Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 76 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3554
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 06:53:40 -
[841] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:0bama Barack ******* wrote: I don't think we have enough data here. Ofc some of players may flown away but number seems to high. At the same time CCP take care of isboxers. Multiple character training was introduced. Part of player base is waiting for sov changes. I think we have to wait till the end of the year with "online players" number.
Well, EVE took a "big dip" after BRB5-whatever:
Sudnya Jan. 12th 2014 at 19:00 50,569 players online
Sunday Feb. 9th 2014 at 18:00 57,213 players online
Sunday April 27th 2014 at 18:30 43,408 players online
And now it is just digging deeper:
Sunday Jan. 11th 2015 at 19:30 45,583 players online
Sunday Feb. 22nd 2015 at 19:30 43,562 players online
Sunday April 26th 2015 at 18:30 39,938 players online
The best day of the current year was in January, and rather than keep going up to a February peak as all the years before, it kept shrinking. 10% is a good estimate of itnerannual loss form 2014 to 2015... but remember, 2014 already had lost players compared to 2011's record numbers.
And CCP is doing everything they can to keep us entertained and subscribed. If population keeps going down, there's little things they can do and still haven't tried, and many of them are not the most sensible things to do.
(They could just throw in a hundred new Level 4s and calll back mission runners. That would be pretty effective, but would go against CCP's corporate culture. Thus CCP will rather let the subscriber numbers sink and kill EVE by developing EVE their way, than let any inconvenient realities dictate their development priorities. The elephant in the room is always optional and neglectable... until it stomps you)
73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
|
Sgt Ocker
Burning Sky Labs
471
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 08:53:14 -
[842] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote:0bama Barack ******* wrote:Yea, my null accounts are now hybernating as i wanna see what new sov will bring I wonder how many accounts this is true of? I've noticed that there is a steady hum of people asking CCP to slow down a bit with all the changes, which must amuse the bittervets to no end. I haven't let any accounts lapse, but I'll cop to waiting and watching more than I did before, just to see how things like the T3 cruiser rebalance shake out. I haven't unsubbed any either and I still participate with my corp even though we aren't in null anymore. But I'm a Sov null guy (the nomadic "PL" style just ain't for me) no matter how many characters I keep in high sec lol and I'm in watch and wait mode like everyone else. I don't want to join a new corp just to have it all washed a way 2 days after I move in. Hopefully by late June early July everything will come into focus and I can make some moves. Malcanis posted a nice sov map a few pages back. Use it to find an alliance, choose wisely and you risk little as far having it all washed away. The only thing facing the blue armies with the coming changes is how long it takes for stagnancy to return. There is no risk to their holdings, so any and all content gained from the coming changes is dependent on how many and for how long, new groups are prepared to be stomped by, blue armies. The biggest issue for CCP as far as sov mechanics goes; Sov content is controlled by a "development team" who don't work for CCP. Unlike CCP they have little to lose by continuing along their current path of development. It's a coalition map. Not quite the same. Compare it to the pre phoebe map. I'm sorry but if the coalitions don't represent sov, what do they represent?
One coalition controls close to 46% of all sov, the other coalitions control about 50% between them. Leaving 4% or removal of existing established alliances for newcomers. As the new sov mechanics favour existing groups, it doesn't leave much room for new comers. As the question was in regard to finding a place in nul where your not just going to get steamrolled, a coalition map showing which groups holds space where, is probably the best way to find relatively safe space.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
264
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 09:21:19 -
[843] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:They could just throw in a hundred new Level 4s and calll back mission runners. That would be pretty effective, but would go against CCP's corporate culture. Thus CCP will rather let the subscriber numbers sink and kill EVE by developing EVE their way, than let any inconvenient realities dictate their development priorities. Most of all CCP building direct and indirect PvP game. I always thought that healthy PvE is good basis for PvP. I will use statistics from your signature:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP... Let's say 20% of players actively PvP (combat). It's around 30k players online now. So about 6k players PvP. Most of new players starts with PvE in hisec, doing missions. It's boring so they don't stay enough time to PvP and leave. Let's assume PvE is fun enough to keep players in the game. Now, percentege of PvPers do not change much, i think it's constant 20%-30% of all players. I think we can assume 100k online with entertaining PvE. 30% from 100k is a fine number.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Nicolai Serkanner
Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. Brave Collective
371
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 09:28:16 -
[844] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Malcanis wrote:
It's a coalition map. Not quite the same.
Compare it to the pre phoebe map.
I'm sorry but if the coalitions don't represent sov, what do they represent? One coalition controls close to 46% of all sov, the other coalitions control about 50% between them. Leaving 4% or removal of existing established alliances for newcomers. As the new sov mechanics favour existing groups, it doesn't leave much room for new comers. As the question was in regard to finding a place in nul where your not just going to get steamrolled, a coalition map showing which groups holds space where, is probably the best way to find relatively safe space.
You are reading the map wrong. The after Phoebe coalition map is far more splintered than the before Phoebe map, which is one of the goals of the sov changes. I would conclude from it CCP is actually right on the mark so far. according reaching their goals. |
Sgt Ocker
Burning Sky Labs
471
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 09:34:26 -
[845] - Quote
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Malcanis wrote:
It's a coalition map. Not quite the same.
Compare it to the pre phoebe map.
I'm sorry but if the coalitions don't represent sov, what do they represent? One coalition controls close to 46% of all sov, the other coalitions control about 50% between them. Leaving 4% or removal of existing established alliances for newcomers. As the new sov mechanics favour existing groups, it doesn't leave much room for new comers. As the question was in regard to finding a place in nul where your not just going to get steamrolled, a coalition map showing which groups holds space where, is probably the best way to find relatively safe space. You are reading the map wrong. The after Phoebe coalition map is far more splintered than the before Phoebe map, which is one of the goals of the sov changes. I would conclude from it CCP is actually right on the mark so far. according reaching their goals. Actually the coalition map that was linked IS the current map..
But by all means, I'd be happy to see where the coalitions are splintered if you'd be prepared to show me. Maybe I missed something among the blobs of solid colour from 1 side of the map to the other.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution The Initiative.
436
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 10:12:01 -
[846] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: I'm sorry but if the coalitions don't represent sov, what do they represent?
One coalition controls close to 46% of all sov, the other coalitions control about 50% between them. Leaving 4% or removal of existing established alliances for newcomers. As the new sov mechanics favour existing groups, it doesn't leave much room for new comers. As the question was in regard to finding a place in nul where your not just going to get steamrolled, a coalition map showing which groups holds space where, is probably the best way to find relatively safe space.
Once NIPs are factored in the coalition map doesn't look so healthy.
That's not to say a lot more stuff isnt happening than before, but then it could hardly have got much worse. Plenty going on in the south nowadays, but nothing of note has happened in the north for years.
My hunch is that we still have the same number of actual players logging in, but with far fewer alts. A lot of people I know have been selling characters.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
Solecist Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
25058
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 10:37:31 -
[847] - Quote
Sheesh I finally realised a NIP is a Non Invasion Pact ! And a NAP is a Non Aggression Pact!
Woohoo !
S.O.L. GANKING4GOOD
Give a man fire and he has it warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he has it warm for the rest of his life.
|
Anthar Thebess
1038
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 10:39:12 -
[848] - Quote
Problem is about getting sometimes to places where new groups can grow. When new group sells itself to a larger organization at the beginning it will determine how they will grow later - more "blue" better.
In order to brake this thing, CCP must do some drastic changes to eve map.
1. New gate connections needs to be made to big NPC spaces that are missing them. - So Venal / Stain even Ore sectors. New groups needs to have possibility to move in and make basic logistics.
2. More connections to Sov space all around the eve. - Connecting some dead end pockets to NPC space will make stuff more interesting , and bigger groups will need to more focus on systems they really want to keep.
3. All systems containing NPC build stations within sov should become NPC systems - after the "citadel" changes those stations should be left alone. - New players will have possibility to keep their assets secure. Without this , big blocks will just wait a week for a new group to move in and then just burn it to the ground.
4. Higsec agents in NPC null space. Standings for local pirate groups is usually wasted for new guys from higsec. It is better to do higsec missions than do belts. Only noobships people get for nothing. Rest cost isk.
5. First character on account should get predefined skill scheme , so new people can actually do something, rather than wait , and wait. When person come to a game it is looking for fun NOW , not after 2-3 months of training.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Solecist Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
25058
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 10:47:35 -
[849] - Quote
"to break this" ... what exactly? Recruitment ?
Good luck with the goons swarming other games ... ... to gather members for their Imperium.
Break this. lol. If small groups want to join the big group ... ... then they should. It's natural and not everyone is destined to own space.
Your ideas are horrible. Predefined skill scheme ... sheesh .........
S.O.L. GANKING4GOOD
Give a man fire and he has it warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he has it warm for the rest of his life.
|
Anthar Thebess
1038
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 11:33:14 -
[850] - Quote
Additionally this game is making more and more expensive. When i started to play eve battleship hull was from 60-80mil. Every where people where using T1 battle cruiser hulls , usually drakes , that where cheaper from battleships. You could lose 5-6 fleet ships and could close your looses easily below 100mil.
Now , T2 on a battlefield is a must. Battleship cost 160-240mil , and meta have shifted heavily to the more expensive faction versions.
Currently loosing a ship cost you around 150mil. How new guys can overcome this barrier without extensive farming.
I really miss times when loosing 10 ships one day could be closed within 200mil and not exceed 1bil.
Give us old battlecruisers , and brake neck of those raising prices. Double or triple amount of minerals you get from mining so miners will not be harmed .
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
|
Solecist Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
25061
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 12:01:05 -
[851] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Additionally this game is making more and more expensive. When i started to play eve battleship hull was from 60-80mil. Every where people where using T1 battle cruiser hulls , usually drakes , that where cheaper from battleships. You could lose 5-6 fleet ships and could close your looses easily below 100mil.
Now , T2 on a battlefield is a must. Battleship cost 160-240mil , and meta have shifted heavily to the more expensive faction versions.
Currently loosing a ship cost you around 150mil. How new guys can overcome this barrier without extensive farming.
I really miss times when loosing 10 ships one day could be closed within 200mil and not exceed 1bil.
Give us old battlecruisers , and brake neck of those raising prices. Double or triple amount of minerals you get from mining so miners will not be harmed . New guys don't belong in battleships. Applying your own screwed perspective is nonsense.
You don't even understand how it works. Prices went up over the years, because there is too much money made too fast and too easily.
That's how it works. People have money and buy ****. Ofc the mineral changes that made most hulls more expensive added to it, but that's a necessity when too many people make too much money in a too easy way.
But in any case, somehow bringing up new players and battleships is nonsense.
S.O.L. GANKING4GOOD
Give a man fire and he has it warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he has it warm for the rest of his life.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
11059
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 12:28:35 -
[852] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Additionally this game is making more and more expensive. When i started to play eve battleship hull was from 60-80mil. Every where people where using T1 battle cruiser hulls , usually drakes , that where cheaper from battleships. You could lose 5-6 fleet ships and could close your looses easily below 100mil.
Now , T2 on a battlefield is a must. Battleship cost 160-240mil , and meta have shifted heavily to the more expensive faction versions.
Currently loosing a ship cost you around 150mil. How new guys can overcome this barrier without extensive farming.
I really miss times when loosing 10 ships one day could be closed within 200mil and not exceed 1bil.
Give us old battlecruisers , and brake neck of those raising prices. Double or triple amount of minerals you get from mining so miners will not be harmed .
What you are forgetting here is that 'new guys' can make WAY more isk now than ever before.
When i started you couldn't jump in to faction warfare (it didn't exist yet) with a Stealth Bomber , Caracal or Drake and within a month have enough isk for a Plex and a Super Carrier. Hell, you couldn't even train for a battleships and tech2 guns for 3-4 months and do incursions (they didn't exist then). And you couldn't make a living in null with a cheap battlecruiser living in a system were anomalies respawned on demand (because before Dominion, there was no such thing).
When i started you were lucky to make it into a null corp for the 'pleasure' of sometimes getting to belt rat or do the odd 'naturally spawning' anomaly in null, which other than the buggy "high sec lvl 5 missions", the only way to make more than the 25-30 mil per hour a lvl 4 mission would pay if you knew what you were doing.
A friends of mine brought his work buddy into the game last year, and we guided him to train into a maelstrom. Hit fit it for incursions and got in with a couple incursion groups that didn't care that his was only a 4 month old character. He up graded from that Maelstrom to a Machariel in Three Days (he bought the mach before he could even fly it, he was still training the Gallente skills needed). It took me 3 months in 2008 to earn enough for my 1st Navy Raven playing every night lol.
Making more money means prices go up.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
11059
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 12:43:47 -
[853] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:0bama Barack ******* wrote: I don't think we have enough data here. Ofc some of players may flown away but number seems to high. At the same time CCP take care of isboxers. Multiple character training was introduced. Part of player base is waiting for sov changes. I think we have to wait till the end of the year with "online players" number.
This is exactly the case (no matter how much ole Chunks tries to twist things around to get CCP to take the fucks off of PVP, DAMn YOU PVP!!! lol).
I have 11 characters across 4 accounts. In the last few months I've played 3-5 of those regularly. I've been thinking of consolidating down to 2 or 3 accounts.
I had 4 accounts because pre-phoebe EVE let me be self sufficient in null if I had enough cyno/scout alts. Fully half my compliment of characters were or started out as cyno alts. A lot of times I'd leave those alts on so I'd have eyes in transit systems where no real people were active (intel channels don't work if no one is in a system lol). I would use alts as "canarys" ie I would turn the sound on and put the alt on a gate and minimize that client, If i heard a gate activation or shield warning I'd know someone was coming lol.
Now being back in high sec while my null corp twitters around sov null shooting people for lulls in a post phoebe environment that made my old null sec base go from 2 jumps from empire to 7, there just isn't any need for as many alts as i have. Some haven't been logged on in weeks now. Add to that CCP virtually killing Isboxing, multiple character training and the rest and the entire landscape of the game has changed.
It has nothing at all to do with CCP not adding more lvl 4 missions for people too lazy and scared of video game loss to go get better content outside of high sec. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23784
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 15:02:18 -
[854] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:(They could just throw in a hundred new Level 4s and calll back mission runners. That would be pretty effective, No it wouldn't, because people will document and publicise the exact actions and makeups of the new missions in a matter of days, just as they have done with every other mission in Eve. 3 or 4 months after introduction a majority of those returning missioners will have left again.
Then you have to take into account the man hours that go into making those missions which could be better spent on fixing all of the stuff that's broken, which incidentally is exactly the course CCP have chosen to take.
Quote:but would go against CCP's corporate culture. Their game, their company, they can take any direction they please. Want more PvE? Go and play a game that concentrates on PvE rather than one which primarily concentrates on PvP where PvE is merely a means to an end.
Quote:Thus CCP will rather let the subscriber numbers sink and kill EVE by developing EVE their way, than let any inconvenient realities dictate their development priorities. Off the top off my head.. Key broadcasting and the like is no longer allowed, multiboxers aren't finding it as easy to make enough money to maintain multiple accounts as they could before. Multiple character training, people no longer have to maintain multiple accounts to train multiple characters simultaneously. Botters and the like are finding it increasingly hard to automate their money making, added to which CCP are actively hunting them down and banning them. CCP knew that the above would result in a loss in subscribed accounts yet they went ahead anyway, they are prepared to sacrifice subscribed accounts to provide better options for the majority of players without allowing people to game the system via unfair advantages provided by automation.
I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing
[quote[The elephant in the room is always optional and neglectable... until it stomps you)[/quote]Your elephant is pink and on parade.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
227
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 15:25:37 -
[855] - Quote
Look at all those marketing and MMO professionals...
There is no easy way to attract and keep new players. Whats better? More PvP or more PvE? As times go by online games and online gamers are changing. The amount ppl who are willing to put a lot of effort into online games is shrinking. The older ones got enough, many of the younger ones have lot of action packed new other toys to play with.
To get more of this shrinking amount of ppl you have to create incentives to lure them in and an interesting atmosphere to keep them. Ramblings about "Fozzie sov",""highsec nerfs", "miner" and carebear hate are counter productive. The first place to meet players would be the forums, but the atmosphere of "pseudo toughness" and "wannabe-aggro" is not attracting at the least.
Fun Fact is, that you meet most of the coolest ppl in game and not here.
"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time."
Forum Main
|
Eve Solecist
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
3085
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 15:28:23 -
[856] - Quote
You yourself add a lot to this atmosphere. Nothing good though.
You are exactly one of those wannabetoughguys.
Freedom is Slavery
ISD Ezwal > And then Ezwal comes along and takes all that space(s) away.
<===== I wished my bra was green as well - 1024x1024
|
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
6598
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 15:44:33 -
[857] - Quote
La Rynx wrote: Whats better? More PvP or more PvE?
In a PVP game, PVP of course.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
11065
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 15:59:41 -
[858] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Their game, their company, they can take any direction they please. Want more PvE? Go and play a game that concentrates on PvE rather than one which primarily concentrates on PvP where PvE is merely a means to an end.
"They" don't want more pve, EVE has plenty and most of it goes under utilized. What they want is for CCP to do for them what CCP has proven they aren't good at: they want to be told an interesting story, and be immersed in it. CCP isn't in the business of that, they are in the business of creating a backdrop in which you MAKE an interesting story that others can partake in. Other companies are WAY better at providing the kind of episodic content these types crave (I play Star Trek Online too and they have actual EPISODES, not to mention "the Foundry" that lets you create your own missions).
No, the fact that what they are looking for is available elsewhere AND the company that makes EVE has a very poor record when it comes to creating such "content" doesn't matter to them, because being realistic isn't a part of their make up.
They are literally like a Vegan who goes into a Steak House (and KNOWS it's a steak house because ti says STEAK HOUSE in huge letters outside, as if the smell of cooked beef wasn't enough of a clue) and then complains about all the dead cow being slung about the place... and why is there no Tofu options on the menu?
...Because it's a freaking STEAK HOUSE that's why. If they didn't like Steak (pvp) why in hell did they chose to walk into a Steak House (EVE Online)? |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23786
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 16:30:11 -
[859] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:"They" don't want more pve, EVE has plenty and most of it goes under utilized. What they want is for CCP to do for them what CCP has proven they aren't good at: they want to be told an interesting story, and be immersed in it. CCP isn't in the business of that, they are in the business of creating a backdrop in which you MAKE an interesting story that others can partake in. I agree especially the last part.
"They" don't get the idea of a sandbox, most other games give a structured story, cast you as a hero, feed you content and give you cookies, all of which are the antithesis of a sandbox.
Eve does none of those things and even steals your cookie then laughs at you for bringing it.
Icanchuck, and the "majority" they claim to represent, fail to recognise that other players are the ones who provide the heroes, the villains, the content and the stories; and that we, the players, can involve others whether they want to participate or not.
The story in Eve is not determined by CCP or the PvE content they provide, it is constantly evolving because it is written by us using the tools we're given.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
658
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 16:38:21 -
[860] - Quote
Solecist Project wrote:Sheesh I finally realised a NIP is a Non Invasion Pact ! And a NAP is a Non Aggression Pact!
Woohoo !
Temporary NAPs used to be ze thing, before formal alliances system, and even for a considerable period afterwards.
NAP in essence is a +10 standing to one-another, and with enough of these you have a... Coalition.
Anyone wants a donut?
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
227
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 16:42:16 -
[861] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:La Rynx wrote: Whats better? More PvP or more PvE?
In a PVP game, PVP of course.
To bad for you: EvE is not just a PvP game.
Eve Solecist wrote:You yourself add a lot to this atmosphere. Nothing good though.
You are exactly one of those wannabetoughguys.
I poked at a direction and you answered. Says a lot.
"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time."
Forum Main
|
Paranoid Loyd
5245
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 16:44:37 -
[862] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Solecist Project wrote:Sheesh I finally realised a NIP is a Non Invasion Pact ! And a NAP is a Non Aggression Pact!
Woohoo ! Temporary NAPs used to be ze thing, before formal alliances system, and even for a considerable period afterwards. NAP in essence is a +10 standing to one-another, and with enough of these you have a... Coalition. Anyone wants a donut? I need a nap, I'm sleepy.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
658
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 16:46:34 -
[863] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Solecist Project wrote:Sheesh I finally realised a NIP is a Non Invasion Pact ! And a NAP is a Non Aggression Pact!
Woohoo ! Temporary NAPs used to be ze thing, before formal alliances system, and even for a considerable period afterwards. NAP in essence is a +10 standing to one-another, and with enough of these you have a... Coalition. Anyone wants a donut? I need a nap, I'm sleepy.
We all are.
A donut, though, perhaps? They're plentiful, crumbly tho, and somewhat salty.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2403
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 16:47:30 -
[864] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:Look at all those marketing and MMO professionals... There is no easy way to attract and keep new players. Whats better? More PvP or more PvE?] PvE and PVP are not inherently separate things. Apocrypha, which is widely considered one of EVEs best expansions introduced wormholes. Wormholes and the stuff in them was essentially just new PVE and industrial content with no specific pvp mechanics associated with it. However because wormhole space is nullsec it provided new opportunities for PVP gameplay.
What I am saying is that good content should provide both PVP and PVE gameplay opportunities. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23786
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 16:55:59 -
[865] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:To bad for you: EvE is not just a PvP game. It may have PvE elements, however 90% of them result in competition with other players, which is in a sense PvP.
So while you're correct at first glance, when you delve into the nuances of it, even the PvE is thinly disguised PvP.
New Player FAQ, page 21. wrote:Furthermore, as we mentioned previously, once you enter New Eden you must consider every action you take as a form of PvP since this is the core game concept. In the asteroid field youGÇÖre competing with other pilots to obtain resources; you may also have to defend against ore thieves. On the market you battle for control of the economy in certain areas; for the supply and demand of your products versus other aspiring tycoons. On the battlefield you may fight for glory, for money, or for the right to rule whole areas of space.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
227
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 17:06:40 -
[866] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:La Rynx wrote:To bad for you: EvE is not just a PvP game. While it may have PvE elements,
Trying to argue the amount of PvE down does not help you, not makes it your argument true. There is a lot of PvE in EvE and its played by a lot of players.
Far more damage is done by missions and faction warfare than by hisec ganking.
CCP has to address both sides. CCP has recognised that and acts according.
"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time."
Forum Main
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23788
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 17:18:36 -
[867] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:La Rynx wrote:To bad for you: EvE is not just a PvP game. While it may have PvE elements, Trying to argue the amount of PvE down does not help you, not makes it your argument true. There is a lot of PvE in EvE and its played by a lot of players. Try reading the rest of it.
PvE only exists in Eve in the broadest sense of the word. The results of PvE generally end up on the market in one form or another, and with a mostly player controlled economy, that is PvP. The fact that you can't see this doesn't make it untrue.
Quote:Far more damage is done by missions and faction warfare than by hisec ganking. The only thing that proves is that people earn money by shooting at red crosses, and a lot of that is done to finance and facilitate PvP. It's a means to an end.
Quote:CCP has to address both sides. CCP has recognised that and acts according. On that I agree but theres a 90% chance it's for different reasons.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
227
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 17:28:48 -
[868] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Try reading the rest of it.
I did not only try, i did. Hint: It is not a question WHY PvE is in EvE, the fact is, that it IS a valid part of EvE.
"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time."
Forum Main
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
23789
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 17:37:21 -
[869] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Try reading the rest of it. I did not only try, i did. Hint: It is not a question WHY PvE is in EvE, the fact is, that it IS a valid part of EvE. Where did I say it wasn't?
Being a source of finance to facilitate other activities makes it practically essential, the fact that some people do it for reasons other than the ones CCP appear to have included it for, doesn't mean that it requires working on to the detriment of the core game concepts.
They tried that already, WiS looked very much to a PvE oriented direction; look how well that went.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1578
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 17:54:14 -
[870] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:They tried that already, WiS looked very much to a PvE oriented direction; look how well that went.
We may never know, as they never delivered it. The CQ is a tech demo.
You need a better simile.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 76 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |