EVE General Discussion

You missed the point.

No one who would not have otherwise considered EVE, would have given it another go based on what Incarna turned out to be.

And anyone who does play EVE now does not do so because of what little Incarna brought. They play the game on it's own merits.

Incarna was, in all ways, a net loss that should never be repeated.

Your faith in human rationality is touching. How on earth have you maintained it?

Incarna was faulty, yes, but the concept for walking in stations isn't.

Rather than only seeing the failure of a tiny part (in no small part due to mismanagement i'm sure), try and see the possibilities for the future. Wouldn't you want to be able to gank people right in the kisser too? ;p

If EVE stays on 'just spaceships' forever it will be doomed to a niche - Yes, it will go on, but it will be a shadow of it's former self, especially in 10 years time when (i imagine) most MMO's support virtual worlds rather than just a screen in front of you. Besides, adding avatars properly also means more opportunities for adding to the spaceship gameplay: Boarding ships forcibly (always nice for pirates and gankers), ganking ships full of people that just wanted to get to the next station, etc etc.

I mean, if we should ditch ideas just because the first iteration was bad.... Look at the Audi C3 100 Avant Duo , one of the first hybrid cars. Didn't sell at all and had pitiful range. But well, people expanded on the idea over the years and now we have stuff like the LaFerrari or the McLaren P1 - Cars that still largely depend on their normal engines (spaceships) but use those electric motors for a really dramatic, added effect even though they technically represent a very minor part of the car (WiS).

At least, i see it that way. And all i see otherwise are people who are completely content with their Model T's and never ever ever want any change >_>

Quoted for emphasis. Except, I am actually a developer, so I can already imagine the sort of code structures involved.

I didn't say they can slap this out in an hour or a day, I said they can do this in two weeks because it will probably take him a week to make the first iteration of it and then get colleagues to have a look over his work. Run some tests and polish it during the second week.
How people play table top games, how the first 3D games worked.
You can just put in a representation, an anchor for the imagination and the player does the rest.

The people who are writing 'manifestos' aren't trying to legitimize anything. They are writing those because they know that the people they are aiming at will read those, and because they don't understand they are being screwed with, they will take it at face value and think that it's real.

It's still amazing to me after all these years observing the internet how guillible people can be (not you, just saying in general). I've had people post links to that 'miner bumping' site on this forum as proof that they are 'serious' and I'm like "you can't be that stupid, you don't see that it's your tears that is fueling this?".



This is kind of what I'm talking about when I talk about different gamers and their styles/needs. I'm not a space ship. When I'm playing EVE that ship on the screen (if I'm not zoomed all the way out, which I usually am, my computer has all the power of a wounded Atari 2600) is a TOOL, it's not 'me'. I don't need to 'identify' with it any more than I identify with my hammer when I'm pounding a nail on my deck lol.

That's one of the draws of EVE (for people like me), it doesn't force you to pretend anything (you can, I knew one dude who was an FC and instead of saying 'launch drones' he's command us to 'launch vipers' like his name was Adama or something lol). Some of us don't like being 'immersed' in a game and losing track of time or sense of self, we aren't running from real life, when we play a game (like EVE) it's a kind of mental excercise, not an 'escape'.

The conflict (for me) comes up when people want CCP to push EVE more into the 'immersion/escape' category. I say that if you want that, go play one of the 100s of existing games that do that rather than take away from what EVE is to cater to people that do't want EVE in the 1st place.



Which is why it's good that people have a choice. Play EVE (a not-so RPG type MMO) if you liek spaceships and spreadsheets and 'no nonsense gameplay' or play a game like SC or Elite and spend 5 minutes walking around your ship looking out windows while you are on final descent to a planetary surface.

The 'ultimate sci-fi experience' may have been the original idea for EVE, but that's not what it became and that's generally not the kind of community it spawned.

You didn't finish your post. The last sentnece should have been:

"Then whatever the vote result is, DO THE OPPOSITE"



People don't know what they want, asking them it thusly stupid.

That sound you heard behind you was the sound a point makes when it flies completely past you without you noticing.

Counterpoint "Watch what they do, not what they say" thinking worked out even worse for CCP.

I think meaningful content as described by CCP, and something I agree with:




Tabletop doesn't have graphics at all. You are looking out at the other players across the table and imagining the entire scene. My experience with it twice did not include miniatures or maps or anything of the sort. It was all verbal description, expressions, and so on.

The first 3d games were in and of themselves trend setting. We could accept those limitations because we were getting something cutting edge. It is safe to say that though Carbon is quite capable and good looking, in terms of capabilities and performance it is not the best example of a 3d graphical multiplayer environment in present day.



Not only do we not have a core EVE game related reason for many players to use the feature, we are discussing release of an engine that has trouble with physically rendered cloth and hair and suffers from performance defects with multiple players present.



I can appreciate the vision, the dream of a sci fi world that is "complete", but I think there is some denial here about the technical state of the solution and the amount of effort that would be required to realize that dream. WIS would not be "low hanging fruit" by any definition of software project management.




Guess what, low hanging fruit is the most productive type of ideas to discuss for Character Creator. This is CCP's own suggestion. I don't want to tell you guys not to dream stuff up.. by all means do that.. but you are letting those get in the way of meaningful expectations in this space.