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
6836
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 15:56:22 -
[1681] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: If Eve becomes watered down to the extent that it appeals to all and sundry, where do those of us who don't want to play games that pander to the mass market go? Once all the systems have been conquered by the evil [MSMKT] alliance, there's only the ability to accept whatever the NPCs will give us.
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!!
|
ImYourMom
Republic University Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 17:17:38 -
[1682] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:lilol' me wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:lilol' me wrote:I should be playing another game because I clearly don't like this one FTFY your face is ugly and i shouldnt play this game because people like you are in it.. people that disagree with everythng, dont want change and happy to screw it up for everyone else...quote that.. Au contraire, I don't disagree with everything, nor am I afraid of change. I disagree with you, and people like you, and the kind of changes that you propose because I perceive them to be ill conceived and detrimental; that is not everything, nor is it everybody. I play Eve for the reasons that many people shy away from it. If Eve becomes watered down to the extent that it appeals to all and sundry, where do those of us who don't want to play games that pander to the mass market go?
Change is happening, and for the good. Adapt or die, htfu, it is long overdue, it is not about you, don't let the door hit you on the way out and all that jazz |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25024
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 17:29:20 -
[1683] - Quote
ImYourMom wrote:Change is happening, and for the good That's debatable but you're entitled to your opinion.
Quote:Adapt or die, htfu, it is long overdue, it is not about you, don't let the door hit you on the way out and all that jazz This applies as much to those trying to change Eve into something it was never intended to be as it does to those trying to keep it true to its origins.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
556
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 17:55:24 -
[1684] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:This applies as much to those trying to change Eve into something it was never intended to be as it does to those trying to keep it true to its origins.
Funny part is, most of the serious and supported requests ask to make it harder/challenging without changing current demographic for said task but we get dumbed down version instead.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
557
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 18:00:52 -
[1685] - Quote
That last bunch of comments got me thinking. I have seen this before in another game...
Spore
A potentially groundbreaking game and engine ruined by some people forcing it to be their image instead of the gaming community that is most interested. Spore by far is a prime example of need to balance target and concept to an encompassing design.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Aquilan Aideron
University of Caille Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 18:08:51 -
[1686] - Quote
Also, highsec ganking needs to go, or at least be tweaked.
Highsec is the heart of civilized space. How in the world can imperial installations such as space stations lend support to criminals who are killing citizens?
Gankers should have no access at all to space stations or jump gates and shouldnt be allowed to roam freely. Change it so that they can temporarily infiltrate regions by hacking jumpgates or somesuch. |
Sugar Smacks
State War Academy Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 18:16:05 -
[1687] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Sugar Smacks wrote:I p
Oh and PVP needs PVE otherwise they will never be able to find certain drops that are specific to PVE. But saying PVE needs PVP is laughable, i could make my own ammo, my own ship, my own whatever and still PVE without you. You misunderstand. PvE needs PvP, in the sense that all PvE needs to include player competition and conflict (PvP). PvP can take many forms, only one of which is combat. A) Because EVE is fundamentally a PvP environment. B) Because PvE without player competition and conflict will inevitably become tedious and boring. Players are dynamic, produce content and are the key to implementing risk/competition and conflict.
Again you are stating PVE NEEDS PVP, which is false, it does not. PVP can occur during PVE but it doesn't NEED it, if you are going to make such a broad statement back it up. But you can't because its a lie.
CCP takes and takes from highsec PVE people, the most recent take was standings. How can you keep taking from one group to appease the others, then not expect that group to get mad or leave?
You really think burner missions are some great addition everyone wants to do? Maybe you should go ask CCP how often those burner missions get accepted, I can guarantee the number is low.
The fact is they pretty much are slowly screwing PVE people, then acting all surprised when they quit.
If you worked on something for years like Standings then the people in charge come in and basically say all the work you did for years is now meaningless and everyone gets it for nothing, then how would you feel? Congrats you now feel like a former EVE player. |
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
558
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 18:23:47 -
[1688] - Quote
Aquilan Aideron wrote:Also, highsec ganking needs to go, or at least be tweaked.
Highsec is the heart of civilized space. How in the world can imperial installations such as space stations lend support to criminals who are killing citizens?
Gankers should have no access at all to space stations or jump gates and shouldnt be allowed to roam freely. Change it so that they can temporarily infiltrate regions by hacking jumpgates or somesuch.
Well, there is an example of different views and a different way to approach the gank. I am a firm believer in the tweak. In fact, if done right, the ganking could enhance Eve.
The biggest thing is that security standing really has to be longer lasting and harder to fix. First thing I would remove are tags for sec status.
Second is how to get security. Lowsec agents need special lowsec missions centered around negative standing players trying to get highsec access back. So you get sec, but burn your pirate standings big time. Other way to get sec? Sec needs to be earned by killing lowsec people. Standings gain based on isk destroyed. Standing loss based on isk destroyed.
This means that if a person is just shooting people with rookie ships, misdemeanor. Since is based on kills and losses, a person cannot just rotate alts really since would need to lose more than destroyed. Destroyed including lootable items.
The pirate standings work on another means. I think there could be a way to avoid concord, and only one way. Pirate gates.
So this makes it interesting, you are limited on how to get into highsec, but can commit criminal activities. If you use a gate, concord is probably going to camp it after, also burning the gate. To fix your sec, you are gonna burn pirate agents making such criminal activities extremely diffcult.
Result? We have ganks, but if you are a ganker, probably going to be one for life. It becomes a long term playstyle and work to be able to be a highsec criminal. Not a weekend hobby.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
558
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 18:27:13 -
[1689] - Quote
Sugar Smacks wrote: You really think burner missions are some great addition everyone wants to do? Maybe you should go ask CCP how often those burner missions get accepted, I can guarantee the number is low.
I don't do them. What is the point? It is meta rock paper scissors. The PvE isn't actually a challenge. Read the statement, spend more than the reward on a counter-fit ship, and have a quick faux frig pvp match. Booooorrrriiiiinnnnnggggg. Nah, I would rather run old missions which have at least something called... fun? Scripted missioning never works. Burners are about as script as can get. One enemy, and we tell you EVERYTHING about it.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26002
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 18:34:51 -
[1690] - Quote
Aquilan Aideron wrote:Also, highsec ganking needs to go, or at least be tweaked.
Highsec is the heart of civilized space. How in the world can imperial installations such as space stations lend support to criminals who are killing citizens?
Gankers should have no access at all to space stations or jump gates and shouldnt be allowed to roam freely. Change it so that they can temporarily infiltrate regions by hacking jumpgates or somesuch. It really doesn't. Ganking is what creates any sense of risk to highsec, and without that risk, highsec would have to go or be tweaked to offer a pittance of what is currently available. The empires lend support because they're not criminals to citizens GÇö only to other capsuleers, who aren't even human any more. They leave enforcement of intra-capsuleer conflict to CONCORD and wisely stay out of it beyond that.
Now, if you actually do start killing empire citizens, they also already do take umbrage, but since they're limited to their navies, it's an annoyance at best GÇö hence why staying out is the wiser choice.
Gankers should have access to the space stations for the same reason everyone else have access to them. It is up to players to force players out if they feel those players shouldn't be there, and all the necessary mechanisms and mechanics are in place to let players do just that. So if gankers have access, it's because the players have decided that they should and allowed them.
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.
|
|
Arthur Hannigen
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 18:56:37 -
[1691] - Quote
In my opinion CCP needs to dedicate much of its resources on improving the PVE experience. At this point it is too stale and outdated. And this won't make me popular with the hardcore types, but CCP needs to think about content for solo or lone-wolf players as well. Eve is now on its way to the end line. Now is the time to act, CCP. |
Salvos Rhoska
1391
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 19:02:31 -
[1692] - Quote
Sugar Smacks wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Sugar Smacks wrote:I p
Oh and PVP needs PVE otherwise they will never be able to find certain drops that are specific to PVE. But saying PVE needs PVP is laughable, i could make my own ammo, my own ship, my own whatever and still PVE without you. You misunderstand. PvE needs PvP, in the sense that all PvE needs to include player competition and conflict (PvP). PvP can take many forms, only one of which is combat. A) Because EVE is fundamentally a PvP environment. B) Because PvE without player competition and conflict will inevitably become tedious and boring. Players are dynamic, produce content and are the key to implementing risk/competition and conflict. Again you are stating PVE NEEDS PVP, which is false, it does not.
Again, you have misunderstood my point.
You are applying a too narrow definition of PvP to only include combat.
PvP means competition and conflict with players. That can take many forms. For example, Trading is a form of pvp, and involves no combat.
Confusing the meanings of PvE and PvP has become commonplace, due to the compartmentalisation and separation of the two in many other games.
In EVE, they are integrated into each other, and into the whole.
All PvE MUST include elements of PvP, as player competition and conflict (whether combat or otherwise).
------------
|
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
4092
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 19:15:44 -
[1693] - Quote
Sugar Smacks wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Sugar Smacks wrote:I p
Oh and PVP needs PVE otherwise they will never be able to find certain drops that are specific to PVE. But saying PVE needs PVP is laughable, i could make my own ammo, my own ship, my own whatever and still PVE without you. You misunderstand. PvE needs PvP, in the sense that all PvE needs to include player competition and conflict (PvP). PvP can take many forms, only one of which is combat. A) Because EVE is fundamentally a PvP environment. B) Because PvE without player competition and conflict will inevitably become tedious and boring. Players are dynamic, produce content and are the key to implementing risk/competition and conflict. Again you are stating PVE NEEDS PVP, which is false, it does not. PVP can occur during PVE but it doesn't NEED it, if you are going to make such a broad statement back it up. But you can't because its a lie. CCP takes and takes from highsec PVE people, the most recent take was standings. How can you keep taking from one group to appease the others, then not expect that group to get mad or leave? You really think burner missions are some great addition everyone wants to do? Maybe you should go ask CCP how often those burner missions get accepted, I can guarantee the number is low. The fact is they pretty much are slowly screwing PVE people, then acting all surprised when they quit. If you worked on something for years like Standings then the people in charge come in and basically say all the work you did for years is now meaningless and everyone gets it for nothing, then how would you feel? Congrats you now feel like a former EVE player.
Oh yes, "what has CCP done for high sec"? Burner missions! So fun and successful, that it's not unusual to be offered 3 or 4 in a row. My personal record is rejecting 6 Burner missions one next to other; I felt like I had been cheating that agent with his special one...
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...
|
Sugar Smacks
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 19:46:25 -
[1694] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Sugar Smacks wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Sugar Smacks wrote:I p
Oh and PVP needs PVE otherwise they will never be able to find certain drops that are specific to PVE. But saying PVE needs PVP is laughable, i could make my own ammo, my own ship, my own whatever and still PVE without you. You misunderstand. PvE needs PvP, in the sense that all PvE needs to include player competition and conflict (PvP). PvP can take many forms, only one of which is combat. A) Because EVE is fundamentally a PvP environment. B) Because PvE without player competition and conflict will inevitably become tedious and boring. Players are dynamic, produce content and are the key to implementing risk/competition and conflict. Again you are stating PVE NEEDS PVP, which is false, it does not. Again, you have misunderstood my point. You are applying a too narrow definition of PvP to only include combat. PvP means competition and conflict with players. That can take many forms. For example, Trading is a form of pvp, and involves no combat. Confusing the meanings of PvE and PvP has become commonplace, due to the compartmentalisation and separation of the two in many other games. In EVE, they are integrated into each other, and into the whole. All PvE MUST include elements of PvP, as player competition and conflict (whether combat or otherwise).
Sure you can call market trading pvp, i wont disagree with that.
But if i go in to a station, accept a mission, then go complete it where is the pvp? As i have said already i can just create my own ship and ammo therefore avoiding that "pvp".
There isn''t going to be another person doing PVE in the mission i went and did. Sure its possible for someone to scan down and try to interfere and go flashy, but if i ignore them, nothing changes unless there is something critical to loot.
There is no forced PVP like the perception your trying to force on people, they are doing PVE and thats it, and if they did it everyday, you could say they never PVP'd and didn't ever need to.
PVP needs PVE PVE doesn't need PVP |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6788
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 19:56:12 -
[1695] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:*Usual attempts to dance around personal attacks* Yes yes, I get it. The problem is me, not that when you repeat back to me what you believe I've said that it's entirely wrong much of the time, or that you misrepresent my views to others constantly.
And the number of players online is the best link to the size of playerbase we have since CCP stopped posting their figures. It may not be spot on, but a massively shrinking online user count is unlikely be to good news.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Anslo
Scope Works Dead Terrorists
32164
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 20:58:19 -
[1696] - Quote
3-4 pages of forum warrioring since my initial post. All that energy coulda been used to make content in Eve. But not, let us complain about the lack of content and Eve dying instead, surely this is better!
Dweebs.
[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
11708
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 21:02:29 -
[1697] - Quote
Anslo wrote:3-4 pages of forum warrioring since my initial post. All that energy coulda been used to make content in Eve. But not, let us complain about the lack of content and Eve dying instead, surely this is better!
Dweebs. Shu....actually yeah, you're still right.
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
559
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 21:27:27 -
[1698] - Quote
Anslo wrote:3-4 pages of forum warrioring since my initial post. All that energy coulda been used to make content in Eve. But not, let us complain about the lack of content and Eve dying instead, surely this is better!
Dweebs.
I make solo content in eve. More content in exploration PvE than in blueball PvP
It is better. Ccp hopefully sees ideas and discusses, eve=more fun.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6836
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 21:48:17 -
[1699] - Quote
Anslo wrote:3-4 pages of forum warrioring since my initial post. All that energy coulda been used to make content in Eve. But not, let us complain about the lack of content and Eve dying instead, surely this is better! naah it takes a lot more to get anywhere on f&i
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!!
|
Salvos Rhoska
1391
|
Posted - 2015.09.09 21:55:58 -
[1700] - Quote
What does the term PvP mean to you?
------------
|
|
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
910
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 02:48:08 -
[1701] - Quote
Sugar Smacks wrote: If you worked on something for years like Standings then the people in charge come in and basically say all the work you did for years is now meaningless and everyone gets it for nothing, then how would you feel? Congrats you now feel like a former EVE player.
What did they take from you via changes to standings? Mission runners still benefit from high standings, they unlock higher missions and they give you higher mission rewards from agents. The higher your standings the more you can afford to reject lower quality missions as well. Plenty purpose left in standings for mission runners.
Standings aren't needed for jump clones anymore, but jump clones are not specific to mission running. Jump clones are probably more likely to be used by people wanting to do PVP. So now someone who doesn't run missions makes a jump clone... why do you care? What difference is it to you? It has no effect on your PvE.
Standings aren't needed to anchor a POS anymore, but again, that is not mission related. CCP has simply allowed PVPers and industrialists to have access to things related to their preferred activities, without continuing to force them to do an unrelated activity (run missions). If anything, perhaps there are slightly fewer people running missions now, since you aren't forced to do them for unrelated things anymore. And because of this, it stands to reason there could be a slight decrease in LP injection into the economy, a benefit to mission runners.
Sugar Smacks wrote: You really think burner missions are some great addition everyone wants to do? Maybe you should go ask CCP how often those burner missions get accepted, I can guarantee the number is low.
Actually I've been seeing quite a lot of burner wrecks on dscan, in the systems I've been frequenting lately (around Hek). Burner missions do seem kind of hacked together to me though, and not really improving the game's PvE. I've read mission runners talking about how great they are for farming LP though. *shrug*
|
Jegrey Dozer
Illustrative Illusionists
53
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 04:42:03 -
[1702] - Quote
Drop in numbers is a non issue. CCP just needs to reduce skill training time and throw up more adds. Ta da... A bunch of new people with higher retention rate.
In my opinion, bitter vets need to get off the high horse and realize that your training time isn't proportional with retaining higher quality players. It just annoys the hell out of new subs because they have to pay 15 a month for 2 years to not suck in this game.
Now, some of you read that last sentence and already shut down my argument in their head. Before you furiously refute that statement and then suffer a panic attack, wipe the foam from your mouth and understand that every EvE player and their mother knows that you can be effective within a few months and be competitive. BUT NEW PLAYERS DO NOT SEE IT THAT WAY. There's a reason why flash games congratulate you every 5 seconds when you do something mundane. There's a reason why casinos have bells and whistles every time you pull a slot machine handle. There's a reason why CCP added the holding-a-newbs-hand Opportunities notification system. If the psychology behind the carrot on the stick needs to be broken down to you, carry on with your flaming of my post.
We need to stop dissuading players from keeping their subs active because we tell them with excruciating detail the exact length of time they need to train in order to have a fully effective character.
I have experienced this phenomenon of new players quitting time and time again. Only one of my 4 friends that I convinced to make trial accounts actually subbed. He then stopped playing because "there's no point." That in a nutshell explains why EvE has terrible retention rate. There really is no point in playing EvE if you full-heartedly believe that you need to train for endless months in order to be able to do something 100% perfect. You are not going to change this consumer behavior and EvE needs to change in order to adopt a compatible game model.
Bottom line, what I propose is simple. Manipulate the dumb behavior of consumers who enjoy bells and whistles(in this case that means faster training times) to have them believe they are not wasting time and money. Then throw up some adds and let the sandbox free to accommodate the new players.
As a closing note I just want to say this: We have an awesome sandbox, which at a time used to treat everyone fairly. However, now our sandbox punishes you the longer you wait to subscribe and start training. This is a disastrous way to treat consumers. Some people entertain the notion of pulling us all back down to 0 SP and restarting the game. There's no need for something so chaotic. Just help the new players reach the higher tiers of gameplay faster so they feel included in our shenanigans. |
Market McSelling Alt
Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC
566
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 04:47:43 -
[1703] - Quote
Jegrey Dozer wrote:Drop in numbers is a non issue. CCP just needs to reduce skill training time and throw up more adds. Ta da... A bunch of new people with higher retention rate.
In my opinion, bitter vets need to get off the high horse and realize that your training time isn't proportional with retaining higher quality players. It just annoys the hell out of new subs because they have to pay 15 a month for 2 years to not suck in this game.
Now, some of you read that last sentence and already shut down my argument in their head. Before you furiously refute that statement and then suffer a panic attack, wipe the foam from your mouth and understand that every EvE player and their mother knows that you can be effective within a few months and be competitive. BUT NEW PLAYERS DO NOT SEE IT THAT WAY. There's a reason why flash games congratulate you every 5 seconds when you do something mundane. There's a reason why casinos have bells and whistles every time you pull a slot machine handle. There's a reason why CCP added the holding-a-newbs-hand Opportunities notification system. If the psychology behind the carrot on the stick needs to be broken down to you, carry on with your flaming of my post.
We need to stop dissuading players from keeping their subs active because we tell them with excruciating detail the exact length of time they need to train in order to have a fully effective character.
I have experienced this phenomenon of new players quitting time and time again. Only one of my 4 friends that I convinced to make trial accounts actually subbed. He then stopped playing because "there's no point." That in a nutshell explains why EvE has terrible retention rate. There really is no point in playing EvE if you full-heartedly believe that you need to train for endless months in order to be able to do something 100% perfect. You are not going to change this consumer behavior and EvE needs to change in order to adopt a compatible game model.
Bottom line, what I propose is simple. Manipulate the dumb behavior of consumers who enjoy bells and whistles(in this case that means faster training times) to have them believe they are not wasting time and money. Then throw up some adds and let the sandbox free to accommodate the new players.
As a closing note I just want to say this: We have an awesome sandbox, which at a time used to treat everyone fairly. However, now our sandbox punishes you the longer you wait to subscribe and start training. This is a disastrous way to treat consumers. Some people entertain the notion of pulling us all back down to 0 SP and restarting the game. There's no need for something so chaotic. Just help the new players reach the higher tiers of gameplay faster so they feel included in our shenanigans.
In Before The "Eve is a hard, cold, harsh place and everyone has to harden up and train the skills we all had to back in the day derp derp Hardcore Biker Gang Member living in mom's basement" comments.
Best description of Eve Online and why the community is the way it is
|
Jegrey Dozer
Illustrative Illusionists
53
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 05:02:39 -
[1704] - Quote
Market McSelling Alt wrote: In Before The "Eve is a hard, cold, harsh place and everyone has to harden up and train the skills we all had to back in the day derp derp Hardcore Biker Gang Member living in mom's basement" comments.
Back in the day when the average SP difference wasn't so pronounced.
It infuriates me that people are so thick headed that they don't realize a game with character progression based on real time becomes disproportionately more and more unfair to new players as it ages over a decade old.
The length of training has to scale with the age of the game.
Other MMO's have already addressed this by gearing all of their content to the end game and speeding up character progression to meet up with the existing player base. We don't even need a million+ players, doubling our current numbers will be enough to revitalize the game. |
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
197
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 06:06:46 -
[1705] - Quote
Unezka Turigahl wrote: What did they take from you via changes to standings?
The high standings were useful for miscellaneous services. POS anchoring, corp standing boost, selling mission completion service for characters to access jump clones and that kind of stuff. Not the most common thing ever but it filled a niche.
People still buy standings for the market tax reduction but overall it's less important now.
This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.
|
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
910
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 06:17:45 -
[1706] - Quote
How do you decide how much to speed up training time? Training time has already been sped up you know, when learning skills were removed and baked into our default attributes. The SP required to be decent at probing was also drastically cut. And I think it is now faster to get into mining barges as well? I know for sure that the Orca was made much easier to get into. We also only have to train a ship class to lvl 3 to be able to train the next size up. Didn't the requirement used to be 4? Etc.
CCP has mentioned they may consider starting players out with 1-2mil SP as well. But this will still not appease new players who think that capital ships are an endgame to aspire to. And the people who think they have to "catch up" to vets just don't get it, and never will. Personally I'd be fine letting everyone fly all the ships right off the bat. Fly whatever you can afford to lose, from day 1. But that would probably cause the decline to enter into... Critical Stage TURBO RAPID X!!!1... since people wouldn't be strung along by carrot and stick of the training queue as much. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1492
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 06:24:33 -
[1707] - Quote
Jegrey Dozer wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote: In Before The "Eve is a hard, cold, harsh place and everyone has to harden up and train the skills we all had to back in the day derp derp Hardcore Biker Gang Member living in mom's basement" comments.
Back in the day when the average SP difference wasn't so pronounced. It infuriates me that people are so thick headed that they don't realize a game with character progression based on real time becomes disproportionately more and more unfair to new players as it ages over a decade old. The length of training has to scale with the age of the game. Other MMO's have already addressed this by gearing all of their content to the end game and speeding up character progression to meet up with the existing player base. We don't even need a million+ players, doubling our current numbers will be enough to revitalize the game.
They do not get it becasue its nonsense.
In those other games you max out your character in a specific role in lets say 3 to 6 months and then its maxed out, if its a min/max priest role for example its maxed out as a priest and that is basically it you cannot then add rogue feats to the same character.
In EVE you can pretty much max out a character in a particular role (Say LOGI the equivalent of a Priest) in a very similar time. The only difference is the same character can then also be trained to do other stuff. Very little of that other training if any will help in that initial maxed out role as a logi.
The idea that someone would ever say "it is unfair ... that guy killed me in his Caldari T1 cruiser because he has all these ranks in trade skills, mining and Amarr Battleships" is when you think about it a bit crazy. |
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
911
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 06:35:41 -
[1708] - Quote
Keras Authion wrote:Unezka Turigahl wrote: What did they take from you via changes to standings?
The high standings were useful for miscellaneous services. POS anchoring, corp standing boost, selling mission completion service for characters to access jump clones and that kind of stuff. Not the most common thing ever but it filled a niche. People still buy standings for the market tax reduction but overall it's less important now.
Yeah, like I mentioned in my post, a bunch of stuff unrelated to being a PvEr and running missions. Players uninterested in running missions were being forced to do so by CCP, in order to access things useful to PVP and industry. So players created a handful of specialty corps to circumvent these requirements and render them irrelevant. Being nonsensical and now irrelevant, CCP removed the requirements. The average PvEer/missioner has lost absolutely nothing. It is not a nerf to PvE. |
Jegrey Dozer
Illustrative Illusionists
54
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 07:24:26 -
[1709] - Quote
Unezka Turigahl wrote:How do you decide how much to speed up training time? Training time has already been sped up you know, when learning skills were removed and baked into our default attributes. The SP required to be decent at probing was also drastically cut. And I think it is now faster to get into mining barges as well? I know for sure that the Orca was made much easier to get into. We also only have to train a ship class to lvl 3 to be able to train the next size up. Didn't the requirement used to be 4? Etc.
CCP has mentioned they may consider starting players out with 1-2mil SP as well. But this will still not appease new players who think that capital ships are an endgame to aspire to. And the people who think they have to "catch up" to vets just don't get it, and never will. Personally I'd be fine letting everyone fly all the ships right off the bat. Fly whatever you can afford to lose, from day 1. But that would probably cause the decline to enter into... Critical Stage TURBO RAPID X!!!1... since people wouldn't be strung along by carrot and stick of the training queue as much.
"How do you decide how much to speed up training time?"
I mentioned that training time would be scaled with the age of the game. In other words, I wouldn't be able to give you a concrete example because it would be dynamic and change every year. Also, yes I do know that it has been sped up before, but training up fast is relative to how long the game has been out for.
I can only give a suggested change as of today. I would say at this point training time needs to be cut roughly in half. That would put people at ~1 year before they have a decent footing in SP. Maybe 50% reduction is too much, but I believe definitely it must be reduced by some significant factor.
"Personally I'd be fine letting everyone fly all the ships right off the bat."
That would be the extreme sandbox scenario. I don't think that's a good idea just so you bait people to keep themselves subbed for longer and actually play and appreciate the game(carrot on the stick). If you give someone everything all at once, there's nothing to work towards and you haven't built up intrinsic value for your character.
"And the people who think they have to "catch up" to vets just don't get it, and never will."
I don't agree with this. How many people knew exactly what EvE was as they first started to play? I would venture to say absolutely no one. This game is not learned over night and we shouldn't penalize people who have preconceived notions about every game having an "end game." We should invite people to play the game and see for themselves if they are willing to join us. If not, that's alright because they tried. However, you are definitely going to retain some players who are not given a chance because they are used to different game styles. |
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
13866
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 07:53:11 -
[1710] - Quote
Jegrey Dozer wrote:Back in the day when the average SP difference wasn't so pronounced.
It infuriates me that people are so thick headed that they don't realize a game with character progression based on real time becomes disproportionately more and more unfair to new players as it ages over a decade old.
The length of training has to scale with the age of the game.
Other MMO's have already addressed this by gearing all of their content to the end game and speeding up character progression to meet up with the existing player base. We don't even need a million+ players, doubling our current numbers will be enough to revitalize the game. That's nonsense. Other games you are talking about have vertical progression. EVE is a horizontal skill system. Anyone that thinks there is a never ending "catch up", describing it like that, is out of touch with this game. Or they are industrialists that feel it unfair they have no high-end BPO's.
I'm in it for the money
Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12
|
|
|
|
|
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 |