring, overall.
  • The ones who use their wealth or PLEX or ISK farms to pay for their PvP and go out and PvP regardless of the losses. From all the statistics and activity figures ever published by CCP, this is a very small percent of players.

Losses aren’t meaningless because stuff is too cheap, or there is too much wealth in the game. Combat is meaningless because once you have wealth there’s no further need for combat. Wealth is meaningless because there’s not much reason to expend that wealth on anything. Taking assets away from players (or making them harder to produce and trade), won’t make combat any more meaningful.

The problem is not the economy, or massed wealth. The problem is that EVE is not designed to support consistent high levels of player combat. In fact it actively discourages it. CCP is flailing around trying to find ways to restart the “players need to fight to survive!” concept they think they once had (except for a few small periods, they never did).

Until CCP (and players) figure out what the actual issue is, they’re going to keep getting it wrong and losing players when they do.


Another thing I have noticed is a very stuck in a rut “If you fly an X, your Fit is Y, and you counter it by doing Z”
want to try fitting a Punisher with rails… you are ‘doing it wrong’
want to armor tank a Badger… you are ‘doing it wrong’

sometimes ‘doing it wrong’ has advantages, as folks are not set up to expect certain combinations being replaced by other ideas.


The only consequence I read from your post is that amassing wealth without risk of losing is the problem. Avoiding loss and PvP should not allow you to get rich or keep your stuff. Risk vs. reward needs to be more polarized.

I like the current event because it goes exactly in this direction.


Armageddon used to be 50 mil for the hull man I miss that, now you have to pay hundreds of millions for a fully fit bs.
I always thought t1 ships where supposed to be the cheap pvp options while pirate and navy ships where the costly ones and now the difference between a mega and vindi is not so huge.
Not to mention navy bs’s being the same price as pirate bs’s even though pirate bs’s are a lot stronger!

Lets take for example the Megathron hull:
The build requirement’s as of now for mega, navy maga and vindi are all the same once you have a bpc.

What if:
All 3 basic mineral amount requirement’s dropped by 60%.
T1 hull is now 60% cheaper.
Navy hull would then need a new material added to construction that can be found in low sec through some mean’s adding a new type of gold rush for low sec.
And a pirate hull would then need a new material added to null sec adding a new type of gold rush for null.

These sites could be un-gated (deadspace) and require a point/scram to hold down the final boss npc or he just warps away. The npc dps could be low enough and dps requirement to break npc active tank low enough (300 for null/100 for low) that these sites could be run solo in pvp fit’s.

I am not sure why we have sites in low and null that are impossible to run in pvp fit’s unless they are super blingy (looking at you event), isn’t the whole point of them to gather people together to fight.

Like imagine trying to do the current event low sec site in a pvp fit omen navy issue, the npc’s will perma warp off and warp back so that they are litterally unkillable and if they do grab you, you are pretty much dead.

I think what eve needs is a gold rush to excite people to go into areas where pvp can happen and like op sais make it economically viable to do so.


Then you read it wrong, I guess. The actual problem is that since PvP is overall a losing proposition (more is lost than is gained in every PvP loss), then the actual core design of EVE does not encourage taking risks and engaging in PvP. It’s a losing proposition for the average player.

Rigging the game so that “if you don’t engage in PvP you will suffer losses, and if you do engage in PvP you will suffer losses” is simply doubling down on the kind of stupidity CCP (and some players) are famous for.


It’s not a poorly-informed opinion just because you disagree with it. Your post, as a whole, doesn’t explain why it’s poorly-informed; it merely expresses your own view.

Which was never the stated intent.

Nor was this.

That’s correct, EVE isn’t designed to encourage losses to occur; it’s designed to encourage kills to occur. The economic impact of loss is designed to be controlled on the supply side of destruction, and not its demand, which would be counter-intuitive. People aren’t going to want to lose their assets, even if the assets are common and easy to replace. Loss is bad, winning is good. I highlighted a section in the quote above to draw attention to it particularly. It seems that you’re fundamentally at odds with the reasons why people go out and risk their ships in combat. No PvPer I’ve known has ever said “oh boy, I really hope I’m going to lose this ship during the op today!”

If your perspective is due to a lack of involvement in this particular aspect of the game, I’m not going to judge, but you definitely need to go out and get invested in it so that you have the background information you need from which to draw conclusions.

ALL PvP is done for profit. Not necessarily purely financial profit in the sense that you get loot, but all PvP has some kind of underlying goal/player agenda behind it. I’m surprised at how many players, often even PvPers, don’t understand this.

These people don’t actually exist. Now, some might think that they are such players, but only by virtue of what I said above (not realizing/acknowledging their intrinsic reasons for fighting).

This doesn’t make any sense, because acquiring wealth, power, fame, et cetera is effectively EVE’s end-game. I’ve never met a player who didn’t want more money, just because they already had a lot.


Im sorry Im playing wrong :frowning:

Not what I said, engaging in PvP and have the chance of getting filthy rich. Avoid taking risks and keep poor. I’m pretty sure the people I killed in lowsec during the event are big ISK positive despite the loss.

Also whether you PvP net positive/neutral or at a constant loss is a matter of personal skill, and not of mechanics.

They’re poorly informed because they don’t pay attention to the underlying math of the game as a whole, they only look at one aspect of it (such as those who win at PvP). Here’s a good example right here:

You’re clearly thinking solely from the perspective of a person who sees PvP as a profit activity. That is, one who hunts other players for profit, usually done in high-sec so the ganker is free from random attack.

All PvP results in a net loss, from a material viewpoint (not counting bounties). If two ships worth 1 billion ISK each engage in PvP to the point of one player being destroyed, then the net game result is destruction of value. One player may gain X in drops, but the other player will clearly lose much more than X. Thus, every conclusive PvP engagement results in a loss of value. So for the average player who is not a PvP specialist, PvP is nearly always a loss. Nor do the victims engage in PvP “for profit”.

If everyone in the game became a “PvP expert”, then every single battle would still result in a net loss, and the average player would still lose out on any engagement. The skill bar would simply be higher.

This is why I point out that the PvP fanbois are so egocentric - they only see the game from their own point of view, and they don’t look at the game ecosystem as a whole. Winners and losers both. As far as they’re concerned, victims are a consumable for their playstyle that the game should somehow magically provide to them.

An incomplete view leads to a poorly informed opinion.


Gila price shift happened because a large bot farm in the north was banned and supply dropped, btw.

Also “recession” in a video game, lmao.

1 Like

Those guys are hilarious. You can beat them just by looking at their losses and counter-fitting against whatever they’re flying.

I’ve flown a 10mn AB rifter sporting 250mm Artillery for six months speedtanking level4s for my corpmate …
… I’ve been flying a hero-tackle cloaky interceptor with tracking disruptor and combat probes in lowsec …
(you can’t fit all of that without trickery)
… and spent weeks trying to figure out a ganking fitting that’s standard nowadays.

Never let anyone discourage you from trying something that looks ridiculous to anyone else, no matter how stupid it may seem.


But you’ll need to prove that they are, somehow.

In my reply, I did say that that not all profit is financial in nature. Profit can also form in the form of power, fame, fear, respect, and connections, all of which can lead to additional financial profit as well. But all PvP is driven with a profit motive. The economy experiencing a net loss every time PvP occurs doesn’t change that. There will always be winners, and losers, in an open economic system.

Victims do such a good job of providing themselves to the “PvP fanbois” that the game isn’t expected to, or requested to, provide anything at all.

Nah. I gank people because they’re letting me.

What do I care about the peasants’ former possessions?


You sir are the egocentric one. What you fail to realize in your post is that PvP in this game has already been castrated to the point of near extinction because of incessant crying from carebears not unlike yourself.

This game needs MORE player vs player destruction in order to continue down the right path. CCP has been desperately trying to bubblewrap their high-sec whales with 100% safety for the better part of 10 years. It’s the reason we lost half our player-base. It’s the reason CCP has had to nerf the ■■■■ out of PvE in recent months because in reality this game is on the verge of collapse.

If you would like for Eve online to have a chance of lasting even 5 more years you have GOT to stop crying for less PvP.

1 Like

That just means your profit motive isn’t predominantly financial.

You’re still ganking them in a way that makes you the clear winner, and them clear losers. You aren’t going out there with the mindset of “maybe I’ll gank them, maybe they’ll gank me, who cares, as long as I can pew pew lols!”

1 Like

Ah. Hm.

But I’m not winning. It’s not a fight, it’s slaughter. I’m not making this up.
I’ve been saying that quite a few times over the years.

My “profit”, if you want to call it that way, is the fun behind catching them and succeeding.
Without a scout it’s not actually trivial and the fun goes up the higher the sec of the system.
In 1.0 you just go warpwarpwarpwarpwarpwarpwarp and it’s ■■■■■■■ hilarious! :smiley:

Being forced to drop a dozen bookmarks to reach that stupid afk shuttle with it’s 5.0sec pod …
without a scout
… isn’t actually trivial.

He could also just be watching me and warp off when I land. That happened more than once!
Always pissed me off, which is ■■■■■■■ awesome, because you don’t get that in any other game!

There’s some meta-“profit” in it too, like massively increased situational awareness next to other things.

But winning? lol
Don’t be ridiculous.

It’s pure slaughter.

1 Like

Every time someone explodes, it’s a fight. It just so happens that in some fights, one party is vastly more prepared for the encounter than the other.

1 Like

Every time you are suicide ganked you only have yourself to blame. You can literally be 100% safe in high-sec with just a little knowledge and preparation. I fly 10s of billions of isk right through Uedama in a hauler quite literally all the time.

EDIT: and have not been ganked once in my 10 years of playing

Well, that’s your opinion. It’s wrong, but who gives a ■■■■ anyway, right?

A slaughter isn’t a fight.
Ask a butcher if you don’t believe me.

This is a game, and not real life, so stop trying to make those parallels. You consistently do this.

Look, I can’t put in a few extra shifts at work in order to buy a tank and a few dozen HEAP shells, and go take revenge on my neighbor for sleeping with my wife. But in EVE, that’s exactly the kind of option that’s available to everyone.

1 Like