| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4287
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:03:00 -
[151] - Quote
it's not "the csm" that's in favor of themeparks it's trebor |

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7160
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:03:00 -
[152] - Quote
Mister S Burke wrote:Riedle wrote:[quote=Mister S Burke]
Confirmed, you want a consequence free game - this is not the game you are playing and it will not become that game.
With all due respect, you are subbed for a little over a month? Perhaps you should consider adjusting to the decade old game you are playing rather than demand the decade old game conform to what your 30 day long view of what this game is or should be.
Really, you lost a thrasher - hardly a reason to cry about it and certainly not a reason for CCP to change a successful game. You are just going to have to accept it.
Riedke You need to read more. I don't have a dog in this fight, check the killboard, see any dead haulers or mining ships? I don't mine or carebear. I do PVP support in fleets. You are reading what you want to read at this point. I am saying that CCP has to get over catering to griefing or we are going to be stuck roaming and playing grabasss on gates instead of pew pewing. I just don't think EVE revolves around griefing, if it does though and I am wrong it's days are numbered. You have to remember Anarchy Online is still up what 13 years later? EVE is only a year and a half older than wow. CCP wants some more benjamins and I don't blame them. They can do that without theme-parking.
By "catering to griefing" are you referring to non-consensual PvP? Because that's pretty much a core theme of EVE. Getting rid of that would be like making rugby into a non contact game. Go play volleyball if that's what you want. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
1156
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:06:00 -
[153] - Quote
Mister S Burke wrote:Riedle wrote:[quote=Mister S Burke]
Confirmed, you want a consequence free game - this is not the game you are playing and it will not become that game.
With all due respect, you are subbed for a little over a month? Perhaps you should consider adjusting to the decade old game you are playing rather than demand the decade old game conform to what your 30 day long view of what this game is or should be.
Really, you lost a thrasher - hardly a reason to cry about it and certainly not a reason for CCP to change a successful game. You are just going to have to accept it.
Riedke You need to read more. I don't have a dog in this fight, check the killboard, see any dead haulers or mining ships? I don't mine or carebear. I do PVP support in fleets. You are reading what you want to read at this point. I am saying that CCP has to get over catering to griefing or we are going to be stuck roaming and playing grabasss on gates instead of pew pewing. I just don't think EVE revolves around griefing, if it does though and I am wrong it's days are numbered. You have to remember Anarchy Online is still up what 13 years later? EVE is only a year and a half older than wow. CCP wants some more benjamins and I don't blame them. They can do that without theme-parking.
How can a person squeeze so much wrong into one sentence lol.
EVE was created by some really psycho dudes to cater to a really psycho niche and they succeeded. Things that most of the MMO world would call griefing are called "Any weeknight" in EVE lol.
And yet EVE has survived when many games that were WAY harder on "griefing" died. That should tell you something, but I'm guessing it won't.
You've played this game that takes YEARS to understand for a month and feel confident enough to comment on it? That right there demonstrates a distinct lack of wisdom.
|

Ghazu
483
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:06:00 -
[154] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:it's not "the csm" that's in favor of themeparks it's trebor goddamn it trebor keep your hentai to yourself gtfo. http://www.minerbumping.com/ lol what the christ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2299984#post2299984 |

baltec1
Bat Country
4778
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:06:00 -
[155] - Quote
Mister S Burke wrote:
You need to read more. I don't have a dog in this fight, check the killboard, see any dead haulers or mining ships? I don't mine or carebear. I do PVP support in fleets. You are reading what you want to read at this point. I am saying that CCP has to get over catering to griefing or we are going to be stuck roaming and playing grabasss on gates instead of pew pewing. I just don't think EVE revolves around griefing, if it does though and I am wrong it's days are numbered. You have to remember Anarchy Online is still up what 13 years later? EVE is only a year and a half older than wow. CCP wants some more benjamins and I don't blame them. They can do that without theme-parking.
CCP don't cater to griefing. This is the 5th time I have had to correct you in this. |

Captain Tardbar
NEWB ALERT
23
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:07:00 -
[156] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Jint Hikaru wrote:Speaking as someone who avoids PvP and is fairly carebear (but not afraid to go into WH or low/zero sec when needed)....
Making Hisec fully non-pvp will not be good for the game.
It may bring in, or retain, a few more players.... but the game as a whole will loose a lot of its street cred. And also probably loose some of its longer standing players. I don't know. The truth of the matter EvE the game and its subsequent development will only be around if there are many subscriptions paying the bills. So lets say there are 450,000 subscriptions and we'll just assume that everyone pays $14.95 per month to play (this is obviously not the case since Plex is actually more and some people pay less by paying yearly for their subscriptions. Also this in USD and no the Euro excludes taxes). So the total CCP makes gross per month is $6,727,500 If 1% of players quite because of ganking then that is 4500 players which doesn't seem like a lot over all. But that is $67,275 in lost revenue. Thats more than a years worth for a computer programmer used to advance eve. The numbers might even be higher depending (it might be lower as we don't have the numbers of ganks from CCP). Now the question you have to ask is "Will more people quit EvE because they can't gank than quite because they are ganked?" If the answer is more people will quit because they are ganked then obviously CCP is finacially obligated as a business to cut back on the possible ganking. The best evidence to prove that CCP actually loses subscriptions (and money) due to ganking is simply the fact they buffed minging barges after hulkageddon. If there was no finacial reason to buff the mining barges they would not have spent the resources (development, Q&A, and balancing) to actually have made the change. In conclusion the truth of the matter is CCP is obligated as a business to reduce ganking and other activies that reduce subscriptions. I predict this will happen whether you protest on the forums or not as the forums are only a fraction of the player base. I suspect CCP knows that gankers will just play other forms of PvP when they nerf ganking in the future. The problem is you have no proof that "ganking" reduces subscriptions. You create a false dichotomy (it's either the gankers of or the ganked people will go). What DOES happen is people get ganked all the time and......nothing. A small minority of ganked people yell and holler and cry on the forums or file a petition (only to be told bascially HTFU lol) or maybe even quit (EVe wasn't for them in the 1st place if ANY player action can cause them to quit). But the vast majority (evidenced by EVE online's continual growth and survival over the last 10 years) say GF, learn from their mistakes quietly and move on. The small minority of crying types cling to the idea that everyone is like them and thus will quit like them if "ganking" is allowed. Funny thing is, the people who SAY they are going to quit after getting ganked or scammed seldom do....
My evidence that ganking reduces subscriptions is the fact that CCP buffed mining barges after hulkaggeddon.
Why would they spend the effort to change this if it is not to prevent lost subs?
If ganking was fine and just emergent gameplay they would have left it alone.
Yes, there was a lot of complaints on the forums, but I beleive they used exit polls when people canceled their subscriptions as their reason to make the change.
People complaining on the forums threating to cancel their subscription does not always equal lost subs (the person may not go through with it), but when actual subscription cancellations happen and they give the reason "my ship was ganked" then obviously they decided to do something about it.
Again, obviously there was some sort of problem as they changed the game mechanics to buff miner barges.
If CCP wasn't worried about losing subs they would have done nothing. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby" |

Mister S Burke
Earths Naval Space Command The Mandalorians
23
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:07:00 -
[157] - Quote
Fanatic Row wrote: Because FFA PvP with no goals has killed every single MMO that tried it.
Thank you, Age of Conan tried this. Even Goons (goonheim I think) went there and said they were going to take over because they were uber people from EVE and heard about Age of Conans FFA PVP. They did well at first but they all ended up being corpse camped by everyone for hours just because of their name and then eventually packed up and left. It was fun, I would be fighting someone tooth and nail and a goon would show up and we would instantly become friends and jump the goon. People say they want free for all but they don't, they want to be the uber guy but that is mathematically impossible. |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
1156
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:09:00 -
[158] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
By "catering to griefing" are you referring to non-consensual PvP? Because that's pretty much a core theme of EVE. Getting rid of that would be like making rugby into a non contact game. Go play volleyball if that's what you want.
But , but, I have so much time invested into rugby, you have to ignore the fact that I don't actually LIKE rugby and want it to be more like volleyball. I pay my rugby sub and the game should be like I want it, because it's a game. And screw it if your sarcasm meter exploded!
|

James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
3365
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:11:00 -
[159] - Quote
Rarely do people PVP in highsec without any particular goal. The fact that loss is permanent in EVE means that any goal-free PVP is done at a smaller scale than it would otherwise, and any PVP where someone stands to lose in any significant fashion is generally motivated by something more concrete than a simple desire to go shoot things. Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm Want to enable BBcode on the forums? Here's how. |

Mister S Burke
Earths Naval Space Command The Mandalorians
23
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:12:00 -
[160] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
You've played this game that takes YEARS to understand for a month and feel confident enough to comment on it?
Damn right.
|

Whitehound
381
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:14:00 -
[161] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Funny thing is, the people who SAY they are going to quit after getting ganked or scammed seldom do....
If there was a space game with equally complex and challenging content, but without all the huffin' and puffin', then EVE could possibly see the biggest loss in player numbers in its history.
I stay with EVE because I like it, but certainly not all of it. I like winning more than I like losing and I don't take joy out of a fight where I lose and only my loss is smaller than that of my opponent. This is where most of the drama starts. If I could get a better game then I'd buy it and if I then have little time left for EVE would I be leaving.
Just saying... I post this here so that you and others can understand what it is that makes someone stay. You will now argue that there is no alternative to EVE, but that does not mean I am wrong or that I am playing EVE wrong.
I really dislike all this drama and if I could move on from it then I would. Until then do I have hopes that EVE will change to the better.
Fair enough? |

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
883
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:15:00 -
[162] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Jint Hikaru wrote:Speaking as someone who avoids PvP and is fairly carebear (but not afraid to go into WH or low/zero sec when needed)....
Making Hisec fully non-pvp will not be good for the game.
It may bring in, or retain, a few more players.... but the game as a whole will loose a lot of its street cred. And also probably loose some of its longer standing players. I don't know. The truth of the matter EvE the game and its subsequent development will only be around if there are many subscriptions paying the bills. So lets say there are 450,000 subscriptions and we'll just assume that everyone pays $14.95 per month to play (this is obviously not the case since Plex is actually more and some people pay less by paying yearly for their subscriptions. Also this in USD and no the Euro excludes taxes). So the total CCP makes gross per month is $6,727,500 If 1% of players quite because of ganking then that is 4500 players which doesn't seem like a lot over all. But that is $67,275 in lost revenue. Thats more than a years worth for a computer programmer used to advance eve. The numbers might even be higher depending (it might be lower as we don't have the numbers of ganks from CCP). Now the question you have to ask is "Will more people quit EvE because they can't gank than quite because they are ganked?" If the answer is more people will quit because they are ganked then obviously CCP is finacially obligated as a business to cut back on the possible ganking. The best evidence to prove that CCP actually loses subscriptions (and money) due to ganking is simply the fact they buffed minging barges after hulkageddon. If there was no finacial reason to buff the mining barges they would not have spent the resources (development, Q&A, and balancing) to actually have made the change. In conclusion the truth of the matter is CCP is obligated as a business to reduce ganking and other activies that reduce subscriptions. I predict this will happen whether you protest on the forums or not as the forums are only a fraction of the player base. I suspect CCP knows that gankers will just play other forms of PvP when they nerf ganking in the future. The problem is you have no proof that "ganking" reduces subscriptions. You create a false dichotomy (it's either the gankers of or the ganked people will go). What DOES happen is people get ganked all the time and......nothing. A small minority of ganked people yell and holler and cry on the forums or file a petition (only to be told bascially HTFU lol) or maybe even quit (EVe wasn't for them in the 1st place if ANY player action can cause them to quit). But the vast majority (evidenced by EVE online's continual growth and survival over the last 10 years) say GF, learn from their mistakes quietly and move on. The small minority of crying types cling to the idea that everyone is like them and thus will quit like them if "ganking" is allowed. Funny thing is, the people who SAY they are going to quit after getting ganked or scammed seldom do.... My evidence that ganking reduces subscriptions is the fact that CCP buffed mining barges after hulkaggeddon. Why would they spend the effort to change this if it is not to prevent lost subs? If ganking was fine and just emergent gameplay they would have left it alone. Yes, there was a lot of complaints on the forums, but I beleive they used exit polls when people canceled their subscriptions as their reason to make the change. People complaining on the forums threating to cancel their subscription does not always equal lost subs (the person may not go through with it), but when actual subscription cancellations happen and they give the reason "my ship was ganked" then obviously they decided to do something about it. Again, obviously there was some sort of problem as they changed the game mechanics to buff miner barges. If CCP wasn't worried about losing subs they would have done nothing.
CCP attempting to rebalance some ships is not evidence that ganking is killing the game and causing lost subs. They've been rebalancing ships, modules and mechanics since day 1. Your logic would suggest they've done nothing but lose subs from the day they launched. |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
1159
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:16:00 -
[163] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
My evidence that ganking reduces subscriptions is the fact that CCP buffed mining barges after hulkaggeddon.
Why would they spend the effort to change this if it is not to prevent lost subs?
Because they planned to do that a long time ago and got around to it? or any number of reasons. You're trying to use suposistion as fact and it doesn't hold water.
Where is the evidence of decreasing subs during player created ganking events like Hulkageddon? THAT would be proff that would stand up in a court.
Quote: If ganking was fine and just emergent gameplay they would have left it alone.
Yes there was a lot of complaints on the forums, but I beleive they used exit polls when people canceled their subscriptions as their reason to make the change.
People complaining on the forums threating to cancel their subscription does not always equal lost subs (the person may not go through with it), but when actual subscription cancellation happen and they give the reason "my ship was ganked" then obviously they decided to do something about it.
Again, obviously there was some sort of problem as they changed the game mechanics to buff miner barges.
If CCP wasn't worried about losing subs they would have done nothing.
So, give us a link to where you read those exit polls.
You simply don't know what "evidence" means. Let me help:
ev-+i-+dence [ev-i-duhGÇëns]noun, verb, ev-+i-+denced, ev-+i-+denc-+ing. noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Until you have proof of what you say, it's all just speculation, and speculation is often wrong. what's really happening is you are putting your trust in a belief that supports what you are already predisposed to believe, which is a bad foundation for any kind of belief.
|

Jake Warbird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2099
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:17:00 -
[164] - Quote
hi mom o/
and oh, no safe hisec please. |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
1159
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:22:00 -
[165] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Funny thing is, the people who SAY they are going to quit after getting ganked or scammed seldom do....
If there was a space game with equally complex and challenging content, but without all the huffin' and puffin', then EVE could possibly see the biggest loss in player numbers in its history.
Also provably untrue. there have been MANY space themed games that were supposed to kill EVE (like the Star Wars Games, Star Trek Online, Black Prophecy etc etc etc).
None of them ever did, and yet folks like you cling to the this belief.
You also cling to the mistaken belief that you only play EVE because there is nothing better out there. The truth is you folks tned to be complainers and need no other reason to dislike something other than it exists lol.
Quote: I stay with EVE because I like it, but certainly not all of it. I like winning more than I like losing and I don't take joy out of a fight where I lose and only my loss is smaller than that of my opponent. This is where most of the drama starts. If I could get a better game then I'd buy it and if I then have little time left for EVE would I be leaving.
Just saying... I post this here so that you and others can understand what it is that makes someone stay. You will now argue that there is no alternative to EVE, but that does not mean I am wrong or that I am playing EVE wrong.
I really dislike all this drama and if I could move on from it then I would. Until then do I have hopes that EVE will change to the better.
Fair enough?
Nope. you are choosing to play a game you fundamentally dislike (despite your protests otherwise), even though there are other games you could be playing. In effect you are blaming the game for your personal choices. This is, sadly, a typical response, there are many such malcontents in EVE, sticking around in hopes that "ONE DAY EVE will be the awesome game I think it should be so i just have to endure a little longer".
You're fooling yourself (but not the rest of us lol), but it's your life, and your time/money to waste, so Cheers.
|

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
1159
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:24:00 -
[166] - Quote
Mister S Burke wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
You've played this game that takes YEARS to understand for a month and feel confident enough to comment on it?
Damn right.
Your mistake then. Hubris is the enemy of wisdom.
|

Whitehound
381
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:27:00 -
[167] - Quote
I have no idea what you are talking about or what the meaning of your response is. All I can read is that you want CCP to close the doors of high-sec to you.
Would you mind trying again, please? |

Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
1162
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:30:00 -
[168] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about or what the meaning of your response is. All I can read is that you want CCP to close the doors of high-sec to you. Would you mind trying again?
is English not your 1st language? I posted in English, maybe the internets turned it into russian or something.
Where did I say i want CCP to do any door closing or what not? What does that even mean? |

Ghazu
483
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:32:00 -
[169] - Quote
Anslo wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Whitehound wrote:If I ever leave then it is more likely because of all the drama Goons & Co. create. Reading here is almost like watching another episode of this vampire saga... And yet you make the personal choice to continue do it. Whats wrong with you, you do know you don't have to read stuff you don't like right? FYI, don't bother replying to Jenn here. They use their own close-minded world view as if it's law and that you MUST agree, or you're wrong and a "second class citizen." Confirming Jenn aSide for first class troll. look at this guy, first a barbie lover now a theme-parker, probably want the only allowable non-consensual thing ingame to be emoting. http://www.minerbumping.com/ lol what the christ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2299984#post2299984 |

Regis Solo
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:37:00 -
[170] - Quote
I hope CCP don't do this, it will ruin a game that has managed to keep going for 10 years. I am carebearish but the thought of being able to fly 100% safe is simply boring. |

Captain Tardbar
NEWB ALERT
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:37:00 -
[171] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:
My evidence that ganking reduces subscriptions is the fact that CCP buffed mining barges after hulkaggeddon.
Why would they spend the effort to change this if it is not to prevent lost subs?
Because they planned to do that a long time ago and got around to it? or any number of reasons. You're trying to use suposistion as fact and it doesn't hold water. Where is the evidence of decreasing subs during player created ganking events like Hulkageddon? THAT would be proff that would stand up in a court. Quote: If ganking was fine and just emergent gameplay they would have left it alone.
Yes there was a lot of complaints on the forums, but I beleive they used exit polls when people canceled their subscriptions as their reason to make the change.
People complaining on the forums threating to cancel their subscription does not always equal lost subs (the person may not go through with it), but when actual subscription cancellation happen and they give the reason "my ship was ganked" then obviously they decided to do something about it.
Again, obviously there was some sort of problem as they changed the game mechanics to buff miner barges.
If CCP wasn't worried about losing subs they would have done nothing.
So, give us a link to where you read those exit polls. You simply don't know what "evidence" means. Let me help: ev-+i-+dence [ev-i-duhGÇëns]noun, verb, ev-+i-+denced, ev-+i-+denc-+ing. noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. Until you have proof of what you say, it's all just speculation, and speculation is often wrong. what's really happening is you are putting your trust in a belief that supports what you are already predisposed to believe, which is a bad foundation for any kind of belief.
In that respect, if you say that there is no proof that ganking cause subscription losses then the opposite seems to be true.
You can not prove to me that ganking increases subscriptions or keeps them at the same level.
I'll admit there are not true numbers floating around, but I am making a logical inference that the balancing happened because event A seemed to correspond with even B. Perhaps my logic is flawed but it seems pretty suspicious that only after Hulkageddon did they buff mining barges.
Also lets consider this story why ganking may cause a subscription loss...
You are a miner and enjoy mining. You want to mine the most ore possible. Back in the day the ultimate ship was the Hulk. But it is expensive. Maybe 150 million isk (I don't remember the exact numbers) but for a miner starting out that might mean tens of hours worth of mining.
So they spend the better part of a month finally saving up enough isk to buy that hulk. They go out and fly it all happy their hard work paid off.
Then suddenley on the day they first start to mine... Gank happens. The newbie miner is out of a ship and no isk to show for it. Sure the people who ganked him are concorded but doesn't help him get his isk back. The insurance (if he could have afforded it) doesn't even cover a fraction of the ship cost.
What is the logical thing to do for a logical person at this point? Well cause and effect shows him that if he spends time saving up for a hulk that he will simply lose it. The most reasonable thing for this miner to do at this point is to quit the game.
Why should he waste all that time only to lose his hard earned money?
At this point he cancels his subscription and goes plays Star Treak Online.
And many of you say "Good riddance! We didn't need that player!" but that means lost money for CCP, who as a business, must worry about how to pay the bills.
Sure this may not have happened in this exact scenario but how many of those hulks in hulkaggedon quit their subscription?
I'm sure some people kept going after their first hulk loss, but what about the second? Or third? Why keep playing after that point? It is logically in this regard that ganking must cause subscription losses of some sort. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby" |

Whitehound
381
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:38:00 -
[172] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Whitehound wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about or what the meaning of your response is. All I can read is that you want CCP to close the doors of high-sec to you. Would you mind trying again? is English not your 1st language? I posted in English, maybe the internets turned it into russian or something. Where did I say i want CCP to do any door closing or what not? What does that even mean? It is not in what you write but how you write. Like you were some ugly loser and this is only a thread where people discuss a possible, but also unlikely, future of EVE. Yet you cannot stand the thought of the idea.
By the way, I am mining ice, all afk, while I post here. |

Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
508
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:39:00 -
[173] - Quote
If eve should be a place where everyone can enjoy level 4 mission running and nobody bothers anyone else, then what game should my friends and I be playing? Believe me when I tell you that we've looked, and there are no games that give us the gameplay we want. We came to eve because of what it allows us to do and stay because there are no better options.
To those saying that allowing this sort of gameplay is a bad business model, the term you're looking for is product differentiation. Let's look at this argument under a different lens. You say that McDonalds sells the most food and makes the most profit of any restaurant on the planet so all restaurants should be McDonalds. You wander into a largeish non-chain restaurant and demand a Big Mac, only to be informed that this is the sort of quiet, intimate place where you might take your wife for some high quality french food. You start losing your mind and screaming that's not how you run a business and you'll take your pants off and **** on the patrons until you receive a Big Mac.
I think you're just in the wrong restaurant.
Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement. |

TheBlueMonkey
Don't Be a Menace That Red Alliance
354
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:41:00 -
[174] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Jint Hikaru wrote:Speaking as someone who avoids PvP and is fairly carebear (but not afraid to go into WH or low/zero sec when needed)....
Making Hisec fully non-pvp will not be good for the game.
It may bring in, or retain, a few more players.... but the game as a whole will loose a lot of its street cred. And also probably loose some of its longer standing players. I don't know. The truth of the matter EvE the game and its subsequent development will only be around if there are many subscriptions paying the bills. So lets say there are 450,000 subscriptions and we'll just assume that everyone pays $14.95 per month to play (this is obviously not the case since Plex is actually more and some people pay less by paying yearly for their subscriptions. Also this in USD and no the Euro excludes taxes). So the total CCP makes gross per month is $6,727,500 If 1% of players quite because of ganking then that is 4500 players which doesn't seem like a lot over all. But that is $67,275 in lost revenue. Thats more than a years worth for a computer programmer used to advance eve. The numbers might even be higher depending (it might be lower as we don't have the numbers of ganks from CCP). Now the question you have to ask is "Will more people quit EvE because they can't gank than quite because they are ganked?" If the answer is more people will quit because they are ganked then obviously CCP is finacially obligated as a business to cut back on the possible ganking. The best evidence to prove that CCP actually loses subscriptions (and money) due to ganking is simply the fact they buffed minging barges after hulkageddon. If there was no finacial reason to buff the mining barges they would not have spent the resources (development, Q&A, and balancing) to actually have made the change. In conclusion the truth of the matter is CCP is obligated as a business to reduce ganking and other activies that reduce subscriptions. I predict this will happen whether you protest on the forums or not as the forums are only a fraction of the player base. I suspect CCP knows that gankers will just play other forms of PvP when they nerf ganking in the future.
erm... no
Firstly you'd need to work out how much CCP bring in from EVE, then work out their running cost of eve.
If running cost is less than total income then there's no actual obligation to do anything short of wanting more profit.
Now, you estimate that if 45,000 people leave that game that's around 70k. In all honesty, I'd rather they laid off 2 developers to cover that shortfall rather than change the mechanics to suite a minority.
Also, this perception that we need more and more subscriptions bothers me. Why do we need more people? If eve has been going along for 10 years or so then it's not running at a loss is it. If running costs do exceed income then work on reducing running costs.
Eve is a game that generates it's own content so it's not like you need people to create new theme park rides all the time.
I'd be more than happy if CCP didn't release any now content for the next 2-5 years and just focused purely on fixing broken parts of the games, fleshing out previous ideas and making general game play improvements. |

Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
508
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:43:00 -
[175] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote: I'm sure some people kept going after their first hulk loss, but what about the second? Or third? Why keep playing after that point? It is logically in this regard that ganking must cause subscription losses of some sort.
The argument that you're making is that the only options are to quit or not quit. There is also the option where they get better at the game and don't lose a Hulk to suicide ganking because they tanked it, or mined aligned, or any of the dozens of suggestions put forth over the years to help avoid being suicide ganked. Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement. |

Kainotomiu Ronuken
676
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:43:00 -
[176] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Whitehound wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about or what the meaning of your response is. All I can read is that you want CCP to close the doors of high-sec to you. Would you mind trying again? is English not your 1st language? I posted in English, maybe the internets turned it into russian or something. Where did I say i want CCP to do any door closing or what not? What does that even mean? It is not in what you write but how you write. Like you were some ugly loser and this is only a thread where people discuss a possible, but also unlikely, future of EVE. Yet you cannot stand the thought of the idea. By the way, I am mining ice, all afk, while I post here. It'd be real nice if we could refrain from the personal attacks and all, what with that being a breach of the forum rules and us really not wanting to get this enjoyable thread locked, no?
|

TheBlueMonkey
Don't Be a Menace That Red Alliance
354
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:45:00 -
[177] - Quote
Fanatic Row wrote: hi-sec is the incubator in EVE.
I've just got this mental image of a 30 year old man stuck in a baby incubator complaining it's cramped and boring while a load of others are looking at him perplexed and wondering why he doesn't just come out of the incubator and come play paintball with them.
Some people just don't want to remove the training wheels I guess. |

Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
932
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:47:00 -
[178] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Malcanis wrote:
By "catering to griefing" are you referring to non-consensual PvP? Because that's pretty much a core theme of EVE. Getting rid of that would be like making rugby into a non contact game. Go play volleyball if that's what you want.
But , but, I have so much time invested into rugby, you have to ignore the fact that I don't actually LIKE rugby and want it to be more like volleyball. I pay my rugby sub and the game should be like I want it, because it's a game. And screw it if your sarcasm meter exploded!
You don't like Rugby Union Football?
Bah! I can no longer consider you a worthwhile person.
This is not a signature. |

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
885
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:48:00 -
[179] - Quote
Psychotic Monk wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote: I'm sure some people kept going after their first hulk loss, but what about the second? Or third? Why keep playing after that point? It is logically in this regard that ganking must cause subscription losses of some sort.
The argument that you're making is that the only options are to quit or not quit. There is also the option where they get better at the game and don't lose a Hulk to suicide ganking because they tanked it, or mined aligned, or any of the dozens of suggestions put forth over the years to help avoid being suicide ganked.
You mean... learn... and adapt? Impossible.
I mean think of it like this, when I run around in BF3 and get killed over and over by a guy in a tank, do I switch to the anti-tank weapon? God no! I demand DICE remove tanks of course! If they don't remove tanks the Battlefield franchise will DIE. DONT SAY I DIDNT WARN YOU, DICE! |

Captain Tardbar
NEWB ALERT
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:49:00 -
[180] - Quote
TheBlueMonkey wrote:
erm... no
Firstly you'd need to work out how much CCP bring in from EVE, then work out their running cost of eve.
If running cost is less than total income then there's no actual obligation to do anything short of wanting more profit.
Now, you estimate that if 45,000 people leave that game that's around 70k. In all honesty, I'd rather they laid off 2 developers to cover that shortfall rather than change the mechanics to suite a minority.
Also, this perception that we need more and more subscriptions bothers me. Why do we need more people? If eve has been going along for 10 years or so then it's not running at a loss is it. If running costs do exceed income then work on reducing running costs.
Eve is a game that generates it's own content so it's not like you need people to create new theme park rides all the time.
I'd be more than happy if CCP didn't release any now content for the next 2-5 years and just focused purely on fixing broken parts of the games, fleshing out previous ideas and making general game play improvements.
Wow? So you think people are going to unemploy themselves for your amusment?
CCP is a business. The owners of the business aren't running the company simply for your amusment. They are doing it in order to maximize their profit.
Sure some companies sacrifice short term profit for long term profit or intangibles (like good will), but in the end of the day if the business does not make as large as a profit as possible they are doing it wrong and will go out of business sometime in the future. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby" |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |