Eve does the best job I've seen in an MMO in keeping its "non-endgame" assets and content viable and relevant while still offering a lot of challenge. Unless the game dynamically scales (which amounts to nerfing challenge), no other game has as many situations where "I have the giant godhammer but it would be stupid or useless to use it." For all of the OP options being a trillionaire offers you, there are playing fields where you're just another guy and there are plenty of reasons to play on that smaller scale. It would take a blog post to break it all down with justice but EVE's unique combo of skils, ship tiers, designing with counters in mind, the way space is organized and traversed as well as its sheet size are special and AFAIK unparalleled.
@@adamk.4557 Ultima Online, RuneScape, FFXIV, FF11, WoW (Classic through to current), EverQuest, Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2... Probably a few others I don't remember.
@@adamk.4557 WoW, ESO, LOTRO, Runescape, UO. Albion looks interesting, can't get into FF - not my aesthetic. Star Wars as a universe is kind of dead for me. Guild Wars is one I might try. as well. But similar issues of power-creep etc... are involved with all of them. Josh Strife Hayes had a vid on horizontal/vertical issues that covers this well.
The new haulers offer counterplay that will be interesting. I expect that they will have drawbacks too. Initially, at least, I suspect that the Squall will be far more expensive than a T1 cruiser. I also would wager that that there will be drawbacks that will make them easier to target and hold. Other T1 Cruisrrs will certainly have more speed, DPS, or tank. Eve has generally done a good job of balancing. Everything has counter-play. Ganking haulers was one exception. The only counter-play was to not get caught. A hauler that shoots back creates an interesting new angle on this gameplay. Sure, tactics that worked to gank people not might not seem as good now. Yet, if history is any guide, gankers will develop new tactics. The wheel will turn. That is the way.
Definitely this, though I also see benzie's point. I've fit a couple of squalls and I can't see one taking a pvp fit T1 cruiser with a decent pilot except in rare instances. Force off a couple frigates? Definitely, and I'm more than ok with that.
I just returned to the game and actually caught a deluge on a gate in my sabre. Was very surprised when he started firing at me and I had to disengage. I still wonder what his cargo might have been. Good times ☺️
To be honest, the times I made more isk per hours are also the times I lost the most ships (like 1 or 2 per months). When I don't lose any thing, it means I'm not doing anything worth doing. I use to care a way too much about losing ships and would only do stuff when I was 99% safe. That got real boring and I wasn't getting any isk. Beside the occasional ratting, I was only doing boring sov related pvp, where you either got a rare good fight, stayed docked while the enemy brought overwhelming numbers or spent way too long firing at some structure in space. I never lost a ship during those engagement but I also never made much isk.
Thumbs up for understanding macro economics and game world economy. On the other hand, I am skeptical that the new ships will be so unbalancing as all that. I'm quite happy to wait and see the details of them, and see what their strengths and weaknesses are. If they are "OP" then I expect CCP to nerf them a bit as that becomes apparent. I know, that doesn't make good social media engagement content, but there you go.
I agree they'll probably be fine, I should have made it clearer that I'm more addressing comments where people have "hoped" that they'll be able to punch hard. A hauler proving a threat to a tackle frigate or to a bumper, sure. But some where genuinely saying they should be able to take down dedicated PvP cruisers
@@captainbenziethey should be able to hurt ships of their size. The point is them being usable during a skirmish without being a drag like a regular PvE ship is. 70-80% combat effectiveness for their size should be enough, and that would leave enough space for someone winning a fight 1v1 with them occasionally.
The issue is players that die tend to leave. This has always been the issue with games like eve though. Full loot pvp is very niche. I totally agree with what you said in this video mind. Just making a point.
It does make sense for a hauler to have some defensive cpability. Remember, there have been combat Nereus fits for a laugh. It just means that the gankers will need to adjust and get better. You want ships to get blown up - this means more ships will get blown up and not just the defender.
I'm afraid I don't share your concerns about the new haulers being well armed. In fact I welcome it! From the Battle Rorqual to the Bait Neurus, there is a long history in Eve of some industrial ships having teeth. I for one got my first killmail flying a Skiff. Killed the Sabre tackle with my drones. If I'd had the presence of mind to start aligning as soon as I deployed the drones, I'd likely even have made it out of the belt🤪. Rolling ships in wormhole space aren't quite industrial though it can be argued that they actually are once the Higgs Anchor is fitted. My old corp always fit guns and a point on their rolling ships. Best kill we got from doing that was an Arazu IIRC. Industrialists are under no obligation to be defenceless piñatas or other people's content. Just because you land on a hauler with a cruiser doesn't mean you are entitled to get a kill.
It's nothing about entitlement, and having teeth is fine, it's if the bite is equivalent to a predator, is my point. And have you considered that killing a hauler isn't you providing content to them alone, but also the risk of being killed is what provides YOUR content? Again, if every hauler always gets through, the demand for hauling drops. If haulers are getting blown up frequently, then demand increases and the GOOD haulers profit. In any case, increased danger increases profits for those with the skills to benefit - it's only the passive players, those who won't learn and don't have the skills, who lose out.
@@captainbenzie Just because a hauler may be able to take on a predator 1v1, that doesn't mean everyone flying them will have the presence of mind to make the split second decisions required to manage their modules in a fight situation. Bad piloting or pilot error will mean that some haulers will always still be killed regardless. Plus I like the idea some uncertainty for the hunter.
You now. There are heron-guys who solo can kill gila or tongu. By heron... Caped skills, special fits, boosters. And years of game expirience, of course! It's not easy, but there is nothing impossible. Now just think, what this type of players can do with combat-hauler?
@@captainbenziethis works in your head, and in the pretty picture you have of EVE, but it doesn't work the same for the person being blown up. Your view of the game helps the Market and the "Balance", but it doesn't help the Game and the Product.
Goal of the transport ship is to move goods around and arrive destination. Goal of PvP ship is to kill more than it's cost before getting blown up. Outside of high-sec new ships will let you kill a frig or two, but bigger force will kill you guaranteed. Your chances against a gate-camp are same as for regular hauler. In high-sec gank happen too fast for you to actually lock anybody and start shooting. All sorts of mission ships have weapons too, and it never help them against gankers. I'm sure that main goal of those new ships is to kill NPC pirates around new structures. Their actual hauling stats aren't that different from ordinary haulers, except industrial hold.
Keep these podcast style videos coming! Really enjoying the thought provoking content you've been dropping. I typically listen while ratting/mission running/exploring
i Played EvE some hunderts of Hours and was not happy to loose my stuff as a Miner + Hauler. But you made me understand why i must sometimes loose my stuff. it was never so clear and easy to understand told. THX a lot. maybe i will start play EvE again. to get my Industry running again. Alltime save Flight in space o7
Good luck! Expect losses early on, this game takes some learning and losses are fine - use them as a learning experience, and consider joining a decent corp. ☺️
I like the idea that a blinged out hauler could be a genuine trap for some cheaper pvp ships. As long as the cost of the blinged out hauler >> pvp ship.
All ships are pvp ships. Go ahead. Shoot my nereus with your frigate. I'm sure that sigil will die easy, stupid hauler coming to lowsec. An ibis? Psh I bet this noob didn't bother to get into a shuttle to travel. A rookie ship warping in on my mining ship? Oh it's probably no threat I can ignore it. ... oh my god I'm dead?! Wtf! Those were pve ships!
New to Eve. I deeply appreciate the richness of the content you've created around the game. It's kept me excited about EVE as I stumble along the absurd learning curve, lol. So thanks for that!
Several valid points. There is nothing wrong with the opinion you posed. I need to get better at PVP to decide if I agree with you about PVE being more lucrative than PVP. Thanks for the video.
Good podcast, thought provoking about economics. I lost a Cerberus to a VNI AND Navy Catalyst. I had two things going against me I was in a PVE fit and I was in they were Pirate Fraction players ... was a relatively cheap fit because I knew I was playing with fire...wasn't that upset. But we both suffered losses as I nuked his drones so we had destruction on both sides.
There have been armed transport ships in practice. There was the Liberty and Victory class ship from WWII as inspiration. In actual practice these ships should fight off much smaller vessels, so in EVE terms the Squall being able to fight off a Frigate or a Destroyer could be feasible but should not be able to go toe to toe with a warship in the same weight class so to speak. I think your comparison of Astero vs Heron can work here as well. The Squall can haul and fight, although limited depending on fit, and is much more expensive than a Badger. Your concern is valid, and I hope a transport can't beat a T1 Cruiser when they come out. I guess the next thing would be mining ships that can fight!
Absolutely agree, but there's already evidence that they will have significant firepower on top of superior tank to their compatriots, alongside comparable cargo and comparable cost. That's the concern.
Perfect ending. Completely agree. Echoes is the perfect example of what not to do. They had lots of interesting ideas, but the monetization strategy ruined the implementation.
We need more destruction in the game. Especially in the nullsec. Hope that equinox will bring it to the game. More war in Nullsec Blocks would be awesome!
Destruction is what makes the carebear efforts valuable - and they better come to terms with it. Also - even when not actively fighting, you're still in a direct competition with other pilots. Whether through market, or by sharing/contesting belts/sites... So while PVE and PVP might seem and feel separate - they are not. The best indy activities are generally those with direct PVP applications. And the carebears often make for some of the better PVP content, whether they like it or not... But both 'sides' share the exact same Universe, and as such will always affect each other. As for the new ships - I wouldn't be worried even if they actually went on par with t1 cruisers for combat. Which they will not. Autotargeting missiles are only somewhat decent in 1v1 situations when there are no drones involved. With the usual ganks/camps involving more - their effectiveness will be limited to maybe deleting one gank dessy to potentially survive until concord clears the grid. Which, considering the fitting requirements and PWG/CPU we could peek, would seriously compromise their tank. Making it a rather incompetent deterrent, as far as HS ganking goes. Not to mention - the prospect of losing a single dessy will just see the gankers using an extra to ensure the kill. Or maybe upship to Ruptures/Thoraxes... Not to mention, no level of DPS has ever deterred determined gankers - Marauders die as well. And using a fringe tactic to 'maybe' survive a gank doesn't sound preferable to regular haulers with ability to haul more versatile stuff. Or at least more stuff that's actually relevant for HS... Which will make even 1mil difference in price a factor between the choices. For LS - yeah, maybe you might get a kill on a careless pilot, but then it's no longer the ship's capabilities, but rather the ineptitude of your opponent. Chances are, Nereus will still be cheaper for the same effect... if not outright better. Pure tank/DPS wise, facing a cruiser will be a tall order. The only opportunities will be outplaying/surprising unsuspecting/unprepared opponents. Finally, their main intended role - the Null PI hauler. Honestly, this is prly where the missiles could come in the most handy. Being able to push off a lone tackle frig/dictor more reliably sort of synergizes with the importance of the new SOV/PI structures and materials. Definitely much more valuable, and idm the specific haulers getting another tool in their arsenal to protect themselves. Not to mention - they'd die to determined hunters regardless of their DPS... And with most hunters already expecting to hold/tank ratting Ishtars and Gilas - I don't think cruiser lvl of DPS will be much of an issue. The only two potentially unintended uses I can see are as follows - meme hauler doctrine that'd do worse than frigates/dessies for multiple times the cost, and perhaps a slightly more combat useful cap booster carrier. In both cases the new ships seem to offer slightly better dmg potential to more traditional haulers, but neither use is inherently efficient or even requires high dmg to begin with. They require numbers and cojones respectively, which will be a slight obstacle for the new haulers - at the very least initially, until their prices stabilize. Granted, that's not to say CCP wont betray our expectations. But even if they do, and make the new ships much more dangerous/versatile than intended - they can just as easily nerf them on short notice. Luckily, there are enough knobs to turn in that regard...
Whilst I do agree with the inalienable concept of pve being creation and pvp being destruction, i fundamentally disagree that these should be fully separated. Thats what other MMOs do, and if eve were to follow then it changes the game on its most basic level. The lines are blurred in eve, you are never safe. As such, no one should ever be pigeonholed to pvp or pve. Keep the blurred lines. The new ships add to that, which is one of the main things that keeps the game going after over 20 years.
As always, you make great points. I appreciated the discussion on Eve economics. It sucks to lose a ship, but understanding how the loss impacts the overall economy and quality of the game is important. I'm not sure the majority of players consider ship losses in the grand scheme. Personally, I'm not worried about the new haulers. I could be wrong, but I think they will be more specialized and niche than is being reported at this time. I'm not convinced they will completely replace traditional haulers, so I'm not selling my Crane and Bustard just yet.
"If you're an industrialist and you are getting annoyed by people losing ships, you're doing it wrong!" Meanwhile I've known at least one industrialist who was also an FC, who would whelp fleets of ships he was stocking.....
I totally get your point, all of eve is also built on the needs of the player market too, if things just stay alive then there us no reason to get a new ship and the narket collapses as well. At least thats where i as someine whos not super into PVP look at it from. I dont really enjoy PVP for fun, but i get it and i see its value and importance. Its why we have to pay sales tax AND a broker fee. There is no real broker in the npc station but its a money sink. Given the money printing during the pandemic that inflation is a REAL world thing and we are seeing its effects day to day. Not getting political at all of course it is what it is, its just how eve and real life are close to each other.
I agree on the "keep pve and pvp seperate" point but I see hauling as a pvp activity, as long as haulers can only fight in pvp scenarios, such as counter ganks, or ganking miners etc, I think it's fine for them to have teeth. Hauling always includes other players, who and what are you moving, to where and what is the gank chance? Hauling only ever adds to income destruction, so giving haulers teeth will also lead to the destruction of gank ships, even if a squall should not outcompete a caracal for pvp
For the new hauler part: It's likely going to be more like an arms race, may be harder to solo kill them but it'll give missile disruption modules a new dedicated use. The gold rush for getting them will be met with a gold rush for killmails of them and if they're so much better than the empire ones maybe that will be balanced later on. For the overall PvP vs PvE part: Maybe not so much of an issue in that dedicated PvP fit versus dedicated PvE fit the PvP'r will either find a way to be come out on top or grab some friends and come out on top. As far as ISK returns go I think that the major disparity in ISK generation by either type is in fact a trade off in itself and not everything in Eve needs to be ISK centric, it's a sandbox not a job.
Afterthought on making PvP more relevant, how about a two step process for CCP to implement: 1. Remove the structure requirement for corporations being wardec eligible. 2. All characters in NPC corps are automatically part of faction warfare without the standing penalties/faction police aggression when outside of spawn and career agent systems. Actual faction warfare members might get LP generation bonuses or some extra standing perks etc. Aggression in hi-sec could bring faction police to assist NPC corp members or CONCORD if the aggression is not part of faction warfare etc.
The lack of group PVE content in nullsec and WH space in particular needs improving. They could be particularly challenging and engaging like those in Pochven and be significant flash points for PVP but every option in nullsec is soloable in a battleship, discouraging group play.
Some valid points. Given it's only a 27min video, some big simplifications made obviously. The economy alone could warrant a 20k word thesis by itself without even touching on gameplay and the effects of PvE and PvP upon it. The long and short of it is that healthy inflation in EvE's economy is actually good for CCP's pocket. Removing the economy from the equation for one moment, the key thing about introducing new ships is that they are balanced in terms of their specialization and their ability to stray from that specialization. Getting that balance right automatically creates content and different gameplay within EvE's sandbox. Some of these new ships sound somewhat overpowered and too flexible. But I guess we will have to wait and see how it plays out. CCP do often break out the nerf bat when required.
The new haulers may replace some specialized haulers like thr Epithal, but ultimately they're inferior to regular haulers for moving stuff that doesnt fit into the infrastructure hold. In terms of offensive capabilities, it seems like they're bonused specifically for auto-targeting missiles and are not agile at all, so no, they won't make T1 cruisers obsolete only because they have on-paper similar DPS potential to a dedicated PVP ship with a specific niche ammo type. Devil will be in the details of course.
I think CCP will do fine on the new haulers. They can just lower the cargohold/warp speed/align time and make them inferior to their cruiser counterparts damage-wise while keeping the cost the same. I think this will put them in a niche (maybe too niche) spot but we'll see I guess.
Really enjoying listening to these podcast style videos! Thanks very much for taking the time to make them sir! o7 I am hoping to get back into new eden, but need to give myself some proper goals
One thing about the Avalanche that's not really bin discussed is if it can fit a cloak I will say for me if the AVALANCHE freighter can cloakey jump even if it cost as much as a jump freighter id still have one just for that , i can see them restricting what can be fitted or even if the thing can enter high-sec as quick step . I'm hoping they step the price and build complexity and drop main hold but keep the speciality holds rather than nerf the stated point of them for me as a builder i want them .they could also strip the fact of the missiles by restricting locked targets to only 1 or 2 that removes them as a PVP and back to can only be effective against a tackle . I do feel as you these ships break the pve /pvp balance they need to be an expensive build at the start because they will have to be nerfed and quickly if they are expensive at the start they wont flood the game before ccp finds a balance . The corp had a discussion about cost with at what cost puts them out of the bracket the price range was between 2-10 x the cost , i also have a different view on the auto missiles your getting ganked you will get on a good number of kills for some it makes the loss easier than just sitting there waiting to die .
Point in flying t1 haulers is not to get shot, like you will be in squill and weapons are no help. Ship is not little expensive if you count in more expensive fit, and you can't do pve or pvp with it, align time, warp speed...
Even a PVE fit combat ship will generally lose to the same ship with a PVP fit (as pointed out in the vid), so I don't think haulers with a few missiles on them are going to be much of an issue...I don't believe there won't be a downside to speed, cargo etc vs a T1 hauler. If nothing else you are still losing the lows to BCSs if you want to do any real damage. You aren't going to be slapping cruisers around with these, at least not any cruiser you wouldn't be able to also kill with a battle Venture or something. I don't think anyone should be *utterly* defenceless when doing PVE, even from the hunter side shooting fish in a barrel isn't that interesting, at least that mining fleet you are about to jump having 35 hobgoblins on field makes you think a bit sometimes. I don't mine very often but when I do, they have points fitted, so maybe I'm slightly biased... 😆 Seriously though, I'm all for these new ships, PVPing in indy ships is a special kind of hilarity. 😁
@@memitim171 excellent observation. You put the finger on why the game is niche. Not many people like to play herbivores whose sole purpose is to serve as feed for the ecosystem of a game.
@@TheControlBlue The game is undoubtedly niche for that and many other reasons, but you're only a 'herbivore' the entire time if you never PVP, that's an odd thing to do in a game called Everybody Vs Everybody Online...
@@memitim171 oh really, I didn't know that's what the name meant, I thought the name was only for more reasons. The best way I can make you understand the problem is that not everyone can sustain the lifestyle of a PvPer in the game, and if doing so was possible, PvE wouldn't exist, so I'm not saying it's a bad thing. The game needs herbivores too, but you don't want the game to affect them and stress them to the point that it becomes torture for them. FYI, some species of herd animals, thus herbivores, literally get paralyzed to death when spooked, which is clearly not a behavior that would lead to survival. That means 'Fear' does not help survival, what helps is knowing you can do something despite it (even if it is just fleeing.)
I'd be fine with a hauler being able to fight off some combat ships. Those haulers do need to be significantly more expensive than whatever it can kill, or balance is lost.
I think that EVE economy itself will balance eventually a hauler with combat capabilities raising its price (or lowering analogue combat ships price) in time. A concern us understandable btw.
Agree Im a carebear, I will play happily all day every day but I hate PvP and avoid it. Left the game for 5 years when I lost my hard earned hauler to "bumping" when it first started. Sitting there watching 1 ship bump me into oblivion was pure frustration and it put me back months. Would like to think how much $ I didn't spend on the game on during that 5 year holiday, CCP missed out on currency (I have spent $8k on the game it's my hobby/2003). With arming transports next expansion this does give you a bit of confidence that at least you have a chance of not getting ganked in some instances. Remember that throughout history transport ships have had at least some defence not massively armed but had something "usually"......in this instance I wouldn't be pissed.
I support this kind of commentary. I see people mining or building in LS who are just mind bendingly pissed when they get killed. Sometimes I am that guy. Its a good reminder of pieces of the economy that you don't think of. ~Agree I would like a more exciting background but typically on these I'm doing something else.
To get your opinion. I made an alt to solely fly NULSEC and hack to test the waters in how lucrative NS hacking is. I plan to try WH sites in July. Do you feel WH hacking is lucrative? Maybe I will run into your corp for some cat and mouse. LOL I enjoy your Eve content videos and these podcast videos. Thanks.
I have to agree with you I think Haulers and miners should not be able to stand toe to toe with Combat ships every sci-fi movie or show cargo ships are make to haul cargo not combat. They always rely on combat ships or patrol ships to protect them from pirates and the like
I thought CCP wanted the players to be able to do everything in the game that they can do in RL, if you can mount it go for it, any engineer can weld and gun to a hull, any electrician can wire the electronics, and progrsammer can create the gunnery software,
@captainbenzie no, thank YOU. Your videos about nomadic-life inspired me to play "my way" no matter of meta-fits, ISK-efficiency and ect: just deep dive in j-space for about several days until it's time to came back for trading/be messed by locals😅 now I'm realy enjoying the game. Thank you, for showing that EVE is not only about corporations, and there is a place for some private (almost initimacy) time.
…PVPer here. I have absolutely no problem with this. Let haulers fight back. Mining ships have long had drone damage bonuses. Giving haulers some missiles won’t break the game either.
Tech 1 cruisers do need to get buffed. All empire ships do. It has been 20 years. The tech should progress along with the arms race that upwell is creating.
Out of curriosity, has eve ever thought of the idea of adding wear mechanics on modules? Im noy sayinh it woulr be a goid idea or not, i was just wondering because it could deal with permance and money sinks. It could be very slow damage and skills might mitagate it but if you put 100000000 rounds though an autocannon, you will likely need to replace the barrels at best. Or a mantinance fee for repair. Sor of like focusing crystals that could be repaired. Idk im sure they thought of it and i could see it might be annoying, but i was just thinking outloud.
@captainbenzie yeah j can see how it would be pretty tedious to have to repair all the time. That's why I asked with reservation and with so much hesitation. Thank you, sir. o7
In your last Video I commented it will be a Good thing for the new Freighters to have weapons slots. I stand by that. When Freighters are Ganked i usually see them Ganked by a small fleet wouldn't it be good for the Game if said gank fleet Occasionally lost a ship for the potential loot? As someone that flies Cargo being Abel to take out 1 or 2 PVPers that manage to pin me down I'd be more willing to haul More for that risk. I also stand by that the Role Bonus for the new Freighters need to have nothing to do with offense. Cause at that point it would mean a Cruiser is still better for PVP even if it can get killed by a Freighter on Occasion.
@@captainbenzie Flying in a fleet is a solution yes. But if you are in a smaller Corp you can't Always Fly with escorts, you will be forced to fly major cargo by yourself, and in that situation for the chance to get the cargo to Market or from market would an Armed Freighter not help?
@@chrisc9769 Short answer - No. Longer answer - Marauders get ganked too, you know. And they have the best raw DPS you can get in HS. Sooo... guns/missiles alone are nowhere near enough to deter determined gankers. For HS, the best deterrents are 1) cloak 2) speed 3) excessive tank 4) flying cheap. But once you hit LS/Null, the costs and tank become irrelevant. So No - the missiles will hardly help at all. Although, if they do keep the currently showcased auto-targeting missile bonus, you might get lucky and delete a single cata/thrasher/coercer from grid just in time to survive. With auto-targeting missiles though - that's awfully reliant on luck/circumstances, and nothing prevents the gankers to just bring an extra pair of hands...
@@mikspurins1455 Let me put this another way cause part of my point is been missed. 2 weapon high slots for Squall, Deluge, and Torrent. And 3 for the Avalanche (Not the 4 and 6) that's all you need to give the Illusion to a lot of players that they can Defend themselves and Protect their Cargo, and Not make things too easy for Cargo to get from point A to point B. If you had that would You Fly More Cargo knowing you had a LAST RESORT to Defend your Money? IF you had a Higher Percentage Chance of getting Out of a Gank Attempt of a few players cause you now have an Offensive capability would You Haul More. IF you had the ILLUSION (it is an Illusion) of being able to Protect your Cargo because of weapon high slots on your Big Fat Slow Freighter would you not want to Increase Your Efficiency by Carrying More? By adding an Illusion that you can Defend yourself by adding some weapon high slots, You now add a new Dimension to transporting Large amounts of Cargo. I'm not talking about Blockade Runners but the Avalanche. First the added danger when it comes to taking a Freighter so it will keep Gank fleets will not have "simple catch and kill" anymore some may fall getting to a juicy prize. Wouldn't that prize feel better knowing that the prize fought and Lost? Second it will allow for smaller groups that need to move a lot of equipment faster by giving them the ability to defend themselves. Say you have a Small Corp of 20 or so, and they are planning to move everything from High to Low but only 3 can fly Freighters and only 5 are online because of work or some other reasons and this is possibly the best chance to get to your destination. It would take 4 completely full Freighters to move everything 15 jumps majority of that in low to get to your new home. Would you run that gauntlet 7 times using 1 Freighter with the other 4 as Escorts? Or would you take the Risk of using 3 Avalanches (3 weapons mounts not 6) with 2 Escorts cause you now only have to Run the Gauntlet 3 times cause you only need 1 Avalanche after the first run cause the rest are now Escorts? Adding Weapon High Slots to the Avalanche opens Options in game play. Hell. I'd be fine with CCP dropping the weapons high slots Squall, Deluge, and Torrent. But I think it would be Good for the Game to Keep them for the Avalanche. The Avalanche doesn't need 6 but 3 should be fine.
@@chrisc9769 For your fringe example of hauling through scarcely populated hostile areas - yes, the added highs will benefit any logistics operations. But you will still want as many escorts as possible, because weapons or not, the avalanche would still be a juicy target, attracting plenty of unwanted action. Much like any other freighter would...
@@captainbenzie you guided me through echoes in the shadows and your Nergal video made me decide to play Eve. 3 weeks in I’ve used your code and about to send a Coro request to cartel. I only fly Triglavian and all because of the GOAT.
I actually somewhat disagree with what u said that a cruiser shouldn't be able to lose to a hauler or that this makes the hauler automatically better, 100% I think the haulers will have bad speed and probably bad range etc but you still wouldn't use the hauler for normal pvp just because it can beat a cruiser. I think having danger when attacking a hauler isn't a bad thing at all.
I believe you said sometimes inflation and meaning deflation? Or is there no deflation in english as word 😅 Inflation in theory can happen if people ask for goods which are limited.. but what if everybody use blasters and do pvp destroy so many of them that manufactures can set higher prices and still sell them.. inflation 😂 But its true that eve needs some destruction, because if as example supers never get shot, the ppl making them have no reason for it anymore.. this will effect the complete manufacturing line -> ppl will look for other isk opportunities.. if the supers gets destroyed again, they will be expensive because no one build them anymore 😂 new production lines needs to be created.. From a higher perspective its true.. EVE needs destruction and production.. but the devil is in the details ;) Both can create inflation and deflation of products.. if ships are not used anymore because they get to weak or not compete with newer ships.. who will buy them? But yea interesting topic.
i see it as they are the haulers we should have had from the beggining!...who in their right mind would send billions in assets into unpredictable space with no method of protecting said asset!!!!!
Imagine Ratting in Wormhole without the thrill that someone is already cloacked next to you and he just waits till you clear the rats to finish you off :D would be boring and pointless tbh
@@captainbenzie well ive had the same with two pacifiers from wormhole police but my gnosis was too tanky so the battleship swiched aggro and helped me. now they want 1B from me because i killed them :D
I've been playing eve since 2007 and I always thought it was pretty stupid that haulers and Freighters had no weapon slots. Maybe CCP should just give them all some high slots.
Well sure but I don't think giving them a couple of slots would unbalance things that much, maybe just give them a chance to get away from that solo tackler before his Fleet can arrive.
You cannot swipe your card for in-game money. Big misconception. SOMEONE still had to earn that ISK. You're merely exchanging something of value to them, for ISK which is of value to you. And then the PLEX you purchased also gets destroyed when they use it for Omega or skins or whatever.
@@captainbenzie it was a minor point about the ways things are balanced but just because it's not injected into the economy doesnt make it a "misconception" that I could spend money now and make my isk go up by a billion in the next 10 mins. The rest of the ways eve balances things I'm quite happy with and I didn't wanna argue but you doubled down on silly here and I gotta leave my rebuttal...
Just to be clear to all I'm not even complaining about the p2w aspect or whatever... Was just pointing out that it barely factors into balance, or even by definition cannot in a game with non cosmetic purchases. That's all happy gaming all :)
I do not understand what the fuss is all about. SQUALL is 10 x times the price of T1 Hauler, its align time is very bad even with inertia modifiers and its battle capabilities are extremely weak even with max missile skills. Any good use for it, anyone?
actually, even IRL, a transportation is most of the time done by a convoy ... because the vehicle that does the transport isn't designed to defend itself, i don't really see where the whining is about.
T3C are OP AF and CCP new it. Why did you loose skills when you died in one? Hard to make balance arguments. If T3 aren't OP then why aren't there T3 frigates, destroyers, cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships, and super capitals, etc? I am all for PVP, PVE, industrials because it make for a great game with diverse interests. Love your content thanks.
T3 ships were OP, hence the SP loss. Then they got nerfed hard and are now fairly niche ships. Honestly, on straight PvP or PvE, my Vagabond is better than my Loki. The Loki shines as a hybrid explorer/combat vessel, but it's also ludicrously expensive (it does the job of my 300m Vagabond, and my 100m Cheetah, for the cost of 1.2bn) T3 hasn't been added to other tonnages yet because there's been no need. T3 were added with wormholes to create demand for the wormhole specific materials. Adding more T3s now wouldn't help industry with new gameplay.
@@captainbenzie wait a sec. It is hard to use that industry approach when discussing these...if they had more T3 series ships existing there would be demand right? And the resources would get split up to make them all and provide more content in producing or acquiring them for that matter imagine the resource harvesting that would be needed in turn making for more miners/PI setups, gas huffers, etc. That would by like saying the latest few rounds of content post 'scarcity' didn't create demand and make industry more difficult and hence in some cases more expensive/profitable. Who doesn't want a Mamba, Kizriel or Marauder. Back to the OP thing though, went back through the last 3 days of Zkill for a random T3C and picked the Proteus in that span 6 were killed 3 by Marauders and 3 by other T3C - hope that sinks in. Want to take a guess at how many kills the Proteus had solo? Wait for it.... 145! One guy had 21 kills in row in less than 30 minutes and yes some where definitely combat capable ships.
@@darkarcanum1814 first point, I didn't explain myself well. CCP added T3Cs and T3Ds at the same time as the new wormhole materials. If they add more T3s, it'll be alongside new materials, making it a bigger project than just hammering them on. Not to mention, T3s are all unique (cruisers having subsystems, destroyers having modes) so the other T3s would need something unique. Second point you make is farcical. That's literally anecdotal evidence in that your sample size is tiny. "This one guy had tonnes of kills so the entire ship must be OP" doesn't work logically. It's a leap. I know a guy who has managed almost 1000 killmarks on a HERON. Does that make the Heron OP for PvP? You can't use Zkillboard to figure out if a ship is OP. It doesn't give you data like that and is naturally biased. The ships that are doing well on Zkillboard are piloted by amazing PvPers. They're the best of the best, so pilot skill is much higher in importance than the ship they're flying. Proteus, laughably, is also arguably the least used of the T3Cs and considered the weakest of the four. And if your argument is "T3s are super OP, evidence for this is that we don't have new T3s..." I'd ask how the T3 Destroyers are OP? This entire argument reads like you having an opinion based on limited experience, then trying to justify it by finding evidence. The scientific method is the other way around, have an idea, look for counter evidence and see how your idea stands up.
@@captainbenziethe FanFest data *suggest* that new players with a losskill are more likely to stick out, having gotten a taste of PvP. Not that people being constantly hunted without fighting back enjoy it.
@@TheControlBlue the trick is accepting loss, and instead of getting angry, learning and growing. Loss keeps the game going. The trick is to ensure it happens to other people.
@@captainbenzie I know both the EVE experience and the "combat shakes", I know the value proposition of EVE, it hardens you the fuck up for real. *But*, what you are not realizing is that eventually you are going to run out of "other people". The same way people don't like arguing with annoying people, *even if it hardens them and refines their argumentation skills*, people don't like constantly losing and being hunted. Eventually they reach a breaking point.
Completely different so as to not even be comparable?? The Broken Window Fallacy is about whether or not the money spent recovering from destruction is a benefit to society as a whole. ie If someone were to go around breaking windows, that's good for the glazier, but not for all the services and products that people would have spent on if they didn't need to repair a window. ie Destruction of windows is good for the glazier, but no net gain to society as a whole. Literally nothing to do with inflation due to an excessive income faucet and lack of income sinks.
@@captainbenzie windows are born of minerals torn from the loins of the protesting earth that you need to buy with income. Their destruction serves as an income sink, or does it?
@@thuan-jinkee9945 glass is readily recyclable. As I said, the broken windows fallacy is a thought experiment to describe a particular circumstance and concept. It doesn't fit into this scenario.
I NEVER went or go ratting in a PVE setup. Never ever. I have gotten a number of faction, dedspace, and officer drops from those rats and, above all, PvP kills when ratting in a PvP setup. Thank you very much. I don't want to hear about how inefficient it is to rat in a PvP fit. It's MUCH less efficient to either beat feet to the nearest station or suffer ignominious defeat to some clown because i wasn't fit for a real fight. Have a nice day. 👍
Only way for a hauler to defend himself is to fit proper tank and don't move goods that make ganking profitable. Guns on your hauler won't help in highsec, everything is happening too fast, in 0.5 you have around 19 seconds until CONCORD arrive. You might apply enough damage to kill one gankalist but that's all. I don't think that you have damage to kill Talos before it applied all or most of it's damage to you. So new haulers are useless as protection from gankers.
thank you for your thougths. I think your analysis on the economy for eve are good but you example about the really economie are not really true. Taxes were not created keep inflation in check. They can be used to combat this but there inherent use is to finance things that should help the state (Infrastructure, Safety, etc.) Your example with the Ferraris is there not possible because i thin only the first 20 guys would be lucky to get an Ferrari because a Ferrari is a finite product i would say there are not more than 1000 for the american market per year so the only thing that 10 million for every person in america would do would be an enourmouse increase in inflation and you would be ending on month later in the same place as before with the only difference that your whole banking sector would have been devaluated and the savings of every guy with less than 10 million on the bank would be anihilated :P
Sorry, you are absolutely wrong. The concept that taxes go into some special bucket where they're divvied out for social projects is absolutely false. Reagan and Thatcher both started talking about "taxpayers money" like this, and its obfuscation. There exists no such account. If a government wants to do something, they simply change the number digitally and create that money. The issue is that once that money has been created, you have to destroy money elsewhere or you increase the amount of money in circulation. Stephanie Kelton wrote a great book called "The Deficit Myth" about this, and Cory Doctorow has written multiple articles about it too. It's a fallacy but a widely believed one.
People actually send death threats over TH-cam videos on computer games? Good lord, some folk need to go outside and touch some grass and spend some time in the sun. Lol.
lets face it 1 death and end of discussion its not the right amount of pvp ppl are looking for , the short term broad perspective travel and to fight is a hassle ,not how many did u play? how much of the same ship can u have and change up ,the ship is the character not the skills that slowly enforces the idea yo spend more. Pvo is to short for the players . talk a big game for T2 but lets face it ANT BIG OF A DEAL! . it is a fun game ,never getting pass destroyers for endless PVP and hiding all over the place for pve .PS THE GMʻS DO KILL PLAYERS . thats all
I do not support your argument on pvp , its a game , not real world i think your have some value , but not all, i dont see why pvp should be allowed , in 1.0, or 0.9 zone , its meant to be beginners zones , and letting pvp be allow in that zone , might scare of new players , and pvp will only get the same meat and tbh some see its not the challenge , how ever, i do agree on some of your points on Balance , but there is other ways to get isk out of the game , Some them is allready implemented in the game as tax every time you great an item in the game you remove more resources out , becouse its cost a certain number of resouces to make. and benzie i know you love your pvp and thats all fine , but other players might not like pvp, for some reasons , 1. just want to relaxe with a game in space 2. might only fine PVE fun, 3. might just want to be producing stuff. so make zones where pvp is allow and other where its not , thats fair to everyone not just pvpers. as eve is right now where you still can suicide run another player or sittting at gate just camping all day , or as station campers , thats not really pvp , thats just griefing and harashment in my eyes. but i agree that some times the markets needs a reboot , and events can make that happen, then again i remember the days where the developers , made hunts on Mining barges and Exhumers ect.. i lost a fair share of thouse types of ships , but they should really only make a few days not 14 days or more , just make them more often instead. sorry if my spelling is wrong , but i am dyslexic , so i learn to live with , and if i can , so can you :)
What confuses me here is that I tried to make this entire argument about the game and even talk about how it has to differ from real life - and also I am not a pvper. EVE is, however, a PVP game. If you're not PvPing, then you're prey. That's how it is. And for those of us who are pve oriented, PvP is important. You want to survive, sure, but it's your competition getting blapped that keeps YOU profitable.
The amount of misguided or blatantly false information put out in this video is surprising. CCP doesn’t have any economists working on the game at all. They had one for a long time. He quit/retired or was fired. Either way it saved ccp money and they never filled the role again.
This is all too theoretical and does nothing to actually help make the game better. Ideally, *every* ship should have secondary functions outside combat. Whether it be exploration, mining, or salvaging. I think you have too idealist view of EVE, PvE is boring and loses is players by the day, and EVE just had a 18 millions $ operating costs, and if they didn't alarm you, Red Lobster just closed for a 11 millions $ loss.. Either the game starts getting genuinely fun for EVERYONE rather than just the predators and the big guys, or it will be in trouble.
You've taken my argument, widened it, then argued against the wider point. As someone else points out, military drilling equipment and transports don't have weapons in the real world. They have escorts.
@@captainbenzie Escort gameplay has been tried for a decade now, people never do it. CCP was expecting people to protect mining operations for moon mining, nope, people just dock or don't even partake, rather than hire mercenaries or armed guns. Thus the introduction of automated moon-mining this expansion.
@@captainbenzie My opening post is riddled with auto-correct mistakes, but my point is simple and you even suggested it in your video, This is a game, it's not real life, real life is a great source of inspiration, but it's certainly not game material (difficulty is entirely based on respawn location xD)
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Eve does the best job I've seen in an MMO in keeping its "non-endgame" assets and content viable and relevant while still offering a lot of challenge. Unless the game dynamically scales (which amounts to nerfing challenge), no other game has as many situations where "I have the giant godhammer but it would be stupid or useless to use it." For all of the OP options being a trillionaire offers you, there are playing fields where you're just another guy and there are plenty of reasons to play on that smaller scale. It would take a blog post to break it all down with justice but EVE's unique combo of skils, ship tiers, designing with counters in mind, the way space is organized and traversed as well as its sheet size are special and AFAIK unparalleled.
I absolutely agree ☺️
What other MMORPG you played?
@@adamk.4557 Ultima Online, RuneScape, FFXIV, FF11, WoW (Classic through to current), EverQuest, Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2... Probably a few others I don't remember.
@@adamk.4557 WoW, ESO, LOTRO, Runescape, UO. Albion looks interesting, can't get into FF - not my aesthetic. Star Wars as a universe is kind of dead for me. Guild Wars is one I might try. as well. But similar issues of power-creep etc... are involved with all of them. Josh Strife Hayes had a vid on horizontal/vertical issues that covers this well.
Love the thought experiments content, don't let people mess with your flow.
Thank you for your support, Otto ☺️
The new haulers offer counterplay that will be interesting. I expect that they will have drawbacks too. Initially, at least, I suspect that the Squall will be far more expensive than a T1 cruiser. I also would wager that that there will be drawbacks that will make them easier to target and hold. Other T1 Cruisrrs will certainly have more speed, DPS, or tank. Eve has generally done a good job of balancing. Everything has counter-play. Ganking haulers was one exception. The only counter-play was to not get caught.
A hauler that shoots back creates an interesting new angle on this gameplay.
Sure, tactics that worked to gank people not might not seem as good now. Yet, if history is any guide, gankers will develop new tactics. The wheel will turn. That is the way.
Definitely this, though I also see benzie's point. I've fit a couple of squalls and I can't see one taking a pvp fit T1 cruiser with a decent pilot except in rare instances. Force off a couple frigates? Definitely, and I'm more than ok with that.
I just returned to the game and actually caught a deluge on a gate in my sabre. Was very surprised when he started firing at me and I had to disengage. I still wonder what his cargo might have been. Good times ☺️
To be honest, the times I made more isk per hours are also the times I lost the most ships (like 1 or 2 per months). When I don't lose any thing, it means I'm not doing anything worth doing. I use to care a way too much about losing ships and would only do stuff when I was 99% safe. That got real boring and I wasn't getting any isk. Beside the occasional ratting, I was only doing boring sov related pvp, where you either got a rare good fight, stayed docked while the enemy brought overwhelming numbers or spent way too long firing at some structure in space. I never lost a ship during those engagement but I also never made much isk.
Thumbs up for understanding macro economics and game world economy. On the other hand, I am skeptical that the new ships will be so unbalancing as all that. I'm quite happy to wait and see the details of them, and see what their strengths and weaknesses are. If they are "OP" then I expect CCP to nerf them a bit as that becomes apparent. I know, that doesn't make good social media engagement content, but there you go.
I agree they'll probably be fine, I should have made it clearer that I'm more addressing comments where people have "hoped" that they'll be able to punch hard. A hauler proving a threat to a tackle frigate or to a bumper, sure. But some where genuinely saying they should be able to take down dedicated PvP cruisers
@@captainbenziethey should be able to hurt ships of their size.
The point is them being usable during a skirmish without being a drag like a regular PvE ship is. 70-80% combat effectiveness for their size should be enough, and that would leave enough space for someone winning a fight 1v1 with them occasionally.
The issue is players that die tend to leave. This has always been the issue with games like eve though. Full loot pvp is very niche. I totally agree with what you said in this video mind. Just making a point.
It does make sense for a hauler to have some defensive cpability. Remember, there have been combat Nereus fits for a laugh. It just means that the gankers will need to adjust and get better. You want ships to get blown up - this means more ships will get blown up and not just the defender.
My issue has never been with SOME defense, it was that folks wanted them to be as good as combat vessels WITH all the benefits of haulers too
great video. As a returning to play to eve after a very long break. This breaks down the game in a way I never thought of.
Glad I could help! And welcome home!!
I'm afraid I don't share your concerns about the new haulers being well armed. In fact I welcome it!
From the Battle Rorqual to the Bait Neurus, there is a long history in Eve of some industrial ships having teeth.
I for one got my first killmail flying a Skiff. Killed the Sabre tackle with my drones. If I'd had the presence of mind to start aligning as soon as I deployed the drones, I'd likely even have made it out of the belt🤪.
Rolling ships in wormhole space aren't quite industrial though it can be argued that they actually are once the Higgs Anchor is fitted. My old corp always fit guns and a point on their rolling ships. Best kill we got from doing that was an Arazu IIRC.
Industrialists are under no obligation to be defenceless piñatas or other people's content. Just because you land on a hauler with a cruiser doesn't mean you are entitled to get a kill.
Amen
It's nothing about entitlement, and having teeth is fine, it's if the bite is equivalent to a predator, is my point.
And have you considered that killing a hauler isn't you providing content to them alone, but also the risk of being killed is what provides YOUR content?
Again, if every hauler always gets through, the demand for hauling drops. If haulers are getting blown up frequently, then demand increases and the GOOD haulers profit. In any case, increased danger increases profits for those with the skills to benefit - it's only the passive players, those who won't learn and don't have the skills, who lose out.
@@captainbenzie Just because a hauler may be able to take on a predator 1v1, that doesn't mean everyone flying them will have the presence of mind to make the split second decisions required to manage their modules in a fight situation.
Bad piloting or pilot error will mean that some haulers will always still be killed regardless.
Plus I like the idea some uncertainty for the hunter.
You now. There are heron-guys who solo can kill gila or tongu. By heron... Caped skills, special fits, boosters. And years of game expirience, of course! It's not easy, but there is nothing impossible.
Now just think, what this type of players can do with combat-hauler?
@@captainbenziethis works in your head, and in the pretty picture you have of EVE,
but it doesn't work the same for the person being blown up.
Your view of the game helps the Market and the "Balance", but it doesn't help the Game and the Product.
Goal of the transport ship is to move goods around and arrive destination. Goal of PvP ship is to kill more than it's cost before getting blown up. Outside of high-sec new ships will let you kill a frig or two, but bigger force will kill you guaranteed. Your chances against a gate-camp are same as for regular hauler. In high-sec gank happen too fast for you to actually lock anybody and start shooting. All sorts of mission ships have weapons too, and it never help them against gankers.
I'm sure that main goal of those new ships is to kill NPC pirates around new structures. Their actual hauling stats aren't that different from ordinary haulers, except industrial hold.
Keep these podcast style videos coming! Really enjoying the thought provoking content you've been dropping. I typically listen while ratting/mission running/exploring
Thank you!
i Played EvE some hunderts of Hours and was not happy to loose my stuff as a Miner + Hauler. But you made me understand why i must sometimes loose my stuff. it was never so clear and easy to understand told. THX a lot. maybe i will start play EvE again. to get my Industry running again.
Alltime save Flight in space o7
Good luck! Expect losses early on, this game takes some learning and losses are fine - use them as a learning experience, and consider joining a decent corp. ☺️
I like the idea that a blinged out hauler could be a genuine trap for some cheaper pvp ships. As long as the cost of the blinged out hauler >> pvp ship.
Yeah I agree
All ships are pvp ships.
Go ahead. Shoot my nereus with your frigate. I'm sure that sigil will die easy, stupid hauler coming to lowsec. An ibis? Psh I bet this noob didn't bother to get into a shuttle to travel. A rookie ship warping in on my mining ship? Oh it's probably no threat I can ignore it.
... oh my god I'm dead?! Wtf! Those were pve ships!
Ship over haul would work out as well ,more destroyers ,Cruiser ,battle cruiser, in the base as T1 hulls.
just here to support capt. benzie!
Thank you!
New to Eve. I deeply appreciate the richness of the content you've created around the game. It's kept me excited about EVE as I stumble along the absurd learning curve, lol. So thanks for that!
Happy to help!
Several valid points. There is nothing wrong with the opinion you posed. I need to get better at PVP to decide if I agree with you about PVE being more lucrative than PVP.
Thanks for the video.
Good podcast, thought provoking about economics. I lost a Cerberus to a VNI AND Navy Catalyst. I had two things going against me I was in a PVE fit and I was in they were Pirate Fraction players ... was a relatively cheap fit because I knew I was playing with fire...wasn't that upset. But we both suffered losses as I nuked his drones so we had destruction on both sides.
Nice!
Enjoying your podcast thought pieces. Keep'em coming :)
Cheers
Thanks, will do!
You did nail about Industrialist !! I love a Huge war !! Omg .. If a major war fires up .. I make Isk and I get to be active and getting orders.
This is a piece of engagement, so that the Robots Overlord are happy.
I am also happy though not a robot overlord - thank you 😂
There have been armed transport ships in practice. There was the Liberty and Victory class ship from WWII as inspiration. In actual practice these ships should fight off much smaller vessels, so in EVE terms the Squall being able to fight off a Frigate or a Destroyer could be feasible but should not be able to go toe to toe with a warship in the same weight class so to speak. I think your comparison of Astero vs Heron can work here as well. The Squall can haul and fight, although limited depending on fit, and is much more expensive than a Badger. Your concern is valid, and I hope a transport can't beat a T1 Cruiser when they come out. I guess the next thing would be mining ships that can fight!
Absolutely agree, but there's already evidence that they will have significant firepower on top of superior tank to their compatriots, alongside comparable cargo and comparable cost. That's the concern.
Perfect ending. Completely agree. Echoes is the perfect example of what not to do. They had lots of interesting ideas, but the monetization strategy ruined the implementation.
We need more destruction in the game. Especially in the nullsec. Hope that equinox will bring it to the game. More war in Nullsec Blocks would be awesome!
Exactly this
Captain i just got back playing eve echoes and man a lot has changed and thanks for your videos they always help me.
Glad to help 🚀
Destruction is what makes the carebear efforts valuable - and they better come to terms with it. Also - even when not actively fighting, you're still in a direct competition with other pilots. Whether through market, or by sharing/contesting belts/sites... So while PVE and PVP might seem and feel separate - they are not. The best indy activities are generally those with direct PVP applications. And the carebears often make for some of the better PVP content, whether they like it or not... But both 'sides' share the exact same Universe, and as such will always affect each other.
As for the new ships - I wouldn't be worried even if they actually went on par with t1 cruisers for combat. Which they will not. Autotargeting missiles are only somewhat decent in 1v1 situations when there are no drones involved. With the usual ganks/camps involving more - their effectiveness will be limited to maybe deleting one gank dessy to potentially survive until concord clears the grid. Which, considering the fitting requirements and PWG/CPU we could peek, would seriously compromise their tank. Making it a rather incompetent deterrent, as far as HS ganking goes. Not to mention - the prospect of losing a single dessy will just see the gankers using an extra to ensure the kill. Or maybe upship to Ruptures/Thoraxes... Not to mention, no level of DPS has ever deterred determined gankers - Marauders die as well. And using a fringe tactic to 'maybe' survive a gank doesn't sound preferable to regular haulers with ability to haul more versatile stuff. Or at least more stuff that's actually relevant for HS... Which will make even 1mil difference in price a factor between the choices.
For LS - yeah, maybe you might get a kill on a careless pilot, but then it's no longer the ship's capabilities, but rather the ineptitude of your opponent. Chances are, Nereus will still be cheaper for the same effect... if not outright better. Pure tank/DPS wise, facing a cruiser will be a tall order. The only opportunities will be outplaying/surprising unsuspecting/unprepared opponents.
Finally, their main intended role - the Null PI hauler. Honestly, this is prly where the missiles could come in the most handy. Being able to push off a lone tackle frig/dictor more reliably sort of synergizes with the importance of the new SOV/PI structures and materials. Definitely much more valuable, and idm the specific haulers getting another tool in their arsenal to protect themselves. Not to mention - they'd die to determined hunters regardless of their DPS... And with most hunters already expecting to hold/tank ratting Ishtars and Gilas - I don't think cruiser lvl of DPS will be much of an issue.
The only two potentially unintended uses I can see are as follows - meme hauler doctrine that'd do worse than frigates/dessies for multiple times the cost, and perhaps a slightly more combat useful cap booster carrier. In both cases the new ships seem to offer slightly better dmg potential to more traditional haulers, but neither use is inherently efficient or even requires high dmg to begin with. They require numbers and cojones respectively, which will be a slight obstacle for the new haulers - at the very least initially, until their prices stabilize.
Granted, that's not to say CCP wont betray our expectations. But even if they do, and make the new ships much more dangerous/versatile than intended - they can just as easily nerf them on short notice. Luckily, there are enough knobs to turn in that regard...
Whilst I do agree with the inalienable concept of pve being creation and pvp being destruction, i fundamentally disagree that these should be fully separated. Thats what other MMOs do, and if eve were to follow then it changes the game on its most basic level. The lines are blurred in eve, you are never safe. As such, no one should ever be pigeonholed to pvp or pve. Keep the blurred lines. The new ships add to that, which is one of the main things that keeps the game going after over 20 years.
the changes are separating pvp from pve though, what are you on about?
Great points, I like learning about the economy of such a big game.
As always, you make great points. I appreciated the discussion on Eve economics. It sucks to lose a ship, but understanding how the loss impacts the overall economy and quality of the game is important. I'm not sure the majority of players consider ship losses in the grand scheme. Personally, I'm not worried about the new haulers. I could be wrong, but I think they will be more specialized and niche than is being reported at this time. I'm not convinced they will completely replace traditional haulers, so I'm not selling my Crane and Bustard just yet.
"If you're an industrialist and you are getting annoyed by people losing ships, you're doing it wrong!" Meanwhile I've known at least one industrialist who was also an FC, who would whelp fleets of ships he was stocking.....
Exactly this!!
And again, You are abso-f-king-lutely right. Thank U for this. C U in New Eden
Thank you
Weapons still costs isk and needs skills. So yes - there is still a lot of reason to fly a hauler without guns.
I like the long form 😊
I totally get your point, all of eve is also built on the needs of the player market too, if things just stay alive then there us no reason to get a new ship and the narket collapses as well. At least thats where i as someine whos not super into PVP look at it from. I dont really enjoy PVP for fun, but i get it and i see its value and importance. Its why we have to pay sales tax AND a broker fee. There is no real broker in the npc station but its a money sink. Given the money printing during the pandemic that inflation is a REAL world thing and we are seeing its effects day to day. Not getting political at all of course it is what it is, its just how eve and real life are close to each other.
Exactly right
I agree on the "keep pve and pvp seperate" point but I see hauling as a pvp activity, as long as haulers can only fight in pvp scenarios, such as counter ganks, or ganking miners etc, I think it's fine for them to have teeth. Hauling always includes other players, who and what are you moving, to where and what is the gank chance? Hauling only ever adds to income destruction, so giving haulers teeth will also lead to the destruction of gank ships, even if a squall should not outcompete a caracal for pvp
For the new hauler part: It's likely going to be more like an arms race, may be harder to solo kill them but it'll give missile disruption modules a new dedicated use. The gold rush for getting them will be met with a gold rush for killmails of them and if they're so much better than the empire ones maybe that will be balanced later on.
For the overall PvP vs PvE part: Maybe not so much of an issue in that dedicated PvP fit versus dedicated PvE fit the PvP'r will either find a way to be come out on top or grab some friends and come out on top. As far as ISK returns go I think that the major disparity in ISK generation by either type is in fact a trade off in itself and not everything in Eve needs to be ISK centric, it's a sandbox not a job.
Afterthought on making PvP more relevant, how about a two step process for CCP to implement:
1. Remove the structure requirement for corporations being wardec eligible.
2. All characters in NPC corps are automatically part of faction warfare without the standing penalties/faction police aggression when outside of spawn and career agent systems. Actual faction warfare members might get LP generation bonuses or some extra standing perks etc. Aggression in hi-sec could bring faction police to assist NPC corp members or CONCORD if the aggression is not part of faction warfare etc.
The lack of group PVE content in nullsec and WH space in particular needs improving. They could be particularly challenging and engaging like those in Pochven and be significant flash points for PVP but every option in nullsec is soloable in a battleship, discouraging group play.
Agreed
Some valid points. Given it's only a 27min video, some big simplifications made obviously. The economy alone could warrant a 20k word thesis by itself without even touching on gameplay and the effects of PvE and PvP upon it. The long and short of it is that healthy inflation in EvE's economy is actually good for CCP's pocket.
Removing the economy from the equation for one moment, the key thing about introducing new ships is that they are balanced in terms of their specialization and their ability to stray from that specialization. Getting that balance right automatically creates content and different gameplay within EvE's sandbox. Some of these new ships sound somewhat overpowered and too flexible. But I guess we will have to wait and see how it plays out. CCP do often break out the nerf bat when required.
The new haulers may replace some specialized haulers like thr Epithal, but ultimately they're inferior to regular haulers for moving stuff that doesnt fit into the infrastructure hold.
In terms of offensive capabilities, it seems like they're bonused specifically for auto-targeting missiles and are not agile at all, so no, they won't make T1 cruisers obsolete only because they have on-paper similar DPS potential to a dedicated PVP ship with a specific niche ammo type. Devil will be in the details of course.
I think CCP will do fine on the new haulers. They can just lower the cargohold/warp speed/align time and make them inferior to their cruiser counterparts damage-wise while keeping the cost the same. I think this will put them in a niche (maybe too niche) spot but we'll see I guess.
I hope so. I have faith.
Really enjoying listening to these podcast style videos! Thanks very much for taking the time to make them sir! o7 I am hoping to get back into new eden, but need to give myself some proper goals
Glad you like them! The AIR Career Program is a great starting goal!
One thing about the Avalanche that's not really bin discussed is if it can fit a cloak
I will say for me if the AVALANCHE freighter can cloakey jump even if it cost as much as a jump freighter id still have one just for that , i can see them restricting what can be fitted or even if the thing can enter high-sec as quick step .
I'm hoping they step the price and build complexity and drop main hold but keep the speciality holds rather than nerf the stated point of them for me as a builder i want them .they could also strip the fact of the missiles by restricting locked targets to only 1 or 2 that removes them as a PVP and back to can only be effective against a tackle .
I do feel as you these ships break the pve /pvp balance they need to be an expensive build at the start because they will have to be nerfed and quickly if they are expensive at the start they wont flood the game before ccp finds a balance . The corp had a discussion about cost with at what cost puts them out of the bracket the price range was between 2-10 x the cost ,
i also have a different view on the auto missiles your getting ganked you will get on a good number of kills for some it makes the loss easier than just sitting there waiting to die .
Point in flying t1 haulers is not to get shot, like you will be in squill and weapons are no help. Ship is not little expensive if you count in more expensive fit, and you can't do pve or pvp with it, align time, warp speed...
Even a PVE fit combat ship will generally lose to the same ship with a PVP fit (as pointed out in the vid), so I don't think haulers with a few missiles on them are going to be much of an issue...I don't believe there won't be a downside to speed, cargo etc vs a T1 hauler. If nothing else you are still losing the lows to BCSs if you want to do any real damage. You aren't going to be slapping cruisers around with these, at least not any cruiser you wouldn't be able to also kill with a battle Venture or something.
I don't think anyone should be *utterly* defenceless when doing PVE, even from the hunter side shooting fish in a barrel isn't that interesting, at least that mining fleet you are about to jump having 35 hobgoblins on field makes you think a bit sometimes. I don't mine very often but when I do, they have points fitted, so maybe I'm slightly biased... 😆 Seriously though, I'm all for these new ships, PVPing in indy ships is a special kind of hilarity. 😁
He actually thinks people have fun being hunted 😆
@@TheControlBlue I do, if you don't, I can't really understand why you'd play this game, given the frequency that it happens to most.
@@memitim171 excellent observation.
You put the finger on why the game is niche. Not many people like to play herbivores whose sole purpose is to serve as feed for the ecosystem of a game.
@@TheControlBlue The game is undoubtedly niche for that and many other reasons, but you're only a 'herbivore' the entire time if you never PVP, that's an odd thing to do in a game called Everybody Vs Everybody Online...
@@memitim171 oh really, I didn't know that's what the name meant, I thought the name was only for more reasons.
The best way I can make you understand the problem is that not everyone can sustain the lifestyle of a PvPer in the game, and if doing so was possible, PvE wouldn't exist, so I'm not saying it's a bad thing.
The game needs herbivores too, but you don't want the game to affect them and stress them to the point that it becomes torture for them.
FYI, some species of herd animals, thus herbivores, literally get paralyzed to death when spooked, which is clearly not a behavior that would lead to survival. That means 'Fear' does not help survival, what helps is knowing you can do something despite it (even if it is just fleeing.)
I'd be fine with a hauler being able to fight off some combat ships. Those haulers do need to be significantly more expensive than whatever it can kill, or balance is lost.
I think that EVE economy itself will balance eventually a hauler with combat capabilities raising its price (or lowering analogue combat ships price) in time. A concern us understandable btw.
Agree Im a carebear, I will play happily all day every day but I hate PvP and avoid it. Left the game for 5 years when I lost my hard earned hauler to "bumping" when it first started. Sitting there watching 1 ship bump me into oblivion was pure frustration and it put me back months. Would like to think how much $ I didn't spend on the game on during that 5 year holiday, CCP missed out on currency (I have spent $8k on the game it's my hobby/2003). With arming transports next expansion this does give you a bit of confidence that at least you have a chance of not getting ganked in some instances. Remember that throughout history transport ships have had at least some defence not massively armed but had something "usually"......in this instance I wouldn't be pissed.
I support this kind of commentary. I see people mining or building in LS who are just mind bendingly pissed when they get killed. Sometimes I am that guy. Its a good reminder of pieces of the economy that you don't think of. ~Agree I would like a more exciting background but typically on these I'm doing something else.
Thank you 🚀
I was hopeful this video was going to show me the actual difference of a pvp fit and pve fit. it was helpful but not what I was looking 4
the new haulers balance gate bumpers ganks
To get your opinion. I made an alt to solely fly NULSEC and hack to test the waters in how lucrative NS hacking is. I plan to try WH sites in July. Do you feel WH hacking is lucrative?
Maybe I will run into your corp for some cat and mouse. LOL
I enjoy your Eve content videos and these podcast videos.
Thanks.
WH hacking can be very lucrative as it's purely the Nullsec sites.
I have to agree with you I think Haulers and miners should not be able to stand toe to toe with Combat ships every sci-fi movie or show cargo ships are make to haul cargo not combat. They always rely on combat ships or patrol ships to protect them from pirates and the like
I thought CCP wanted the players to be able to do everything in the game that they can do in RL, if you can mount it go for it, any engineer can weld and gun to a hull, any electrician can wire the electronics, and progrsammer can create the gunnery software,
There's also game design. It's not about "doing anything" but about keeping balance
Comment for support
Thank you 🚀
@captainbenzie no, thank YOU.
Your videos about nomadic-life inspired me to play "my way" no matter of meta-fits, ISK-efficiency and ect: just deep dive in j-space for about several days until it's time to came back for trading/be messed by locals😅 now I'm realy enjoying the game.
Thank you, for showing that EVE is not only about corporations, and there is a place for some private (almost initimacy) time.
…PVPer here. I have absolutely no problem with this. Let haulers fight back. Mining ships have long had drone damage bonuses.
Giving haulers some missiles won’t break the game either.
Having teeth is fine, but some have suggested them going toe to toe with cruisers
I know, give the old haulers 50mbit of drone bandwidth and a 75m3 drone bay! 😂
Recently found your cahnnel, i really like your videos!
Glad you like them!
They're effectively faction haulers. Just like a hookbill is better than a kestrel, the faction hauler would be better than the basic t1 hauler.
Oh captain my captain!
😂🚀
Tech 1 cruisers do need to get buffed. All empire ships do. It has been 20 years. The tech should progress along with the arms race that upwell is creating.
Out of curriosity, has eve ever thought of the idea of adding wear mechanics on modules? Im noy sayinh it woulr be a goid idea or not, i was just wondering because it could deal with permance and money sinks. It could be very slow damage and skills might mitagate it but if you put 100000000 rounds though an autocannon, you will likely need to replace the barrels at best. Or a mantinance fee for repair. Sor of like focusing crystals that could be repaired. Idk im sure they thought of it and i could see it might be annoying, but i was just thinking outloud.
It was considered but mothballed. Damage via overheating and ammo were considered "enough" without crossing into tedium
@captainbenzie yeah j can see how it would be pretty tedious to have to repair all the time. That's why I asked with reservation
and with so much hesitation. Thank you, sir. o7
In your last Video I commented it will be a Good thing for the new Freighters to have weapons slots. I stand by that.
When Freighters are Ganked i usually see them Ganked by a small fleet wouldn't it be good for the Game if said gank fleet Occasionally lost a ship for the potential loot?
As someone that flies Cargo being Abel to take out 1 or 2 PVPers that manage to pin me down I'd be more willing to haul More for that risk.
I also stand by that the Role Bonus for the new Freighters need to have nothing to do with offense. Cause at that point it would mean a Cruiser is still better for PVP even if it can get killed by a Freighter on Occasion.
If you're in space where concord are present, then you should fit tank to survive til then. If you're not, you should have an escort.
@@captainbenzie Flying in a fleet is a solution yes. But if you are in a smaller Corp you can't Always Fly with escorts, you will be forced to fly major cargo by yourself, and in that situation for the chance to get the cargo to Market or from market would an Armed Freighter not help?
@@chrisc9769 Short answer - No.
Longer answer - Marauders get ganked too, you know. And they have the best raw DPS you can get in HS. Sooo... guns/missiles alone are nowhere near enough to deter determined gankers. For HS, the best deterrents are 1) cloak 2) speed 3) excessive tank 4) flying cheap. But once you hit LS/Null, the costs and tank become irrelevant. So No - the missiles will hardly help at all. Although, if they do keep the currently showcased auto-targeting missile bonus, you might get lucky and delete a single cata/thrasher/coercer from grid just in time to survive. With auto-targeting missiles though - that's awfully reliant on luck/circumstances, and nothing prevents the gankers to just bring an extra pair of hands...
@@mikspurins1455 Let me put this another way cause part of my point is been missed. 2 weapon high slots for Squall, Deluge, and Torrent. And 3 for the Avalanche (Not the 4 and 6) that's all you need to give the Illusion to a lot of players that they can Defend themselves and Protect their Cargo, and Not make things too easy for Cargo to get from point A to point B.
If you had that would You Fly More Cargo knowing you had a LAST RESORT to Defend your Money? IF you had a Higher Percentage Chance of getting Out of a Gank Attempt of a few players cause you now have an Offensive capability would You Haul More.
IF you had the ILLUSION (it is an Illusion) of being able to Protect your Cargo because of weapon high slots on your Big Fat Slow Freighter would you not want to Increase Your Efficiency by Carrying More?
By adding an Illusion that you can Defend yourself by adding some weapon high slots, You now add a new Dimension to transporting Large amounts of Cargo. I'm not talking about Blockade Runners but the Avalanche.
First the added danger when it comes to taking a Freighter so it will keep Gank fleets will not have "simple catch and kill" anymore some may fall getting to a juicy prize. Wouldn't that prize feel better knowing that the prize fought and Lost?
Second it will allow for smaller groups that need to move a lot of equipment faster by giving them the ability to defend themselves.
Say you have a Small Corp of 20 or so, and they are planning to move everything from High to Low but only 3 can fly Freighters and only 5 are online because of work or some other reasons and this is possibly the best chance to get to your destination. It would take 4 completely full Freighters to move everything 15 jumps majority of that in low to get to your new home. Would you run that gauntlet 7 times using 1 Freighter with the other 4 as Escorts? Or would you take the Risk of using 3 Avalanches (3 weapons mounts not 6) with 2 Escorts cause you now only have to Run the Gauntlet 3 times cause you only need 1 Avalanche after the first run cause the rest are now Escorts?
Adding Weapon High Slots to the Avalanche opens Options in game play. Hell. I'd be fine with CCP dropping the weapons high slots Squall, Deluge, and Torrent. But I think it would be Good for the Game to Keep them for the Avalanche. The Avalanche doesn't need 6 but 3 should be fine.
@@chrisc9769 For your fringe example of hauling through scarcely populated hostile areas - yes, the added highs will benefit any logistics operations. But you will still want as many escorts as possible, because weapons or not, the avalanche would still be a juicy target, attracting plenty of unwanted action. Much like any other freighter would...
Captain… the GOAT
Haha thank you
@@captainbenzie you guided me through echoes in the shadows and your Nergal video made me decide to play Eve. 3 weeks in I’ve used your code and about to send a Coro request to cartel. I only fly Triglavian and all because of the GOAT.
I have recently encountered nulsec alliances operating in high sec targeting pve players in major ways.
I actually somewhat disagree with what u said that a cruiser shouldn't be able to lose to a hauler or that this makes the hauler automatically better, 100% I think the haulers will have bad speed and probably bad range etc but you still wouldn't use the hauler for normal pvp just because it can beat a cruiser. I think having danger when attacking a hauler isn't a bad thing at all.
I believe you said sometimes inflation and meaning deflation? Or is there no deflation in english as word 😅
Inflation in theory can happen if people ask for goods which are limited.. but what if everybody use blasters and do pvp destroy so many of them that manufactures can set higher prices and still sell them.. inflation 😂
But its true that eve needs some destruction, because if as example supers never get shot, the ppl making them have no reason for it anymore.. this will effect the complete manufacturing line -> ppl will look for other isk opportunities..
if the supers gets destroyed again, they will be expensive because no one build them anymore 😂 new production lines needs to be created..
From a higher perspective its true.. EVE needs destruction and production.. but the devil is in the details ;)
Both can create inflation and deflation of products.. if ships are not used anymore because they get to weak or not compete with newer ships.. who will buy them?
But yea interesting topic.
do you have a pvp guide?
The Nerf Bat will strike !
Haulers should be able to defend themselves but never an attack ship, let it mount weapons but only defensive weapons, for defensive only
i see it as they are the haulers we should have had from the beggining!...who in their right mind would send billions in assets into unpredictable space with no method of protecting said asset!!!!!
People who understand that EVE is an MMO and haulers should have at least a scout if going through dangerous space.
Just like in real life.
Imagine Ratting in Wormhole without the thrill that someone is already cloacked next to you and he just waits till you clear the rats to finish you off :D would be boring and pointless tbh
It would basically be an afk game
I've had exactly this happen, though they often wait for a few seconds into the last wave so that you have an entire wave of aggro plus them 😅
@@captainbenzie well ive had the same with two pacifiers from wormhole police but my gnosis was too tanky so the battleship swiched aggro and helped me. now they want 1B from me because i killed them :D
@@VitalijMik 😂
@@VitalijMik sleeper battleship carry
I've been playing eve since 2007 and I always thought it was pretty stupid that haulers and Freighters had no weapon slots. Maybe CCP should just give them all some high slots.
It's for balance purposes. It makes freighters vulnerable, strongly incentivising teamwork.
Well sure but I don't think giving them a couple of slots would unbalance things that much, maybe just give them a chance to get away from that solo tackler before his Fleet can arrive.
I've already bought and fit a couple of squalls and I wouldn't want to fight an arbitrator in one that's for sure.
The squalls damage potential is quite low and I have maxxed skills.
@@captainbenzie now maybe the Avalanche will be a whole other story, I'll have to see when they go on the market and I can buy one.
So i gotta add my 2cents. Minor point but the idea that cost balances anything in a game where i can swipe my card for in game money is silly
True
You cannot swipe your card for in-game money. Big misconception.
SOMEONE still had to earn that ISK. You're merely exchanging something of value to them, for ISK which is of value to you. And then the PLEX you purchased also gets destroyed when they use it for Omega or skins or whatever.
@@captainbenzie it was a minor point about the ways things are balanced but just because it's not injected into the economy doesnt make it a "misconception" that I could spend money now and make my isk go up by a billion in the next 10 mins.
The rest of the ways eve balances things I'm quite happy with and I didn't wanna argue but you doubled down on silly here and I gotta leave my rebuttal...
Just to be clear to all I'm not even complaining about the p2w aspect or whatever... Was just pointing out that it barely factors into balance, or even by definition cannot in a game with non cosmetic purchases. That's all happy gaming all :)
I do not understand what the fuss is all about. SQUALL is 10 x times the price of T1 Hauler, its align time is very bad even with inertia modifiers and its battle capabilities are extremely weak even with max missile skills. Any good use for it, anyone?
Check the date of this video and understand that I said "I was worried that it might be flat better"
Fortunately, turns out it's not.
Eve is always evolving, adapt or station spin.
Extra mile!
Thank you ❤️🚀
actually, even IRL, a transportation is most of the time done by a convoy ... because the vehicle that does the transport isn't designed to defend itself, i don't really see where the whining is about.
T3C are OP AF and CCP new it. Why did you loose skills when you died in one? Hard to make balance arguments. If T3 aren't OP then why aren't there T3 frigates, destroyers, cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships, and super capitals, etc? I am all for PVP, PVE, industrials because it make for a great game with diverse interests. Love your content thanks.
T3 ships were OP, hence the SP loss. Then they got nerfed hard and are now fairly niche ships. Honestly, on straight PvP or PvE, my Vagabond is better than my Loki. The Loki shines as a hybrid explorer/combat vessel, but it's also ludicrously expensive (it does the job of my 300m Vagabond, and my 100m Cheetah, for the cost of 1.2bn)
T3 hasn't been added to other tonnages yet because there's been no need. T3 were added with wormholes to create demand for the wormhole specific materials. Adding more T3s now wouldn't help industry with new gameplay.
To be fair, there are T3 destroyers- Jackdaw, Hecate, Confessor.
@@captainbenzie wait a sec. It is hard to use that industry approach when discussing these...if they had more T3 series ships existing there would be demand right? And the resources would get split up to make them all and provide more content in producing or acquiring them for that matter imagine the resource harvesting that would be needed in turn making for more miners/PI setups, gas huffers, etc. That would by like saying the latest few rounds of content post 'scarcity' didn't create demand and make industry more difficult and hence in some cases more expensive/profitable. Who doesn't want a Mamba, Kizriel or Marauder. Back to the OP thing though, went back through the last 3 days of Zkill for a random T3C and picked the Proteus in that span 6 were killed 3 by Marauders and 3 by other T3C - hope that sinks in. Want to take a guess at how many kills the Proteus had solo? Wait for it.... 145! One guy had 21 kills in row in less than 30 minutes and yes some where definitely combat capable ships.
@@darkarcanum1814 first point, I didn't explain myself well. CCP added T3Cs and T3Ds at the same time as the new wormhole materials. If they add more T3s, it'll be alongside new materials, making it a bigger project than just hammering them on. Not to mention, T3s are all unique (cruisers having subsystems, destroyers having modes) so the other T3s would need something unique.
Second point you make is farcical. That's literally anecdotal evidence in that your sample size is tiny. "This one guy had tonnes of kills so the entire ship must be OP" doesn't work logically. It's a leap. I know a guy who has managed almost 1000 killmarks on a HERON. Does that make the Heron OP for PvP?
You can't use Zkillboard to figure out if a ship is OP. It doesn't give you data like that and is naturally biased. The ships that are doing well on Zkillboard are piloted by amazing PvPers. They're the best of the best, so pilot skill is much higher in importance than the ship they're flying.
Proteus, laughably, is also arguably the least used of the T3Cs and considered the weakest of the four. And if your argument is "T3s are super OP, evidence for this is that we don't have new T3s..." I'd ask how the T3 Destroyers are OP?
This entire argument reads like you having an opinion based on limited experience, then trying to justify it by finding evidence. The scientific method is the other way around, have an idea, look for counter evidence and see how your idea stands up.
Content support comment
Thank you! ❤️🚀
What if CCP have run the numbers and decided that haulers need more firepower? That the loss/win ratio is too low?
From the FanFest data we know that's not the case
@@captainbenziethe FanFest data *suggest* that new players with a losskill are more likely to stick out, having gotten a taste of PvP.
Not that people being constantly hunted without fighting back enjoy it.
@@TheControlBlue the trick is accepting loss, and instead of getting angry, learning and growing.
Loss keeps the game going. The trick is to ensure it happens to other people.
@@captainbenzie I know both the EVE experience and the "combat shakes", I know the value proposition of EVE, it hardens you the fuck up for real.
*But*, what you are not realizing is that eventually you are going to run out of "other people". The same way people don't like arguing with annoying people, *even if it hardens them and refines their argumentation skills*, people don't like constantly losing and being hunted.
Eventually they reach a breaking point.
22:30 how is this different from what economists call "The Broken Windows Fallacy"?
Completely different so as to not even be comparable??
The Broken Window Fallacy is about whether or not the money spent recovering from destruction is a benefit to society as a whole. ie If someone were to go around breaking windows, that's good for the glazier, but not for all the services and products that people would have spent on if they didn't need to repair a window. ie Destruction of windows is good for the glazier, but no net gain to society as a whole.
Literally nothing to do with inflation due to an excessive income faucet and lack of income sinks.
@@captainbenzie windows are born of minerals torn from the loins of the protesting earth that you need to buy with income. Their destruction serves as an income sink, or does it?
@@thuan-jinkee9945 glass is readily recyclable. As I said, the broken windows fallacy is a thought experiment to describe a particular circumstance and concept. It doesn't fit into this scenario.
The only fair fight in Eve is in the proving ground.
Pvp is a nesscary evil
I NEVER went or go ratting in a PVE setup. Never ever. I have gotten a number of faction, dedspace, and officer drops from those rats and, above all, PvP kills when ratting in a PvP setup. Thank you very much. I don't want to hear about how inefficient it is to rat in a PvP fit. It's MUCH less efficient to either beat feet to the nearest station or suffer ignominious defeat to some clown because i wasn't fit for a real fight. Have a nice day. 👍
Wow, defensive 😂 I just use D-Scan and escape. Works a treat.
@@captainbenzie But it doesn't. I use my status as "just another +5 ratter" as bait for yet another PvP kill 😃👍Also works great 👍
extra mile
Thank you 🚀
guns on a hauler are tits on a bull...it is the cargo to tank ratio that makes them dogshit at combat
Don't gankers already have every advantage. There are actually tears over haulers being able to defend themselves? Sigh.
Only way for a hauler to defend himself is to fit proper tank and don't move goods that make ganking profitable. Guns on your hauler won't help in highsec, everything is happening too fast, in 0.5 you have around 19 seconds until CONCORD arrive. You might apply enough damage to kill one gankalist but that's all. I don't think that you have damage to kill Talos before it applied all or most of it's damage to you.
So new haulers are useless as protection from gankers.
@@owowow7509 Good point.
thank you for your thougths. I think your analysis on the economy for eve are good but you example about the really economie are not really true. Taxes were not created keep inflation in check. They can be used to combat this but there inherent use is to finance things that should help the state (Infrastructure, Safety, etc.) Your example with the Ferraris is there not possible because i thin only the first 20 guys would be lucky to get an Ferrari because a Ferrari is a finite product i would say there are not more than 1000 for the american market per year so the only thing that 10 million for every person in america would do would be an enourmouse increase in inflation and you would be ending on month later in the same place as before with the only difference that your whole banking sector would have been devaluated and the savings of every guy with less than 10 million on the bank would be anihilated :P
Sorry, you are absolutely wrong. The concept that taxes go into some special bucket where they're divvied out for social projects is absolutely false. Reagan and Thatcher both started talking about "taxpayers money" like this, and its obfuscation. There exists no such account.
If a government wants to do something, they simply change the number digitally and create that money. The issue is that once that money has been created, you have to destroy money elsewhere or you increase the amount of money in circulation. Stephanie Kelton wrote a great book called "The Deficit Myth" about this, and Cory Doctorow has written multiple articles about it too. It's a fallacy but a widely believed one.
it's Eve... Everything Vs Eveerything.. lol and didn't I _just_ see a vid of yours _ranting_ that the _entire game_ IS pvp?....
People actually send death threats over TH-cam videos on computer games? Good lord, some folk need to go outside and touch some grass and spend some time in the sun. Lol.
Yup. Had my fair share, from laughable to genuinely a little scary. They're all taken seriously and reported.
lets face it 1 death and end of discussion its not the right amount of pvp ppl are looking for , the short term broad perspective travel and to fight is a hassle ,not how many did u play? how much of the same ship can u have and change up ,the ship is the character not the skills that slowly enforces the idea yo spend more. Pvo is to short for the players . talk a big game for T2 but lets face it ANT BIG OF A DEAL! . it is a fun game ,never getting pass destroyers for endless PVP and hiding all over the place for pve .PS THE GMʻS DO KILL PLAYERS . thats all
That's kinda what tonight's video is about when it launches ☺️
I do not support your argument on pvp , its a game , not real world
i think your have some value , but not all, i dont see why pvp should be allowed ,
in 1.0, or 0.9 zone , its meant to be beginners zones , and letting pvp be allow in that zone ,
might scare of new players , and pvp will only get the same meat and tbh some see its not the challenge ,
how ever, i do agree on some of your points on Balance , but there is other ways to get isk out of the game ,
Some them is allready implemented in the game as tax every time you great an item in the game you remove more
resources out , becouse its cost a certain number of resouces to make.
and benzie i know you love your pvp and thats all fine , but other players might not like pvp, for some reasons ,
1. just want to relaxe with a game in space
2. might only fine PVE fun,
3. might just want to be producing stuff.
so make zones where pvp is allow and other where its not , thats fair to everyone not just pvpers.
as eve is right now where you still can suicide run another player or sittting at gate just camping all day ,
or as station campers , thats not really pvp , thats just griefing and harashment in my eyes.
but i agree that some times the markets needs a reboot , and events can make that happen, then again i remember the days where the developers , made hunts on Mining barges and Exhumers ect..
i lost a fair share of thouse types of ships , but they should really only make a few days not 14 days or more ,
just make them more often instead.
sorry if my spelling is wrong , but i am dyslexic , so i learn to live with , and if i can , so can you :)
What confuses me here is that I tried to make this entire argument about the game and even talk about how it has to differ from real life - and also I am not a pvper.
EVE is, however, a PVP game. If you're not PvPing, then you're prey. That's how it is. And for those of us who are pve oriented, PvP is important. You want to survive, sure, but it's your competition getting blapped that keeps YOU profitable.
only the losers cry not fair, if you go out to fight, you go out to win
The amount of misguided or blatantly false information put out in this video is surprising.
CCP doesn’t have any economists working on the game at all. They had one for a long time.
He quit/retired or was fired. Either way it saved ccp money and they never filled the role again.
He was at Fanfest this year. May want to check your info bud
This is all too theoretical and does nothing to actually help make the game better.
Ideally, *every* ship should have secondary functions outside combat. Whether it be exploration, mining, or salvaging.
I think you have too idealist view of EVE, PvE is boring and loses is players by the day, and EVE just had a 18 millions $ operating costs, and if they didn't alarm you, Red Lobster just closed for a 11 millions $ loss..
Either the game starts getting genuinely fun for EVERYONE rather than just the predators and the big guys, or it will be in trouble.
You've taken my argument, widened it, then argued against the wider point. As someone else points out, military drilling equipment and transports don't have weapons in the real world. They have escorts.
@@captainbenzie Escort gameplay has been tried for a decade now, people never do it.
CCP was expecting people to protect mining operations for moon mining, nope, people just dock or don't even partake, rather than hire mercenaries or armed guns. Thus the introduction of automated moon-mining this expansion.
@@captainbenzie My opening post is riddled with auto-correct mistakes, but my point is simple and you even suggested it in your video,
This is a game, it's not real life, real life is a great source of inspiration, but it's certainly not game material (difficulty is entirely based on respawn location xD)
@@TheControlBlue that's exactly what I say in this video 😅
Tell us about your life, we wanna know!
18:29 - this is exactly how i explaiend what ukraine war is about...
people looked at me funny