EVE Search - Decline in numbers... starting to turn into RAPID!!!

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Decline in numbers... starting to turn into RAPID!!!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 77	Posted - 2015.08.25 16:02:29 - [1] - Quote Years and years of focussing on PVE, bearing and making everything easier/safer lead to this and it's highly ironic a bear would then state "we need more pve, that would surely help".
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 114	Posted - 2015.09.16 09:12:06 - [2] - Quote Zihao wrote: So newbies like me have at least 6 years of content to enjoy before we're bored and bitter too? Awesome! There's lots of content, it's called other players. It's just that most people are lazy, lethargic and really bad so they cower in a corner waiting for others to make stuff happen because any actual commitment or initiative would just be far outside their comfort zone. If you choose to be pro active, choose to make **** happen then you'll have content every day, all day.
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 135	Posted - 2015.09.20 07:10:37 - [3] - Quote coalition clowns quitting, people closing their 17th cap alt account. It's glorious.
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 367	Posted - 2015.12.13 10:38:45 - [4] - Quote They don't have to make massive changes at all, niche products work just fine as long as they stay true to their niche. Marmite (the brand, not the alliance) is a good example: Overall people don't like it, a vast majority wouldn't even eat it if they were paid to do so but it appeals to a specific group of customers, a group that stays loyal, doesn't really shrink and in fact actually grows because there's always new folks who tried it and actually like it. According to many people's... logic in this thread Marmite should change its recipe and taste to appeal to a majority of customers but that would mean two things: 1) it would alienate its initial customers who will stop using it 2) it would have to start competing with other, more main stream, products and as those get updated very regularly they would be forced to do the same or become forgotten It is the same with EVE: the second CCP decides that they want to compete with other MMOs in regards to play style, f2p pricing strategy and choices, content, polish, difficulty and PVE focus is the second they are forced to forever join the rat race to update and add to the PVE part of the game to keep the fickle PVE players happy, because if they don't they'll move to the next new fad. The game isn't capable of doing that because it would require a massive rewrite, in fact it would probably be cheaper to start from scratch, and to what end? So that they will have to work harder and compete more, spending more, to get more people in? Why? What's the point? By staying true to its niche and improving upon it, while not losing sight of its roots, the game will always attract a specific type of player which will always exist. And the more other companies do the f2p, easy mode nonsense the more people who play that will get fed up with it because they feel like they're being treated like a 5 year old and will look for something better. How many other competitors are out there? One, and that one is hilariously terrible. Build it and they will come. By staying true to its niche EVE ensures its place amongst other MMO's and ensures slow but stable grow. Wanting some better PVE experience is fine but the whole "CCP you better turn this ship around cause I see icebergs in front of us, hell and doom awaits us!" is silly and, I would hope, no one falls for that. There's no reason, nor point, to massively change anything at all. Update and improve yes, doing an NGE no.
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 367	Posted - 2015.12.13 11:06:44 - [5] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Tiberius Heth wrote: They don't have to make massive changes at all, niche products work just fine as long as they stay true to their niche. I did not ask for proof, but thank you... So you belong to the group that dislikes changes. Becaaaaauuuuuse: For some ppl some changes are big, for others not so much, depending what you are looking at. You say: eve = niche niche = fine eve = fine So why the decreasing numbers? Comes all back: to changes I don't dislike changes but I see no reason to change because I like, and liked, what EVE stands for in the first place. That is why I started playing it, obviously. Why would anyone start to play a game he doesn't like and at some point demand changes to make it into something he does like? That's silly and rather dumb. The decreasing numbers are a simple reaction of people who started playing the game, like you, while not actually LIKING the core of the game (which is dumb) and now, being the fickle pve players that they are, are looking for the next new thing. But they don't want to leave and rather see the game change. So we are back to 2009 PCU numbers because from 2009 on EVE started to attract more mainstream players and now those players, not being EVE's core customers, leave again. All perfectly in line with what I stated and not at all supported by your ideas. That and other logical explanation that have been stated throughout this thread. EVE is going to lose customers to ED and SC but a number of those will return after having tried that new fad and realise how limited those games are/will be. And the ones that don't come back CCP would never be capable of keeping anyway because they couldn't change the game enough to make that happen. So why bother if that means diluting and alienating the customers that DO like your game. It's not EVE's fault that you started playing a game you don't like, there is no logic for you to demand changing the game into something that you do like if that means said game has to change so drastically it loses its initial appeal from the people who DO like it. If you try Marmite and hate it, would you write a letter to that company and demand changes so that it tastes more like peanut butter?
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 367	Posted - 2015.12.13 11:17:26 - [6] - Quote You're not making any sense and you're grasping at straws now. You have been for a long while, in this thread. And, as always with you it seems, a lot of lies and half truths. PVE has not been neglected at all, it's been buffed over and over for the past half decade.
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 367	Posted - 2015.12.13 11:38:26 - [7] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: When EVE was first created gamers were different from how they are now. Now people tend to want faster access to content and won't tolerate waiting around for it anywhere near as much. Many do, some don't. the ones that don't cherish the games that cater to them. That is why it's called "niche". You're trying to use reasoning to suit your agenda.
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 367	Posted - 2015.12.13 12:22:57 - [8] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Tiberius Heth wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: When EVE was first created gamers were different from how they are now. Now people tend to want faster access to content and won't tolerate waiting around for it anywhere near as much. Many do, some don't. the ones that don't cherish the games that cater to them. That is why it's called "niche". You're trying to use reasoning to suit your agenda. And you're trying to pretend that niches never shrink. The fact is that what gamers want is largely controlled by their experiences with games overall and less new gamers are interested in games like EVE than when EVE first launched as games tend to be a lot faster paced these days. Like I say, EVE can stick to it's niche, but don't be surprised if CCP move their development focus onto newer products and leave EVE with legacy support. No that is not a fact at all, you just made that up to support your case. The boogieman statements aren't really working either. I'll repeat again, really slowly this time. NOT being liked by a majority of potential customers is not a problem if you have a core of potential customers that are loyal to the game because the game is loyal to them and are niche enough to attract new non-standard customers. There'll always be people leaving, there'll always be people joining and overall, as history shows, EVE grows just fine. This temporary set back is a result of external issues and because people, who didn't really like EVE's core game, now see SC and hype it to **** (as always) and now "threaten to leave if nothing changes". BYE!
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 367	Posted - 2015.12.13 14:07:21 - [9] - Quote People who are tired of F2P clown grind games that are populated with idiots. People who have working brain cells that don't want to be treated like a dumb 5 year old. Go play World of Tanks for a bit, I'm sure you'll understand what I mean and if you don't you're probably part of the problem.
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 367	Posted - 2015.12.13 14:15:29 - [10] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Tiberius Heth wrote: People who are tired of F2P clown grind games that are populated with idiots. People who have working brain cells that don't want to be treated like a dumb 5 year old. Go play World of Tanks for a bit, I'm sure you'll understand what I mean and if you don't you're probably part of the problem. It's very telling that you consider yourself so superior to other gamers. Still doesn't change a reality of what game developers have to cater to. I consider myself, and many others with me, to not be the target audience of most games. As such we will focus on the games that treat us differently.

Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 367	Posted - 2015.12.13 14:46:57 - [11] - Quote That's a lot of fancy words you're using there. The funny part is that you're confirming what I, and many others, have been stating all this time and you don't even realise it. - fact is of course that, yes, most games cater for the average player - fact is also that there's a whole bunch of non-average players in many different ways who are looking for something more - there's really just one game that offers this: EVE. so there's always an audience and it'll always grow slowly because many people who were kept down by silly games try EVE and while at the start they might not be "EVE material" they see the light and become it anyway - because there's no other games that compete for this player pool there is no reason for EVE to change - would it do so anyway, to appeal to the more average player, then that player will enjoy that for 1-3 months and then move on to the next new average game as they always do. And the people who enjoyed the uniqueness of EVE will stop playing so EVE will lose both types. It really isn't that difficult to understand, unless you don't WANT to understand it or just... can't.
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 368	Posted - 2015.12.13 21:14:53 - [12] - Quote Who says niches shrink? Can you show us studies on this, any facts? Could it be that you are trying to use that made up "fact" because you WANT change or, perhaps, because you've never really been "EVE material" (there's a reason you're in SMA, you know). EVE had been growing just fine up to 2009, which is when they started their "offensive" to grab more and more main stream players so it grew even more but that was a ticking time bomb. You can't keep those non-eve material players interested for too long before they start whining about changes and more pve content, and that will never stop because those people always need more content because they can't create it themselves. that is why they're not EVE material. Which is exactly what this thread is. QED.
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 368	Posted - 2015.12.13 21:30:15 - [13] - Quote Market McSelling Alt wrote: Tiberius Heth wrote: EVE had been growing just fine up to 2009, which is when they started their "offensive" to grab more and more main stream players so it grew even more but that was a ticking time bomb. You can't keep those non-eve material players interested for too long before they start whining about changes and more pve content, and that will never stop because those people always need more content because they can't create it themselves. that is why they're not EVE material. What?! Eve had its best growth between 2009 and 2013. During which time we got Wormholes, Incursions, Lvl 5's, POS Sov removal, new ships and FW. Eve didn't start its decline grabbing main streamers, it started its growth spurt doing that. It started its decline when they backed off on content infusion and started the nerf/balance act and kicked us down the support ladder to try and save WoD and start Valkyrie. Yes, that is exactly what I stated. Quote: so it grew even more
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 368	Posted - 2015.12.13 23:00:24 - [14] - Quote Quote: It's obvious they can shrink, as the mainstream moves, the niche become more niche compared with the "average player" until eventually there's less people coming in than going out. If you want evidence of this,there's a game called EVE online. It's a niche game that has been hemmoraghing players and has had to start working on attracting a wider audience while the company also branches out into other games to keep in profit. Anything can happen, tomorrow martians can land here on planet earth as well. My point is that you made it up because it suits your needs. I'm sure you realise this yourself? Quote: Bull, absolute bull. Prove that prior to 2009 they had no interest in pulling a wider audience and prove that after 2009 attempting to pull a wider audience was the cause of the (supposed) decline and not the effect. somewhere in 2007-2008 Hilmar made a statement about their new goals, going from "make a funky game" to "we want 300k subscribers". I'm sure that a 2007 player like you remembers this. Add some concept, planning and realisation time to that and presto: 2009. So if we ignore the uhm... "oops" of 2011 we had an increased growth (from both natural growth and now also increased growth due to a broader appeal). The reason we're now in a "decline" are many and they have been summed up numerous times. From jump fatigue changes to plex prizes and from less botting to "other factors". The majority of these reasons are obvious, shouldn't need an explanation and have nothing to do with scary stories. They're all very logical, understandable and, actually, planned for by CCP. The "other factors" are pretty much 4 things: - people who just move on as they always do - people who started playing ED or SC and enjoy that style of game just more - people getting bored with the stagnant 0.0 play caused by terrible carebears who created massive coalitions just to not have to fight others. Of which you are a foot soldier - people who see CCP making dumb decisions again in regards to skill trading and whatnot and they're not going to hang around These reasons also have been stated numerous times in this thread. The fact that you still don't seem to know or understand these kinda strengthen the whole "SMA member" idea. Let me try some easier to understand terms, so even the more special people can understand. - a small pvp focussed eve corp does really well. they have good teamwork, good pilots and they do GREAT. high quality pvp without annoying idiots - then the CEO says "lets stop focussing on having fun and doing well, lets try and get into a 0.0 alliance" - they apply to one but get rejected, said alliance is not interested in a 30 man corp, they want at least 300 men - so their new goal is to have 300 man in corp but with the current recruitment standards that they have (high quality players that do well within the current group) that's never going to happen. So they have to lower their expectations - the corp grows and grows and all it still well but the core members, that make it all happen, start to rebel. but they stick around for the time being - more people join the corp and finally: they have 300 and apply and join 0.0 - the new, lower quality, players are having lots of fun. Lots of fleets, everything it catered for, you just have to follow orders - the old garde, who still makes it all happen isn't having fun at all and finally decides that enough is enough and they quit, taking the old core group of pilots and form a new corp. Back to the old pure, high quality pvp style - now the corp lost its true power and as no high quality player will join an aimless corp like that the CEO does the only thing he can do, he lowers expectations even MORE and gets MORE people into the corp. He's replacing quality with quantity - but now the corp is full of suck, doesn't get anything done and the only thing they can fly is drakes because anything else is just too difficult for its members - corp is bloated to ****, is now useless, gets kicked out of the alliance and implodes - corp is now an empty shell, just the CEO in it who quit the game in disgust This happens ALL THE TIME in EVE and in RL too I might add. Mistaken and wrong goals combined with a loss of focus on its core results in bloated entities that eventually implode to nothing. You should know, you're in one.
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 368	Posted - 2015.12.13 23:33:33 - [15] - Quote Perhaps you should stick to Summit.
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 370	Posted - 2015.12.14 08:20:48 - [16] - Quote Dear god...
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 370	Posted - 2015.12.14 08:51:40 - [17] - Quote No, stupidity is.
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 370	Posted - 2015.12.14 08:59:20 - [18] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Tiberius Heth wrote: Dear god... Lucas is just mad because CCP made his input-broadcast multibox mining fleet illegal (check his tears in the input-broadcast thread if you don't believe me). Since then he just trolls and tries everything to ruin EVE for everyone else. Just block him. So you're saying there's a good reason he's in SMA then. Noted.
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 372	Posted - 2015.12.14 09:26:45 - [19] - Quote It's not "grrr" but more like "lol". The fact that you didn't get that is yet further proof that... Well, you know.
Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 373	Posted - 2015.12.14 10:00:45 - [20] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Tiberius Heth wrote: It's not "grrr" but more like "lol". The fact that you didn't get that is yet further proof that... Well, you know. Whichever way you want to pretend it is, you make judgements based on alliance affiliation rather than the merits of what is being said, which pretty much makes any opinion you have irrelevant. No I don't, it's the other way round. I realise that your comments show you to be... below par and then I make the connection going "aha, well that explains it". Not understanding this rather obvious logic is uhm... yeah.

Tiberius Heth Say No to Features 373	Posted - 2015.12.14 10:15:40 - [21] - Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G_zSos8w_I

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.