EVE Search - The Shrinking Sandbox

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The Shrinking Sandbox - Eve by numbers

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 76 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Hadrian Blackstone Yamato Holdings 115	Posted - 2015.06.24 19:46:59 - [1591] - Quote Cipher Jones wrote: Hadrian Blackstone wrote: Milla Goodpussy wrote: eve ia dying last nght i noticed there were less than 15800 players online before midnight sinking ship ayndrone It's the same amount of people on, just without their 20 alts. Maybe this isn't such a bad thing. Its not the same amount of money to CCP, and it's creates inflation in game. Less pilots playing now than in 2009 when I started playing. Bad all around as far as I can see. I'll accept a bit of inflation for that. And if CCP starts losing money they won't just sit on their hands.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 24053	Posted - 2015.06.24 19:47:10 - [1592] - Quote 0bama Barack Hussein wrote: So i would rather go around this issue by other ways, like making gankers really run into problems with *effective* NPC-¦s (from Empire, Concord, militia, local security, what ever as long as they are not easy to run away from)... NPCs are predictable and with the exception of Concord, easily countered. For any resistance to ganking to be truly effective it has to be in the hands of players who are familiar with game mechanics and how to use them effectively, otherwise gankers will continue to adapt and come up with doctrines with which to bypass the scripted NPCs. NPC agencies are a lazy solution to a problem that should be left to players to solve. Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Cipher Jones The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars 1254	Posted - 2015.06.24 21:38:56 - [1593] - Quote Hadrian Blackstone wrote: Cipher Jones wrote: Hadrian Blackstone wrote: Milla Goodpussy wrote: eve ia dying last nght i noticed there were less than 15800 players online before midnight sinking ship ayndrone It's the same amount of people on, just without their 20 alts. Maybe this isn't such a bad thing. Its not the same amount of money to CCP, and it's creates inflation in game. Less pilots playing now than in 2009 when I started playing. Bad all around as far as I can see. I'll accept a bit of inflation for that. And if CCP starts losing money they won't just sit on their hands. When you lose customers you lose money, so the "if" in your statement is fallacy. What *are* they doing about it? Accounts may not be used for business purposes. Access to the System and playing EVE is intended for your personal entertainment, enjoyment and recreation, and not for corporate, business, commercial or income-seeking activities.-á
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 291	Posted - 2015.06.24 22:19:34 - [1594] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: 0bama Barack Hussein wrote: So i would rather go around this issue by other ways, like making gankers really run into problems with *effective* NPC-¦s (from Empire, Concord, militia, local security, what ever as long as they are not easy to run away from)... NPCs are predictable and with the exception of Concord, easily countered. For any resistance to ganking to be truly effective it has to be in the hands of players who are familiar with game mechanics and how to use them effectively, otherwise gankers will continue to adapt and come up with doctrines with which to bypass the scripted NPCs. NPC agencies are a lazy solution to a problem that should be left to players to solve. Gankers will always be able to gank in this game whether dedicated players want to stop it or not. Ganking is an action and current and all plausible mechanics in this game dictate that stopping them is a reaction. Since Ganking is instantaneous for the most part, they will always finish or fail before anyone has the ability to react. That being said, if there were penalties that had consequence for ganking... such as unable to use high-sec stations and services, or a progressively meaningful bounty system that made it lucrative to hunt said gankers, then we could talk about anti-ganking as a valid form of game play. But current alt use for nothing but ganking and being able to hide in station and warp around at will as -10 means anti-ganking is just not possible. very off-topic though. Remember, eve is dying and that is what we are discussing. Best description of Eve Online and why the community is the way it is
Hadrian Blackstone Yamato Holdings 116	Posted - 2015.06.24 22:20:31 - [1595] - Quote Cipher Jones wrote: Hadrian Blackstone wrote: Cipher Jones wrote: Hadrian Blackstone wrote: Milla Goodpussy wrote: eve ia dying last nght i noticed there were less than 15800 players online before midnight sinking ship ayndrone It's the same amount of people on, just without their 20 alts. Maybe this isn't such a bad thing. Its not the same amount of money to CCP, and it's creates inflation in game. Less pilots playing now than in 2009 when I started playing. Bad all around as far as I can see. I'll accept a bit of inflation for that. And if CCP starts losing money they won't just sit on their hands. When you lose customers you lose money, so the "if" in your statement is fallacy. What *are* they doing about it? It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors.
Sgt Ocker Burning Sky Labs 571	Posted - 2015.06.24 22:28:54 - [1596] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Fozziesov will bring a whole new meaning to griefing; Griefing does not equal fights for sov. Griefing does not and never will encourage long term content or conflict. Griefing is all about maximum disruption at minimal cost to the griefer. They will go on griefing but that does not mean their will be good fights (or any for that matter). What you will get is half entosed structures, left by the griefers as soon as anyone arrives to interfere with them. Sov holder will then need to point their own laser at the structure for a few mins to undo the griefers work and wait to see if they come back. True griefers won't come back while you are there to defend, they don't want to fight, they just want to be griefers and cause as much disruption as possible with minimal risk of conflict. I don't see a problem with griefers as you describe. If they run whenever there are defenders, just make sure you have people living in and defending the system. If you have too many systems for your amount of pilots, you have too much SOV and should consolidate and rightfully those other systems should be taken from you, regardless of whether it's by griefers who don't care about their own SOV or a group who wants to live in your unoccupied systems. You seem to be envisioning the old style of SOV where a group can own multiple empty systems. That's not possible anymore. Previously, you could rely on SOV structures' HP buffer to passively maintain control of a system you never visited (except for a deliberate attack from hostiles, usually in capitals, of course.) With Fozziesov, you cannot do that - you have to actively maintain control of a system. Which sounds like a good thing to me. A group of one or two hundred pilots should be able to actively occupy a constellation. They will still be subject to being wiped by a roving group like PL, or a nearby bored large alliance like GSF, but they could always have pilots in each system, be active enough in each system to get indexes up, and not have to worry about the occasional trollceptor. If their neighboring constellation has a similarly sized group, they can have plenty of long-term conflict with strategic objectives and back-and-forth action as participation and ISK levels ebb and flow. You don't live in nulsec do you. Would you live out of a pos just to ensure you had people in system. Many systems in sov will not support large groups of players, the rewards for living full time in a low income system that you need for logistics is just not viable. So unless we end up with armies of blues to enable logistics and other required things for an alliance to survive - You will always have systems that are not fully occupied. Just because Fozzie says "this is how it should be, doesn't mean he has designed Sov so it can be that way. In fact Fozziesov is so biased to large groups with blue armies it has made a joke of the stated goals of the new sov system. You seem to be envisioning a sov system where everything is ideal, the rewards for living in a given system are good enough to warrant people living there and not the reality of not all sov is worth holding for anything other than a specific need. I hope some of the predictions being tossed around are off - 6 months from now 40% of sov will be unclaimed and another 20% will be unclaimable by anyone without a blue army. Blues are far more important under Fozziesov than they were with the current system and griefers are the only real winners in the whole proposal (which isn't surprising really when you look at Fozzies past). Don't believe me about the affects of griefing ? Jump on Duality get in a cloaky and go roam around the "war zone", watch Fozziesov at work. It is really quite sad (from a development point of view) how easy it is for griefers with no intention of taking sov to get their jollies. (For Fozzie, it would seem old allegiances live on) My opinions are mine. If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
Sgt Ocker Burning Sky Labs 571	Posted - 2015.06.24 22:39:33 - [1597] - Quote Hadrian Blackstone wrote: It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors. It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome. CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority. My opinions are mine. If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
Cipher Jones The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars 1254	Posted - 2015.06.24 23:46:48 - [1598] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Hadrian Blackstone wrote: It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors. It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome. CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority. Hit the nail on the head. Accounts may not be used for business purposes. Access to the System and playing EVE is intended for your personal entertainment, enjoyment and recreation, and not for corporate, business, commercial or income-seeking activities.-á
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 291	Posted - 2015.06.25 00:37:42 - [1599] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Hadrian Blackstone wrote: It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors. It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome. CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority. This. Stop trying to make the majority do what you think Eve was founded on and should be. Start making Eve cater to the majority who still have the loyalty to pay for it. Best description of Eve Online and why the community is the way it is
Jenshae Chiroptera 1742	Posted - 2015.06.25 02:53:14 - [1600] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Hadrian Blackstone wrote: It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors. It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome. CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority. For emphasis. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow Fozzie is treating a symptom.

GankYou Redshield Holding Company 647	Posted - 2015.06.25 03:47:11 - [1601] - Quote Cipher Jones wrote: Hadrian Blackstone wrote: It's the same amount of people on, just without their 20 alts. Maybe this isn't such a bad thing. Its not the same amount of money to CCP http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2ndrl2/the_end_isboxers/cmcsthm Quote: ...and it's creates inflation in game. How? Quote: Less pilots playing now than in 2009 when I started playing. Bad all around as far as I can see. Quite correct, currently 2008 levels of activity. Cipher Jones wrote: When you lose customersyou lose money, so the "if" in your statement is fallacy. What *are* they doing about it? http://i.imgur.com/tSqTwl9.png - When people such as this come to command such numbers, CCP become a victim in their own hostage situation. It if far more prudent & sensible to know and account for your real customers, who were decreasing in an inverse correlation to the above. ...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK. Gÿ+ Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
Commander Spurty Dimension Door We need wards. 1470	Posted - 2015.06.25 03:58:53 - [1602] - Quote Ban stick figures always appear to be missing from these sorts of whines. How many Accounts were banned for BOTTING (Forever!) ? How many Accounts were banned for RMT (Forever!) ? How many Accounts were banned for "neither of the above two reasons"? Add all 3 up and see if you can find your 'shrinkage'. There are good ships And wood ships And ships that sail the sea But the best ships are Spaceships Built by CCP
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai 3696	Posted - 2015.06.25 06:40:44 - [1603] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Hadrian Blackstone wrote: It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors. It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome. CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority. Boom, headshot! It doesn't helps much when the only people at CCP who "crossed the fence" barely represent a minority of players. 73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai 3697	Posted - 2015.06.25 06:54:25 - [1604] - Quote Commander Spurty wrote: Ban stick figures always appear to be missing from these sorts of whines. How many Accounts were banned for BOTTING (Forever!) ? How many Accounts were banned for RMT (Forever!) ? How many Accounts were banned for "neither of the above two reasons"? Add all 3 up and see if you can find your 'shrinkage'. That doesn't matters. What matters is that less characters online = less subscriptions = less money for CCP and less characters online = less "content" = less subscriptions = less money for CCP. Even if "undead accounts" have become a thing, and thus people are paying in order to not log in, that income is on the verge of becoming non-income as soon as they lose hope that "it will be worth it in the future". Now, either we see milestones become real and increase activity, or CCP is going to be in deeper sht. Some people may be waiting for Fozziesov. Some may be waiting for the Rubicon plan. But in the case that those milestones fail to increase server activity in a durable manner (not just spike for a couple months after release, then go back to shrinking), CCP will begin losing the "undead" income. At some point, bittervets must agree that CCP is never going to make it worth for them* and so they're skilling up for not my game. 73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
GankYou Redshield Holding Company 647	Posted - 2015.06.25 07:29:18 - [1605] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Hadrian Blackstone wrote: It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors. It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome. CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority. For emphasis. Which majority? The majority that built this game from 2003, or the potential imaginary one that is found in most other MMOs? ...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK. Gÿ+ Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
Anna Dufour Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.06.25 08:03:20 - [1606] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Hadrian Blackstone wrote: It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors. It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome. CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority. yup, not much need to elaborate.
Barrogh Habalu Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 882	Posted - 2015.06.25 11:15:18 - [1607] - Quote Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote: A fictional scenario like the one I sketched above would make EVE 100% more interesting, and would turn it into a better PvP sandbox, where every playstyle was given tools to oppose every other playstyle. I feel it's a better idea to realize that every tool has a purpose and even if you like one of them more than another, and therefore are more proficient with it, sometimes it just won't cut it. You have to use that another tool, and maybe get to know someone who knows how to use it. Possibly by bringing your tool and skills to help that other guy while he's busy with your problems. This way you have a system with less arbitrary "gameplay enforcers" like one you suggested - something that is pretty much opposite of sandbox. Besides, you don't outsource things that players could do to NPCs - something associated with concept of MMO. If you think about it, you'll see that people who embrace the concept actually form groups we consider powerful. Sov blocks, WH communities - you can't do much there without having both worker lending a shovel and soldier lending a gun to the cause. It also helps that you can be both in EVE. ...Honestly, it's getting more and more confusing as time goes. Multiplayer sandbox is not about being able to stick to something ignoring everything else in the world is you choose so. That's what your Steam library is for. It's about facing objective reality of universe not governed by some scenarist's artificial narrative. I think I should sig that last one.
GankYou Redshield Holding Company 647	Posted - 2015.06.25 11:27:08 - [1608] - Quote Anna Dufour wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Hadrian Blackstone wrote: It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors. It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome. CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority. yup, not much need to elaborate. Definitely. Everything is crystal-clear. It is not. Which majority? If Entosis Link replacing 10 dreadnaughts is not catering to THAT majority then I don't know what is. Casuals. How - casual. ...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK. Gÿ+ Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
Jenshae Chiroptera 1746	Posted - 2015.06.25 12:08:57 - [1609] - Quote GankYou wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Hadrian Blackstone wrote: It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors. It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome. CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority. For emphasis. ]Which majority?The majority that built this game from 2003, or the potential imaginary one that is found in most other MMOs? The one that can be found through activity metrics, you know, scientifically. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Harrison Tato Yamato Holdings 408	Posted - 2015.06.25 13:09:37 - [1610] - Quote EvE players will keep coming back for another beating because they can change him :)

Remiel Pollard Shock Treatment Ministries 6607	Posted - 2015.06.25 13:12:49 - [1611] - Quote Is EVE still dying? Seriously, this game would make a great supporting character in a blockbuster movie. You know, the one that always dies but takes ages to die so he/she can spin of a few lines of deep monologue to the main character. Except for the fact that EVE's taking so long to die, its monologue would require a whole manuscript of its own. Maybe, actually, the whole death scene could be its own spin-off movie. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Jenshae Chiroptera 1747	Posted - 2015.06.25 13:23:11 - [1612] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Is EVE still dying? .... Melodramatic exaggerations to dismiss entire threads aside. We are discussing a trend. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai 3700	Posted - 2015.06.25 13:24:37 - [1613] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Is EVE still dying? Seriously, this game would make a great supporting character in a blockbuster movie. You know, the one that always dies but takes ages to die so he/she can spin of a few lines of deep monologue to the main character. Except for the fact that EVE's taking so long to die, its monologue would require a whole manuscript of its own. Maybe, actually, the whole death scene could be its own spin-off movie. If you think of it this way, [Br]eaking [Ba]d is a TV series about a guy who's dying... 73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
Jenshae Chiroptera 1748	Posted - 2015.06.25 13:36:11 - [1614] - Quote Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote: ...and he dies eventually. No he does not! (Ignore this spoiler people) Bad Istanchuk! Bad! Whacks with Amarr printed propeganda. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Libby Tazinas In Utter Darkness United Systems of Aridia 4	Posted - 2015.06.25 13:37:50 - [1615] - Quote EVE or CCP rather may not be dying, but they're building one hell of a house of cards and sooner or later it will all come crashing down. Facts are the subscriptions and player numbers are down, you can clearly see this on all available graphs out, but CCP doesn't care because they have been generating more income from selling plex and other areas outside of subscriptions so it balances the equation except you have fewer players paying more to play and as you lose players one by one the impact of them leaving is much more apparent and abrupt to CCPs bottom line. For the players, sooner or later this game of cards we call EVE will end, the question is do you want to be holding all the cards when that happens?
Remiel Pollard Shock Treatment Ministries 6608	Posted - 2015.06.25 14:06:50 - [1616] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Is EVE still dying? .... Melodramatic exaggerations to dismiss entire threads aside. We are discussing a trend. Is it a 12-13 year old trend by any chance? Cuz jeans are a 'trend' too, ya know. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard Shock Treatment Ministries 6608	Posted - 2015.06.25 14:15:10 - [1617] - Quote Libby Tazinas wrote: EVE or CCP rather may not be dying, but they're building one hell of a house of cards and sooner or later it will all come crashing down. Facts are the subscriptions and player numbers are down, you can clearly see this on all available graphs out, but CCP doesn't care because they have been generating more income from selling plex and other areas outside of subscriptions so it balances the equation except you have fewer players paying more to play and as you lose players one by one the impact of them leaving is much more apparent and abrupt to CCPs bottom line. For the players, sooner or later this game of cards we call EVE will end, the question is do you want to be holding all the cards when that happens? At the end of the day, EVE is an MMO. Of course it's going to end. All MMO's will, which is why treating them like a job instead of a game will make it harder for people to let it go when it does. I think it might be safe to say, though, that people who know how to enjoy their games, while they will probably miss EVE in its absence, probably won't have much trouble finding new fun to replace it. I haven't even been on much lately because of actual work and also, doing a new Mass Effect playthrough in anticipation of Andromeda. It's literally the only thing at E3 this year that made me squee like a blonde in a shoe store. I have a Steam library full of games I haven't even installed yet. If EVE ended right now, right this second, I would literally be finding something new the second after. And asking the remainder of my sub to be refunded, of course. Not expecting, just requesting. What doomsayers need to realise is that they're the only ones really worried about the end of EVE. Everyone else is just enjoying it while it's there. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Sgt Ocker Burning Sky Labs 584	Posted - 2015.06.25 14:39:53 - [1618] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Libby Tazinas wrote: EVE or CCP rather may not be dying, but they're building one hell of a house of cards and sooner or later it will all come crashing down. Facts are the subscriptions and player numbers are down, you can clearly see this on all available graphs out, but CCP doesn't care because they have been generating more income from selling plex and other areas outside of subscriptions so it balances the equation except you have fewer players paying more to play and as you lose players one by one the impact of them leaving is much more apparent and abrupt to CCPs bottom line. For the players, sooner or later this game of cards we call EVE will end, the question is do you want to be holding all the cards when that happens? At the end of the day, EVE is an MMO. Of course it's going to end. All MMO's will, which is why treating them like a job instead of a game will make it harder for people to let it go when it does. I think it might be safe to say, though, that people who know how to enjoy their games, while they will probably miss EVE in its absence, probably won't have much trouble finding new fun to replace it. I haven't even been on much lately because of actual work and also, doing a new Mass Effect playthrough in anticipation of Andromeda. It's literally the only thing at E3 this year that made me squee like a blonde in a shoe store. I have a Steam library full of games I haven't even installed yet. If EVE ended right now, right this second, I would literally be finding something new the second after. And asking the remainder of my sub to be refunded, of course. Not expecting, just requesting. What doomsayers need to realise is that they're the only ones really worried about the end of EVE. Everyone else is just enjoying it while it's there. I'd imagine CCP would be somewhat worried about the demise of Eve - They have built quite the ivory tower around it. There is no good reason why Eve should ever fail and disappear - Except for bad development choices - CCP is doing a fine job of that atm but it isn't too late to turn it around. Get the narrow minded Devs to look outside what they "think" players want and listen to what players actually want - Eve could go on forever. Some of the recent changes could be compared to drilling wholes in the hull of a ship to stop it sinking. My opinions are mine. If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
Dersen Lowery Scanners Live in Vain 1670	Posted - 2015.06.25 14:40:29 - [1619] - Quote Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote: That doesn't matters. What matters is that less characters online = less subscriptions = less money for CCP and less characters online = less "content" = less subscriptions = less money for CCP. Actually, that doesn't matter either. What matters in terms of the bottom line is the ratio between income and expenses. CCP may be much smaller than it was in 2011, but it's also more focused and more competently run. Given everything CCP Seagull has said, and given her background in LARPs, it's utterly unsurprising that she's swaying the company away from chasing sub numbers at any cost and toward direct, personal interaction between players. If that means some belt-tightening while the ship adjusts to the new course, CCP is doing that. It's a risk, of course, but it's a calculated one, and CCP Seagull has come right out and said that CCP is feeling bold again. This is bold. There are two realities that CCP appears to be confronting: 1) As soon as you start measuring something, you become tempted to optimize the number whether it makes sense in a broader context or not. This is just human psychology. CCP boasted higher sub numbers every year, so there was clear internal pressure to make the number bigger every year, until it became obvious that all of the compromises CCP made in pursuit of that goal were poisoning their game. So they're not doing that any more, and they're sloughing off all the inflated numbers--and also the players who enjoyed the gameplay that those compromises enabled. 2) There's a fallacy that the best way to address a problem is head-on. If the problem is less income from accounts, there are a wide number of solutions, and the best ones aren't the obvious ones. All those "WoW killers" (or more broadly, "___ killers") that litter the landscape were caricatures of successful products by people who were too blinded by the currency signs in their eyes to understand that it's not just a question of copying a few superficial traits and then watching the money roll in. (In the peculiarly tragic case of WildStar, it's not just a question of asking the players what they want, either.) The best way is to create the thing that you personally want. In this particular context, you make the game you want to play. For CCP, that's EVE's crazy but inspired attempt to compromise between the freedom of the original UO server and the population and broad appeal of the Trammel server-- all, famously, on the same shard. Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote: Now, either we see milestones become real and increase activity, or CCP is going to be in deeper sh*t. Some people may be waiting for Fozziesov. Some may be waiting for the Rubicon plan. But in the case that those milestones fail to increase server activity in a durable manner (not just spike for a couple months after release, then go back to shrinking), CCP will begin losing the "undead" income. What if CCP doesn't want the "undead" income, and they're adjusting for the eventuality of not having it? Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. I voted in CSM X!
GankYou Redshield Holding Company 647	Posted - 2015.06.25 15:01:46 - [1620] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: GankYou wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Hadrian Blackstone wrote: It started only recently. Maybe they'll see the errors. It started 2 years ago - As for seeing errors, CCP is well known for repeating past mistakes hoping for a different outcome. CCP has ex-players as designers who are developing the game toward their play styles - Which unfortunately does not suit the majority. For emphasis. ]Which majority?The majority that built this game from 2003, or the potential imaginary one that is found in most other MMOs? The one that can be found through activity metrics, you know, scientifically. So the one that built this game from 2003 then? We/they didn't stay around for a broken stalemate system which Sov 4.0 has become, so in fact, CCP is catering to this very majority in a valiant attempt to generate self-sustaining pewpewpew as it has always been. As it will always will be. Or, EVE Offline. ...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK. Gÿ+ Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 76 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.