EVE Search - Thoughts on improving the game

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Thoughts on improving the game

» 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] .. 22 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2932	Posted - 2016.11.13 09:18:29 - [571] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server. Yes on a more PvE based server plex prices would be lower as would minerals and ships. More in line with Tranquility 5 years ago. While tranquility would go the other way. Also why would anyone start again, it is a simple matter of character transfer, just like it is in other games. CCP can hardly say falling subscriptions and job losses are "working as intended", otherwise we would not be looking at free to play. Eve grew the fastest when highsec was much more dangerous, before all the ganking nerfs, elimination of AWOXing, can flipping and all the rest of the ways people used to get killed against their will. I don't see how you think making Eve even safer is going to improve anything instead of the more likely outcome: bore everyone out of the game. But to your point I only have concerns with your idea on the practical level. I have no doubt it would fail spectacularly at this point in the lifespan of the game (a view that is probably shared by CCP given their is no hint they are thinking of doing such a thing). If it could be done at no cost, I'd be happy to sit back and crow over how close to zero the PCUs on the new server would be, but realistically implementing it comes with a significant development cost and will not happen. Too bad neither of us will get the satisfaction of seeing the outcome of such an experiment. The 8 Golden Rules of Eve Why Do They Gank?
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 79	Posted - 2016.11.13 09:36:57 - [572] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server. Yes on a more PvE based server plex prices would be lower as would minerals and ships. More in line with Tranquility 5 years ago. While tranquility would go the other way. Also why would anyone start again, it is a simple matter of character transfer, just like it is in other games. CCP can hardly say falling subscriptions and job losses are "working as intended", otherwise we would not be looking at free to play. Eve grew the fastest when highsec was much more dangerous, before all the ganking nerfs, elimination of AWOXing, can flipping and all the rest of the ways people used to get killed against their will. I don't see how you think making Eve even safer is going to improve anything instead of the more likely outcome: bore everyone out of the game. But to your point I only have concerns with your idea on the practical level. I have no doubt it would fail spectacularly at this point in the lifespan of the game (a view that is probably shared by CCP given their is no hint they are thinking of doing such a thing). If it could be done at no cost, I'd be happy to sit back and crow over how close to zero the PCUs on the new server would be, but realistically implementing it comes with a significant development cost and will not happen. Too bad neither of us will get the satisfaction of seeing the outcome of such an experiment. EvE used to be both more and less dangerous. This was due to the need for gankers to use larger ships than piddly little destroyers and bounty hunting was actually a thing. Now it is safe by the rules but actually more dangerous as bounty hunting has been scrubbed out despite what CCP said before they released crime watch.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2932	Posted - 2016.11.13 09:50:50 - [573] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: EvE used to be both more and less dangerous. This was due to the need for gankers to use larger ships than piddly little destroyers and bounty hunting was actually a thing. Now it is safe by the rules but actually more dangerous as bounty hunting has been scrubbed out despite what CCP said before they released crime watch. This thread is going in circles like all the similar ones. Before the insurance nerf, there was much less cost to gank. Even if gankers used battleships, they were mostly covered by insurance, and at some points insurance even paid more than the cost of the hull meaning you made a profit if you failed a suicide gank against the side of a station. Ganking has never cost more than it currently does, nor has it have been rarer. You can make the case that the general increase in player wealth over the years means those costs to gank something mean less as everyone is richer, but that also applies to the miner or hauler whose losses are equally less meaningful. I'd love though an improved bounty hunting system and more game play that allows player law enforcement to interfere with criminals though. Those are actually good thoughts on improving the game as this thread is suppose to be about. The 8 Golden Rules of Eve Why Do They Gank?
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 45521	Posted - 2016.11.13 09:52:02 - [574] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server. I've never seen anyone argue for the safety of gankers. As to another PvE focused server, thankfully CCP are who they are and those sort of suggestions will never happen. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 79	Posted - 2016.11.13 10:03:14 - [575] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server. I've never seen anyone argue for the safety of gankers. As to another PvE focused server, thankfully CCP are who they are and those sort of suggestions will never happen. Then maybe you should read this thread. It is full of statements for why gankers need to be kept safe from those who would hunt them.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 45521	Posted - 2016.11.13 10:07:45 - [576] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server. I've never seen anyone argue for the safety of gankers. As to another PvE focused server, thankfully CCP are who they are and those sort of suggestions will never happen. Then maybe you should read this thread. It is full of statements for why gankers need to be kept safe from those who would hunt them. Quote one. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 79	Posted - 2016.11.13 10:28:56 - [577] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server. I've never seen anyone argue for the safety of gankers. As to another PvE focused server, thankfully CCP are who they are and those sort of suggestions will never happen. Then maybe you should read this thread. It is full of statements for why gankers need to be kept safe from those who would hunt them. Quote one. and back to labradoodles. Not sure why I bother. General Discussion should be renamed as "Children who scream about having their toy taken away."
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 45522	Posted - 2016.11.13 10:33:14 - [578] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server. I've never seen anyone argue for the safety of gankers. As to another PvE focused server, thankfully CCP are who they are and those sort of suggestions will never happen. Then maybe you should read this thread. It is full of statements for why gankers need to be kept safe from those who would hunt them. Quote one. and back to labradoodles. Not sure why I bother. General Discussion should be renamed as "Children who scream about having their toy taken away." No one is screaming here. You've made a claim you can either prove, or you can't. It's really quite simple. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 18184	Posted - 2016.11.13 12:52:32 - [579] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server. Yes on a more PvE based server plex prices would be lower as would minerals and ships. More in line with Tranquility 5 years ago. While tranquility would go the other way. Also why would anyone start again, it is a simple matter of character transfer, just like it is in other games. CCP can hardly say falling subscriptions and job losses are "working as intended", otherwise we would not be looking at free to play. Eve grew the fastest when highsec was much more dangerous, before all the ganking nerfs, elimination of AWOXing, can flipping and all the rest of the ways people used to get killed against their will. I don't see how you think making Eve even safer is going to improve anything instead of the more likely outcome: bore everyone out of the game. But to your point I only have concerns with your idea on the practical level. I have no doubt it would fail spectacularly at this point in the lifespan of the game (a view that is probably shared by CCP given their is no hint they are thinking of doing such a thing). If it could be done at no cost, I'd be happy to sit back and crow over how close to zero the PCUs on the new server would be, but realistically implementing it comes with a significant development cost and will not happen. Too bad neither of us will get the satisfaction of seeing the outcome of such an experiment. EvE used to be both more and less dangerous. This was due to the need for gankers to use larger ships than piddly little destroyers and bounty hunting was actually a thing. Now it is safe by the rules but actually more dangerous as bounty hunting has been scrubbed out despite what CCP said before they released crime watch. Gankers didn't "need" to use larger ships back then, it was merely that they were economically practicable to use because they were insurable. Now they aren't, so they use more people in smaller ships instead. Amazingly, deciding that hi-sec ganking was the one form of activity that should void insurance didn't stop people complaining about hi-sec ganking. Nor did 3 CONCORD buffs. Nor did nerfing sec gains from ratting. Oddly enough, each nerf to hi-sec ganking only increases the volume of complaints about it. Would you care to speculate why? "Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming." Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Vigirr 30	Posted - 2016.11.13 13:00:58 - [580] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Oddly enough, each nerf to hi-sec ganking only increases the volume of complaints about it. Would you care to speculate why? Because with every step CCP moves closer to being a mainstream MMO, safer and more hand holding, the more mainstream people it attracts. Resulting in more people who don't understand what EVE actually is and more people putting in their best efforts to welcome those people to the EVE universe, bringing gifts of antimatter.

Steffles University of Caille Gallente Federation 47	Posted - 2016.11.13 13:02:25 - [581] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: Amazing, the same people who argue for the safety of gankers are the same people who argue against a more PvE based server. Yes on a more PvE based server plex prices would be lower as would minerals and ships. More in line with Tranquility 5 years ago. While tranquility would go the other way. Also why would anyone start again, it is a simple matter of character transfer, just like it is in other games. CCP can hardly say falling subscriptions and job losses are "working as intended", otherwise we would not be looking at free to play. Eve grew the fastest when highsec was much more dangerous, before all the ganking nerfs, elimination of AWOXing, can flipping and all the rest of the ways people used to get killed against their will. I don't see how you think making Eve even safer is going to improve anything instead of the more likely outcome: bore everyone out of the game. But to your point I only have concerns with your idea on the practical level. I have no doubt it would fail spectacularly at this point in the lifespan of the game (a view that is probably shared by CCP given their is no hint they are thinking of doing such a thing). If it could be done at no cost, I'd be happy to sit back and crow over how close to zero the PCUs on the new server would be, but realistically implementing it comes with a significant development cost and will not happen. Too bad neither of us will get the satisfaction of seeing the outcome of such an experiment. EvE used to be both more and less dangerous. This was due to the need for gankers to use larger ships than piddly little destroyers and bounty hunting was actually a thing. Now it is safe by the rules but actually more dangerous as bounty hunting has been scrubbed out despite what CCP said before they released crime watch. Gankers didn't "need" to use larger ships back then, it was merely that they were economically practicable to use because they were insurable. Now they aren't, so they use more people in smaller ships instead. Amazingly, deciding that hi-sec ganking was the one form of activity that should void insurance didn't stop people complaining about hi-sec ganking. Nor did 3 CONCORD buffs. Nor did nerfing sec gains from ratting. Oddly enough, each nerf to hi-sec ganking only increases the volume of complaints about it. Would you care to speculate why? I speculate its because the ganking nerfs didn't work to reduce ganking and the ganking buffs worked to increase ganking - logical conclusion. Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 18185	Posted - 2016.11.13 13:14:30 - [582] - Quote Steffles wrote: I speculate its because the ganking nerfs didn't work to reduce ganking and the ganking buffs worked to increase ganking - logical conclusion. Unfortunately for your hypothesis, the quantity of such events has fallen considerably. Have you ever been suicide ganked? "Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming." Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 27053	Posted - 2016.11.13 14:26:22 - [583] - Quote Steffles wrote: I speculate its because the ganking nerfs didn't work to reduce ganking and the ganking buffs worked to increase ganking - logical conclusion. Ganking happens less than it used to, despite the increased visibility due to the propaganda of the 2 major groups that partake in it. There again, a connection with reality is the last thing we'd expect from you. Civilised behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. New Player FAQ Feyd's Survival Pack
Galaxy Duck Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing 171	Posted - 2016.11.13 20:12:23 - [584] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: EvE used to be both more and less dangerous. This was due to the need for gankers to use larger ships than piddly little destroyers and bounty hunting was actually a thing. Now it is safe by the rules but actually more dangerous as bounty hunting has been scrubbed out despite what CCP said before they released crime watch. This thread is going in circles like all the similar ones. Before the insurance nerf, there was much less cost to gank. Even if gankers used battleships, they were mostly covered by insurance, and at some points insurance even paid more than the cost of the hull meaning you made a profit if you failed a suicide gank against the side of a station. Ganking has never cost more than it currently does, nor has it ever been rarer. You can make the case that the general increase in player wealth over the years means those costs to gank something mean less as everyone is richer, but that also applies to the miner or hauler whose losses are equally less meaningful. I'd love though an improved bounty hunting system and more game play that allows player law enforcement to interfere with criminals though. Those are actually good thoughts on improving the game as this thread is suppose to be about. Mark REALLY believes that the old destroyers weren't viable gank ships, but they totally were, there were just better options such as fully insured battleships. I don't know how many times I've tried to explain this to him, but he has his carebear ear-muffs on. A part of me wishes the destroyers would go back to the way they were just so we could show Mark how the carnage would continue.
Ilany Nightingale Enterprises 37	Posted - 2016.11.13 22:10:21 - [585] - Quote Vigirr wrote: Malcanis wrote: Oddly enough, each nerf to hi-sec ganking only increases the volume of complaints about it. Would you care to speculate why? Because with every step CCP moves closer to being a mainstream MMO, safer and more hand holding, the more mainstream people it attracts. Resulting in more people who don't understand what EVE actually is and more people putting in their best efforts to welcome those people to the EVE universe, bringing gifts of antimatter. "More people who don't understand what EVE actually is", says the two month old (alt?). As others have said already, EVE has changed and if you hadn't noticed, it is not attracting many people, regardless of incremental improvements in graphics/ships/hardware/careers etc. There are millions of people who enjoy sci-fi out there. What are CCP not doing to attract them to EVE? Someone mentioned the gender discrepancy earlier. WoW had/has(?) ten times as many female players. Why? What are Blizzard doing to attract female players? Tens of thousands (more?) of people have tried EVE and left. Why? There are, no doubt, many answers - and the short sighted "PVP sandbox" concept is certainly part of that - , but whatever the reasons, in the long term, the only people who stick around seem to be (a) 'carebears' who have set constructive/creative objectives for themselves, and (b) sociopaths - as evidenced by many of the responses in this thread. While I don't think the latter are the only reason the PCU is going down, their reputation must certainly play a part in putting people off - both the would-be players and existing casual players who have no means of protecting themselves. Solution-wise... The OP was too complicated, but there might be something in it. Sociopaths clearly don't care about costs - they seem to be quite happy to blap empty rookie ships/shuttles for kicks - so solutions based on changes to risk/reward are a dead end. What they will care about is their precious personal time. If CCP force them to invest as much effort in their activity as other players then they'll get bored and leave... and then EVE might attract more of those "mainstream" people it needs for the long term. I would go with parts of OP's idea - simply bar negative security characters from jumping into high security space and knock them to down to -10 for every unprovoked attack. If they want to get in they'll have to grind standings for a few hours - ironic PVE activity - and then they lose it all again for a single gank. There's still a risk to the autopiloting freighter with eleventy squillion isk in its hold, but the cost to the aggressor is switched from in-game currency to RL time. (I guess Alpha clones might offset this, but I suspect the effort of having to reroll just for another [single] kill might be too much.)
Galaxy Duck Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing 171	Posted - 2016.11.13 23:18:06 - [586] - Quote Ilany wrote: Tears... "sociopaths"... more tears... Lol dream on, HTFU or GTFO
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 27055	Posted - 2016.11.13 23:58:43 - [587] - Quote Ilany wrote: I would go with parts of OP's idea - simply bar negative security characters from jumping into high security space and knock them to down to -10 for every unprovoked attack. That won't fly with CCP, IIRC they've stated several times that they will never mechanically bar negative status players from jumping into hisec. It would affect more than just hisec gankers; off the top of my head anybody that PvPs in lowsec would be barred, including the FW pilots. Quote: If they want to get in they'll have to grind standings for a few hours - ironic PVE activity - and then they lose it all again for a single gank. You want to force people to either PvE or spent a sizeable wad on tags every time they PvP with an unwilling volunteer in lowsec or hisec without a wardec? Before you ask, yes PvP in lowsec involves a security hit. You do realise that Eve is a PvP game, and that the entire universe; including hisec, is a PvP zone, don't you? Quote: There's still a risk to the autopiloting freighter with eleventy squillion isk in its hold, but the cost to the aggressor is switched from in-game currency to RL time. Even if the dire idea that you support was to come true, you lot would still moan when it's one freighter a week getting ganked. Quote: (I guess Alpha clones might offset this, but I suspect the effort of having to reroll just for another [single] kill might be too much.) It wouldn't take long for CCP to put it down if it became a problem anyway. Civilised behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. New Player FAQ Feyd's Survival Pack
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 45524	Posted - 2016.11.14 00:15:27 - [588] - Quote Ilany wrote: ... the only people who stick around seem to be (a) 'carebears' who have set constructive/creative objectives for themselves, and (b) sociopaths - as evidenced by many of the responses in this thread. I feel like we all need to group hug after this. We're not all sociopaths. Some of us are mass murderers, rapists, Hitler apologists and just really mean people too. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5507	Posted - 2016.11.14 06:11:11 - [589] - Quote Ilany wrote: There are, no doubt, many answers - and the short sighted "PVP sandbox" concept is certainly part of that - , but whatever the reasons, in the long term, the only people who stick around seem to be (a) 'carebears' who have set constructive/creative objectives for themselves, and (b) sociopaths - as evidenced by many of the responses in this thread. I love these comments. Somebody, in a PvP game, who actually shoots another player is of course a sociopath. Well, if it is okay for those posting these types call those who want to shoot a freighter with 5 billion ISK worth of cargo a sociopath I think it is only fair to point out that such players are lazy, self-entitled incompetents who if they were better at playing the game would have nothing to complain about. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 18193	Posted - 2016.11.14 08:00:38 - [590] - Quote I've never really understood how some people have such trouble with the concept of "non-consensual PvP". All zones of EVE have non-consensual combat PvP. No one gets a free pass. Different zones have more or less restricted rules of engagement and equipment. There, I defined how the rules of PvP work in 3 sentences. It was not that difficult. "Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming." Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 19033	Posted - 2016.11.14 08:16:26 - [591] - Quote Malcanis wrote: I've never really understood how some people have such trouble with the concept of "non-consensual PvP". All zones of EVE have non-consensual combat PvP. No one gets a free pass. Different zones have more or less restricted rules of engagement and equipment. There, I defined how the rules of PvP work in 3 sentences. It was not that difficult. no its not restricted at all, there is just some more paper work involved. We're Back in Business , have your very own Meeny Faced Bastards on call today =]\|[=
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 3088	Posted - 2016.11.14 08:24:12 - [592] - Quote Ilany wrote: people who stick around seem to be (a) 'carebears' who have set constructive/creative objectives for themselves, and (b) sociopaths - as evidenced by many of the responses in this thread. Lucky for us the narrative in this thread is that we are the carebears because we risk nothing and only shoot ships that can't shoot back. Going from this, the sociopaths must be the people who whelp their Freighters into Uedama. AmIright? the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 79	Posted - 2016.11.14 08:25:39 - [593] - Quote Malcanis wrote: I've never really understood how some people have such trouble with the concept of "non-consensual PvP". All zones of EVE have non-consensual combat PvP. No one gets a free pass. Different zones have more or less restricted rules of engagement and equipment. There, I defined how the rules of PvP work in 3 sentences. It was not that difficult. Maybe its the fact that Concurrent Play numbers keep falling Huge numbers of PvE players have left the game CCP Revenues are down year after year CCP revenues only look reasonable after losing half their staff There are a huge number of space games now compared to the past That people are not so much failing to understand the concept of "non-consensual PvP" but are suggesting trying something different to boost player numbers before CCP halves its staff again and some idiot on these boards says "Working as intended" All CCPs efforts of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, mixed with customer service and forum rules back from the 20th Century, has lead us to Free To Play. Otherwise known as the spasm before death. CCP need to try something different. For one the CSM is a pack of players stuck in the past, which is about the last thing CCP need to listen to. CCP must evolve or this game is as dead as the Dodo.
xxxTRUSTxxx Galactic Rangers EVEolution. 528	Posted - 2016.11.14 08:26:46 - [594] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: Given that CCP has taken the step of going to free to play, I see nothing wrong in a more PvE server. That way the PvP die hards can stay on tranquillity and those who want a choice can go elsewhere, allowing the more profitable side to flourish, what ever that might be and if it does not work, close it after 12 months. If no one wants it, it will do no harm. If it is popular then it should stay. you see nothing wrong with another server,,, oh wow hahahahaha single shard sweetheart,,, i don't see CCP going away from that anytime soon.
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 79	Posted - 2016.11.14 08:34:38 - [595] - Quote xxxTRUSTxxx wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: Given that CCP has taken the step of going to free to play, I see nothing wrong in a more PvE server. That way the PvP die hards can stay on tranquillity and those who want a choice can go elsewhere, allowing the more profitable side to flourish, what ever that might be and if it does not work, close it after 12 months. If no one wants it, it will do no harm. If it is popular then it should stay. you see nothing wrong with another server,,, oh wow hahahahaha single shard sweetheart,,, i don't see CCP going away from that anytime soon. So what you are saying is CCP should continue doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 3089	Posted - 2016.11.14 08:42:37 - [596] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: Maybe its the fact that Concurrent Play numbers keep falling Huge numbers of PvE players have left the game CCP Revenues are down year after year CCP revenues only look reasonable after losing half their staff There are a huge number of space games now compared to the past That people are not so much failing to understand the concept of "non-consensual PvP" but are suggesting trying something different to boost player numbers before CCP halves its staff again and some idiot on these boards says "Working as intended" All CCPs efforts of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, mixed with customer service and forum rules back from the 20th Century, has lead us to Free To Play. Otherwise known as the spasm before death. CCP need to try something different. For one the CSM is a pack of players stuck in the past, which is about the last thing CCP need to listen to. CCP must evolve or this game is as dead as the Dodo. I am not sure how you get from "EVE is dying" to "remove or limit non-consensual PvP even more". There is not even a hint that this will help to get more players. Fact is that back when EVE was much more dangerous and more non-consensual PvP happened the number of players where bigger. All the nerfs did so far was making Highsec stale and boring since there is almost no risk left and you have to be pretty much brain dead if you can't figure out how to make yourself pretty close invulnerable there. And now you suggest they continue on this trend and make it even more boring. Did you once try to imagine what a Highsec like that would look like? How would mining look like if there is no risk left? Do you want to compete with swarms of yield faction fitted Hulks who will mine so much ore it will become even less lucrative for a new or solo player? Do you want Freighter services gone, because if there is no risk to the Freighter, why would you not load all your stuff in a cargo expanded freighter and autopilot it while you go to work or something, no risk doing it, no preparation or security measures needed or therefor no cost, no need for a dedicated service to take care of it. Do you even think one second about the consequences of what you are suggesting? the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 3090	Posted - 2016.11.14 08:44:15 - [597] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: So what you are saying is CCP should continue doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result. What they did over and over is listen to whiners like you and nerf Highsec. So no, they should not do that and maybe for a change make Highsec gameplay more interesting instead of removing content with no replacement. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5508	Posted - 2016.11.14 08:44:43 - [598] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: Malcanis wrote: I've never really understood how some people have such trouble with the concept of "non-consensual PvP". All zones of EVE have non-consensual combat PvP. No one gets a free pass. Different zones have more or less restricted rules of engagement and equipment. There, I defined how the rules of PvP work in 3 sentences. It was not that difficult. Maybe its the fact that Concurrent Play numbers keep falling Huge numbers of PvE players have left the game CCP Revenues are down year after year CCP revenues only look reasonable after losing half their staff There are a huge number of space games now compared to the past That people are not so much failing to understand the concept of "non-consensual PvP" but are suggesting trying something different to boost player numbers before CCP halves its staff again and some idiot on these boards says "Working as intended" All CCPs efforts of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, mixed with customer service and forum rules back from the 20th Century, has lead us to Free To Play. Otherwise known as the spasm before death. CCP need to try something different. For one the CSM is a pack of players stuck in the past, which is about the last thing CCP need to listen to. CCP must evolve or this game is as dead as the Dodo. Tell us again your statistics credentials. How do you know a huge number of PvE players have left? Lets start with that. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2940	Posted - 2016.11.14 08:51:54 - [599] - Quote Ilany wrote: "More people who don't understand what EVE actually is", says the two month old (alt?). As others have said already, EVE has changed and if you hadn't noticed, it is not attracting many people, regardless of incremental improvements in graphics/ships/hardware/careers etc. That's the thing, Eve hasn't really changed. Eve Online as a vision is getting close to 20-years old now and has always been a open-world, full-time, PvP sandbox game. A true virtual universe and a dystoptian battle royale. That is a niche idea which won't attract or keep everyone, but to say that "Eve has changed" is disingenuous. Eve has always featured non-consensual PvP everywhere since the beginning by design. Ilany wrote: There are, no doubt, many answers - and the short sighted "PVP sandbox" concept is certainly part of that - , but whatever the reasons, in the long term, the only people who stick around seem to be (a) 'carebears' who have set constructive/creative objectives for themselves, and (b) sociopaths - as evidenced by many of the responses in this thread. That is quite the (incorrect) statement. If you are incorrectly generalizing groups and mean "builders" and "aggressors" then maybe, but from CCP Quant's analysis we see that most players, and the highest engaged players regularly do both. They "create" stuff and they destroy stuff sort of how this game was designed to work (you know, "Build Your Dreams, Wreck Their Dreams"?). In fact, the 'create-only' carebear category seems to be the group of players that sticks around for the shortest amount of time. Perhaps because they aren't really looking for a full-time, PvP sandbox game, but your claim that they make up much of the longterm players seems to not fit the data. The longest staying players are the ones that both shoot players and make stuff. This makes sense of course because that is the whole point of the game. The player-driven economy only exists because of the demand PvP and competition creates, while real PvP in this game absolutely requires the accumulation of resources and the building of stuff. Players who wall themselves off from all the game has to offer are going to have a less engaging experience. In any case your view of the game seems quite coloured by what you do it in. Most players don't play the game only as conflict-averse highsec carebears despite what some people will try to tell you. They are a significant minority, but most players in this game are "sociopaths" who like to shoot other players, even if many if them have highsec alts to build or gather or trade stuff. Ilany wrote: If CCP force them to invest as much effort in their activity as other players then they'll get bored and leave... and then EVE might attract more of those "mainstream" people it needs for the long term. Yes, that is a great strategy: make your game more boring so your current customers leave in hopes of attracting some mythical, but larger, cohort of other players. That is a terrible idea. If CCP really wants to go after a larger, mainstream audience, then they can create some new PvE game. Gutting your existing successful product and attempting to shoehorn it (and it's ancient game engine) into a themepark MMO at a time where that genre is fading in popularity, and at a time where CCP doesn't have the resources to generate enough developer content to keep the themeparkers entertained, is foolhardy. Anyone can see that, especially CCP. Eve Online will go on as a PvP sandbox until the day it dies. Most of the development work is done, and it could coast and be profitable for years to come. Maybe CCP Seagull's push will reinvigorate things and popularity will grow again, but if not, CCP still has a product that will keep diehards and a certain type of niche gamer happy and paying them for a long while. No point throwing that away to chase some potential customers that probably don't exist. The 8 Golden Rules of Eve Why Do They Gank?
xxxTRUSTxxx Galactic Rangers EVEolution. 529	Posted - 2016.11.14 09:01:14 - [600] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: So what you are saying is CCP should continue doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result. you mean like you guys keep posting the same stuff over and over expecting the same. right,,, got ya



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] .. 22 :: 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.