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)
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 1	Posted - 2015.09.02 18:38:31 - [1] - Quote Deck Cadelanne wrote: Hilti Enaka wrote: If anything, the next mods to hit the hammer should be warp disrupters and scramblers. You pick a fight, get tackled and whine when the target's friends arrive and blap you. Yet you think you are the one who did not make the bad decision? Kind of sounds like you are saying "I suck at PVP, nerf it so I can run away from a fight if I am losing." It's just a necessary component of a game that has an instant travel mode (warp - jump - whatever). I don't know what state changes are snuck in during warp, probably streaming in loading the grid or whatever. There's also the paper-scissor-stone aspect, where the encounter is won or lost before you even get on grid. Not always but quite often. Works both ways though - skill wise. You either get the point or escape. If nobody gave you travel, scout or point 101 tutorials, it may generate a feeling of injustice in a new player. I suppose the issue is you don't "level up" against other players in terms of skill. You level up through actual experience. It's not a game mechanic. So I completely understand where he's coming from.
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 2	Posted - 2015.09.02 21:21:55 - [2] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Markus Reese wrote: Nothing is random. Analyse something enough and a person can find out why a speck of dust landed where it did. Random is just a way of saying we havent implemented the means to measure or control. Every outcome is guaranteed. We just dont bother with the information and analysis to determine it. Even the numbers from a lottery. If you know all factors involved, you can guaranteed determine what the results will be. Until some other physicist showed that some measurements in quantum theory are actually random and that the system would behave completely different if there actually was a way to predict the outcome of the measurement, no matter how much we may understand it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem). Oh what a Pandora's Box you've opened.
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 2	Posted - 2015.09.03 08:24:15 - [3] - Quote Markus Reese wrote: The whole point of my original statement was nothing is random but only seems that way due to unknowns. As the link, in a longwinded way explains, even when we think we have every variable isolated, there can always be something to give the slightest bit of variation from an expected result. That still is not random. It is just an un-quantifiable variable. Does not mean it always will be. Bell's Theorem was designed to test the theory that objects really do have actual properties before they're measured (what you call unknowns - or hidden variables). Its violation in experiment means you either have to throw out localism or realism - or both. That is to say, it's not that the properties are hidden - there really aren't any before you make a measurement.
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 3	Posted - 2015.09.03 16:51:17 - [4] - Quote Markus Reese wrote: ...or ask the question why and answer that. Is basis of science! They have properties. We just cannot measure it. Science isnt about getting answers, it is about asking questions. A scientist who finds answers has failed. A scientist who finds something to bring about more questions.... I understand but remember, when it comes to quantum systems your intuition is cheating you. You have to throw out everything you think you know about reality. Delayed choice quantum eraser experiments are even more nuts. Btw: Feynman was quite entertaining on `why' questions. But I don't think it's possible to understand 20th century physics without first reading Plato's Allegory of the Cave. His insight is deep for someone who lived 2,500 years ago.
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.09.04 13:34:08 - [5] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: It boils down to personality driven preferences, no amount of arguing will ever change that. I just let them say "competitive pve" because it makes them feel better even if it makes me want to roll my eyes. I don't know what the discussion is about to be honest. Eve just isn't a very good game. That's really all there is to it.
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.09.04 13:46:24 - [6] - Quote xxxTRUSTxxx wrote: babyblue wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: It boils down to personality driven preferences, no amount of arguing will ever change that. I just let them say "competitive pve" because it makes them feel better even if it makes me want to roll my eyes. I don't know what the discussion is about to be honest. Eve just isn't a very good game. That's really all there is to it. door is that way >>>>>>> bye bye only a fool pays for something he doesn't like. I'm unsubbed, thanks. This is part of the problem though isn't it. Any criticism over and above some pointless and ultimately moot discussion about some trivial game rule or mechanic isn't tolerated. And people like you, presumably the kind of personality recruited and retained easily, fill the game world. I lasted on and off since beta 6 but mostly by avoiding interacting with players like you. No offence of course. You make Eve what it is, don't you? And what is that? Quite a mediocre video game.
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.09.04 14:28:34 - [7] - Quote xxxTRUSTxxx wrote: You are not unsubbed, you're still on the forums. you are paying for a game you no longer play and you dare say people like me, presumably the kind of personality recruited and retained easily, fill the game world. at least i still play the game i pay for. I'm here because i love this game, no other reason. why are you still here? I am unsubbed. IDK when it runs out. Maybe a week. But you're not making any sense. Why come to a discussion about why something isn't working out by saying 'I love it' when the discussion is about why other people don't?
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.09.04 14:36:52 - [8] - Quote Markus Reese wrote: Part of the problem is people who are more focused on complaining and semantics than offering up constructive solutions and ideas. This makes no sense to me. Why would people who are subbed and play Eve have anything to say about getting people who aren't to subscribe? If the idea is to recruit and retain players, why isn't the CSM almost entirely composed of people who don't play the game? Surely you'll get more insight in 5 minutes with them than you will with 5 hours talking to bittervets?
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.09.04 19:48:47 - [9] - Quote Markus Reese wrote: We are better. If millions were able to handle eve, it would no longer be a game only for the elite. An "elite" is a select group of people with certain distinctive attributes. So what does this game select for?
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.09.05 10:56:05 - [10] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: First off, like you say, yeah, randomness. Every mission of the same name is the same, and that gets stale fast. Missions should vary in themselves, and even be made of random components, so you might have a mix of parts from different missions in it. Computer algorithms would create a large number of unique missions that to a first approximation were all exactly the same. The real solution to this problem is for CCP to produce an endless stream of new content using experts - artists, animators, designers. This is very time consuming and expensive for a studio and I expect that's why they don't do it. At the moment the sandbox allows players to create their own missions. Unfortunately this mostly involves trying to gank or scam other players (in high sec - where new players enjoy their "content") and in null the idea seems to be to kiss butt on the undock with some jumped up little pinhead who wants you to sign a contract of employment before you warp. Even the reward of becoming an expert in some aspect of the game has been diluted and watered down over recent years. I don't know what the solution is but I do know it probably involves playing another, completely different game.

babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.09.05 11:40:09 - [11] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: I used to advocate for removing CONCORD intervention in HS Incursion systems altogether, but that would be a bit unfair towards players trying to escape the system (as all denizens will, since their native activities are nerfed by the systemwide modifiers), as well as unwitting capsuleers transitting throughnit. I think the idea is to get more players, not lose the ones you have.
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.09.05 12:31:19 - [12] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: More competition through player intervention. That is where EVE offers excitement, diversity, competition and risk. "player intervention" is minmaxed too and that doesn't involve anything anyone would describe as "competitive" - It's just the same old camping and ganking. This is a game engine that doesn't support any other kind of competitive play. In, say, Elite Dangerous, being scrammed (dropped out of warp) is competitive in a true sense, because with skill you can manoeuvre yourself out of the attempt and "win" the interaction. In Eve the decision is made before you've even landed on grid because your vector intersects a game object you didn't know was there. In a lot of cases whether or not you escape is entirely down to your fit (paper, scissor, stone) and you made that decision before you even undocked. You can't fix it. It's designed in from the start.
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.09.05 13:23:48 - [13] - Quote Tippia wrote: GÇªexcept that it's not very difficult to know if it's there, and manoeuvring yourself out of the attempt is entirely feasible GÇö both before and after the fact. If that were true, nobody would bother using them.
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.09.05 14:24:41 - [14] - Quote Tippia wrote: babyblue wrote: If that were true, nobody would bother using them. Yes they would. Just because there is a counter doesn't mean that the method is worthless. Just because the method is effective doesn't mean the counters are worthless. We are talking about two sides trying to outsmart or outmanoeuvre each other GÇö there are no absolutes like the ones you're implying. If there were, neither side would exist in the game because they'd be laughably overpowered and would have to be removed. Yes, but the point I'm making is somewhat broader. What forms of competitive play does the game engine support? So if you say "let's make PvE content more competitive", we all know what that really means in practice.
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.09.05 14:56:11 - [15] - Quote Tippia wrote: babyblue wrote: What forms of competitive play does the game engine support? Combat, competition over resources, score attack, dexterity tests, puzzles, popularity contests, betting and speculation, auctionsGÇª off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more I haven't thought of. Ooh GÇö optimisation challenges, of course, in at least three different flavours. Quote: So if you say "let's make PvE content more competitive", we all know what that really means in practice. Not really, no. There's a lot of competition out there for peoples attention and hard-earned $. Your problem is Eve does none of the things you've listed all that well.
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.09.05 15:22:39 - [16] - Quote Tippia wrote: babyblue wrote: There's a lot of competition out there for peoples attention and hard-earned $. Your problem is Eve does none of the things you've listed all that well. It does them far better than anything else on the market is able to, or anything in development promises to. Well that's a matter of opinion and I don't really believe that fans of something are the best people to ask about why that something isn't all that popular. The self-selecting survey (people with active subs able to post on a forum) is a somewhat biased sample. To be honest you'd be better off googling something like "why I quit Eve" (ignoring Eve Forum dramas) than arguing it out here.
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.09.05 15:37:08 - [17] - Quote Tippia wrote: Far better than people who have no clue about the game and who don't know what is and isn't possible or availableGÇª But those are the very people you want to play it if you want to keep your business alive. It's not simply a question of slick marketing is it. But I get the impression you (not you personally, the community in general) doesn't want them to. I did the google by the way, this was the funniest: Quote: I was on a 21 day trial and the people were COMPLETE *** The game was boring Combat sucked Pay to Win 100% I lasted 11 days. Thank god I uninstalled, those people were super * trolls have nothing on the ** community eve has. I asked for help in the rookie chat and a 7mill bounty was put on my head. Boy, what a cool feature. I think player retention is based on a kind of gentleness (the cognitive burden, so to speak), the very opposite of what it's actually like in practice.
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.09.05 15:47:54 - [18] - Quote Tippia wrote: Player retention is largely based on willingness, ability, and opportunity to make social connections. Opportunities abound, if you actively pursue them; willingness and ability less so. So how's that working out, then?
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.09.05 15:55:54 - [19] - Quote Tippia wrote: babyblue wrote: So how's that working out, then? It works quite nicely. Well player count says otherwise. By the way did you used to have a character in BoB? I remember one who was like a dog with a bone and conceded nothing about WTZ. I forget the name. I'm sure it was you.
babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.09.05 17:14:46 - [20] - Quote Tippia wrote: Not really, no. I'm kind-of surprised you don't think the drop in player count is relevant or in any way a reflection of the available content. Or even the base player count (which was about 2,500 at peak when I first started playing), if you strip out the spikes and dips around major patches. What you seem to be saying then, is that Eve has reached its potential and that the community is in rude health relative to that. Well that was my point right at the start. The game engine doesn't support the kind-of gameplay that would be necessary to break past that. It's designed in from the start. All this discussion about tweaking missions is pointless. Something genuinely new and engaging isn't possible. That would be a different game.

babyblue Volition Cult The Volition Cult 4	Posted - 2015.09.05 17:33:20 - [21] - Quote Tippia wrote: As demonstrated, your point was incorrect from the very start and only hints at a fundamental ignorance about the game and its engine GÇö past, present, and future. From what I've read about what you're saying, the idea seems to be to contradict whatever anyone else is saying without actually saying anything yourself. With respect to engine capabilities, I'm not on the CCP dev team but I am a dev and I've worked for various game studios in the past, so I'm not entirely without knowledge in this area. Shooting icons in space has been a staple of this engine since it was first implemented in beta 6. I don't think anything has really changed since then.

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.