These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EVE Online Development Strategy (CSM Public)

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#81 - 2012-11-23 15:55:40 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
iskflakes wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
I've read that, its does posses a lot of useful information...

But, sadly, it mainly says "Nerf hisec and buff null"

The current issue that I see is that the CSM is nullsec dwellers, who at the end of the day is really looking after themselves.


Damn, if only there was some kind of vote so higsec could choose its own representatives...

Oh wait...


I voted for Seleene on the basis that I believed he would represent ALL of Eve.

I hope I am not mistaken.

That's one hell of an expectation.
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#82 - 2012-11-23 21:13:36 UTC
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:

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.


While you are correct there will always be people who would NEVER move from High Sec even if it was nerfed into oblivion, there's no evidence to support the fact that the vast majority of "characters" in High Sec aren't actually in fact mostly Null Sec player alts.

For example I don't like doing anything on alts whatsoever. I hate the idea of having a "PI" alt or a "booster" alt, however I do have an alt in Jita mainly to check prices and sell stuff i find on my nullsec adventures.

If you were to even assume I was "the norm" and 20% of players are nullsec players and 60% of players are High Sec players (the totally made up numbers people keep throwing around) then that would mean that 33% of High Sec Players are actually Null Sec alts.

If you assume there are 100000 EVE characters and you go 60/20/20 of High, Null, "other" then you get:

60,000 High Sec Players
20,000 Null Sec Players
20,000 Other Players

If you remove those 20,000 alts from the equation (as they aren't different people) you get:

80,000 players in total
40,000 High Sec (50%)
20,000 Null Sec (25%)
20,000 Other (25%)

So already you're down to only 50% of actual players not characters are "true" High Sec players. All it takes is for 1 of those high sec characters to have multiple accounts (which many do) to reduce "high sec" to less then 50% of the player base.

However the figures above haven't even made deductions of the "other" players (i.e. WH and Low) that have alts in High Sec. If we assumed they all had 1 alt to then the figures for REAL PLAYERS actually comes out as:

60,000 total players
20,000 High (33.33%)
20,000 Null (33.33%)
20,000 Other (33.33%)

Now as long as one of those high sec players are holding multiple high sec accounts (which they do) suddenly you are LESS then any other section of the game.

Now the 100,000 player figure is one I've made up purely to show the maths better, but if you assume each "player" in null/low/WH has a character in high Sec you very quickly cease to be a majority of the player base and potentially even cease to be the largest group of players in the player base.


Quote:
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.


This is the wrong example because that's actually not the situation.

Say you were playing a game that you liked (say Civilisation V, i like that game) and you were only interest in playing civilsation V on single player. Well what if your single player game was negatively effecting the games of everyone else world wide who liked to play against other players?

I get your point that you don't like null/low and don't want to go there. That's totally fine, however in order to keep Null and Low worth living in, it needs to have an inventive for you to be there (if you are the type of player who may like it). If the only incentive to actually BE in Null is to fight for your alliance between making money in High Sec, something is fundamentally wrong.

Quote:

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.


What would you suggest?

Because here's the thing everyone who is actually rationale agrees that Null isn't working as well as it should and could be. It needs to be better.

If you buff null you make high comparatively worse.

More money in null? Everyone's money is worth less and prices go up, meaning high sec players need to work harder ANYWAY
Better industry in null? High Sec industry cant compete with null and therefore is better to go out to null ANYWAY
Better/more X in null? High sec are then comparatively worse off

See the point?

Anything that happens to null to improve it is a nerf to High. The numbers to imply there are physically more players in high sec playing the game are exaggerated at best and plain wrong at worst. The fact is High Sec is "OK" sure there are minor improvements to be made but you can't say the same about null or low

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
Frying Doom
#83 - 2012-11-23 21:21:18 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:

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.


While you are correct there will always be people who would NEVER move from High Sec even if it was nerfed into oblivion, there's no evidence to support the fact that the vast majority of "characters" in High Sec aren't actually in fact mostly Null Sec player alts.

Nor is their any evidence that the number of Null sec alts in high sec are not just 1 or 2%, The lack of proof does not constitute proof.
Nor do you account for the fact of Hi-sec people having alts in Null, and as the numbers for Hi-sec are 3 times those in Null it would only take a few percent of the Hi-sec population to have a Null alt to mean that Null really is a deserted Non-feature inhabited by less actual "Null Mains" than lo-sec.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Steven Seaga1
Doomheim
#84 - 2012-11-23 22:23:05 UTC
Vera Algaert wrote:
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
The rest of it? Once again far too much focus on 0.0, Sov, PoS, etc. You guys (CSM in general) need to realize that 60% of EVE's playerbase live in hi-sec. As such, they don't give a toss about 0.0. Or Sov. And to a large degree about PoS. If you are going to talk about player retention, you NEED to talk about hi-sec. Not about how to make 0.0 better or more profitable. Because, like it was said so many times before, no matter how good or profitable 0.0 becomes, it will won't make those 60% in hi-sec go there. It is a conscious decision based on many factors. And nerfing hi-sec to force people into 0.0 will force people out of the game instead.

So, as far as the suggested focus in this paper goes? Seems to focus on the 40% living in low/null and WH space. And not on 60% (majority) living in hi-sec and making them happy (continuing to subscribe).

if you want to be taken seriously then don't repeat arguments that have been debunked long ago - such as equating characters with players.

Here's a story for you:

pre-Dominion: 0.0 players generate income via lvl4 high-sec alts
Dominion - Incursion 1.4: 0.0 players actually earn their income in 0.0
Incursion - Escalation to Inferno: 0.0 players generate income via (high-sec) incursion alts
Escalation to Inferno - Inferno: back to high-sec lvl4s
Inferno - October 23rd: 0.0 players generate income via FW plexing alts
October to now: back to high-sec lvl4s

Historically it has been the norm that 0.0 players are expected to be self-sufficient - which generally meant having income-generating alts in empire. Dominion brought a short break in that routine as it made actually living in 0.0 (as opposed to only logging in your 0.0 character for fleets) a worthwhile option. Since Incursion 1.4 we are back to normal.
A sizeable part of your "60%" are alts of 0.0 players who would be moved to 0.0 if risk vs reward was favorable.


(Forsaken Hubs have been buffed but are in my experience not comparable to lvl4 income (at decent LP conversion rates), farming c4-c6 wormholes has been an option ever since Apocrypha but requires more organization & effort than many players are willing to invest.)




Yes we can thank the "Great Anom Nerf" for this with tru sec status and thus CCP fecking over the player base again.
Frying Doom
#85 - 2012-11-24 03:19:41 UTC
Steven Seaga1 wrote:
Vera Algaert wrote:
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:
The rest of it? Once again far too much focus on 0.0, Sov, PoS, etc. You guys (CSM in general) need to realize that 60% of EVE's playerbase live in hi-sec. As such, they don't give a toss about 0.0. Or Sov. And to a large degree about PoS. If you are going to talk about player retention, you NEED to talk about hi-sec. Not about how to make 0.0 better or more profitable. Because, like it was said so many times before, no matter how good or profitable 0.0 becomes, it will won't make those 60% in hi-sec go there. It is a conscious decision based on many factors. And nerfing hi-sec to force people into 0.0 will force people out of the game instead.

So, as far as the suggested focus in this paper goes? Seems to focus on the 40% living in low/null and WH space. And not on 60% (majority) living in hi-sec and making them happy (continuing to subscribe).

if you want to be taken seriously then don't repeat arguments that have been debunked long ago - such as equating characters with players.

Here's a story for you:

pre-Dominion: 0.0 players generate income via lvl4 high-sec alts
Dominion - Incursion 1.4: 0.0 players actually earn their income in 0.0
Incursion - Escalation to Inferno: 0.0 players generate income via (high-sec) incursion alts
Escalation to Inferno - Inferno: back to high-sec lvl4s
Inferno - October 23rd: 0.0 players generate income via FW plexing alts
October to now: back to high-sec lvl4s

Historically it has been the norm that 0.0 players are expected to be self-sufficient - which generally meant having income-generating alts in empire. Dominion brought a short break in that routine as it made actually living in 0.0 (as opposed to only logging in your 0.0 character for fleets) a worthwhile option. Since Incursion 1.4 we are back to normal.
A sizeable part of your "60%" are alts of 0.0 players who would be moved to 0.0 if risk vs reward was favorable.


(Forsaken Hubs have been buffed but are in my experience not comparable to lvl4 income (at decent LP conversion rates), farming c4-c6 wormholes has been an option ever since Apocrypha but requires more organization & effort than many players are willing to invest.)




Yes we can thank the "Great Anom Nerf" for this with tru sec status and thus CCP fecking over the player base again.

We can thank ill thought ideas where dumping more isk into the economy was not modeled extensively enough before hand.

This is why I believe rather than fix Null by giving them things that will destroy other parts the focus should be on

  • Making all player owned facilities superior to NPC facilities, better refine rates more production capability ect.
  • Giving Null player commodities that they can trade with other areas like T3 frigates with the gas and parts specific to Null sec. Not just Super coffins no other area would care about.
  • Not just raising bounties as this causes inflation and will just be nerfed again.
  • Get rid of Tech and the rest of moon mining and put ring mining in for Null, low and Wormhole space


Atm we have the situation where some Null alliances are very rich but their members are on the forums whining about lack of income. Maybe if these Alliances spread that wealth to their members rather than wasting it on Hi-sec incursions or monstrous sov bills, their members might not be so worried about the isk they have and they would not have to come to Hi-sec as much to mission run.

Oh one last thing as to the previous comment on "repeat arguments that have been debunked long ago", it has never been in any way proven that Null sec residents make up more than the smaller percentage of Hi-sec characters nor has it been proved that the 20% that is Null is not made up of Hi-sec PvP alts. So hardly debunked, if there are no actual facts to disprove the facts that we have.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#86 - 2012-11-24 04:14:02 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

  • Giving Null player commodities that they can trade with other areas like T3 frigates with the gas and parts specific to Null sec. Not just Super coffins no other area would care about.

  • Get rid of Tech and the rest of moon mining and put ring mining in for Null, low and Wormhole space

    • I...don't think you've thought this through.

    "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
    Red Teufel
    Calamitous-Intent
    #87 - 2012-11-24 04:25:44 UTC
    nerf highsec stations. they shouldn't be that good in highsec with no risks involved.
    Frying Doom
    #88 - 2012-11-24 05:07:05 UTC
    Snow Axe wrote:
    Frying Doom wrote:

  • Giving Null player commodities that they can trade with other areas like T3 frigates with the gas and parts specific to Null sec. Not just Super coffins no other area would care about.

  • Get rid of Tech and the rest of moon mining and put ring mining in for Null, low and Wormhole space

    • I...don't think you've thought this through.

    Care to explain why or you just prefer larger bounties that will just again get nerfed as soon as the inflation rate goes up

    Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
    Snow Axe
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #89 - 2012-11-24 05:09:45 UTC
    Frying Doom wrote:
    Care to explain why or you just prefer larger bounties that will just again get nerfed as soon as the inflation rate goes up


    I was talking about how you started with saying null needs a unique resource to trade with the rest of the game and then concluding that you need to take away one of null's unique resources that it trades with the rest of the game.

    "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
    Frying Doom
    #90 - 2012-11-24 05:12:53 UTC
    Snow Axe wrote:
    Frying Doom wrote:
    Care to explain why or you just prefer larger bounties that will just again get nerfed as soon as the inflation rate goes up


    I was talking about how you started with saying null needs a unique resource to trade with the rest of the game and then concluding that you need to take away one of null's unique resources that it trades with the rest of the game.

    No tech is not a unique resource it is a badly implemented broken mechanic.

    But in saying that if the Alliance that held those moons gave all the profits of them to its members, the members would not have such a crappy risk vs reward. They are not a resource for players unlike ring mining they are a welfare hand out to corps.

    Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
    Snow Axe
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #91 - 2012-11-24 05:19:52 UTC
    Frying Doom wrote:
    No tech is not a unique resource it is a badly implemented broken mechanic.

    But in saying that if the Alliance that held those moons gave all the profits of them to its members, the members would not have such a crappy risk vs reward. They are not a resource for players unlike ring mining they are a welfare hand out to corps.


    Tech is absolutely a unique resource. Too unique at a point, sure (not anymore thanks to alchemy - check the market prices of Tech if you want), but a unique resource nonetheless. Your solution to this is to destroy an entire game mechanic (moon mining) because one single resource was given far too much importance by a short-sighed CCP change.

    Moon mining doesn't need to be touched at all. Play with alchemy or T2 schemas to minimize the impact of bottlenecks, sure. Removing the entire mechanic (especially for some vaguely defined Jesus feature like Ring Mining) is just stupid and unnecessary.

    "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
    Frying Doom
    #92 - 2012-11-24 05:27:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
    Snow Axe wrote:
    Frying Doom wrote:
    No tech is not a unique resource it is a badly implemented broken mechanic.

    But in saying that if the Alliance that held those moons gave all the profits of them to its members, the members would not have such a crappy risk vs reward. They are not a resource for players unlike ring mining they are a welfare hand out to corps.


    Tech is absolutely a unique resource. Too unique at a point, sure (not anymore thanks to alchemy - check the market prices of Tech if you want), but a unique resource nonetheless. Your solution to this is to destroy an entire game mechanic (moon mining) because one single resource was given far too much importance by a short-sighed CCP change.

    Moon mining doesn't need to be touched at all. Play with alchemy or T2 schemas to minimize the impact of bottlenecks, sure. Removing the entire mechanic (especially for some vaguely defined Jesus feature like Ring Mining) is just stupid and unnecessary.

    If moon mining did not need to be touched at all, then if you take the total income provided by Moon mining in Null and divide it by the number of Null sec players, subsequently their incomes are substantially higher.

    Subsequently their risk vs. reward is more acceptable. You can not have it both ways complaining that the individual players are broke while some corporations are raking in trillions a year from moon mining.

    It is a broken mechanic, corps and alliance funding should be from the bottom up, not the top down or you end up with a circumstance like this where some corporations are wasting money hand over fist while their members are on the forums bitching about Nulls risk vs reward.

    Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
    Snow Axe
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #93 - 2012-11-24 05:41:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
    Frying Doom wrote:
    If moon mining did not need to be touched at all, then if you take the total income provided by Moon mining in Null and divide it by the number of Null sec players, subsequently their incomes are substantially higher.

    Subsequently their risk vs. reward is more acceptable. You can not have it both ways complaining that the individual players are broke while some corporations are raking in trillions a year from moon mining.

    It is a broken mechanic, corps and alliance funding should be from the bottom up, not the top down or you end up with a circumstance like this where some corporations are wasting money hand over fist while their members are on the forums bitching about Nulls risk vs reward.


    You're being quite dishonest representing nullsec as a whole - only a fairly small region of the game was fortunate enough to have Tech. Non-tech mining is nowhere near as lucrative (Neo's the closest at 35k p/u, then Plat and Dyspro at 9-10k p/u. For reference, Tech at its highest point broke 200k p/u). Moon mining itself isn't the problem - the high necessity for Tech in T2 production combined with its geographical scarcity was the problem, and that's been dealt a very heavy blow by alchemy. Check tech prices if you doubt this - ever since the alchemy changes went in, Tech's been dropping heavily (aside from the brief spike at the beginning of the CFC - Dotbros war in the North that interrupted supply) and still has room to drop - I think some of the math placed its likely floor at ~40k.

    Still, talking about tech and applying the problems associated with it to all of null is a straight-up lie, and you're using it to advocate nuking a mechanic that, aside from the Tech issue, isn't even some major problem. The major problem with null is that there has never been any good ground-up methods to make an alliance prosper - it was either luck out on moons or rent your space to whoever was paying. That's the direction null changes need to go in, and removing moon mining doesn't accomplish any of that.

    "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
    Frying Doom
    #94 - 2012-11-24 05:51:21 UTC
    Snow Axe wrote:
    Frying Doom wrote:
    If moon mining did not need to be touched at all, then if you take the total income provided by Moon mining in Null and divide it by the number of Null sec players, subsequently their incomes are substantially higher.

    Subsequently their risk vs. reward is more acceptable. You can not have it both ways complaining that the individual players are broke while some corporations are raking in trillions a year from moon mining.

    It is a broken mechanic, corps and alliance funding should be from the bottom up, not the top down or you end up with a circumstance like this where some corporations are wasting money hand over fist while their members are on the forums bitching about Nulls risk vs reward.


    You're being quite dishonest representing nullsec as a whole - only a fairly small region of the game was fortunate enough to have Tech. Non-tech mining is nowhere near as lucrative (Neo's the closest at 35k p/u, then Plat and Dyspro at 9-10k p/u. For reference, Tech at its highest point broke 200k p/u). Moon mining itself isn't the problem - the high necessity for Tech in T2 production combined with its geographical scarcity was the problem, and that's been dealt a very heavy blow by alchemy. Check tech prices if you doubt this - ever since the alchemy changes went in, Tech's been dropping heavily (aside from the brief spike at the beginning of the CFC - Dotbros war in the North that interrupted supply) and still has room to drop - I think some of the math placed its likely floor at ~40k.

    Still, talking about tech and applying the problems associated with it to all of null is a straight-up lie, and you're using it to advocate nuking a mechanic that, aside from the Tech issue, isn't even some major problem. The major problem with null is that there has never been any good ground-up methods to make an alliance prosper - it was either luck out on moons or rent your space to whoever was paying. That's the direction null changes need to go in, and removing moon mining doesn't accomplish any of that.

    I believe you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

    No the majority of Null does not make trillions from Moon mining, that is just the now 1 alliance that hold those moons.

    So the largest alliance in Null has a good risk vs. reward while everyone else has a crap return. Moon mining is a crap mechanic you whack up a tower and visit it weekly and the corporation gets cash. The whole model of eve is based on income=effort expended, even PI requires more effort than moon mining and at least PI is a ground up funding system.

    So the easy answer is No I don't think you should have your cake and eat it too. Moon mining should be scrapped in the upcoming POS revamp and ring mining introduced to Null, low and Wormholes equally, with no special welfare program for Null. Null should have unique goods gotten by the players for their efforts, no matter where that may be.

    Then they can fund their corp with Taxes.

    Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
    Snow Axe
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #95 - 2012-11-24 05:55:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
    I see you're going for the Frying Doom "ignore rebuttals and keep saying the same thing over and over again" method. I'll put this in caveman terms just in case things like "paragraphs" and "points" throw you.

    Tech bad. CCP need fix tech. CCP start fix Tech. This good thing.
    Moon mining not Tech. No break moon mining because of Tech. Just fix Tech.

    "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
    Frying Doom
    #96 - 2012-11-24 06:01:53 UTC
    Snow Axe wrote:
    I see you're going for the Frying Doom "ignore rebuttals and keep saying the same thing over and over again" method. I'll put this in caveman terms just in case things like "paragraphs" and "points" throw you.

    Tech bad. CCP need fix tech. CCP start fix Tech. This good thing.
    Moon mining not Tech. No break moon mining because of Tech. Just fix Tech.

    ok
    You want Null fixed

    You want to keep isk from Tech and moons

    You want ring mining just be tech, as moons mining the rest.

    You want isk with no effort.

    Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
    Snow Axe
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #97 - 2012-11-24 06:04:14 UTC
    There we have it, even caveman speak is over his head.

    "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
    Frying Doom
    #98 - 2012-11-24 06:06:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
    Snow Axe wrote:
    There we have it, even caveman speak is over his head.

    And insults or no you are just worried about your low maintenance isk fountains.

    Oh and you have insulted me a lot worse before and it has never bothered me, you might like to check your posting history and come back with a better insult.

    Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
    Snow Axe
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #99 - 2012-11-24 06:07:27 UTC
    Frying Doom wrote:
    Snow Axe wrote:
    There we have it, even caveman speak is over his head.

    And insults or no you are just worried about your low maintenance isk fountains.


    Right, that's exactly why I keep advocating for nerfs to tech. Unless you're trying to say that non-tech moons are isk fountains, in which case looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

    "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
    Frying Doom
    #100 - 2012-11-24 06:09:32 UTC
    Snow Axe wrote:
    Frying Doom wrote:
    Snow Axe wrote:
    There we have it, even caveman speak is over his head.

    And insults or no you are just worried about your low maintenance isk fountains.


    Right, that's exactly why I keep advocating for nerfs to tech. Unless you're trying to say that non-tech moons are isk fountains, in which case looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

    Tech should not be nerfed it should be gone.

    Yeah as people put up moon minng operations because they are high maintenance and loosing businesses.

    No they are not huge fountains like tech but they still do not require much player interaction to gain reward.

    Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!