EVE General Discussion

I'm suggesting that if carebears want representation they should vote. Is that so unreasonable?

Dunno about this... seems to have jumped from 2 members to 5 in the space of a single footnote. Another "fun fact" could push it over the top.

Actually No it is not unreasonable at all, but over the years the CSM has gotten the name for being a Null sec thing and see no point in voting.

And a document like this only further strengthens this belief.

CCP shouldn't "listen" to anyone, not 100% anyway.

As developers with access to the servers and logs, they have access to the kind of stats that we can only dream about. They likely know how many players there are, what the highest number of alts a player has, how many are paid for in PLEX and how many in cash, who does what and where and for how many hours a week. Etc., etc. And if they're not tracking that, they should.

Then, they should make decisions based on data, not opinions of a vocal minority that frequents the forums, or people with an agenda (like CSM).

For argument's sake, let's say they find, stat-wise that 60% of players spend their time exclusively (90%+) in hi-sec, and out of those 80% run L4s. Guess what needs to be focused on to be improved? Missions! Specifically L4s. Tada! You just made 80% of the largest player chunk very, very happy. That's the way it should be. Note, I'm suggesting no such thing, just making an example.

All I heard was "null sec".

Actually that would indicate to me that missions were far too popular and that they either neededd nerfing as an income source, or that other forms of PvE needed improving as entertainment. Or both.

Possibly, but not necessarily!

See, CCP could also track how much ISK these players make from missions. They could track how many actions per minute (APM) the player does, while doing these missions. They could track other activity the player performs while doing those missions. Etc.

For example, statistics might show that ISK is actually low, relatively speaking. And the reason people do it anyway is because it requires low APM, so they're free to chat with friends or do other stuff in-game like browse the market. By comparison, they might find that people who do the same missions in low or null instead of chatting and low APM instead spam D-scan, thus not feeling like they're part of a larger collective or having any player interaction. In fact, they might find a correlation between D-scan spam and the amount of time players spend doing anything in space, not just missions. Could be as simple as "D-scan spam fatigue". Doesn't prove causality, of course, but does suggest that perhaps D-scan mechanics need to be overhauled. And fixing that might change the whole thing.

And yes, they might find hi-sec L4s are too profitable. But they'll also be able to compare which ships are used. For example, they might find that hi-sec L4s are ONLY too profitable when they're being run in 2+ billion ISK boats. Naturally it wouldn't be fair to compare ISK/hr from a 2+ billion ISK boat to ISK/hr from a 200 million ISK boat, because in low/null/WH people don't always fly 2+ billion ISK boats. And with a 200 million ISK boat, the stats might show that L4 hi-sec profit is actually incredibly low.

So they can try to tone down the income from L4s some more. And if people STILL do it, it'll prove that it is the gameplay (PVE) and NOT ISK/hr that governs this player behaviour, which suggests they should refocus their efforts from PvP content to PvE content OR make PvP content as profitable as PvE and see what happens. Or they could nerf mission income and see the missioning community collapse, like it did with Incursions, and even see a large number of cancellations rather than a move to low/null, and then they can buff them back up. Stuff like that.

They might find that just because players do something, it doesn't mean it's more profitable, or easier, or even more entertaining. It could be simply because it is convenient. I personally was in that boat at one point. My playtimes were hectic, and with very frequent interruptions - as in, I had to go AFK maybe 3 times in a 20 minute window, for 2-3 minutes at a stretch. With this playstyle, there was NOTHING I could do, combat-wise, besides running L4s in a heavily tanked drone boat. So I could go AFK for 5 mins and not worry about finding a wreck where my ship used to be. With that play time and habits, EVE did not offer any other combat content for me that was nearly as profitable.

And that could be why people do it! They could measure it! They could see how many times the player goes "AFK" (that is, no mouse movement, no keystrokes), what an average play session length is, etc. If they find an average player only has 45 mins a night, and during that time he goes AFK twice, obviously that severely limits what they can do in the game if they want combat. So they could change that. Instead of missions taking 6-12 waves across up to 5 rooms, they could change missions (or add many new ones) that only take 3-5 mins to run. Then, they might see more people running L4s in low/null! Who knows?

It could also be because starting from tutorial (and based on other MMOs) that's what people expect to do, so they do it because they don't know any better. And all of this can be measured and improved as needed. They could try giving one player a tutorial that is mission-based, and give another player a tutorial conducted entirely in-space with those cute new pointers they added, and see if player A is more likely to keep on missioning and player B is more likely to go another route, like exploration?

Heck, they could try something COMPLETELY different. I've said it before, but if PvE in EVE comes close to PvP, where most missions are 1v1, 1v2 or at most 1v3 fights that you can easily lose if you screw up, and ship losses from PvE eclipse ship losses from PvP, we might find that the economy will survive and be better and healthier based on PvE alone and PvP isn't even needed. Again, not suggesting any such thing, but it is a possibility.

That's the beauty of the statistics CCP can access. They can make decisions based on data, not personal experiences or conjecture.

As the Saviour of High Sec James 315 is aware of and up to date on ALL issues effecting High Sec.

I'm not worried if he doesn't know Null Sec or Low Sec too well (though I suspect he does) as of course the CSM is run by null sec players isn't it? So We'll have plenty of say don't worry.



By this logic if 51% of the population vote to have the other 49% eliminated then it should be done.

It doesn't work like that, this is a game and the developers want to improve the areas of the game that have been neglected, as chances are thats WHY only 20% of the players live there. If anything the places where the least population live that haven't been touched for a long time (e.g. null sec) deserve the most attention, as clearly they are lacking in appeal.

It's a possibility. But another possibility is that no matter how attractive those areas of space are made to be, people still won't go there because of a conscious decision they made - their preferred playstyle. I know it's a horrifying thought for some, but what if most of EVE's population are hardcore carebears that won't set foot into low/null no matter what? If this is true, then no matter how much null is buffed, people still won't go there.

It's the same with gaming in general. For example, I know Portal 2 is a fantastic game. I have had friends and family rave about it. But, I simply dislike that type of game, and I'll never play it. It's just not for me. Similarly, it's possible that many players in EVE see low/null as "not for me", no matter how lucrative CCP might make it, just like free DLC for Portal 2 still won't make me play it.

Sooo, nerf hi-sec? Not so fast. If EVE is a sandbox, it should accommodate most playstyles. And there's the rub. It's entirely possible null is the way it is because all the people willing to go there are already there, and no amount of content tossed on it will change that. Which is not to say that they shouldn't try it, they should.

I just shake my head at all the whining and outright lying done by the null sec zealots.
They cry poverty.....and I just cry.

CCP Diagoras moved on, and no one took up the mantle of giving us fun facts.
The one I would love to know is how many supercarriers and titans are in null today.

People, a single fitted Titan costs more that 1,000 Hurricanes.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of titans in null.
And supercarriers are so much more prevalant than titans.

The last numbers we have were from May 29th of this year.
Diagoras tweeted that at that moment 6 months ago, there were 3,463 supercarriers in the game, and 942 titans.

The amount of wealth sitting in those ships alone staggers me.
Let's low ball a fitted supercarrier at 25 billion, and a titan at 50 billion.
So back in May, the amount of ISK sitting in those ships was 86.575 TRILLION in supercarriers, and another 47.100 TRILLION in Titans, for a grand total of 134 TRILLION.
And this does not even count the rampant build rates of supercaps in the past 6 months.
Oh, and another fun fact. Go to Jester's blog. He keeps track of supercap kills every week.
Last week, we had a whopping ONE destroyed, in all of null.
The week before : TWO.

Yet we are to believe that null sec players are destitute.

It is no wonder CCP did not have anyone else take up Diagoras labour of love of tweeting stats.
They and the CSM do not want the general public to have hard facts available.
Propaganda works so much better when there are no facts available to refute it so easily.

I would love to sit on the CSM for a term, and be the voice of honesty and reason in this rat's nest.
But even if I ran, and somehow got elected (not a chance of that happening), I would not last a term.
I am certain that the null sec zealots in and out of CCP would ensure I would get booted for some reason.