EVE General Discussion

This is the problem with people who want change for change's sake. "If you want growth" lol. You're assuming that growth is good, which is a very bad assumption. Growth "could" be good, or it could be "turing a nice suburb into DETROIT". You change for change's sake people never look at the potential downsides of changing something that already works fine, do you?

i don't mind reasonable slow cautious progress because that's almost always the best course, but the things you types want are just absurd and lead to unintended consequences.

For 10 years people like this have been proclaiming the end of EVE because EVE doesn't have 30 million subs, and yet, despite every naysayer, EVE is still here.

Despite EVERY...SINGLE...EVE-KILLER new game that was supposed to be the end EVE survives, as it survived Star Trek Online, it will survive Star Citizen and the next 10 games that don't have the same "sprit" of EVE online. If the past is any indicator, the only things that could destroy EVE online is CCP closing it's doors of "EVE Online II" brought to you by CCP (which didn't close it's doors lol).

It almost seem like these types WANT EVE to fall, if for no other reason than to confirm their unreasonable worldview. Sorry, just not happening.

---

I always like to get to the rock bottom of other people's motivations, and I'll suggest there are 2 deep seated psychological factors at play with these "change EVE" types.

#1. Fear of loss: They honestly believe that if EVE (and game they play and are emotionally invested in) doesn't make drastic changes, it will die and they will have no game to play. of course we know this is false because if in strong as it is and their are other games to play if it dies, but fear usually isn't rational so explaining this to those in fear of "stagnation" is like talking to a brick wall.

#2. Boredom and personal desire for change: These folks get bored easily and I'll bet their real lives are pretty chaotic as well. They usually love new things but get tired of them quickly. Like most people, the feel (deep down) that most people are like them and want the same things, and REALLY dislike it when people don't want what they want (not to make this too political, but most American "liberals" I know are just like this).

People are complex so their are probably other factors. But the bottom line is that these people are unhappy and they think "change" will make them happy. Change will only make them happy for a few minutes, then it becomes the new status quo to rebel against....

It can be argued that the "no change crowd" are just the other side of the same coin though. They fear any change that might upset the balance because they like their place in Eve. And as people they probably don't feel as though they have a lot of power or control, so giving it up in Eve is out of the question.

Discussing motives just leads to confrontation and misunderstanding.

You talk like Eve hasn't changed in 10 years. That's just not true. Eve will continue to grow and change with every expansion. Those changes are not going to throw the whole thing off balance and send everyone hurtling off to StarTrek. There's plenty of room in Eve for many different playstyles.

There are a few defining factors and some problems with Eve:

Players in Eve must be able to affect one another. Any instance where they cannot is counter to the sandbox.

Power creep is very significant in that it isolates different levels of player. The consequences of very powerful characters making mistakes is greatly mitigated by their position in the game. And yet one of the arguments from older players is that newer players and highsec players have too many protections that mitigate the mistakes of those players.

You can't argue for one side and not the other. Either the playing field needs a bit of leveling or it doesn't. If highsec indy and NPC corps need a nerf because they make certain players virtually immune to other players, and that immunity is counter to Eve, then all immunity must be nerfed.

I thought about that, but it seems like the forums are more frequented by older players.

Its a tough piece of data to nail down, and sometimes gut instinct, especially if you have a good sample, can be a more accurate reflection of the value.

People should be careful advocating change for the sake of change. They should be careful advocating change for the sake of new player retention and trial conversions. These things are not bad in and of themselves, but there is a set of core game mechanics that have ultimately built a successful business in a space where all the competition briefly flourishes... and dies.

Consider all of the major AAA titles (PC or Console), MMOs, Facebook games, and Mobile games that have come out in recent years. Very few of them are successful in the long term. The same pattern has emerged from most of the companies that are public with their data, or with data that can be publicly derived. We always see a massive spike in users followed by an equally massive plunge in users. Some of the time, such as with AAA titles and console games, that's expected behavior. Other times, such as with MMOs and Facebook/Mobile games, it dashes hopes and forces long term realignment of the company. It's a very rare game indeed that breaks this trend.

But let's take a look at some of the games that break the trend. Almost universally they are what's known as core games and have strong multiplayer features. In the mobile space we might take a look at an ultra high monetizing game like Rage of Bahamut as an example. On the face of it, the game would never succeed. It's got a terrible UI and the card mechanics don't even appeal to the US market. However, the game goes deeper than that. The PVP centric nature of the game combined with the lack in accessibility creates an environment and game culture of super high engagement and competitive monetization.

So, the question is: would Rage make more money if it were a widely available casual game? Should Rage radically modify the game to improve conversion and retention amongst The Almighty Casual user? All evidence points to a resounding no. Doing this would destroy the game that they've built. We've seen that kind of move executed time and again throughout the gaming industry and I'm not aware of any time that the gambit has been successful.

So why is Rage successful then? Well, because they have a specific type of player that they cater to and thoroughly own a corner of the market that they serve better than anyone else. People who want to participate in a competitive game like Rage ultimately end up playing Rage instead of one of the countless clones.

In the same way, CCP has a game that they've built and they also should not be chasing the almighty casual user. Comparing Eve subscription numbers to WOW subscription numbers is ultimately an act of madness and ignorance. Comparing Eve subscription numbers to early Rift subscription numbers is also madness and ignorance. The truth of the matter is that Eve owns its corner of the market and it needs to continue to own that corner of the market. Giving that up results in the kind of social upheaval displayed in SWG's NGE and the beginnings of Eve's Monaclegate.

So all of that said: is that to say that CCP shouldn't do what they can to improve the user experience, retain more users, or increase trial conversion? No, absolutely not. But they shouldn't give up on the fact that they own a corner of the market and chasing The Almighty Casual User in an effort to temporarily boost subscriber counts is shooting themselves in the foot over the long term.

-Liang

Ed: I mean, we wanted to talk about retention, conversion, and economics in the gaming industry right? :)

Yea, I do brag about my unparalleled ability to kill npcs in mass, because i am the master of that!

But as usual for you (i've read your posts and wish i could get the time back for that), you've got it wrong. All I ever tell people about me game experiences is that I'm not all that special. Thousands upon thousands of people have figured out how to do things in the game, in many cases way better than I do. The people that whine are simply unwilling to understand that THEY are a factor in the failure, because it's always easier to blame someone else or some outside force than take responsibility for your own actions and outcomes.

If you've read something else into what I've said, that's just you being blinded by your own biased perceptions.

Oh please Liang, there you go again talking about stuff with actual observable facts and verifiable knowledge again. Where do you get off introducing such things to these forums?

Don't you know that EVE would get so many more subs if.........

I'm not sure that I'd call Eve a niche game anymore. It's got more subs than popular than many "mainstream" MMOs, but seems to have the longevity to make it work. I also was not intending to say that Eve shouldn't change or that the areas that Eve dominates cannot evolve over time. Just that they should not forsake the roots of the game to chase massive new player subs that may or may not stick around.

-Liang

Can you briefly summarize what you think does or does not need to change Corey? You seem to say a lot of words in an effort to elicit a response but I just can't tell what you're driving at. Out with it, I say.

-Liang

Such is the nature of any sustained game. In a very real sense, Eve is a service that must change over time to provide new value and continue to incentivize people to pay. There is nothing wrong or unexpected here and there's noticeable and substantial sustained growth.

/shrug

-Liang

In my opinion the longevity comes from the fact that it is a sandbox concentrating on player interaction. This means that even if most of my days ingame are boring and just flying spaceships this way and that, there is always a chance of something surprising and interesting happening. You never know with people. It is the reason why in the end I always end up more or less back here after I went to try one themepark MMO or another. It is also the reason why I am looking for WoD as the 'mmo to end all mmos' for me.

There always needs to be some change, lest we get bored. I am bored with Eve. That is a fact. Yet I am still here because with all other things being equal, sandbox > themepark. Always.