Whilst you may be sitting on your stock piles, not everyone is.
Ships and equipment are being made, traded and consumed.
That may be a safe move, but not the most profitable move.
Why not sell the ores while theyâre worth a lot, before CCP re-adds more ore supply in another redistribution step?
Blockquote
to ensure that player choices matter, the loss has meaning, and to ensure that the universe is dynamic and changing.
Iâm sorry @CCP_Dopamine, but your conclusion is wrong.
80% (?) of PVP = PVP vs PvE-ships. This is not âdynamicâ or âchangingâ.
PvEâers loss to PVP has meaning, not the other way around!
a gank ship is under 20-40m & a PvE ship is +100m up to 4-5b and more⌠and pve ships cant even apply damage to the PVP shipsâŚ
so in conclussions only the PvE playerâs choice matter. âshould I undock or should I stay dockedâ. Thatâs the only choice.
Also, DBS is still at D. and unstable⌠lols, there are corp/alliances that sacrifice ships just to raise the DBS.
sorry but no, your game mechanics are clearly not working as isâŚ
and you talk about nerf capital ratting and marauders even more⌠lolâŚ
AS IS⌠i risk +5b for just the nid hull⌠to get 24m ticks.
whats the point to even buy omega, if all the âgameplayâ is in t1 frigates, destroyers, and cruisersâŚ
seriously⌠can you guys at ccp stop taking drugs?
7 Likes
Rattati and Pearl Abyss has done more to force cash paying customer to quit EVE and Start playing Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen than anyone in the history of EVE. You would not believe the amount of ex EVE players that left EVE for Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen. A good number of them left EVE after Rattati started destroying the player driven sandbox and forcing players to play EVE the way Rattati wants to play EVE played. Rattati, EVE was awesome before you and your manifesto destroyed the player driven sandbox. The only ones that likes Rattatis changes are gankers, the folks you pay to troll the forums, and the Developers of Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen. No one has done more for Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen business than Rattati has over the past year. We are starting to see why everything Rattati works on fails. Rattati has no clue what the player driven sandbox experiences is and was. I said experiences because what made EVE stand alone was the fact that you could play EVE your way. You could have 1000 people doing the same function but it was being done 1000 different ways. Thats what made EVE stand alone from other games. Rattatis forced game play puts an end to what was the most unique game ever created and kills the sandbox experiences for good.
7 Likes
well. I donât know anything about this⌠where the paying eve customers has gone - if they have gone etc.
But Iâm pretty sure the changes in EVE come from the director Helmar. and the people you talk about are in charge of carrying out those orders.
I understand that EVE had to change somewhat, but I do not agree that these changes are needed to be dragged out for +2 years.
also I do not agree that changing the same game âsettingsâ on 3+ âknobsâ - at the same time, is particularly smart.
Finally, I do not agree that these changes will produce the outcome that CCP says/thinks it will⌠to put it simple, it creates a distrust in CCP for me. They either lieing on purpose or are just idiots?
4 Likes
Wait, Hilmarr owes me money?
2 Likes
Yes, this is just errant nonsense. It is something I expect to see in a shitty novel or television show.
Scarcity is going to make thing more expensive and as such people will be less willing to risk losing those things because replacing them will take longer.
PleaseâŚjust stop with this. It is stupid beyond belief.
3 Likes
IRL , this could be true thou�
In an online pixel world where you donât have life-threatening conditions⌠like food etc⌠yeah this is true.
its ccp trolling at its best.
actually, in eve-online, abundance breeds war, and scarcity breeds complacency and station spinning and unsubbed accounts.
5 Likes
Nah, even IRL, if nobody anywhere has anything to take, then nobody starts a war to take what isnât there.
1 Like
see the whole damn orca nerf is freaking dumb. what do they really think that is keeping the ore market a float right now? ccp is gona completly screw themselfs over when it comes to this change because it gona make alot of people wana quit. i mean if your looking to make it where orcas and mining ships are nerfed then make it where concord responds even faster because then you will have alot of people to deal with that will cry about the whole orca nerf.
3 Likes
Historically, I can literally only think of one war that involved a significant component of âresource scarcityâ.
Even then, it was âresource poor, military excessâ beating up on a military weak, resource rich colony.
(In other words, Arrendis is right)
Wars typically are over power, and more likely to occur when thereâs underlying resentment. Thing is, in EVE, if a region is taken, the residents are pushed out, rather than becoming subject to the victors. This acts as a brake on conquest, since taking a region dilutes power, rather than increases it.
Scarcity Breeds War is marketing, not a lesson anyone could draw from an actual history of war.
2 Likes
You mean you want them to be fodder for your gate camps? ESS might as well not exist if the thief isnt given a considerable leg up. Honestly the pay is still complete â â â â . CCP should be taking WAY more from the krabs with this system but cant suffer the loss of so many BOTS.
1 Like
People do fight over resources.
If some people arenât willing to risk losses in conflicts over resources then they are free to not have those resources.
Yes. But that means there are resources to fight over. When everywhere has nothing, thereâs nobody fighting over the resources that donât exist.
1 Like
This is hyperbole. I canât think of any area of space that has ânothingâ. People are currently fighting over LowSec anomalies, which, as far as Iâm aware, can spawn in any LowSec system.
LowSec systems with ice belts are also seeing a fair amount of traffic and contesting.
And people are fighting over moons: Battle Report Tool
You seem to have a strange straw man idea of what the current situation with scarcity is. Maybe NullSec isnât as lucrative as it used to be, but people are fighting over resources, even knowing that every capital they lose is going to cost much more to replace later on.
1 Like
But Lowsecâs still a very different beast than nullsec. And if you object to the word ânothingâ, then: when everywhere has the same low level of resources, people donât risk needed strategic resources in order to lay claim to nothing they didnât already have.
And no, people in nullsec arenât fighting over resources. Thatâs not what the current wars in null are about. PAPI v Imperium, FRT v AOM, etc etc⌠no. Not about resources. And even there, theyâre not risking the strategic assets over nonsense. PH just announced their âbigâ assets for their push on our capital⌠will be battleships. Seriously? Is that supposed to be considered risking strategic assets?
Linking a BR over a moon fight in lowsec, immediately after CCPâs announced R4s will be more valuable⌠that only proves the point: the resources have to exist to be fought over, and take a look at whoâs willing to throw away caps: Scary Wormhole People, who make their money⌠in the places where scarcity hasnât hit.
Gosh. Shocking.
This is a shifting goalpost.
This isnât the reality.
Not sure who youâre replying to here but it isnât me: I made no such claims.
Yeah, weâll probably see more situations like this in the future. Warfare is gonna change a bit, but there will still be wars.
That wasnât an R4 moon.
They do.
TDSIN hasnât lived in WHs for a while. You should probably try to get in the loop before you talk about things.
EDIT: And yeah scarcity changed things in WHs too.
No, itâs noting that different areas of space play by different rules. To control a moon in lowsec, for example, you donât have to maintain the ihub, so you can control access to the system via jammers. Thereâs no bubbles. That all means people are willing to engage differently over the same kinds of resources, because the risks are different. All those capitals? They werenât bubbled. They also knew that there wasnât going to be a supercapital escalation. All of this weighs into the decision of âhow much risk is there in this?â
For each type of space, it absolutely is. All of nullsec has the same level of resource redistribution as the rest of nullsec. All of lowsec has the same level of resource redistribution as the rest of lowsec, etc.
You claimed people are fighting over moons. Thatâs true in lowsecâwhere, again, the risks are lowerâbut itâs not true where the large-scale destruction happens. Itâs not true where the economy-driving destruction happens.
But will those wars actually matter? The things that CCPâs been trying to accomplish with the economy overhaul wasnât âwill there be wars?â but things like will supercapitals die? Will the warfare that happens mean the large strategic assets get risked? Because if they donât, then they just continue to keep piling up, the way they have since basically they were introduced.
This means that a warfare landscape that doesnât include supercapital warfare⌠will be a failure. And right now, thatâs what CCPâs setting up for.
Given statements made by Kenneth âThe Leaky Sieveâ Feld, I sincerely doubt anyone in a position to make decisions about which moons to hit is betting against another moon-ore redistribution. God knows weâre not.
Yeah, their zkill activity definitely shows theyâve completely abandoned j-space. Maybe you should watch what they do, not what they say.
And scarcity hasnât impacted j-space nearly as much as it has everywhere else, no.
1 Like
Which is a shifting goalpost. You said people wouldnât fight over resources during scarcity because they canât afford the losses. I pointed out that people do fight over resources and currently are. Now youâre splitting hairs and moving goalposts: âwell thatâs lowsec itâs differentâ. Right.
This is another shifting goalpost. You said âall areas of spaceâ having the same low level of resources, now you want to split hairs again.
Maybe this was true in the past, but itâs changing. Youâre operating on an outdated paradigm.
It depends on what you mean by âmatterâ. This is such a vague and nebulous term that I canât even respond to it.
Dunno. Donât care. We had wars before cap proliferation and they âmatteredâ as far as I can tell.
So?
Non-sequitur, please explain how wars without supers will be a âfailureâ, especially considering the constant lamentation from the community about caps.
Okay.
Go back a few pages and youâll notice a pretty clear trend. Doing things in WHs isnât the same as living in WHs. TDSIN got evicted and theyâve been derping around KSpace for a while now. I do things in WHs. Whatâs your point? So far you havenât seemed to have one, and are instead desperately trying to throw out fallacies to maintain an indefensible position. Myopically pointing out TDSINs involvement - I donât see TDSIN on the other side of that BR?
Câmon man, just give it up.
Because they canât afford the losses. That means theyâre taking into account the different levels of risk inherent in each part of space. So no, not shifting goalposts at all. Sorry if you didnât recognize that the underlying conditions contribute to peoplesâ decisions.
No, just a clarification. All parts of k-space have been impacted. Each part has been impacted to a specific degree. Trying to compare conditions between lowsec and null, or null and high, is futile and only serves to muddy the waters. You need an apples-to-apples comparison, or you pollute your data.
Really? So lowsecâs had something comparable to M2 in the last six months?
Exactly. Those wars took place under significantly different conditions, where the capitals and supercapitals werenât present. In order to get those wars to matter again, the number of supers needs to go down.
It leads to stagnation across the game. Weâve seen this time and again over the last ten years, and even CCPâs acknowledged this is the case, and the supers need to be dealt with.
No, you see, you misunderstand. Iâm not saying anything about âwars without supersâ. Iâm saying âwars where supers arenât risked by fighting other supersâ. Supers will continue to be used when the risk is low, and the other side only has subcaps, or regular caps. Thatâs the problemâand the big cause of âconstant lamentationâ from the community about caps.
I donât see a massive number of dead caps on the other side of it, either.