There’s someone that takes on the risk, or pays for the privilege of avoiding it. If you sit and produce in a hub, then you’re paying a huge cut toward manufacturing fees, making the work barely profitable, if not a loss altogether. If you do it somewhere else, then the risk is realized when the goods are transported to market. Managing these costs and risks is no different than choosing how much bling to put on your mission-running ship to complete missions faster, at the cost of becoming a bigger gank target.
So he’s actually right about this, and you’re not presenting the full picture.
If you need to “fund your PvP,” you’re doing something terribly wrong.
Generally (there are a few very specific exceptions), a player shouldn’t need to “fund” their PvP past the initial learning stages when they acquire skills and experience through experimentation. Past that point, you should either be compensated for your losses via some kind of SRP because the PvP you’re doing is contributing toward a mass-scale effort, or are net-positive because you’re doing PvP with a profit motive in mind (e.g. ganking, wars, piracy, camping gates, roaming for kills).
One exception I can think of is when a new alliance launches some kind of conquest effort, and the founding members are asked to self-fund their materiel at the promise of a big pay-off if they’re successful. But this should be fairly rare.
If you’re net-negative in PvP, you need to either manage your costs better while you improve your skills if you’re doing it with a profit motive but lose more than you gain, or you’re being taken advantage of by leaders who demand that you fight in their wars while being responsible for the costs yourself.
Exactly why do you think this gives you insights into economics, even just in game. You clearly have several things turned completely on their head such as the lack of destruction causing price increases…even after you note that lack of destruction would lead too an over production of things like minerals? What exactly do you think happens when there is more supply? Prices go…up? Exactly how does that work? That minerals are a Giffen good? You seem to understand sometimes…but you initially claimed the lack of destruction was causing inflation. Then you posted a long screed that indicated a horribly flawed understanding of what is a currency and then conclude that prices will be dropping till everything is worthless…the exact opposite of your earlier claim.
I’m not one of those people who will throw the “reading comprehension hurr durr” one-liner into a reply and dust off my hands after a job well done…
…But.
The issue with you is that you simply didn’t even bother reading what I wrote. You noticed a couple of trigger words and charged at them like some kind of enraged elephant with gonads dripping like a worn-out garden hose who saw a flash of the wrong color at the right time.
Tell me, what effect would a newfound inability to destroy have on the mission-running corporation upon which war has been declared, and whose members are cowering inside an NPC station while some kid in a Thorax is sitting outside and smack-talking about their mothers in local chat?
Some pve is more lucrative than others. It may just be that the type of pve shifts so you can keep the 2-3 hour window and still make the desired income in this changed reality.
CCP ripped the bandaid off and did not slow walk us to this outcome. As one who krabs (I think that’s the term) quite a bit in addition to healthy doses of pvp, I can say that isk really is where you find it. Each patch has the potential to change where ‘that’ is. I do agree that as a result of the patch, some income generation activities have been reduced in value substantially, and others have substantially increased.
fund my pvp is a lie
the NUMBER 1 carebear excuse
if a guy say he needs to PVE more to fund his PVP he probably apologize wen he dream about a combat ship
let me just crab a few more days to fund my imaginary pvp …
PVP is my source of ISK
btw
ms @Destiny_Corrupted is right
edit:
lots 4 coercers the other day
they cost 25 milion in amarr
plus the LP , im not rich but im doing it for years
i have 50 milion in my wallet but wayyyyy more than 2 bil in combat ships ready to go go , because they are my bread winners
not including toy ships like 200 milion succubus or polar ashimus
Many forms of PVP can pay for itself but not all. Someone who goes out to do solo pvp in null, or small gang pvp in null or is part of a wormhole group WILL have to secure a form of income because the pvp part in and of itself will cost money.
Thats exactly what I tell people all the time but all they say is
“I cant”
“Ship is useless”
“Impossible”
And Im like “If you use X ship because you like flying it, why does it matter if you dont get 50m ticks?”
You know, see all the people saying CCP wants us all to buy PLEX, if they stopped flying expensive blingchariots and started using T1, then that would undermine CCPs current direction. I mean, I doubt theyd rethink, as that would involve thionking in the first place, which the current CCP seems incapable of, but just maybe it might.
