EVE General Discussion

I agree with everything you say here in principle, except the specifics... An artificial limit on numbers of blues is bad. Artificial anything is bad.

Let's take this from the point of view of a small alliance and wants to gain and hold a little bit of sov without the bluefest... What are the options? They don't have the RMT train to buy a big ol' pile of supers to gain and defend their sov. There's no downside for their bigger neighbors to loldrop a big ol' pile of supers on their heads, grab the sov and let it go fallow, sending that small alliance back to empire leaving all of 0.0 still blue to eachother.

Right now the last of the conflict drivers are gone... Everyone in 0.0 has the space they want and the income they want, and are completely invulnerable to any attack from newcomers. Everyone who's in 0.0 has everything to gain through mutual blues.

Now... what if smaller alliances (100-200 member range) had a viable game mechanic to grab a constellation, and a viable game mechanic to defend it from SupersOnline? And then, what if they had a viable game mechanic to start building the assets needed to start threatening the more valuable sov of their bigger neighbors?

With existing game mechanics (we don't know what exactly will be in the 0.0 changes, so these ideas might already be obsolete) we need a counter to supers, as has been said hundreds of times. CCP even suggested making Black Ops into supers killers, which would be glorious. That might be enough to make supers riskier to use, but also reducing the need for supers for sov and POS warfare will go a long way to putting the power into the hands of those who would make 0.0 interesting again. And finally, reverting the sanctum nerf would give the small guy a chance to get the income to truly play on the same field as the big guy (Sanctum Nerf was an awful idea before it was done and it has accelerated the stagnation of 0.0 and the subscription drop, however much RMT bribes it put into Greyscale's pockets.)

Is there a way to get the big guys to fight again? I don't think so, not without making arbitrary worldshaping changes, which as was seen with the sanctum nerf was pants-on-head-retrded. And even then, they will only fight until they achieve equilibrium again. It's the small guy that has the chance to stir things up.

(faked edit: thank god I'm smarter than the web devs... I can copy/paste my post to make sure the forums don't eat it. web devs is worst devs. Seriously, you guys suck.)

It shows no such thing because it's just a game and has internet anonymity in it. Anything with internet anonymity will simply not be taken "seriously" (as a simulator) by a substantial proportion of its population.

The only way you could get a "serious" simulator would be to tie in-game avatars to your trackable real world identity and to have permadeath in the game. Then you'd see the natural order of civil society arise in the game as it did in the real world.

I can help but feel that Deopheel Dalonne has a good point, chaos and exploitation lowers population.

Here are some suggestions, to break to current situation:
- Remove the Sovereignty skill.
- Set a maximum amount of blues
- Have all resources (belts, moon goo) move to random constellations on a biweekly or monthly basis
- Set an exponential multiplier on sov costs based upon the number of systems.

These are all extreme measures, to balance it out I would suggest to make Alliance Capital systems (an alliance main sov system) more secure then high sec for that specific alliance.

We will have more non-blue alliances and there will be more PvP but the chaos will be more controlled which can draw in more people.

Sucking = good thing.
Throwing up = bad thing.
Doing both at same time = horrible sex experience.

wha? so run the game in single player mode and collect 15 dollars a month from the one really great user.....

I've said this to many people in my life

A person can be smart, people as in plural are dumb. The more people you get together the lower the IQ drops.

It's a mob mentality.

Riggs

Naw... It's more the changing of the game to many.

Every time something changes, some folks get annoyed, others are pleased. When you annoy enough of those that speak out for and against the game, you get mass amounts of complaints that just keep building.

Some of the changes in these last 2 years:

Expansions to the game:
Less "complete" packages, more "bits and pieces" style continuous roll-out. To many players, this gives a very "beta" feel to the game and something that they can't quite put their finger on but annoys the hell out of them. "can't you put out a FINISHED stuff?!?!?" yada.. yada.. yada...

CQ/Walking in Stations:
"Optional" is mandatory - ticked off a lot. Removal of ship spinning - ticked off many. "A room" vs a station - ticked off many. Lack of stuff to see and do while in that room but it's jammed in your face every time you dock.

NEx store:
MT... expensive fluff... zip to do with spaceships, etc.

Communications:
Info on WoD, DUST, plans and preparations to integrate dust with EVE, plenty of prep discussed towards this - seeing almost as much "delivery" on spaceships for this game as on these "future projects" - which have very little to do with spaceships going pew pew in EVE.

Perception or reality doesn't matter. Things actually are being done at about the same clip as before but it doesn't feel the same as it comes in small chunks vs more complete packages - packages that then were patched and fixed and patched...

There have been plenty of changes but they roll out so piece-meal that even the best of them tend to come in chunks over a few months and seem incomplete even when they are "mostly there".

Look at the char creator - ok - a free redo - and again... Ok - free redoing all the time. Ok - tatoos. Ok more tats and piercings. ok ...

Is it good? Yes but it also will overload your video if you run it through 5-10 iterations on char modeling then go back in the game to play - expect problems with this. "Almost done" but how long did it take while remains just "almost there"? ...

Minor whine but enough of them and you get to where we're at.

So yes - there are complaints. How things are done has changed and what is done is also changing. Do we see things "good" coming out? Yes but we also see less fully fleshed out from the get-go and far more promises that mostly SEEM to take longer - whether they actually do or don't.

Well yes I would say a large amount of that number are probably giberring idiots, you imagine out of all of the sperm that was trying to get to that egg the one that created you out of all of the millions of the ones that fail? Considering your post I'd imagine he was just a stronger swimmer and not a great thinker but you get my drift.

It's like real life you put 100,000 people together probably 100 of them will be great thinkers(might be even less) you'll get 20-30 thousand normal folk and the rest will be simpering idiots.

Here's a story I actually had with one of the accounts staff in my office.

"I didn't know you were in the army!"
"Yes I was"
"Did you see any action?"
"No I missed the first gulf war back in the 90's"
"The gulf war? I didn't know we were war with Mexico(!!!!!)"
"Mexico????"
"Yeah the gulf of Mexico isn't it?"
"Err no it was in Kuwait?"
"Is that by Africa?"

And so on and this is someone who does the company accounts.

Well what is "fine", how would you define it? Number of subscribers? Rating? There's no objective way of measuring a game's quality.


Well this concept could be done in many ways and CCP picked one way to do it and it subsequently got a number of players. Could it have been done better and more realistic? Yes. It could also been done a lot worse.

I think the thing is that a lot of people see a number of obvious (and often not that complicated) ways to improve the game that CCP doesn't act upon. Which may case some frustration.

Player = customer ... customers may not always be right, but they're always the customer.