Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
636
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 07:40:48 -
[1] - Quote
Over the next 5-10 years. Specifically any mission granted by a non fw or pirate agent.
Phase out all missions over this timeframe and you beat the curve of player retention witnessed with L4 runners (avg 2 years, the ones we have now wont be around long enough to see the end anyway).
Discuss the merits and problems with this.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Ima GoodGirl
Black Ballers
71
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 07:53:08 -
[2] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Discuss the merits and problems with this. The problem is your first sentence.
5-10 years?
Eve is dying. It won't be here then.
Does that fit with the general theme of the thread? |
Do Little
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
132
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 08:00:26 -
[3] - Quote
What do you accomplish other than removing the people who enjoy this play style - along with a substantial percentage of CCP revenue - from the game? I would prefer to see missions upgraded with new AI and multiple paths to completion so they are less predictable. |
Void Kraken
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 08:10:26 -
[4] - Quote
Taking all opinions and positions into account, EVE Online can be fixed in two simple steps:
CTRL-A SHIFT-DEL |
Lan Wang
V I R I I Ineluctable.
1406
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 08:27:37 -
[5] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Specifically any mission granted by a non fw or pirate agent.
so keep hold of fw missions? is this because you farm them to make your own isk?
EVEALON Creative - Logo Design & Branding | Digital Design
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3252
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 08:34:10 -
[6] - Quote
0/10.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Avvy
Republic University Minmatar Republic
141
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 08:47:26 -
[7] - Quote
No
Missions are useful even NPC ones they give an alternative to full on PvP.
Problem with full on PvP games is players can feel warn out after awhile. Of course this depends on the person and just as importantly the length of their gaming time.
It's especially noticeable for those that spend a lot of time in-game. Although may not be as noticeable if there is a lot of waiting time involved.
Problem with posts like the op is that they tend to think as something as being bad and try to remove them rather than think how can it be improved to better fit the game. |
Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
9195
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 09:07:04 -
[8] - Quote
I would go opposite road and make them more attractive.
Just ever one of them, being more surprising. Having something rarely happening. Something unexpected. Something what would blow your mind.
More faction spawns.
Custom ship skins | Since 2014 | Character creator style "repaint" | Bring back the dream
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
636
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 11:42:50 -
[9] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Specifically any mission granted by a non fw or pirate agent. so keep hold of fw missions? is this because you farm them to make your own isk?
GLD doesn't participate in FW. I have no alts, made that very clear years ago. Try your ad hominems on someone else.
Quote:5-10 years?
Eve is dying. It won't be here then.
Eve is receeding that much we can say for ourselves. It could stop and be turned around. I think supers and titans have done more to damage the game than all other factors combined. Missions are by far the smallest thing to excise from the game in the move to repair it - and through a process of being gradually phased out over a period of years scarce few will remember their passing. The evidence is there, 80% quit within 2 years. Running missions isn't healthy for the game or the company.
Quote: What do you accomplish other than removing the people who enjoy this play style - along with a substantial percentage of CCP revenue - from the game? I would prefer to see missions upgraded with new AI and multiple paths to completion so they are less predictable.
So you want more burner mission content? People run missions precisely because they're predictable. Ever had one of those days doing exploration where you made a scant few million? And wished you just spent those 3 hours running missions for that practically guaranteed 60mil/hour instead? Introducing randomisation is not a long term solution.
Quote:No
Missions are useful They're too useful, you're right. Missions are better and more reliable income than many other forms of gameplay in EVE.
Problem with posts like the op is that they tend to think as something as being bad and try to remove them rather than think how can it be improved to better fit the game. I don't believe in polishing turds. By your own admission people get burnt out on things in EVE. Guess which gameplay element has got the most capsuleer skulls on its walls? It ain't pvp.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1909
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 11:53:03 -
[10] - Quote
Only when people stop telling other people what they should be finding fun is the day eve is truly going to die. |
|
Avvy
Republic University Minmatar Republic
143
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 11:53:44 -
[11] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Quote:No
Missions are useful They're too useful, you're right. Missions are better and more reliable income than many other forms of gameplay in EVE.
Problem with posts like the op is that they tend to think as something as being bad and try to remove them rather than think how can it be improved to better fit the game. I don't believe in polishing turds. By your own admission people get burnt out on things in EVE. Guess which gameplay element has got the most capsuleer skulls on its walls? It ain't pvp.
I too can alter quotes so that I can manipulate the meaning if I choose to do so.
It would also be helpful when you add something to a quote like the part you bolded and underlined you make reference to the fact that you have.
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
8369
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 13:36:51 -
[12] - Quote
The real question is:
How should we phase out Caleb Seremshur?
E: it makes as much sense as suggesting that missions be removed.
[b]----
CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off.[/b]
|
Hengle Teron
Order In Disorder Virtus Crusade Protectorate
57505
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 13:43:02 -
[13] - Quote
Just remove the undock button and everything will be fixed. |
Arec Bardwin
1847
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 13:44:46 -
[14] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:I have no alts, made that very clear years ago. Ok, we will trust you on your word that you have no alts.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6732
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 14:01:26 -
[15] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Missions are by far the smallest thing to excise from the game in the move to repair it - and through a process of being gradually phased out over a period of years scarce few will remember their passing. The evidence is there, 80% quit within 2 years. Running missions isn't healthy for the game or the company. There's a part of this that everyone misses. While there is a higher turnover of mission runners, more players seem to join seeking mission running, so removing that will likely just make them not show up to start with rather than make them stay. As other have alluded to, there seems to be no reason to cut off a section of the playerbase for no good reason. What problem is it that you think the existence missions cause that needs to be fixed?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Gunz blazing Ronuken
Insane's Asylum Pride Before Fall
8
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 14:25:46 -
[16] - Quote
lol better to redesign the missions and increase the mission pool with 30 new missions and watch the clueless min-maxer crowds loose their minds and then smile when they are discovering new content? |
Kestrix
Bedlam Escapees Silent Requiem
183
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 15:00:21 -
[17] - Quote
I've been running missions since I started playing this game! Whats wrong with missions? We want more missions not fewer! If I can't run missions what will I do? |
Avaelica Kuershin
Paper Cats
228
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 15:12:39 -
[18] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Over the next 5-10 years. Specifically any mission granted by a non fw or pirate agent.
Phase out all missions over this timeframe and you beat the curve of player retention witnessed with L4 runners (avg 2 years, the ones we have now wont be around long enough to see the end anyway).
Discuss the merits and problems with this.
One obvious problem is that for many of us, missions are a means to an end. The goals might be as simple as standings, LP and ISK to enable other aspects of playing the game... such as manufacturing ships and modules to get blown up. (Not that I need those standing for jump clones now but there's still the BPCs that could be lucrative) |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
6212
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 15:23:18 -
[19] - Quote
Gunz blazing Ronuken wrote:lol better to redesign the missions and increase the mission pool with 30 new missions and watch the clueless min-maxer crowds loose their minds and then smile when they are discovering new content? Better yet, create an engine for procedurally generated dungeons to work with missions, exploration and asteroid belts. Then allow players to tick limiters (like no empire factions) on mission generation for reduced payouts.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
513
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 15:28:25 -
[20] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Over the next 5-10 years. Specifically any mission granted by a non fw or pirate agent.
Phase out all missions over this timeframe and you beat the curve of player retention witnessed with L4 runners (avg 2 years, the ones we have now wont be around long enough to see the end anyway).
Discuss the merits and problems with this.
So let me get this straight. Get rid of 100% of a part of a player base now because 80% of em leave after a couple years? I guess us high sec mission runners who have been around for seven years plus... Our money is no good for CCP?
We have 50% less active players, but good thing those we do have dont want to leave?
Better way to fix player retention is to increase the range of activities and integrate more. Better to keep L4 and make them better. Make fleet pve rely on those that favor pve instead of farming alts. |
|
Dextrome Thorphan
Intrepid Crossing
129
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 15:29:12 -
[21] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:*troll troll troll*
Ok then... |
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
227
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 17:47:18 -
[22] - Quote
Dont some lv5's or WH sites(missions) increase numbers/difficulty to complete if you drop a capital into it?
At any rate missions could be added to, and use such dynamic for certain ones all the way from lv1 to lv5....bring an in appropiate ship for the level, or too many friends for the ride(or alts).....then up the ante, more npcs with varying ways of actually killing you and your friends.
And then if a mission is failed and the friends log off make it so the you have to wait till DT for it to reset to normal parameters. Maybe such things could be done......
By not phasing out the missions themselves.....but by phasing out the current missions with a new mission structure and engine....and then maybe the LP stores could be looked at also or different ways to earn LP from the missions. Kinda of like how POS is about to be phased out, why cant that be done with missions? |
Sal Marshall
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 17:57:31 -
[23] - Quote
The answer to the OP statement is really about what CCP wants as customers and as a game.
I see lots of folks talking from their own perspective, but really its CCP.
Mission running seems to be of little entertainment value after a few months because it is so predictable.. BUT.. its a great way to get ISK to fund other activities.. So a lot of folks seem to accept the grind to get the benefits in other areas. Mobs employing group tactics and variances in the mission parameters would go a long way to making missions more 'fun'.. but that may not be the problem CCP needs to fix in its business model.
WoW, god love it, points out a reality in the MMO marketplace.. MMOs are places where solo players most of the time come for casual entertainment, and sometimes PvP for giggles. Hardcore PvP games are by definition very very niche.
CCP can choose to go all WoW on things and they'll lose their hardcore PvP audience and *might* get casual players to sign up.. but I have no visibility into their turnover stats.. it would be a big gamble. CCP has the infrastructure expertise to try something like this by offering parallel servers built around casual gameplay (and re-branded) while still keeping Eve Online going.. but its a big investment even creating that. All is fraught with risk.
Silly elitist statements from folks about carebears and noobs doesn't cut it. CCP is a business and needs to think that way. If they are sliding then they need a plan to stop the slide. I've always had mixed feelings about this game.. but I keep coming back.. so its got that special something.. but subscriber retention/attraction is where its at in MMOs.. fail at that and eventually go out of business. |
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
516
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 00:04:01 -
[24] - Quote
Max Deveron wrote:Dont some lv5's or WH sites(missions) increase numbers/difficulty to complete if you drop a capital into it?
At any rate missions could be added to, and use such dynamic for certain ones all the way from lv1 to lv5....bring an in appropiate ship for the level, or too many friends for the ride(or alts).....then up the ante, more npcs with varying ways of actually killing you and your friends.
And then if a mission is failed and the friends log off make it so the you have to wait till DT for it to reset to normal parameters. Maybe such things could be done......
By not phasing out the missions themselves.....but by phasing out the current missions with a new mission structure and engine....and then maybe the LP stores could be looked at also or different ways to earn LP from the missions. Kinda of like how POS is about to be phased out, why cant that be done with missions?
What you say here is actually some stuff I was pushing to a ways back. There seems to be disconnect between player bases. PvPers have their own view on what gets and creates pvp and why pve people dont. Versa is true for pve players. L5s are a great example, probably the best that shows this contrast. L5 missions are challenging and pretty much impossible solo. Back in the day could get em in highsec and were way more fun than L4 cause needed multiple. Then they went low only. So mission ithat need ships not suited for lowsec in camp areas. They take a while. CCP might as well had removed em all together.
I wanted the scaling missions that are proceduraly generated as well. Still level one thru four, but instead have option to have mission for self or mission for fleet. The level agents are difficulty. Procedure chain missions to make em interesting like mini epics.
Why? Cause. It isnt pve peeps dont all dislike pvp. They like control and reasons. Getting pve that has pvp aspects to it get people liking it and wanting into the pvp side. That is what os lacking. Incursions have that potential, but sansha scripting negates all of that potential since is bling ship farming now. |
Vortexo VonBrenner
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2127
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 01:00:44 -
[25] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Over the next 5-10 years. Specifically any mission granted by a non fw or pirate agent.
Phase out all missions over this timeframe and you beat the curve of player retention witnessed with L4 runners (avg 2 years, the ones we have now wont be around long enough to see the end anyway).
Discuss the merits and problems with this.
Well......I suppose it's good you think EvE will be around more than ten years from now...I certainly hope it is. Otherwise: *right click OP* *jettison*
ITT: ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?
|
Matrea D
Maggie's Magical Miners Maggie's Magical Malliance
6
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 01:37:06 -
[26] - Quote
Bagrat Skalski wrote:I would go opposite road and make them more attractive. Just ever one of them, being more surprising. Having something rarely happening. Something unexpected. Something what would blow your mind. More faction spawns.
Like maybe...other players invading your mission? |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1461
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 02:24:01 -
[27] - Quote
OK, I think I follow the logic here ...
Premises
1) People that do not PvP annoy me 2) Experience has shown that very few of these people will enjoy PvP even when forced to 3) Most of these people sub with PLEX and do not directly contribute cash to the game
Conclusion 1) Force these people to leave the game as their presence annoys me by removing missions
Unstated further conclusion: 2) We also need to remove incursions, PI, mining, station trading, moon goo and exploration as these mission runners may go do those non-pvp things instead |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
639
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 08:10:52 -
[28] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote:OK, I think I follow the logic here ...
Premises
1) People that do not PvP annoy me 2) Experience has shown that very few of these people will enjoy PvP even when forced to 3) Most of these people sub with PLEX and do not directly contribute cash to the game
Conclusion 1) Force these people to leave the game as their presence annoys me by removing missions
Unstated further conclusion: 2) We also need to remove incursions, PI, mining, station trading, moon goo and exploration as these mission runners may go do those non-pvp things instead
That's a truly amazing feat of mental gymnastics right there.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Avvy
Republic University Minmatar Republic
150
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 09:33:14 -
[29] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Hasikan Miallok wrote:OK, I think I follow the logic here ...
Premises
1) People that do not PvP annoy me 2) Experience has shown that very few of these people will enjoy PvP even when forced to 3) Most of these people sub with PLEX and do not directly contribute cash to the game
Conclusion 1) Force these people to leave the game as their presence annoys me by removing missions
Unstated further conclusion: 2) We also need to remove incursions, PI, mining, station trading, moon goo and exploration as these mission runners may go do those non-pvp things instead That's a truly amazing feat of mental gymnastics right there.
Lets look at these.
Premises 1) He maybe right. 2) Sounds fair. 3) He's talking about how you think, possibly as some people tend to think that way. But PLEX in-game has already been paid for, so those using PLEX to fund game time are actually contributing to the movement of PLEX.
Conclusion 1) possibly
Unstated further conclusion 2) I think this depends on which of those you actually like doing yourself. |
Colman Dietmar
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
62
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 09:56:12 -
[30] - Quote
Instead of simply "phasing out" they could make the dscan inhibitor a) cloak itself as well, b) have a range of about 300 km and c) cloak not only ships, but also signatures and anomalies. So for the duration of the structure you become unscannable, but you have to use one for each pocket.
It would still keep some degree of risk, because your site may have been prescanned (it already is done sometimes), but also would provide some safety and make PVE competition more healthy, since this way whoever gets there first wins, no loot stealing attempts, no bling ships having huge advantage etc.
And it would also make dscan inhibitor not useless. :roll: |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |