These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Thoughts on improving the game

First post
Author
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#61 - 2016-10-30 15:13:17 UTC
Steffles wrote:

High - very dangerous
Low - Very dangerous
Null - Extremely safe

IN short CCP screwed the entire risk / reward game up and they have no real solution to fix it.

Let me guess, you are a highsec miner?
Gwenaelle de Ardevon
Ardevon Corporation
#62 - 2016-10-30 15:32:46 UTC
Did i read "Autopilot" QuestionQuestionQuestion

«An hour sitting with a pretty girl on a park bench passes like a minute, but a minute sitting on a hot stove seems like an hour». Albert Einstein - [11, S. 154]

More Quotes, Poetry & Prose on: https://gwenaelledeardevon.wordpress.com/

Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#63 - 2016-10-30 16:09:34 UTC
Gwenaelle de Ardevon wrote:
Did i read "Autopilot" QuestionQuestionQuestion


You did. OP wants to grind faction standings to induce the factions to prevent gankers from going after his autopiloting freighter.

Remove standings and insurance.

Lulu Lunette
Savage Moon Society
#64 - 2016-10-30 16:22:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Lulu Lunette
This is an age old argument it seems - game design of Eve Online. Well, theoretically they have a good balance. There's at least four different zones, arguably a fifth to the sandbox in highsec, lowsec, wormhole, sovereign null / NPC null. There's consequences to each of them.

I don't think highsec should be completely safe unless you removed any and all reasons you live there. You can casually run up to level 5 DED sites in Angel regions in almost relative safety. Outside of clever thwarts of CONCORD mechanics, site thieves and wardecs, highsec is nothing less than an awkward inbetween of what 'Eve really should be' and a 100% safe zone.

If it were up to me, I'd gut highsec so hard you would have to play in the deeper water; but there's a reason like 70-80% of subscribers call highsec home. Talk about imbalanced. And CCP has bills to pay so it's best to maybe leave it like it is. Wars, ganks, etc create the demand for the items you are making and all that.

My solution is totally facetious by the way. Just have to learn to adapt yourself.

@lunettelulu7

Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#65 - 2016-10-30 18:37:11 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
If they continue down the same path as the last 5 years they have 3 years tops.

Roll yeah sure.

No they are bringing out free to play because they are doing so well.

Where is the reason published as to why? All I see in your statement is an assumption.

That's as useless as claiming there is only 3 years tops left in the game of CCP continue as they are, unless of course CCP change the game how you think it should be. Only that can save Eve.

I did not say if they change it to how I wish it to be. I said if they carry on as they have been.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Tiberius NoVegas
NovKor Corp.
#66 - 2016-10-30 18:51:38 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
If they continue down the same path as the last 5 years they have 3 years tops.

Roll yeah sure.

No they are bringing out free to play because they are doing so well.

Where is the reason published as to why? All I see in your statement is an assumption.

That's as useless as claiming there is only 3 years tops left in the game of CCP continue as they are, unless of course CCP change the game how you think it should be. Only that can save Eve.


CCP's financial statements are a matter of public record (if you understand the language), after review the consensus is is pretty much that CCP peaked its revenue back in 2013 and its been on the decline sense then. however CCP has shown increases in net profit despite the loss of revenue. CCP may be losing players but they know how to balance a budget, now if only they could balance the game.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#67 - 2016-10-30 19:24:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
CCP's financial statements are a matter of public record (if you understand the language), after review the consensus is is pretty much that CCP peaked its revenue back in 2013 and its been on the decline sense then. however CCP has shown increases in net profit despite the loss of revenue. CCP may be losing players but they know how to balance a budget, now if only they could balance the game.

Yes the financial statements of CCP are well known and they've been analysed pretty well by several players. That isn't an answer to the question asked though.

Mark Marconi wrote:
did not say if they change it to how I wish it to be. I said if they carry on as they have been

I'm sure you would wish, that if CCP were to change from their current roadmap and philosophy for the game, that they go in some other direction you disagree with.

Not at all in the direction that you personally think is the right way to 'save' the game.
Karl Jerr
Herzack Unit
#68 - 2016-10-30 19:42:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Karl Jerr
I'm a casual too and a lowbear

Xander Jade wrote:
...but they have no parental supervision. it is like all the bullies in the neighborhood invite the nice little kids to come play with all there toys just so the bullies can push them down, take there toys, kick dirt in there face, and than go to there friends and brag how they just punched a 4 year old in the face and took his tanka truck.

Dunno if your are serious, but if some bears act like naive 4 yo they got what they deserve.

Xander Jade wrote:
this is very discouraging for people like me who plays solo, or close to it, just playing with a small group of people, now what i suggest are some realistic changes,

I play solo in lowsec, lost two ship 600+ days ago, and it has never been a problem in my daily activities, it's part of the fun of the cat and mouse game, HS is boring enough.

Xander Jade wrote:
Change 1

Need: some type of real security in high security systems

The only change in HS is to supress the magical Concord (teleport / invuln), make it normal, costly for the player who want it, and can be tanked by gankers.
The second solution is to remove it completely.

Xander Jade wrote:
Need: Low security needs to be more like what High security is now.. using the system above the only real difference is that you wouldn't have Warp bubbles on gates in low security

No ******* nope, don't touch other sec spaces please.

Xander Jade wrote:
this would make mining matter again, along with making standings matter.

Mining matter, you just must be aware and at the computer, no autopilot, no AFK.
Tiberius NoVegas
NovKor Corp.
#69 - 2016-10-30 20:17:36 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
CCP's financial statements are a matter of public record (if you understand the language), after review the consensus is is pretty much that CCP peaked its revenue back in 2013 and its been on the decline sense then. however CCP has shown increases in net profit despite the loss of revenue. CCP may be losing players but they know how to balance a budget, now if only they could balance the game.

Yes the financial statements of CCP are well known and they've been analysed pretty well by several players. That isn't an answer to the question asked though.


My point is CCP is more then likely going to be around for longer then the next 3 years.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#70 - 2016-10-30 20:20:15 UTC
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
CCP's financial statements are a matter of public record (if you understand the language), after review the consensus is is pretty much that CCP peaked its revenue back in 2013 and its been on the decline sense then. however CCP has shown increases in net profit despite the loss of revenue. CCP may be losing players but they know how to balance a budget, now if only they could balance the game.

Yes the financial statements of CCP are well known and they've been analysed pretty well by several players. That isn't an answer to the question asked though.


My point is CCP is more then likely going to be around for longer then the next 3 years.

Ah ok. I agree, though to be fair to Mark, he did say Eve has 3 years tops. Not CCP itself.
Avaelica Kuershin
Paper Cats
#71 - 2016-10-30 20:26:00 UTC
Steffles wrote:

The end result

High - very dangerous
Low - Very dangerous
Null - Extremely safe

IN short CCP screwed the entire risk / reward game up and they have no real solution to fix it.


I guess if you are in a war then high (well hubs and pipes) could be very dangerous but while I've seen the results of ganks, I've never been the target of one. Of course, when one views the killmails, a certain pattern emerges.
As for null, depends where you are and who you are.
Cien Banchiere
Extrinsic Arcadia Distribution
#72 - 2016-10-30 20:43:22 UTC
Ah, so you've dug up this dead horse again. Playing solo? Do your homework if you are trvaleing. Stop dying and saying it's someone else's fault. It is indeed a sandbox. It has enough sand that you should be, could be, maybe one day will be, able to learn how not to die. You'll also learn that most,deaths have been brought on by the pilot. This "idea" isn't adding complexity. It's asking to add a free pass to people who don't want to play andbuse their potential or figure things out. Also, stop dying.
Tiberius NoVegas
NovKor Corp.
#73 - 2016-10-30 20:46:52 UTC
Xander Jade wrote:
...but they have no parental supervision. it is like all the bullies in the neighborhood invite the nice little kids to come play with all there toys just so the bullies can push them down, take there toys, kick dirt in there face, and than go to there friends and brag how they just punched a 4 year old in the face and took his tanka truck.

High sec is suppose to be for naive new players who are just learning EVE, the main issue with current high sec is its disbalance of risk vs reward. too many players have little to no insentive to leave high sec. I agree high sec needs to be more secure but i also think many of the higher end profit making missions and mining sites in high sec need to be moved to low sec.

Xander Jade wrote:
Change 1
Need: some type of real security in high security systems

Concord shouldnt be invuln but im fine with them teleporting in as long as a player can fairly fight them back. With that said i think Concord should be more responsive in high sec but also destroyable. Of course destroying Concord will be met with negative security standings as accordingly. and the events should be stackable, such as you destroy a Concord BS and another Concord escalated wave warps in as back up. Also if you have huge negative sec status (like -10.0) Concord should probably be scrambling/disrupting you as soon as you appear on that high sec gate. Of course this will just mean gankers will be using more alts in high sec.

Xander Jade wrote:
Need: Low security needs to be more like what High security is now.. using the system above the only real difference is that you wouldn't have Warp bubbles on gates in low security

Yes and No, Concord should not be present in Low sec IMO. However Faction ships should be sitting around the warp gates and stations and react to players accordingly to there sec status with a certain delay before response.. They however should not be teleporting any where in low sec.

Xander Jade wrote:
this would make mining matter again, along with making standings matter.

Ice Mining and L4 Missions should be moved to low sec IMO. They can be rather profitable in high sec and disrupt the whole risk vs reward concept.
Chopper Rollins
hahahlolspycorp
#74 - 2016-10-30 21:50:47 UTC
UGH. So many people in this thread have echo-chambered themselves away from reality.
EVERYTHING about hisec is designed to kick you out.
EVERY PVE activity makes you PVP content.
Mining and exploration are paltry, you get competent, you look further afield.
Fighting is constrained and costly, aggro is a baffling ordeal and a comedy of errors.
Missions make you KOS with half of hisec within a year or so.
Market pvp is possible mainly because every idiot wants to live and farm within ten jumps of Jita.
NPC null mission hubs are meant to be supported by player owned market hubs.

Stop talking about safety like it's even a thing, hisec (the rookie pond) has been made shallower, SOE explo ships, ninja mining ships, wackily OP PVP ships have all been introduced and still, people cling to hisec like bionic ticks.

When a bird hatches it doesn't patch the eggshell and add a small verandah. It breaks it and departs.



Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.

Xander Jade
Evian Industries
Reeloaded.
#75 - 2016-10-31 02:23:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Xander Jade
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
Xander Jade wrote:
...but they have no parental supervision. it is like all the bullies in the neighborhood invite the nice little kids to come play with all there toys just so the bullies can push them down, take there toys, kick dirt in there face, and than go to there friends and brag how they just punched a 4 year old in the face and took his tanka truck.

High sec is suppose to be for naive new players who are just learning EVE, the main issue with current high sec is its disbalance of risk vs reward. too many players have little to no insentive to leave high sec. I agree high sec needs to be more secure but i also think many of the higher end profit making missions and mining sites in high sec need to be moved to low sec.

Xander Jade wrote:
Change 1
Need: some type of real security in high security systems

Concord shouldnt be invuln but im fine with them teleporting in as long as a player can fairly fight them back. With that said i think Concord should be more responsive in high sec but also destroyable. Of course destroying Concord will be met with negative security standings as accordingly. and the events should be stackable, such as you destroy a Concord BS and another Concord escalated wave warps in as back up. Also if you have huge negative sec status (like -10.0) Concord should probably be scrambling/disrupting you as soon as you appear on that high sec gate. Of course this will just mean gankers will be using more alts in high sec.

Xander Jade wrote:
Need: Low security needs to be more like what High security is now.. using the system above the only real difference is that you wouldn't have Warp bubbles on gates in low security

Yes and No, Concord should not be present in Low sec IMO. However Faction ships should be sitting around the warp gates and stations and react to players accordingly to there sec status with a certain delay before response.. They however should not be teleporting any where in low sec.

Xander Jade wrote:
this would make mining matter again, along with making standings matter.

Ice Mining and L4 Missions should be moved to low sec IMO. They can be rather profitable in high sec and disrupt the whole risk vs reward concept.


i like your reasoning, and i back what you say, except instead of concord make it the system owner, and include Empire standing. ... also you could escalate into concord
Oolong Turmeric
Doomheim
#76 - 2016-10-31 03:32:43 UTC
Make it more appealing to women. I think trying to do this would make the game better for everyone.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2016-10-31 06:23:01 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
CCP's financial statements are a matter of public record (if you understand the language), after review the consensus is is pretty much that CCP peaked its revenue back in 2013 and its been on the decline sense then. however CCP has shown increases in net profit despite the loss of revenue. CCP may be losing players but they know how to balance a budget, now if only they could balance the game.

Yes the financial statements of CCP are well known and they've been analysed pretty well by several players. That isn't an answer to the question asked though.


My point is CCP is more then likely going to be around for longer then the next 3 years.

Ah ok. I agree, though to be fair to Mark, he did say Eve has 3 years tops. Not CCP itself.

Exactly CCP will be fine, however EvE will be a memory.

I just hope they get it together.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Vigirr
#78 - 2016-10-31 07:23:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Vigirr
Mark Marconi wrote:
Exactly CCP will be fine, however EvE will be a memory.

I just hope they get it together.


Ah the old "they better listen to what I have to say, otherwise it'll be dead" routine. Generally coupled with lots of vague statements and used by people who are powerless but want to feel powerful.

EVE will be fine, the reason EVE will be fine is because it has no competition and will not have competition for a looooooong time, especially so because it seems Seagul understands what EVE actually IS, unlike many other people. "But what about Star Citizen., surely it'll crush it" I hear you say, simple... it's not competition. The mistake a lot of people make is that they think EVE is a spaceship MMO and then they look at upcoming other titles in that genre and go "oooh look at that hype, surely this time the hype will be true".

But EVE isn't a spaceship MMO, it's not even a spaceship MMO with PVP in it. It is in fact a cut throat, dog eat dog, balls deep open world PVP MMO drama generator... that happens to have a space ship setting. That is something entirely different and as there are no other true open world PVP MMOs planned EVE has no competition. EVE will of course lose customers to things like SC but that is not a bad thing because it allows CCP to refocus on the PVP world bit instead of somehow trying to please two play styles, which can't be done.


It's somewhat understandable that people think they're playing a spaceship MMO, here's a few reasons:

1) most people simply aren't used to an open sandbox pvp game because there's just not many of those so they don't recognise it as such and won't know what to expect

2) most people don't do any actual research into what they're going to do or play because effort is for boring people, so if they didn't expect it and didn't read up on it properly they're not going to know

3) CCP has for years been trying to market this game as a more mainstream generic MMO, which it simply isn't. Doesn't mean they lied but they've tried to make it more palatable to the generic customer and in many ways they have succeeded, mostly by dumbing down the game and making everyone be "special". But the core of the game is still there and and people are going to run in to that which results in people throwing their toys of of the pram and make rage quit posts filled with vague threats about doom and impending disaster.


Coupled with continuous denial, in spite of the obvious facts, people simply don't realise that they're playing the wrong game. They do realise the game isn't what they hoped for and thus want it changed but they refuse to accept that they are playing the wrong game. So to all people who don't like this open world pvp sandbox where no one is safe: Feel free to leave, your threats about "if we leave the game shuts down" is hollow and simply not true. In fact you'll only make the game stronger and more focussed by leaving.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2016-10-31 07:40:25 UTC
Vigirr wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Exactly CCP will be fine, however EvE will be a memory.

I just hope they get it together.


Ah the old "they better listen to what I have to say, otherwise it'll be dead" routine. Generally coupled with lots of vague statements and used by people who are powerless but want to feel powerful.

EVE will be fine, the reason EVE will be fine is because it has no competition and will not have competition for a looooooong time, especially so because it seems Seagul understands what EVE actually IS, unlike many other people. "But what about Star Citizen., surely it'll crush it" I hear you say, simple... it's not competition. The mistake a lot of people make is that they think EVE is a spaceship MMO and then they look at upcoming other titles in that genre and go "oooh look at that hype, surely this time the hype will be true".

But EVE isn't a spaceship MMO, it's not even a spaceship MMO with PVP in it. It is in fact a cut throat, dog eat dog, balls deep open world PVP MMO drama generator... that happens to have a space ship setting. That is something entirely different and as there are no other true open world PVP MMOs planned EVE has no competition. EVE will of course lose customers to things like SC but that is not a bad thing because it allows CCP to refocus on the PVP world bit instead of somehow trying to please two play styles, which can't be done.


It's somewhat understandable that people think they're playing a spaceship MMO, here's a few reasons:

1) most people simply aren't used to an open sandbox pvp game because there's just not many of those so they don't recognise it as such and won't know what to expect

2) most people don't do any actual research into what they're going to do or play because effort is for boring people, so if they didn't expect it and didn't read up on it properly they're not going to know

3) CCP has for years been trying to market this game as a more mainstream generic MMO, which it simply isn't. Doesn't mean they lied but they've tried to make it more palatable to the generic customer and in many ways they have succeeded, mostly by dumbing down the game and making everyone be "special". But the core of the game is still there and and people are going to run in to that which results in people throwing their toys of of their pram and make rage quit posts. Coupled with continuous denial, in spite of the obvious facts, people simply don't realise that they're playing the wrong game. They do realise the game isn't what they hoped for and thus want it changed but they refuse to accept that they are playing the wrong game.


So to all people who don't like this open world pvp sandbox where no one is safe: Feel free to leave, your threats about "if we leave the game shuts down" is hollow and simply not true. In fact you'll only make the game better by leaving.

No its the old ahh revenue is down, concurrent logins are down and CCP is half the size it used to be.

Its the old CCP has made so many screw ups its unbelievable, promised so much delivered so little, has horrible customer service ect...

If you look at the revenues combined with the fall in concurrent users, it will not be worth it for CCP to run EvE in 3 years if they keep doing things wrong.

Seriously besides of course 2010 they need to look at the falls in concurrent users compare it to their updates and reverse some of those changes or at least alter them back to something closer to what they had.

It is not about being niche or trying to be mainstream or losing newbies, it is about the steps where they went wrong and they need to examine them and change rather than just going down a path blind.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Avaelica Kuershin
Paper Cats
#80 - 2016-10-31 07:45:31 UTC
Oolong Turmeric wrote:
Make it more appealing to women. I think trying to do this would make the game better for everyone.


Shocked
Now just what the hek do you mean by that?