I think even a glance at the numbers from before the current event and during show that scarcity wasn’t what was needed, but rather CONTENT.
You could make the argument that the prior scarcity made the content more popular, but I sure don’t see it.
2 Likes
You nailed it. If the content is not in demand by customers the activity of customers diminishes. Scarcity is an affect and not a product of itself.
If customers are active because the content engages them, then their activities will alleviate scarcity. Happy customers leads to activity, very simple.
The idea that the customer experience has to suck even more to get better is like saying the beatings will stop after morale improves.
2 Likes
Trouble is, we may end up with less caps in T1 Frigates AND less keepstars.
1 Like
He means people who are willing to change. Or possibly just people who are willing to fight?
Just my guess.
What are you talking about? You just buy it from the market.
some people …
1 Like
No it doesn’t, what on earth makes you say that ?
I said the little guys with limited, ie: a handful, of access and stocks of T2, compared to the blue donut’s stocks and access, would never in a million years dream of coming toe to toe with them now. So the divide would remain.
Just think of the regional requirements in reactions for T2 production, and you have a sealed monopoly for the big boys yet again.
How the F. am I contradicting myself here ?
The “whining”, my dear man, is just an attempt to argue that the Holy Grail of Scarcity will not seal any rich/poor divide, that it will drive and is currently driving a lot of people away, and that despite CCP/PA’s promises on what it might bring in return, we will simply get more of the same, coupled with a dwindled mature population, a growing instant-gratification crowd (1-2 months new player turnover max), and more monetization stunts.
To rephrase ZhaoMin, they should just stop pretending and get rid of mining and industry, and simply sell ships for real $$.
Until they stop burning through them, and hold, because they cant afford to lose them.
BlueDonut Scarcity-time stock management will just downgrade engagements to T1 ships, but they will not hesitate to dig into their T2 stocks with overwhelming force if they need to.
1 Like
which will be harder to obtain even through the market via higher prices and less stock…didnt think I had to explain that…
1 Like
Which means more monopoly to those who have an overabundant stock of said items already…
Stop whining so much. You are embarrassing yourself.
1 Like
Just buy it.
#no_poors
I have a better idea, make it illegal in high sec and have Concord punish people for doing it.
Wouldn’t that be interesting?
The big guys could replace their ships at an accelerated rate before. Their stock piles were growing faster than could be consumed.
I.e. This was already a problem only worse before scarcity.
With scarcity such stock piles don’t last forever and get burned through fighting against other ‘big guys’.
Was already the case.
At the very least it has slowed it down. Which is better than it forever increasing.
You keep contradicting yourself.
They are either using them as much as they were. Or they are using them less often. Which is it?
2 Likes
Most human conflict, ultimately, is driven by scarcity.
You can’t have endless resource and ISK fountains in a PVP game.
2 Likes
Removed some inappropriate posts.
There goes another 20% of the player base
3 Likes
NO, most human conflict is driven by greed.
If Eve was purely a shoot em up pvp game that analogy works fine.
No, you can’t have “endless” resource and isk fountains in Eve (as many players have been trying to tell CCP for years). Sadly CCP didn’t listen which has now led to a situation where CCP and not players are defining how players (paying customers) play a game that is primarily a market/wealth/resource gathering sim.
Rather than create conflict fighting for resources CCP has made it so there is no need to “fight” for anything as Devs have already laid out what is what and where it is.
In this case Scarcity is proving players won’t risk what they can’t easily replace. When a ships replacement price tripples or more, that ship gets used far less.
Instead of “dread bombs” we now see fleets of stealth bombers, fun factor meh, replacement cost - managable.
4 Likes
/s I just want for the Orca could just vacuum the ore as it drifts through a belt. Yet they talk about stopping bots that sit their orcas out on the belt all day.
/
The issue is that Eve Online was a sandbox game where a player could do what they want for how long they wanted to dig the hole they wish to sit in.
That led to oversupply it seams.
I din’t even think there’s scarcity. As correctly was pointed out - it feels like scarcity but its only a result of other things. and it drives people to quit for the time or forever. I will try to list some of them. Without me careing for the reasons of those changes. Was it to reduce the power ot NS RMT-ers I mean Player Run Empires Confined Withing The Game, or to solidify their position for decades to come without any slight chance for anyone to contest them - I don’t care. Only the facts:
Increasing difficulty and inconvinience of the entire Industry part of the game, along with scrambling the recipes to create logistical nightmares, carefully designed to drive the efficiency pursuing mindsets crazy and render small Corporations and groups of players unable to achieve anything in understandable timeframes - so they can leave the game. (happened, been there, seen that!)
The Risk VS Reward is super tilted to benefit the wreckless and careless and punish the constructive and planning ahead play strategies. This discourages people to advance and to challenge established powers in the game, because they realise it will be impossible to do anything signifficant in the next 25 years. As a result they quit the game.
The “RISK tax” is payed way too many times on way too many levels before the REWARD cashes in. This ingcludes built in foundamental features like Logistics - You HAVE to transport the goods to a trade hub (whuih takes looong time) in a paper thin T1 transport ship to get the most of their value. This “risk tax” is offered to you AFTER you payed the “risk tax” to construct / mine / hack / kill and salvage whatevevr you are transporting. As a result people leave the game.
Because of players leaving, the Spiritual Spirit of the game players who wait for you with Smartbombs love on LS gates and with Alpa strike squads on Perimeter <-> Jita gate are no longer attacking 2-3-4 Bill cargo ships, they are going as low as couple hundered mill. Which is definatly increasing the pressure on the “new players” (which recently are only the daily 1 day old Hypernet spammers) and “Alpha players” who can’t use good ships and modules. but OK - Fair, Thanks at least for that, honest and no sarc!
That’s my analisys, that’s how it is, and its true because its truth. The more I think about it, the more unpleasent CCP image I build in my mind. And In the light of recent Corp events related to “taking breaks and quitting” even more.
Still can’t understand where are the CMS’ers and why are they quiet like someone saw their assh0les shut. ???
Now in this situation any reduction to yelds (they are still the same), loot quality and value (My feeling is those are reduced by a lot) will definatly multiply every negative effect I listed above.
Those
7 Likes
After a state of oversupply comes drop of demand due to halved population.
Fun way to fix the economy.
2 Likes
Unless the “big guys” cannot mutually afford to use those stockpiles against each other, and use the cheaper stuff instead.
Indeed it was, but unseating the big guys being now increasingly harder to achieve, simply joining them is the better option. Scarcity bringing more power to the blue donuts, working as intended ?
It’s still increasing, and will continue to increase, just not with the same doctrines.
It’s not a contradiction, not sure why you insist so much.
I never said they would stop using them altogether. They would logically hold on to them and take out only on occasions of overwhelming OP victory against smaller entities, and where the losses could easily be replaced.
Rest of the time, it would not change the fact they’ll just use an abundant supply of easily affordable T1s, most of the time, and minimize on pulling out the bigger guns.