These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

EVE's Bait & Switch Design Philosophy

First post
Author
Spenser for Hire
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-07-12 20:55:40 UTC
Verunae Caseti wrote:


Quote:
Why do ALL players feel doing PVE missions are a grind?


Because they are. They're supposed to be. That's the design. EVE is primairly a PvP game and they have a vested interest in encouraging people to move in that direction - away from PvE content toward PvP gameplay.

Bored by missions? Great! You should be. Go join a corporation and start participating in the actual game of EVE.


I wish to congraduate you for your ability to make EVE Online's 'Bait & Switch' design philosophy seem completely and totally innocuous!

"EVE is primarily a PvP game..." but its advertized as a Sandbox. "The Sandbox" is a category of exploration right on the front page of EVE Online's website. In a Sandbox one is supposed to be able to choose for oneself what one does, one is supposed to be able to do what one enjoys. Not be baited by a gameplay which they might like, such as PvE, only to be forced into a different type of gameplay, such as PvP which many gamers don't enjoy at all.

"...they have a vested interest in encouraging people to move in that direction - away from PvE content..." Indeed! CCP must satisfy the Low/Null sec predators. Really, when you think about it, that's all EVE Online's "Bait & Switch" design philosophy is intended to do, provide all the Low/Null sec gatecampers and gankers with a steady stream of victims. Because if Low/Null sec gameplay had any real value, if Low/Null sec gameplay were enjoyable, than CCP wouldn't have to resort to 'bait & switch' design, they wouldn't have to lure people into the game with the promise of a "Sandbox" and PvE activities, only to make those activities grindy, boring, unpleasant, and unproductive just to force players to engage in the gameplay that they always wanted them to engage in.

To me the solution seems fairly obvious. Improve the gameplay of the game that you want to sell. If PvP is what you're trying to sell then improve that experience, improve that gameplay.
If Null-Sec is what you want to sell, then just sell Null-Sec. Stop trying to push people into a form of gameplay that they didn't sign up for and weren't attracted to in the first place.

This is something that I will probably be saying over and over again in the future: RSI (Robert Space Industries) will produce a game on a budget that CCP makes 12 times a year, every year that EVE Online has had more that 300k subscribers. And CCP can't improve Null-Sec gameplay with that amount of money??? CCP has to resort to Baiting players then forcing them into Null-Sec with that amount of money???


Note: I post this here, because when I tried to post it in another thread it was eaten by the "Draft Saved" mechanic.

TL;DR "Go Back to school and learn to read."

Don't ask me to post with my main! You post with your main first!

Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#2 - 2013-07-12 21:01:17 UTC
Avery Brooks was awesome as Hawk.

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3 - 2013-07-12 21:09:01 UTC
Spenser for Hire wrote:
"EVE is primarily a PvP game..." but its advertized as a Sandbox. "The Sandbox" is a category of exploration right on the front page of EVE Online's website. In a Sandbox one is supposed to be able to choose for oneself what one does, one is supposed to be able to do what one enjoys. Not be baited by a gameplay which they might like, such as PvE, only to be forced into a different type of gameplay, such as PvP which many gamers don't enjoy at all.
Not quite.

“Multiplayer sandbox” does not mean you can do what you want — it means everyone can do what they want, which includes them doing things (to you) that you don't want them to do. The unavoidable PvP is therefore a direct consequence of the sandbox nature of the game.

Or, to use Malcanis' version: “sandbox” does not mean that you will succeed at anything you attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. One of the largest obstacles in the way of your success is other players.

Quote:
Really, when you think about it, that's all EVE Online's "Bait & Switch" design philosophy is intended to do
It's not bait and switch. It's people incorrectly believing that a multiplayer sandbox will act just the same way a singleplayer sandbox does.

Quote:
To me the solution seems fairly obvious. Improve the gameplay of the game that you want to sell. If PvP is what you're trying to sell then improve that experience, improve that gameplay. If Null-Sec is what you want to sell, then just sell Null-Sec. Stop trying to push people into a form of gameplay that they didn't sign up for and weren't attracted to in the first place.
The gampleay they want to sell is the sandbox; they are improving and developing that gameplay by providing tools for people to affect their environment and gameplay (and that of others). This means they will not (and should not) make the kind of singular distinctions you suggest — those are for us, the players, to make for ourselves.

Quote:
CCP has to resort to Baiting players then forcing them into Null-Sec with that amount of money?
They're not really doing either of those, so no.
Verunae Caseti
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2013-07-12 21:45:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Verunae Caseti
Spenser for Hire wrote:

"EVE is primarily a PvP game..." but its advertized as a Sandbox.


These are not mutually exclusive.

It is a Sandbox game that is primarily focused on PvP gameplay mechanics.

Some posters here seem to think "Sandbox" means "Whatever kind of game I want," but that's not what sandbox means. You still have to play within the confines of the game's features and mechanics. You can't play it is an FPS or a no limit texas hold'em tournament or a pony training simulator, right?

And you can't play it like a PvE MMORPG either, because that's not the what it is, that's not what it was, and it never will be that. Nor has CCP ever intimated as much in any press or advertisement.

It's not a bait and switch. CCP is very up-front and clear about the ruthless PvP core of the EVE universe. Even the "safe" game play is not really safe, and astute players know this before they sign up. Some players choose to ignore it and think/wish they're going to get WoW in space with tons of awesome PvE content and phat loot and no risk of loss but that's not EVE and if players feel "baited and switched" on it can only be because they invented a game in their head that never existed, and then disappointed themselves when they woke up to the harsh realities of the EVE universe.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#5 - 2013-07-12 21:48:20 UTC
Why is this so hard to grasp? Am I the only one taking crazy pills around here? I'm gonna need some.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2013-07-12 21:49:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Spenser for Hire wrote:
"EVE is primarily a PvP game..." but its advertized as a Sandbox. "The Sandbox" is a category of exploration right on the front page of EVE Online's website. In a Sandbox one is supposed to be able to choose for oneself what one does, one is supposed to be able to do what one enjoys. Not be baited by a gameplay which they might like, such as PvE, only to be forced into a different type of gameplay, such as PvP which many gamers don't enjoy at all.
Not quite.

“Multiplayer sandbox” does not mean you can do what you want — it means everyone can do what they want, which includes them doing things (to you) that you don't want them to do. The unavoidable PvP is therefore a direct consequence of the sandbox nature of the game.

Or, to use Malcanis' version: “sandbox” does not mean that you will succeed at anything you attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. One of the largest obstacles in the way of your success is other players.

Quote:
Really, when you think about it, that's all EVE Online's "Bait & Switch" design philosophy is intended to do
It's not bait and switch. It's people incorrectly believing that a multiplayer sandbox will act just the same way a singleplayer sandbox does.

Quote:
To me the solution seems fairly obvious. Improve the gameplay of the game that you want to sell. If PvP is what you're trying to sell then improve that experience, improve that gameplay. If Null-Sec is what you want to sell, then just sell Null-Sec. Stop trying to push people into a form of gameplay that they didn't sign up for and weren't attracted to in the first place.
The gampleay they want to sell is the sandbox; they are improving and developing that gameplay by providing tools for people to affect their environment and gameplay (and that of others). This means they will not (and should not) make the kind of singular distinctions you suggest — those are for us, the players, to make for ourselves.

Quote:
CCP has to resort to Baiting players then forcing them into Null-Sec with that amount of money?
They're not really doing either of those, so no.

Tippia responded, gg, /thread, go home and dock up people.
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#7 - 2013-07-12 22:04:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Spenser for Hire wrote:
"EVE is primarily a PvP game..." but its advertized as a Sandbox. "The Sandbox" is a category of exploration right on the front page of EVE Online's website. In a Sandbox one is supposed to be able to choose for oneself what one does, one is supposed to be able to do what one enjoys. Not be baited by a gameplay which they might like, such as PvE, only to be forced into a different type of gameplay, such as PvP which many gamers don't enjoy at all.
Not quite.

“Multiplayer sandbox” does not mean you can do what you want — it means everyone can do what they want, which includes them doing things (to you) that you don't want them to do. The unavoidable PvP is therefore a direct consequence of the sandbox nature of the game.

Or, to use Malcanis' version: “sandbox” does not mean that you will succeed at anything you attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. One of the largest obstacles in the way of your success is other players.

Quote:
Really, when you think about it, that's all EVE Online's "Bait & Switch" design philosophy is intended to do
It's not bait and switch. It's people incorrectly believing that a multiplayer sandbox will act just the same way a singleplayer sandbox does.

Quote:
To me the solution seems fairly obvious. Improve the gameplay of the game that you want to sell. If PvP is what you're trying to sell then improve that experience, improve that gameplay. If Null-Sec is what you want to sell, then just sell Null-Sec. Stop trying to push people into a form of gameplay that they didn't sign up for and weren't attracted to in the first place.
The gampleay they want to sell is the sandbox; they are improving and developing that gameplay by providing tools for people to affect their environment and gameplay (and that of others). This means they will not (and should not) make the kind of singular distinctions you suggest — those are for us, the players, to make for ourselves.

Quote:
CCP has to resort to Baiting players then forcing them into Null-Sec with that amount of money?
They're not really doing either of those, so no.



While what you say may be true, adding decent PvE content for those that want to do such things should not be an issue and still allow for unavoidable PvP

Tal

Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2013-07-12 22:05:25 UTC
Spenser for Hire wrote:
To me the solution seems fairly obvious. Improve the gameplay of the game that you want to sell. If PvP is what you're trying to sell then improve that experience, improve that gameplay.
If Null-Sec is what you want to sell, then just sell Null-Sec. Stop trying to push people into a form of gameplay that they didn't sign up for and weren't attracted to in the first place.


It's a little bit more complicated than that, since CCP kind of painted themselves in a corner.

That corner is a changing market than what was available then (when there wasn't that many games online, and people played them for m-a-n-y hours a day/night). Today it's casual, and they were raised on the possibilities found in ALL games out there. The next generation of gamers even more so.

When a game could just hang a shingle up and claim "we are what we are" (as there was no other alternative) has come to an end. For games to thrive (not just survive) they have to offer variety and alternatives, as the outlook of gamers have changed. It's no longer take what is offered, they can now shop for the best value for their time and money. This is important for gaming as it's showing it's becoming more mainstream and part of daily life (not just for basement boys). I'd never thought my sisters would get into gaming or anything with computers, for example, as their generation wasn't raised on it (Christ and not at 50 either), but they did. Pirate

But that means gaming as gamers knew it has to change with the times. More variety of time sinks for MMOs, and not so linear focus in "my way of the highway", as gamers these days aren't the 15hr raiders. Those gamers are like I nearing 50 now, and at this age it's finding more brainy activities to hold interest. Grand kids alone is enough action for a day!

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#9 - 2013-07-12 22:12:02 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
When a game could just hang a shingle up and claim "we are what we are" (as there was no other alternative) has come to an end.

[…]

More variety of time sinks for MMOs, and not so linear focus in "my way of the highway", as gamers these days aren't the 15hr raiders.
…and that's the reason why EVE is still growing: because there are still no other alternatives and because it never catered to the 15-hour raiders anyway, but rather allowed for a much more personalised experience from the get-go.

The only “we are what we are” thing about EVE is the non-guarantee of success and the focus on tools for the sandbox rather than ready-made castles. As it is, those are very in tune with what draws new customers these days…
Seven Koskanaiken
Guerillas in the Mist
Outlanders United
#10 - 2013-07-12 22:13:27 UTC
We can land on the moon and find god particles, but unfortunately It is beyond the wit of man to create fun PvE.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#11 - 2013-07-12 22:22:51 UTC
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
We can land on the moon and find god particles, but unfortunately It is beyond the wit of man to create fun PvE.


Because it can't be done. Specifically not with an mmo design like this one. (It's possible with a significantly advanced mmofpsrpg)

PvE means you are defeating computer programs. Computer programs have to behave within specific rules. They aggro at this distance, they can hit from this far for how much, and they use X ewar if more than one of the are aggressed at once, etc, etc.

There isn't a whole lot else you can do with this. No matter what they change, eventually, and quickly at that, it will get stale. That is inevitable.

Other people don't get stale. Other people are always thinking up new and tricky things to do to you. Other people might attack you or not based on a number of criteria, and for dozens of different reasons. People are the combat environment that gives a challenge.

But carebears don't want a challenge.

The possibility of failure, and thus loss, is foreign to them. So, you know what? Let them shoot at red crosses or scrape roids all day. I'm rather happy CCP doesn't waste money giving them a new patch worth of content 2 or 3 times a year, that they burn through in less than a week then ***** about how bored they are for another 3-4 months. Screw those guys. They're the most wasteful, selfish, ignorant kind of "gamer" there is.

"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.

Malcolm Shinhwa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2013-07-12 22:46:12 UTC
The problem with Eve PvE being terrible is that it is also the basis for the economy. You can't say that everyone should move to PvP because if that happened we'd all be quickly battling in our noob ships because PvP doesn't create wealth. Its the mission runners, miners, explorers, etc that create value. The industrialists add value to those products in the form of ships, modules, etc. The fighters then blow it all up. Fighting can protect or acquire the means, but it doesn't itself generate.

So Eve PvE is both terrible and required which seems like a bad way to structure an economy. Yet Eve just turned 10 so apparently it is working.

[i]"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental[/i]."

Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2013-07-12 22:46:29 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…and that's the reason why EVE is still growing


500k players isn't growing, Tippia, that's surviving. Especially when at least 1/3 are but alt accounts.

I would like for EvE to really grow, with millions of humans playing. Not a game with AFK IsBox gatecampers, and just the same in those blob fleets.

A MMO isn't fun when it's not full of people having fun. What that fun is, is what a sandbox game was meant for -- the individual defining his own destiny among the millions...not thousands and they're IsBoxers.

For that, I'll just fire up Deus Ex/Commandos/Morrowind/Oblivion/Silent Hunter/AoE...and for a replacement of EvE...Homeworld II and not bother with the internet at all as I'm playing with but NPCs anyway.Ugh

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#14 - 2013-07-12 22:49:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Ace Uoweme wrote:
500k players isn't growing, Tippia, that's surviving.
500k players up from 400k is growing just fine.

Quote:
A MMO isn't fun when it's not full of people having fun.
That explains why EVE is so fun, and why pretty much all the competition is horrible: because “full” doesn't really apply to shards and instances.

Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:
The problem with Eve PvE being terrible is that it is also the basis for the economy. You can't say that everyone should move to PvP because if that happened we'd all be quickly battling in our noob ships because PvP doesn't create wealth. Its the mission runners, miners, explorers, etc that create value. The industrialists add value to those products in the form of ships, modules, etc. The fighters then blow it all up. Fighting can protect or acquire the means, but it doesn't itself generate.
PvP creates plenty wealth; it just takes a back bench of creating ISK (but creates some of that too). That particular faucet could certainly be turned up to compensate if the ISK-generating PvE was… ehrm… altered.
Short Stack122
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2013-07-12 22:57:21 UTC
confirming; any player can partake in what THEY enjoy with the known risks.

welcome to life. people are out to defeat you from the start, get used to it.
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
#16 - 2013-07-12 22:57:39 UTC
While I've traditionally got a few dozen kills a month on my 'main' pvp character my true "main" is a collection of characters i use primarily for trade, and now a bit of industry.
Some people I know have done almost exclusively industry. They spend some time in their own little sand box but also band together with like minded people and have mining opps etc.. A huge percentage of those kinds of people prefer to vertically integrate their operation.(I had set up a handful of datacore alts a couple years ago which kick in a little activity and took quite a large time commitment in terms of poring over maps and using 3rd party aps and grinding standing to high levels with low sp characters by learning more about the game. At the time the finding of agents near story line agents was quite semi sandbox activity.. min maxing your time took thereocraft etc which to me is a sandbox decision....but back to the more basic thoughts.


Trade has been quite engrossing for me.... I've made enough at trading to currently easily fund(buying plex) 5 active accounts with a couple with more than one character training (i might actually train this long time forum alt with a thousand plus posts with that option). I've bought a few characters with 30 million and 1 70 sp character with isk.

To me, trading is a game more like Sid Meirs Civilization series or Railroad Tycoon. Of course its not like those because it's not a campaign game and there is no beginning or end or set victory conditions.

When mentioning those games I'm explaining a mind-set of what I find fun. The aglomeration of more and more assets.. the extension of reach and scale of my trading operations. The points where previous meat and potatoes earnings that gave me my start are no longer profitable (tech advance?) or I find ways to become more efficient so the time comitment is far less (huge capital helps .. being indiffererent if some of your allocations end up tieng up 5 and 10 billion isk in ways that don't turn over while looking for or supporting operations where you do have items worth 1 billion turning over weekly.

Anyway.. what I'm saying it that trade is a huge sandbox activity for me. I haven't run missions sense I spent a huge bit of time figuring out which corp to grind data core standing with (and figuring out how to grind standing on a low sp alt is "sandbox" activity in itself... the hours pouring over maps in the past etc.. the "discovery" of complicated parts of the game was the fun.. the missions secondary in terms of time and effort).

Other than the first month in the game I've never run missions for profit. Even in 0.0 ratting and jumps into anomolies my only real goal was upgrading sec status. I could make a lot trading and even if I was actually only making $50 million an hour trading when I could have been making $100 million an hour optomizing anomolies blitzes.. I enjoyed my sandbox activity.

When you take into account the major muti billion windfalls (more like windows of opportunity()I'd find in the process of more mundane trading.. I probally made more isk per hour... and those sorts of things were exciting! .

Trade opportunities large and small are all based on predicting and knowing the activities and habits of other players... both customers and fellow traders. There is a lot of intrigue between traders in terms of campaigns to destroy margins util they quit and then jack up margins when they've left you to yourself etc.

IF you want PVE that is fun and colorful.. you don't want a sandbox.. you want a PVE game. To be fair though.. many people have found PVE in the game they find challenging or interesting. The challenging part might be to scan down the anomolie prone to have an excalation.. or to quickly form a group through preparation to exploit the window of opportunity for snatching an incursion.

If you want PVE that is interesting in only its own right without the getting there or back or the staying safe from other players or the many hours in game of preparation to allow you to have a place to be safe etc.

You don't hardly even want a MMO.. .although mmo's have been redfined to be PVE games where many people play at the same time... not virtual worlds where players must play along side or against each other.

You want a mutiply player campaign game whre you can log in and play PVE made to your tastes without intervention of others except for being grouped with them at your convenience at the time of your choosing . That is not remotely what an MMO ior is it a sanbox.. its a walled garden with

multi player pve is a multi player campaign game not an mmo.. contrary to what blizzard and almost every other game that calls it an mmo has now gravitated to.

.

Short Stack122
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2013-07-12 22:57:54 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
Tippia wrote:
…and that's the reason why EVE is still growing


500k players isn't growing, Tippia, that's surviving. Especially when at least 1/3 are but alt accounts.

I would like for EvE to really grow, with millions of humans playing. Not a game with AFK IsBox gatecampers, and just the same in those blob fleets.

A MMO isn't fun when it's not full of people having fun. What that fun is, is what a sandbox game was meant for -- the individual defining his own destiny among the millions...not thousands and they're IsBoxers.

For that, I'll just fire up Deus Ex/Commandos/Morrowind/Oblivion/Silent Hunter/AoE...and for a replacement of EvE...Homeworld II and not bother with the internet at all as I'm playing with but NPCs anyway.Ugh

you sure post A LOT and i mean A LOT for someone who doesnt enjoy the game o.O
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#18 - 2013-07-12 23:00:53 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
A MMO isn't fun when it's not full of people having fun. What that fun is, is what a sandbox game was meant for -- the individual defining his own destiny among the millions...

I've never seen an MMO which allows you to interact with as many players simultaneously as Eve online does.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2013-07-12 23:01:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Tippia wrote:
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:
The problem with Eve PvE being terrible is that it is also the basis for the economy. You can't say that everyone should move to PvP because if that happened we'd all be quickly battling in our noob ships because PvP doesn't create wealth. Its the mission runners, miners, explorers, etc that create value. The industrialists add value to those products in the form of ships, modules, etc. The fighters then blow it all up. Fighting can protect or acquire the means, but it doesn't itself generate.
PvP creates plenty wealth; it just takes a back bench of creating ISK (but creates some of that too). That particular faucet could certainly be turned up to compensate if the ISK-generating PvE was… ehrm… altered.

I'm assuming that rather than wealth, resources was meant. Though even then, outside of insurance or salvage (both of which seem to generally be balanced as an overall loss of wealth from the game) I don't see much wealth "created" by PvP rather than relocated. How do you figure new wealth is created through PvP?
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
True Reign
#20 - 2013-07-12 23:03:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Ban Bindy
Quote from http://www.eveonline.com/sandbox/

>The Sandbox is the game world of EVE combined with the persistent actions of thousands upon thousands of players who interact with one another in a single-server environment.

Your actions in the Sandbox can lead to the destruction of starships, the creation of a thriving corporation or the doom of an empire. Every action taken by every player affects the state of the Sandbox, and through it those actions affect every other player.

The web of action and reaction in EVE leads to emergent gameplay where a single shot, business deal or even just a word can determine the destiny of thousands.<

This is Eve's beginning description of the sandbox. Please point out to me where it says "This game is about PVP and all the mechanics of the game will lead you to PVP.

Follow the links that help you select your career. Show me where all the career paths end in "This game is about PVP and sooner or later you will figure that out."
123Next pageLast page