Congrats Percival Rose on beating the necro-lock

Well played.

NO ONE can pay for their PVP by only doing PVP. Your SRP is paid for by corp or alliance taxes, which, ultimately, are generated by PVE. Your Faction Warfare ships are paid for by the PVE portion of FW, not just by 'pew-pew.'

This topic was bad when it was first started.

Necromancy doesn't make things come back from the dead smelling any better.

Sorry - I don't count ganking as PVP - it's a PK activity, pure and simple.

That stated, what else do you term as 'PVP paying for itself?'

Yes, I know some of you are going to threaten revenge for (insert whatever you want here).

Too bad.

EVE Online is PVE. PVP is what DRIVES EVE Online. The desire for fights, space, vengeance, and much more, but it's all based upon PVE.

You can disagree all you want to, but, at its core, PVE is what enables all of the PVP.

Wether it's mining (yes, all of you nullsec hardcases, MOON MINING IS STILL MINING - it's just the ultimate in AFK PVE), manufacturing, ratting, Faction Warfare, trading (yes, at the highest levels, trading is PVP, but not to 99% of the PEOPLE doing it), or mission-running, PVE is what EVE is based upon.

NO ONE can pay for their PVP by only doing PVP. Your SRP is paid for by corp or alliance taxes, which, ultimately, are generated by PVE. Your Faction Warfare ships are paid for by the PVE portion of FW, not just by 'pew-pew.'

Just because someone doesn't want to PVP doesn't mean they're "doing it wrong." Quite the contrary - they're doing it how they want to. They're paying their subscription fee to CCP, and getting something they enjoy in return.

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the ultimate sandbox. Stop your moronic, short-sighted, and stupidly egotistical sneering at those evil, lazy, cowardly, and dirty mission-runners - who do you think just bought that X-Type X-Large Shield Booster from you? Some idiot looking to pad your killboard in the next fleet fight? Of course not.

Some people want to 'pew-pew!' Nothing wrong with that. Others just want to build things. Great - someone has to make new stuff to replace the losses, or supply new doctrines.

Others just want to have the shiniest, most ISK-per-module 'blinged-out' "ain't no rat gonna kill this" mission-running ship. It's a goal - just like that top-end Bougatti you'll never even come close to pushing to its limits.

So, stating that EVE is only a 'harsh, cold, dangerous place' is, at best, myopic - it merely goes to show how self-centered you are. I've made great friends of people I'll probably never meet in person. I've spent time enjoying solo play, and I've been one more name in local during huge fleet fights.

EVE is what you make of it - but it's all paid for by PVE. No PVE, no PVP.

Yes, it really is that simple.

Pointless troll thread is... um... pointless (and full of trolls).

PvE = ISK faucet.
PvP = ISK sink.

The balance between these rules keeps the power creep in check, and enables the persistent world sandbox.

The conflict driver for PvP should be to gain access to more valuable PvE. Some legitimately argue this is lacking at the moment, but methinks CCP know this and are working towards solutions.

EVE is both PvE and PvP by necessity, anyone who suggests otherwise has tunnel vision.

Yes, I know some of you are going to threaten revenge for the disappearance of your brother Damien.

Too bad.

How is PvP an isk sink?

Ships get bought from people.
Insurance creates ISK out of nothing.
Modules get bought from people.

What did I miss?

The bit where the ships and modules are destroyed.

The bit where the ships and modules are destroyed.

Ships are bought from players,
meaning isk gets transfered and not destroyed, plus insurance actually adds isk to the game.

Modules are bought from players, so isk gets transfered and not destroyed.



How exactly is PvP an isk sink?

Ah so you understand that PvP is not an isk sink, as no isk is being removed from the game.

It seems you are applying it locally (wealth of player), but that's not the context in which it is being used. Even in your example you can see that no isk is being destroyed, but actually added.

I don't see how your example makes sense actually. There aren't 25mill being destroyed. The isk is being moved from one player to another.

B has 50mill.
B buys from A.
A now has 50mill and B has a ship *potentially* worth 50mill.
B loses ship. B receives insurance.
No ISK being destroyed, as the ship only had *potential* value of 50mill.


PvP is, like PvE, an ISK faucet... although on a much smaller scale.

I don't see how your example makes sense actually. There aren't 25mill being destroyed. The isk is being moved from one player to another.

B has 50mill.
B buys from A.
A now has 50mill and B has a ship *potentially* worth 50mill.
B loses ship. B receives insurance.
No ISK being destroyed, as the ship only had *potential* value of 50mill.

and now B buys another ship for his 50mil ISK.

Or he doesn't. Because he has no 50mil ISK, but only 'insurance' amount of it.

So it is clear 'ISK sink' for B to lose his ship. And that was original point which was completely missed by all military experts.