These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Shrinking Sandbox - Eve by numbers

First post First post First post
Author
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#861 - 2015-05-21 06:23:43 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
The problem with the request for 'more/better PVE content' in this thread is that the expectation is that this content should be riskless so more people can sit mindlessly pumping out ISK in highsec with as little interraction with anyone else as possible. Apparently this will bring in more subs, have no effect on inflation and these new grinders will be welcomed lovingly by the existing playerbase as our saviours.

Wrong. I'm playing PvE mostly. If there wasn't a chance that PvPers can catch me I wouldn't be playing this game. Easy game=boring game. Content shouldn't be riskless, and shouldn't be grind.
In the meantime
-how many time we must rescue that bloody halfbrain damsel?
-last expendition changes doesn't make any sense, refuges escalating into DED 5?
-random spawn cans in exploration maybe, not premade sites?
What you guys do in between fights in null? oh yes, grind the anomalies, superb PvE, where's the difference between those and WoW dailies?

Most of the time term: PvP is translated wrong. EvE is not CS. When I asked my friend few years ago: How about EvE? Nah, it's PvP. PvP? I don't like to PvP.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#862 - 2015-05-21 07:04:17 UTC  |  Edited by: La Rynx
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
La Rynx wrote:

Hint: It is not a question WHY PvE is in EvE, the fact is, that it IS a valid part of EvE.
Where did I say it wasn't?

Bear
You still try to devalue PvE.

As said:
Will not help you.
"Why" and "how much" is not the most important thing.

However its part of EvE and the only way to keep EvE alive is to entertain all aspects.
On my part i am still amused how selfimportant and overconfident "real PvPlers" feel.

Better PvE will even some hisec clowns keep from shooting rocklike spaceships.

Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#863 - 2015-05-21 08:31:59 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
La Rynx wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Try reading the rest of it.

What?

I did not only try, i did.
Hint: It is not a question WHY PvE is in EvE, the fact is, that it IS a valid part of EvE.
Where did I say it wasn't?

Being a source of finance to facilitate other activities makes it practically essential, the fact that some people do it for reasons other than the ones CCP appear to have included it for, doesn't mean that it requires working on to the detriment of the core game concepts.

They tried that already, WiS looked very much to a PvE oriented direction; look how well that went.

I don't see that improving PVE content should have to be to the detriment of "core concepts".

Which by the way are a "sandbox" - Fact is CCP have been steadily moving away from the "core concept" of the game for a few years now

Better PVE in lowsec would be a huge benefit to the "core concepts" of a true sandbox.

I wonder if those who believe TQ should be a giant PVP arena as the core concept realize how detrimental that would be to TQ.
I know a guy who has played eve for 7 years and his main character has probably not undocked more than 7 times. He does not PVP, has no interest in it but he is one of those players, without him, TQ would be a very different place.



The Mittani?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#864 - 2015-05-21 11:28:38 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
La Rynx wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Try reading the rest of it.

What?

I did not only try, i did.
Hint: It is not a question WHY PvE is in EvE, the fact is, that it IS a valid part of EvE.
Where did I say it wasn't?

Being a source of finance to facilitate other activities makes it practically essential, the fact that some people do it for reasons other than the ones CCP appear to have included it for, doesn't mean that it requires working on to the detriment of the core game concepts.

They tried that already, WiS looked very much to a PvE oriented direction; look how well that went.

I don't see that improving PVE content should have to be to the detriment of "core concepts".

Which by the way are a "sandbox" - Fact is CCP have been steadily moving away from the "core concept" of the game for a few years now

Better PVE in lowsec would be a huge benefit to the "core concepts" of a true sandbox.

I wonder if those who believe TQ should be a giant PVP arena as the core concept realize how detrimental that would be to TQ.
I know a guy who has played eve for 7 years and his main character has probably not undocked more than 7 times. He does not PVP, has no interest in it but he is one of those players, without him, TQ would be a very different place.



The Mittani?

Oh damn. That makes 2 Blink
I forgot about him but then I only ever spoke to him over coms, never actually got to meet him face to face, although I was privileged (at the time) to fly with him in the odd fleet many years ago.

My friends impact on eve is not quite so blatant and would be far easier to replace should he ever get bored with doing nothing but PVE activities. There are many PVE'rs who never PVP and have no interest in it (market PVP aside) that have a major impact on TQ, especially the PVP aspect of TQ.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#865 - 2015-05-21 12:29:05 UTC
This thread is sad. Sad

I unsubscribe.

From this thread.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#866 - 2015-05-21 12:35:53 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
All the way from holdign them under interrogation for fiveminues when they undock, to intercepting their clone transfer procedure and destroy 1,000,000 random SP, potentially disabling several skills depending on those.


And this right here proves that you hate the player.
That it's about punishing *the player*.

This kind of person are you.

When will you ever stop being such a hatefull and bad person ?


It's not hate. It's unconsensual PvP. It's the core of the game. Obviously you don't consent to suffer consequences after blowing somebody's ship. More news at 11: this game would be long dead without all the people who don't consent to sufer consequences for their actions.

What's specially hilarious is that you complain that I ask for more ways to PvP in a PvP game, and call that "hate"... Come on. That's not hate. If I hated you, I would ask for a PvP flag! Lol

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#867 - 2015-05-21 12:39:35 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:

It's not hate.


Yeah, it is. You're just flailing around trying to justify adding more mechanical punishment to something you don't like.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#868 - 2015-05-21 22:48:17 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
All the way from holdign them under interrogation for fiveminues when they undock, to intercepting their clone transfer procedure and destroy 1,000,000 random SP, potentially disabling several skills depending on those.


And this right here proves that you hate the player.
That it's about punishing *the player*.

This kind of person are you.

When will you ever stop being such a hatefull and bad person ?


It's not hate. It's unconsensual PvP. It's the core of the game. Obviously you don't consent to suffer consequences after blowing somebody's ship. More news at 11: this game would be long dead without all the people who don't consent to sufer consequences for their actions.

What's specially hilarious is that you complain that I ask for more ways to PvP in a PvP game, and call that "hate"... Come on. That's not hate. If I hated you, I would ask for a PvP flag! Lol

For recognized criminal behaviour in Eve, the consequences are too light and easy to avoid but finding the right balance is the key.
5 mins trapped on an undock and 1 mil SP is just a bit harsh.
We have a player driven justice system that is only limited by incomplete mechanics that are easily manipulated.

IF Eve had meaningful wardec and bounty mechanics, many of the consequences for criminal behaviour would find their own balance.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#869 - 2015-05-21 22:51:13 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

For recognized criminal behaviour in Eve, the consequences are too light and easy to avoid but finding the right balance is the key.


Compared to what? Nothing else is penalized, you can't even make the argument for mission runners anymore, since they decoupled standings from pos use.

It's really strange to see people try and argue that the only thing in highsec that actually has consequences for it's actions should get more, in the name of there not being any consequences for anyone else.

Actually, it's not strange, it's just hypocrisy.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Carrie-Anne Moss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#870 - 2015-05-22 03:46:22 UTC
How often do they release sub numbers and player account numbers and such. I keep seeing them referenced here but dont know when they are from and how often ccp gives that info out
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#871 - 2015-05-22 07:46:19 UTC
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
How often do they release sub numbers and player account numbers and such. I keep seeing them referenced here but dont know when they are from and how often ccp gives that info out


They used to release them every quarter or so, but stopped a few years ago when the numbers stopped going up.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#872 - 2015-05-22 08:40:13 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

For recognized criminal behaviour in Eve, the consequences are too light and easy to avoid but finding the right balance is the key.


Compared to what? Nothing else is penalized, you can't even make the argument for mission runners anymore, since they decoupled standings from pos use.

It's really strange to see people try and argue that the only thing in highsec that actually has consequences for it's actions should get more, in the name of there not being any consequences for anyone else.

Actually, it's not strange, it's just hypocrisy.

Compared to what?; Ok I'll bite.

Eve is meant to be a harsh unforgiving place where a player is responsible for his or her actions.
But for the most part, they aren't.

Concord is easily manipulated to increase chances of success for gankers.
Pirates can spend a little isk and restore standings.
The war dec system is all but meaningless and is used more as a legal ganking mechanic than to fight wars.

So lets see, oh yeah, pretty much none to useless consequences.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#873 - 2015-05-22 09:37:09 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
How often do they release sub numbers and player account numbers and such. I keep seeing them referenced here but dont know when they are from and how often ccp gives that info out


They used to release them every quarter or so, but stopped a few years ago when the numbers stopped going up.



You can see some of the numbers on the site referenced by some players referencing numbers.
Here for instance

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#874 - 2015-05-22 09:41:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Sgt Ocker wrote:
So lets see, oh yeah, pretty much none to useless consequences.

Consequences for choices sit the same for everyone, ganker and untanked, AFK miner and auto-piloter alike (and anyone else that doesn't take care of their own safety in this game).

Harsh is surely harsh for everyone, yet the calls for consequences of choices to be harsher are only supposed to be for the gankers, who for the most part provide the consequences for the people who don't look after their stuff even though they know the risks in advance. Concord then provides the consequences to the gankers. Everyone has consequences for their choices.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#875 - 2015-05-22 10:04:46 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
So lets see, oh yeah, pretty much none to useless consequences.

Consequences for choices sit the same for everyone, ganker and untanked, AFK miner and auto-piloter alike (and anyone else that doesn't take care of their own safety in this game).

Harsh is surely harsh for everyone, yet the consequences of choices to be harsher are only supposed to be for the gankers, who for the most part provide the consequences for the people who don't look after their stuff even though they know the risks in advance.

Sorry but they don't. Gankers in particular manipulate valid game mechanics to get kills and due to other ineffective mechanics, they get free reign.

I'd like to hear your perception of "don't look after their stuff".

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#876 - 2015-05-22 10:08:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Sorry but they don't. Gankers in particular manipulate valid game mechanics to get kills and due to other ineffective mechanics, they get free reign.

I'd like to hear your perception of "don't look after their stuff".

Concord cannot be avoided without using an exploit.

Every ganker loses their ship 100% of the time, whether they get a kill or not. That's part of the consequences under the game mechanics.

If a 100% guarantee loss of ship is not a consequence, then what is?

On the "don't look after their stuff" = if you lose it, you are 100% responsible for that loss. If someone loses a ship to gankers, then they didn't take enough care to look after their stuff, because that loss could have been avoided. That counts for me just the same. Not creating a separate group. It's true for 100% of the ships in space without some technical issue occuring (eg. socket close) and those lost through scams.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#877 - 2015-05-22 10:45:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Sorry but they don't. Gankers in particular manipulate valid game mechanics to get kills and due to other ineffective mechanics, they get free reign.
Mechanics that everybody is free to manipulate to their advantage. They only appear to get free reign because they've taken the time and effort to figure out effective tactics despite the mechanics.

Quote:
I'd like to hear your perception of "don't look after their stuff".
Leaving a 200 million isk exhumer mining away in a belt unattended would be a prime example of not looking after their stuff, there's many more where that came from.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Solecist Project
#878 - 2015-05-22 11:04:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Sorry but they don't. Gankers in particular manipulate valid game mechanics to get kills and due to other ineffective mechanics, they get free reign.

I'd like to hear your perception of "don't look after their stuff".

Concord cannot be avoided without using an exploit.

Every ganker loses their ship 100% of the time, whether they get a kill or not. That's part of the consequences under the game mechanics.

If a 100% guarantee loss of ship is not a consequence, then what is?

On the "don't look after their stuff" = if you lose it, you are 100% responsible for that loss. If someone loses a ship to gankers, then they didn't take enough care to look after their stuff, because that loss could have been avoided. That counts for me just the same. Not creating a separate group. It's true for 100% of the ships in space without some technical issue occuring (eg. socket close) and those lost through scams.

Why in hell doesn't this apply to crappy newplayercorps as well ?

Why does CCP cater to the BigBrother society
who is weak and avoids any feelings that don't make them happy ?

WHY are VICTIMS and WEAK PEOPLE allowed to have an environment
that allows them to evade natural selection ?

Why are ****** CEOs who are one big hell of a reason for all these wardecs
allowed to gather new players for no good reason but their own egos ?


Why aren't we allowed to remove these people as natural selection demands ?


They are WEAK ! They NEED to be protected and shielded !
They can not cope with people who show them feelings of loss !
They IDENTIFY with their crap ingame to feel better about themselves !

These people are a freaking nightmare for this game and humanity as a whole !

A society made of these people can not defend itself
and NEEDS protection, which ends in them being SLAVES to their protectors !


And we should tolerate that ???

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#879 - 2015-05-22 11:34:25 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Shiloh Templeton wrote:
Numbers seem to have taken another drop for the last several weeks.


Haven't exactly been keeping up on my stats since my second kid was born a little bit ago, but doesn't concurrency drop literally every summer?

Yea,
- summer - all people have vacations
- winter - New Year, Christmas, etc...
- fall and spring - kids went to schools

Literally for every day of year there is some reason why numbers can drop. And it has nothing with the game itself Cool

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#880 - 2015-05-22 11:47:20 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

For recognized criminal behaviour in Eve, the consequences are too light and easy to avoid but finding the right balance is the key.


Compared to what? Nothing else is penalized, you can't even make the argument for mission runners anymore, since they decoupled standings from pos use.

It's really strange to see people try and argue that the only thing in highsec that actually has consequences for it's actions should get more, in the name of there not being any consequences for anyone else.

Actually, it's not strange, it's just hypocrisy.

Ever heard about faction NPC attacking capsuleers with too low standings?
Ever heard about Market taxes?
Ever heard about agent requirements?

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"