Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 146 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6831
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 22:51:17 -
[1441] - Quote
Adamai wrote:are you aware the game is playable to people if they join one of the power blocks I'm glad to know it's playable... I mean the highsec lifestyle or the moa interceptor gang are both great as well but yeah
I definitely love my life as a block
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
Zozoll Neblyn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 03:31:01 -
[1442] - Quote
Adamai wrote:the problem you have is all the reasons we play eve has been taken by the huge power blocks!!!! now this is not a whine but more of a ! ummm hello ccp are you aware the game is playable to people if they join one of the power blocks.. does this mean anything to you!!! ???? type things..
well what it means to me as a old ceo who gave up on eve for the reasons im about to explain! is that there is no point in buil;ding a corporation of alliance in eve because its impossible to challange any one for space.. and if by any miracle you manage to seize space the nearest major power block takes it from you! and there is nothing you can do about it.. some people will say use diplomacy!!! talk your self a better deal!!! i say thats not good enough.. why should i pay tribute to a null sec coalition in order to use null sec space!!! i might as well remain in empire under no ones rules or laws and make more money and do my own thing with only game mechanics as my restriction!
The game mechanics are set up so that numbers = victory. The only way to unseat one of the blocks would be the build a bigger block and.... that would require more players than currently exist.
In real life, big powerful alliances can be divided and conquered. You can turn members of a nation against other members of the same nation.
The Mafia, for example, actually allows gangs inside their organization to declare war on each other, and kill each other's members, but still remain in good standing with the high level Mafia leadership. It's not "awoxing" when they do that. The gangs declare war on each other formally. But they remain part of the mafia even so.
Medieval France would look the same way. Two powerful lords might square off and have their knights kill one another in a land dispute, even though both lords pay tribute to the king of France and are both considered loyal.
But the game mechanics of Eve only allow simple diplomacy. |
Zozoll Neblyn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 03:35:09 -
[1443] - Quote
So long as you are always forced to choose between staying blue and going Awox or leaving the alliance entirely, the perfect unity of the mega alliances will always be unbreakable.
Add more choices and things might get more chaotic, and we might start seeing interesting results.
Perhaps a few subfactions might emerge among the Goons who conspire to overthrow the overlords? Or break off and become their own swarms? They might even ally with an outside alliance to achieve their goals.
Then outside alliances would be relevant again.
Alavaria Fera wrote:Adamai wrote:are you aware the game is playable to people if they join one of the power blocks I'm glad to know it's playable... I mean the highsec lifestyle or the moa interceptor gang are both great as well but yeah I definitely love my life as a block
That's because you're the type of player who likes to just push an "I win" button.
I'm glad the game works for you. |
Luckytania
Bullets of Justice
36
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 04:41:52 -
[1444] - Quote
Tippia wrote:... The ship skill tiercide effort is the only thing that I can think of that remotely matches the GÇ£good for new players, bad for vetsGÇ¥ description, but again in practice, it was a case of making things more intuitive rather than just easier. The ship prerequisites make far more sense now, and while there are a couple of instances here and there where you can get into a ship sooner than you could before, the thing about ships is that just having the skill itself is not enough GÇö you need all the surrounding support stuff to make it not horrible. So in the end, those changes are so utterly minute that they don't actually make the effort any less in any meaningful way. Rather, it's an impression that you could have picked a different skill path (when the Orca got new prereqs, this was a common complaint) ... Tiercide and ship balancing effort / impacts. I am surprised after reading this thread neither of those were referenced more often.
I did see "Eve is real" quoted. I'm pretty dang sure some of the advertising verbiage which was persuasive to me to start playing was "persistent universe".
Well, I did not find it very persistent when I starting logging on and finding that parts were starting to fall off my goran ship as it was sitting in the hangar. Or if everything was still mounted that a fit which worked last time I undocked would no longer allow all modules to be powered up after I was out in space.
What I would have found persistent was a change such that the original / old production models could no longer be manufactured and any and all balancing impacts took effect only to the new units (name_of_whatever MarkII) coming off the manufacturing line.
- Yes, that would take more time for ship re-balancing to fully take effect since it requires attrition as all the old ones get destroyed in normal usage.
- Yes, the market values of some 'original' models would have gone through the roof. Arguably an 'unfair' profit bonanza for the owners of those "golden oldies".
- Yes, there would have, in some cases, been an 'unfair' advantage from having / using an old production run unit. (Which combined with inflated collector's model pricing would make them more gank attractive.)
- Yes, there would have been a substantial 'price' to pay in complexity for CCP code and database implementation.
To all those complaints my response would essentially be to players "Suck it up. Eve isn't about fair." and to CCP "Suck it up. There are consequences to your actions."
But then Eve would have been a persistent universe.
Tippia wrote:those changes are so utterly minute Most observably they were not, to my game play. In the final analysis as to how the game functions, I can agree. How the changes were implemented, however, was abysmal.
Perhaps, if ship re-balancing has now reached a new stability point, this will all fade away. But to be on-topic, that truly is one of the reasons I haven't been bothering to log on much this last year. |
Zihao
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
38
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 05:05:46 -
[1445] - Quote
I take it from that Firefly-inspire rant there were some ships that were changed in ways you believe hurt old players? Can you elaborate in a more technical way? Feel free to retain the Malcom Reynolds persona. |
Luckytania
Bullets of Justice
36
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 05:12:02 -
[1446] - Quote
Tippia wrote:If a player doesn't enjoy PvP dynamics, then he will not like EVE very much. By saying right out that EVE is a PvP game, he knows what to expect. That is a lot better than dangling some elusive GÇ£PvE contentGÇ¥ (much less the contradictory GÇ£competitive PvEGÇ¥) in front of him, because at the end of the day, the core PvP aspects that come inherent with that content will eventually make him miserable. So that's helpful from the very get-go in filtering the kind of player that might be interested in EVE. I 100% agree with this.
I'm sure probably the majority of this thread would classify me as a care bear. (Even though I and/or one of my alts do have a few kills on the board.) Fight when I have to. Fight when there's a reason. Well, sometimes even used to go roaming looking for trouble.
However, when I started it was a closed universe. If you wanted / needed to buy something you had to earn your ISK. I liked the idea that a war could not be waged unless the parties each had a sufficient economy in place to support the expense. Something which drew me into the game - TANSTAFL. "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
Part of the frisson to properly being a "care bear" is fully internalizing the standard phrase "Don't undock in what you're not prepared to lose." I've spent many an hour in roid and ice belts - but always with one eye over my shoulder. And always with an acute awareness of "How tilted is this fit to ISK/hour versus defense?".
And always with an awareness that eventually, no matter how safe you try to be, someday "they're gonna get you."
IMO, PLEX is a plaque on the game. I've encountered far too many people who just drop real world money to buy 'whatever' because they don't want to pay the dues / earn it by playing the game to do what they just "I wanna! Now!".
I've seen several comments in this thread about the need to "add more risk" to 'PvE' to make it more exiting. I tend to agree. But only on a level playing field.
If you want to gank, fine. But you better make a profit or you won't be doing it long. Or you better be prepared to haul that Veldspar, boy, to pay for your next gank attempt. ("No money for gas, no driving Papa's car this weekend.") |
Luckytania
Bullets of Justice
36
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 05:22:22 -
[1447] - Quote
Zihao wrote:I take it from that Firefly-inspire rant there were some ships that were changed in ways you believe hurt old players? Can you elaborate in a more technical way? Feel free to retain the Malcom Reynolds persona. Actually, no, that wasn't part of my intended point at all.
As I thought I made fairly plain: " In the final analysis as to how the game functions, I can agree. "
My rant was all about *how* it was done. With no statements about what I might, or might not, have felt was done for the better or worse.
"Persistent" was my point.
In a 'persistent' world, when I leave the car in the garage on Friday night I don't have to check that all the parts are still bolted on Monday morning when I need to take it out to do some work.
But I fully understand that it probably won't be possible to have in dash GPS on my 1956 Chevy. Have to buy a new model to get the new features. (Or, perhaps a better analogy, my early 1970's Corvette doesn't become gelded into a lower powered 1980's model.)
What I *own*, what is physically in the garage, does not change its characteristics while I am not watching. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2452
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 05:30:07 -
[1448] - Quote
Except for game balance things HAVE to change. Since otherwise the oldies get all the advantages. Not just 90% of them like they did due to the mineral changes. So, HTFU, deal with it. Every MMO changes for balance. And CCP didn't just delete the OP items so be glad. |
Luckytania
Bullets of Justice
36
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 05:39:42 -
[1449] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Except for game balance things HAVE to change. Since otherwise the oldies get all the advantages. Seems to me I addressed that frame of, almost, thought.
Nevyn Auscent wrote:So, HTFU, deal with it. ... so be glad. What a productive response to a thread discussing a declining player base. |
Malt Zedong
WorldTradersGuild.Com
40
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 05:43:22 -
[1450] - Quote
It is very different to dislike pvp and to dislike the pvpers.
WorldTradersGuild.Com [WTG] - We are here for the long haul.
|
|
Zihao
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
38
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 06:34:18 -
[1451] - Quote
Luckytania wrote:Zihao wrote:I take it from that Firefly-inspire rant there were some ships that were changed in ways you believe hurt old players? Can you elaborate in a more technical way? Feel free to retain the Malcom Reynolds persona. Actually, no, that wasn't part of my intended point at all. As I thought I made fairly plain: " In the final analysis as to how the game functions, I can agree. " My rant was all about *how* it was done. With no statements about what I might, or might not, have felt was done for the better or worse. "Persistent" was my point. In a 'persistent' world, when I leave the car in the garage on Friday night I don't have to check that all the parts are still bolted on Monday morning when I need to take it out to do some work. But I fully understand that it probably won't be possible to have in dash GPS on my 1956 Chevy. Have to buy a new model to get the new features. (Or, perhaps a better analogy, my early 1970's Corvette doesn't become gelded into a lower powered 1980's model.) What I *own*, what is physically in the garage, does not change its characteristics while I am not watching.
What's rigid continuity have at all to do with the specific item you quoted previously about changes negatively impacting veteran players in particular? It's not as though all veteran players have a massive stock of old depreciated assets and it's entirely possible for a new player to get his hands on a whole lot of something right before a change to the game impacts its utility. Perhaps you have an anecdotal example in mind?
|
Mir Jana
Copper Serpents
8
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 06:39:22 -
[1452] - Quote
Well, from my perspective, following things do need a slight change to keep people from leaving or at least to keep people interested in playing EVE.
EVE-wise:
1) Risk vs reward - increase the risk and lower the rewards. Even if I rat in empire space with a 60m sp toon, I can make 100m per day just from the faction spawns and anomaly loot. Im not even considering the incursions as I never ran them and consider it being a foul stench which kinda ruined the beauty of hi sec.
2) Moons need to deplete resources - Alliances claim space and hold it, increasing in numbers during the time of stagnation. "Re-spawnable" moons call for more drastic action like uproot and conquest.
3) Kill the damn jump bridges - It was fun as hell when you had roams in 0.0 space to kill the parties which tried to move from one system to another. Carriers did the hauling. Not to mention that if you were a leech ratter, you could make tons of isk AND you would only claim that isk if you managed to bring it to hi sec for sales.
4) Exploration - this needs to be redone as you can make insane amounts of isk with no risk at all.
5) Missions in hi sec - you cannot make as much money as you used to, but you can still make a nice batch of isk. However you would maybe have to alter the amount of times you do a mission rather then decrease the drop rates, as done in one of the previous patches. Limit mission types in form of allowing 1 mission every 24 hours. So you don't get extravaganza 2-3 times per day. Once you do all the missions for that single day, you have to wait 24 hours before going for the next mission set.
6) Limit losses in hi sec to haulers - was more fond of the low sec bs camping and low sec piracy then this hi sec gankerton stuff. Not fun, its just stale. Sooner or later, it will come to a point where catalysts will start to pop empty haulers just for the sake of tears. Limit it by not allowing
7) Dont disclose stuff you introduce to EVE - whats the point of saying "Hey people, we are giving you this and that, its ******* hard and awesome, but heres how you can properly solo it...."
Player wise:
1) Figure out if you wanna be a CEO or follower - cant be both
2) Be nice to people who are in your corp - why all the screaming and yelling??? I understand you, CEO or FC, were molested as children or are unhappy with your current RL situation, but no need to take it out on your corp mates. I understand the hormones are kicking off for the younger studs, but a 25-40 year old fellow dont appreciate it if you, the 18 year old hairless dude, yells at him on ts.
3) Full API checks aint worth it - we now have illegal fire, we had the ability to limit hanger thefts, there are out of game websites where you can check up the character involved in the recruitment process. So no point in asking for an API as chances are 50/50 that the newcomer is a spy. Corporation asks for disclosure of assets, skills and contacts and in 99% we really dont want others digging up through our garbage. Either dont ask for it or CEO has to disclose his full api as well. The Full Monty from both sides. "You want to trust me? Well, I want to trust you." :)
4) Corp access - You will get robbed, whether you like it or not. Either will you lose assets, which can be compensated with more play or you will lose members/quality gameplay, simply because you decided not to put out. However, you can get to decide what are you willing to let the thief take. Same principle like in pvp. Hand out what you are willing to lose.
5) If miners wanna mine in 0.0, then dont force them into pvp. Unless sov is under attack (which aint happened on a global scale since BoB died). Same goes for ratters. Most corps charge their guys 5-15%.
6) Overall recruitment attitude - Why lie about your corp? Dont sell your corp as something it aint. If you are small, you dont offer much but saying you do will only get you a 100m sp player who will get pissed off and leave after a few days.
Those would be some of my points, confident that they dont agree with the views of most :)
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25940
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 06:53:59 -
[1453] - Quote
Kinete Jenius wrote:Yeah the "summer of rage" over the internal greed is good memo and all the other stuff surely had nothing to do with the number drop during Incarna (which came months after the 3rd and last incursion release patch). What makes you think that?
Quote:Nope the problem clearly was only that damned PVE you want nerfed/removed so badly. Who are you even talking to?
Quote:For having been killed by a PVE expansion eve had awesome numbers on average till 2014. Exactly, so the sharp decline from Incursion can't really be attributed to the game hitting its peak and having chewed through all its customer base.
Quote:I could also match up the drops to the releases of popular games that were free or highly popular but that clearly couldn't have any effect right? They did have an effect, most notably the dip that happened right before the release of Crucible, and which put a dent in what looked like a cautious recovery in response to the promises of a refocused dev effort. It happens almost every year.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Zihao
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
38
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 07:04:20 -
[1454] - Quote
Mir Jana wrote: Those would be some of my points, confident that they dont agree with the views of most :)
That succinct description of exploration as risk-free and lucrative leads me to believe you've never taken part in it. :) |
Mir Jana
Copper Serpents
8
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 07:27:15 -
[1455] - Quote
went to providence, scanned down relics, made a fortune on salvage and sansha tower bpcs |
Zihao
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
38
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 07:29:31 -
[1456] - Quote
Ah yes, Providence. A region recently known far and wide for it's lack of risk. |
Mir Jana
Copper Serpents
8
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 07:34:33 -
[1457] - Quote
ok, lemme rephrase :)
went to Curse, done relics, made a fortune on domination bpcs went to Deklein, done relics and 6/10s, made a fortune on dread bpcs and faction loot
|
Zihao
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
39
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 07:43:25 -
[1458] - Quote
Clearly you should write a guide to this. You've found a way to beat the RNG and simultaneously avoid any risk in some of the most dangerous regions of the game. |
Zozoll Neblyn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 12:10:14 -
[1459] - Quote
Luckytania wrote: Tiercide and ship balancing effort / impacts. I am surprised after reading this thread neither of those were referenced more often.
I did see "Eve is real" quoted. I'm pretty dang sure some of the advertising verbiage which was persuasive to me to start playing was "persistent universe".
Well, I did not find it very persistent when I starting logging on and finding that parts were starting to fall off my goran ship as it was sitting in the hangar. Or if everything was still mounted that a fit which worked last time I undocked would no longer allow all modules to be powered up after I was out in space.
What I would have found persistent was a change such that the original / old production models could no longer be manufactured and any and all balancing impacts took effect only to the new units (name_of_whatever MarkII) coming off the manufacturing line.
Yeah. That does kind of break the immersion. Makes it all feel less real.
Same goes for Jump Fatigue. There is no in game explanation for why the physics of space itself changed everywhere, and all at once.
Quote:
Perhaps, if ship re-balancing has now reached a new stability point, this will all fade away. But to be on-topic, that truly is one of the reasons I haven't been bothering to log on much this last year.
I wish that ship rebalancing didn't always take the form of a nerf. |
VaL Iscariot
The Concilium Enterprises The Volition Cult
76
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 13:08:48 -
[1460] - Quote
maybe OP should follow the trend and unsub. Can i have your stuff? |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6831
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 15:08:48 -
[1461] - Quote
Zozoll Neblyn wrote:So long as you are always forced to choose between staying blue and going Awox or leaving the alliance entirely, the perfect unity of the mega alliances will always be unbreakable.
Add more choices and things might get more chaotic, and we might start seeing interesting results.
Perhaps a few subfactions might emerge among the Goons who conspire to overthrow the overlords? Or break off and become their own swarms? They might even ally with an outside alliance to achieve their goals.
Then outside alliances would be relevant again. Yeah that's what they said about siphons.
Zozoll Neblyn wrote:That's because you're the type of player who likes to just push an "I win" button.
I'm glad the game works for you. I can't brag too much, Boat does a lot of button pushing that is more important. But at least if the bomb goes off I can get on killmails.
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
550
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 17:10:43 -
[1462] - Quote
For major changes, (talking the above persistence), I actually would have liked ship revisions. Only current on market, old in contracts. BPs and in productions get auto revised. Yeah, sucks a bit more for database potentially, but boy would it be fun. The YC114 year of drake or something. Would be pretty neat.... Rofl... Even keep old model. I would love to fly zombie moa still.
The bits about breaking alliances and blues, best way for that is with a better infrastructure plan. More active maintenance and resource zoning a bit more valued?
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Zozoll Neblyn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 22:45:49 -
[1463] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Zozoll Neblyn wrote:So long as you are always forced to choose between staying blue and going Awox or leaving the alliance entirely, the perfect unity of the mega alliances will always be unbreakable.
Add more choices and things might get more chaotic, and we might start seeing interesting results.
Perhaps a few subfactions might emerge among the Goons who conspire to overthrow the overlords? Or break off and become their own swarms? They might even ally with an outside alliance to achieve their goals.
Then outside alliances would be relevant again. Yeah that's what they said about siphons.
I actually found an old thread about them here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=295140
If increased diplomacy options didn't break them outright (and it probably wouldn't), it would still make the game more interesting.
The Mafia doesn't break up due to the ability of smaller gangs inside the mafia to go to war with each other. That feature does weaken it slightly. But more important than that: it makes their situation interesting!!!!
If your corporation gets accepted into the Goon alliance, the null game is over for you. I mean, it's not over in a bad way exactly. It's over because you've won!!!! You're now part of the winning alliance!! They should roll credits or something, because you've beaten the game of Eve once and for all.
But if there were more diplomacy options, then joining the Goons wouldn't be the end. Now you've still got to worry about another corporation in the alliance war dec'ing you. Even if you were one of the top ones in the alliance with a lot of 100 mil sp players, a combination of smaller corps within the alliance might gather and war dec, just to overthrow you or take some of your territory.
If goons can fight goons, null will stay interesting forever.
The trouble with superalliances right now is it creates a situation that is too safe. And you're never supposed to be too safe in Eve. That's the game's appeal. |
Zozoll Neblyn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 01:28:40 -
[1464] - Quote
I guess the word is "power struggle". It would be great if the super alliances were capable of having internal power struggles.
Somewhat similar in a way to what we see in the empires. Like the Khanid breaking off from the Amarr, and then all kinds of internal and external intrigue over who rules what, where, when and how. But among groups that all consider themselves part of the Amarr empire.
Huge alliances should be like that. It shouldn't be as simple as going blue, and then they're permanently friended, and everybody in the alliance joins hands with every other member of the alliance and sings "Kumbaya" |
Gallowmere Rorschach
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
1168
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 02:52:59 -
[1465] - Quote
Zozoll Neblyn wrote:I guess the word is "power struggle". It would be great if the super alliances were capable of having internal power struggles.
Somewhat similar in a way to what we see in the empires. Like the Khanid breaking off from the Amarr, and then all kinds of internal and external intrigue over who rules what, where, when and how. But among groups that all consider themselves part of the Amarr empire.
Huge alliances should be like that. It shouldn't be as simple as going blue, and then they're permanently friended, and everybody in the alliance joins hands with every other member of the alliance and sings "Kumbaya" This already happens. Look at what just happened with Black Legion. The only thing keeping us (in The Imperium) from shooting each other, is not wanting to shoot each other. Setting someone to blue doesn't mean that my guns suddenly don't work on them. If some charismatic guy, with enough pull with the players , wanted to start an uprising against Mittens and our current directorate, the only thing stopping them would be, well, them. Oh, and that whole getting utterly annihilated by those who like the current leadership thing. |
Zozoll Neblyn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 04:02:24 -
[1466] - Quote
Are you really trying to suggest that adding options would be a bad thing for a sandbox MMO?
Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: The only thing keeping us (in The Imperium) from shooting each other, is not wanting to shoot each other. Setting someone to blue doesn't mean that my guns suddenly don't work on them.
It means the killboards will show blue on blue. Which really screws up a corporation's reputation.
Quote:If some charismatic guy, with enough pull with the players , wanted to start an uprising against Mittens and our current directorate, the only thing stopping them would be, well, them. Oh, and that whole getting utterly annihilated by those who like the current leadership thing.
And dropping alliance so you can form another alliance, so your people will know who to shoot and who not to shoot.
Getting them all to make a leap they can't (very likely) ever go back from (unless you think the main alliance would take them back afterward), and do so all at once so Mittens doesn't see it happening early enough to take action.
It might be possible, but it would certainly be clumbsy, and a pain to pull off. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
39943
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 04:11:52 -
[1467] - Quote
Zozoll Neblyn wrote:It means the killboards will show blue on blue. Which really screws up a corporation's reputation. Yeah Goons better be careful. They have to protect their reputation after all.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Zozoll Neblyn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 04:17:52 -
[1468] - Quote
Sorry about that. I edited something before I saw you'd posted.
Individual goons who ever plan to do anything else with their charcters probably should avoid Awoxing, yes. |
Yang Aurilen
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
847
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 04:32:16 -
[1469] - Quote
Zozoll Neblyn wrote:Are you really trying to suggest that adding options would be a bad thing for a sandbox MMO? Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: The only thing keeping us (in The Imperium) from shooting each other, is not wanting to shoot each other. Setting someone to blue doesn't mean that my guns suddenly don't work on them.
It means the killboards will show blue on blue. Which really screws up a corporation's reputation. Quote:If some charismatic guy, with enough pull with the players , wanted to start an uprising against Mittens and our current directorate, the only thing stopping them would be, well, them. Oh, and that whole getting utterly annihilated by those who like the current leadership thing. And dropping alliance so you can form another alliance, so your people will know who to shoot and who not to shoot. (Unless you think the whole thing will be over in one day or something, so it suffices to simply form a fleet of Awoxers - who will have Awoxing on their reputation from then on) Getting them all to make a leap they can't (very likely) ever go back from (unless you think the main alliance would take them back afterward), and do so all at once so Mittens doesn't see it happening early enough to take action. It might be possible, but it would certainly be clumbsy, and a pain to pull off.
Don't goons(and heck CFC/imperium) have a day where they shoot blues like it's some kind of national holiday? I even remember one of the FC's getting podded by his fleet members after kicking another blue fleet's ass and then subsequently losing FC V or something like that.
Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
|
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
4078
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 11:21:49 -
[1470] - Quote
Jsut a new piece of data:
Average accounts per player, as provided by CCP Quant
I guess everyone would expect to see a dip in average accounts per player since players are consolidating their accounts by moving alts to their main accounts for multiple character training. Also, the amount of accounts closed by multiboxers after the banning of input broadcasting should have an impact on the average accounts per player.
Both are common theories on why PCU is low in 2015 (same players, but they have less accounts), and now these theories are denied by how average accounts per player isn't dwindling, rather it keeps increasing.
Over time, players have more accounts per player. And yet PCU is lower. Maybe, you know, the reason is that less players play the game...?
That's not totally bad in itself: we can argue easily that players are giving more money to CCP so the dip in player activity doesn't equates a similar dip in company revenue.
Where things get murky is on "why" people give money to CCP. CCP is delaying/bypassing the attention to the vast majority who aren't well retained and they're focusing on highly retentive activities which are being hurt since less an less people play. Meanwhile the elephant in the room (most people pay CCP to play the game in wrong ways) looms on the future of the game as that people are not just being let to go, but EVE's ability to attract them is dwindling and facing competition.
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...
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 146 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |