The point they were making was a vast majority of war decs is one side simply staying docked. As said in the minutes "Paying some people to stay docked." They are right that when players are hit with a war dec, they seek ways to evade it. That is either by leaving the corp, going to space where the war dec is irrelevant or simply staying docked and or logging off.

Aside from a high sec POS and POCO's (hopefully soon) there is no incentive to undock and fight if you don't think you will mop the floor with the opposition. It is the equivelant of a roaming gang in null that passes through some blocks systems. Everyone safes up and waits it out or they form ultra blob to engage the roaming gang. At which point the roaming gang runs off.

It all boils down to easy access to too much information on enemy intel and little to no incentive to undock and deal with the opposing war party. I am not saying war decs should be removed completely, but honestly the vast majority of the war decs is by some small group of players who target industrial corps to feel like they are brave. The moment the defender is able to put up a fight, the so called elite PvPers who originally war dec'd them want nothing to do with the fight and will dock up themselves.

Mechanics that end with ships choosing to dock up instead of fight a majority of the time need a rework.

Actually what I took away from the minutes is that CCP is generally in favor of a themepark (as they are afraid of the rapid failure cascade that "I only play EVE because my friends play EVE" enables) while the CSM was pretty open in their disapproval of a more themepark-like EVE.

I don't disagree that corps just docking up and waiting it out as being a generally poor result, but a couple of people from CCP/the CSM seemed to have the wrong response to that, rather than asking "how can we encourage a fight or some form of standing up to the aggressor" they were asking "how can we make it possible to just avoid it entirely". I think the ally system was a decent attempt at answering the first question, so it's a shame to see it slipping the other way.

In all, the current wardec system is probably the least broken option: goal-oriented wardecs will require complex coding and as such will present a swathe of new ways to break the game for everyone.

The previous iterations of wardecs (including the laughably broken Dec Shield episode) illustrated one thing: you cannot force people to fight, even in an all-PvP game.

The only situations in which a hisec wardec makes sense is when there is some goal to be achieved: blow up this POS, or stop these people mining in those systems being the obvious goals. This is something that was brought up years ago, but has not been acted upon: having goal-oriented wardecs for such goals as "cause X B ISK damage" or "remove the POS at System Y Moon X".

There is the rare wardec or two where a solo wardeccer will end up blowing up some foolish miners or mission runners.

In all, the current wardec system is probably the least broken option: goal-oriented wardecs will require complex coding and as such will present a swathe of new ways to break the game for everyone.

I think the current wardec system, like Democracy, is not perfect, but at least it's less broken than the other options that have been tried from time to time.

Two step asked the team if they felt theyGÇÖd accomplished all that they had set out to accomplish in overhauling the wardec system, as it appeared to him there appeared to be just as much random wardeccing and grief wardeccing as there was before the overhaul. Solomon joked that it would be so much easier to just remove the wardec system completely, to much laughter of the CSM. Then, more seriously, Solomon explained that the designers had been back and forth discussing this question, and that the general idea has always been to develop a toolset where two entities could participate in mutual combat even in highsec space.

Trebor: There is the important word you just said GÇô mutual conflict. Just as you can have a mutual engagement between two players, you should be able to have a mutual engagement between twogroups. But the current system, itGÇÖs a cursed mechanic, because most of the people who get involved want absolutely nothing to do with it.

Solomon noted that they were looking specifically into cases where one corp wardecced another corp, and no losses occurred. Usually this means that a larger more powerful entity has wardecced a smaller entity that wants nothing to do with the conflict and therefore does everything in its power to avoid being caught or killed. Solomon wagered that this was the case in 70-80% of wars.

Solomon: The strong prey on the weak, but the weak arenGÇÖt responding, and nobodyGÇÖs getting particularly fun or nourishing gameplay out of this. Is that a failure?

Alek countered that this more often happened in the reverse GÇô a smaller, say 5-man corp, will wardec a larger 50-man entity, who will just dock up and refuse to fight. Alek pointed out this has little to do with strength or capability, but simply willingness to engage in PvP.

Alek: As Stoffer [Soundwave] said earlier, you should not be able to play EVE in your own little world and not be affected by other players.

Alek explained that he has no problem with such a small group paying the price to be able to fight a larger group, and if the larger group refuses to participate, thatGÇÖs a decision they make for themselves. Meissa countered that Solomon was correct, most high-sec wardecs simply werenGÇÖt being fought out. Meissa likened this to simply paying other players to stay docked up.

Fozzie: A wardec where only one side wants to be in it isn't any less legitimate than a bounty that only one side wants. We're not going to go to anyone and ask them if they'd like to accept the bounty placed on them.

Solomon: But at least with the bounty system, Concord is still there to protect you. In the wardec system, itGÇÖs not.

SoniClover: The key thing here is that there is a legitimate reason to have a wardec system and that is to allow people to engage in a lethal fight in highsec. And that is important because it should be that the higher economic impact that you are having, the higher the chance that other people will be interacting with what you are doing. You should never be able to have a huge economic impact on the game and become completely immune by the game mechanics, to be completely safe from others.

SoniClover: And it seems that some are clamoring a lot for the game system to protect them. And we're trying to minimize that as much as possible. EVE is never going to give you complete game system security. And we're never going to go that route.

Reading the minutes, I'm astonished to see so many people in favour of completely removing non-consensual pvp from highsec.

Reading the minutes, I'm astonished to see so many people in favour of completely removing non-consensual pvp from highsec. Claiming that wardecs are unfair, grief-play, claiming that there's no "risk" to the aggressor (how can they bemoan the lack of risk, then suggest removing all risk from highsec as a solution?), that they should only be mutual, etc...

Call if griefing please, just man up already and drop the euphemisms. 99% of the gaming world hates griefing (not pvp) and video games did not become mainstream in the 1990's because games were all grief fests. It sounds to me like the employees understand the concept of evolve or die and let's face it, griefers are an ever shrinking small minority. Everyone used to say they wanted "hardcore" free for all or no rules. Everytime a game is harcore in the griefing aspect everyone gets prison stomped and they all quit.
I don't think this game hinges on some griefers ability to suicide gank an AFK autopiloter or a miner in hisec. I pvp and frankly it would be nice to autopilot in hisec and go make a sandwhich or get a drink. Removing the lame suicide ganking does not equate to instant theme park.

You know what, if they want to burn their game to the ground, so be it. I'm passed caring.

Additionally, while a corp docking up is generally lame, at times that can be a desired result of a war dec - whether it's because you want to try and interfere with logistics by making them too scared to do logistic runs,

or because you want to interrupt their ability to PVE and earn isk, or simply because you want to punish them for something by making it difficult for them to do what they want to do.

So what if high-sec becomes a save house and PvP was only possible in low- and null-sec? We get a couple of tears from high-sec PvPers! Pffft...

If it means more revenue for CCP then let's do it.

I think you missing the Point... With a completely Safe highsec.

Why go anywhere else where you can be killed and loose your things? Think about the markets man...

So what if high-sec becomes a save house and PvP was only possible in low- and null-sec? We get a couple of tears from high-sec PvPers! Pffft...

Reading the minutes, I'm astonished to see so many people in favour of completely removing non-consensual pvp from highsec. Claiming that wardecs are unfair, grief-play, claiming that there's no "risk" to the aggressor (how can they bemoan the lack of risk, then suggest removing all risk from highsec as a solution?), that they should only be mutual, etc...

when has eve ever been that kind of game?

Call if griefing please, just man up already and drop the euphemisms. 99% of the gaming world hates griefing (not pvp) and video games did not become mainstream in the 1990's because games were all grief fests. It sounds to me like the employees understand the concept of evolve or die and let's face it, griefers are an ever shrinking small minority. Everyone used to say they wanted "hardcore" free for all or no rules. Everytime a game is harcore in the griefing aspect everyone gets prison stomped and they all quit.
I don't think this game hinges on some griefers ability to suicide gank an AFK autopiloter or a miner in hisec. I pvp and frankly it would be nice to autopilot in hisec and go make a sandwhich or get a drink. Removing the lame suicide ganking does not equate to instant theme park.

What, exactly, would you do in a PvP-free highsec? You wouldn't be able to mission, mine, trade, build, invent, etc. Stop being mad that your ship and pod were recently confiscated and think about what you're actually advocating.

[quote=Mister S Burke]

And ten years of griefing later, EVE is still growing.

There's something wrong with your argument here. People are attracted to EVE because it is one of the very few games left that has not eschewed all meaningful player interaction in the name of stamping out griefing.

Thanks for calling it griefing at least. Now I think you are confusing death penalty with griefing. I say again that you won't hear people say "man remember when EVE online had to be shut down when they removed some ganker alts ability to suicide gank someone." I would add that if suicide ganking in hisec is such a big part of your EVE play then you are doing it wrong.

You're suggesting that I'm playing a sandbox wrong?

Two opinions:

1. If one side would rather not have anything to do with a war, instead of forcing them to dock for a week, set up a surrender mechanism where they can pay a sum and get the guarantee that they won't be declared again for a week, with the war ending immediately upon payment. People can evade wars right now, it's just a hassle, but the fact that it's a hassle won't make them fight in the war. So it's a pointless hassle. I'd be pro letting the extortionist get his stuff right away and move on.

2. Have incentives for undocking even if you're clearly going to lose. Not monetary, obviously, but medals for valiant effort, something that can also be used as a coin in the NeX shop, or rent-free office space for the corporation, or NPC standings, accellerated skill training for the combat participants, something.

Sorry, no, I won't call it griefing because it isn't griefing. Is it griefing to snipe a guy in call of duty because he wanted to only use pistols? You only want to mine or mission, but maybe the other guy wants to use all the mechanics, including ones that end up with you getting shot

I'm a PVPer, you are wasting my time by depriving me of a target because you are more interested in carebear tears then having a showdown in low or null.

You don't even understand what griefing is I think. Here is a definition. A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users, and as such is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities, since griefers often cannot be deterred by penalties related to in-game goals. If you want to go suicide gank and AFKer or a miner you just want to be a douche, you're hardly going to rake in the isk, you want to **** someone off.
I'm a PVPer, you are wasting my time by depriving me of a target because you are more interested in carebear tears then having a showdown in low or null.

You don't even understand what griefing is I think. Here is a definition.

I'm a PVPer, you are wasting my time by depriving me of a target because you are more interested in carebear tears then having a showdown in low or null. I'm ALL about some player interection my man, now leave the safetly of hisec you stud and come play with the big kids. You are just as safe in hisec as the carebears as you use the safety of concord to keep you safe until no one can do anything when you strike.

That's a load of crap. You're basically saying all pvp in highsec is a result of someone wanting to childishly irk someone else. That's a silly statement and you know it. Even if it wasn't though, you haven't provided any reason why doing that shouldn't be mechanically possible, other than saying you don't want it to be.

I think things are out of whack. PVE people want to PVE and not be ganked, you want to go gank them. I want to PVP people like you but you want to hide in hisec hypocritically under the same Concord protection that the PVE people enjoy that you bemoan. I know what you are doing in a hisec belt in your Thrasher but I can't jack you because you are just as safe as the carebears until you decide at your safe leisure to LOLOVERHEATPEWPEWW.
PVP is like spinach, if you are forced to have it when you are young you don't want it when you grow up. Let the PVE people skill up, mine, make isk in peace in hisec and then let them get rich and bored and come to low null and play. You griefers cause your own problem, you turn noobs off to PVP from the start and they just never want to get into PVP.

[quote=Mister S Burke]

BTW, I realise you're just trying to live up to your name, but Concord don't protect suicide gankers; they shoot them.

I know what you are doing in a hisec belt in your Thrasher but I can't jack you because you are just as safe as the carebears until you decide at your safe leisure to LOLOVERHEATPEWPEWW.

Sure they do, no one mentions this hypocrisy. That suicide ganker is safe as can be until it's too late. I know what those Thrashers are doing, can't touch them because Concord keeps them safe too until they want to suicide when it pleases them.

PVE people want to PVE and not be ganked, you want to go gank them.

I want to PVP people like you but you want to hide in hisec hypocritically under the same Concord protection that the PVE people enjoy that you bemoan.

PVP is like spinach, if you are forced to have it when you are young you don't want it when you grow up. Let the PVE people skill up, mine, make isk in peace in hisec and then let them get rich and bored and come to low null and play.

You griefers cause your own problem, you turn noobs off to PVP from the start and they just never want to get into PVP.

[quote=Mister S Burke] You also don't get to define what griefing is.

Riedle

Maybe you've heard of security status?

I sure do and I just did. I've been playing games since the 80's so I know my way around gamers and the game culture. Griefing has and always will be taking advantage of someone who can't fight back. EVE has hardly reinvented the wheel here.

Maybe you're heard of alts?

Sure they do, no one mentions this hypocrisy. That suicide ganker is safe as can be until it's too late. I know what those Thrashers are doing, can't touch them because Concord keeps them safe too until they want to suicide when it pleases them.

You're suggesting that I'm playing a sandbox wrong?

Maybe you've heard of security status?

You could always get in a thrasher and gank them.

I think things are out of whack. PVE people want to PVE and not be ganked, you want to go gank them. I want to PVP people like you but you want to hide in hisec hypocritically under the same Concord protection that the PVE people enjoy that you bemoan. I know what you are doing in a hisec belt in your Thrasher but I can't jack you because you are just as safe as the carebears until you decide at your safe leisure to LOLOVERHEATPEWPEWW.
PVP is like spinach, if you are forced to have it when you are young you don't want it when you grow up. Let the PVE people skill up, mine, make isk in peace in hisec and then let them get rich and bored and come to low null and play. You griefers cause your own problem, you turn noobs off to PVP from the start and they just never want to get into PVP.

Time, effort, isk/hr, sinking to our level, etc.

You and your kind suggest everyone else is playing the sandbox wrong everyday.

And if they want to do so in perfect safety there are other games out there. If they want to *attempt* to PvE without being ganked then that's fine.

I think things are out of whack. PVE people want to PVE and not be ganked, you want to go gank them. I want to PVP people like you but you want to hide in hisec hypocritically under the same Concord protection that the PVE people enjoy that you bemoan. I know what you are doing in a hisec belt in your Thrasher but I can't jack you because you are just as safe as the carebears until you decide at your safe leisure to LOLOVERHEATPEWPEWW.
PVP is like spinach, if you are forced to have it when you are young you don't want it when you grow up. Let the PVE people skill up, mine, make isk in peace in hisec and then let them get rich and bored and come to low null and play. You griefers cause your own problem, you turn noobs off to PVP from the start and they just never want to get into PVP.

[quote=Anslo]No, the New Order makes it clear to highsec miners that theres is not the only way, and that if they elect to continue playing the same way we will confiscate their ships and pods.

Now, go back under your bridge.

You are missing the big picture, this is a business and they want people to play here. I think it's too reactionary to say that if griefing pvp is taken out of hisec then EVE becomes insta Runescape or a themepark MMO, that is silly. All I am saying to be clear is that we can keep our cake and eat it too. Let the PVE people play in peace, they will get rich, they will get bored and they will realize they can't take the isk with them if they unsub so they go to null and lowsec. How is this fair? Well they don't get PVP experience by taking the safe road to riches do they? So if you went the hard way to low and null you have an advantage because you rose the hard way, won't be as rich but everyone wins in the end.

When CONCORD gets a few days off, either by deliberate plan or some "Tuxfordian Effect"... can't wait for the Youtube parodies.

And you guys thought that "Big Red Button" we got in the Xmas goodies was just a useless prop....

Considering we have had these things happening in game for TEN YEARS and we have had nothing but year on year growth I would say the sytem is working just fine.

That could actually be fun. I picture it like this:
1. CONCORD won't be active for a day or two.
2. All players are made deputies to CONCORD.
3. Every time a crime is committed all players in the vicinity get the option to insta-warp to the location with the perpetrator already locked.

This would propably mean that Jita and all the major hubs are more or less crime-free, while in you should be avoiding less populated areas of space.

Most amazing fact for me - how many people care about CSM and think it's sime kind of space democracy council which can actually do something useful instead of its actual meaning: instrument for CCP to stabilize null/low alliances and avoid massive monetary/subscriptions losses in case of alliance leaders leaving the game - by offering bribes to them in form of free trips to Iceland.

I think you missed the point about evolution. Do you really think Eve can sustain itself another 10 years with the same business plan and style, griefers abounding in the game when people just want to have fun? Then being told to deal with it or GB2WOWNUB because they don't play the game "the right way?"

If you really think Eve will be around another 10 years catering to people like that....you clearly know nothing about running a business. Hopefully Hilmar does.

Perhaps you missed the bit where two developers said they wanted really, really bad changes involving the removal of non-consentual combat from highsec?

Your still able to gank people, don't see the source of tears being valid beyond this point.

If you really think Eve will be around another 10 years catering to people like that....you clearly know nothing about running a business. Hopefully Hilmar does.

Ha. Ha ha. You're funny. No really you are. You think people would be "good" and police?

Firstly, griefers do not abound in the game, they are delt with whenever they show up by the GMs.

And secondly yes I do see this game going on and growing for another 10 years with the same plan. We have had 10 years of content made by us and I look forwards to the next 10 years of content made by us.

Blame yourselves for its suggestion.

sorry, it doesn't matter if that's what they want. I want my own personal fleet of titans. I want concord to not exist. I want x, y and z. It doesn't matter, we all have to face how the game currently works - for them that includes being open to war decs and suicide ganks.

I think you missed the point about evolution. Do you really think Eve can sustain itself another 10 years with the same business plan and style, griefers abounding in the game when people just want to have fun? Then being told to deal with it or GB2WOWNUB because they don't play the game "the right way?"

If you really think Eve will be around another 10 years catering to people like that....you clearly know nothing about running a business. Hopefully Hilmar does.



Ha. Ha ha. You're funny. No really you are. You think people would be "good" and police?

So what you're saying is the type of audience EVE has catered to since it's inception, the audience that has kept it alive and successful for ten years, will in the near future cause the game to crash and burn

you are very very special

See, that's all I'd ask of ccp and the csm - trying to come up with ideas like this rather than entertaining the idea of removing non-consensual interactions entirely

Yes, because time's change, markets change, fads change, and niche's change. Businesses adapt to make the most profit and expand. It's worked for ten years so far, but to think Eve will survive ANOTHER ten years with the same business model and ignore/not adapt to potential customers is just laughable.

It makes no business sense to allow bored rich veterans who have been playing for years and just use ISK to pay for game time (no real cash going to CCP)

Griefers don't abound in Eve? Do you even play this game? OK sure, by the griefer's holy "definition" provided by CCP you say it isn't griefing. But for those of us in the real world who don't limit their views in a skewed favor of a poorly defined action by a game company (i.e. griefing), it is viewed as griefing. Whether you choose to accept reality versus staying in a fantasy is your choice.

And secondly yes I do see this game going on and growing for another 10 years with the same plan. We have had 10 years of content made by us and I look forwards to the next 10 years of content made by us.

I still can't get a clear answer on how the fate of EVE hinges on a vocal minorities ability to grief noobs with 600K skill points.

I still can't get a clear answer on how the fate of EVE hinges on a vocal minorities ability to grief noobs with 600K skill points.

I still can't get a clear answer on how the fate of EVE hinges on a vocal minorities ability to grief noobs with 600K skill points.

Considering we have had these things happening in game for TEN YEARS and we have had nothing but year on year growth I would say the sytem is working just fine.

Take a look at last year. Chribba's EVE-Online Status Monitor. The last year was almost a decline if it wasn't for the December numbers. Frankly, the past looked brighter for EVE than it does now.

I am not sure what to blame it on. The ganking in high-sec, while it attracts more gankers, will drive some players out. The blobs of carebear armies in 0.0 that now lead to -A- disbanding, who in my opinion were one of the most feared alliances of the past, is turning large parts of null-sec into a blue zone. This blue zone will have an effect on the player numbers, too. There seems to be more PvP in high-sec and less in 0.0. It is definitely worth a try to drive PvPers out of high-sec than forcing new mechanics onto 0.0 and trying to fix low-sec or 0.0 somehow.

Do you have any proof that the market has changed, and that EVE will die if it doesn't turn itself into a WoW clone? Anything at all? No?

I sure do and I just did. I've been playing games since the 80's so I know my way around gamers and the game culture. Griefing has and always will be taking advantage of someone who can't fight back. EVE has hardly reinvented the wheel here.

Take a look at last year. Chribba's EVE-Online Status Monitor. The last year was almost a decline if it wasn't for the December numbers. Frankly, the past looked brighter for EVE than it does now.

I am not sure what to blame it on. The ganking in high-sec, while it attracts more gankers, will drive some players out. The blobs of carebear armies in 0.0 that now lead to -A- disbanding, who in my opinion were one of the most feared alliances of the past, is turning large parts of null-sec into a blue zone. This blue zone will have an effect on the player numbers, too. There seems to be more PvP in high-sec and less in 0.0. It is definitely worth a try to drive PvPers out of high-sec than forcing new mechanics onto 0.0 and trying to fix low-sec or 0.0 somehow.

Do you have any proof that the market has changed, and that EVE will die if it doesn't turn itself into a WoW clone? Anything at all? No?

There's proof to the contrary though: The continued growing of the user base despite still being a harsh, cold universe where people can kill you, steal from you, scam you, etc

People blowing up a ship to steal isk is not griefing. People war decing a corp to destroy their tower so they can place their own is not griefing, people taking up a contract to war dec a rivals competition is not griefing.

Just about the only thing that is griefing is can baiting on the starter stations. You need to start learning the difference or you only end up looking like a self entitled child.

I'll take the plan that has resulted in the only MMO to have 10 years of growth over all of the other dead after 3 months plans. All of the evidence over the last decade points to CCP getting it right.

allow bored rich veterans who have been playing for years and just use ISK to pay for game time (no real cash going to CCP)

Blame it on Incarana.

Which is what it was.

They're finally heading in the right direction but damage takes time to fix.

EVE Online was shipped by guys that GÇ£were about to lose their housesGÇ¥

[quote=Mister S Burke]CCP do not agree with your flawed definition.

Conclusion: HTFU

Its funny how the most successful upsurge just happened to be when they did a pvp update.

And as I said, it's foolish to think that said growth (minimal growth at that) can continue this way for ANOTHER 10 years.

There is always a spike around expansions and Christmas. And when both fall together then it only gets stronger. Yet, it didn't reach the numbers of the past.

all there is is to following along and repeat the same 5 quests over and over again, ala wow.

I'll just go find something else to do, as depressing as that is.

[quote=Anslo]


Meanwhile I will just point out that the last expansion in december, which added even more ways to be killed in high sec, has resulted in a boom in player numbers. This tells us that people want to fight in high sec and not be utterly safe.

Wrong, I subbed in December and I am here to tell you it was in spite of the fact that some Thrasher srub suicide ganked my little ship and not because of it. I know at least 3 people who didn't sub because of that kind of BS. They uninstalled and went to another game and never looked back.

Why?

Got any evidence that shows that EVE will die if the core of the game isn't gutted and replaced with the safety every single other failed MMO provides?

Meanwhile I will just point out that the last expansion in december, which added even more ways to be killed in high sec, has resulted in a boom in player numbers. This tells us that people want to fight in high sec and not be utterly safe.

Wrong, I subbed in December and I am here to tell you it was in spite of the fact that some Thrasher srub suicide ganked my little ship and not because of it. I know at least 3 people who didn't sub because of that kind of BS. They uninstalled and went to another game and never looked back.

Actually they do which is why this topic we are in even exists. CCP knows they can't keep letting the gankers run off new people and they know they have a mob of veteran fanatics to deal with. The choice is clear, throw the die hard old vets under the bus and cater to the new players. Why? The old vets will grumble and won't go to WOW, but the young people will go play a competitors game. Just ask the American republican party what happens when you let the die hard fringe elements fly the ship. Evolve or die.

Why?

Got any evidence that shows that EVE will die if the core of the game isn't gutted and replaced with the safety every single other failed MMO provides?

Meanwhile I will just point out that the last expansion in december, which added even more ways to be killed in high sec, has resulted in a boom in player numbers. This tells us that people want to fight in high sec and not be utterly safe.

Then with all due respect ot them they're probably not the kind of people who were suited to play EVE Online anyway. EVE Online has never had the mass-market appeal of World of Warcraft and it has never needed or aimed for it. EVE Online is a game in which at any point, at any time after you click undock, you are in danger of losing your ship. It will experience success by continuing in that vein. If you're not prepared to deal with that, you should probably let your subscription lapse.

Again with the extremist thinking. Did I say die? Did anyone aside from nutjob, zealot predatory PvP'ers say anything about Eve DYING? No. I said numbers are in decline. This could lead to stagnation. A very different, but just as horrible, outcome for Eve.

And what do ya know, I do have some evidence (that I'm sure you and other predators will twist).

Looking at the all time numbers, 2008-2011 saw wonderful growth. After that, there is an average decline. Even the Christmas/Winter expansion didn't make Eve see 2011 numbers. It's subtle, but it's a trend. It's a decline.
B
BUT NO EVE IS GETTING MOAR SUBSCRIPTIONZ! I can subscribe to a game, but if I'm jaded with what it's become, I'm not going to log in and play. Just try to cancel or wait for the subscription to wane.

Why?

Got any evidence that shows that EVE will die if the core of the game isn't gutted and replaced with the safety every single other failed MMO provides?

Meanwhile I will just point out that the last expansion in December, which added even more ways to be killed in high sec, has resulted in a boom in player numbers. This tells us that people want to fight in high sec and not be utterly safe.

Looking at the all time numbers, 2008-2011 saw wonderful growth. After that, there is an average decline. Even the Christmas/Winter expansion didn't make Eve see 2011 numbers. It's subtle, but it's a trend. It's a decline.
B
BUT NO EVE IS GETTING MOAR SUBSCRIPTIONZ! I can subscribe to a game, but if I'm jaded with what it's become, I'm not going to log in and play. Just try to cancel or wait for the subscription to wane.

You say numbers are in decline yet CCP announce a new subscription record...

5 different quests you say? What kind of game would just have the same few missions.... oh wait

Wrong, I subbed in December and I am here to tell you it was in spite of the fact that some Thrasher srub suicide ganked my little ship and not because of it. I know at least 3 people who didn't sub because of that kind of BS. They uninstalled and went to another game and never looked back.

Both the Dems and the Republicans are rushing towards the center. That makes sense. Closing highsec off from PvP is not the center. That is just the other side of "old vet" extremism.

Allowing players to accumulate massive fortunes with no risk will have a significant impact on the economy.

One of the area's that Eve is head and shoulders above every other MMO out there is the player economy.

I think this huge casual player base of grandmothers, preteen girls and retired milkmen that you keep alluding to might actually be more happy with a feelgood app than a game like Eve, regardless of PvP.

I'm not trying to argue with you here, just pointing out some observations.

What's good about EVE other than that the players are allowed the maximum possible freedom to interact with each other?

Are you saying that you just started playing Eve a couple of months ago?! Just shut up if that's the case! Your opinion is like raw bacon, or cookies made without butter and sugar, or like someone who lives under a bridge and charges a toll. WTF that like thread griefing.

Repetitive words from an extremist troll.

...

Many people don't want freedom, they want guaranteed positive outcomes (just like in real life lol). Most MMOs try to give them that, which is why most fail.

Hell, I have been ganked so fast, I was dead and pod-killed before I could even read the 'danger' messages on the screen.

Good for them.

Yeah right, like that was you're initial reaction. I bet you are just pleased ad punched when you get wacked.

Oh did I forget to ask permission from some old fogey if I could speak. A thousand apologies his majesty. Get over yourself, no one could tell I was new until I said as much. I know you guys act like it takes years of study to even undock from a noob station but frankly this game isn't that hard. It is hard compared to other MMOs but let's face it, it is still just a video game. You old times act like it take a degree from MIT to even load a weapon on a ship.

Actually they do which is why this topic we are in even exists. CCP knows they can't keep letting the gankers run off new people and they know they have a mob of veteran fanatics to deal with. The choice is clear, throw the die hard old vets under the bus and cater to the new players. Why? The old vets will grumble and won't go to WOW, but the young people will go play a competitors game. Just ask the American republican party what happens when you let the die hard fringe elements fly the ship. Evolve or die.

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?

Do you remember how awesome Starwars galaxies was when becoming a Jedi was hard?
And a 10 vs 1 fight was fair because Jedi's were badass?

That was awesome, huge amounts of fun and when you met a Jedi it was all "ooooo, you're amazings"

Then they changed it so EVERYONE was a Jedi within 5mins of starting the game... and then subscriptions fell away.



Anything worth having is rarely easy to acquire and easy to acquire things are rarely worth having.

And yet ...

You were given the benefit of the doubt, people here wanted to speak with you and to understand your position and reasoning on the assumption that you have spent some time in Eve and are a part of the community.

I am not an "old fogey" and in any case ones opinion here is not validated by age, rather by speaking with an understanding of the subject at hand, and by presenting your ideas in a clear and transparent format.

You absolutely don't need permission to speak here, this is Eve do what you want. But don't expect the mechanics of this place to forgive your misunderstanding.

Yes, I just think there is a happy medium to get more people into the game as we all know it can take some time for it to "click". It can be hard enough to get around and get going then you add someone blowing up what little you have right at the start. I think things can be made more starter PVE friendly without turning anything into wow. WoW would be as small as EVE if you got stripped naked every time you died.

[quote=Mister S Burke]

Incorrect. The OP exists because the OP misread the CSM minutes to think that CCP wants a consequence free arrangement in highsec which is could not be further from the truth.

HTFU or GTFO

More drama. Go away.

Oh did I forget to ask permission from some old fogey if I could speak. A thousand apologies his majesty. Get over yourself, no one could tell I was new until I said as much. I know you guys act like it takes years of study to even undock from a noob station but frankly this game isn't that hard. It is hard compared to other MMOs but let's face it, it is still just a video game. You old times act like it take a degree from MIT to even load a weapon on a ship.

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.

And yet ...

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.

[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

More drama.

Are you this blind that you cannot see that I won't care for your comments?

Many people don't want freedom, they want guaranteed positive outcomes (just like in real life lol). Most MMOs try to give them that, which is why most fail.

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.

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.

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.

it's not "the csm" that's in favor of themeparks it's trebor

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.

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....

Because FFA PvP with no goals has killed every single MMO that tried it.

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.

You've played this game that takes YEARS to understand for a month and feel confident enough to comment on it?

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.

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 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.

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?

Damn right.

...

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?

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.

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.



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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

hi-sec is the incubator in EVE.

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!

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.

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.

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 quite 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.

It all boils down to easy access to too much information on enemy intel and little to no incentive to undock and deal with the opposing war party.

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.

You are a miner and enjoy mining.

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.

As a high-sec missionrunner carebear miner trader and occasional PVPer i am disappointing that CCP want to remove unwanted PVP against people who irritate me for any reason at all

Gentlemen, i suggest we burn high-sec to the ground, either that or encourage CCP to make changes that make it possible for high-sec players such as myself into null easier, such as removing the ability to make hueg power blocks and make null a smaller and more liquid space

(i dont want to start a trade station for everyone in null or anything)

I think it is pretty obvious that CCP wants some level of ganking and non-consensual PvP in hi-sec.

The difference between CCP and the average "just want to blow stuff up" pilot, is that CCP sees it as acceptable when it's goal-oriented. Goals drive conflict and conflict keeps EVE alive. All playstyles.

Just blowing stuff up drives nothing. The people doing it either get bored or run out of stuff to blow up, since nobody sticks around to get blown up if there's no reason to stick around.

It happened to low-sec and it's slowly happening to null-sec. In the end, nobody wins.

It can't happen to hi-sec, hi-sec is the incubator in EVE. Blow it up and everything will eventually fade away.

That's why CCP is looking into hi-sec PvP. Looking for ways to add goals. Stuff like POCOs in hi-sec, better structure for war decs and transferable kill-rights.

They aren't looking to remove non-consensual PvP in hi-sec, but add structure and goals. Because FFA PvP with no goals has killed every single MMO that tried it.

They are doing it in order to maximize their profit.

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.

Pretty much this.

And I pick one of your formulas to add that if FFA PVP was that good and awesome as many claim, the test server would be more populated, which it isn't.

That would be proof of correlation, not causation.

Two VERY different things. It's actually quite hard to prove why people leave unless in the exit poll they put

"I'm leaving because I keep getting blown up when I do stupid things"

3. That player who left for STO was replaced by someone else who wasn't and idiot miner. When faced with the chance of getting killed, he decided to fit a tank to his ship rather than quit in a fit of rage. Your friend is not ready for EVE, its best that he plays a no risk MMO.

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.

If CCP wanted only to maximize profit, WHY are we flying space ships instead of riding unicorns and blowing on horns of Gondor?

pretty much a strawman argument, as no one is suggesting doing anything like that in EVE.

some say Eve is becoming a theme park game and others asking for a full pvp server everywhere from VFK-IV up to Jita.

Tranquility currently *is* a PvP server, everywhere.

Call if griefing please, just man up already and drop the euphemisms. 99% of the gaming world hates griefing (not pvp) and video games did not become mainstream in the 1990's because games were all grief fests.

It sounds to me like the employees understand the concept of evolve or die and let's face it, griefers are an ever shrinking small minority. Everyone used to say they wanted "hardcore" free for all or no rules. Everytime a game is harcore in the griefing aspect everyone gets prison stomped and they all quit.
.

I don't think this game hinges on some griefers ability to suicide gank an AFK autopiloter or a miner in hisec. I pvp and frankly it would be nice to autopilot in hisec and go make a sandwhich or get a drink. Removing the lame suicide ganking does not equate to instant theme park.