There's something to be said for changing the value of what people already have acquired. This is to say, the intention behind a wipe is in order to energize player input by creating a feeling of scarcity and therefore a feeling of worth in the ships and money that were lost. But the ships and money in the game are a dead end: To wipe them just so people go through motions to replace them is simply resetting a rat race with a definite and boring finish line, hence why everyone says they would stop playing. Rather, if all of these things were left where they are, but their function in the game world, and between other players was adjusted in some way, such as making a functional economy that cannot abide by powertraders and incurring tougher penalties for player death, then you could inspire the same feeling of value without having to short-change everyone on the first step.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when ships blow up in EVE, they're gone for good, right? Do people still play EVE hoping to own battleships? And when they finally get them, is their worth not predicated on how valuable they are, precisely because they took so much effort and can be lost? Would you ragequit EVE because you got yourself into a stupid fight and lost your ship? Would you ragequit if you suckered the enemy into a stupid fight and made them lose theirs? Is there not, therefore, a value to be seen in both the ownership and destruction of these battleships, from both a production (trading, taxing, pirating) and combat (PVP) perspective? And doesn't Discovery lack this value because ships are not lost, battleships are an entitlement of "indies," and there is no progression past a certain point? If you destroy a guy and he respawns good as new, and the only thing he lost was 2 hours in a system... how did that benefit you aside from the fight itself? Does this not disconnect the non-fighting activity from the fighting? In doing so, does it not devalue both, because they do not seem compatible within the same environment?
