What do you think would bring eve into a new golden age

[Phaade]

Mining is integral to pvp, as you cannot pvp without ships.

What a stupid response.

[Phaade]

What? No it’s not, lmao

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Elizabet_Forgrave

@QuakeGod

Would you like me to tell you? Because I know exactly what would happen…

I’m sure you’ll tell me that fire would rain from the sky, the seas would boil and the entire economy would collapse. What I think would actually happen is there’d be a minor fart on the market and nothing would change. Much bigger changes have been made in the past and had very little lasting impact on the market.

This is the correct answer.

EVE has room for thousands more miners and industrialists, and it would barely alter the market.

We already had our supposedly “unsustainable Age of Abundandance, which was making loss meaningless”, and also somehow creating economic imbalances against “the small player”.

I pointed out the flaws of this well before CCP smashed it’s way through the china shop again.

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…

We had cheap ships, lower costs, more manufacturing, more rewards for players to engage in the economy, higher activity levels in virtually all areas of the game.

Abundance leads to players being more casual, taking more risks, and playing more. Only a government or a CCP game designer could come up with an idea as stupid as “Hey, if we make resources more scarce, everything slower and more complex, and increase the cost and reduce the production of everything in the game, I BET THINGS WILL REALLY IMPROVE.”

Yessir, it’s a new era on the horizon for EVE now that we’re enjoying the benefits of fewer players, less activity, higher prices and more cautious gameplay!

As you say, there aren’t 10,000 miners waiting around the corner to leap into action. And if they did, the market would self-correct, just like it did in the “Era of Abundance”.

@QuakeGod

so will thousands of other players, and the resultant overflow of minerals and resources would reduce the price of said commodities to almost nothing. Yeah, you’re safe now, but you’re still in the same boat you were in before making very little ISK for your efforts.

Here’s the real reason: scratch the surface of any “allow this and the EVE markets will IMPLODE!” argument, and you’ll find someone who’s got a comfortable niche earning ISK they’ve convinced themself they’re a mighty genius for mastering. And the last thing they want to see is a bunch of sweaty noobs coming along and making money and markets in their niche, and reducing the ISK/hr they’re currently raking in.

Here’s what the whole “desperately afraid of any substantial change to EVE” crowd is terrified of:

@Mike_Azariah

• a NEW golden age will not be the same as any perceived previous one. Eve needs to build, change adapt. We cannot catch lightning in a bottle twice.
• a NEW golden age might not be golden for the vets of the game, the above mentioned changes will absolutely piss some players off.

Absolutely spot-on, Mike! And the fear among those enjoying the status quo is that they might have to change, adapt, lose some relative standing, or, heaven forbid, get overtaken!

As already said, small tweaks to existing systems won’t achieve anything but continued loss and irrelevance. It’s what CCP’s been doing for over a decade now, due to a stunning lack of design vision. And it’s not working.

It’s time to chop out some of the deadwood and clear a new path for EVE in it’s third decade.

[Altara_Zemara]

@Kezrai_Charzai

Abundance leads to players being more casual, taking more risks, and playing more.

It does ? I’d argue that someone who is risk averse with 1bn ISK is going to be just as risk averse with 10bn ISK. In fact probably more so…as they’ll have more expensive ships to lose.

[Nujenif_Talvanen]

Very well said.

[MB_ThePhotographer]

@Altara_Zemara

It does ? I’d argue that someone who is risk averse with 1bn ISK is going to be just as risk averse with 10bn ISK. In fact probably more so…as they’ll have more expensive ships to lose.

It means more to small corps than a mega corp.

[MB_ThePhotographer]

I miss those who used to post who are now gone.

Mostly, I miss this attitude from the player base.
The Struts - Could Have Been Me (Official Music Video) - YouTube
What happened is going mainstream, So be it.

[Altara_Zemara]

There will always be exceptions, but I don’t think having more ISK or stuff necessarily makes a person take more risk…which was the original claim.

[Argel_OTF2]

Yep, I like the suggestion and it sounds like we agree, although i think people may have missed the sarcasm in my post! I was of course pointing out that most Gankers who want to keep the status quo dont care if there are 1,000 or 100,000 people playing EVE, as long as they can find a couple each day to kill.

Gankers are exactly as you say, and they hide behind liberalism/individualism ideals as a way of masking that ultimately, they just like criminal activity with no repercussions.

That said, I (ironically) would still say gankers are good for the game in moderation. It should feel risky to do certain things, in certain places. Gankers should have a chance to make money from piracy.

But the obvious thing missing from Eve is any kind of player-led police force in highsec and lowsec. I like the power core idea, although im not a fan of deterring PVP combat with a higher barrier to entry, so would need some thought.

[Elizabet_Forgrave]

History suggests that when there was abundance there was a lot more activity and a lot more assets lost. I’m sure some risk-averse players still squirreled away everything they had, but most players did not. Some of us even now are still willing to throw away assets for a good fight, but there are a lot more people now who don’t want losses as resources are more scarce. On a group level too, the market is thin enough that it couldn’t even support some of the old doctrines people would throw away on a single battle.

[Altara_Zemara]

@Elizabet_Forgrave

History suggests that when there was abundance there was a lot more activity and a lot more assets lost.

Is that actually true, though. Sure there were epic 5,000 player battles but they were not that frequent, and most of the ISK lost was tied up in a few hundred Titans. And surely the entire basis of scarcity was that even after all that…people still had too much stuff.

The Eve economy relies on destruction. Not having destruction is like building up the national debt…it is not something that can carry on indefinitely. The market trading may be thin now, but surely that is because there are trillions accumulated in ‘stuff’ in Eve and people simply don’t need more battleships or whatever.

This dilemma is not improved if carebear policies lead to more players but they simply accumulate more stuff that doesn’t get destroyed. One effectively ends up with a larger and larger backlog of stuff destined for destruction on a queue that stretches years into the future. And that’s a recipe for the economy collapsing completely.

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Altara_Zemara

I’d argue that someone who is risk averse with 1bn ISK is going to be just as risk averse with 10bn ISK. In fact probably more so…as they’ll have more expensive ships to lose.

Well, you argue with a lot of things that are in direct contradiction of the facts.

Nothing new there.

@Altara_Zemara

And surely the entire basis of scarcity was that even after all that…people still had too much stuff.

Well, some people, and CCP, apparently thought so. Feel free to define how much stuff is “too much”, and how it was destroying the economy.

Were people not producing, because they already had too much? Wrong.
Were people not buying and trading, because they had too much? Wrong again.
Were prices in a death spiral, because nobody needed to buy anything? Still wrong.
Was nobody fighting wars, because they had no need?

Well, they weren’t fighting enough wars to make enough news to please CCP, apparently. And so somehow CCP (and some easily led players) bought into the notion that if players had “less stuff” and stuff became “more expensive and harder to get”, this would trigger an era of conflict as players for some strange reason “fought over resources” in a galaxy chock-full of them.

Did this change lead to more and bigger fights? Nope, still wrong.

You’re also somehow trying to build an argument here, even if you don’t realize it, that having a more abundant economy somehow leads to less destruction. (I have to assume from the statements you make that you rarely even know what point you’re making, just arguing by reflex.)

Your recipe for “collapsing the economy” has nothing to do with abundance or scarcity, but instead makes the incorrect and unproven assumption that somehow having a more fluid economy leads to more carebears, which leads to less destruction, which leads to everyone having piles of stuff and collapsing the economy.

Which is entirely disproven by the fact that we already had the age if abundance, we already had the more vigorous economy, and none of the above happened.

Arguing your points in the direct face of actual historical fact doesn’t make you look clever or insightful. It makes you look like an ignorant flat-earther hick.

Do try to up your game a bit, please. You’re not contending with unarmed defenseless targets here, you actually have to put some effort in.

[Elizabet_Forgrave]

@Altara_Zemara

Is that actually true, though. Sure there were epic 5,000 player battles but they were not that frequent, and most of the ISK lost was tied up in a few hundred Titans.

We’d need someone with the data on type and numbers of ships destroyed over time to be sure. From the MER destruction value seemed to have trended slightly down but we know prices have increased, which would suggest total destruction numbers are down. Anecdotally, from personal experience activity seems to be down and when there is activity it’s more frequently in smaller, cheaper ship now than it used to be.

@Altara_Zemara

And surely the entire basis of scarcity was that even after all that…people still had too much stuff.

That was the claim, but then scarcity didn’t fix that. Scarcity didn’t make people use up their stuff, it made them hoard it and safeguard it more.

@Altara_Zemara

The Eve economy relies on destruction. Not having destruction is like building up the national debt…it is not something that can carry on indefinitely.

Sort of. It’s not really destruction so much as consumption. Like when a ship is destroyed and some modules drop it’s only really the ones destroyed or not looted that are removed from the economy. Similarly when items are used, like ammo fired, drugs consumed, rigs or implants pulled, ships traded to paragon agents, etc, these are all consumption.

It’s not one-sided though, the economy also relies on production. It’s a balance. Ideally, production would be high, consumption would also be high and so there would be a rapid flow. That flow seems to be much slower now than in the past.

@Altara_Zemara

The market trading may be thin now, but surely that is because there are trillions accumulated in ‘stuff’ in Eve and people simply don’t need more battleships or whatever.

It’s not really that people have accumulated so much stuff, it’s that the stuff isn’t being consumed. If people aren’t having so many big battleship fights then people won’t be using up battleships so demand for battleships drops. At the same time though because of scarcity the prices are pushed up, ensuring people are less likely to want to risk them.

@Altara_Zemara

This dilemma is not improved if carebear policies lead to more players but they simply accumulate more stuff that doesn’t get destroyed. One effectively ends up with a larger and larger backlog of stuff destined for destruction on a queue that stretches years into the future. And that’s a recipe for the economy collapsing completely.

This is a common trope but no, carebears are not the problem EVE has. For the most part people who accumulate just to accumulate don’t make a whole lot of difference. If it was leading to massive overproduction we’d be seeing prices crashing but the opposite is true.

[Altara_Zemara]

@Kezrai_Charzai

You’re also somehow trying to build an argument here, even if you don’t realize it, that having a more abundant economy somehow leads to less destruction

This forum never ceases to amaze me at the extent to which people can type 10 paragraphs in response to one sentence and throw in ‘so you’re saying…’ in response to a few clear and unambiguous words.

It’s like people have already decided what point they want to settle on…and other people’s posts are just convenient sky hooks for that.

[Altara_Zemara]

@Elizabet_Forgrave

Sort of. It’s not really destruction so much as consumption. Like when a ship is destroyed and some modules drop it’s only really the ones destroyed or not looted that are removed from the economy. Similarly when items are used, like ammo fired, drugs consumed, rigs or implants pulled, ships traded to paragon agents, etc, these are all consumption.

Ship destruction is not actually an ISK sink…which is part of the problem. There aren’t less ISK in Eve when ships get destroyed. The Eve economy is essentially the same ISK being passed around multiple times…and they’ve already been passed on before a ship gets destroyed. In fact, in a manner similar to how the Federal Reserve can print $100 and multiply it by 20 by passing on to banks, the same ISK can bounce around buying multiple ships until it finally reaches an ISK sink.

However, the more frequently the ISK gets passed around…the more chance it has of finally reaching that ISK sink. The exact same is true with tax in real life…the more money passes around, the more of it winds up as tax. Someone with $100 in a piggy bank is thwarting that.

@Elizabet_Forgrave

This is a common trope but no, carebears are not the problem EVE has. For the most part people who accumulate just to accumulate don’t make a whole lot of difference. If it was leading to massive overproduction we’d be seeing prices crashing but the opposite is true.

Those ISK sitting around doing nothing are not reaching the ISK sink. There’s no reason this should lead to a decline in production as long as the entire ethos is to accumulate stuff. But then you end up with a game that becomes all about accumulating stuff…and not about epic space battles.

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Altara_Zemara

Ship destruction is not actually an ISK sink

As is often the case, you’re confusing two separate issues here.

You’re talking about ISK, Elizabet is talking about economic production and resource consumption. The things you’ve been arguing about (Scarcity, destruction, production, “too much stuff”) are all part of the resource/production/consumption side of the economy.

ISK faucets and sinks are a different issue.

When you’re trying to present coherent arguments, it works better if you can show you understand what point you’re trying to make and how it’s relevant to the current discussion. As opposed to switching concepts mid-argument.

[Altara_Zemara]

I stand by what I said. It is you who did not grasp the point being made. Nothing is actually ‘destroyed’ when a ship is blapped. The ISK are still in the game, and could pass around indefinitely if there were no ISK sink. Liz specifically made the assertion that the ISK is ‘removed from the economy’…and I was correctly pointing out that is not true.

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Altara_Zemara

Nothing is actually ‘destroyed’ when a ship is blapped. The ISK are still in the game, and could pass around indefinitely if there were no ISK sink. Liz specifically made the assertion that the ISK is ‘removed from the economy’…and I was correctly pointing out that is not true.

I honestly just shake my head in disappointment at people who argue for the sake of arguing without the slightest clue about error-or-fact checking their own statements.

@Elizabet_Forgrave

Like when a ship is destroyed and some modules drop it’s only really the ones destroyed or not looted that are removed from the economy. Similarly when items are used, like ammo fired, drugs consumed, rigs or implants pulled, ships traded to paragon agents, etc, these are all consumption.

Resource/production/consumption. Not a word about ISK.

@Altara_Zemara

Nothing is actually ‘destroyed’ when a ship is blapped. The ISK are still in the game

Tell me, where did the resources used in the construction of said ship and modules go to?

As usual, you switched gears to support an argument that nobody was making, then try to pretend you were completely correct and everyone else is wrong, and then accuse other people of doing exactly what you’re doing.

@Altara_Zemara

It’s like people have already decided what point they want to settle on…and other people’s posts are just convenient sky hooks for that.

Sometimes it’s depressing to watch people argue like this and realize this is the best they’re capable of.

[Elizabet_Forgrave]

@Altara_Zemara

Ship destruction is not actually an ISK sink…which is part of the problem. There aren’t less ISK in Eve when ships get destroyed.

It’s not supposed to be. ISK is just one part of the economy. Assets also have to have creation and destruction just like ISK has to have creation and destruction.

@Altara_Zemara

Those ISK sitting around doing nothing are not reaching the ISK sink. There’s no reason this should lead to a decline in production as long as the entire ethos is to accumulate stuff. But then you end up with a game that becomes all about accumulating stuff…and not about epic space battles.

That’s always been part of the game and it’s never been a problem. Remember, this is s sandbox game not a combat simulator. Combat is just one part of the game and one part of the economy.

@Altara_Zemara

I stand by what I said. It is you who did not grasp the point being made. Nothing is actually ‘destroyed’ when a ship is blapped.

It definitely is. When a miner mines they create ore (asset faucet). They then refine that with waste (asset sink) and the minerals are used to produce a ship with taxes (ISK sink). The resulting ship is then sold with taxes (ISK sink) and the item is then used by the consumer. The consumer flies it into battle and it is destroyed (asset sink). So in actuality, the destruction of that ship destroys more assets than were mined to produce it.

Oh and yes there can be many other steps involved and variations to the above, this is just a simplified example.

[Altara_Zemara]

@Kezrai_Charzai

I honestly just shake my head in disappointment at people who argue for the sake of arguing without the slightest clue about error-or-fact checking their own statements.

I shake my head in disbelief at people who are just rude and insulting when I said nothing that was factually incorrect.