EVE General Discussion

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.

Business do nothing other than grow in a direction, assess if that direction was ultimately a good idea and if not cut it off, downsize and try again. That is normal business practise and this is no different. EVE did fine with these sub numbers before and they will do fine (after cutting fat) now.

Yes CCP has made a lot of dumb decisions, some of them worked most of them didn't. The big mistake they made was trying to make EVE mainstream, which can't be done. Seagul is moving EVE away from the massive clown fleets filled with carebears and is slowly introducing a leaner and meaner version of EVE, updated and improved ofcourse. CCP seems to be fine with making decisions that short term costs them customers (jump fatigue being one of them) and that is good, because long term they will work out for the better.

I've never had customer service issues, in all my years. All my interactions with them have been reasonable and logical.

Just as N+1 in PVP is a bad solution, purely trying to gain more short term customers while doing one's best to somehow marry two entirely different play styles is another bad idea. The second CCP refocusses on being a niche open world PVP Marmite game is the second they will come out stronger. You can take you silly threats with you, all it is is :words: trying to somehow convince people that EVE would just be better if it wouldn't be full of this nasty open world pvp thing. You're playing the wrong game, go away.

Not entirely true.

EvE was designed on a basic model. High sec was supposed to be "relatively safe" - google that with Oveur, the original lead developer and the developers worked initially to make that so - they repeatedly buffed concord, ships and mechanics to ensure that highsec remained relatively safe.

Low sec was supposed to be unsafe but not terribly so. Gate guns were a viable deterrent to all but the most dangerous criminals.

Null sec was supposed to be lawless and very unsafe.

---

As time went on CCP dropped the ball on highsec, dps creep went up and CCP didn't respond well to that.

In lowsec dps creep and tankability went up and the gate guns that used to be functional became pretty much worthless.

In null we got cynos, jump bridges, wormholes to high, jump freighters, and clone jumping.

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'm more casual of a player, and I'm sure there are people out there like me, I used to game a lot, but now not so much and want to play a little differently... eve online says they are a big sandbox, this is true, 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.

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,

Change 1

Need: some type of real security in high security systems

Scenario 1: Pilot X has high standings with Empires A, C, G, and M .. he worked hard on standings with all 4, knowing this has loaded his cargo hold with items that he can sell 20 jumps away, in a freighter if he stayed at the helm it would take 1-2 hrs, so he sets it on autopilot.

Scenario 1A: currently someone can scan your hold then bump you so that your autopilot disengages, than kill you using enough firepower, netting a big kill and lots of loot. also netting you a slight loss in security rating and little to no Empire standing loss, what i suggest is this

since Pilot X has a high Empire standing, if you attack unprovoked you loose %100 of their Empire Standing (ES), times the security rating of the system (SR)

Pilot X ES = 7.2 … Security rating of the system = 0.8 Pilot Y ES = 2.4

if Pilot Y attacks and kills the ship of Pilot X the equation would be

7.2 x 0.8 = a loss of 5.76 so if he had 2.4 and - 5.76 this would = -3.36

this is not security rating, this is Empire standing, so that if you are spotted by empire you will be targeted and killed on sight, since the empire owns the gate, they kill you on the gate, also i suggest that warp disruption fields be fitted on the gates of high security systems. this doesn't mean you cant gank, it just means you cant come through the gate, so if you have a -1.0 Empire Standing (ES) you can access 0.9 systems -2.0 = 0.8 systems and so on.

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

lets make this more complex now, freighter pilot X has ES A = 5.0 and ES G = -3.0 using the system above if i killed the freighter i would get a loss ES with Empire A, but would get a ES gain with Empire G.

make it even more complex… if my alliance is in good standing with one empire, and i border that empire and contribute to that empire, my security rating should increase in consistent ratio to my contribution… but if i don't contribute than security level should be lowered, movement threshold of 0.1 security point a month, and if i hold the system and contribute to that empire to get a high security system of 5.0, and i set my standings with a rival alliance to -10 and they have less than 5.0 with that same alliance they get bubbled and shot automatically at the gate, (again this doesn't mean you cant get into system, some other way. I.E. finding a wormhole).. this doesn't mean that the resources diminish .. introduce a system resource rating, this would help miners know where to go to get better material, have it linked with the sovereignty mechanic. (just like it is now)

Please comment, and criticism is welcome as long as it is constructive.

this would make mining matter again, along with making standings matter.

or heck, you could modify it so your standings with that empire results in a faster concord response time in that space (as they remember your loyalty to them and so encourage concord to protect their ally faster)

That's our job, not CCP's.

Dear Reader,

Despite carebears' assertions that they only want "balance" every time they ask for One More Nerf™ to ganking, here you see an example of their true agenda.

In the carebear's above suggestion, where's the balance of slower Concord response if the ganker is the one favored by the empire in question?

Another thing I find ironic is how some people still cling to the "null is safer" lie despite all the data (like at every fanfest when they show how more value is destroy in null than in high). I say Ironic because people who live in high sec do so mainly for the safety, yet they say null is even safer,while refusing to move to null.

If null is so safe why is everyone in "not safe" high sec?